OT Hernandez's suicide in prison after conviction, appeal puts estate in limbo

[KevFu]

CTE is bad, and the NFL has to do something about it.

But let's not pretend that Aaron Hernandez hasn't always been a terrible human being doing terrible things. This is a guy who:
- punched a restaurant employee in the head so hard his ear drum ruptured because the employee wanted him to pay his bill.
- shot two guys in a car after a nightclub incident

BEFORE ever playing in the NFL.

When you google "Aaron Hernandez shooting" Google asks "Which one?"

He didn't become a violent, murderous scum person because of CTE. He was a violent murderous scum person, who also had CTE.

 

[Killion]

He didn't become a violent, murderous scum person because of CTE. He was a violent murderous scum person, who also had CTE.

Yikes... but yes, your stating what many are thinking.... certainly the thought crossed my mind, wondering if "Demon Seed" to begin with & or possible fetal complications, abusive childhood, dropped on his head, getting into fights or whatever. Its not quite the black & white situation it might appear to be, so I'd hold off in that particular case in assigning all blame to his football career. It couldve been a pre-condition, and ok, maybe exacerbated with further head trauma playing HS, College & Pro. Its an extreme case. We just dont know.

 

[LadyStanley]

I see in the concussion mega thread that the family has filed suit against league and team.

It could be that that suit will help determine the final outcome of the estate (which is the thrust of this thread).

 

[Kane One]

I see in the concussion mega thread that the family has filed suit against league and team.

It could be that that suit will help determine the final outcome of the estate (which is the thrust of this thread).

Aside from a sob story, how would his CTE help his family's case?

 

[GordonGecko]

Aside from a sob story, how would his CTE help his family's case?

Patriots misled AO, he is victim of team, fam deserves compensation for death, yada yada yada

 

[mouser]

Looks like the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has overturned the legal doctrine that would have erased Hernandez's conviction following his suicide, and ordered that the murder conviction be reinstated

Court reinstates late Aaron Hernandez's murder conviction

 

[gstommylee]

Looks like the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has overturned the rule that would have erased Hernandez's conviction following his suicide, and ordered that the murder conviction be reinstated

Court reinstates late Aaron Hernandez's murder conviction

The Courts also basically threw out that law saying its outdated and order it to longer to be used going forward.

 

[GordonGecko]

Looks like the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has overturned the rule that would have erased Hernandez's conviction following his suicide, and ordered that the murder conviction be reinstated

Court reinstates late Aaron Hernandez's murder conviction

Not that I condone this scum sucking pig, but judges aren't supposed to make up laws as they go along. The law is established and there are centuries of precedent, judge had no right to do this. What's to stop judges from selectively enforcing whatever they feel like

 

[gstommylee]

Not that I condone this scum sucking pig, but judges aren't supposed to make up laws as they go along. The law is established and there are centuries of precedent, judge had no right to do this. What's to stop judges from selectively enforcing whatever they feel like

The courts said the law is outdated and punishes the victim(s) and ordered it to no longer to be used going forward. Why should the victims and their family be punished?

 

[mouser]

Not that I condone this scum sucking pig, but judges aren't supposed to make up laws as they go along. The law is established and there are centuries of precedent, judge had no right to do this. What's to stop judges from selectively enforcing whatever they feel like

Technically this isn't the state Supreme Court selectively enforcing the law. They're voiding a non-legislative, judicially implemented legal doctrine for all future cases.

**Edited my language to better clarify this is a judicial doctrine being changed, not a law.

 

[PhillyWings]

Judges have too much power.

 

[GordonGecko]

The courts said the law is outdated and punishes the victim(s) and ordered it to no longer to be used going forward. Why should the victims and their family be punished?

Because that's not the judge's job. A judge's job is to rule on the merits based on if one side or the other has proven their case to be in violation of the law or in compliance with the law. Their job isn't to make up the damn law.

If it punishes victims, then it's up to the elected legislators to change that law. We can't have judges making up **** as they go along it's a really dangerous precendent

 

[gstommylee]

Because that's not the judge's job. A judge's job is to rule on the merits based on if one side or the other has proven their case to be in violation of the law or in compliance with the law. Their job isn't to make up the damn law.

If it punishes victims, then it's up to the elected legislators to change that law. We can't have judges making up **** as they go along it's a really dangerous precendent

And the judges aren't making it up. They just didn't create law they threw a current law out. They have a right to toss laws if they feel its not necessary. Now the legislators can go back and redo the law if they want to.

Quite frankly the law is stupid. Again why punish the victim and their families.

 

[GordonGecko]

And the judges aren't making it up. They just didn't create law they threw a current law out. They have a right to toss laws if they feel its not necessary. Now the legislators can go back and redo the law if they want to.

Quite frankly the law is stupid. Again why punish the victim and their families.

Listen, it's not even a law that justice Elspeth Cypher overturned, she decided on her own to overturn a part of the judicial system iteslf! It's common law legal doctrine that they teach you in law school, it's part of the legal system to provide abatement ab initio based on precedent, and not just a few decades old precedent but based on literally CENTURIES of Massachusetts court cases. I think the doctrine is flawed, but that's why we have legislators and they and only they can modify it.

It's completely reckless

and umm...

They have a right to toss laws if they feel its not necessary

Say what???? looooool

Judges can only toss laws if they conflict with overriding laws. They can't just arbitrarily toss laws, that's not how the legal system works here. It might work like that in Cambodia or Congo, but not around here

 

[mouser]

Listen, it's not even a law that justice Elspeth Cypher overturned, she decided on her own to overturn a part of the judicial system iteslf! It's common law legal doctrine that they teach you in law school, it's part of the legal system to provide abatement ab initio based on precedent, and not just a few decades old precedent but based on literally CENTURIES of Massachusetts court cases. I think the doctrine is flawed, but that's why we have legislators and they and only they can modify it.

It's completely reckless

and umm...


Say what???? looooool

Judges can only toss laws if they conflict with overriding laws. They can't just arbitrarily toss laws, that's not how the legal system works here. It might work like that in Cambodia or Congo, but not around here

Actually that doesn't appear to be the situation. The full ruling can be found here: Hernandez SJC 031319

Some of the interesting points:
- The Court notes the oldest appellate case acknowledging the doctrine in Massachusetts is from 1975.
- The Mass Supreme Court has only heard 3-4 cases where the doctrine was involved.
- The Court notes one of the factors in accepting the doctrine in 1975 was it appeared to be the norm amongst other states/jurisdictions. However many states have since abandoned the doctrine, and at this time only 18 states still use the doctrine.
- The doctrine was entirely created by the judicial system--there is no law supporting or mandating it--meaning the judicial system is free to alter or eliminate the doctrine. Though the court acknowledges the legislature has the power to pass a law making the doctrine or some form of it part of the legal code.
- The Commonwealth itself brought the case to the supreme court asking that the court invalidate the doctrine.

 

[Barnum]

Listen, it's not even a law that justice Elspeth Cypher overturned, she decided on her own to overturn a part of the judicial system iteslf! It's common law legal doctrine that they teach you in law school, it's part of the legal system to provide abatement ab initio based on precedent, and not just a few decades old precedent but based on literally CENTURIES of Massachusetts court cases. I think the doctrine is flawed, but that's why we have legislators and they and only they can modify it.

It's completely reckless

and umm...


Say what???? looooool

Judges can only toss laws if they conflict with overriding laws. They can't just arbitrarily toss laws, that's not how the legal system works here. It might work like that in Cambodia or Congo, but not around here

Honestly, this reads like a radio talk show host from a different state that’s not familiar with the particulars of the ruling. Seems like you are making cursory blanket comments based on your own prejudices.

Maybe familiarize yourself with the court’s ruling then comeback.

 

[GordonGecko]

Actually that doesn't appear to be the situation. The full ruling can be found here: Hernandez SJC 031319

Some of the interesting points:
- The Court notes the oldest appellate case acknowledging the doctrine in Massachusetts is from 1975.
- The Mass Supreme Court has only heard 3-4 cases where the doctrine was involved.
- The Court notes one of the factors in accepting the doctrine in 1975 was it appeared to be the norm amongst other states/jurisdictions. However many states have since abandoned the doctrine, and at this time only 18 states still use the doctrine.
- The doctrine was entirely created by the judicial system--there is no law supporting or mandating it--meaning the judicial system is free to alter or eliminate the doctrine. Though the court acknowledges the legislature has the power to pass a law making the doctrine or some form of it part of the legal code.
- The Commonwealth itself brought the case to the supreme court asking that the court invalidate the doctrine.

Although the oldest case cited to acknowledge the doctrine dates to 1975, abatement ab initio itself dates back to when Mass was an English colony in the 1600's - it is established doctrine that dates back centuries. I was not aware that Mass itself had joined the appeal to request the doctrine to be struck, that does change things somewhat but is still a round about way to change the law. IMO it's a dangerous path to take for judges to take it upon themselves to change laws when they are not in conflict with superseding or conflicting laws, doing so not based on the rule of law but instead on arbitrary factors

 

[YEM]

IMO it's a dangerous path to take for judges to take it upon themselves to change laws when they are not in conflict with superseding or conflicting laws, doing so not based on the rule of law but instead on arbitrary factors

Judges don't change laws, they make decisions
And sometimes their decisions change laws
It's not wholey uncommon to see a judge disregard the law in making a decision, for a wide variety of reasons, such as this instance

 

[Barnum]

Although the oldest case cited to acknowledge the doctrine dates to 1975, abatement ab initio itself dates back to when Mass was an English colony in the 1600's - it is established doctrine that dates back centuries. I was not aware that Mass itself had joined the appeal to request the doctrine to be struck, that does change things somewhat but is still a round about way to change the law. IMO it's a dangerous path to take for judges to take it upon themselves to change laws when they are not in conflict with superseding or conflicting laws, doing so not based on the rule of law but instead on arbitrary factors

Again, you need to read the decision. It’s online, all 36 pages. Please read before giving more misleading opinions.

According to what I read, there wasn’t an actual law on the books in MA.. It was a judical ruling from a decision in 1975 by the MA SJC. At the time in 1975, the courts stated in their decision, “ we don’t foresee it will ever be used but other states are doing it”. (Paraphrased)

Does that sound like a law to you?

 

[Barnum]

Although the oldest case cited to acknowledge the doctrine dates to 1975, abatement ab initio itself dates back to when Mass was an English colony in the 1600's - it is established doctrine that dates back centuries. I was not aware that Mass itself had joined the appeal to request the doctrine to be struck, that does change things somewhat but is still a round about way to change the law. IMO it's a dangerous path to take for judges to take it upon themselves to change laws when they are not in conflict with superseding or conflicting laws, doing so not based on the rule of law but instead on arbitrary factors

PS By the way, the first time SCOTUS ever ruled on abatement ab initio was in 1971. So, you can knock it off with this centuries of MA law. You are making that up.

 

[mouser]

Although the oldest case cited to acknowledge the doctrine dates to 1975, abatement ab initio itself dates back to when Mass was an English colony in the 1600's - it is established doctrine that dates back centuries. I was not aware that Mass itself had joined the appeal to request the doctrine to be struck, that does change things somewhat but is still a round about way to change the law. IMO it's a dangerous path to take for judges to take it upon themselves to change laws when they are not in conflict with superseding or conflicting laws, doing so not based on the rule of law but instead on arbitrary factors

I would recommend reading the ruling. The Court does discuss conflicting laws considered in the decision. One of which is “victims rights” laws passed by the state legislature.

One can disagree with the ruling, but I wouldn’t dismiss the decision as being based on arbitrary factors.

 

[GordonGecko]

Again, you need to read the decision. It’s online, all 36 pages. Please read before giving more misleading opinions.

According to what I read, there wasn’t an actual law on the books in MA.. It was a judical ruling from a decision in 1975 by the MA SJC. At the time in 1975, the courts stated in their decision, “ we don’t foresee it will ever be used but other states are doing it”. (Paraphrased)

Does that sound like a law to you?

It's a precedent based doctrine dating back to the 1600's English colony, having it affirmed in 1975 does not change that fact

Anyways, time to bury this thread just like Hernandez. What a waste of a life

 

[Barnum]

It's a precedent based doctrine dating back to the 1600's English colony, having it affirmed in 1975 does not change that fact

Anyways, time to bury this thread just like Hernandez. What a waste of a life

I am slightly annoyed. You are walking away and discounting what everyone is putting forth to you. You made huge angry ranting statements without reading the pertinent information. Read the decision and why. Short read, it’s only 36 pages.

Call me crazy but Massachusetts is no longer an English Colony, that ceased back in 1776. How do I know this? I’m from there. MA nor does any state live under English law, we revolted, remember Their laws are no longer our laws.

Furthering this point you keep making. Source please. Find me a source that MA has been under this “doctrine” since the 1600s because I can’t find one. I would appreciate a link. Thanks in advance.

Also, from what I read, it was never just a doctrine, it was what’s known as a “common law legal doctrine” which is very different then what I believe you think it is which is a “regulatory law”. I believe you have mixed those two up with each other. A common law legal doctrine does grant a judge a certain amount of leeway and discretion.