Aaron Hernandez is an innocent man.

That’s not according to a jury or a judge or to the thousands who watched when the fallen New England Patriot was found guilty of first-degree murder just two short years ago. It has nothing to do with evidence or any kind of constitutional right.

No, Hernandez is innocent because he killed himself in a state that still follows an antiquated legal rule that will likely remain on the books. Common law, in this case, overpowered common sense.

Abatement ab initio is an all-or-nothing legal doctrine that requires a conviction to be vacated when a defendant dies during a pending appeal. The idea is that it’s fundamentally unfair to uphold a conviction that was untested by a higher court.

“Abatement remains the law in this commonwealth, and the court is compelled to follow binding precedent,” Judge E. Susan Garsh said yesterday.

In some situations that justification may make sense, but here all it does is cause pain and confusion.

Bristol prosecutors convicted Hernandez after a massive trial that sparked headlines and captured the attention of the entire nation. They powered through defense-friendly rulings from Garsh and pieced together a story with only one conclusion — that Hernandez murdered Odin L. Lloyd on June 17, 2013.

Garsh, in her own right, presided over what seemed like an appeal-proof verdict. Her rulings were tough but fair, and when a controversial issue arose, she issued oral and written decisions that would have law professors nodding in approval.

But none of that matters. Garsh was forced to throw it all away because she wasn’t going to break from a string of precedent she is bound to follow.

Bristol prosecutors are upset, and they have every right to be. They are going to appeal Garsh’s decision all the way to the state’s highest court, and they are going to fight to add some sensible exemptions to the blanket rule.

“To allow the defendant to exploit this outdated rule in Massachusetts undermines confidence in the fair administration of justice, and the victim’s and the community’s right to the integrity and respect of a jury’s verdict,” Bristol District Attorney Thomas Quinn III said after the decision.

Quinn is right to take aim at the law, but his office is going to lose if the Supreme Judicial Court even chooses to hear the pitch. The precedent is clear and has been upheld at least four times by the high court.

Beacon Hill doesn’t seem too interested — or outraged enough — to make any changes. State Sen. William Brownsberger, chairman of the Joint Judiciary Committee, said he hasn’t heard of any new bills seeking to challenge or change the common law rule.

And, speaking as an attorney, he said he has no problem with the status quo.

“I think it’s fine the way it is,” the Belmont Democrat said. “It can’t depend on whether the defendant killed himself. If that was the case, we would have to have a full trial as to whether that happened. There’s no time for that. The matter is closed.”

That’s where this chapter in the Hernandez saga will end. Odin Lloyd was murdered in a hail of bullets, and now his mother, Ursula Ward, has to live with the reality that his killer had his record wiped clean.

Aaron Hernandez gained a state of innocence by hanging himself, and his legitimate conviction was buried with him.