Patriots' Hernandez questioned by police in homicide probe

[Yehoodi]

All lawyers have at least some training in criminal law, starting second year I believe.

If a doctor was concerned about the way my heart sounds, I wouldn't entirely discount his opinion just because cardiology isn't his specialty.

yes lawyers do take a coarse in criminal law and likely every criminal law teacher will give the same speech were are hearing here from the wantabe lawyers and the lawyers who wantabe criminal lawyers . . . so what the law students learn in criminal law class is nothing we all don't already hear on the street . . .

but the point we are all trying to bring out, which seems to be going over peoples heads here, is that having a blanket no talk policy does not work in every single case . . . there are times when talking to the cops and cooperation is helpful . . .

for instance if the guys in AH's house committed the crime, it is found out later that he knew they committed the crime and further he refused to answer an entry level question by the cops, like "have you seen these guys", that silence could potentially be used against him in a obstruction charge . . .

so sometimes no cooperation can get you in hot water, something people don't seem to able to get their heads around . . . yes I agree that like 90% of the time staying silent is the best, and surely saying anything incriminating or walking the cops to the contraband is not advisable too . . . but to say a 100% non response policy is the only way to go is incorrect . . .

as for the lawyer/expert/area of practice and your doctor's analogy . . . yes lawyers learn some general stuff in all general areas of law in law school, but I for one do not give advice in the areas of workers comp. or tax law and so on . . . the problem being areas of law can have in and outs, deadlines, timelines, etc. and so on, and if you don't practice in the area and try to give a general response you will be doing a disservice to the person you are advising . . .

as for your doctor's analogy, if you are having your foot checked out and the foot doctor says your hearts sounds funny but I won't worried about it . . . are you going to take her word or go see a heart specialist? I for one would do the latter . . .

 

[Rob0729]

You have to understand something. I've been following Aaron's career since he was 15. Maybe earlier, but definitely 15. As a freshman in HS< he raised eyebrows in Conn. And with his brother going to UConn, he was on people's radar.

Read this: Florida tight end Hernandez honors father's memory - USATODAY.com

Both of us could be correct. I actually said that in my earlier post. I wrote that I knew he had a strong family background, his Dad was a sports guy and disciplinarian, and that the family was middle class. After his father died, he might have fallen in with a bad crowd. But then he's in Florida?

Read the article.

I still want to know what people are talking about when it comes to his bad behavior. Is it marijuana?

According to Bedard, it is known he has an association with gangs while in CT and teams passed on him for that. A puff piece in USA Today doesn't change that. Most of these pieces are spun by the colleges, agents, etc. to make the player attractive to Pro Scouts and/or more popular.

I tend to believe Bedard. I doubt he would say it if it wasn't true. He seems to have a good relationship with Hernandez. Bedard would be more likely to know the stuff that Florida's PR department wouldn't have wanted to get out covering the team for Hernandez's entire career here.

All you have to do is read the puff pieces that USA Today and other media outlets did for Ray Lewis several months ago to see how these outlets are all about feel good stories. All these outlets brushed over his involvement in a murder and portrayed him as a saint one step below Ghandi and Mother Teresa.

And according to Bedard, Hernandez's "bad behavior" is hanging with gang members. Bedard never said Hernandez did bad things. Bedard said some of Hernandez's friends from high school did/do. Bedard sounded like Hernandez is a good guy who just has some bad friends from high school that he can't get rid of or cares not to. Hernandez could have been friends with these guys in high school and never participated in their bad behavior. Being friends with gang members doesn't make you a gang member.

 

[Pewsterbaby]

According to Greg Bedard, the opposite is true. Hernandez had a pretty rough upbringing and many teams passed on him because they knew he was associated with gangs in high school. Bedard seems to have direct knowledge that he still has some bad apples from his past hanging on and; either by by loyalty, friendship, or unable to shake them; Hernandez has allowed them to stick around. Bedard said, on a personal level, Hernandez might have been better off playing in Seattle rather than an hour or two away from his hometown.

He made it sound like Hernandez's gang past and the bad elements in his life were pretty common knowledge among people who cover the team.

I thought I heard he had some bad elements in his past.

THIS.
Gez, only took 27 pages. His father died when Aaron was 17 too.
I swear to God, it's like people around here think you automatically change into some upstanding citizen the moment you're signed by an NFL team. People around here think a lifetime of personality conditioning is instantaneously swept away by magic Bob Kraft & Coach Bill. Well, guess what. It's NOT.
Ya are who ya are who ya are. Period.

and for the record, I NEVER liked Hernandez. I spent a Friday over here about 2 months ago arguing his merits or lack thereof. I hate to say I told you so.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Totally disagree. I would not say one word without a lawyer present. In listening to SIRIUS satellite radio this morning on my drive in, Ross Tucker has already pretty much found Hernandez guilty. WTF happened to presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty? As one caller put it, "you get an attorney before saying one word. If you allow the police to search your house or speak to them you open up your whole life and everyone has SOMETHING to hide". I wouldn't allow a search, not would I say a single thing to the police until I hired an attorney.

I expect Roger Goodell to cite this reference in his forthcoming ruling banning Hernandez from the NFL.

Fortunately for us, Gronk was under sedation at the time and cannot be banned as a co-conspirator.

 

[Rob0729]

Totally disagree. I would not say one word without a lawyer present. In listening to SIRIUS satellite radio this morning on my drive in, Ross Tucker has already pretty much found Hernandez guilty. WTF happened to presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty? As one caller put it, "you get an attorney before saying one word. If you allow the police to search your house or speak to them you open up your whole life and everyone has SOMETHING to hide". I wouldn't allow a search, not would I say a single thing to the police until I hired an attorney.

There is no innocent until proven guilty in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately, this is what radio shows do. They convict the person as soon as they are associated with a crime and then backtrack if and when they are cleared.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

for instance if the guys in AH's house committed the crime, it is found out later that he knew they committed the crime and further he refused to answer an entry level question by the cops, like "have you seen these guys", that silence could potentially be used against him in a obstruction charge

That's exactly the sort of question to not answer without talking to your lawyer first.

And no, not answering that question is not "obstruction". The only thing you're obliged to tell the cops is your true identity. Beyond that you have the constitutional right to shut the hell up and not say anything further until you've talked to your lawyer.

 

[chasa]

calm down everyone Football players never get convicted of murder.

**** half the time they are given superbowl trophies.

 

[BSR]

According to Greg Bedard, the opposite is true. Hernandez had a pretty rough upbringing and many teams passed on him because they knew he was associated with gangs in high school. Bedard seems to have direct knowledge that he still has some bad apples from his past hanging on and; either by by loyalty, friendship, or unable to shake them; Hernandez has allowed them to stick around. Bedard said, on a personal level, Hernandez might have been better off playing in Seattle rather than an hour or two away from his hometown.

He made it sound like Hernandez's gang past and the bad elements in his life were pretty common knowledge among people who cover the team.

I thought I heard he had some bad elements in his past.

If he can survive this event, this may be the thing that finally allows him to cut ties with that past. I can understand not turning away these people for seemingly small favors in the past when there were no discernible consequences. Now he can point how they screwed him in the past and just walk away. Of course, this is all predicated on the hope that he had no involvement and can just walk away.

 

[Yehoodi]

What exactly I currently practice is none of your business, nor does it matter for the purposes of this discussion. However, I can tell you this: I've discussed legal matters and given a bit of insight into some of what I've done in other threads. Supafly and I had a discussion about some things in one of the Dennard threads for example.

If you want to talk to the police in a criminal case, you go right ahead and do so. I'll take the smarter approach, and I encourage others to do the same.

If the fact that you are a lawyer is irrelevant to the discussion, then why did you state that your were a lawyer in post #61 of this thread?

"I am a lawyer. In the real world, I would advise my client to let the police get a warrant."

you brought the fact that you were a lawyer to the discussion not I or SB39 or any other poster . . .

 

[BSR]

If the fact that you are a lawyer is irrelevant to the discussion, then why did you state that your were a lawyer in post #61 of this thread?

"I am a lawyer. In the real world, I would advise my client to let the police get a warrant."

you brought the fact that you were a lawyer to the discussion not I or SB39 or any other poster . . .

Its the internet not a court room. He could say he is Alan Dershowitz...what does it matter? There is no need to try and discredit the person, just the point.

 

[upstater1]

According to Bedard, it is known he has an association with gangs while in CT and teams passed on him for that. A puff piece in USA Today doesn't change that. Most of these pieces are spun by the colleges, agents, etc. to make the player attractive to Pro Scouts and/or more popular.

I tend to believe Bedard. I doubt he would say it if it wasn't true. He seems to have a good relationship with Hernandez. Bedard would be more likely to know the stuff that Florida's PR department wouldn't have wanted to get out covering the team for Hernandez's entire career here.

All you have to do is read the puff pieces that USA Today and other media outlets did for Ray Lewis several months ago to see how these outlets are all about feel good stories. All these outlets brushed over his involvement in a murder and portrayed him as a saint one step below Ghandi and Mother Teresa.

And according to Bedard, Hernandez's "bad behavior" is hanging with gang members. Bedard never said Hernandez did bad things. Bedard said some of Hernandez's friends from high school did/do. Bedard sounded like Hernandez is a good guy who just has some bad friends from high school that he can't get rid of or cares not to. Hernandez could have been friends with these guys in high school and never participated in their bad behavior. Being friends with gang members doesn't make you a gang member.

These articles were coming out when Aaron was 16. His brother was a big deal in Ct. Their father's death and its significance was a big story in Bristol (where he was very well known, where he coached) and in the state.

How many 16 year olds have PR firms?

 

[patman12]

calm down everyone Football players never get convicted of murder.

Rae Carruth disagrees.

 

[Yehoodi]

If you want to talk to the police in a criminal case, you go right ahead and do so. I'll take the smarter approach, and I encourage others to do the same.

Fine advise your clients however you wish, but as I have stated numerous times being non responsive to a cop is not the right choice 100% of the time . . .

If the people in AH's house committed the murder, he knew about it and knew they were in his house and then he is non responsive to a police entry level question at his doorstep about if he has seen these too people and the police charge him with being an accessory after the fact to murder, that non responsive conduct by AH to the police inquiry if he had seen the two criminals is coming into court in the commonwealth's case and chief and there is nothing you, or any other person on this board can do about it . . . no matter how many likes you get from your posts . . . plain and simple and bottom line . . .

so go ahead and tell all of your clients to button their lip, but it is not going to work here and will actually be detrimental to his defense . . .

this is my point . . .

 

[Yehoodi]

Its the internet not a court room. He could say he is Alan Dershowitz...what does it matter? There is no need to try and discredit the person, just the point.

But what you don't understand is that he was using it, and to use you words, to bolster his credibility . . .

if we are having a discussion and someone tries to throw out some credibility to his statement by saying "I know because I am X . . . " there is nothing wrong with asking what kind of X your are . . . and what is worst is for the other person then says "well what kind of X I am is not relevant" when they just tried to use it in a relevant manner . . . this is my only point . . .if it does not matter why did he bring it up . . .

 

[BSR]

Fine advise your clients however you wish, but as I have stated numerous times being non responsive to a cop is not the right choice 100% of the time . . .

If the people in AH's house committed the murder, he knew about it and knew they were in his house and then he is non responsive to a police entry level question at his doorstep about if he has seen these too people and the police charge him with being an accessory after the fact to murder, that non responsive conduct by AH to the police inquiry if he had seen the two criminals is coming into court in the commonwealth's case and chief and there is nothing you, or any other person on this board can do about it . . . no matter how many likes you get from your posts . . . plain and simple and bottom line . . .

so go ahead and tell all of your clients to button their lip, but it is not going to work here and will actually be detrimental to his defense . . .

this is my point . . .

So I am no lawyer and haven't pretended to be one, but I have a question about this...are you basically saying that in the picture you painted above that the person answering the door doesn't have the right to remain silent?

 

[2000army]

Wow... Glad i don't get legal advice from some of you.

The statement is a very simple one... "I would like to fully cooperate but i need to speak to my lawyer first" .

Nothing good comes out of you talking without an attorney present. You get nervous and might say something dumb by accident.... Even if innocent.

 

[BSR]

But what you don't understand is that he was using it, and to use you words, to bolster his credibility . . .

if we are having a discussion and someone tries to throw out some credibility to his statement by saying "I know because I am X . . . " there is nothing wrong with asking what kind of X your are . . . and what is worst is for the other person then says "well what kind of X I am is not relevant" when they just tried to use it in a relevant manner . . . this is my only point . . .if it does not matter why did he bring it up . . .

He didn't state it to boost his credibility...he stated it to disproves SB's assertion that lawyers would advise clients to talk in the specified situation. He had made several posts in this thread before he even brought up the fact that he was a lawyer so it is clear he wasn't trying to use it to give his points more credibility.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

2nd car now

According to Bedard on 98.5FM this morning, the police are looking for a second car, also rented in Hernandez's name.

For now I think I'll hang my hopes on something Callahan said this morning -- surely if Hernandez really was involved in whatever's been going on (the homicide, nefarious activities that lead to the homicide (like a drug deal gone bad, maybe?)) he wouldn't have been so stupid as to have rented these cars in his own name. Right? Please?

 

[DarrylS]

Some of you missed this but the Attleboro police reported he is cooperating..

The original story about "not cooperating" came from a tweet... even if he did not "cooperate" initially, that is standard for many people... he needed to speak with an attorney first. That is his right.

 

[Yehoodi]

That's exactly the sort of question to not answer without talking to your lawyer first.

And no, not answering that question is not "obstruction". The only thing you're obliged to tell the cops is your true identity. Beyond that you have the constitutional right to shut the hell up and not say anything further until you've talked to your lawyer.

yes but your non responsive answer is admissible in court, this the point people seem to be missing . . . . . . the rules are different before there is custodial interrogation and a non responsive/conduct of a defendant prior to custodial interrogation is admissible in court . . .

and with respect to "obstruction" it is really the crime of accessory after the fact and in that case if one is nonresponsive to an inquiry of where the criminals are and they are in your house, that is admissible and is relevant to your actions of trying to harbor a person who has committed a crime . . .

so even though 90% of the time being quite sounds great, but when the police ask you where are the criminals, and you know where they are, and you don't respond, that can be used as evidence in an accessory after the fact charge (ie obstruction of justice - you are preventing/obstructing the police from doing there work)