Patriots' Hernandez questioned by police in homicide probe

[JMC00]

Brad Pitt asks the question we all want to know.

(NSFW language)

Regards,
Chris

probably up to an ounce of weed and some bongs

 

[BadMoFo]

Given some of the "Never talk to the cops" discussion on this board yesterday, this story update on former director John McTiernan really is shaping up to be the poster child of why you never say anything to the cops/feds.

Exclusive: The Tragic Imprisonment Of John McTiernan, Hollywood Icon

Guy's looking at a year in prison for lying to the FBI and has been nearly bankrupted on legal fees regarding a lawsuit surrounding a notorious Hollywood private investigator Anthony Pellicano.

And all because of one little phone call ...

It's one thing to talk to the cops, but another to lie to them.

Have to wonder why Aaron's people aren't straight denying any involvement.

The player’s lawyer, Michael Fee of Ropes & Gray, released the following statement today: “It has been widely reported in the media that the state police have searched the home of our client, Aaron Hernandez, as part of an ongoing investigation. Out of respect for that process, neither we nor Aaron will have any comment about the substance of that investigation until it has come to a conclusion.”

 

[Salva135]

Hernandez comes back to his house this afternoon... in Pats gear no less:

https://twitter.com/ScottIsaacs/status/347436244747317250/photo/1

 

[Yehoodi]

The fact that you keep drawing analogies between a speeding ticket and a murder investigation is all that I need to know to determine that you (and a few other clowns on this thread) are hopelessly out of your depth in discussing this stuff.

Analogy is pretty much the weakest form of argument.

okay sparky I hear yah, whatever floats your boat . . . but a little lesson in criminal law seeing that is what this is all about, a non-responsive answer to a police officer's question prior to custodial interrogation is admissible in a court of law in this commonwealth . .. regardless of what opinions of the law you have floating around in your head . . .

and my point was, if a person is nonresponsive based an advise from an attorney it can actually hurt his client . . . something that you don't seem to have the mental capacity to grasp . . . again not all of the time, but in rare cases, like the one I have describe in this thread about this case, a nonresponsive conduct is admissible . . . period, end of discussion . . .

so go ahead and think whatever you want my friend about criminal law, I for one am extremely comfortable in my understanding of the law regardless of what some internet lawyer wants to think . . .

 

[tombonneau]

It's one thing to talk to the cops, but another to lie to them.

Have to wonder why Aaron's people aren't straight denying any involvement.

The player’s lawyer, Michael Fee of Ropes & Gray, released the following statement today: “It has been widely reported in the media that the state police have searched the home of our client, Aaron Hernandez, as part of an ongoing investigation. Out of respect for that process, neither we nor Aaron will have any comment about the substance of that investigation until it has come to a conclusion.”

Well I think the point is he had some hasty conversation, there is some discrepancy as to exactly how the question was phrased that he was answering, etc. Whereas there would have been zero ambiguity or he said/she said had he simply declined to answer and sought legal counsel and prepared a formal answers to their questions.

End of the day, people are saying it can do you NO GOOD at all to talk to authorities without a lawyer to advise you and I'm sure John McTiernan would agree 100% with that statement.

 

[Deus Irae]

okay sparky I hear yah, whatever floats your boat . . . but a little lesson in criminal law seeing that is what this is all about, a non-responsive answer to a police officer's question prior to custodial interrogation is admissible in a court of law in this commonwealth . .. regardless of what opinions of the law you have floating around in your head . . .

and my point was, if a person is nonresponsive based an advise from an attorney it can actually hurt his client . . . something that you don't seem to have the mental capacity to grasp . . . again not all of the time, but in rare cases, like the one I have describe in this thread about this case, a nonresponsive conduct is admissible . . . period, end of discussion . . .

so go ahead and think whatever you want my friend about criminal law, I for one am extremely comfortable in my understanding of the law regardless of what some internet lawyer wants to think . . .

What part of "I invoke my Miranda rights." do you think is legally capable of being held against a suspect?

 

[PATS68]

okay sparky I hear yah, whatever floats your boat . . . but a little lesson in criminal law seeing that is what this is all about, a non-responsive answer to a police officer's question prior to custodial interrogation is admissible in a court of law in this commonwealth . .. regardless of what opinions of the law you have floating around in your head . . .

and my point was, if a person is nonresponsive based an advise from an attorney it can actually hurt his client . . . something that you don't seem to have the mental capacity to grasp . . . again not all of the time, but in rare cases, like the one I have describe in this thread about this case, a nonresponsive conduct is admissible . . . period, end of discussion . . .

so go ahead and think whatever you want my friend about criminal law, I for one am extremely comfortable in my understanding of the law regardless of what some internet lawyer wants to think . . .

I am glad the speeding ticket got brought back up because you could not be more wrong on your thought process. I write tickets and arrest people and it is required by law that defendant is required to know the complain alleged against them. So when an officer asks do you know why you were stopped it has to do about the complaint against them and not some trick that your alleging.

Second point is the stop has already been initiated and the car is already pulled over so the officer had articular suspicion that you were speeding. So the question is pointless to begin with and has no baring on why the car was stopped in the first place.

Third point you brought voluntary statements in a prior post. Your inaccurate and it is a three prong process not one like you mentioned before. Under Miranda it has to be knowingly, voluntary, and intelligently. Don't have all three don't have it. A drunk could give so called voluntary statements all day long, but it does not meet the intelligently prong so fruit of poison tree.

Also you mentioned an 8x8 cell, again wrong! According to the Supreme Court a person given his Miranda Warning must have upgraded conditions and the interview can not take place in this so called 8x8 cell you speak of. The defendant must be brought to another room.

Also case law a person willing to give a statement to police voluntary must be dropped off at the front door of the police dept. and must not be brought into the police dept. through any other door that is not known to the average person. Agency not far from mine lost a big case on this one because they brought him in through the sally port and not the front door so his confession was tossed.

Another key point you so called lawyers are missing. I pretty sure the Supreme Court ruling Terry v. Ohio lets me asks questions of you and also lets me do an outside pat down of your clothes if I feel that you are armed.

 

[PATS68]

What part of "I invoke my Miranda rights." do you think is legally capable of being held against a suspect?

Hey you might want to read the recent case law from the Supreme Court on this matter champ. Case is from Texas.

 

[hwc]

Jesus H. Christ, I think I probably speak for a lot of us who are sick of the legal pissing contest about when someone should or should not talk to police. It's irrelevant to the topic of this thread, which would be a lot more useful thread about this situation and getting the latest reports concerning Hernandez if we DIDN'T have to wade thru a hundred pages of law school pissing contest.

Sheesh.....

 

[Deus Irae]

Hey you might want to read the recent case law from the Supreme Court on this matter champ. Case is from Texas.

I assume you're referring to Salinas, and we've already mentioned that earlier in the thread. In that case, the Supremes ruled that pre-Miranda silence can be held against you, unless you expressly invoke your right against self-incrimination. I don't really see how that impacts my question given the context, so perhaps you're referring to a different case...?

 

[belichick010405]

What part of "I invoke my Miranda rights." do you think is legally capable of being held against a suspect?

You guys need to stop bickering because frankly unless you have read the entire Salinas decision then all of this back and forth is nothing more than noise and based on the comments between the three of you, it is clear that none of you have read the entire set of opinions.

 

[Yehoodi]

See, this is the sort of stupidity that I was trying to avoid. You have no idea what, if any, law I'm currently practicing, yet you're talking out of your ass as if you do. Also, your post said "lawyer", not "criminal lawyer".
Basically, the more you post, the more you clown yourself.



What you said was moronic. It continues to be moronic. It will be moronic long after the Hernandez issue is a distant memory.

well seeing that we are dealing with a criminal investigation and defendants and that defendants are assigned criminal lawyers, it does take one with too much intelligence to know that he was referring to a criminal lawyer even though he is not write the magic word "criminal" . . . if you ever watch the news reporting about a criminal trial, pick a newspaper on the same matter or are in a criminal court room . . . the lawyers in question are called "lawyer" or "attorney" and are rarely if ever referred too as "criminal lawyer" or "criminal attorney" . . . it is inferred in the context of the statement and story . . .

and this is point that we are trying to make, in the context of his initial point he was referring to a criminal lawyer . . . as he was taking about a lawyer that . . . well . . . defends criminals . . . see the connection now? . . .

and as such, your response as a lawyer was not a correlated response as you are not a criminal lawyer . . .

 

[Rick Sanford 25]

This league needed a new Ray Lewis.

Better hope he's not the next Rae Carruth.

 

[Yehoodi]

What part of "I invoke my Miranda rights." do you think is legally capable of being held against a suspect?

I am not sure where you are going with this but one Miranda's rights don't exist until there is a custodial interrogation . . . prior to that point an individual does not have any Miranda's rights . . .

and as such, and my point for the 35th time, any actions or statements made by a individual are not covered under Miranda . . . actions are admissible in a court of law and statements made, in this Commonwealth, need to be proven by the commonwealth to be voluntary (our humane practice rule) and then they come in . . .

so if one is nonresponsive before CI, its comes in . . .

 

[black&gold]

I am not sure where you are going with this but one Miranda's rights don't exist until there is a custodial interrogation . . . prior to that point an individual does not have any Miranda's rights . . .

and as such, and my point for the 35th time, any actions or statements made by a individual are not covered under Miranda . . . actions are admissible in a court of law and statements made, in this Commonwealth, need to be proven by the commonwealth to be voluntary (our humane practice rule) and then they come in . . .

so if one is nonresponsive before CI, its comes in . . .

Are you two going to seriously continue arguing the nuances of Miranda jurisprudence in this thread?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Iso if one is nonresponsive before CI, its comes in . . .

Except that SCOTUS said Monday that if Salinas, who was in a non-CI, had explicitly invoked his 5th Amendment rights, his failure to answer could not be used against him at trial.

And further, SCOTUS was resolving a circuit split on this. So in some circuits you had to explicitly invoke the 5th in a non-CI to prevent non-answering from being used against you, but in other circuits your non-answering in a non-CI could not be used against you even if you didn't invoke the 5th.

 

[belichick010405]

Except that SCOTUS said Monday that if Salinas, who was in a non-CI, had explicitly invoked his 5th Amendment rights, his failure to answer could not be used against him at trial.

And further, SCOTUS was resolving a circuit split on this. So in some circuits you had to explicitly invoke the 5th in a non-CI to prevent non-answering from being used against you, but in other circuits your non-answering in a non-CI could not be used against you even if you didn't invoke the 5th.

UNITED STATES v. CAVAZOS, No. 11

 

[Yehoodi]

I am glad the speeding ticket got brought back up because you could not be more wrong on your thought process. I write tickets and arrest people and it is required by law that defendant is required to know the complain alleged against them. So when an officer asks do you know why you were stopped it has to do about the complaint against them and not some trick that your alleging.

Second point is the stop has already been initiated and the car is already pulled over so the officer had articular suspicion that you were speeding. So the question is pointless to begin with and has no baring on why the car was stopped in the first place.

Third point you brought voluntary statements in a prior post. Your inaccurate and it is a three prong process not one like you mentioned before. Under Miranda it has to be knowingly, voluntary, and intelligently. Don't have all three don't have it. A drunk could give so called voluntary statements all day long, but it does not meet the intelligently prong so fruit of poison tree.

Also you mentioned an 8x8 cell, again wrong! According to the Supreme Court a person given his Miranda Warning must have upgraded conditions and the interview can not take place in this so called 8x8 cell you speak of. The defendant must be brought to another room.

Also case law a person willing to give a statement to police voluntary must be dropped off at the front door of the police dept. and must not be brought into the police dept. through any other door that is not known to the average person. Agency not far from mine lost a big case on this one because they brought him in through the sally port and not the front door so his confession was tossed.

Another key point you so called lawyers are missing. I pretty sure the Supreme Court ruling Terry v. Ohio lets me asks questions of you and also lets me do an outside pat down of your clothes if I feel that you are armed.

thanks for the response but I am not wrong . . . I was talking about the general principles of a person talking with the cops (outside of an arrest) and what is or is not admissible in court in this Commonwealth . . . and as you know yourself as a police officer, there is a landmark point and that being once custodial interrogation has occurred . . . prior to this point a person does not have Miranda Rights, and as such, conduct and nonresponsive actions are admissible . . . so are actual statements by the defendant provided the Commonwealth proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, those statements we made voluntarily . . .

what you are talking about are statements that are made after custodial interrogation (or arrest, both cases invoking Miranda rights), which I am not referring too . . . my point this morning was "what is the effect of AH statements made at his doorstep to entry level questions" CI has not attached here so AH has no Miranda rights . . .

my point about the 8X8 room was only illustrative as I was trying to make a simple example to the lay people on this board what CI was . . . and I felt being held in handcuffs at a police station being asked questions is good example of how one would not feel free to leave and thus CI has occurred . . . I do sincerely apologize if police practice is different . . .I thought my example was easier than given one where a person is surrounded by cop cars on 128 with guns drawn being asked questions . . . because strangle enough there is case law close this fact pattern when the courts found CI had not occurred and the statements came in . . . I find for my clients be that the police station example is an easier one to illustrated a point when an individual would not feel free to leave .

okay I gotta run and watch the Bruins!!!

 

[Rick Sanford 25]

Not just plausible, I'd imagine that's the most likely scenario here. IMO having a victim (and a friend) laying right next to your car makes you one of the least likely to be involved because nobody would be that stupid to plan out a murder like that.

It's also plausible that AH sent the associate to buy drugs and the end result happened. Unfortunately, the kid has a past and let's face it, criminals get caught because they are not exactly Rhodes Scholars anyway. So to think in lines of how stupid could he be??? The jails are full of them.

It just makes no sense to speculate good or bad.

 

[BadMoFo]

Hernandez doesn't need to look far for legal help. Apparently many of his fans are the new Dream Team.