Jurors send judge question on intimidation charge
Jurors in disgraced ex-New England Patriot Aaron Hernandez’s double-murder trial enter their third day of deliberations today seeking clarity on a key charge, and unaware the defense has accused the judge of racially rigging who would emerge as their leader.
In their 13th hour of deliberations at 3:25 p.m. yesterday, jurors sent Suffolk Superior Court Judge Jeffrey A. Locke their second question in as many days, expressing confusion over one of eight charges before them: intimidation of the prosecution’s star witness, Alexander Bradley.
State law defines intimidation as, “Whoever, directly or indirectly, willfully threatens or attempts or causes physical injury …” to a witness in a criminal proceeding.
The jury’s note states, “We aren’t sure if the defendant can be found guilty if we find he indirectly willfully threatened or attempted to caused physical injury to Alexander Bradley …” because the explanation paragraph in their jury instructions “only says directly.”
Prosecutors say Hernandez shot his best friend in the face during a 2013 strip club bender in Florida to stop him from giving Hernandez up for the July 16, 2012, murders of Daniel de Abreu, 29, and Safiro Furtado, 28. Locke said he’ll give the jury an answer today. Locke and the defense clashed yesterday over a defense objection to Locke’s selection of a white woman to serve as forewoman when only four of the 12 deliberating jurors are white.
Hernandez attorney Ronald Sullivan Jr. told Locke, “We find it offensive that with the jury predominantly filled with people of color, they cannot self-govern.”
Locke countered, “Accusing any court of being racist is not only offensive to the individual judge but to the tribunal and the integrity of the tribunal.”