chris98251
Well-known member
Surprised someone has not posted this yet, they are now going to review the first trial again.
chris98251":1ig0c2s4 said:........................., they are now going to review the first trial again.
BostonBlackie":1glkozev said:chris98251":1glkozev said:........................., they are now going to review the first trial again.
Are you sure?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... er-charges
"Hernandez, once a rising star in the NFL, is already serving a life sentence in prison for killing the boyfriend of his fiancee's sister. That first-degree murder conviction was handed down by unanimous jury decision in 2015.
Though Friday's verdict has no impact on that conviction, the Associated Press reports that emotions still ran high in the Boston courtroom. "
chris98251":38ecoix4 said:BostonBlackie":38ecoix4 said:chris98251":38ecoix4 said:........................., they are now going to review the first trial again.
Are you sure?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... er-charges
"Hernandez, once a rising star in the NFL, is already serving a life sentence in prison for killing the boyfriend of his fiancee's sister. That first-degree murder conviction was handed down by unanimous jury decision in 2015.
Though Friday's verdict has no impact on that conviction, the Associated Press reports that emotions still ran high in the Boston courtroom. "
Here's the story about getting the other overturned.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-to-overturning-hernandezs-murder-conviction/
It was just a mention yesterday and it appears this clarifies it some that they will attempt it.
chris98251":28jo3z2p said:Surprised someone has not posted this yet, they are now going to review the first trial again.
RolandDeschain":2tenuxxo said:*Acquitted.
:lol:
kobebryant":mzcqxp9l said:So on aggregate that's -1 murder convictions for Hernandez. Actually better than most of us who are at 0 murder convictions.
Uncle Si":3q8nfp3e said:"Through an obscure and rarely invoked Massachusetts legal principle called abatement ab initio, because Hernandez had not exhausted all his appeals on his murder conviction, that conviction is essentially now voided. The practical effect of this is that evidence from Hernandez’s criminal trial cannot be used in any potential civil trials against his estate."
kidhawk":3ep5e5ke said:Uncle Si":3ep5e5ke said:"Through an obscure and rarely invoked Massachusetts legal principle called abatement ab initio, because Hernandez had not exhausted all his appeals on his murder conviction, that conviction is essentially now voided. The practical effect of this is that evidence from Hernandez’s criminal trial cannot be used in any potential civil trials against his estate."
Quick question....when you said "evidence FROM Hernandez's criminal trial cannot be used in any civil trial" should that have read that evidence of his criminal conviction can't be used? I'd think that logic would dictate that the evidence individually isn't tainted, but as the appeals process wasn't complete, the actual trial itself and the conviction couldn't be used. Doesn't make sense that the actual evidence would be inadmissible in a civil case. Of course I've seen stranger head scratchers before so it wouldn't be a complete shocker.
Uncle Si":2248zhko said:kidhawk":2248zhko said:Uncle Si":2248zhko said:"Through an obscure and rarely invoked Massachusetts legal principle called abatement ab initio, because Hernandez had not exhausted all his appeals on his murder conviction, that conviction is essentially now voided. The practical effect of this is that evidence from Hernandez’s criminal trial cannot be used in any potential civil trials against his estate."
Quick question....when you said "evidence FROM Hernandez's criminal trial cannot be used in any civil trial" should that have read that evidence of his criminal conviction can't be used? I'd think that logic would dictate that the evidence individually isn't tainted, but as the appeals process wasn't complete, the actual trial itself and the conviction couldn't be used. Doesn't make sense that the actual evidence would be inadmissible in a civil case. Of course I've seen stranger head scratchers before so it wouldn't be a complete shocker.
I should have offered context. I copied/pasted this from an article on his death.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/04/19/hernandezdismiss/BvCcJQ1Ubg3mJAze0ttpvJ/story.html
Uncle Si":rl83bxwx said:Yeah, found it really interesting.
It does make any Civil suit against his estate that much more difficult.
So read some more... it appears that only the fact he was convicted and sentenced is immune from a Civil trial. Any and all evidence, including witnesses, can be reused.
kidhawk":2dsqur2l said:Uncle Si":2dsqur2l said:Yeah, found it really interesting.
It does make any Civil suit against his estate that much more difficult.
So read some more... it appears that only the fact he was convicted and sentenced is immune from a Civil trial. Any and all evidence, including witnesses, can be reused.
That is how I interpreted the quote that said "established at trial". The evidence that was used at trial is fair game, but his conviction and such is no longer valid so it cannot be used. The only gray area I see with this is actual trial testimony. I'd assume that any and all witness testimony must be re-established at a civil trial and the questioning at the original trial cannot be entered into evidence on it's own.
Hopefully as difficult as it may be, it won't stop the victim's family from at least getting civil justice in this case since they will never see criminal justice done.
chris98251":18b015yf said:kidhawk":18b015yf said:Uncle Si":18b015yf said:Yeah, found it really interesting.
It does make any Civil suit against his estate that much more difficult.
So read some more... it appears that only the fact he was convicted and sentenced is immune from a Civil trial. Any and all evidence, including witnesses, can be reused.
That is how I interpreted the quote that said "established at trial". The evidence that was used at trial is fair game, but his conviction and such is no longer valid so it cannot be used. The only gray area I see with this is actual trial testimony. I'd assume that any and all witness testimony must be re-established at a civil trial and the questioning at the original trial cannot be entered into evidence on it's own.
Hopefully as difficult as it may be, it won't stop the victim's family from at least getting civil justice in this case since they will never see criminal justice done.
Well I think the criminal justice has been done if he was indeed guilty, eye for an eye so to speak and IF it was by his own hand, the reports coming out now are saying his method was unusual in it's technique based on a lot of deaths in this facility.