Name: Len Harvey — Direct/Cross (Recall) - Day 3 - Garcia–Magbanua
Uploaded: 2019-10-01
Description: Premier Health and Fitness Center director Len Harvey returned to the stand for the State to introduce SE 177, a thumb drive containing the full unedited surveillance footage underlying the previously admitted clips in SE 124. Cross-examination and juror questions addressed the extent of Harvey's review, areas outside camera coverage, and the layout of the facility's 16-camera system.

Premier Health and Fitness Center director Len Harvey returned to the stand for the State to introduce SE 177, a thumb drive containing the full unedited surveillance footage underlying the previously admitted clips in SE 124. Cross-examination and juror questions addressed the extent of Harvey's review, areas outside camera coverage, and the layout of the facility's 16-camera system.

← Day 2

Day 4 →

Proceedings

Direct Len Harvey - Direct Line 1

Cross Len Harvey - Cross Line 43

Jury Questions Len Harvey - Juror Questions Line 95

Direct Direct Len Harvey Georgia Cappleman

1 39:36

JUDGE HANKINSON: Call your next witness, please.

2 39:41

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, the State calls Len Harvey.

3 39:53

JUDGE HANKINSON: And this is a recall, is it not?

4 39:55

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Your Honor.

5 39:56

JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.

6 40:34

JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay, come on up here, please, sir. Mr. Harvey, come on up.

7 40:38

JUDGE HANKINSON: And you remain under oath, Mr. Harvey.

8 40:40

LEN HARVEY: Yes, sir.

9 40:44

JUDGE HANKINSON: Just so the record's clear, would you state your name again, please, sir?

10 40:48

LEN HARVEY: Yes, sir.

11 40:51

LEN HARVEY: Len A. Harvey.

12 40:52

JUDGE HANKINSON: Mr. Harvey, come on up.

13 40:52

LEN HARVEY: Len A. Harvey.

14 40:53

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Mr. Harvey, can you remind us how you are employed?

15 40:56

LEN HARVEY: I'm the director at Premier Health and Fitness Center.

16 41:00

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Last week when you testified, we introduced State's Exhibit 124, which contains some clips from the original surveillance footage collected there from Premier gym where you're employed. Remember that?

17 41:13

LEN HARVEY: Yes, ma'am.

18 41:13

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And there were some questions about the clips that were taken. Have you had an opportunity to review a thumb drive which I've marked as State's Exhibit 177?

19 41:23

LEN HARVEY: Yes, ma'am.

20 41:24

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And does that thumb drive contain fair and accurate original surveillance footage from which the clips in State's 124 were taken?

21 41:33

LEN HARVEY: Yes, ma'am.

22 41:34

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And no clipping or circling has been done on the footage in State's Exhibit 177?

23 41:41

LEN HARVEY: No, ma'am.

24 41:42

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, at this time I'd ask to move in evidence State's 177.

25 41:49

JUDGE HANKINSON: And so I'm clear, this is what 124 was — is a smaller subset of this document.

26 42:01

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Correct.

27 42:02

JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. Any objection?

28 42:04

MR. ZANGENEH: Your Honor, I just want clarification. Is this a new piece of evidence, or is this something that you had that you edited for today's presentation? I don't understand exactly what it is.

29 42:20

JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's go to sidebar.

30 43:12

MR. ZANGENEH: Your Honor, I withdraw my objection.

31 43:14

JUDGE HANKINSON: State's Exhibit 177 will be admitted.

32 43:17

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And Mr. Harvey, just to clarify, this exhibit — it's a thumb drive.

33 43:22

MS. CAPPLEMAN: It contains all of the original footage relating to the events that we're here about today.

34 43:28

LEN HARVEY: Yes, ma'am.

35 43:29

MS. CAPPLEMAN: So no editing. You can watch all the cameras all the way through the entire time Mr. Markel is in the gym if you want to.

36 43:35

LEN HARVEY: Yes, ma'am.

37 43:36

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And Judge, at this time, I'd ask to publish just a small portion so the jury can compare what they saw last week in State's 124 to State's Exhibit 177.

38 43:57

JUDGE HANKINSON: While she's doing that, Mr. Harvey, how long would the whole thing be, do you have an idea?

39 44:04

LEN HARVEY: Several hours.

40 46:42

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, so Mr. Harvey, that was just an example, but all of the different camera angles which were previously shown in State's Exhibit 124 are also present on 177?

41 46:52

LEN HARVEY: Yes, ma'am.

42 46:53

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, no further questions.

Cross Cross Len Harvey Saam Zangeneh

43 46:53

JUDGE HANKINSON: Cross.

44 47:06

MR. ZANGENEH: Good morning again.

45 47:07

LEN HARVEY: Good morning.

46 47:08

MR. ZANGENEH: You've reviewed every single clip and every single piece of footage on the surveillance, is that correct?

47 47:17

LEN HARVEY: I've looked at the majority of that.

48 47:21

MR. ZANGENEH: And when you say majority of it, does that mean that you looked at half of it, 75% of it?

49 47:21

LEN HARVEY: I'd say probably 75% of that.

50 47:32

MR. ZANGENEH: And would it be a fair statement that the reason you haven't looked at all of it is because some portions of it are not relevant with regards to where we knew the locations of the suspect vehicle, Mr. Markel's vehicle?

51 47:47

LEN HARVEY: Yeah, there were some — some of the cameras that just showed trees, for example. Yes, sir. It was not good footage, so I didn't review all of that.

52 47:59

MR. ZANGENEH: Yeah. Do you recall there's a portion of the video at the inception where the Prius — if this is where Mr. Markel is parked — the Prius drives up and out of camera range. Do you recall that?

53 48:13

LEN HARVEY: I don't.

54 48:14

MR. ZANGENEH: You don't.

55 48:16

MR. ZANGENEH: Do you recall there's a portion of it where the Prius drives back down and parks somewhat close to Mr. Markel's car? Do you recall that?

56 48:23

LEN HARVEY: I don't.

57 48:42

MR. ZANGENEH: In the footage that you saw, if the Prius was to take a left and drive up in the parking lot — Would — and will you agree with me that there's a portion of the parking lot that surveillance cameras do not see? Could you describe to the members of the jury what's around that area?

58 48:59

LEN HARVEY: Yes, sir.

59 49:08

LEN HARVEY: There are certain portions — our building faces west.

60 49:18

LEN HARVEY: Yes, sir. So there's certain portions of the north side, of the trees there.

61 49:54

MR. ZANGENEH: Would it be correct or incorrect to say that the areas that are out of view of the surveillance cameras don't have — well, let me ask you this way. Are there other businesses or public roadways or private roadways that are in the area of what's not captured by the surveillance videos? It's not like a secluded private area that no one can see, correct?

62 49:54

LEN HARVEY: Uh, no. It's — it has trees around the perimeter of our property, um, so you can see fairly well.

63 50:11

MR. ZANGENEH: It appears, based on the surveillance that we have, that in the morning time there seems to be a substantial amount of customer traffic at your gym. Would that be a fair statement, sir?

64 50:22

LEN HARVEY: That is, yes.

65 50:23

MR. ZANGENEH: And would it also be a fair statement to say that it appeared that a good portion of the parking spaces were taken?

66 50:31

LEN HARVEY: Yes.

67 50:32

MR. ZANGENEH: And would it also be a fair statement to say that, given the fact that this is a fluid business, people are constantly coming in and going out? Would that be a fair statement, sir?

68 50:42

LEN HARVEY: Yes.

69 50:44

MR. ZANGENEH: In your review of the surveillance videos, at any point, did you see a person exit the Prius to urinate?

70 50:52

LEN HARVEY: Not that I recall.

71 50:52

MR. ZANGENEH: Would that be something that would — is that something that would have drawn your attention?

72 50:54

LEN HARVEY: Possibly.

73 51:05

MR. ZANGENEH: Well, so the reason why I'm asking is because the Prius is the target vehicle of a criminal investigation, correct?

74 51:11

LEN HARVEY: That's correct.

75 51:11

MR. ZANGENEH: And that investigation — it's not a trespass or a DUI, it's a homicide investigation, correct? And you'll agree with me that being able to locate the appropriate suspects is obviously the goal of law enforcement and any good law-abiding citizen, correct?

76 51:11

LEN HARVEY: I would think so. That's not really where my expertise is, but —

77 51:17

MR. ZANGENEH: Correct.

78 51:17

LEN HARVEY: I would think so.

79 51:43

MR. ZANGENEH: And so you'll also agree with me that if there is any kind of evidence showing one of the suspects exiting the Prius and urinating in your parking lot, that is something that would have been — that's something that you would have noticed, correct?

80 51:55

LEN HARVEY: Yes.

81 51:57

MR. ZANGENEH: And just to clarify, did you see this in any of the footage that you've observed?

82 52:04

LEN HARVEY: Not that I recall.

83 52:06

MR. ZANGENEH: And you'll agree with me that if that is something that you saw, that is something that you would have recalled, correct?

84 52:11

LEN HARVEY: Yes.

85 52:12

MR. ZANGENEH: And you would have obviously pointed that out to law enforcement as well, correct?

86 52:16

LEN HARVEY: Yes, but at that time, I wasn't sure.

87 52:30

MR. ZANGENEH: I understand. I understand that, but just to clarify: no video evidence whatsoever of anybody — Well, let's not just say anybody.

88 52:32

MR. ZANGENEH: My client, Sigfredo Garcia, exiting the silver Prius and urinating in your parking lot, correct?

89 52:39

LEN HARVEY: No.

90 53:03

MR. ZANGENEH: Your answer is — I have no further questions of this witness, Your Honor.

91 53:05

JUDGE HANKINSON: Back battle.

92 53:07

MR. DECOSTE: No questions of Mr. Harvey, Your Honor. Thank you.

93 53:09

JUDGE HANKINSON: Redirect?

94 53:10

MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, Your Honor.

Jury Questions Jury Questions Len Harvey James C. Hankinson

95 53:12

JUDGE HANKINSON: Any jurors have a question of this witness? All right, write your question down, please. We'll go to sidebar.

96 56:33

JUDGE HANKINSON: I think you've done it to some extent, Mr. Harvey, but would you kind of just describe the layout of your business and what's around it and talk to them? I know I'm the one asking the questions.

97 57:29

JUDGE HANKINSON: And On the video that you put in — that was put in evidence, evidence number 177 — are the different cameras labeled in the video, and how would they be labeled so they could know what you're talking about?

98 57:29

LEN HARVEY: I believe on the footage it's camera one, two, three. We have 16 cameras on video.

99 58:03

LEN HARVEY: It's labeled south parking lot, uh, west parking lot, maybe northwest, it seems like, but then north parking.

100 58:14

JUDGE HANKINSON: Thank you, sir. Any follow-up, Ms. Cappleman?

101 58:17

MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, Your Honor.

102 58:18

JUDGE HANKINSON: Any follow-up from Garcia?

103 58:19

MR. ZANGENEH: Briefly, sir.

104 58:24

MR. ZANGENEH: Sir, so you have 16 cameras?

105 58:27

LEN HARVEY: Yes.

106 58:27

MR. ZANGENEH: And are they being monitored real-time?

107 58:32

LEN HARVEY: Yes. They're actually in my office is where they're at, and there's a screen with all 16 up right there.

108 58:40

MR. ZANGENEH: So if you see some sort of illegal activity or an accident or a disturbance, do you have a security team?

109 58:48

LEN HARVEY: No, not really.

110 58:49

MR. ZANGENEH: Do you have somebody that will potentially drive around the parking lot?

111 58:53

LEN HARVEY: No, we have a facilities manager who actually oversees our outdoor and indoor equipment and property for the most part.

112 59:04

MR. ZANGENEH: Do they wear any special uniform or anything?

113 59:08

LEN HARVEY: Yeah, we have — we do, but they're not security-type uniforms.

114 59:12

LEN HARVEY: They're employee uniforms.

115 59:13

MR. ZANGENEH: Yes. And does this person drive around outside in like a special vehicle or shopping cart or anything like that?

116 59:20

LEN HARVEY: They walk around.

117 59:20

MR. ZANGENEH: And so if you see a disturbance on one of the cameras, you could say go to the area where camera six is, or something of that nature, sir?

118 59:29

LEN HARVEY: Exactly.

119 59:30

MR. ZANGENEH: Thank you.

120 59:37

JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. All right, you can step down, Mr. Harvey.

121 59:41

JUDGE HANKINSON: We'll try excusing you again.

122 59:44

JUDGE HANKINSON: We think we're through with Mr. Harvey.

123 59:46

LEN HARVEY: Yes, sir.

124 59:47

JUDGE HANKINSON: Anybody need him?

125 59:50

JUDGE HANKINSON: No? We'll excuse you again. All right, call your next witness, please.

Insights

Direct Len Harvey

Len Harvey was recalled to authenticate State's Exhibit 177, a thumb drive containing the complete, unedited Premier gym surveillance footage from July 18, 2014, from which the previously admitted SE 124 clips were derived; the exhibit was admitted after a brief sidebar resolved a defense clarification question.

Case Significance

Brief recall examination to lay the evidentiary foundation for the complete, unedited source footage underlying the gym surveillance clips already before the jury.

SE 177 admitted without sustained objection
No new factual testimony; Harvey's only function was authentication

Highlights

Evidence

State's Exhibit 177 — a thumb drive containing the complete, unedited Premier gym surveillance footage from July 18, 2014 — was admitted after Zangeneh raised a clarification question about potential editing, a sidebar was held, and he withdrew the objection.

“Your Honor, I just want clarification. Is this a new piece of evidence, or is this something that you had that you edited for today's presentation? I don't understand exactly what it is.”

— Saam ZangenehZangeneh's challenge reveals defense concern that the prosecution may have selectively edited the surveillance footage before presenting it; the question prompted a sidebar, though he ultimately withdrew the objection and the exhibit was admitted without contest.

People Mentioned

Dan Markel

Locations Mentioned

Premier Health and Fitness

Evidence Mentioned

State's Exhibit 124State's Exhibit 177

Deep Analysis

Attorney Strategy

Prosecution: Inoculate Against Editing Challenges by Admitting Full Source Footage

By recalling Harvey to introduce the complete, unedited footage alongside the previously admitted clips, the prosecution preempted any defense argument that SE 124 presented a selective or manipulated view of the surveillance record, inviting the jury to compare both exhibits directly.

Evidentiary Or Procedural Notes

SE 177 Admitted After Sidebar on Defense Clarification

Zangeneh questioned whether SE 177 was new evidence or an edited presentation; a sidebar resolved the question, Zangeneh withdrew any objection, and the court admitted the exhibit. No defense team sustained an objection.

Testimony Themes

Full Footage Matches Previously Admitted Clips

Harvey confirmed that SE 177 contains the original, unedited surveillance footage from which SE 124 was compiled, establishing the clips already before the jury as accurate excerpts from a longer, complete record spanning several hours.

Witness Role And Importance

Witness Role And Importance

Len Harvey, director of Premier Health and Fitness Center, was recalled solely to authenticate State's Exhibit 177 — the complete, unedited source footage from which the previously admitted SE 124 clips were derived. His testimony was brief and uncontested in substance; his value was providing the evidentiary foundation for the full footage record.

Cross Len Harvey

Garcia's counsel established that Harvey reviewed about 75 percent of the gym surveillance, that some property areas were outside camera view, and that Harvey did not recall seeing Garcia exit the silver Prius and urinate in the parking lot.

Case Significance

The cross documented the limits of Harvey's personal review and established that he did not recall seeing the specific parking-lot event Zangeneh put to him.

Harvey's admission that he reviewed only approximately 75% of the footage creates an acknowledged gap in the surveillance record.
The identified camera blind spots on the north side of the property provide context for what the footage cannot establish.
Harvey did not recall seeing Garcia or anyone else exit the Prius to urinate in the parking lot
Neither defense co-counsel nor the State asked further questions after Zangeneh's cross

Highlights

Testimony

Harvey acknowledged reviewing only approximately 75% of the gym surveillance footage, having skipped camera angles showing trees or poor imagery — establishing that the surveillance record is not exhaustive.

“I'd say probably 75% of that.”

— Len HarveyHarvey's admission that he reviewed only approximately 75% of the available surveillance footage undercuts any inference that the gym's video comprehensively accounts for all activity at the scene on the morning of the murder.Testimony

Harvey confirmed the gym's north side was partially obscured by tree cover and not fully captured by the cameras, and acknowledged substantial, fluid customer traffic in the parking lot on the morning in question.

Impeachment

Zangeneh secured Harvey's on-record confirmation that no surveillance footage showed Garcia — or any suspect — exiting the silver Prius to urinate in the gym parking lot, and that Harvey would have noticed and reported such footage if it existed.

“My client, Sigfredo Garcia, exiting the silver Prius and urinating in your parking lot, correct?”

— Saam ZangenehThe culminating question of the cross — naming Garcia by name and framing the absence of video corroboration for a specific behavioral detail as a defense-favorable absence — to which Harvey answered no.

People Mentioned

Dan Markel Sigfredo Garcia

Locations Mentioned

Premier Health and Fitness

Evidence Mentioned

State's Exhibit 177

Deep Analysis

Attorney Strategy

Building Absence-of-Corroboration Argument

Zangeneh moved from Harvey's partial review and camera coverage to the specific question whether Harvey recalled seeing anyone exit the Prius to urinate.

Targeting a Specific Rivera Detail

Zangeneh named Garcia in his final question and obtained Harvey's answer that he had not seen such video in the footage he reviewed.

Case Theory Connections

Rivera Credibility Attack

Garcia's defense used Harvey's partial review and lack of recollection of the parking-lot event to challenge how completely the gym surveillance documented activity around the Prius.

Evidentiary Or Procedural Notes

No Redirect by Prosecution or Co-Defendant Counsel

Neither Magbanua's counsel (DeCoste) nor the State (Cappleman) asked redirect questions, leaving Zangeneh's final exchange — Harvey's denial of any video showing Garcia at the Prius — as the last word of Harvey's testimony.

Impeachment Or Tension Points

No Corroborating Video of Prius Exit

Harvey reviewed about 75 percent of the footage and did not recall seeing anyone exit the Prius to urinate. He agreed he would likely have noticed and reported such footage if he had seen it.

Notable Admissions

Only ~75% of Footage Reviewed

Harvey admitted reviewing only approximately 75% of the available surveillance footage, with unreviewed portions skipped due to poor image quality or camera angles showing only trees.

Testimony Themes

Incomplete Review of Surveillance Footage

Harvey acknowledged reviewing approximately 75% of the footage, explicitly skipping camera angles with poor imagery or irrelevant subjects — leaving the State's surveillance narrative with acknowledged gaps.

Camera Blind Spots and Coverage Limits

The north side of the property was partially obscured by trees and not fully captured by the camera system, creating coverage gaps in the surrounding parking area.

No Video of Suspect Exiting Prius

Harvey confirmed that no footage showed anyone exiting the silver Prius — specifically addressing Garcia by name — undercutting a behavioral detail likely present in Rivera's account of the parking lot stop.

Witness Role And Importance

Witness Role And Importance

Len Harvey authenticated the complete gym-surveillance export. On cross, Garcia's counsel used Harvey to document that his personal review covered about 75 percent of the footage, that some property areas were outside camera view, and that he did not recall the parking-lot event counsel described.

Jury Questions Len Harvey

Jurors asked Harvey to describe Premier Gym's property layout and how cameras are labeled in SE 177; Garcia's counsel followed up to establish real-time monitoring and the absence of a dedicated security team on the property.

Case Significance

Routine jury-question exchange clarifying navigation of the admitted video exhibit and confirming details consistent with earlier testimony; no new contested facts emerged.

Jury questions addressed already-admitted SE 177 rather than introducing new issues
Zangeneh's follow-up reinforced his cross-examination theme without drawing new disputed admissions

Highlights

Testimony

Judge Hankinson relayed a juror question asking Harvey to describe the gym's layout and surroundings, prompting Harvey to explain the property's geography and the camera labeling system in SE 177.

“It's labeled south parking lot, uh, west parking lot, maybe northwest, it seems like, but then north parking.”

— Len HarveyDirectly answers a juror's question about how to orient to the 16-camera SE 177 exhibit, providing the descriptive location labels jurors would need when following specific footage referenced at trial.Testimony

Zangeneh's follow-up confirmed that all 16 feeds are monitored in real time from Harvey's office, that the facility has no security team, and that the only on-site response capacity is a single foot-patrol facilities manager in non-security uniforms who can be directed to a camera's area verbally.

Evidence Mentioned

State's Exhibit 177

Deep Analysis

Attorney Strategy

Zangeneh extends surveillance-gap theme into jury follow-up

Garcia's counsel used the follow-up opportunity to confirm that despite comprehensive camera coverage, no dedicated security personnel monitored the grounds in person — reinforcing the earlier cross-examination point that the parking lot lacked active, on-the-ground observation on the morning of the murder.

Testimony Themes

Camera labeling clarified for jury

Harvey confirmed SE 177's cameras are identified both by number (1 through 16) and descriptive location labels — south parking lot, west, northwest, and north parking — giving jurors a practical framework for navigating the multi-feed exhibit.

No dedicated security team on property

Harvey confirmed that real-time monitoring occurs only at a screen in his office, and that on-ground response depends on a single foot-patrol facilities manager in standard employee uniforms — not a security team — who can be verbally directed to a specific location.

Witness Role And Importance

Witness Role And Importance

Len Harvey, director of Premier Health and Fitness Center for 33 years, served as the custodian of the gym's surveillance system. Recalled twice on day three, he authenticated SE 124 and SE 177 before answering juror questions about the property's camera layout and the security infrastructure behind the real-time monitoring system.

Summary

The State recalled Premier Health and Fitness Center director Len Harvey to introduce State's Exhibit 177, a thumb drive holding the complete, unedited surveillance footage from which the clips in SE 124 had been drawn. Harvey confirmed the footage was fair and accurate and had not been edited. After a sidebar in which defense counsel Saam Zangeneh raised a clarification about whether the exhibit was new or edited material, Zangeneh withdrew any objection and the court admitted SE 177. Cappleman then published a brief segment allowing the jury to compare the SE 124 clips against the full footage, noting that SE 177 covers all camera angles for the entire period Dan Markel was present in the gym. Harvey estimated the complete footage runs several hours. On cross, Zangeneh questioned Harvey about the scope of his review. Harvey said he watched roughly 75 percent of the available footage, skipping some feeds with poor quality or tree-only views. He acknowledged areas of the property outside camera coverage and described the parking lot as busy and fluid on the morning of the murder. Asked whether he had seen anyone exit the Prius to urinate, Harvey said he did not recall seeing it and agreed he likely would have noticed and noted such footage. He answered no when asked specifically whether he had seen Garcia. In response to juror questions relayed by Judge Hankinson, Harvey described the gym's surroundings and explained that the 16 cameras in SE 177 are labeled both numerically and by descriptive location — south parking lot, west, northwest, and north parking. A brief continuation by Zangeneh established that all 16 feeds are monitored in real time on a screen in Harvey's office, that the facility employs no dedicated security team, and that ground-level presence consists of a facilities manager in standard employee attire who patrols on foot and can be directed verbally to specific areas.

← Privilege and Sequestration Rulings; Thomas Balboni — Direct/Cross 2 of 7 Bill Brannon — Direct/Cross/Redirect →