Aaron Hernandez lawyers say jury wasn't 'rational'

Aaron Hernandez's attorneys have filed an appeal of the guilty verdicts against the former New England Patriots star, claiming that "no rational jury could have found [guilt in] every essential element … beyond a reason doubt."

"Rather, improper speculation, conjecture, and guesswork was required to reach a guilty verdict," the memorandum reads.

So begins the appeals process for Hernandez, who in April was found guilty of first-degree murder of Odin Lloyd.

Hernandez was handed a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. His lawyers are seeking to have the guilty charge reversed and, barring that, imploring the court to reduce his sentence to one that could potentially have him out of jail in 15 years.

All along, the case against Hernandez was built on circumstantial evidence. There was no murder weapon found, no eyewitnesses that would testify that he was the shooter, and no clear motive as to why Hernandez wanted to kill a man who was dating his girlfriend's sister.

The jury had to base its decision on things like phone records, DNA evidence and home surveillance video. While the evidence certainly pointed to Hernandez as a possible participant in the crime, the defense argues that all of it required speculation and guesswork to fill in the gaps in order to reach a guilty verdict.

"Guesswork, speculation, and imagination do not equate to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," the memorandum reads. "Accordingly, Hernandez's murder conviction was unsupported by the evidence and must be vacated."

The problem with this argument, says Robert Bloom, a professor of law at Boston College, is that juries "always have to make guesses as to what happened, unless someone is holding a smoking gun in his hand." Speculation, he says, is "not unusual."

The better argument for Hernandez, Bloom says, is of what charge the jury found Hernandez guilty. The jury of 12 did not find him guilty of premeditated murder, but rather of first-degree murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty.

To reach this verdict, the jury had to conclude that Hernandez acted with one of seven factors, known as the Cunneen factors: indifference to or taking pleasure in the victim's suffering; consciousness and degree of suffering of the victim; extent of physical injuries; number of blows; manner and force with which delivered; instrument employed; and disproportion between the means needed to cause death and those employed.

In interviews following the trial, several jurors mentioned "indifference" as one of the reasons they reached a guilty verdict.

"We watched the video footage at his home later in the morning or early afternoon after the incident occurred and he was just lounging around by the pool and playing with the baby. He was going about his regular life," juror Jon Carlson told CNN's Anderson Cooper. "For us to have knowledge that he was there at the time that his close friend was murdered, personally there's no way I could just carry on hours later like nothing happened. That's indifference."

Hernandez's lawyers argue that this "cannot be deemed to have demonstrated indifference to or taking pleasure in Lloyd's conscious suffering."

Several jurors also mention guns and the number of shots, with one saying that the usage of a gun elevated the crime to cruelty, another saying that more than one shot was "enough for me."

The defense will argue that guns are always used in "any shooting," therefore it cannot be "shocking," and that the number of shots is A) not provable (an expert testified to the number of bullet holes in Lloyd but not to the number of times he was shot) and B) six shots is far from the extreme in similar cases.

While none of these arguments appear to absolve Hernandez of guilt, and all of them are thick with legalese, they are the defense's best shot at compelling an appellate court (where this will likely end up, according to Bloom) to reduce the charge to second-degree murder, which would mean Hernandez could be eligible for parole in 15 years (minus time already served).

"[The appellate court] will look at the case under that statute and determine whether or not the jury was appropriate in applying extreme atrocity to him," said Bloom.

Of course, even if Hernandez were to get the charges reduced, he's still facing a double-murder charge in Boston, a case that's considered stronger than the one in which he's already been found guilty.