OT: AH double murder trial What says you fine juror? POLL - Verdict Not Guilty

[Biffins]

I don't think so. It's probably a "double jeopardy" problem.

How is it double jeopardy, as Murder in the First, is a different charge than Accessory to Murder.

I am also confused on mechanics here. Suppose there was a murder committed and police can verify that the shots came from a car with two guys in it and they both have their fingerprints on the gun and they both say the other guy did it. The prosecution, independently, tries both for Murder in the First, and the juries acquit them both since they can't prove who fired the shot........ does that mean both go free? How is this possible.

 

[Alternator]

How is it double jeopardy, as Murder in the First, is a different charge than Accessory to Murder.

I am also confused on mechanics here. Suppose there was a murder committed and police can verify that the shots came from a car with two guys in it and they both have their fingerprints on the gun and they both say the other guy did it. The prosecution, independently, tries both for Murder in the First, and the juries acquit them both since they can't prove who fired the shot........ does that mean both go free? How is this possible.

Double jeopardy protects against more than just the same charges - it protects against different charges being filed for the same offense. In the case of the Hernandez trial, it would protect against being charged with 'lesser' forms of murder, such as manslaughter. It does not protect against something like conspiracy to commit murder or accessory to murder, but Hernandez's acquittal creates an almost insurmountable barrier to succeeding on those charges - Bradley's past testimony would completely discredit him as a witness in conspiracy or accessory charges, and there isn't anything else to prove Hernandez's involvement.

In the example case, yes, both men will go free - neither can be proven to have fired the shots. A cautious prosecutor will seek out more favorable charges, such as accessory to murder rather than first degree murder, and seek to prove that they took part in the killings at all, rather than requiring that the defendant actually pulled the trigger. Another possibility would be to offer a favorable plea bargain to one defendant, and seek to use their testimony to strengthen the case against the other. This is what happened in the Hernandez trial, but Bradley was an exceptionally weak witness due to his own criminal past, and his admitted revenge motive.

 

[PatsDeb]

How is it double jeopardy, as Murder in the First, is a different charge than Accessory to Murder.

I am also confused on mechanics here. Suppose there was a murder committed and police can verify that the shots came from a car with two guys in it and they both have their fingerprints on the gun and they both say the other guy did it. The prosecution, independently, tries both for Murder in the First, and the juries acquit them both since they can't prove who fired the shot........ does that mean both go free? How is this possible.

What he said. You've got to bring all of the charges that you could have brought for the same offense. If the charges contradict each other, you've either got to ask the jury to find "in the alternative" (which would weaken the murder charge) or forget about lesser charges and go with the strongest one. They rolled the dice on him being found guilty of murder rather than as an accessory, and lost.

 

[DarrylS]

Well said Alternator and PatsDeb...

AG's only have so many resources, and usually have a huge caseload.. so they might want to spend more time on the Lloyd case, if appealed, than this one, this case used a lot of resources and took away from other cases. Sometimes they use the "shiney bead" theory of how they decide to proceed, instead of trying to obtain justice for a lot of aggrieved parties. Sure the talk shows are talking about how the AG failed, to an extent they did, however despite the overwhelming number of cases they prosecute successfully, sometimes they lose to very good litigators..

IN RI I am involved in a case that I discovered where $450K was stolen from the operating account of a cooperative corp. for senior citizens, have a difficult time getting the AG to act, but every night on the news I watch while the AG publicly masturbates on TV because they caught some dude stealing $15K of food stamps or some councilmen embezzled $9K from some little league fund, often what the AG decides to prosecute is dictated by what will give him or her the best bang for their buck on the 6:00 PM news..

From our Constitution, the fifth amendment..

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[moosekill]

Murder is legal in 49 states?

No, originally AH was arrested on weapons possessions charges. The discussion in these posts are about what will happen to the original murder charge. The state held up those murders as the prime motive for him committing the second murder. I would think his legal team will try and use the new not guilty verdict as a way to get his original murder verdict thrown out and look for a new trial.

However, what I was referencing was the fact that he is still guilty of the weapons charges, regardless of whether or not he gets the original murder verdict thrown out. What always interested me, however, was the fact that those weapons charges only come about because Mass has laws on the books that would not apply if AH had lived in just about any other state in the union.

 

[Ring 6]

No, originally AH was arrested on weapons possessions charges. The discussion in these posts are about what will happen to the original murder charge. The state held up those murders as the prime motive for him committing the second murder. I would think his legal team will try and use the new not guilty verdict as a way to get his original murder verdict thrown out and look for a new trial.

However, what I was referencing was the fact that he is still guilty of the weapons charges, regardless of whether or not he gets the original murder verdict thrown out. What always interested me, however, was the fact that those weapons charges only come about because Mass has laws on the books that would not apply if AH had lived in just about any other state in the union.

But he still killed Lloyd and has been convicted of it.

 

[moosekill]

But he still killed Lloyd and has been convicted of it.

Yes, however the next step for AH's legal team will be to go for a retrial. If they get a retrial, and if the murder conviction is overturned, there will still be those pesky old gun charges.

I have no idea how much of the state's case in the LLoyd trial were based upon the murders AH was just found innocent of, but good lawyers will certainly be making the case.

 

[Ivan]

Yes, however the next step for AH's legal team will be to go for a retrial. If they get a retrial, and if the murder conviction is overturned, there will still be those pesky old gun charges.

I have no idea how much of the state's case in the LLoyd trial were based upon the murders AH was just found innocent of, but good lawyers will certainly be making the case.

The judge in the Lloyd case (Garsh) didn't allow any references to the drive by because it hadn't been adjudicated, so the prosecution got the conviction without connecting it to the double murder. Because of that, and the way that Garsh bent over backwards to protect Hernandez rights in the first case I don't think his lawyers will be successful in getting a retrial for the Lloyd conviction.

 

[PatsDeb]

The judge in the Lloyd case (Garsh) didn't allow any references to the drive by because it hadn't been adjudicated, so the prosecution got the conviction without connecting it to the double murder. Because of that, and the way that Garsh bent over backwards to protect Hernandez rights in the first case I don't think his lawyers will be successful in getting a retrial for the Lloyd conviction.

Agreed. He's still in jail for life on Lloyd. They aren't going to be able to overturn that one. There was too much independent evidence.

 

[Ivan]

Agreed. He's still in jail for life on Lloyd. They aren't going to be able to overturn that one. There was too much independent evidence.

I agree, I think most people saw the drive by as the underlying motive for the Lloyd murder but Garsh prohibited the prosecution from making that case, so they got the conviction without it. The irony is that the Hernandez team undoubtedly saw that as victory when she made that ruling and now that will likely be the reason he can't get a new trial for the Lloyd conviction.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, however the next step for AH's legal team will be to go for a retrial. If they get a retrial, and if the murder conviction is overturned, there will still be those pesky old gun charges.

I have no idea how much of the state's case in the LLoyd trial were based upon the murders AH was just found innocent of, but good lawyers will certainly be making the case.

Your comment was in any other state he wouldn't have been doing anything wrong. He killed Lloyd.