“The last time that I know of was the day I went to court with Jocelyn, one of their last hearings.”
“And that was December 2006, was that correct?”
“I guess.”
“Now, you said that you know that Jocelyn and Wesley separated from one another in 2005. That’s when you would consider them to be living in two separate households.”
“Yes.”
“And when you and Jocelyn were spying up at the lake house in Moneta in March of 2006, they’d been separated since 2005 by that time. Many months had passed, correct?”
“They were not living together at the time.”
“Right,” Blair Sanzone said with a nod. “And he was living in Chesapeake, Virginia, working down there. Did you know that?”
“I did not have personal knowledge of where he was living.”
“And did you know at that time, that night in March of 2006 when you were up at the lake house spying that Jocelyn was romantically involved with Marcy Shepherd?”
Both members of the prosecution team jumped to their feet with objections, and the judge sent the jury out of the courtroom once again. After hearing from both sides, the judge ruled in favor of the prosecution, saying, “Putting aside whether there was or was not a relationship, it’s my ruling that whether this witness knew or did not know of such relationship, if it did exist, that is irrelevant. Objection is sustained.”
Blair Sanzone switched to another line of questioning. “In December of 2006, you and Jocelyn went to the lake house in Moneta, didn’t you?”
“Yes, we did.”
“And you two actually took a big van that afternoon that you went; is that correct?”
“Yes.”
“And when you were there at the lake house property, you two entered that property and you essentially cleaned out the lake house of all content that you two could fit in that van, is that correct?”
“No, that is not correct.”
“Did you two remove furniture from the lake house property?”
“We removed some items of furniture but not all the furniture.”
“And you removed all sorts of personal items, anything you could fit in that van, isn’t that correct?”
“No, that’s not correct.”
“What did you put in that van?”
“We put in the van a chest coffee table, a tan-colored sectional sofa, a tan colored love seat, a twin mattress that was still in the package. We put in the van a tool belt and toolbox and some tile that was leftover from tiling of the bathroom and the kitchen. We took a few silk plants, a television, a DVD player, and a blue and white rug and a bedspread.”
“And you, of course, didn’t take inventory of that; write down exactly what you took that day.”
“I know what we took that day [ . . . ] Those items were stored in my home for six to eight months after that. So I know what we took because it was stored in my home.”
“And Ms. Earnest took some of the property back to her place, didn’t she?”
“No, she did not, not until months later.”
Blair Sanzone badgered her about that day a bit longer and then asked, “Now, up until December 2007, you said you were able to go to Jocelyn’s house whenever you wanted to. She gave you sort of unfettered access to her home; is that correct?”
“Yes, as she had to mine.”
Blair Sanzone asked whether Jennifer went “snooping through [Jocelyn’s] drawers,” which Jennifer denied. “I actually went into her drawers and cabinets and cupboards to clean, straighten, rearrange, and organize her things.”
“And you didn’t go through every single drawer with the purpose of looking to see if a handgun was there or not, at any point, up until December nineteenth, 2007.”
“I would have no cause to look for a handgun. She didn’t have one.”
“And when you were going through those drawers, did you come across condoms?”
“After they no longer lived together, no. There were none in the bedroom.”
“So as far as you know in December of 2007, there were no condoms in drawers in her home to your personal knowledge.”
“I did not look in her drawers in December,” Jennifer said.
Blair Sanzone asked a few other questions about whether the shotgun was too big to fit in a drawer, and what sports Jocelyn played, then turned her attention to Jocelyn’s street.
“You can park along Pine Bluff, isn’t that correct? There’s a space for you to pull over, you know, on either side of the road and park down the street or up the street . . .”
“Yes.”
“Who else did you know who was also staying in [Jocelyn’s] home, if anyone, in December of 2007?”
“I do not know of anyone.”
Blair Sanzone passed the witness over to Wes Nance for redirect. He asked just two questions. “Ms. Kerns, Ms. Sanzone made reference to your ability to park on Pine Bluff Drive. And it’s a residential neighborhood, isn’t that right?”
“Yes.”
“In the winter of 2007, though, did you see the vehicle that Mr. Earnest was driving when you had that conversation with him that night?”
“There were no vehicles on the road at all on either side anywhere near Jocelyn’s home,” Jennifer said.
Robert Kerns took the oath to testify after his wife stepped down from the stand. He said, “I originally met Wes in the mid-nineties when playing golf in Bedford County . . . We became friends through playing golf. Also, we played a lot of volleyball together. And through volleyball, I met Jocelyn. And then our wives [ . . . ] became best friends at that point.”
He said that then they spent a lot of time together doing couples’ things. “While the marriage was intact, I was closer to Wesley. After it was dissolved, closer to Jocelyn because she spent a lot of time at the house and Wesley was living outside of Lynchburg.”
In response to the Commonwealth’s questions, Bob told the jurors about the breakfast meeting he’d had with Wesley in the fall of 2007. He explained Wesley’s concerns regarding his credit, financial obligations, and being forced into an untimely sale of the lake house.
On cross, Joey Sanzone jumped right into that meeting. “He explained to you that [ . . . ] they were paying the bills, didn’t he? He explained to you that the bills were being paid.”
“Yes.”
“And he told you that they were selling the rental house.”
“I don’t recall that. He may have. I don’t recall a discussion of the rental house.”
“If I told you that the rental house was sold and they received . . . a hundred and thirty-seven [thousand] dollars from the sale of that house, you wouldn’t disagree with me, would you?”
“All I know is he communicated to me that he was desperate enough for cash that he took things from the house basically to sell.”
“Well, I know that’s your claim here today. What did he sell? Tell the jury what he sold.”
“He did not tell me what he took,” Bob said. “I know through other sources what was taken from the house.” When pressed on this point by Sanzone, Bob admitted, “After four years, I do not recall specifically what he told me he took from the house to sell.” Nor did he know how much money Wesley might have gotten for any of those items, nor from the sale of the rental house.
“You don’t know any of the specifics of any of the other financial amounts that they were dealing with,” Sanzone said.
“Specific amounts, no, sir.”
“And essentially, the entire nature of the conversation was he just wanted you to talk to Jocelyn to make sure that his opinion that they try to sell the . . . lake house and realize the most from it was what he wanted you to convey. That’s the only specific you recall about financial detail.”
Bob started to talk about Wesley’s credit, and Sanzone cut him o
ff, but Krantz objected. “He’s allowed to answer his question.”
“All right,” Judge Updike said. “Sustain that. Allow the witness to answer.”
Bob continued, “He described what his finances were and that his credit was being destroyed and that he was strapped because of [ . . . ] his obligations to the lake house mortgage and trying to meet other financial obligations and that’s why he took items from the home.”
“Well, I’m not asking you to repeat your narrative every time I ask you a question.”
“Now, Mr. Sanzone . . .” the judge admonished.
“I’m asking . . .”
Updike cut him off. “Mr. Sanzone, don’t instruct the witnesses. Now if [ . . . ] any counsel has a problem with the conduct of a witness [ . . . ] ask me to address it. Okay?”
“Judge, then, I would ask that the witness be instructed to be responsive to my questions.”
“All right, sir. I feel, at this time, that instruction is not necessary, not appropriate.”
“All right,” Sanzone said and then asked the witness, “What specific credit matters were causing any trouble?”
“He just mentioned that, in general, his credit was being damaged.”
“So my original question was . . . what specific detail you can recall about the finances of the lake house?”
“His credit was being damaged because of the lake house, yes, sir.”
“And you have no . . . knowledge of any of the specifics about the credit.”
“No, sir.”
“You have no knowledge of any of the specifics about how much he made a month, how much was being spent a month.”
“He did share with me the mortgage on the house . . . Forty-seven hundred, somewhere in the forty-sevens, mid-forties.”
“And they were splitting that?”
“No. I think he had a larger share of responsibility for the lake house. It was not an even split.”
“Mr. Kerns, are you confusing what took place with a December hearing before the Bedford County Circuit Court and an escrow agreement with the conversation that occurred before December of 2006?”
“I was not party to that hearing.”
“Well, the seventy-five, twenty-five comes out of that . . . Did you know that?”
Bob said he did not.
“As far as your relationship with Wesley, you were on Jocelyn’s side of their disagreements after 2005.”
“Not necessarily. From a financial standpoint, what he told me that morning made sense. And that’s why I communicated it to Jocelyn . . . I think anyone with any sense of economics would say that if they sold the lake house quickly, they were due to lose money. If they waited until the market turned, they’d make money. And I believed him when he said he was financially strapped.”
When asked, Bob said that he’d seen Jocelyn at least once a week but denied knowing either Marcy Shepherd or Maysa Munsey and was not aware of his wife spending any time with either woman. He also did not know about any phone calls to or from Marcy or Maysa to his home.
He also denied ever having seen condoms in Jocelyn’s drawers, telling Sanzone, “I never looked in drawers.” Nor did he know of any people other than Wesley’s brother, Tyler, who might’ve been living at her house in 2007.
“My last question is: do you know if any of these financial problems or all of these financial problems we’re talking about was solved with the sale of the rental property?” Joey Sanzone asked.
“I have no idea.” To Bob’s great relief, neither attorney had any further questions.
TWENTY-NINE
Shari Irving, an employee of Genworth Financial for twenty-five years, was the next witness for the prosecution.
“When did you start to work for Jocelyn Earnest?” Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Wes Nance asked.
“In early 2007.”
When asked about Jocelyn’s demeanor, Shari replied, “She was very upbeat. She smiled all the time. She was very encouraging. I appreciated her management style. She was a people person. She cared about the people who worked for her. She had a plan for us for our professional development. And she cared about our personal life, our families. She always asked about [ . . . ] my family, my grandchild. She just helped all the people that worked for her in any way she could professionally. She was a big fan of the Life is Good merchandise. And she had a lot of us in the office buying that merchandise. You would see cups and little signs pop up on people’s desks that said ‘Life is Good.’ And that’s just the kind of person she was,” Shari said, noting, “I did very much enjoy working for her. She was one of the best bosses that I’ve had in the twenty-five years with the company.”
“Did you ever see her outside of work or was it strictly at work?”
“I did see her occasionally outside of work, usually for work functions. She did invite some of her direct reports to her home once or twice for an occasion.”
“During the entire time that you interacted with Jocelyn Earnest did you ever see her in possession of a handgun?”
“No, I did not.” Shari also told the jury that Jocelyn did not bring a purse to work but did carry a laptop bag back and forth. On multiple occasions, she had seen Jocelyn packing and unpacking that bag and she never saw a weapon in there, either.
Shari discussed the meeting they’d had late afternoon on December 19, 2007. She stayed at work afterward to retrieve documents, and later that night at 6:53 P.M. sent Jocelyn an email requesting overtime pay, as per procedure. Nance produced the reply Shari received from Jocelyn at 7:28 P.M., approving the overtime.
In response to defense attorney Joey Sanzone’s questions, Shari explained Genworth’s management structure and said that she’d had no contact with Jocelyn on the morning of December 19, 2007, but that afternoon there had been a system failure that ultimately caused the overtime work.
Sanzone noted that Jocelyn Earnest had “worked with y’all on it until quarter to six.”
“Yes.”
“But then she had to leave.”
“Yes.”
“And she never indicated that she was going to come back that evening, did she?”
“No.”
“Now . . . if she had an appointment, she could have returned—she would have been able to get into the office and work on the problem, couldn’t she?”
“She could,” Shari said.
“Did you know Maysa Munsey?” Sanzone asked.
“I know who Maysa Munsey is, yes.”
“Did you ever see Maysa Munsey over there visiting with Jocelyn in her office?”
“Yes . . . once or twice a week maybe.”
“Do you know Marcy Shepherd?”
“Yes.”
“How often would Marcy Shepherd be over there?”
“About the same time.”
“Do you know Jennifer Kerns?”
“No.”
“Have you ever seen Wesley Earnest prior to December nineteenth . . . 2007?”
“No.”
• • •
Other colleagues of Jocelyn’s from Genworth Financial were called to the stand and had similar memories of her positive attitude.
Lisa Cawthorne described her as “very happy [ . . . ] very upbeat, very excited. And towards the end of the year, she was more excited about the holidays and being able to spend it with her family.” Lisa told the jury that she’d had a late afternoon meeting with a very upbeat Jocelyn on the day she died.
Blair Sanzone conducted the cross-examination, eliciting that Lisa had never seen Wesley before December 2007 and, although she knew of Maysa Munsey professionally, they worked in different offices; ditto Marcy Shepherd, although Marcy had collaborated on a project that brought her out to Lisa’s office about once a month.
Blair asked about December 19, “And did she [Jocelyn] tell you she
had dinner planned with Marcy Shepherd that evening?”
“She did not.”
“Did she tell you anything about her evening [plans] on December the nineteenth?”
“No, she did not.”
Pam Gillespie, another Genworth Financial employee, described Jocelyn as “very friendly and always was interested in how you were doing after work and if you had problems at work.”
Pam had helped organize the Christmas dinner on December 18, 2007, and recalled Jocelyn as “very happy, glad to be there, went around, talked to just about everybody.”
On cross-examination, Blair Sanzone determined that Pam had never seen or heard from Wesley Earnest, nor had she witnessed Jocelyn receive any phone calls or text messages from Wesley.
After Pam Gillespie stepped down, a fourth Genworth staff person took her place. Gary Brandt had only begun working there a couple of months before Jocelyn died.
Wes Nance used Gary’s presence on the stand to enter into evidence a photograph from his camera taken of employees at the Christmas party, the night before Jocelyn was murdered. On cross, Blair Sanzone asked if Gary ever saw Wesley Earnest or received any phone calls or emails from him. Brandt said “no” to all three. Then she asked if he knew Maysa Munsey or Marcy Shepherd. He said that their names sounded familiar but that was about it.
• • •
Following the Genworth employees was Wayne East, an installation design manager for Allied Security systems. He testified that on December 29, 2007, the sheriff’s department had called him out to Jocelyn’s home to retrieve a history of the times that the system had been turned off. He discovered that the time and date were off, either because the installer had not set it properly (a common occurrence with those systems) or possibly due to a power outage.
Wayne said that he then removed the panel from the house system and took it back to the office. Then he adjusted the date and time with the computer—the settings were fourteen hours and eleven minutes ahead of actual time, and the year was set at 2000. From that, he knew that on December 18, the system had been armed at 8:18 A.M. and disarmed at 7:38 P.M. On December 19, it went on at 7:34 A.M. and off at 7:35 P.M.
Under Cover of the Night Page 15
