Aaron Hernandez was found guilty yesterday of the first-degree murder of Odin L. Lloyd. Hernandez, a former tight end for the New England Patriots, will serve life in prison without the chance of parole. The legal troubles aren’t over for Hernandez, however, as there are still two more murder charges for the former star. The high profile nature of these cases does now beg a question: how did a man with such a bright spotlight shone on him manage to keep his criminal behaviors in the dark for so long?

Hernandez’s past is often described as a troubled one. He grew up in Bristol, Connecticut, was known to run with bad crowds from time to time, and other members of his family had relatively consistent run-ins with the law. But Hernandez’s talent on the football field always seemed to propel him forward–he shattered Connecticut state records, was very successful playing as a Gator at the University of Florida, and then was a fourth-round draft pick for the New England Patriots. By the time he was arrested he’d made millions of dollars and was still young enough to have many good years in the NFL ahead of him.

He was the “pride” of his small town. But he’s also a murderer–he’s now been found guilty of shooting one man seemingly in cold blood, and it’s looking pretty likely he’ll get convicted in the 2012 murders of Daniel Abreu and Safiro Furtado. Hernandez allegedly shot them after Abreu bumped into him in a club and caused Hernandez to spill his drink.

There are really only two possibilities for what happened here. One is that he was such a brilliant manipulator that he managed to hide his violent tendencies from those around him. The other seems unlikely, although it’s not a completely outlandish theory. Boston.com columnist Bill Speros wrote an op-ed in which he alleged that Hernandez is an undiagnosed psychopath. An interview from right after the Boston murders seems to lend at least some evidence to that theory. He joked and laughed with the media, saying that his summer was “private” but he “still had some fun.” If he did indeed murder Abreu and Furtado, the fact that he could be so callous and removed just 11 days later certainly is a concerning sign.

I think there’s a more likely scenario, however, and that’s that there were plenty of warning signs, but that they were flat out ignored because of his star status. Take an oft-cited incident when he was in Gainesville, for example. He went out with some of his former teammates, got into a dispute over a check, and ended up punching a bouncer in the face. One of his teammates on the Patriots, Tully Banta-Cain, said in 2010:

A lot of guys come into the NFL haunted by the past. Some guys overcome it and some continue to be haunted throughout their careers if they’re not able to disassociate themselves from certain people or certain atmospheres. Aaron may have fallen victim to that.

Aaron Hernandez spent his life thus far with people who were willing to look out for him because they saw promise, or because they saw that he was trying to overcome a “troubled” background. But in an atmosphere like that, it seems like he got away with a lot and those close to him let a lot of things slide.

That wouldn’t be unheard of. The Steubenville rape scandal a few years back, for example, showed an almost textbook example of many people in a small town willing to forgive horrid crimes because of who the perpetrators were.

No one will ever really know how Hernandez–a man who ostensibly could have had a very bright future–ended up as a murderer. But one thing is certain: he’s now going to pay the price.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Aaron Hernandez: Sheltered by His Own Talent? appeared first on Law Street.

Federal Drug Enforcement Agents (DEA) made unannounced visits on Sunday to multiple National Football League teams as part of a continuing investigation. Agents investigated the San Francisco 49ers, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Seattle Seahawks. This investigation was fueled by  a class action lawsuit brought against the NFL last summer.

In May 2014, the NFL painkiller lawsuit was brought by approximately 1,300 former players claiming in essence that the team doctors “intentionally, recklessly and negligently created and maintained a culture of drug misuse, substituting players’ health for profit.” Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that since 1969, team doctors have been supplying medications in ways that constituted a dangerous misuse, and that the doctors fraudulently concealed the dangers and side effects from players in order to keep them on the field. They believe that the NFL placed priority of profit before the health of the players. Plaintiffs claim that they have sustained severe injuries from this medical misfeasance, including but not limited to heart attacks, kidney failures, and addiction. The NFL has requested that the federal judge dismiss the suit.

Among other defenses, the NFL is likely to assert that the plaintiffs are barred by the statute of limitations, which is a legal device to ensure that claims are brought in an efficient matter. Specifically, these statutes set the maximum period in which a plaintiff can wait before filing a lawsuit. If the lawsuit is not brought within the time frame then the right to make a claim on that matter is lost. In some instances, however, a statute of limitations can be extended, or tolled, based on a delay in discovery of the injury. This would enable the plaintiff to have an extended period beyond the statute of limitations to bring such action upon the defendants once injury is discovered, and to prevent unjust enrichment.

In California, the statute of limitations for a personal injury suit is two years. In other words, from the time the cause of action occurred–in this case the date of injury–the plaintiffs’ have two years to bring forth a lawsuit. The NFL will likely argue that the statute of limitations has expired, and bar Plaintiffs from bringing the lawsuit. Specifically, it would argue that some of the specific actions brought within the complaint date back to 1969, which far exceeds the statute of limitations.

Under the delayed discovery rule, the statute of limitations deadline is tolled and time does not start to run until the Plaintiffs’ discover, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injuries or harm and that it was caused by the wrongdoing of the defendants. The plaintiffs’ have argued just that. In their amended complaint, they claim that the statute of limitations should be tolled, on grounds that they had not discovered, and had no good reason to know of their injuries until recently. Specifically, they argue that league doctors did not reveal the names of medications, and there were poor records regarding dispensing medication. Thus, such acts constituted concealment, which ultimately caused the plaintiffs’ injuries.

The NFL is clearly under a lot of heat at the moment. It still has the NFL Concussion Litigation going on, and the DEA’s visits last Sunday only added fuel to the fire with the current lawsuit. This case is still being heard in the northern district of California on the ruling of NFL’s motion to dismiss, but my gut tells me that there will be no dismissal. If that is the case, it will be interesting to see how the statute of limitations arguments play out, and more importantly, what actions are implemented within the NFL.

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NFL Painkiller Class Action Lawsuit is a Toss Up Between League and Players appeared first on Law Street.