Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   Aaron Hernandez murders again   (espn.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Appeal, Jury, late Aaron Hernandez's murder conviction, Not proven, Court, Massachusetts' highest court, Law, Prison  
•       •       •

1307 clicks; posted to Sports » on 13 Mar 2019 at 2:05 PM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



12 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2019-03-13 02:40:45 PM  
This is actually a big deal in terms of the legal world, no?

For example, Kenneth Lay is considered not convicted of a crime because he died before appeals.  Which means a lot in terms of making victims whole again (if even possible in his case, but that's a completely different specific thing.)

If one dies before their appeals, the conviction was considered not rendered.  And therefore the victims were no longer "victims."
 
2019-03-13 02:44:40 PM  
Good, it was a stupid rule that did nothing but prevent the victim's families from getting compensation.
 
2019-03-13 03:09:26 PM  
Yeah, there's no good answer for this one.

I'd think that him not being found guilty of murder wouldn't be an issue with victims getting money, though - it sure wasn't tough to win the case against OJ.

Either way, it's not great to say your guilt depends on what point in the process you die.
 
2019-03-13 03:14:32 PM  
He killed his friend for outing him as gay
 
2019-03-13 03:14:51 PM  

downstairs: This is actually a big deal in terms of the legal world, no?


yes, because the survivors of the victims can pursue Hernandez' estate for wrongful death / loss of consortium.  with this ruling, they can easily satisfy a civil "is it more likely than not that Hernandez caused the death(s) of X, Y, and Z?" standard.  Had his conviction remained overturned, they'd have to essentially re-litigate the question of, did Hernandez cause their death(s)?  Expert witnesses, all that crap*  (Although still on a civil 'is it 50.9% likely that Hernandez did this?" standard).

the families can walk into MA civil court with the order of criminal conviction and sue the Hernandez estate and win in the proverbial blink of an eye.  it is uncontested, with this new ruling, that he caused their deaths.  the families can get paid.

*actually they wouldn't have to re-litigate the entire case;  the testimony in the criminal trial, given that the defendant (hernandez, through counsel) / respondent (the Hernandez estate in a civil suit) had the chance to cross examine the witnesses, all that testimony on the record could be read into the record in a civil trial.  Past testimony in a criminal case, when in this fact pattern, Herndandez (and his estate) had the chance to cross examine the witness, is a classic exception against hearsay (and then you get into the issue of, is the declarant available or unavailable to testify, but that's the slighter deeper end of the pool).
 
2019-03-13 03:22:48 PM  
Yeah, I didn't quite get how you could suddenly be "not guilty" after having been found guilty, without an actual "ruling" on the appeal. If anything, the appeal should be dropped after a death.

Wealthy people shouldn't be able to get off after death (phrasing) because they can pay a lawyer to spend years grinding through documents to make sure every letter was in the proper font.
 
2019-03-13 03:26:50 PM  

rickythepenguin: downstairs: This is actually a big deal in terms of the legal world, no?

yes, because the survivors of the victims can pursue Hernandez' estate for wrongful death / loss of consortium.  with this ruling, they can easily satisfy a civil "is it more likely than not that Hernandez caused the death(s) of X, Y, and Z?" standard.  Had his conviction remained overturned, they'd have to essentially re-litigate the question of, did Hernandez cause their death(s)?  Expert witnesses, all that crap*  (Although still on a civil 'is it 50.9% likely that Hernandez did this?" standard).

the families can walk into MA civil court with the order of criminal conviction and sue the Hernandez estate and win in the proverbial blink of an eye.  it is uncontested, with this new ruling, that he caused their deaths.  the families can get paid.

*actually they wouldn't have to re-litigate the entire case;  the testimony in the criminal trial, given that the defendant (hernandez, through counsel) / respondent (the Hernandez estate in a civil suit) had the chance to cross examine the witnesses, all that testimony on the record could be read into the record in a civil trial.  Past testimony in a criminal case, when in this fact pattern, Herndandez (and his estate) had the chance to cross examine the witness, is a classic exception against hearsay (and then you get into the issue of, is the declarant available or unavailable to testify, but that's the slighter deeper end of the pool).


I'm surprised this isn't getting more traction.  Funny enough- I did not know anything about this ruling at all, but happened to be discussing the legal issues (IANAL but I grew up with one as a father, and this was just small talk) regarding someone convicted that did not exhaust all of their appeals (Ken Lay is what always comes to mind).

I don't exactly know where I stand, but funny that I was having a discussion about this reality.

It does seem to be a bit of a problem when it comes to suicide... though the Hernandez suicide is a rather complicated one.

All very interesting.
 
2019-03-13 03:42:30 PM  

puffy999: Yeah, I didn't quite get how you could suddenly be "not guilty" after having been found guilty, without an actual "ruling" on the appeal. If anything, the appeal should be dropped after a death.

Wealthy people shouldn't be able to get off after death (phrasing) because they can pay a lawyer to spend years grinding through documents to make sure every letter was in the proper font.


I can understand the legal argument of not being allowed an appeal, but flat out throwing away a conviction is the wrong way to handle it.  I would say the onus would be on the estate of the deceased to decide if the appeal should move forward, and if they drop it, then the conviction stands.

Although, the whole "right to face your accuser" thing would get a little grotesque after a while.
 
2019-03-13 07:06:08 PM  
I hope we find out that Hernandez killed himself because his lawyer told him she may be able to keep his money this way (the above lawsuit scenario).
 
2019-03-13 07:39:10 PM  
Why are they wasting tax dollars on a guy that's been dead for two years?
 
2019-03-13 08:32:17 PM  
I was looking forward to his retrial:
upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2019-03-13 09:17:54 PM  

puffy999: I hope we find out that Hernandez killed himself because his lawyer told him she may be able to keep his money this way (the above lawsuit scenario).


That's pretty much what most of us have been thinking. That law was weird. Then again; Massachusetts.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report