Maybe this isn't political, but I'd like opinions on the delay in the Aaron Hernandez trial. While I believe he is guilty of several murders, he deserves a fair trial. He has been in jail for well over a year with no movement towards a trial. How 'speedy' does a trial have to be before it becomes unconstitutional?
Not a lawyer, but I seem to recall that his defense has requested and supported a delay in the trial. If that's the case, then I don't think it'd be a violation to the right to a speedy trial. Certain things, iirc, can't be counted against the time to determine if it's a speedy trial or not. For example, motions.
Quote:Not a lawyer, but I seem to recall that his defense has requested and supported a delay in the trial. If that's the case, then I don't think it'd be a violation to the right to a speedy trial. Certain things, iirc, can't be counted against the time to determine if it's a speedy trial or not. For example, motions.
Isn't that how most cases go? The court sets a date and both the defense and prosecution go "OMG, that is like, WAY too soon. It's totally not enough time to get my arguments ready. #crapjudges #justlawyerthings". And then the court lets them set figure it out together.
It may be true that his own lawyers requested an extension. However, from what (little) I've read the prosecution is still collecting evidence. Wouldn't it have been smart for his lawyers to push for an early date rather than allow the prosecution time to find a 'smoking gun?'
Not really. They had motions that they needed to file, as well as preparation time themselves. The defense can't just go "They're not going to be prepared, let's have the trial tomorrow!" The prosecution can delay the case for a fair amount of time themselves before it's considered to hurt his defense.
Hernandez best chance is probably to let the waters settle a little and make some kind of play for a life sentence.
Quote:Hernandez best chance is probably to let the waters settle a little and make some kind of play for a life sentence.
I don't think Mass. has the death penalty.
Maybe the lawyers are just stringing it along to milk more of his fat NFL bonus windfall.
Quote:I don't think Mass. has the death penalty.
Maybe the lawyers are just stringing it along to milk more of his fat NFL bonus windfall.
Huh didn't even think about that, you're probably right Mass wouldn't have a death penalty. I don't know why the would delay the trail then in that case?
Quote:Huh didn't even think about that, you're probably right Mass wouldn't have a death penalty. I don't know why the would delay the trail then in that case?
They're making attempts at getting certain pieces of evidence disqualified in order to ensure a fair trial. They got a few things thrown out recently, that wouldn't have been if they proceeded with the trial.
Quote:I don't think Mass. has the death penalty.
Maybe the lawyers are just stringing it along to milk more of his fat NFL bonus windfall.
Quote:Huh didn't even think about that, you're probably right Mass wouldn't have a death penalty. I don't know why the would delay the trail then in that case?
They're still trying to settle the Tsarnaev case.
Quote:Maybe this isn't political, but I'd like opinions on the delay in the Aaron Hernandez trial. While I believe he is guilty of several murders, he deserves a fair trial. He has been in jail for well over a year with no movement towards a trial. How 'speedy' does a trial have to be before it becomes unconstitutional?
In florida, for a felony, they have to bring you to trial within a year, unless the defense waives speedy trial. Once it is waived, it is waived.
Quote:It may be true that his own lawyers requested an extension. However, from what (little) I've read the prosecution is still collecting evidence. Wouldn't it have been smart for his lawyers to push for an early date rather than allow the prosecution time to find a 'smoking gun?'
Sometimes. You have to have a strategy and stick with it. Here, you have the right to depose all witnesses. If it takes longer than speedy trial, and deposing them is your strategy (most often times, this is simply being competent- knowing what a witness will say, being blindsided at trial is bad 9/10) then so be it. Defendants complain about this frequently, but the right to counsel implies a right to competent counsel, and the balance between the right to a speedy trial and counsel should most always go on the side of giving counsel the decision as to what it takes to be prepared.
When my previous clients would complain about speedy trial, I always would ask them if they were hoping on helping the prosecution get a speedy conviction.
There are cases where you want to get to trial ASAP, regardless of who the state is calling, and it is pretty evident when that would be I'm sure.
Hernandez isn't that case.
Btw, I haven't heard much of anything that leads me to believe this is close to a slam dunk for the prosecution. When I see them leaking stuff and trying to manipulate the press with other allegations like they have been here, it leads me to think they are hoping creating a perception is their hope rather than relying on the evidence, and here it seems lacking.
Quote:They're making attempts at getting certain pieces of evidence disqualified in order to ensure a fair trial. They got a few things thrown out recently, that wouldn't have been if they proceeded with the trial.
Yeah, bad search, misleading warrant. Not much collected there anyway.
Quote:Yeah, bad search, misleading warrant. Not much collected there anyway.
Regardless, if his attorney uses that information (lor lack of) in defense of his client, he is a scumbag weasel using any means available to put an obvious murderer back on the streets.
Because, you know, the system is corrupt and the Constitution was only meant to protect certain people.
Quote:Regardless, if his attorney uses that information (lor lack of) in defense of his client, he is a scumbag weasel using any means available to put an obvious murderer back on the streets.
Because, you know, the system is corrupt and the Constitution was only meant to protect certain people.
Oh I know, I know.
Similiar to people will cry about "fringin on my riatt to bear arms" and "they'll have to pry muh gun from muh cold dead hands!!"
Yet
Not care at all whether any type of search by the government or invasion of privacy is unconstitutional.
Quote:Oh I know, I know.
Similiar to people will cry about "fringin on my riatt to bear arms" and "they'll have to pry muh gun from muh cold dead hands!!"
Yet
Not care at all whether any type of search by the government or invasion of privacy is unconstitutional.
That's just simply not true.
Quote:That's just simply not true.
I'd say it is. I'd also say it is a mentality with a lot of folks. It's just my observation, but on an individual, I see little outcry, in fact I see quite the opposite, where people decry when some evidence is thrown out (like rj is alluding to, or joking about)
People seem it is fine for searches to be authorized for nearly any reason, yet when there is a hint that you can't own a sub machine gun, the gun right groups cry.
I wonder if that would change if people knew that the police could seize your property without actually finding the thing they said the search was for, or anything illicit at all.
Quote:I'd say it is. I'd also say it is a mentality with a lot of folks. It's just my observation, but on an individual, I see little outcry, in fact I see quite the opposite, where people decry when some evidence is thrown out (like rj is alluding to, or joking about)
People seem it is fine for searches to be authorized for nearly any reason, yet when there is a hint that you can't own a sub machine gun, the gun right groups cry.
I wonder if that would change if people knew that the police could seize your property without actually finding the thing they said the search was for, or anything illicit at all.
That's because Lawyers are seen as very sleazy. Some of them are sleazy, too.
There is outcry though. Especially in cases where the person appears to be innocent. But you won't see many people defend someone who appears guilty. Even if it's Innocent until proven guilty, that only goes for the court system. Not so much for the court of public opinion.
Imagine a child predator gets off on a technicality. It's justice for the justice system, but injustice in the eyes of the public. Especially if that child predator goes out and kills three more children, before finally being brought in, and found guilty.
The innocent need to be protected. But court of public opinion isn't going to favor someone who appears to be guilty. Nor should anyone expect it to. As long as the justice system does it's job, everyone will get a fair trial. That's what lawyers are for.
Quote:I'd say it is. I'd also say it is a mentality with a lot of folks. It's just my observation, but on an individual, I see little outcry, in fact I see quite the opposite, where people decry when some evidence is thrown out (like rj is alluding to, or joking about)
People seem it is fine for searches to be authorized for nearly any reason, yet when there is a hint that you can't own a sub machine gun, the gun right groups cry.
I wonder if that would change if people knew that the police could seize your property without actually finding the thing they said the search was for, or anything illicit at all.
And every time a women is abused the women's rights group make an outcry. When blacks are wronged the black community makes an outcry. When gays are wronged the gay community makes an outcry, it's why these groups are formed.
Your attempting to say because we stand against different legislation we ignore injustices in the legal system.
Are you upset because the NRA doesn't protest illegal search and seizure in a narcotics case?
For the record almost every 2nd amendment group I know and support also has a strong stand against police check points, warrant less phone taps , illegal search and seizure and so on.
But that doesn't do anything to paint us as backwoods hicks.
Quote:I'd say it is. I'd also say it is a mentality with a lot of folks. It's just my observation, but on an individual, I see little outcry, in fact I see quite the opposite, where people decry when some evidence is thrown out (like rj is alluding to, or joking about)
People seem it is fine for searches to be authorized for nearly any reason, yet when there is a hint that you can't own a sub machine gun, the gun right groups cry.
I wonder if that would change if people knew that the police could seize your property without actually finding the thing they said the search was for, or anything illicit at all.
Really??? SMH