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: 5668
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 # 27.
#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.
When there is more than one shyster involved, nothing is simple.
Our legal system is pretty terrible, actually. But some cases are easy. This one is an easy case. This has been the law in Massachusetts for going on four hundred years. The prosecution wants the judge to overrule the law and produce a different result, just because - because it's a political case, because they want to "get him" even now that he's gone, because they don't like the result. Lots of reasons why the prosecutors want the judge to disregard a law that comes down from colonial times and instead just write some new law, changing precedent, legislating from the bench. The judge said "no". The appeals court judges should likewise say "no". And the Massachusetts Supreme Court should say "no". That law was written that way for a reason, and if it is to be changed, it is to be changed after the fact, on review, by the legislature, not in some ex post facto judicial activism. It's "unfair" that the Patriots have to pay the guy's kid his contract money? Perhaps a little bit. So what? The greater principle: innocent until proven guilty once appeals have been exhausted is a far more important principle than saving some billionaires some chump change. He's legally innocent. Therefore he is entitled to his contractual rights. Period.
Crime isn't supposed to pay.
There was no crime committed by him. He is an innocent man, by a law that has functioned for 400 years. Do you want the judge to exercise judicial activism and overturn a four century old law just to "get him"? I'm surprised to find you on the side of judicial activism. Judicial activism when you want it, otherwise, no?
Then there was no crime committed at all. Try explaining that to the deceased's kin.
Try explaining that to the deceased's kin. Are you speaking of reality, or are you speaking of legality? It seems as though you are conflating the two. Given our haphazard and unjust system of justice, that is a fatal mistake. Whether or not Hernandez actually killed a particular man, I don't know. A jury originally found him guilty. But then, juries find innocent men guilty all the time, and sometimes they are executed. Juries also find guilty men not guilty all the time. The justice system itself is a crapshoot, with outcomes largely dependent on the cleverness of the opposing lawyers and the personal prejudices of the judge and jury members. What I do know is that under the law of Massachussetts, his guilty verdict was not final. It was under appeal. He died, and the law is that under such circumstances, the verdict is expunged. Legally, he is not "not guilty". He is innocent, legally. Whether or not he was actually, in truth, the person who committed the crime for which he was accused, and for which he is legally innocent, I don't know. Only God knows that. Our legal system is not very good at getting to the truth.
I'm speaking of three corpses, one of whom was made that way by hernandez beyond any reasonable doubt according to jury of his peers. If hernandez didin't like being guilty, he should have waited around to be acquitted.
In your eyes. The jury said what it said. In our system, the jury's word is not final. The final word of the final appellate court is final. Hernandez' case was on appeal. He is dead. In the system in Massachusetts, that means that the appellate court nullifies the judgment against him. He dies innocent under the law. Obviously you don't like the result. That's fine. It is nevertheless the result. I don't like Nancy Pelosi. She is nevertheless the House Minority Leader. These things are so.
What is so is a jury of his peers convicted him. And no technicality or procedural finding will ever change that except after the fact. You can claim you can unring a bell, if you wish, but I don't think it can be done. Hernandez had been adjudged guilty when he died and by committing suicide, he not only voluntarily withdrew his appeal, his appeal became moot. By committing suicide, hernandez cheated the judicial system, the victim(s) and the public at large. And I don't believe that is in the best interests of justice. ymmv.
And no technicality or procedural finding will ever change that except after the fact. You can claim you can unring a bell, if you wish, but I don't think it can be done. The jury conviction is ITSELF a procedural finding, one that is inferior in precedence to the appellate judges' decision. Jury findings are part of the procedural process, a cog in it. They are neither the end of, nor the summit of, the process. It would itself be a technicality to hold them as different, apart, higher, than judicial rulings, and it would be an incorrect technicality.
It would itself be a technicality to hold them as different, apart, higher, than judicial rulings, and it would be an incorrect technicality. So essentially regardless of what anybody does, they can thwart justice and equity by the simple expedient of dying and that, by their own hand? That would seem to give one adversary the trump card in our system of justice. I'm surprised its not used more often.
#28. To: cranky (#27)
(Edited)
That would seem to give one adversary the trump card in our system of justice. I'm surprised its not used more often. Yep, all criminals in Massachusetts have to do is KILL THEMSELVES while their cases are on appeal, and their convictions are expunged. I can think of a reason why hardly any convict would choose that option. Can't you?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
It's as simple as that.
#3. To: cranky (#2)
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
So what?
#6. To: cranky (#4)
Crime isn't supposed to pay.
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
There was no crime committed by him
#18. To: cranky (#15)
Then there was no crime committed at all.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
Are you speaking of reality, or are you speaking of legality?
#23. To: cranky (#21)
If hernandez didin't like being guilty, he should have waited around to be acquitted.
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
These things are so.
#26. To: cranky (#24)
What is so is a jury of his peers convicted him.
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
The jury conviction is ITSELF a procedural finding, one that is inferior in precedence to the appellate judges' decision. Jury findings are part of the procedural process, a cog in it. They are neither the end of, nor the summit of, the process.
Replies to Comment # 27. So essentially regardless of what anybody does, they can thwart justice and equity by the simple expedient of dying and that, by their own hand?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 27.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]