Aaron Hernandez Case (Essay Sample)

Aaron Hernandez Case Student's Name Institutional Affiliation Course Code: Subject Title Instructor's Name Date of Submission Aaron Hernandez Case Introduction Aaron Hernandez was a 23-year-old professional athletic star and a tight end for the New England Patriots of the National Football League (NFL). On June 26, 2013, he was arrested at his home and charged with first-degree murder in an ongoing death investigation of his friend, Odin Lloyd, a Boston semi-pro football league CITATION CBS13 \l 1033 (CBS News, 2013). The prosecution provided watertight evidence that in this case, including surveillance video, text messages, and matching DNA sample provided proof beyond reasonable doubt that Hernandez committed the felony Aaron Hernandez's trial was so important to the United States criminal justice system for two reasons. First, because of the high-profile nature of the accused and the media attention that was attributed. As stated above, Aaron was a professional football star at the moment of his trial, and the public, through the constant media updates, waited to see the verdict that would come out of the case. The public was eager to see the impartiality that would be credited. Secondly, the case was classified as a first-degree murder trial. In the United States, first-degree murder charges are the most serious homicide crimes prosecuted within the country that involves the intentional murder of a third party. Given that such charges constitute serious crimes, convictions often result in serious punishments CITATION Jus18 \l 1033 (Justia, 2018). In the case of Aaron Hernandez, the U.S justice system was in a predicament that they had to deal with the public attention that the case had attracted and stick to the rule of law which requires maximum sentences for convicted felons Opening Statement Aaron Hernandez's trial began on January 29, 2015, in Fall River, Massachusetts. Patrick Bomberg of Bristol County gave the opening statements on the prosecution side. Michael Fee made the opening statement for the defense. Generally, the two gave radically different declarations, with both appealing to the juror's emotions and logicCITATION McC15 \l 1033 (McCann1, 2015). After analyzing the strengths and weaknesses in both cases, I believe that statement from the Bristol County prosecutor was the most persuasive. Bomberg laid a detailed timeline leading to the murder that was allegedly engineered by the accused leading to the murder. This articulated was more convincing than his opponents, who merely rubbished the facts of the murder, claiming that no witness would come up to testify against his client and no gun would be retrieved as evidence to prove the murderCITATION McC15 \l 1033 (McCann1, 2015). Similarly, the statement by Patrick Bomberg gave the jury more significant facts to consider about the case highlighting how multiple pieces of evidence including, text messages, phone calls, witness testimonies, photographs, and videos, but Hernandez and Lloyd in the same spot before the alleged murderCITATION McC15 \l 1033 (McCann1, 2015). The prosecutor also presented the DNA evidence, which was actual proof of the accused having a hand in the murder. Emerging/Challenging a Prima Facie Case of Murder. There was a lot in play during the trial of Aaron Hernandez that could have pushed the case in either direction. However, the prosecution received a significant boost in their case from Alexander Bradley, a former associate of the accused, when he gave new evidence that supposedly changed the case. The former friend provided a detailed account of an earlier episode where the prosecution had claimed that Hernandez had shot and killed two revelers at a night Boston club in July 2012. According to Bradley, Safiro Furtado and Daniel de Abreu were shot while sitting in a car parked outside the club CITATION Lev17 \l 1033 (Levenson, 2017). The witness told the jurors that Abreu had bumped into Hernandez and spilled a drink on him, stirring up a feud that would later be fatal. Bradley testified that when Hernandez saw Abreu together with a friend, Furtado, leave the club later than evening, he ordered him to trail them. When he pulled alongside the victim's car, Hernandez fired five shots before running out of ammunition, and they sped off CITATION Bor17 \l 1033 (Boren, 2017). Bradley remembered Hanandez warning him, "Don't say nothing," after wiping off his fingerprints with his shirt and dumping the gun CITATION Lev17 \l 1033 (Levenson, 2017). In a shocking turn of events, the two later quarreled in a trip to Florida, years following the 2012 shooting incident, and Bradley claimed he woke up in a car with a gun pointed to his face. Bradley had shot him in the eye and left him for the dead CITATION Bor17 \l 1033 (Boren, 2017). The testimony by Alexander Bradley was of a significant boost to the prosecution as they later claimed that the shooting incident was over an argument of the witness's awareness of the 2012 homicide. In May 2015, the accused was indicted on witness intimidation charges, a major boost to the prosecution in winning Lloyd's death trial (Dolan et al., 2015). Evidence The prosecution provided numerous pieces of evidence to prove that Aaron Hernandez was guilty of the murder charge. This proof included text messages, surveillance footage, weapons, and failed defense, among others. Text Messages The prosecution had gathered text evidence after obtaining a search warrant of Hernandez's house and obtaining his cell phone. The text messages evidence included screenshots of the chat conversations the accused had with the other two co-accused and the victim before his death. The prosecution also provided text evidence involving the victim's chat with his sister before his death. For instance, the prosecution claimed that the text conversation involving the victim and his sister with the phrase, “just so u know,” suggested that the Llyod feared for his life. However, this evidence was ruled out by Supreme Court Judge Susan Garsh on the grounds of lack of enough proof (Candiotti, 2015). The prosecution considered the text between Hernandez and Lloyd inviting him out on the night of death. They claimed that this evidence put the accused as the last known associate near the deceased before the homicide incident. In defense, the accused attorney rubbished the evidence as a supposed close association between two friend CITATION Bus17 \l 1033 s (Business Insider Africa, 2017). Surveillance Footage and Murder Weapons There was also significant evidence of surveillance footage that linked the accused to the murder incident. The surveillance images were accurate in showing timelines and major events leading to the shooting of Lloyd. A Nissan Altima, rented in the accused name, was spotted at 2.33 a.m. outside the victim's house. Hernandez allegedly picked Lloyd from their house before his death. Moments later, another surveillance video picks up Hernandez returning home without his passenger while carrying a dark object resembling a gun. In their investigations, the police recovered 45-caliber shell casings at the murder scene. They also recovered consistent casing in the Nissan Altima that was rented by the former football star. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Failed defense To be convicted, the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt the accused was in the murder scene during the fateful early morning hours. They found DNA evidence in the car indicated that both the accused and the victims had used the vehicle. Moreover, the ballistic evidence pointed an accusing finger at the former Patriot star. Even shockingly, the deference acknowledged the accused present at the murder scene, claiming he was just a bystander during the whole ordeal CITATION Bus17 \l 1033 (Business Insider Africa, 2017). The above evidence provided a watertight case against the accused. The surveillance videos capturing the last moments before the incident, the text messages, and the failing defense were significant in determining the case's outcome. Closing Arguments. After the trial, both sides of prosecution and defense provided their closing argument. The defense attorney made several persuasions, including requesting the jury ignore the colossal public opinion that the case had attracted. However, made a shocking revelation that the accused could have been present at the murder scene, but being a child, only23-years at the time, he was oblivious to the killing in his presence CITATION McC151 \l 1033 (McCann2, 2015). The prosecution's c...