WINNEMUCCA — A local man walked away from the Humboldt County Courthouse free from criminal charges after the jury returned a not guilty verdict in his case Thursday afternoon.  Bruce Manzo Hernandez, 20 was charged with possession of a controlled substance for sales, a category B felony.

After the verdict Hernandez said he was “relieved”.  He took the opportunity to thank his attorney, Walter Fey, and the members of the jury for their service.

Jill Chatfield, the jury foreman, told SPJ the members of the jury were not provided with enough evidence the defendant intended to sell a controlled substance to convict him.

CASE HISTORY:  Events began in May 2008 when the Tri-County Drug Enforcement Team served a warrant on the two-bedroom apartment where Hernandez lived with his mother and five other people.  Hernandez’s name was not listed on the warrant, but the names of three other suspects were.

According to the case investigator, Chris Aker, a significant amount of marijuana was found in the apartment.  In the hall closet alone investigators found 20 little baggies of marijuana hidden among folded towels.

In Hernandez’s room investigators found two personal safes in the closet.  In one safe, which was unlocked, investigators found marijuana in little baggies and $500 in cash.  In the other safe, which was opened after investigators found the key in the possession of another member of the household, there just little baggies.

Aker explained to the jury it was his experience people bagged controlled substances in this manner when they were going to sell them.

The people in the house were arrested.  Hernandez was not arrested right away because he was at school at the time of the raid but was picked up later.

ARGUMENT – THE PROSECUTION:   Prosecuting the case was Chief Deputy DA Brian Williams from the Humboldt County DA’s Office.

As the defendant was charged with possessing the drugs to sell, and he wasn’t home to possess anything, Williams carefully outlined the difference between actual and constructive possession.

The defendant was being charged with constructive possession; that is, that he had control over the marijuana – even though he wasn’t home at the time.

Williams encouraged the jury to use their common sense and said, “When you leave your house is the stuff you leave behind no longer yours?”

Key to the prosecutor’s case was the defendant’s girlfriend, Terra Webber, 18,  who was living with Hernandez in May 2008.

Webber was home from school on the day of the raid and was taken into custody with everyone else.  Williams noted the case against Webber has worked itself through the criminal justice system already and she wasn’t offered anything in exchange for her testimony.

Webber told the court she was aware of the marijuana in the house and had, in fact, complained about it to Hernandez.  She told the jury the items in the room she and the defendant shared were theirs – including Hernandez’s two safes and the contents therein.

“Terra’s testimony, I will admit, is key to our case because she puts Hernandez in that house,” Williams told the jury.  “Look at her testimony with care and weight.”

ARGUMENT – THE DEFENSE:  Fey, however, suggested Webber had “an axe to grind” where her former boyfriend was concerned.

He asked the jury to look carefully at the evidence and avoid assuming too much.

As an example, he told the story of a cat, a mouse, and a bag with a hole in it.  The story goes:  Let’s say someone put a cat and a mouse in a bag, tied the bag closed, then walked away.  When the individual comes back later and opens the bag the cat jumps out and the mouse is gone.  Upon examining the bag, the individual finds a hole in the bottom of the bag.  Did the cat eat the mouse?  Or did the mouse get away?

There’s just not enough evidence to know.

Fey likened that story to the evidence against his client.  No evidence was presented that would allow the jury to know when the marijuana arrived at the house.  And since Hernandez wasn’t home at the time, he couldn’t know what was going on in the house – including his bedroom , Fey argued.

THE JURY:  Chatfield said when the jury first began to discuss the matter they were pretty split between guilty and not guilty.  So they went back and carefully read the instructions to the jury.

“We were going through exactly what it meant to prove intent,” she said and added, “It was a pretty spirited discussion.”
In the end the jury decided the evidence proving the defendant intended to sell the marijuana “wasn’t as strong as it could have been,” Chatfield said.