Does anyone know?

I don't know whether Court TV exists.

My satellite carries HLN, which carried the Casey Anthony trial but it is not carrying this.

some of you young guys with knowledge of the modern world help me find this trial on TV.

Hey Thanks. I'll check it out!

I bet he walks. People are just that dumb.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

hey chyren, I know little about criminal law, but if it can be established (and I don't think it's really disputed) that Hernandez and 1 other guy left the car with the victim, walked him to a field, came back alone and the dead shot up body was found in the field, what can they convict Hernandez of if they can't prove which of the 2 shot him? Couldn't it be some sort of felony murder?

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I bet he walks. People are just that dumb.


His lawyers have been clamoring for a change of venue,saying that they couldn't sit an impartial jury because everybody local to the area has a biased, pre-determined opinion. yeah....but probably biased in Hernandez's favor as they are all Pats fans. The Defense should want the trial as close to Boston / Foxboro as possible!

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hey chyren, I know little about criminal law, but
> if it can be established (and I don't think it's
> really disputed) that Hernandez and 1 other guy
> left the car with the victim, walked him to a
> field, came back alone and the dead shot up body
> was found in the field, what can they convict
> Hernandez of if they can't prove which of the 2
> shot him? Couldn't it be some sort of felony
> murder?

First, I actually practiced criminal defense in Massachusetts. True story. In the early 70's, certified law students could act as attorneys in misdemeanor cases in district courts, which are called city courts or municipal courts in most states. I worked under both Cambridge-Somerville Legal Services and Harvard Voluntary Defenders.

(Later, in 1978, I Had been five years in the California AG's office civil division until I transferred to the Criminal Division).

Back to your question, that's about as solid a case as one can put together for a conviction.

Judges instruct criminal juries that "Reasonable doubt does not mean elimination of ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT because in the course of human affairs, almost every matter is subject to some hypothetical doubt. But your doubt must be reasonable and not based on the mere proposition that 'all things are possible.'"

Better yet, we prosecutors like to use this old ploy when discussing circumstantial evidence.

"I'm here to show you that circumstantial evidence can be even more trustworthy than direct evidence.

Let's say John is in New England and he looks out side one of his windows one night and sees snow flakes coming down. John says, "I have direct evidence that it snowed. I saw it for Godsakes."

Bill is in Oregon, and the morning after a day without snow, he comes out and sees it has snowed the night before. He didn't see it snowing but the snow on the ground that wasn't there before is circumstantial evidence that it snowed in Oregon the night before. So Bill's circumstantial evidence was right.

But let's go back to John. As it turns out, some teenager's pranked him and were on his roof above his window, shaking down snowflakes.

Here, John the direct evidence guy was wrong and Bill, who relied on circumstantial evidence was right.

So if the prosecutors drum that in, Hernandez is cooked.

I'm guessing (and I do mean guessing) that they'll spare him the murder charge but convict him of some of the multiple lesser charges, which I just tried to search for but could only find murder.

IN other words, isn't he also charged with things like firearm possession, kidnapping, hindering investigation, destroying evidence etc? Those convictions outside of the murder charge would add up to a substantial jail sentence.

Then the same will happen with his next murder charge and at the end of it all he'll be acquitted of the actual murder charges but still spend 20-25 years in jail.

That's my guess.

Manslaughter is a lesser offense than murder that is a theoretical option in any murder case, although not always a practical option. But there has to be proof that it was done in the heat of passion (the highest which is voluntary manslaughter). It carries intent to kill. But you would have to convince the jury that they all decided to go into the woods. Then a sudden quarrel arose and then they all got mad at Odin Llyod. Then one decided to shoot him in anger and then they buried him. That would not sell to even the most pro-defense or most naive jury. This looks like,in mafia terms, there was a plan to "take him for a ride."

I don't think that in the setting of the Boston bombing and the loss of innocent lives, the jury would be in any mood to settle for petty offenses like kidnapping. You have to account for the fact that there is a dead man here, meaning that it is not legally possible to say, "Let's not return any verdict on the death of the man, just kidnapping and weapons possession." The jury has to account for the stiff.

Then why is the defense attorney even trying it and not pleading him guilty? Because it's the client's choice and the problem with such a solid case is that it is the same as an extremely weak case by the prosecutor.

In a weak case, the guy says "I might as well take my chances with the jury because this is a weak case."

But also in a very solid case, the District Attorney has no motive to give you a break and therefore is not going to offer you any lesser deal because he's got a solid case for the maximum punishment. Therefore, if he's only offering the maximum, then you have to go to trial.

There was a hanging type judge in municipal court here in Los Angeles when I used to clerk for the L.A. County Public Defender's office in my summers between my law school in Massachusetts named Marian Obera. The maximum sentence for a misdemeanor offense was Six months in the county jail. Often Judge Obera would be asked what plea bargain would she approve or what sentence would she give on a guilty plea. She would reply "I'll give him six months if he goes to trial and is found guilty and I'll give him six months if he pleads guilty." The defendant would, of course, say, "I'm going to trial."

A guy like Hernandez who is confronted with such a scenario that makes it inescapable that he is guilty is in the same place. Since the evidence is so strong, he has neither a chance of acquittal or the possibility of a good deal or conviction on lesser charges. In short, he's got nothing to lose but that doesn't mean he has a chance to win. When you've got nothing to lose and since you don't have to pay for the trial, why not go to trial, regardless of the stiff odds.

The other cases where you go to trial or when the evidence is weak and the punishment is stiff. Then you might as well roll the dice.

What? It just doesn't seem right for the judge to make that ruling. I'm really surprised. I look at it as proof he was with Hernandez more than an
expression of fear.

I read PFT daily and I remember when the police were gathering their evidence, PFT would provide daily updates on the investigation. When I read about that text message being found I thought to myself that Hernandez is cooked.

What is this judge thinking? Evidence is evidence, and that sent text message is like a personal diary of Loyd that leads up to the time he was killed.

Mike "The Thug" Pouncey is best friends with Hernandez... maybe he can give updates on the trial.

I tend to believe that Hernandez is screwed. He's going to spend the rest of his life in a prison.