Patriots' Hernandez questioned by police in homicide probe

[BradyFTW!]

Except, "counselor" you're forgetting that when you responded to me, we were not talking about the relevant law, we were talking about legal strategy. Oops!
Quite honestly, given your complete lack of professionalism and maturity, not to mention your total evasiveness when challenged on the issue, I doubt you're even really a lawyer in the first place. Just another internet poser wannabe trying to pretend he has credentials he doesn't.

I'm sure you're next response will be how much you don't care what I think, coupled with a silly attempt to further establish your questionable credientials. Of course, if you really didn't care what I thought then you wouldn't bother responding to me. So we'll just have to see how you handle it, "counselor".

As someone who's quite familiar with DI's posting style over the past 6 years or so, it actually makes a ton of sense that he's a lawyer. You do realize that lawyers have personal lives where they presumably conduct themselves slightly less professionally than they would in the courtroom, I hope.

 

[SB39]

You can keep up the awkward ad hominem attacks all you want, SB39, but your initial post was so misinformed and incorrect that you're just digging yourself into a deeper hole. Cooperating with the police is a bad idea when there is no lawyer present.

My initial post in this thread said "Police never name people as "suspects" anymore prior to arresting them. They're always called a "person of interest." And while I don't see any reports officially naming Hernandez a "person of interest" it's clear he's a person the police are interested in.

Please tell me what is so "misinformed and incorrect" about that post. Or, if you are referring to another post of mine as being "misinformed and incorrect", please tell me what part about it you are referencing.

Right now it looks like everything I have said on this situation was accurate. It sure looks like Hernandez was advised by his lawyer to allow the search of his house without a warrant. Which is exactly the strategy I said a lawyer would suggest. So please tell me what I have written in here that is wrong.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Away from the personal attacks and cat fights, news is that the victim semi-pro football player Odin Lloyd dated the sister of Hernandez's girl friend, so there's an association that LE would need to investigate.

 

[PatsDeb]

SI's Michael McCann (who is an actual lawyer) said today on D&C and on Twitter that as of this Monday, in a non-custodial situation (i.e. a situation in which you are free to leave) you need to explicitly invoke your 5th Amendment rights if you want to prevent your silence from being used against you. If you just stay silent without explicitly invoking the 5th, your silence can be used as evidence against you.

That said, I wonder if Hernandez really was in a non-custodial situation. If he had said to the cops "Am I free to go?" when they showed up, would they really have said "Yeah, sure." ? I have my doubts..

Huh? Silence cannot be used against you in a criminal context, even if you have not been Mirandized. I don't think that lawyer knows what he is talking about. I was (ironically) in court yesterday so I did not hear about this until last night and I have not read through the whole thread. I am not a criminal lawyer, but I know enough about criminal law and police practice to know that if the cops come to your property to execute a search warrant, even if they claim over and over again that you are not a suspect, other than politely saying "hello" the first thing you should do is call your own lawyer. Then you should politely refuse all their questions until he/she gets there. It's okay to hide behind the statement, "Sorry, my lawyer told me not to say anything until he/she is present." If they have a warrant, you cannot stop them from searching, but you should not consent to a search nor help them with it.

Criminal law is predicated a lot on procedure and consent. If you consent to searches or say things voluntarily, you cannot keep them out of court. Even if Hernandez is not a suspect at the moment in the murder, what if they find the murder weapon in the trash? Buried in the back yard? What if they are looking for evidence that he knew someone else committed a murder then hid on his property (thereby making him an accessory after the fact)? You have to protect yourself, even if you are innocent, by not giving anything away until you know what is going on. Did you ever notice that when you get pulled over for that proverbial speeding ticket, the first thing the cop asks you is, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" That is to get you to confess to whatever you've done, thereby making it impossible for you to challenge the ticket (your answer, by the way, should always be, "I have no idea, officer."). Murder and associated crimes are a HUGE deal that could ruin Hernandez's life. He absolutely should do nothing without a tough, competent criminal attorney at his side.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Away from the personal attacks and cat fights, news is that the victim semi-pro football player Odin Lloyd dated the sister of Hernandez's girl friend, so there's an association that LE would need to investigate.

Everything else aside, that's a pretty ballsy name. His parents set the bar pretty high. Not quite to the level of God Shammgod, but approaching it.

 

[SB39]

I'm not being evasive, immature, or anything but honest. I'm flat-out telling you that my current job/field/area is none of your business and that it's irrelevant to your question.

If your job is so irrelevant, then why did you bring it up?

While it's absolutely true that I don't really care what you think

Yeah. Sure. And to demonstrate how much you "don't care" what I think, you've responded to my posts about 10 times in this thread.

The reality is that, despite the initial claims of yourself and Yehoodi, attorneys tell their clients not to talk to the police until they've spoken to the attorney. You claiming otherwise flies in the face of what people have posted here,

Now you're just lying about my statements. What I said was that a lawyer would advise an innocent client to allow his house to be searched (with the lawyer present if possible) and not force the police to get a warrant.

It sure looks to me like that is exactly what happened last night.

 

[SB39]

As someone who's quite familiar with DI's posting style over the past 6 years or so, it actually makes a ton of sense that he's a lawyer. You do realize that lawyers have personal lives where they presumably conduct themselves slightly less professionally than they would in the courtroom, I hope.

It is not so much a matter of professionalism as it is a matter of maturity, or lack thereof, demonstrated in the postings, coupled with the lack of logic and clear thinking it requires to be in that profession.

 

[grux]

Where there is smoke there is usually fire. Aaron should know better than to have friends who are drug dealers etc. I hope for his sake that he wasn't involved in the crime. He is going to find out fast that his so called "friends" aren't very loyal.

 

[belichick010405]

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 agree and the Salinas case backs up this premise unless it is under the two exceptions that were primarily cited in the Supreme Court decision released on the 17th.

You have to be explicit in your 5th Amendment protections and have to specifically state it to law enforcement officials while making sure that you have not waived those rights either verbally or in writing.

The Salinas case is now the letter of the law through jurisprudence and if you voluntarily invite questioning and then remain silent on a specific investigatory question, you cannot claim your 5th Amendment rights after the fact. That is the meat of the Salinas case.

If you claim 5th Amendment protection on any law enforcement protection and have not waived those rights prior to voluntarily answering law enforcement questions, law enforcement cannot coerce an answer from you because you are now covered under the Miranda precedent.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Away from the personal attacks and cat fights, news is that the victim semi-pro football player Odin Lloyd dated the sister of Hernandez's girl friend, so there's an association that LE would need to investigate.

Do you have a link?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Now you're just lying about my statements. What I said was that a lawyer would advise an innocent client to allow his house to be searched (with the lawyer present if possible) and not force the police to get a warrant.

It sure looks to me like that is exactly what happened last night.

If that's the case, then it's a textbook example of why you should never consent to having your home searched, because that would most likely be how they got enough evidence to establish probable cause to get a warrant for further searching.

I doubt that that's what happened, though, although of course we don't have enough information yet to know for sure. If he consented to letting them search, then they'd be a lot less likely to need to come back with a warrant later, since if something attracted their interest they would just search it the first time around. Seems more likely that they had a warrant last night, and in the process of searching they uncovered evidence that they were then able to use to get a second search warrant for something that wasn't covered under the first. Perhaps a safe, computer, or something like that. Not sure what the second warrant would be for, since I have no idea what would and would not typically be covered under the initial search warrant. I do know that it's not unusual for one search warrant to turn up evidence that leads to a second warrant, though.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Huh? Silence cannot be used against you in a criminal context, even if you have not been Mirandized

That may have been true up to 10:05am or so on June 17th. However...

Read SCOTUS's decision in Salinas v. Texas that came out that morning . SCOTUS held that in a non-custodial interrogation silence can be held against you unless you explicitly invoke your 5th Amendment right to remain silent.

 

[belichick010405]

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?

BSR - if an individual answers the door and invites a law enforcement official into their home, the individual cannot voluntarily agree to answer questions and then infer his right to remain silent unless he has specifically requested to utilize his 5th Amendment protection.

Additionally, if the police are in "hot pursuit" and the police have advised the property owner that they are in "hot pursuit", the property owner can do a number of things including ensuring that law enforcement has obtained a warrant to search the premises in accordance to what is entailed in the search warrant.

With that said - if you are specifically talking about the initial encounter of a "person answering the door" not having "the right to remain silent", the answer is yes they have the right to remain silent at that specific moment in time and more than likely, the probable cause to search the premises has been met to justify a search warrant which in this case was likely met when it was discovered that the vehicle that was utilized by the two individuals in question of a potential homicide was registered by Aaron which may or may not have produced additional linkage based on further investigatory discovery (i.e. Aaron Hernandez and the two alleged suspects made phone calls and texts between each other from the date of the car rental to the assumed time of the homicide and thereafter).

 

[SB39]

If that's the case, then it's a textbook example of why you should never consent to having your home searched, because that would most likely be how they got enough evidence to establish probable cause to get a warrant for further searching.

Well, like I said, I can't find anything saying they got a warrant. Maybe they did, but I can't find any reports saying so.

Seems more likely that they had a warrant last night, and in the process of searching they uncovered evidence that they were then able to use to get a second search warrant for something that wasn't covered under the first.

Considering the fact that getting a warrant would be a matter of public record, I find it hard to believe that they did get a warrant yet there are no reports anywhere saying "the police exercised a warrant last night..." (or something to that effect).

We know they searched his residence. I certainly admit that maybe later today more will come out but for now, I can't find anything saying they did get a warrant to do so.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

Huh? Silence cannot be used against you in a criminal context, even if you have not been Mirandized.

That would have been true last week, but not anymore:

Supreme Court: Pre-Miranda silence can be used as evidence of guilt | Nation & World | The Seattle Times

 

[BradyFTW!]

I agree and the Salinas case backs up this premise unless it is under the two exceptions that were primarily cited in the Supreme Court decision released on the 17th.

You have to be explicit in your 5th Amendment protections and have to specifically state it to law enforcement officials while making sure that you have not waived those rights either verbally or in writing.

The Salinas case is now the letter of the law through jurisprudence and if you voluntarily invite questioning and then remain silent on a specific investigatory question, you cannot claim your 5th Amendment rights after the fact. That is the meat of the Salinas case.

If you claim 5th Amendment protection on any law enforcement protection and have not waived those rights prior to voluntarily answering law enforcement questions, law enforcement cannot coerce an answer from you because you are now covered under the Miranda precedent.

Very interesting, thanks for the explanation. Definitely something that we should all be aware of, considering that this is now the law of the land as of last week. I may be reading it wrong, but doesn't this precedent mean that it's even more the case that that "voluntarily inviting questioning" is a generally terrible idea?

For example, what if Hernandez is somehow connected to the crime, but he does not realize that that's the case at the outset/doesn't realize exactly what they're questioning him about. This means that, if he does not claim 5th Amendment protection immediately--prior to the beginning of the questioning--then he forfeits his 5th Amendment rights for the duration of questioning, even as it later becomes apparent that he's in a position of incriminating himself?

Sounds like a very odd precedent, to me, but if it's law then it's law. If anything, it seems like it cements the best course of action as being to invoke the 5th Amendment the moment the police attempt to begin questioning you, even if you're not currently aware of any crime/connection, just on the off chance that you may turn out to be incidentally involved in whatever it is that they're investigating. That would look pretty bad in front of a jury, though.

 

[belichick010405]

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.

Master Yates - I had a good friend that was "killed over weed" in 1988 in Boston.

 

[JMC00]

Now that we know the victim was dating the sister of Hernandez's girlfriend*. My gut tells me Hernandez was renting the car for the victim to use.

I just have a difficult time thinking Hernandez killed the guy and then just left him in a car rented in his name.


*WBZ reported it.

 

[Rob0729]

If that's the case, then it's a textbook example of why you should never consent to having your home searched, because that would most likely be how they got enough evidence to establish probable cause to get a warrant for further searching.

I doubt that that's what happened, though, although of course we don't have enough information yet to know for sure. If he consented to letting them search, then they'd be a lot less likely to need to come back with a warrant later, since if something attracted their interest they would just search it the first time around. Seems more likely that they had a warrant last night, and in the process of searching they uncovered evidence that they were then able to use to get a second search warrant for something that wasn't covered under the first. Perhaps a safe, computer, or something like that.

You never willingly consent to let the police search your house. You willingly let them search your house without a warrant and anything they find is fair game. They can search anywhere in the house unless you stop them and can seize any evidence for any crime.

With a warrant, the scope of where they can look (assuming they are saying they are searching Hernandez's things, they cannot search the room of person living with them) and what evidence they are looking for. It protects Hernandez from them trying to drum up other charges to hold him if they are trying to build a case against him. Granted if they do find evidence of another felony, they can always obtain a new warrant.

It may make him look guilty to the public, but Hernandez is doing the right thing even if he is 100% innocent. He hasn't been ruled out as a suspect. Until he is (and even after to be perfectly honest), he shouldn't give unlimited cooperation to the police. Too many people who do end up going to jail even if they are 100% innocent.

I will tell you right now that if the police ever wanted to question me about a felony unless they were 100% sure I was only a witness, I would lawyer up and not give them unlimited access to my home.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You never willingly consent to let the police search your house. You willingly let them search your house without a warrant and anything they find is fair game. They can search anywhere in the house unless you stop them and can seize any evidence for any crime.

With a warrant, the scope of where they can look (assuming they are saying they are searching Hernandez's things, they cannot search the room of person living with them) and what evidence they are looking for. It protects Hernandez from them trying to drum up other charges to hold him if they are trying to build a case against him. Granted if they do find evidence of another felony, they can always obtain a new warrant.

It may make him look guilty to the public, but Hernandez is doing the right thing even if he is 100% innocent. He hasn't been ruled out as a suspect. Until he is (and even after to be perfectly honest), he shouldn't give unlimited cooperation to the police. Too many people who do end up going to jail even if they are 100% innocent.

I will tell you right now that if the police ever wanted to question me about a felony unless they were 100% sure I was only a witness, I would lawyer up and not give them unlimited access to my home.

Exactly, that's why my initial speculation would be that they likely had an initial warrant, then uncovered evidence that compelled them to go and get a second warrant to search something that fell outside the scope of the first. If they were searching with Hernandez's consent, and were not bound by the scope of an initial warrant, then I'm not sure why they would need to go back and get a second one, since they could just search whatever they wanted at that point.

Seems that way to me, at least. I'm by no means an expert on this stuff.