Judge Vacates Aaron Hernandez Conviction

[archstanton543]

So who's the final arbiter for this situation again?

God?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

This idea that someone gets convicted of murder and then can kill himself and he's somehow made innocent is ridiculous.. Personally, abatement ab initio shouldn't be allowed in the case where the convict commits suicide.. Just like Suicide isn't a way for a person's family to collect on a life insurance policy..

If the person kills himself more than 2 years after buying the policy the family virtually always can collect on the policy.

--
(Edit)
Do some googling, @ctpatsfan77 . You'll find plenty of articles like this one (How suicide factors into life insurance) that point out that life insurance policies almost always pay off on suicides as long as it's been at least two years since the policy was taken out.

 

[BobDigital]

So who's the final arbiter for this situation again?

To answer your question I am not sure 100% but I think the MA state supreme court would be. I don't think this goes any higher.

 

[bbobbo]

in the end, a criminal is off the streets, and as a bonus, the taxpayers of massachusetts (of which i am one) no longer have to foot the bill for his incarceration. assuming he would have lived for another 50 years, that's $2.6m (in 2014 dollars) saved, not including legal fees for appeals. i really don't care if he's legally considered innocent. he's gone from the face of the earth.
.

 

[Former Fan]

Much ado about nothing, IMO. In order to "benefit" from this, the person has to be dead. Whether they were convicted or not seems pretty irrelevant at that point.

 

[TB_Helmet]

So an NFL player kills a guy but is found innocent on a technicality.

Sounds like the Ravens have found a new tight end!


(Didn't read thread, apologies if that joke has already been made).

 

[XLIX]

Much ado about nothing, IMO. In order to "benefit" from this, the person has to be dead. Whether they were convicted or not seems pretty irrelevant at that point.

It is not irrelevant to several ongoing entities, among whom is the New England Patriots football club.

 

[chasa]

in the end, a criminal is off the streets, and as a bonus, the taxpayers of massachusetts (of which i am one) no longer have to foot the bill for his incarceration. assuming he would have lived for another 50 years, that's $2.6m (in 2014 dollars) saved, not including legal fees for appeals. i really don't care if he's legally considered innocent. he's gone from the face of the earth.
.

Well considering he just had his conviction waived, that means he was an innocent man behind bars when he died, which probably opens up some sort of civil suit by his family.

 

[Wheelman]

Well I guess maybe this news does support the idea of Hernandez committing suicide?

 

[PatsDeb]

Not even close to "zero chance of being heard". The first level of appeals in federal court and I'm pretty sure also in MA court is non-discretionary. If you appeal the first level appeals court has to hear it.

Not true. The judge does have a choice. It is not mandatory. That is why they have the hearing allowing both sides to speak prior to the judgement.

My understanding is the hearing is a formality. Once the request is made to vacate the conviction, the judge has basically no choice but to grant it as the law is written now. Otherwise, I don't think a convicted murderer who committed suicide knowing that he was leaving his GF and daughter "rich" would have had his conviction vacated.

 

[archstanton543]

Well considering he just had his conviction waived, that means he was an innocent man behind bars when he died, which probably opens up some sort of civil suit by his family.

I'm not sure it works that way. But who the heck knows. That law is outdated and should be changed but it's obviously too late now.

 

[MassPats38]

So now every criminal in jail can kill himself while their case is pending appeal? Sorry i don't buy this. The appeals court would not have looked at the case de novo, so the guilty verdict should stand until overturned.

I'm not grasping the basis of your outrage here. This is not a new law, and it does appear on the books in many other places in the United States.

If he kills himself, then does he somehow accrue benefits? Is he going to vote or buy a handgun? Hernandez is a corpse now - dead, defunct, ceasing to exist, so what is the upside to this loophole that you find so offensive? He likely saved the State of Massachusetts big money in housing him for decades while waiting for his natural end in the event he did not win his appeal. Most prosecutors would likely be thrilled with the result, as it means the end of countless appeals and habeas petitions (those are inevitable as well). So who loses with his death?

Appellate courts do reverse convictions. That is a simple fact of life, and that outcome is more probable when high price attorneys handle the case (stop by Texas if you want to see a legal process where actually innocent people spend time in jail, and maybe you will appreciate the significance of that right a little more). Unless you read the briefs and studied the law, I suspect you cannot offer an intelligent assessment on how that would have played out on direct appeal. It appears most of these laws would not undo a verdict if the first level of appeal plays out and is denied.

The law at issue generally just requires that the person be dead, which is likely more often from natural causes than suicide. The court of public opinion has the verdict, regardless of this procedural declaration, and MA has a corpse instead of a custodial ward with a strong potential for future legal filings.

Most civil effects from criminal proceedings do not turn on convictions, but rather are made simpler with the piece of paper. You can still prove misconduct using the trial evidence, under a lesser preponderance standard. Hernandez's estate will be no wealthier, as the victim's family would take down that money OJ style. I don't see this eventuality as a game changer. Just a very definite end to Mr. Hernandez.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

To answer your question I am not sure 100% but I think the MA state supreme court would be. I don't think this goes any higher.

Yeah -- since the appeal was through the state courts the MA SJC has the final say unless at least one of the claims in the appeal was based on federal law or the US constitution ("a federal question"). In that event, after the SJC was done the person could petition SCOTUS to hear the case.

 

[Urgent]

Given the publicity here, I wouldn't be surprised to see the state change this archaic law. At the very least, consider the act of suicide as officially relinquishing appeal rights.

I completely agree here. While it was pointed out this will not necessarily become popular - and it really hasn't, although it has been Mass law for centuries -- it is a relevant loophole for wealthy criminals carrying a life sentence. It appears, based on the reported contents of the note left, that Hernandez understood this provision and took advantage of it.

I get the point that a criminal who is unable to complete his or her appeal is at some disadvantage. However, it doesn't mean that the appeal necessarily should be exhausted. There may be cases where the state is willing to accept waiving the penalty posthumously, and cases where the state is unwilling. There may be cases where the estate/heirs want to pursue a waiver, and others where they do not. In situations where the criminal is profiting from suicide, judges or other legal panels should be allowed to consider whether to waive the conviction. And I use that word intentionally - from a moral, cultural, and genetic viewpoint, there are multiple situations where it is in your self interest to lay down your life for your family.

The equation facing Hernandez was trading a life behind bars in significant isolation for a significant benefit to his family - potential elimination of a wrongful-death suit and distribution of a sizable windfall (although it appears his lost appeal likely reduces the probability of that).

 

[BUSTAMOVE]

I am not trying to get on you for this. It is just something i notice. We tend to call people cowards particularly people who commit terrible crimes like terrorism or murder.

I just don't see a point of doing it. There is nothing really cowardly in Hernandez's action of suicide. If anything it could be termed brave potentially (dying when you could live to benefit someone you care about). Doesn't change the fact he is a murdering scum bag.

Vile people can be brave and good people can be cowards. I don't see why we as a society throw around the term so much when it might not automatically apply is all.

I just feel that he took a man's life while not allowing that man to defend himself. It was an ambush. That is an act of a Coward. Now he erases that conviction on a technicality so the deceased family relives the pain and lose whatever closure they had gained. His suicide is a self centered Cowardly way to preserve his cry for innocence without due process. I could care less about his fiance and what he did for her. The children I have sympathy for. His fiancé disposed of evidence to the murder. She deserves no sympathy or thoughts he was brave for her. But I agree. He is a Scumbag

 

[resdubwhite]

God?

who is that?

 

[BobDigital]

I just feel that he took a man's life while not allowing that man to defend himself. It was an ambush. That is an act of a Coward. Now he erases that conviction on a technicality so the deceased family relives the pain and lose whatever closure they had gained. His suicide is a self centered Cowardly way to preserve his cry for innocence without due process. I could care less about his fiance and what he did for her. The children I have sympathy for. His fiancé disposed of evidence to the murder. She deserves no sympathy or thoughts he was brave for her. But I agree. He is a Scumbag

Well I agree on the scumbag part of course. However if what you said about the coward part is a true in this case then aren't cops cowards for pointing guns at people who seem to be unarmed and telling them to get on the ground when arresting them or doing it in a group instead of trying to arrest the person by themselves? They didn't give those people a chance to fight back. Solders who have an enemy's position covered on the high ground with them having no cover demand surrender or death. If the enemy solders try to ask to move to a position where it is more even and the others won't let them are they being cowards?

I think the act of murder (Hernandez's case in particular) is completely unfair and unjustified and vile. However we seem to only have an issue about "giving them a chance to fight back" when it is a bad person exerting influence on a good person. When people we consider good get massively favorable advantages and use them in ways we agree with no one calls them a coward for not giving the other people a fair chance.

That is not to say there are not cowardly acts because of course there are. I just don't think Hernandez did anything cowardly. It was evil though of course.

The reason we like to call the act cowardly is of course to tear his character down as much as possible and leave him with no redeemable traits. We consider being brave better than a coward so to call an evil person not a coward or to go as far to call them brave gives them some kind of redemptive quality in the minds of people. I don't see it as the case really. Whether Hernandez is the bravest person in the world or the most cowardly would not change my opinion of him.

Bravery is only something that matters after the fact is established you are a good person. Then it is a bonus IMO.

Some actions are not brave or cowardly. Some just are.

 

[fnordcircle]

So now every criminal in jail can kill himself while their case is pending appeal?

Yes, all they have to do is end their own life and that'll really stick it to the rest of us law-abiding types.

 

[supafly]

If the person kills himself more than 2 years after buying the policy the family virtually always can collect on the policy.

--
(Edit)
Do some googling, @ctpatsfan77 . You'll find plenty of articles like this one (How suicide factors into life insurance) that point out that life insurance policies almost always pay off on suicides as long as it's been at least two years since the policy was taken out.

It is very true that most life insurance policies are paid after suicide. The one catch, as QM pointed out, was that there is a 2 year period between the date of signing the policy and making everything official, and the date of suicide. From everything I've learned, that 2 year mark is pretty standard across the board.

Not only did we cover this in school at some point, I even asked the insurance guy when setting up my own. Not necessarily because I want to kill myself, but I wanted to know all circumstances as to why a policy may be denied.

 

[brdmaverick]

Innocent until proven guilty. The judge made the right call based on the law.

Except that he was found guilty. Once found guilty you'd think you'd then still be guilty until found innocent.

I agree they followed the law just seems like an odd one.