I don’t think I’ve seen anyone so lawyered-up and prepared as if having taken a course in acting as Hernandez’s girlfriend Shayanna Jenkins. She doesn’t remember anything the prosecutor asks. She is totally acting. I read somewhere she had disappeared from the court room for a while. I’d have to guess she was attending acting school. I’d like the prosecutor to ask her if she had anyone teaching her how to testify. I tell you, after her performance Hernandez’s goose is cooked if the case goes to the jury.
Sometimes lawyers can be a little too smart for their own good. They had a problem with Shayanna because if she lied in a murder case she could go to prison for life. If she refused to testify she could have been held in contempt and jailed. They had to come up with a way to get her to testify and say nothing. Her lawyer had to figure out how to squeeze Shayanna out of this difficult position while helping out Hernandez.
I’m not so sure she’s succeeded. Shayanna may not have been well advised. You can’t keep not remembering things that normally you would remember. If you could then we wouldn’t need a Fifth Amendment. All we would need is for someone to say they didn’t remember. So there’s a limit to what is acceptable.
Prosecutor: “I show you this date on your telephone bills when your phone was used to make calls from Home Depot and Longhorn Steak House. It says June 17th. Does that refresh you recollection as to the date?” Shayanna (who wants to say she was there at another day): “No.” The tweets I’ve read have people saying she is lying.
Some are getting upset at the prosecutor’s low key approach. I’m upset that he hasn’t demanded the right to cross-examine this witness. If he has I’m upset that he’s being prevented from doing it.
But his approach that I’ve seen on Friday and Monday tends to cause one to drift off. He is extremely tedious. He gives her things to read to refresh her recollection without identifying what he is giving her. (I assume it is a transcript of what she testified to in the grand jury.) She reads it and says it doesn’t refresh her recollection. When Hernandez lawyer reads her prior testimony from the grand jury (strange he can read it out loud and the prosecutor can’t or didn’t) she remembers everything.
Shayanna knows nothing of the contents of the box that she emptied into the dumpster’ where the dumpster was located; never told defendant she got rid of the box after he asked her to do it; doesn’t recognize shoes shown in her closet, and on and on.
When Hernandez’s lawyer asks her questions she’s pretty jolly testifying, laughing here and there. That’s not going to help her in front of jury that’s just listened to a day and half of obfuscations.
She starts to tear up when telling that she and defendant had a tough time in their relationship. No tears when she talked about her sister’s boyfriend Llyod being murdered. Judge didn’t warn her not to cry. Judge did warn the mother of Llyod not to do it. Quite a double standard.
On examination by Hernandez’s lawyer Shayanna has a good recollection of most things asked. Hernandez’s lawyer has her saying victim and Hernandez were friends. How does that help his case when it appears Hernadez left Lloyd’s body in the dirt and hung around the pool the next day?
Judge really doesn’t understand the rules of evidence. Letting defense counsel put tons in through hearsay over prosecutor’s objection. Prosecutors asked her questions showing how her testimony for Hernandez’s lawyer differed from what she testified to before. He’s cut short by judge.
Shayanna steps down. Another prosecutor puts on witness who tells about one telephone number calling another numbers and where the cell towers are located. It’s confusing. Prosecutor doesn’t identify who the telephone is listed to. Just says ”tel # 123-456-7890 called 098-765-4321 from tower in Abington.” Should say “”tel # 123-456-7890 listed to John Doe called 098-765-4321 listed to Jane Roe from tower in Abington.” Day ends with that confusing me, if not everyone else.
Next day (Tuesday) big news is Bob Kraft testifying. Appears prosecutor did not interview him before he testified. If he had he wouldn’t have put him on the stand since he helped defendant saying how the defendant denied killing Odin Llyod. Kraft told how Hernandez hugged and kissed him all the time.
Prosecutor (according to reporter) asked Kraft if Hernandez had told Kraft how he knew what the time of the murder was. Perfectly legitimate question. Not hearsay because it is an admission by defendant. Hernandez’s lawyer objects. Judge Garsh guessing again sustains the objection and keeps it out of evidence. I’d say she was inconsistent on her evidentiary rulings but that’d be wrong. She’ll always go for defendant when in doubt or guessing.
Next witness after Kraft is a guy who works for Patriots named Briggs. He says he asked Hernandez why he was “so lawyered-up” Defense objected. Damage was done. Judge tells jurors to strike comment. She says having a lawyer is a “sacred right.” Don’t remember that being in 10 Commandments or Sermon on the Mount or my Catechism.
Briggs is prosecutions best witness to date and he murders Hernandez. He had Hernandez saying: “he had been with Lloyd at a nightclub and they had gone their separate ways at the end of the evening, though he had given Lloyd the keys to a vehicle.” He then said Hernandez: “swore on his baby’s life that he was telling the truth.” Everyone who is paying attention knows that Hernandez wasn’t at a club with Llyod, he didn’t go his separate way, and he didn’t give him the vehicle.”
Prosecutors should know when to hold on and when to fold a case just like when playing Texas hold’em. It should stop with the foolishness of all the distances and telephone calls. Prosecution should have rested after Biggs. (It actually should have rested a week or so ago and never called Shayanna or some of the other meaningless witnesses.)
Happy April Fool’s Day!