The Mountain Of Circumstantial Evidence against Aaron Hernandez

Overview of the Alleged Murder and Connection to Victim

The case against former NFL star Aaron Hernandez centered on the murder of Odin Lloyd on June 17, 2013, in a secluded construction area in Bristol County, Massachusetts. Hernandez, along with co-defendants Carlos Ortiz and Ernest Wallace, was alleged to have carried out the murder. Lloyd was dating the sister of Hernandez’s fiancée and had been with Hernandez just nights before the incident at the Rumor Nightclub in Boston.

The Strength of Circumstantial Evidence

Following pre-trial rulings, there was widespread speculation online predicting Hernandez’s acquittal, drawing comparisons to cases like Casey Anthony and O.J. Simpson. However, as a former prosecutor, I believed this case stood apart.

While there was no “smoking gun” or video of the actual killing, the prosecution had secured a strong circumstantial case built through a very thorough investigation. Working investigations and putting a case together that will withstand the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is difficult, but the evidence accumulated here formed a mountain of circumstantial evidence against Hernandez.

Why This Case May Be Different from High-Profile Acquittals

The key difference in the Hernandez case was the sheer volume of objective evidence, especially surveillance video, capturing the preparations and cover-up. The Commonwealth’s case relied on a compelling sequence of evidence expected to be presented, including:

• Pre-Murder Movements: Video footage showing Hernandez meeting with co-defendants Ortiz and Wallace at his North Attleboro home before the murder and Hernandez walking through the living room holding what investigators identified as a firearm. The three men were then seen leaving in a 2012 Nissan Altima at 1:12 a.m.
• Final Pickup: Video Surveillance from across the street from Lloyd’s apartment depicting an individual believed to be Lloyd entering the rear passenger seat of a vehicle consistent with a 2012 Nissan Altima.
• The Crime Scene Timeline: A vehicle entering and exiting the Industrial Park where Lloyd’s body was found between 3:23 a.m. and 3:27 a.m. (Employees in the vicinity reported hearing multiple gunshots between approximately 3:00 a.m. and 3:30 a.m. on June 17th).
• The Return: Hernandez and co-defendants returning to the Hernandez home in the Nissan Altima at 3:30 a.m. Hernandez was seen standing at the entrance to the basement with what investigators identified as a firearm. The vehicle returned with its driver’s side view mirror missing, which was intact when Lloyd was picked up.

Key Evidence: The Vehicle, Ballistics, and Tattoos

The Role of the 2012 Nissan Altima

The vehicle seen in the surveillance videos, rented by Hernandez from an Enterprise Rent-A-Car, was returned the following day with Ortiz and Wallace.

• The vehicle had damage to the driver’s side door and the side view mirror was missing.
• Investigators recovered a spent .45 caliber shell casing from the vehicle (after it was disposed of by an employee).
• Lloyd’s fingerprints were identified inside the vehicle.
• Soil found on the undercarriage was consistent with the dirt from the industrial park crime scene.

Ballistics and Cause of Death

The Medical Examiner determined that Lloyd’s cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds (homicide), specifically being shot in the back and twice in the chest while lying on the ground.

Critically, all the spent casings recovered from the crime scene were .45 caliber and fired from the same unrecovered .45 caliber firearm. Ballistic testing proved that the spent .45 caliber casing recovered from the rental Nissan Altima was fired from the same weapon that fired the casings recovered from the crime scene.

Gun Tattoos Admissible in Court

In the subsequent trial concerning a 2012 double homicide, a key ruling allowed prosecutors to admit Aaron Hernandez’s gun tattoos as evidence. These tattoos were argued to be similar to the firearms used in the drive-by shooting and in a later attempt to silence a witness, adding to the total body of evidence suggesting a connection to gun violence.

Pre-Trial Rulings on Evidence

In pre-trial rulings, Judge Marsh excluded some significant evidence that the Prosecutors attempted to admit, following the general legal principle that evidence of prior bad acts is typically inadmissible to demonstrate a defendant’s bad character. The excluded evidence included:

• The victim’s final text messages to his sister (“Did you see who I’m with?” then “NFL” and finally “Just so you know,”).
• Testimony about an incident where Hernandez allegedly shot his friend, Alexander Bradley, in the eye in Florida.
• Evidence from the 2012 double homicide in Boston (for which Hernandez also faced first-degree murder charges).
• A 2009 photo of Hernandez allegedly holding a gun.

However, the Judge also sided with prosecutors on several issues, allowing the introduction of evidence tying Hernandez to guns, including a pistol apparently tossed from a car, and evidence that Hernandez purchased marijuana from Lloyd.

Text Messages and Co-Defendant Testimony

While the victim’s text messages were excluded, all of Hernandez’s text messages to Lloyd and messages between the co-defendants during the conspiracy (planning, execution, and cover-up) were ruled admissible. These included the following messages sent and received on the night of Lloyd’s murder, suggesting a meeting and urgent demands:

• Hernandez to Wallace (9:35 p.m. and 10:23 p.m.): “Get ur as up here” and “Hurry ur ass up nigga”
• Hernandez to Lloyd (9:05 p.m.): “I’m coming to grab that tonight u gon be around I need dat and we could step for alittle again.”

The co-defendants were tried separately due to Constitutional protections. While a co-defendant like Ortiz or Wallace might point the finger at Hernandez, their credibility would certainly be attacked by the defense, especially if they were granted a reduced sentence in exchange for their testimony.

Reflections on the Verdict and Trial Strategy

Jury Deliberations and Verdict Prediction

During the seven-day jury deliberation period, many speculated about a not guilty or hung jury. However, the jury remained largely silent, asking no substantive questions on the law or read-backs of testimony, and never indicating they were “hopelessly” unable to reach a verdict.

My experience led me to predict a Guilty verdict. The lack of questions suggested the jury was methodically and exhaustively reviewing the mountain of evidence presented to them, taking the seriousness of their task to heart. This was confirmed after the verdict, which sentenced Hernandez to life without parole in State Prison.

A Critical Defense Error

The defense attorneys, while skilled, made a critical tactical mistake that may have cost them credibility with the jury:

During the opening statement, the defense argued that Hernandez was not at the scene of the murder. However, in a stunning move during the summation, the defense attorney admitted Hernandez was present but claimed the crime was committed by others—a point that was not supported by evidence at trial.

This change in position, after the prosecution had already presented undisputed video evidence of Hernandez’s presence, was a horrible tactical mistake. It made it appear as if the defense had been trying to “hoodwink” the jury, undermining their credibility. Furthermore, video evidence showed Hernandez and his co-defendants acting in a celebratory manner the next day—drinking smoothies, playing with the baby, and doing high-fives—which was inconsistent with a man who had just witnessed a friend murdered by “crazy” people.

Trial practice is an art form, and the most important part is maintaining your credibility with the jury. Juries want truth and evidence that makes common sense, not fancy arguments.

Final Thoughts from a Former Homicide Prosecutor

Notwithstanding the high burden of proof that the Commonwealth had to meet, the prosecution secured a strong circumstantial case against Aaron Hernandez. While Hernandez benefited from some evidential pre-trial rulings, the mountain of compelling evidence ultimately convinced the jury.

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey