Funny coincidence that people keep dying violent deaths around Mr. Hernandez and he seems to have real issues with controlling his temper.
Boy it's a stretch to think that a convicted killer could possibly be involved in another murder.
Legally, it IS a stretch. It is also very important for prosecutors to PROVE their cases, even if all the circumstantial evidence points one direction, and one direction only. Lets not give Project Innocence any more business than they already have. How difficult would it have been for the prosecutor to work a little harder and truly establish guilt?
to make one even sicker....The Baez Law office website is now touting him as the new "Johnny Cochran" what a role model!!
to make one even sicker....The Baez Law office website is now touting him as the new "Johnny Cochran" what a role model!!
Thanks for the article, BUF.
It seems with this win, Baez may have to take on clients with lots of dough. No need to take on cases per gratis/pro bono. That may take AH out of the equation for future appeal unless "supporters" come forward!
I wonder who these 'supporters' might be?
Thanks for the article, BUF.
It seems with this win, Baez may have to take on clients with lots of dough. No need to take on cases per gratis/pro bono. That may take AH out of the equation for future appeal unless "supporters" come forward!
If anyone is interested here's Baez's next client.
James Woo...killed his ''girlfriend'' and hid her in a storage locker before trying to flee the country.
http://www.krdo.com/news/crime/el-p...ing-colorado-springs-murder-suspect/450999151
Legally, it IS a stretch. It is also very important for prosecutors to PROVE their cases, even if all the circumstantial evidence points one direction, and one direction only. Lets not give Project Innocence any more business than they already have. How difficult would it have been for the prosecutor to work a little harder and truly establish guilt?
Legally, it IS a stretch. It is also very important for prosecutors to PROVE their cases, even if all the circumstantial evidence points one direction, and one direction only. Lets not give Project Innocence any more business than they already have. How difficult would it have been for the prosecutor to work a little harder and truly establish guilt?
also just thought about that comparison he is now using to promote himself as the new Johnny Cochran...do you recall him making a big deal out of Ab being Rocky and then he did that terrible movement saying "ride um Rocky" or something similar and I know I sort of cringed...well guess jury did not throw it out...I guess we have to remember they probably know very little if anything about Baez whereas we have been watching him for years...he got to them. That was sort of his "if the glove does not fit you must acquit".
Just thinking out loud & pondering: **do juries expect to see DNA evidence, surveillance footage of the crime being committed, and a corroborating ey e witness** to render a guilty verdict?
I understand their instructions about circumstantial evidence but that might not be enough in the applicable sense?
Without prosecutors presenting all 3 elements in my above **parameters, does it leave a big opening for "reasonable doubt"?
He's a defense attorney representing his client, and if it looks like he has found a way to do convince a jury of his client's innocence, that is what he is required to do. It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt.
I have some "nasty thoughts" about that one...,lol...Baez, a video camera, and one "killer" prison dateHi Bordem, long time!!
Maybe Baez can arrange a meeting with Casey and Aaron...2 murderers he managed to acquit.![]()
A jury expects to see a defendant absolutely connected to a crime. Eye witnesses have been wrong on many occasions, and we have even imposed the death penalty on defendants who were later found to be not guilty. All of those types of evidence you mentioned are very compelling, and if they exist, the jury DOES expect to see them. I would never vote to convict a defendant without the prosecution's explanation of EVERYTHING. If the prosecution did not have an explanation for something, or expected me to convict if it appeared that exculpatory evidence was not discussed at trial, I would not convict.