Hernandez vs. the truth

There are facts and there is the law — and we live under a system where sometimes those can be at odds.

The fact of Aaron Hernandez’ guilt will never be in doubt. A jury — charged with looking at the facts in the case — found him guilty of the murder of Odin Lloyd back in 2015. The heinous, cold-blooded 2013 killing deprived a family of their loved one. Again, a fact never in doubt.

The ex-Patriot once had a golden ticket to fame and fortune, but it wasn’t enough to hold his darker side at bay. One murder conviction and two acquittals later, he took his own life in the prison cell where he was expected to spend the rest of his days.

And yesterday that last violent act of a man whose penchant for violence seemed to know no limit was freed at last — not by the facts, but by the law.

Under a long-standing Massachusetts legal doctrine — abatement ab initio — a defendant who dies before he has exhausted all of his appeals should have his convictions basically nullified.

Yesterday the Superior Court judge who presided over the Lloyd murder case, Susan Garsh, ruled, “Abatement remains the law in this commonwealth, and the court is compelled to follow binding precedent.”

Prosecutor Patrick Bomberg surely gave it his best shot, arguing that Hernandez “should not be able to accomplish in death what he could not accomplish in life.”

Garsh, whose long and distinguished career on the bench ends with her retirement this month, told Bomberg that she was not prepared to create new law. Ah, if only it were possible to clone Judge Garsh and set her upon a dozen other benches in the state.

“This court cannot know why Mr. Hernandez chose to end his life,” she said. “I decline to infer an intent by Hernandez to relinquish his appellate rights.”

Three pending civil wrongful death suits may well clarify the “fact” of Hernandez’ guilt, but ultimately that will remain the province of a much higher authority.