FALL RIVER, Mass. (MyFoxBoston.com) – Former Patriot Aaron Hernandez's defense submitted new evidence in his trial Friday and then sent in additional photographic evidence Thursday regarding the search of his home in 2013.
The additional video and photographic evidence submitted is relevant to whether police who searched Hernandez's home on June 18, 2013 had a copy of the search warrant and affidavit. According to the court filing, the defense is looking specifically at Trooper Cherven, as he was supposed to have the manila folder containing the documents in his possession on the day of the search.
The first submission included evidence from local media outlets that shows four officers approach Hernandez's front door on the day of the search. Cherven appears in the photo in a State Police jacket with both hands visible, "and he has no manila file folder or anything else in his hands," according to court documents. There is also a CBS News broadcast that shows four officers going to the front door of the former Patriot's home and speaking to a woman, Shayanna Jenkins. The video shows one officer handing a piece of paper to the woman who answered the door. That paper may have been the search warrant, court documents said. However, both the photo and video contradict Cherven's testimony that he was holding a manila folder with the original warrant, copy of the warrant, and affidavit, the filing read. During his testimony, Cherven also said that he was the person who served the warrant.
The evidence submitted Thursday was a screen shot taken from the surveillance video system hard drive. The screen shot shows Jenkins holding the search warrant, but Cherven did not have a folder in his hands, according to court documents.
“Based on this evidence, the court should find that the Commonwealth has not met its burden of establishing that Trooper Cherven had with him the search warrant with affidavit attached during the course of the search,” the filing read.
The filling went on to say that the search warrant did not describe the “items that could be seized, and the lack of particularity was not cured since the affidavit was not present in the house at the time of the search.”
A 2007 case is cited in the document, saying that the court recognized that "a lack of particularity can be cured if the warrant and affidavit were attached to each other and present during the search." Hernandez's defense claims that it is the state's responsibility to "prove that was the case."
"Because the Commonwealth's proof fails, the motion to suppress the electronic devices must be granted. And, for the reasons set forth in the defendant's motion and memorandum, and argued orally, the motion to suppress the fruits of the seizure of the DVR and hard drive of the surveillance system, including video recorded inside the home, must be granted, as well," the filling read.