Patriots' Hernandez questioned by police in homicide probe

[Yehoodi]

How so? No charges have been filed against them. They're not fugitives. Letting them crash at his place isn't illegal. It appears that they showed up with arrest warrants, went in, and got the guys. Either that or they consented to questioning.

Either way, everything's happening by the books. Hernandez has done nothing wrong in how he's handled the situation so far, based on what we've seen. As long as he's not involved in the crime, everything's fine.

yes and no . . . contrary to the internet lawyers on this board, and real ones making statements about no talking to the cops . . .

If someone commits a crimes and you harbor that criminal, knowing that he committed a crime and harbor him with the specific intent to help him avoid capture, you become an accessory after the fact here in Massachusetts . . .

 

[Jandkmom]

Hate this to be my first post, but shouldn't there be more concern that someone died, no matter how the connection.

 

[SB39]

The prosecution's job is to convict you. Again, whether you're guilty or not is beside the point for them. They're in it for the convictions: that's their job, and that's also the basis on which they're evaluated.

So, to reiterate: nobody in this whole system is looking out for you. Nobody has a vested interest in seeing that innocent people get off the hook. If they have enough evidence that they think they can get a conviction, then they will attempt to do that. That wouldn't change even if they knew that you were, in fact, innocent.

That's an absolute lie. A prosecutor in the Commonwealth is ethically bound to not go after someone whom they believe is innocent.

Chapter 3 - Rules of Professional Conduct 3.8

RULE 3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

[1] A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

I'll ask you the same question no one seems to want to answer:

Say you're in a bar and a woman tells the police you smacked her when you did no such thing (suppose for the sake of argument she got the wrong guy). So the cop comes up to ask you what's going on. Are you going to follow all this "never talk to the police without a lawyer" advice?

Apple, meet orange

 

[belichick010405]

So what you're saying is that, if I tell you that I murdered a hobo down by the train tracks in October of last year, and you don't turn me in to the police for having said that, you're now facing charges too?

No - I am definitely not saying that.

If you have a rental car that is in your name and the vehicle has been involved in a homicide that may have been perpetrated by two individuals that you are also connected to, then there is probable cause that you are already connected to the incident in the eyes of law enforcement.

If the incident was made aware to Hernandez prior to the felonious act and Hernandez does not report what was communicated to him, then yes, there is probable cause for an arrest warrant on Hernandez as an accomplice.

If the incident was made aware to Hernandez after the felonious act and Hernandez does not report the incident to the rental car company, which has become a part of the law enforcement agencies' investigation, combined with the fact that the two individuals, that were believed to have used the vehicle, are also at his house and the police are in "hot pursuit" and have reason to believe that the individuals are at his house, then yes, that can lead to an obstruction charge.

 

[BradyFTW!]

yes and no . . . contrary to the internet lawyers on this board, and real ones making statements about no talking to the cops . . .

If someone commits a crimes and you harbor that criminal, knowing that he committed a crime and harbor him with the specific intent to help him avoid capture, you become an accessory after the fact here in Massachusetts . . .

"specific intent to help him avoid capture" is the key part there. Also knowing that he committed a crime. It would be incredibly difficult to prove either.

Hell, I've actually done that, in the state of Massachusetts no less. I let someone stay with me after he confessed to committing a crime. When questioned, I openly admitted to this, and they didn't particularly care because it isn't a crime.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I'll ask you the same question no one seems to want to answer:

Say you're in a bar and a woman tells the police you smacked her when you did no such thing (suppose for the sake of argument she got the wrong guy). So the cop comes up to ask you what's going on. Are you going to follow all this "never talk to the police without a lawyer" advice?

I would say "I did not hit her". I would refrain from answering any other questions.

Not really a valid comparison, in any case.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

That's an absolute lie. A prosecutor in the Commonwealth is ethically bound to not go after someone whom they believe is innocent.

Chapter 3 - Rules of Professional Conduct 3.8

RULE 3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

[1] A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence.

Yea. You mean like a politician would never lie? gotcha

 

[voluntarysaftey]

I'd like the extent of it to be that somone borrowed the car that he was renting, then killed someone without his knowledge. Even if that is the extent of this, you can bet that the media will probably jump all over, and mis-report, it.

If you let your friend murder someone in your rental car, that's a pretty big deal even if you didn't know he planned on murdering someone -- it basically means you are associating yourself with scumbags.

Best case is whoever was driving the car just happened to drive by the scene and thus become associated. I don't think that explains why the police would search his home though -- unless they believe something/someone is connected.

 

[BradyFTW!]

That's an absolute lie. A prosecutor in the Commonwealth is ethically bound to not go after someone whom they believe is innocent.

Chapter 3 - Rules of Professional Conduct 3.8

RULE 3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

[1] A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence.

The bolded portion is what matters, and is what makes my statement true. To have enough evidence to convict you, then at a bare minimum that means that they have enough evidence to claim probably cause. If they can't even do that, then they won't press charges in the first place, since they won't be able to convict you.

 

[SB39]

Supreme Court Justice Jackson:



FindLaw | Cases and Codes



Despite what the police and governmnent like you to believe, there's a vast difference between "not cooperating" and "obstruction".

I assume you missed my question before, so I'll ask it again: what kind of lawyer are you?

 

[fnordcircle]

I'll ask you the same question no one seems to want to answer:

Say you're in a bar and a woman tells the police you smacked her when you did no such thing (suppose for the sake of argument she got the wrong guy). So the cop comes up to ask you what's going on. Are you going to follow all this "never talk to the police without a lawyer" advice?

I don't know what I'd do because I've never been in that position and sometimes we act the opposite of how we hope we would.

I'd like to think I'd say "Am I being taken into custody, sir?" followed by "Am I free to go, sir?" If the answer to the first question was 'yes' I'd say I'd like a lawyer present for all conversations with law enforcement.

What I'd actually do, as a regular joe who has never had too much trouble with the law, might differ but it doesn't make the 'Don't talk to cops' approach wrong, it makes me a person who is sometimes prone to nerves overriding training.

 

[Pewsterbaby]

Hate this to be my first post, but shouldn't there be more concern that someone died, no matter how the connection.

no. lol! maybe it was some despicable scumbag.
anywhays, nothin' trumps our precious Pats quest for a 4th Lombardi, not even the sanctity of a human life.
welcome to the board.
remember this whack rhetoric an' you'll be fine, jus' fine around here.

 

[Nitro]

It's almost never smart to cooperate with the police

Almost never? There's nothing you can possibly say to a cop that will make your life better in any way, only worse.

I wouldn't even answer a "nice weather we're having" from a cop, nothing good can come from it.

 

[scout]

Even if his acquaintances killed someone, told him about it, and he told them to stay at his place, then they were taken into custody from his place until the police arrived with a warrant, there's nothing wrong with that. If anything, it made the police's job easier since they had a pretty easy time finding the guys.

Nothing wrong with that, provided the player was wearing a Patriot's uniform? Are you freakin' serious. A person was murdered and the "murderer" tells a homeowner. The homeowner, does nothing? So if the murderer's name is Whitey Bulger the homeowner is guilty, but not Hernandez. Hopefully, I read your post incorrectly.

 

[SB39]

I would say "I did not hit her". I would refrain from answering any other questions.

Not really a valid comparison, in any case.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. OK. So if you were innocent, you would proclaim your innocence and all this "NEVER talk to the police without a lawyer" just got thrown out the window.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[SB39]

Yea. You mean like a politician would never lie? gotcha

I am not going to suggest there's no corruption in the public sphere, I'm just correcting someone who said a prosector's job is to prosecute people, even if they knew the accused was innocent.

And call me crazy, but I don't think the members of the Massachusetts criminal justice system operating in North Attleboro right now are out to railroad Aaron Hernandez.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. OK. So if you were innocent, you would proclaim your innocence and all this "NEVER talk to the police without a lawyer" just got thrown out the window.

Thank you for proving my point.

I didn't prove anything. You both misread what I said and are clearly incapable of having an adult conversation on this subject matter.

In that case, I would say that I didn't hit her simply on the grounds that there are no real conceivable negative consequences. There's no room for interpretation, nothing that they could possibly deduce from it, and no way that it could conflict with other statements or be misinterpreted or mis-remembered. I'd just be doing it as a courtesy to expedite the process and get me home faster, knowing that there was an entire room full of witnesses to vouch for me and ensure that I wouldn't be a suspect.Even still, legally speaking I'd be better off not answering.

Like I said: you chose a terrible comparison.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Hate this to be my first post, but shouldn't there be more concern that someone died, no matter how the connection.

There should be, I suppose. There really should be. Murders should be so rare that there's no such thing as "just another murder... except a football player is affected by it."

But unless there are a big stash of incredibly novel and different details, the murder ends up in the compartment of our brains where we put murders.

The part that sticks is that a football player appears to be at least tangentially involved.

So, all I have heard is a body was recovered, there was a rental car, it was rented in Hernandez's name, and cops are all over his house.

I'm a Patriots fan rather than a crime fan (although those exist too.) Ditto most of the guys here. So I have to admit that while by the dictates of reason it's more important that a heart will never again beat, two eyes will never again see, loved ones are grieving, and dreams will never be realized... my first thought was "crap. I really hope Hernandez wasn't in this deep. And I hope he didn't let Ray Lewis borrow his license to get a rental car."

RIP, thus-far-unnamed victim, and may your killers be brought to justice.

Hope Aaron's not involved.

Both valid sentiments.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Nothing wrong with that, provided the player was wearing a Patriot's uniform? Are you freakin' serious. A person was murdered and the "murderer" tells a homeowner. The homeowner, does nothing? So if the murderer's name is Whitey Bulger the homeowner is guilty, but not Hernandez. Hopefully, I read your post incorrectly.

You didn't. He is under no legal obligation to do the police's job for them.