Bedford judge tosses verdict in wife-killing case

By Rex Bowman

BEDFORD

In a bitter, shocking blow to her friends and family, Jocelyn Earnest's own words have aided the defense of the man convicted of her murder - her estranged husband, Wesley.

Monday, a Bedford County judge threw out his conviction because jurors had read her journals.

The ruling brought tears to the eyes of Jocelyn's mother and sister, present in Bedford County Circuit Court.

Judge James Updike said jurors were never meant to see the journals as they deliberated the fate of Wesley Earnest, a former Chesapeake educator, in April. But the 16 volumes - full of sharp words for her estranged husband - mysteriously ended up in the jury's deliberation room, leaving Updike no choice but to declare a mistrial.

Updike immediately scheduled a second trial for Nov. 8. The judge refused to set the 40-year-old Earnest free, ordering him to remain behind bars in Lynchburg until his new trial. Updike said that, now that Earnest has seen the evidence against him, the chances that he would flee have "dramatically increased."

The ruling, coming after one of the most publicized trials in Bedford in decades, is a reversal of fortune for the former assistant principal at Great Bridge High School in Chesapeake. The trial ran nine days, cost the county more than $14,000 and engendered national media coverage.

The jury convicted Earnest in April of first-degree murder, accepting prosecutors' contention that he drove from his home in Chesapeake on Dec. 19, 2007, shot his estranged wife in her Bedford County home and left a typewritten "suicide" note.

Forensic experts testified that Earnest's fingerprints were found on the note, but not his wife's. Earnest borrowed a friend's truck on the day his wife was killed. He later returned it with new tires he had bought under an assumed name, according to testimony.

Outside the courtroom Monday, Wesley Earnest's mother, Patricia Wimmer, said she is "glad there will be a new trial, but I'm sad my son's not coming home today." Wimmer maintained her son is innocent, the victim of an overzealous sheriff's department.

Defense attorney Joseph Sanzone said he will ask the judge to move the upcoming trial out of Bedford on the grounds that too many people in the county have heard of the case - and the guilty verdict. Earnest attended the hearing Monday but said nothing. Asked later about Earnest's reaction to the mistrial, Sanzone said Earnest is "happy to be in a situation where he's no longer convicted in Virginia."

Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Wes Nance, the lead prosecutor in the case, greeted reporters outside the courtroom.

"Are we disappointed this happened?" he said. "Absolutely. We're disappointed for the jury, we're disappointed for the taxpayers, for the investigators, for the witnesses. But most of all - for the family. But we know the judge did the right thing today."

Jocelyn Earnest's family members left the courtroom without stopping to talk to reporters.

During Monday's hearing, Updike said he has not yet figured out how the journals ended up in the deliberation room, but he blamed it on "accident and inadvertence."

The journals were discussed during the trial and marked for identification, but Updike did not allow prosecutors to include them among the roughly 250 pieces of evidence. In her journals, Jocelyn Earnest, 38, spoke of her fear of her husband, and Updike ruled that it would have been unfair to use them as evidence because Earnest could not face his accuser.

The jurors' scrutiny of the journals came to light when one juror posted a comment on the Lynchburg News & Advance's website April 11 stating that the journals had been in the deliberation room. Prosecutors became aware of the comment and notified Sanzone, who earlier this month asked Updike to declare a mistrial.

Updike summoned the jurors to the courtroom Monday. Ten of the 12 showed up, five men and five women. Updike asked them whether they had seen the journals. All of them said yes. Updike said it was immaterial whether the journals had influenced jurors' verdict - the mere act of seeing the journals during deliberations was enough to merit a mistrial.

Updike accepted responsibility for the mishandling of the journals. "They've done nothing wrong," he said of the jurors. "They're not going to get in any trouble. It's the trial judge's responsibility to make sure the trial is conducted properly."

Updike said he will review procedures with the court clerk's staff "to make sure that this does not happen again."