Skip to content
Garcia–Magbanua trial-day trial-day jury_instructionsclosing_argumentrebuttal_closingDay 10 - October 10, 2019 Judge Hankinson charged the jury, all four closing arguments were delivered, and jurors began deliberating into the evening with questions on principal liability and cell-tower evidence.
← Day 9 Garcia–Magbanua Day 11 →

Day 10 - October 10, 2019

Final Jury Instructions, Closing Arguments, and Start of Deliberations

Judge James C. Hankinson
7 Proceedings
1 Pages
0 Witnesses
1,595 Lines
Day 10 of 11

Judge Hankinson charged the jury, all four closing arguments were delivered, and jurors began deliberating into the evening with questions on principal liability and cell-tower evidence.

Full day summary

Judge Hankinson read the full jury charge covering the elements of first-degree murder, conspiracy, and solicitation for both defendants, the payment-based principal theory, the independent-act defense, and separate verdict forms for Garcia and Magbanua, before announcing the order of closing arguments. Georgia Cappleman opened for the State, arguing that the Adelson family's custody dispute supplied the motive and that phone, financial, and wiretap evidence tied Magbanua to Garcia and Rivera. Saam Zangeneh argued for Garcia that Rivera was the more plausible shooter and that the record more strongly implicated the Adelsons than Garcia. After the State's and Garcia's closings, the judge made a substantive firearm-aggravation correction and technical edits to the instructions. Christopher DeCoste argued for Magbanua that investigators had built their case around her rather than testing alternatives, that the case depended on Rivera's credibility, and that an alternative direct agreement could have existed between Garcia and Charlie Adelson; he contrasted Magbanua's voluntary, unimmunized testimony with Wendi Adelson's immunized appearance. Cappleman's rebuttal answered both defense arguments, used a metaphor describing Magbanua as the necessary link between the Adelsons and Garcia, and asked for guilty verdicts on all counts. The judge then sent the jury to deliberate, addressed evidentiary and scheduling logistics including contingency planning for a possible penalty phase, and later handled two jury questions during deliberations: one on principal liability in a hypothetical robbery-murder scenario, which the court declined to answer directly over a State objection, and one on whether cell-tower mapping exhibits would be available, which the court resolved by identifying which summary exhibits were admitted.

Video thumbnail 4:15:07
Watch →

1. Closing Arguments, Final Jury Instructions, and Deliberation Questions

Day 10 covers final jury instructions, all closing arguments, and the opening of deliberations in the murder-for-hire trial of Sigfredo Garcia and Katherine Magbanua.

Jury Instruction
Final Jury Instructions - Charges and Deliberation Law
99 lines

Judge Hankinson delivered jury instructions covering the three charges against both defendants, lesser-included offenses, principal and independent-act doctrines, reasonable doubt, witness-credibility cautions, and separate verdict forms with firearm interrogatories only on Garcia's form.

Closing
Closing Argument - Georgia Cappleman
460 lines

Lead prosecutor Georgia Cappleman presented the State's murder-for-hire theory, argued that cell-phone, GPS, surveillance, and financial evidence corroborated Rivera, and portrayed Magbanua as the link between the Adelsons and Garcia and Rivera.

Closing
Closing Argument - Saam Zangeneh
286 lines

Garcia's lead counsel Saam Zangeneh delivered a systematic credibility attack on Luis Rivera using a 'house inspection' metaphor, argued Rivera was the actual shooter, and told jurors the evidence pointed more substantially at the uncharged Adelson family than at Garcia.

Jury Instruction
Final Jury Instructions - Firearm and Technical Corrections
2 lines

Immediately before lunch, Judge Hankinson described one substantive correction to Garcia's firearm-aggravation instruction, technical singular/plural fixes, and a revision making the first right-to-remain-silent paragraph apply to both defendants.

Closing
Closing Argument - Christopher DeCoste
513 lines

DeCoste argued that investigators built a case around Magbanua rather than testing alternatives, attacked Rivera with call-record and preschool-stipulation contradictions, and proposed that Garcia and Adelson dealt directly while Magbanua remained uninformed.

Rebuttal
Rebuttal Closing - Georgia Cappleman
113 lines

Cappleman's rebuttal defended the investigation, countered the defense's sympathy framing with Dan Markel's loss, characterized several Magbanua statements as a pattern of dishonesty, defended Rivera's inconsistencies as natural, and again argued that Magbanua was the middle link in the alleged conspiracy.

Jury Instruction
Deliberation Instructions and Alternate Juror
30 lines

Judge Hankinson sent the jury to deliberate with instructions on foreperson selection, communication rules, and electronic device restrictions, then addressed the sole remaining alternate about a potential penalty phase.

Procedural
Deliberation Evidence and Penalty-Phase Logistics
Jury Instruction
Supplemental Jury Instructions - Principal Liability
Jury Instruction
Jury Question - Cell-Tower Demonstrative

Highlights

Final Jury Instructions - Charges and Deliberation Law procedural action The independent-act instruction directed jurors to find a defendant not guilty of first-degree murder if another person's crime was outside the defendant's intent, participation, and reasonably foreseeable common design; absence alone did not establish an independent act. Final Jury Instructions - Charges and Deliberation Law “An independent act occurs when a person other than the defendant commits or attempts to commit a crime which the defendant did not intend to occur, and in which the defendant did not participate, and which was outside of and not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the common design or unlawful act contemplated by the defendant.” — James C. Hankinson The court defined the independent-act rule and the conditions under which a defendant should be acquitted of first-degree murder on that basis. Final Jury Instructions - Charges and Deliberation Law procedural action Judge Hankinson walked through both verdict forms, explaining that Garcia's form includes firearm interrogatories for lesser-included offenses while Magbanua's form contains no such interrogatories, reflecting their different alleged roles in the killing. Closing Argument - Georgia Cappleman admission Cappleman presents the first post-murder Garcia-to-Magbanua call ('It's done' / 'I know'), offering two explanations for how Magbanua already knew while arguing neither is consistent with innocence — framing it as the most direct evidence of her participation. Closing Argument - Georgia Cappleman “"It's done." And what did Katherine Magbanua say? "I know."” — Georgia Cappleman Cappleman characterized Magbanua's reported response as evidence that she was awaiting confirmation rather than first learning of the murder. Closing Argument - Saam Zangeneh confrontation Zangeneh directly accused Rivera of being Dan Markel's shooter, arguing that a driver exits a vehicle faster than a passenger, that Rivera described his own gangster-style shooting method, and that Rivera's background as a violent criminal made him the more plausible gunman. Closing Argument - Saam Zangeneh “A gangster killed Dan Markel. Luis Rivera killed Dan Markel.” — Saam Zangeneh Zangeneh's most direct statement of the alternative-shooter theory, tying Rivera's self-described gangster identity and physical positioning as the driver to the argument that Rivera fired the shots. Closing Argument - Christopher DeCoste other DeCoste accuses Rivera of being the actual shooter, arguing his courtroom description of Markel raising his arm in a dark garage could only come from someone who pulled the trigger — the driver position would not have permitted that view. Closing Argument - Christopher DeCoste “Luis Rivera was the shooter.” — Christopher DeCoste Direct accusation that the government's cooperating witness was the actual triggerman — supported by the argument that Rivera's courtroom description of Markel raising his arm in the dark garage could only be known by the person who pulled the gun. Rebuttal Closing - Georgia Cappleman other Cappleman introduced the 'train' metaphor to describe the conspiracy's structure: each participant is isolated from the others, Donna's only connection is Charlie, Charlie connects to Magbanua, and the chain cannot run from engine to caboose without passing through Magbanua — making her indispensable regardless of whether she traveled to Tallahassee or pulled the trigger. She also noted that Magbanua paid for Garcia's defense attorney, which she urged the jury to consider as evidence of the conspiracy. Rebuttal Closing - Georgia Cappleman “You can't get from the engine to the caboose without going through the middle. And the middle is Katherine Magbanua.” — Georgia Cappleman Cappleman's central structural metaphor for the conspiracy: Magbanua is the indispensable link between the Adelsons' motive and Garcia and Rivera's execution, a framing designed to foreclose the defense's alternative theory of a direct Adelson-to-Garcia pipeline. Deliberation Instructions and Alternate Juror procedural action Judge Hankinson excused the jury to begin deliberations, directing jurors to take their notes, instructions, and verdict form with them, and advising that trial exhibits would be delivered to the jury room shortly. Supplemental Jury Instructions - Principal Liability “Two, comma, the law of principals does not apply to the conspiracy charge in count two.” — James C. Hankinson A substantive legal ruling delivered during active deliberations, directly limiting the application of the principals doctrine to the conspiracy count and contested by the prosecution. Supplemental Jury Instructions - Principal Liability ruling Judge Hankinson overruled the prosecution's objection and confirmed both proposed answers: declining to apply facts to law on Question 1, and ruling that principals does not apply to the conspiracy count on Question 2.
← Day 9 Garcia–Magbanua Day 11 →