member. Enerson said a photo ….

member. Enerson said a photo lineup was presented to the victim with Leovigildo’s picture as one of those included and the victim did not confirm that anyone pictured performed the stabbing. Enerson also said during the defense’s line of questioning that no other photo lineups were prepared for the victim that would have included other parties that were at the bar that night.

Hernandez’s attorneys John Mathie and Vanessa Avila cross-examined Enerson’s statements. After being asked multiple questions about the setting of the incident, Enerson said he did not know how many people were at the bar at the time of the incident but it was more than just Hernandez and the victim.

“There very possibly could have been more people [in the bar] I just don’t know their names,” Enerson said. He later acknowledged that there were several more people at the bar that night than the victim and Hernandez.

He also said the incident occurred at bar close and there could have been any number of people heading to their vehicles and making their way home at that time.

“Presumably, anyone in the bar, even outside of the groups that were directly connected to this, would have been leaving the bar and in the parking lot, correct?” Mathie stated.

“I would assume so, at bar close, yeah,” Enerson said.

Enerson followed up by stating that he did not have an exact count on how many people were in the parking lot at the time of the incident. The questions then shifted to the officer’s contact with the victim.

“[The victim] could describe to you in no circumstances, how the stabbing occurred?” Mathie asked.

“He was not able to,” Enerson responded.

Mathie also asked Enerson about the report from the crime lab. He asked Enerson if there were in fact three sets of DNA found on the handle of the knife. Enerson said that was correct. Enerson then confirmed that the DNA samples were only tested for Hernandez and the victim’s DNA samples and not any other parties that were at the scene of the incident that night.

After numerous questions about the third DNA sample by the defense and subsequent objections by the state, it was determined that the discussion on whether or not someone else could have been handling the knife when the stabbing occurred was not on the table at the preliminary hearing.

In his closing statement, Mathie said the state (Lawrence) had failed to bring forth a minimal amount of credible information that would lead the court to believe that Hernandez was the person who performed the crime.

“Your honor, I think the state has not shown, even to the level of probable cause, that Leovigildo attempted homicide on the night in question,” Mathie said. “I acknowledge that the burden of proof is low, but it is still there. It is higher than reasonable suspicion and it is slightly higher than the burden of proof required for a served warrant.”

“I also acknowledge that the state gets all reasonable inferences,” Mathie continued. “But again, those inferences must be reasonable. I would argue that an inference that requires significant facts not presented, and ignorance of facts that were presented is not a reasonable inference.”

“Here, we have a case where the state has not a single eyewitness that has identified my client as the individual that perpetuated a stabbing,” he said. “They have not even produced a witness that laid foundation for circumstances that may have led up to a stabbing let alone any allegation to the circumstances under which that stabbing allegedly occurred.”

He went on to say the state’s argument solely focused on incriminating Hernandez without actually doing so while at the same time, not excluding any of the other parties that were onscene at the time of the incident.

“In fact, the evidence presented by the state establishes by scientific testing that there was a third individual that also held the knife that night,” Mathie said. He said the state has not produced an explanation as to why there was a third set of DNA on the knife and said the state did not prove that there was not a third party that held the knife that night at the bar.

He also said Hernandez had been held in county jail for four months without an eyewitness account of him committing a crime and asked the court to dismiss the case.

“I understand that this is a serious charge but this is the case that a preliminary hearing exists for,” Mathie said. “If the court dismisses today, it would be without prejudice and if the state discovers new evidence that actually, in some capacity, inculpates my client, they could re-file the case.”

He finished his statement by pleading with the court to let his client go free after spending four months in jail on $250,000 bond with no credible evidence leading to his involvement in the incident.

Lawrence came back and argued that the preliminary hearing was meant to prove that a felony probably occurred and the defendant probably committed that felony. She also stated that the defense was jumping to conclusions during part of his statement.

“The defense counsel took some liberties in his testimony with his argument,” Lawrence said. “There’s nothing in the records that suggests that a third party was holding the handle of the knife that evening.”

Lawrence said the state had met its obligation to prove that a felony did occur and that Hernandez probably was the one who committed it and ask that the bond be continued through arraignment and trial.

Judge Suzanne O’Neill ruled that the state had done its job in showing Hernandez was probably the party who committed the crime and upheld the $250,000 bond requirement through arraignment and the upcoming trial. Both the pre-trial conference and the trial itself are yet to be scheduled.