Conviction
failed to build a robust case against him and instead presented a flimsy one, based exclusively on “inconsistent statements” from two witnesses who, he noted, admitted to lying about their involvement early in the investigation.
The appellate court disagreed. In a five-page opinion issued Wednesday, Dec. 20, a panel of judges said the testimony in question was “substantial evidence” of Jenkins’ guilt.
Dametri Dale, a friend of Jenkins, testified that the husband asked him to find a hitman to kill his wife.
Joevan Joseph, the confessed gunman, told jurors Jenkins offered him $20,000 to be the one that pulled the trigger.
Prior to testifying, Joseph pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in exchange for a 15-year prison sentence, and Dale pleaded guilty to manslaughter with a weapon for 15 years of probation. Both men’s plea deals were contingent on their cooperation with assistant state attorneys prosecuting Jenkins.
Gregg Lerman, the defense attorney who represented Jenkins during the trial, called it “unquestionable that one or both of them lied any number of times about material issues.”
“Individuals shouldn’t be convicted in this country based on knowingly perjured testimony that the government puts up,” he said in the wake of Jenkins’ conviction.
The appellate judges found that prosecutors did not rely on prior inconsistent statements by the men, but on the material facts they both testified to at trial: Jenkins sought someone to kill his wife and promised to pay to get it done.
Had Jenkins’ appeal succeeded, the appellate court would have either set the verdict aside and freed Jenkins from the charge, or ordered a new trial. For now, neither will happen. An attempt to reach Tim Rodriguez, Jenkins’ appellate attorney, was not immediately successful.