Interesting Twist to Aaron Hernandez Suicide
Apparently, because of a legal rule called "abatement" in Massachusetts, Hernandez will be deemed legally innocent in the Odin Lloyd case - not the case he was just acquitted in, but the original case where he was already found guilty and sentenced to life. This is because he had filed an appeal that never was able to progress through the legal system, leaving open the possibility of his innocence. And because of this, Hernandez - technically - died an innocent man.
To any MGoLawyers out there, does this have ramifications for any civil proceedings against Hernandez? I would imagine it has to. And I'm not saying it does, but this could help explain both the why and the timing of his suicide, assuming Hernandez knew about abatement.
Link: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/19/us/aaron-hernandez-conviction-abatement/i…
Might be a lawyer groupie
Law student to be extant
April 20th, 2017 at 12:46 AM ^
April 19th, 2017 at 11:28 PM ^
Only probatable assets...... Beneficiaries are not liable
Deep with a gang and talked too much ? Maybe he knew he was dead either way .
April 19th, 2017 at 10:13 PM ^
Biblical quotes on the forehead. Rumors of holes in his hands and feet. We saw Hernandez speak a couple of weeks before the Lloyd murder at a National Pop Warner event where he won the Inspiration to Youth award.
On the positive side, as a MA taxpayer I won't have to pay for the next 40-50 years for his incarcination.
April 19th, 2017 at 11:58 PM ^
the criminal proceedings themselves (e.g., testimony) out of the civil case. I read an article today about that angle. I do not do crim. or anything anywhere I'm not licensed, but it seems like civil discovery would be a workaround. You would have to re-evidence the facts (reinterview, re-depose, etc) vs throwing down the crim. trial transcript and saying "res ipsa loquitor, bitches."
The key here is the term "collateral estoppel," which is basically a legal doctrine which provides that once an issue has been decided by one court, that finding is generally going to be binding on other courts applying the same or a lower standard of proof.
As has been discussed above, criminal prosecutions require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt--the highest evidentiary standard there is. So if a person has been convicted of murdering a specific person, that conviction will automatically establish liability for the wrongful death of the victim in a civil case (where only a preponderance of evidence is needed). As a tactical matter, most injury lawyers would put on the factual evidence of the murder anyway in order to make a strong impression on the jury (who would determine the amount of damages to award). But the court would simply not be allowed to find that the defendant didn't do it--such a finding would be inconsistent with the criminal conviction and thus violate the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
Now, there are a few scenarios where collateral estoppel doesn't apply. One of those is where the person against whom the prior finding was entered did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter to its conclusion. That exception would seem to apply here, where Hernandez passed away while he still had appeals pending. So that would prevent the civil court from being bound by the conviction and required to automatically find Hernandez liable by virtue of collateral estoppel. Yet as others have explained, if there was enough evidence to secure a conviction (even a potentially flawed conviction) then there is almost certainly enough evidence to establish liability even without the benefit of collateral estoppel.
/another non-Massachusetts lawyer here
April 20th, 2017 at 10:10 AM ^
April 20th, 2017 at 11:16 AM ^
Excellent explanation of collateral estoppel.
It should be noted that the vacating of the conviction is not a determination of "innocence." The Massachusetts concept of Abatement "Ab Initio" means "from the beginning." In essence, the case stands as if the Hernandez had died prior to his trial -- as someone arrested and accused of a crime.
I would also point out the difference between criminal and civil cases. The criminal case is an action by the Government against an individual. By breaking the law, that person has essentially struck at the basis of good society and must be punished. Because the Constitution provides strong protections for the individual against the Government, the government's case must be proved "betyond a reasonable doubt."
Civil cases are private actions by one party against one or several other people or entities for harm done. The recourse is largely (although not necessarily exclusively) monetary. These cases require proof by a preponderance of the evidence, i.e., >50%.
The Commonwealth was unable to convince a jury of guilt of the much higher "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in the second murder trial. Nevertheless, the familes of the two victims in that case still have a civil cause of action against the now Hernandez estate. They would only have to prove liability by a 'preponderance" of the evidence.
The vacating of the conviction in the first murder case does not vitiate the rights in civil court of any of the parties. As EGD, notes it does prevent those parties of the ability to submit the conviction as proof of liability. They may develop and present evidence of liability otherwise.
Because the damages in the civil cases are monetary, what remains to be seen is exactly how much of the Hernadez estate remains to satisfy any potential judgment. I would suspect that a settlement is likely to save the expense of costly trials.
***Please note that this commentary is general and illustrative in nature and should not be relied upon as advice in any specific case. If you intend to commit first degree murder in Massachusetts, or have the misfortune of being murdered or are related to someone murdered here, I recommend you consult counsel.
April 20th, 2017 at 11:48 AM ^
For your disclaimer alone.
April 20th, 2017 at 12:38 PM ^
Might be worth a shot though.