What I'm saying is that there is no legal "loophole" that gives Hernandez his "guaranteed" money just because he elected to kill himself in prison, which voids the conviction.
He signed a 7-year deal in 2012, that included a $12.5 million signing bonus and just under $16M guaranteed. The signing bonus was apparently not fully paid up at signing - there was still $3.25M left due to him before 2013 started.
He played in 2012 and he never played a snap for them again. The day after his arrest in July 2013, the Patriots voided the contract, stating that the contract "was guaranteed for skill and injury. It wasn't guaranteed for personal conduct that cast the club in a negative light." The Patriots didn't pay him any further money, including the remainder of the $3.25 signing bonus that was still unpaid.
As an aside, the estate might still have claim for that unpaid signing bonus. That argument has nothing to do with the conviction, but is based on the idea that the signing bonus was "earned" at signing and his subsequent conduct doesn't invalidate it. There's some sense to that argument, but it is beside the point about the voiding of the conviction.
So the Pats voided his contract long before there was ever a trial or a conviction. At that time, there was clear evidence about Hernandez's illegal possession of guns. There were text messages with him discussing marijuana deals and associating with convicted criminals. There was evidence of Hernandez's efforts to destroy his home surveillance system and his cell phone while the police were looking for evidence.
And in the trial, the defense made several admissions, including that Hernandez was at the scene but did not shoot Lloyd. There was evidence of his lifestyle of drugs, guns, and associating with criminal elements. Hernandez's estate will have to come after the Pats for this money - and their sole argument will be that Hernandez killed himself in prison therefore voiding the conviction that was handed down by the jury and confirmed by the judge.
This is not simply a question conviction or no conviction. The team will defend its position based on the evidence of his conduct, irrespective of the voiding of the conviction. It's hard to imagine how the estate's position will be sympathetic.