Skip to main content

Prosecutor Fights Back Against Baez’s Fiery Defense in Closing Arguments


Commonwealth prosecutor Patrick Haaggan fought back against Jose Baez’s closing argument, mostly focusing on the defense’s attempt to discredit the star witness — Alexander Bradley.

During his closing, Baez hit Bradley hard and suggested he was a liar who allegedly committed perjury on the stand and cut a deal with the Commonwealth for immunity in the case. Essentially, Baez attempted to make a strong impression on jurors that Bradley was untrustworthy, sell out, willing to say anything to make the Commonwealth happy.

Haagan, however, painted a different picture of a man who came forward after his former friend attempted to kill him in a separate shooting in Florida. Haagan said there may have been some minor inconsistencies in Bradley’s statements, but taken as a whole, his statements about what happened the night of July 2012 largely match up with the evidence.  He also dismissed the idea that the Commonwealth was simply out to get an NFL player.

He then closed by asking the jurors to find the truth, right now, and cut through the conspiracy theories and “wild speculation… from the defense.”  He said the families of the victims have waited five years and the time for had finally arrived.

Haagan finished by asking jurors to “speak the truth through [their] verdicts and find [Hernandez] guilty” as charged.

Judge Jeffrey Locke then instructed the jurors to take lunch and return to court at 2:00 PM.

[image via screengrab]

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Filed Under:

Follow Law&Crime: