Explosive new Hernandez details: the sequel

[Deus Irae]

......and it IS a crime to destroy your own property if it is deemed to be evidence of another crime.

The above is only true if the prosecution proves that the destruction was done with the requisite intent.

 

[Concerned_Citizen]

The above is only true if the prosecution proves that the destruction was done with the requisite intent.

So there is still a chance they can argue that he destroyed his security system and phone accidently without knowing it could shed some light on this matter of his murdered friend?

I could buy that... ... ...

....

....

Or do they even need to make an argument at all?

 

[Deus Irae]

So there is still a chance they can argue that he destroyed his security system and phone accidently without knowing it could shed some light on this matter of his murdered friend?

I could buy that... ... ...

....

....

Or do they even need to make an argument at all?

Assuming the reports of a destroyed security system are correct, the prosecution will have to prove several things to a jury:

It was destroyed after the murder (or at least after the murder [or something else illegal] was planned)
It was destroyed deliberately
It was destroyed in order to get rid of evidence or to obstruct an investigation

The same thing will hold in the case of the cell phone, if the reports about it being destroyed are true.


That leaves room for several different defense arguments, if the defense should choose to make one.

 

[Concerned_Citizen]

Assuming the reports of a destroyed security system are correct, the prosecution will have to prove several things to a jury:

It was destroyed after the murder (or at least after the murder [or something else illegal] was planned)
It was destroyed deliberately
It was destroyed in order to get rid of evidence or to obstruct an investigation

The same thing will hold in the case of the cell phone, if the reports about it being destroyed are true.


That leaves room for several different defense arguments, if the defense should choose to make one.

That would be damn near impossible to prove unless they were able to salvage whatever was in the devices, or if someone that knew what was on it came forward.

Destroying evidence... so it is really more of an add-on charge then?

Cuz if they were able to prove that what he did was destroy actual evidence that he committed the crime he was covering up, then they'd already be able to prove he did the crime itself, right?

If they were able to salvage the evidence, or found more evidence that proved he deliberately destroyed the evidence, he'd have much bigger problems than a tampering with evidence charge.

 

[serifyn]

Got to believe all of these shots in the proverbial dark mean the police are having difficulty building a case against anyone, particularly AH.

I am now beginning to believe that the arrest warrent the police have waiting for him exists only to intimidate Hernandez and force him into cooperating, if it was going to be executed, it would have likely been done by now.

Perhaps it will be difficult to prove obstruction of justice as well seeing as how the destruction of evidence took place between the police were asking for it, at this point it would still be his personal property, not the focus of a homicide investigation.

It looks guilty as hell, but as far as we know, there is still no direct link the police has found between Hernandez and the murder of his friend.

 

[Deus Irae]

That would be damn near impossible to prove unless they were able to salvage whatever was in the devices, or if someone that knew what was on it came forward.

It really depends on surrounding circumstances, and the jury.

Destroying evidence... so it is really more of an add-on charge then?

Usually, but that doesn't mean it won't have an impact. Just ask Martha Stewart, who was not found guilty of the underlying crime (securities fraud), but went to jail on conspiracy, obstruction and lying (false statements) charges.

Cuz if they were able to prove that what he did was destroy actual evidence that he committed the crime he was covering up, then they'd already be able to prove he did the crime itself, right?

Not necessarily. The case for the actual crime could seem underwhelming for the jury, the actions could have been taken to protect someone else rather than himself, etc...

If they were able to salvage the evidence, or found more evidence that proved he deliberately destroyed the evidence, he'd have much bigger problems than a tampering with evidence charge.

Possibly, but see just above.

 

[patsfanincleveland]

Assuming the reports of a destroyed security system are correct, the prosecution will have to prove several things to a jury:

It was destroyed after the murder (or at least after the murder [or something else illegal] was planned)
It was destroyed deliberately
It was destroyed in order to get rid of evidence or to obstruct an investigation

The same thing will hold in the case of the cell phone, if the reports about it being destroyed are true.


That leaves room for several different defense arguments, if the defense should choose to make one.

Mr Defense Attorney: Aaron....did you destroy your system and phone?

AH: Yes....yes I did

Mr Defense Attorney: Why?

AH: Ever hear of "Bountygate"? I work in the NFL. In the NFL, there is this dumb azz commissioner who really seems to like to suspend players despite zero evidence..........................

 

[supafly]

Assuming the reports of a destroyed security system are correct, the prosecution will have to prove several things to a jury:

It was destroyed after the murder (or at least after the murder [or something else illegal] was planned)
It was destroyed deliberately
It was destroyed in order to get rid of evidence or to obstruct an investigation
It was actually destroyed by Hernandez himself

The same thing will hold in the case of the cell phone, if the reports about it being destroyed are true.


That leaves room for several different defense arguments, if the defense should choose to make one.

Is it safe to say that the addition that I made would certainly hold true?

Unless of course, it was done by someone else with Hernandez's knowledge--which would fall into the same vein.

There certainly seem to be a handful of aspects that they have to prove without any doubt, so it may not be as cut and dried as some may think.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

could we keep all the explosions to one thread please?

Thanks...

 

[IllegalContact]

somebody somewhere jumped the gun on the arrest warrant.......

 

[Deus Irae]

Is it safe to say that the addition that I made would certainly hold true?

Unless of course, it was done by someone else with Hernandez's knowledge--which would fall into the same vein.

There certainly seem to be a handful of aspects that they have to prove without any doubt, so it may not be as cut and dried as some may think.

What you mention (need him destroying it as an element) is accurate but, just to clarify my breakdown, I was responding to a post that had that as a built-in part of the hypo:

So there is still a chance they can argue that he destroyed his security system and phone accidently without knowing it could shed some light on this matter of his murdered friend?

 

[Tunescribe]

The law-enforcement noose begins to tighten:

 

[moosekill]

That is one thing people are overlooking while trying to pin this all on AH.

1. It is certainly possible that other people had access to both his phone as well as his surveillance system and could have destroyed it, including his live in girlfriend who's sister was dating the dead man. Additionally, it seem AH has a possy of some sort or another that has hung out with him in the past. Certainly possible for one of them to grab a phone off the table and smash it.

IE my ex wife got pissed at me one time, and smashed my iphone. I hadn't killed anyone, so I didn't end up in legal trouble, except for the divorce that followed, but you all get the point.

2. It was mentioned a while back, but if AH didn't commit the murder, but there were other, incriminating things that went on there, it certainly might have made sense to destroy the phone and video system. If he had nothing to do with the murder, and that was all police were investigating him for, is it destruction of evidence?

IE pictures of AH having sex with a donkey, illegal, but he isn't be investigated for it. He is suddenly afraid the pictures will become public, smashes video system. Now in this case, he had nothing what so ever to do with the murder, knows that, so has he really destroyed any evidence??


The other thing people keep bringing up the surveillance system. Given, my system is older, but my video is all stored on a hard drive in the main unit itself. If I destroyed that, and managed to clean the hard drive, there would be no video.

IE I smash the system pull out the hard drive and grab the little pile of rare earth magnets I have sitting on my refrigerator and put the entire group of them on the hard drive. I believe, in the real world, not Law and order Las Vegas, that there would be a very very minute chance the authorities would get any data from it.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

the cause...

 

[makoute]

somebody somewhere jumped the gun on the arrest warrant.......

That is an understatement.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Mass jury instruction on destruction of evidence and consciousness of guilt......
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan.../pdf/3580-evidence-consciousness-of-guilt.pdf

[FONT=&quot]You have heard evidence suggesting that the defendant:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Page 1[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Instruction 3.580[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2009 Edition[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You have heard evidence suggesting that the defendant:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]may have intentionally tried to (conceal) (destroy)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (falsify) evidence in this case[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]……………………..[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Instruction 3.580[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If the Commonwealth has proved that the defendant did [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot],[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]you may consider whether such actions indicate feelings of guilt by the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]defendant and whether, in turn, such feelings of guilt might tend to show[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]actual guilt on (this charge) (these char[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ges). You are not required to draw[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]such inferences, and you should not do so unless they appear to be[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]reasonable in light of all the circumstances of this case. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you decide that such inferences are reasonable, it will be up to you[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]to decide how much importance to give them. But you should always[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]remember that there may be numerous reasons why an innocent person[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]might do such things. Such conduct does not necessarily reflect feelings[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]of guilt. Please also bear in mind that a person having feelings of guilt is[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]not necessarily guilty in fact, for such feelings are sometimes found in[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]innocent people.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]------------------------------------[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Above is not legal advice, get your own attorney .....
[/FONT]

 

[PATSNUTme]

 

[Tunescribe]

Eyewitness speaks anonymously ...

 

[Pewsterbaby]

Hey Deus, you got links for any a' that stuff? (tehee. inside running joke. something to do with ye ol' meat packing plant.)

 

[fnordcircle]

**BREAKING** The Most explosivest Hernandez details yet. **BREAKING**

The Draw Play - Hernandez faces Justice