Aaron’s Dumb Defense

AAron smilingI’m not at the Hernandez trial so what I write about it is from what I pick up from reading the hearsay sources. I’ve wondered what defense Aaron Hernandez’s would put forward to the jury. If the reports are true his lawyers after receiving all the government’s evidence have come up with a pretty dumb defense.

Reading about his lawyer’s opening statement to the jury convinced me that Aaron can kiss his freedom goodbye. His lawyers told the jury: “Aaron never had a chance. They locked on Aaron and they targeted him.’  But it is really stupid in a case where had the police done otherwise than focus on Hernandez they would have committed malpractice. Defense lawyers want the jury to believe that was done because Hernandez was a big star football player for the Patriots; but in the land of the Patriots where they are worshiped that would be one of the reasons they would have bent over backwards to help him out had they been able to do it.

By using the word “targeting” they wanted to imply some wrongfulness on the cops behalf. The defense lawyers big, big mistake was not recognizing that the cops had no other choice than to focus on Hernandez. They should have praised the cops for focusing on him and suggested it was natural that they do this. Then they could spin the story that despite their best efforts the evidence doesn’t point to his participation in the murder.

The idea that out of the blue these cops implicated Hernandez in a murder plot may fit with the usual way a defense plans it strategy but here it is totally inconsistent with the facts. No juror will accept the idea Hernandez was targeted by evil or incompetent cops hoping to diminish the glow on the Patriots or impede their chances for greater glory.

The defense should have recognized that the facts the cops faced in the beginning gave them no choice but to focus on Hernandez. I assume the first thing they did after identifying Odin Llyod as the victim was reach out to his family to find out what they knew about his whereabouts prior to that time. Here’s one thing that they would have learned. “Hernandez . . . picked up Lloyd from his Dorchester home at 2:33 a.m. in a rented Nissan Altima.” They would also have learned that Llyod and Hernandez were friends.

Put yourself in a cop’s shoes: a kid jogging home from the gym in the early afternoon finds a guy dead. After identifying him, you learn he was picked up by a friend earlier that morning and checking on the friend you find out he lives about a mile away from where the body is found. Who do you focus on? As you see suggesting it was wrong to “target” Hernandez is a non starter. There is nothing to gain from a defense of police animosity or bumbling or whatever since they had no choice but to look at Hernandez.

Perhaps you’ll say the defense has no other choice than to do this because otherwise Hernandez is fried. That may be true but it reminds me of Voltaire’s statement on his death-bed to the priest who asked him if he renounced the Devil. He said: “Father, now is not the time to make new enemies.” In other words why go after the cops when you can have the same defense by saying they are good guys but mistaken. There are some jurors who will be turned off by attacks on cops who did what they should have done.

That’s a bad mistake by defense counsel but there is even a worse one. It is that defense counsel seems to be suggesting Hernandez and Llyod were good friends so there is no way he would have done anything to harm him. That’s going nowhere. A better approach would be to suggest Hernandez had become angry at Llyod for something or other, they had an argument, Hernandez wanted to straighten it out, he brought the other guys Ernest Wallace or Carlos Ortiz with him to help resolve the matter, and then one of them flew off the handle and killed Llyod.

To pull that off Hernandez would have to testify. It’s clear he isn’t going to take the stand. But putting the gun in another’s hand in the spur of the moment or something like it seems to be Hernandez’s only hope.

The evidence in the case that Hernandez has to weave his tale of innocence into is that he was at the secluded spot in North Attleboro with Llyod at the time he was murdered. Defense counsel did not deny this; the prosecutor’s evidence seems to force that conclusion. His problem is that after Llyod is murdered he lets him lie where he fell and does nothing. If you’re such a good friend then you don’t do that.

Defense counsel’s suggestion they were friends will fall on deaf ears and might be so noxious to the jurors that it alone may lead to his conviction. You don’t leave your friend’s body with five bullet holes in it unless you had something to do with the murder. Or, unless you were angry at the friend and his death did not bother you.

I said earlier that was Hernandez’s only chance. There is one other. The judge could direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty on his behalf. She could say the evidence did not show beyond a reasonable doubt Hernandez “knowingly participated” in the murder.

I’ve written how she has kept out of evidence the crucial text’s that were sent by Odin Llyod to his sister just minutes before his murder. He texted: “U see who I’m with?” and “NFL, just so you know.” It could be argued those sent in the early morning hours showed the victim’s fear. Having those the prosecutor could have easily countered Hernandez’s lawyers “no motive” argument. By the way, in a murder case you don’t have to prove motive.

It seems Aaron’s cause is lost because his defense lawyers have bumbled and stumbled into the wrong strategy. They didn’t think outside the box but went with the usual. His only hope is the judge who has been good to him so far.

7 thoughts on “Aaron’s Dumb Defense

  1. I think motive is still an important consideration. It looks like the prosecution isn’t going to be able to present a clear and convincing reason for the murder.

    1. Dan:

      The only cases I prosecuted where motive was important were the arson cases. In a murder case it is sometimes hard to point to one especially if you have a “hit” where there is no known connection between the parties. With Hernandez there’s no way to show how his state of mind operates and what his thought processes are. I’ve seen a lot of cases and instances where someone assaulted another out of the blue. Where you have a guy with what looks like a gun coming back into his house and the guy he was with a short time before lying dead with five bullets within a mile of his house I’m not sure motive will be a determining factor.

      1. Matt: I think the DNA evidence is going to doom Fernandez. Nevertheless, a clear, simple motive would certainly help. Jurors are bound to wonder why Fernandez murdered him.

  2. If AH could testify and claim that Lloyd and Wallace had an argument while in his auto. He pulled into that secluded spot so they could engage in a fistfight. After he let them out Wallace pulled a gun and shot the victim. Wallace then pointed the weapon at AH. AH drove from the scene and was too frightened of Wallace to call the police. Wallace told him to get rid of the gun or he would get what Lloyd got. But AH can’t testify because of the Bradley shooting and other things. So that defense appears to be unavailable. 2. It was reported that the judge instructed the jury that the prosecution doesn’t have to show that AH pulled the trigger just that he was part of the joint venture to kill Lloyd. AH drove the vehicle to pick him up. Drove to the spot of the killing. Then drove back to his own house. Unless he did that under duress how is he not in a common scheme? Did he aid, abet, assist or embolden one in the commission of a crime ? How else can you read the evidence? As you point out a friend wouldn’t leave someone with five shots in him in a remote area without trying to get him assistance. Would this case be similar to a get away driver in a bank robbery. If the driver couldn’t persuade the police or the jury that he didn’t know what was happening. He was just there. The driver would be as culpable as the one who entered the bank with the gun and demanded the money.

    1. NC:

      1. Brilliant analysis. Hernandez should have had you as his defense lawyer. I like the touch of the fight. They all get out at the isolated spot expecting a fist fight (that covers for Hernandez being there) – he and Llyod are friends having just shared a joint – he is trying to be a peacemaker when all of a sudden Wallace pulls out a gun and kills Llyod. He’s shocked. He talks Wallace down and calms him down. He gets the gun from him and takes it to his house. He puts it down and next thing he knows Wallace has it and is threatening him and his family in Connecticut that if they call the cops he’ll kill them all. Not knowing what to do and knowing Wallace is back in Connecticut he’s afraid to do anything. You say that defense is unavailable but it maybe. The judge will not let evidence in about the other shootings. Perhaps after reading your suggestions defense counsel will spring Hernandez on the stand and the prosecution will be unable to touch him. Who knows? Remember Carney said he had Whitey practicing his testimony with five or six lawyers. Maybe defense counsel is doing that already. Plus, he knows the judge will go his way on limiting the cross-examination of Hernandez. You’ve given Hernandez the only hope.

      2. True there’s no doubt as the evidence stands Hernandez is cooked. He’s involved if not the leader in all that happened and is standing over his friends body and does nothing. Unless he testifies or finds some other way to explain that indifference there’s no exit for him unless he testifies. I don’t see him doing it but in the position he is in there is no downside to it.

    1. Dan:

      Putting him over his buddy with five bullets has to be explained or else he’ll spend his time at Cedar Junction forever.

Comments are closed.