Aaron Hernandez trial: No verdict after four days of deliberations

Jurors in the murder trial of Aaron Hernandez completed four days of considering whether to convict the former National Football League star of the June 2013 killing of Odin Lloyd.

Steven Senne/AP
Former New England Patriots football player Aaron Hernandez, right, sits with defense attorney Charles Rankin, left, before the jury began deliberations in his murder trial Thursday, April 9, 2015, in Fall River, Mass. Hernandez is charged with killing Odin Lloyd.

Jurors in the murder trial of former National Football League star player Aaron Hernandez completed a fourth day of deliberations Friday with no verdict.

The 12 jurors have spent nearly 20 hours over four days considering whether to convict Hernandez of the June 2013 killing of Odin Lloyd. Lloyd was dating the sister of Hernandez's fiancee. Hernandez's lawyer acknowledged the former NFL player was there when Lloyd was killed but says he didn't do it.

Superior Court Judge Susan Garsh sent jurors home at 1 p.m. Friday, telling them to come back Monday at 9 a.m. They were released earlier than usual because some jurors had scheduling conflicts.

Hernandez was brought into court twice on Friday, at the beginning and end of the day, both times for just a few minutes. His fiancee, Shayanna Jenkins, sat behind him in the front row. Her sister, Shaneah Jenkins, who was dating Lloyd when he was killed, sat across the aisle with Lloyd's family.

In addition to the murder charge, jurors are deciding whether to convict Hernandez on charges of illegal possession of a .45-caliber firearm and .22-caliber ammunition. Lloyd was killed with a .45-caliber weapon, although the gun was never found. Police found .22-caliber ammunition in Hernandez's basement.

Jurors must be unanimous to reach a verdict. On the murder charge, they must decide on either 1st-degree or 2nd-degree murder. Second-degree murder carries a sentence of life with the possibility of parole after 15 years, while parole is not possible with a 1st-degree murder conviction.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.