United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Judge Erases Aaron Hernandez’s Murder Conviction
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/sports/201 ... -hernandezs-murder-conviction/
Published: May 9, 2017
Author: Warner Todd Huston
Post Date: 2017-05-09 15:56:26 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 5990
Comments: 28
A Massachusetts judge has agreed to erase the murder conviction of former NFL player Aaron Hernandez, essentially because his suicide prevents his pursuit of justice by putting an abrupt end to his appeal. In a decision released Tuesday, Judge E. Susan Garsh said case law in Massachusetts is clear that “abatement” defendants, who are denied the ability to finish an appeal before they die, can have their convictions vacated, ABC News reported. The former New England Patriots tight end committed suicide in his cell on April 19 while serving a life sentence for the 2013 murder of football player Odin Lloyd. He died only five days after being acquitted of a second murder charge from an incident in 2012. But, Hernandez had filed an appeal of his conviction and was awaiting the process when he committed suicide. “Abatement has been practiced in state and federal courts for more than a century,” Judge Garsh said. She added that “‘an appeal is an integral part of the system’ and said the interests of justice do not permit a defendant to stand convicted upon death if appeals are not exhausted.” “Abatement has been practiced in state and federal courts for more than a century,” Judge Garsh said. She added that “‘an appeal is an integral part of the system’ and said the interests of justice do not permit a defendant to stand convicted upon death if appeals are not exhausted.” “Abatement remains the law in this Commonwealth, and this court is compelled to follow binding precedent,” Garsh concluded. Judge Garsh dismissed the claim offered by prosecutors that Hernandez knew of the abatement rules when he committed suicide. Garsh insisted that there was no way to know what Hernandez thought as he prepared to kill himself. The decision, though, could open up the New England Patriots to be liable to pay the Hernandez estate for the salary he missed during his trials and jail time after the team released him. In 2012, the Patriots extended Hernandez’s contract with $16 million in guaranteed money. But, the team released Hernandez almost immediately after he was arrested in June 2013 and didn’t pay him the $5.91 million of that guaranteed amount. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
#1. To: cranky (#0)
The Patriots will have to pay. It's as simple as that. By law, he was an innocent man, and therefore, he is entitled to his money under the contract. Period.
This claim is nonsense. It's as simple as that. Aaron Hernandez entered into a grievance settlement in 2014. Hernandez did not do well in the settlement and it governs. Also, according to Paragraph 35 (c) of Hernandez’s contract, “Player represents and warrants to the Club that . . . no circumstances exist that would prevent Player’s continuing availability to the Club for the duration of the Contract.” Article 4.9 (a) of the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement also states that “any player who . . . is unavailable to the team due to conduct by him that results in his incarceration . . . may be required to forfeit signing bonus . . . for each League Year in which a Forfeitable Breach occurs.” While Hernandez has had his criminal conviction eradicated, this does not protect his estate from civil suit. For example, consider the case of O.J. Simpson who had an actual acquittal. The estate is to be sued not only by the estate of Odin Lloyd, but by the estates of Hernandez' other alleged victims, to include Daniel de Abreu and Safiro Furtado. There are also debts payable for legal fees. Little or nothing will survive for the fiancee and daughter. Perhaps the best strategy would have been to create a trust for the daughter in a tax haven like the Caymen Islands and stuff it with as much money as possible, with the terms of the trust preventing the trustee (the offshore trust) from returning the money, even if a U.S. court found it to be a fraudulent conveyance. Hernandez would have been convicted of fraudulent conveyance, but there is not much difference between life and life plus a few years. Much of the contract money was protected by terms of the contract and the settlement agreement. The remainder of the estate will be picked over by his lawyers and victims.
I agree with you that the estate will be picked over by lawyers and alleged victims. That's inevitable. Fact is, though, that the man is innocent of murder, and while OJ could be tried civilly, Hernandez can't be. By dying, he closed the books on the ability to try him. A settlement agreement obviously will govern his affairs vis-a-vis those with whom he settled, because he can't reopen that either, being dead. I was aiming at the claim that the vacation of his conviction, returning him to the status of legal innocence, means nothing. That's not true. I was also aiming at the "we're gonna get him anyway" crowd, for their desire to see aggressive judicial activism. If we're going to do that, then what's wrong with Roe or Kelo? We are not credible people if our interpretation of the law always works out the way that we want it to.
It is certainly not a fact that he is innocent. Ask God about it.
It's also not a fact that people are innocent until proven guilty. In fact, most people are guilty, of something. It's a legal fact that he's innocent under the law.
You said innocent. Under the law he is not guilty. Have a good day.
#17. To: A K A Stone (#16)
Have a good day. No, under the law is he innocent. Innocent until proven guilty. He was not found "Not guilty". His guilty verdict was expunged, because he died while on appeal. In Massachussetts, this does not mean that his guilty verdict is turned into a not guilty, it means that his conviction is expunged, and he returns to the status he had before he was convicted, which is not "not guilty" under the law, it is "innocent". You also have a nice day.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#10. To: Vicomte13, cranky, sneakypete (#1)
The Patriots will have to pay. It's as simple as that. By law, he was an innocent man, and therefore, he is entitled to his money under the contract. Period.
#11. To: nolu chan (#10)
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#12)
It is certainly not a fact that he is innocent.
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
Replies to Comment # 16. You said innocent. Under the law he is not guilty.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]