Recent Trial Recap (State v Hernandez)

Charge:

Burglary of a Dwelling With Battery

Tried by:

Jury Trial (7/29/2026)

Verdict:

Not Guilty

Victims' version: This was an event that occurred in the town of Mt. Dora, Fl. The victim, (whose name will not be announced), declared that a phone repair man appeared at her residence on December 5th, 2024. The purpose, to exchange her old and damaged phone for a new one. She declared she had brought him a glass of water, and he proceeded to complete his task. However, she claimed in parting the residence, the defendant held her against a “specific wall,” and thereupon molested her by fondling her top and was kissing her. She declared he left, reentered the residence. She declared she had failed to lock the door after the first traumatic event. The victim declared the event occurred a second time at the same precise wall which she had identified. She represented after the event she fled to her friend's residence, (not the police station, and equal distance), and thereupon her friend called the police.

Defendant’s version: The defendant represented he appeared, and conducted the task of transferring data, and testing the phone. He declared the phone was in fact operational. He represented the victim was drinking a beer and brought him the same. He advised the victim that he could not drink and set it aside. He represented the victim acted promiscuously rubbing his shoulder. He declared seeking to leave she requested to give him a kiss, and he leaned forward whereupon she kissed him on the lips. He gathered his equipment and left the residence hurriedly and never returned or reentered the residence.

Counsel’s Assessment. Here the defendant was facing a “mandatory lifetime prison sentence,” for this offense. He insisted at all times never flinching that he was innocent. Defense counsel alleged there existed numerous errors.

Foremost, no officer assigned to the scene ever was put on the stand. The reason being, none were qualified to conduct this type of case. No walls or clothing was rolled to gather skin cells from the top worn by the “alleged victim,” nor the walls. This was a grave mistake. Had such steps been taken, the case might have been Nolle-Prosquied, (dismissed) and not proceeded to trial. A search for the truth by the State Attorney’s Office, as well as the Mt. Dora Police Department was ignored.

Second, the actions of the victim did not attest to truth. Logically, anyone in the position of a victim of a forcible crime would immediately seek self-preservation and lock the door behind them once the perpetrator left. The victim had not. This was a true tell of the purported victim and her credibility.

Third, there was no evidence why the victim’s ring camera was not operational. Why was the phone not operational? Was there any evidence of the defendant hurriedly leaving the scene? Did the neighbors’ phones reveal the defendant fleeing the scene? Not one effort to present or test such evidence was explained by the Mt. Dora Law Enforcement, nor the State Attorney’s Office. Instead, the State resorted to relying solely on the word of a suspect victim. A victim which presented herself poorly, and the evidence contradicted.

Fourth, no injuries were attempted to be documented about the body of the victim, to wit: red marks, slight bruising, etc. No photos of her body were documented by the Mt. Dora Police Department. This always occurs in every single sexual assault case this attorney has been involved. Not conjecture, but simply police investigatory practices.

Fifth, only an ill-trained law enforcement officer of the Mt. Dora Police Department was presented as appearing on sight of the crime. He held no memory of the event; was not the primary officer; could not recall anything and no longer worked for the Mt. Dora Police Department. No scene officer in charge of the crime was presented. A total waste of taxpayer money had transpired. It was tantamount to sending a dog catcher to a crime scene, and painted a grave picture for the residents of Mt. Dora, Fl.

Sixth, and most crucial point of the trial, [“Emphasis Added”] was to follow. The State had presented defense counsel with a video of the officers body cameras as they walked throughout the residence. However, the State Attorney’s Office had apparently not studied their own evidence in advance of trial. Possibly they had, and that was the reason the State would not present all the evidence to the jury at trial including the officers body cams for which the defense was willing to stipulate to the introduction. Right in the location where the victim declared she had been pushed against the wall, and forcibly fondled, there at the foot where her feet would be standing was a small Christmas tree. The kind we all have witnessed. A small base, standing approximately one foot in height. Next to the tree stood what appeared as canes, and an umbrella leaned up against the wall. Head height of the victim was a picture attached to the wall. Not one item had fallen, been stepped on, or disturbed, regardless of this twice-current occurring forcible event. Neither was the picture disturbed. Defense council studied the video and had made still photographs of the location and the same items therein. The State failed to present this evidence only hoping that the defense would not discover the facts. It is sad that the State did not present all of their evidence, obviously concealing such facts for a full jury review. Mt. Dora Police Department had characteristically made an arrest failing to recognize or ignoring such facts of this exculpatory evidence. Obviously more concerned with citizen appeasement than justice.

Seven, the State Attorney’s Office offered no evidence by telephonic records of phone impairment. No one was called, nor business records supplied with proper certification. Another grave error of our State Attorney’s Office. So inexcusable for such a serious allegation. Here the State declared that the victim had declared the event occurred, and that was all the jury needed. Obviously, no one keenly reviewed this case for presentation merely hoping a verdict might result in favor of the State. Possibly they had reviewed such evidence and that was the reason all of the evidence was not presented. This was not a diligent prosecution in this attorney’s mind to seek justice. A State Attorney is charged with the responsibility to seek justice and not simply obtain a verdict. When such evidence is not presented, the jury is left in a potential void of having the ability to independently view the case and to therein seek justice on behalf of the State. This attorney believes this was a grave failure in presenting such imperative factual evidence, or in bringing the case and concealing it.

Eight, the State and law enforcement both ignored possible ill motives of the residents who might have formed at that time. Potentially a deeper and more nefarious plan to sue a telephone company had been planned by the husband and or the wife. Defense counsel presented a modest house of the victim. Likewise, the State and the Mt. Dora Police Department ignored the possibility that this was a stay at home mom, out of work for the past year, or the prospect that this elderly woman was seeking to make a husband feel jealous. A reasonable possibility under the surrounding circumstances.

In conclusion, never assume that such cases are finely evaluated, and that both the State and law enforcement is deeply interested in only seeking to put in jail those clearly and cleanly accused of guilt. Law enforcement frequently fails to evaluate evidence; look for possible motives of the purported victim, to ensure that only the guilty are brought to trial and to ensure that complaints are not ill motivated. Should you or a friend be faced with such a scenario, you are welcome to contact the undersigned attorney for consideration of your defense. I have practiced now for thirty-eight (38) years largely practicing in criminal defense. I have handled all major crimes from murder to all

various capital and life felony offenses. My work has taken me to foreign countries. I strictly limit my workload, so cases are fully evaluated as explained in the case above. The reason you might not see me high on the advertisement board is that my reviews are limited by the few clients I undertake. I do not seek to gather a large volume of reviews from low felony offenders, but instead few clients on serious felony offenses. This involves placement and advertisement. If you need help on a serious matter, It would be my pleasure to serve your most serious interest.

Sincerely,

/s/Jeffrey W. Wiggs, Esq.

307 N. Barrow Ave.

Tavares, Fl. 32778

Phone: 352//253-0100 or

352//430-6274.