Patriots' Hernandez questioned by police in homicide probe

[Concerned_Citizen]

The commish is a nazi and has suspended people simply by being involved with shady situations.

Pretty sure Big Ben was suspended for being involved in a crime he was never charged with.

The fact that he was accused TWICE probably had a lot to do with that too. I'm a lot less inclined to believe people after a second time.

 

[patriotsdynasty12189]

Best bet is to keep your mouth shut regardless. Doesnt matter what happened in reality its all about what they can stick in court to get a conviction.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

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 . . .

How do you square that with Salinas which said that even in a non-custodial interrogation you have the right to remain silent and not have your silence used against you, so long as you explicitly assert your right to remain silent? (The new thing that Salinas added was that you have to explicitly invoke the right -- in other words, Salinas narrowed when the right applies).

Also what do you think will look worse to the jury -- saying up front "I would like to fully cooperate but i need to speak to my lawyer first" and sticking to that, or starting to talk to the cops and then stopping midway through when asked a sticky question?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Re: 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?

Anybody hear what Bedard had to say with Ross Tucker on SIRIUS at 9:35 AM today?

 

[Yehoodi]

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?

It is a little tricky and somewhat involved . . . but criminal law is procedural in that things need to follow a certain order and also there are landmarks if you will in the process that will trigger rights and make actions by the cops unconstitutional . . .

the right to remain silent is not absolute . . . well not absolute in the sense that you can't barred all silent actions from a court of law . . . although most are . . .

one key landmark in the police inquiry is whether or not the questioning of the cops has rose to the level of custodial interrogation, with interrogation being you are being questioned by the cops, and custodial being whether or not you feel free to leave . . . with the latter being the battleground as the cops questions prove the interrogation prong . . . the custodial is the battleground, at one end a person staying in his doorstep being asked question is not in custodial as he is free to leave as he can tell the cops to leave and close his door . . . at the other end of the spectrum is a defendant in handcuffs answering questions in a 8x8 room at the police station is in custody as not reason person would feel free to leave in that situation . . . fact pattern in between are the battleground, but the two examples above are clear case of each side of the coin

and the rules are different regarding statements and actions before and after custodial interrogation . . . actions prior to custodial interrogation are admissible . . . however with respect to statements the DA here in Massachusetts needs to show that the statements are voluntary (humane practice rule) . . .

so bottom line although we have the 5th Amendment in this country and the "right to remain silent" . . . non responsive conduct prior to custodial interrogation is admissible . . .

given a fact pattern that AH is being asked entry level questions on his door step, and thus is free to leave and close the door, he is not in custody so there is no custodial interrogation even though there are questions being asked . . . and as such his non response is admissible in court if, as in this case, it is relevant to a crime,

of coarse not all non responsive actions are relevant . .. a non response to a question do you smoke pot is not relevant for anything really, but when the crime is you having the intent to harbor a criminal and prevent the police from finding him a non response to a inquiry of their location is relevant to you intent to keep there location from the cops . . .

 

[Yehoodi]

How do you square that with Salinas which said that even in a non-custodial interrogation you have the right to remain silent and not have your silence used against you, so long as you explicitly assert your right to remain silent? (The new thing that Salinas added was that you have to explicitly invoke the right -- in other words, Salinas narrowed when the right applies).

Also what do you think will look worse to the jury -- saying up front "I would like to fully cooperate but i need to speak to my lawyer first" and sticking to that, or starting to talk to the cops and then stopping midway through when asked a sticky question?

I am leaving for work and don't have time to respond but will do so later tonight . . . I am not sure how Salinas effect CI off the top of my head and until I read the final decision I don't want to respond now . . .

but unless is added more protection to the defendant, it won't change what is already admissible prior to CI . . .

 

[Gumby]

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 . . .

I believe you are 100% right.

Let me establish my credentials (since that seems to be beloved lately): NONE

Ok, now that I got that off my chest. I've been pulled over several times by cops and I dont think the self-righteous tone and silent treatement expressed by one poster on this page would have gone over well anytime.

I have also been through DUI-prevention trainign given by former Chicago Anti-DUI task force cops. He clearly stated; "Look you know those goofy questions we ask you when we pull you over; want to know a secret: WE DONT CARE WHAT YOU ANSWER; THAT is NOT THE POINT. We simply WANT TO SMELL YOUR BREATH WHEN YOU TALK. That is what gives us enough evidence to ask for your license-registration and ask you to step out of the car and peform field sobriety tests."

even before I ever heard that guidance I knew enough to answer cops with yes sir / no sir. And my track record as a result is pretty good, case in point.

As a 20-year old college student driving back to college (doing 80 in a 55 with a broken tail-light) from a long weekend in the poconos (drinking-camping w/ fraternity brothers) at about midnight Sun night; the cops could have done a lot ..... particularly after I fell asleep on the steering wheel while they were running my license on their car computer. Instead they gave me a FIX-IT* ticket for my tail-light and followed me back to the Uni to make sure I made it home ok.

* If you fixed your car and came by the station to have them look in next 14 days it cost $0.

I have gotten a couple of tickets (deserved) and a couple of passes on things I could have gotten tickets for; I wouldnt ever think of giving such a obnoxious childish answer to a guy just out there trying to do a job and keep the roads safe for all of us.

 

[BadMoFo]

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.

Maybe getting drafted by the Patriots was the best and worst thing that happened in his NFL career. New England helped showcase his skills, landing him a huge contract, but it also kept him close to his troublemaker friends.

 

[BadMoFo]

Guess detectives were back at his home this morning. CBS reporter said one of the cops was holding a court document, maybe another search warrant?

Apparently, Hernandez wasn't there this time.

 

[BSR]

It is a little tricky and somewhat involved . . . but criminal law is procedural in that things need to follow a certain order and also there are landmarks if you will in the process that will trigger rights and make actions by the cops unconstitutional . . .

the right to remain silent is not absolute . . . well not absolute in the sense that you can't barred all silent actions from a court of law . . . although most are . . .

one key landmark in the police inquiry is whether or not the questioning of the cops has rose to the level of custodial interrogation, with interrogation being you are being questioned by the cops, and custodial being whether or not you feel free to leave . . . with the latter being the battleground as the cops questions prove the interrogation prong . . . the custodial is the battleground, at one end a person staying in his doorstep being asked question is not in custodial as he is free to leave as he can tell the cops to leave and close his door . . . at the other end of the spectrum is a defendant in handcuffs answering questions in a 8x8 room at the police station is in custody as not reason person would feel free to leave in that situation . . . fact pattern in between are the battleground, but the two examples above are clear case of each side of the coin

and the rules are different regarding statements and actions before and after custodial interrogation . . . actions prior to custodial interrogation are admissible . . . however with respect to statements the DA here in Massachusetts needs to show that the statements are voluntary (humane practice rule) . . .

so bottom line although we have the 5th Amendment in this country and the "right to remain silent" . . . non responsive conduct prior to custodial interrogation is admissible . . .

given a fact pattern that AH is being asked entry level questions on his door step, and thus is free to leave and close the door, he is not in custody so there is no custodial interrogation even though there are questions being asked . . . and as such his non response is admissible in court if, as in this case, it is relevant to a crime,

of coarse not all non responsive actions are relevant . .. a non response to a question do you smoke pot is not relevant for anything really, but when the crime is you having the intent to harbor a criminal and prevent the police from finding him a non response to a inquiry of their location is relevant to you intent to keep there location from the cops . . .

Interesting. Like I said, I am just asking for the sake of trying to understand. I would think that under the scenario you described the person answering the door would have to know that the individuals had committed a crime? No? I mean if my friends over my house and a cop come up to the door and asks do you know such and such but doesn't say anything about why they are asking the questions (and correct me if I am wrong but I wouldn't think they would announce that the person is an actual suspect as opposed to something like a person of interest) then it would be perfectly fine to answer that you don't want to talk to them about the person and politely close the door. Is that correct?

 

[BB4PRez]

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 . . .

First - to be clear - if Hernandez did commit a crime here I hope he is caught and punished. My hope is he didn't, but if he did my loyalty to him as a fan of the team I root for ends. This is a murder investigation.

Second - I do not think Des is saying don't talk to the cops under any circumstances. I think he is saying get a competent criminal lawyer to be with you when you talk to the cops. We had a little clarification on this point earlier in the thread and I don't think he and I are that far apart. I can't think of a situation where having a good criminal attorney sitting next to the person when they talk with police in a situation like this can hurt. I am sure there are good defense attorneys who are well known and respected in Bristol County and can advice Hernandez on the best ways to cooperate with the police. If you are going to work with the police than hiring someone the police know and trust is not a bad idea. If he is not involved I hope he tells them everything he knows about his so called "friends." Under the circumstances I expect at least one of them to throw him under the bus.

 

[BadMoFo]

So ... he hasn't been ruled out as a suspect. :bricks::bricks:

Source: Aaron Hernandez Not Ruled Out As Suspect In Homicide Probe « CBS Boston

 

[TruthSeeker]

This does not look good. From the CBS article, it says that the victim was a football player for the Boston team in the Arena league or something. It also said it looks like the victim was shot somewhere else and brought to the area he was found. I certainly hope Hernandez and the two knuckleheads in his house weren't involved. It also says he is not cooperating with police.

 

[goheels22002]

Here's the local paper's account with photos. As we saw with the Boston Marathon Bombings story, the best, most detailed reporting was done by local reporters who knew the authorities, the lay of the land, and local sources.

I thought the line about searching for another rental was interesting when it said:

"State police are looking for another rental car — a silver 2013 Chrysler 300 with Rhode Island plates 451 375— in connection with the North Attleboro homicide. Police were told there could be up to four occupants in the vehicle."

This is a drag. I hope Hernandez is quickly cleared of any wrong-doing.

Report: New England Patriot Aaron Hernandez questioned in North Attleboro homicide investigation - The Sun Chronicle : Local News

 

[DarrylS]

First - to be clear - if Hernandez did commit a crime here I hope he is caught and punished. My hope is he didn't, but if he did my loyalty to him as a fan of the team I root for ends. This is a murder investigation.

Second - I do not think Des is saying don't talk to the cops under any circumstances. I think he is saying get a competent criminal lawyer to be with you when you talk to the cops. We had a little clarification on this point earlier in the thread and I don't think he and I are that far apart. I can't think of a situation where having a good criminal attorney sitting next to the person when they talk with police in a situation like this can hurt. I am sure there are good defense attorneys who are well known and respected in Bristol County and can advice Hernandez on the best ways to cooperate with the police. If you are going to work with the police than hiring someone the police know and trust is not a bad idea. If he is not involved I hope he tells them everything he knows about his so called "friends." Under the circumstances I expect at least one of them to throw him under the bus.

He is represented by Ropes and Gray, which is labeled as a prominent law firm, sure they are advising him of what to do and what not to do...

Aside from that everything else is speculation...

 

[Master Yates]

Sounds to me that Hernandez knew the dead guy and he was the one driving his rental car. Drug deal gone bad, guaranteed. I don't think Herny did anything wrong except hang out with druggies/drugdealers. I'm sure he isn't totally clean, there was the weed thing that made him slip in the draft. You don't get killed over weed though, which is a little disheartening here.

 

[Deus Irae]

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 . . .

Whether I currently practice one type of law or another is irrelevant. The correct answer to the questions don't hinge on whether I'm currently in divorce law, international law, criminal law, etc...

And I pointed out that I'm a lawyer in response to the poster, who wrote:

That's a great post for an internet forum but meanwhile in the real world, a lawyer would advise an innocent client to allow the search and arrange for it to be done (with the lawyer present, of course).

i wasn't waving bona fides around at the drop of a hat. I know that you want to change the focus because your post was inane, but my current personal particulars are not relevant to the discussion.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Spitting into the wind. people should really wait for some actual facts to emerge before reaching conclusions about what happened and what hernadez role in this was, although regardless of what his involvement was opposing fans will label him a murderer for the rest of his life, just as opposing fans of the Ravens have done to Ray Lewis, who while guilty of obstructing a murder investigation was never a murderer. Hopefully those who root for the Patriots and did just that will now get some understanding of just how irresponsible that really was.

 

[BadMoFo]

Guess he didn't know what type of day it would be yesterday before his first tweet of the day.

Aaron Hernandez ?@AaronHernandez 18 Jun

good morning

 

[SB39]

Whether I currently practice one type of law or another is irrelevant.

No it isn't. If you are a criminal lawyer then you would know much more about criminal law (which is what we are discussing here) than if you were a divorce lawyer.

i wasn't waving bona fides around at the drop of a hat.

Actually, that's exactly what you were doing. But, when pressed for details, you got awfully quiet.

So obviously you're not a criminal lawyer because if you were, you'd be waving that in front of our face too.