Murder trial- what do you think?

jenna8984

So this has been big in the news in New England- the Patriots player who got convicted of murder yesterday. MA has what's called a Joint Venture law, in which the prosecution does NOT have to prove that the person actually pulled the trigger. Just "intentional participation and sharing intent" of the crime- you can/will be charged the same as if you were the one who pulled the trigger.

Do you agree with this law- yes or no?

I personally think yes- I agree with this law. It's irrelevant whether I think he did it or not, but I do think if someone is proven to have participated in any way, that they should be charged the same as the trigger-man.

 

wandajune6

I don't know anything about the law but it sounds like it doesn't differentiate between pulling the trigger and paying/inciting someone else to pull it for you. Seems pretty fair to me.

I suspect there's more complexity that I don't understand though.

thespeshulestsnowflake

wandajune6 said:

I don't know anything about the law but it sounds like it doesn't differentiate between pulling the trigger and paying/inciting someone else to pull it for you. Seems pretty fair to me.

I suspect there's more complexity that I don't understand though.

I agree. It sounds similar to a woman in my neighborhood who was killed by a hit-man her husband hired. The husband was charged with first degree murder.

southernbelle0915

I'd have to know a lot more about it, but if its like "you hired a hit man, so we're charging you" or "you lured this guy here to be killed even though you didn't fire the gun"....then yea, I'd probably agree.

It sounds like it'd be SUPER hard to prove though.

lyndausvi

I guess it depends on what they consider participation.

20-something years ago in PA this women was on a first date with a new guy.  He drove them to a convenience store to get some cigarettes or something.   She stayed in the car (in the passenger seat).   He came out and they continued on their date.

Later found out he robbed the store at gun point.  She had no idea.   She never even had a second date with the guy.  She was convicted and sent to jail for being a participant simply because she was in the "get away car".

I don't know enough about this case to know for sure.  What little I did hear I think he was more than just at the wrong place at the wrong time.   

JCbride2015

That's not just a MA thing, it's essentially everywhere. There are some outlier cases where people can wind up charged with murder for even the smallest involvement, but in general it's a very normal criminal law and makes sense. If you offer aid or incite somebody to violence, you're equally liable. This is actually why conspiracy charges are often essential in bringing down groups of criminals, because once you're in a conspiracy together, you're all liable for Gino whacking Sal, even if he was the only one physically there.

littlepep

lyndausvi said:

I guess it depends on what they consider participation.

20-something years ago in PA this women was on a first date with a new guy.  He drove them to a convenience store to get some cigarettes or something.   She stayed in the car (in the passenger seat).   He came out and they continued on their date.

Later found out he robbed the store at gun point.  She had no idea.   She never even had a second date with the guy.  She was convicted and sent to jail for being a participant simply because she was in the "get away car".

I don't know enough about this case to know for sure.  What little I did hear I think he was more than just at the wrong place at the wrong time.   

Yeah I think the above is very different from actually participating in or facilitating the crime.

jenna8984

lyndausvi said:

I guess it depends on what they consider participation.

20-something years ago in PA this women was on a first date with a new guy.  He drove them to a convenience store to get some cigarettes or something.   She stayed in the car (in the passenger seat).   He came out and they continued on their date.

Later found out he robbed the store at gun point.  She had no idea.   She never even had a second date with the guy.  She was convicted and sent to jail for being a participant simply because she was in the "get away car".

I don't know enough about this case to know for sure.  What little I did hear I think he was more than just at the wrong place at the wrong time.   

Yea, I really don't know anything about the law or how the prosecution proves it. But it does say "intent" to commit that crime. In your example the woman had no knowledge, so certainly no intent. In a case like this, where they have evidence such as him destroying surveillance cameras, I think that's generally proof that he had knowledge and intent to participate.

jenna8984

I'm just surprised because I've heard some people say "nope- if I was a juror I could never hand down a life sentence without 100% undisputable proof that he pulled the trigger and he did the murder". I don't feel like you need to be the trigger man to have still been 99% involved in someone's death.

tcnoble

You mean if someone sat in the passenger seat while the driver drove to a remote location and killed a dude, while passenger watched? Yup, he should be charged the same. You're an accomplice and did nothing to save that person's life. So whether or not Aaron Hernandez pulled the trigger, he didn't stop it from happening.

Plus, I'm sure he thought he would get away with it because he's a hot shot. Idiot.

lyndausvi

littlepep said:

lyndausvi said:

I guess it depends on what they consider participation.

20-something years ago in PA this women was on a first date with a new guy.  He drove them to a convenience store to get some cigarettes or something.   She stayed in the car (in the passenger seat).   He came out and they continued on their date.

Later found out he robbed the store at gun point.  She had no idea.   She never even had a second date with the guy.  She was convicted and sent to jail for being a participant simply because she was in the "get away car".

I don't know enough about this case to know for sure.  What little I did hear I think he was more than just at the wrong place at the wrong time.   

Yeah I think the above is very different from actually participating in or facilitating the crime.

Not really.    The prosecutor was pretty good at convincing someone (not sure if it was a judge or jury trial) that she had to have know about the crime.  She was the get-away car.  How could she had not known?   How could she had not been an accomplice when she was in the get-away car?

What made things worse was the guy who did the crime was also involved in drugs or some other criminal activity.  He was able to rat on higher ups and basically got a reduced sentence.  She spent more time in jail with her only crime being going on a date with the wrong guy at the wrong time.

southernbelle0915

jenna8984 said:

I'm just surprised because I've heard some people say "nope- if I was a juror I could never hand down a life sentence without 100% undisputable proof that he pulled the trigger and he did the murder". I don't feel like you need to be the trigger man to have still been 99% involved in someone's death.

I agree. There's a girl who was on my childhood soccer team whose mom hired a hit man to murder her husband. The guy she hired was an undercover cop, so she want to jail after she gave him house plans, schedules and money....but if he was the real deal and the husband died, yea I think she should do as much time as the trigger puller.

littlepep

lyndausvi said:

littlepep said:

lyndausvi said:

I guess it depends on what they consider participation.

20-something years ago in PA this women was on a first date with a new guy.  He drove them to a convenience store to get some cigarettes or something.   She stayed in the car (in the passenger seat).   He came out and they continued on their date.

Later found out he robbed the store at gun point.  She had no idea.   She never even had a second date with the guy.  She was convicted and sent to jail for being a participant simply because she was in the "get away car".

I don't know enough about this case to know for sure.  What little I did hear I think he was more than just at the wrong place at the wrong time.   

Yeah I think the above is very different from actually participating in or facilitating the crime.

Not really.    The prosecutor was pretty good at convincing someone (not sure if it was a judge or jury trial) that she had to have know about the crime.  She was the get-away car.  How could she had not known?   How could she had not been an accomplice when she was in the get-away car?

What made things worse was the guy who did the crime was also involved in drugs or some other criminal activity.  He was able to rat on higher ups and basically got a reduced sentence.  She spent more time in jail with her only crime being going on a date with the wrong guy at the wrong time.

That really sucks. I agree it seems hard to believe she didn't realize what was happening, but maybe he's a quiet thief. Still don't think she deseves more jail time than he does.

KatieinBkln

This sounds like a good law to me--how else would you prosecute people who hire hit men/don't want to get their hands dirty? (And, not to single out Boston, because obviously organized crime exists in many, many places, but it seems like it is/was probably a necessary law there if they ever wanted to put a mob boss away).

[Deleted User]

Whew. That is tough. I am sure in many cases there has to be some pretty extensive proof that the person involved was involved, because I could see these scenarios becoming nuanced. For example: Was the participant coerced by force/threat? Are there other circumstances that may have prevented the participant from interfering? Mental illness? 

I'm guessing that's all wrapped up in the law and would be dealt with in a trial, but I could see it getting complicated.

That said, I have a pretty cold, hard heart when it comes to murderers and/or other involved parties, so as a juror I probably wouldn't take much convincing if it were easy to see someone was guilty.

WinstonsGirl

This sounds like "accessory" to me.  Up here, if you're there and don't do anything to stop it, you're charged with accessory to... (murder, theft, shoplifting, etc.)  If you know about it and don't say anything, you can be charged.  I think the sentences carry the same weight as if you had done it yourself, though we only just got real "life" in prison (not 25 years) and we don't have the death penalty so that may change.  

huskypuppy14

This isn't the only murder he was involved in either. He has another trial coming up for double murder outside a night club in Boston. 

Also, they are appealing it. His lawyer said he was there at the scene of the murder. Sounds kind of a stupid thing to say about your own client.