1.Privilege and Sequestration Rulings; Thomas Balboni — Direct/Cross
276 linesPROCEEDINGS
JUDGE HANKINSON: we are here in State of Florida versus Garcia and Magbanua. Let the record reflect the defendants are present with their attorneys.
I think when we broke on Friday afternoon, there were two outstanding issues we needed to deal with. One was the alleged discovery violation as to the defense attorneys for Mr. Rivera. Let's deal with that first.
Defense, wish to be heard.
MR. ZANGENEH: Judge, if I may -- just one second.
MS. KAWASS: Your Honor, our position at this time is going to be that we would move, as a remedy for this discovery violation, for these witnesses to be struck.
The basis is -- Your Honor, is during the deposition, when we spoke to them, each of the -- Mr. Rivera's attorneys, they both asserted privilege on attorney-client privilege and refused to answer any questions concerning any communications they had with Mr. Rivera. So I would make -- stand on the position that they are unavailable and that they should not be allowed to testify.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Ms. Cappleman.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, that is correct. Neither attorney wishes to reveal attorney-client privileged information absent order of the Court. However, they are both ready, willing, and able to testify about the procedure that was used to collect the proffer and whether any unethical conduct was done during that procedure. So I would like to continue to reserve the right to use it for that purpose.
JUDGE HANKINSON: So, the -- Mr. Rivera is not going to waive the privilege. Is that my understanding?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: He did waive the privilege. They had a waiver from Mr. Rivera in writing when they came to the deposition, but still we're not comfortable revealing privileged communications absent a court order.
MR. ZANGENEH: If I may be heard, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You will in due time. You can have a seat.
MR. ZANGENEH: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. So, it’s your proposal that they simply testify to non-privileged matters?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And you're not seeking that I order them to answer questions?
MR. ZANGENEH: I think it will depend on how cross-examination develops. I can imagine a scenario where that might come into play. But as of this point, really, the issue that's been raised is, did someone -- you know, did you or someone that you are aware of spoon-feed information to your client, tell your client what to say? I anticipate their answer would be no.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. Mr. Zangeneh.
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, Judge. Respectfully, I think Ms. Cappleman's characterization kind of simplifies what our position is. Mr. Rivera has testified in deposition that he was in a room with his attorneys, that law enforcement would come, give a set of questions to their attorneys, who would then come and speak with Mr. Rivera. Mr. Rivera would give the answer back to his attorney, who would go back to law enforcement.
So, it doesn't really answer any questions if they are not waiving privilege, because we want to understand what occurred in that room. I mean, let's put aside the fact that procedurally we think it's very suspicious that law enforcement didn't do a direct examination, even after giving a proffer about it. But I will get into that during cross examination.
But what we took -- what value will these lawyers have, other than sitting there and saying, No, we didn't do anything wrong. well, tell us what you did. well, I can't tell you because it's privilege, but we followed the rules. It really gets us nowhere.
It doesn't allow the defense to explore the necessary elements that we need to to be able to educate this jury with regards to what our position is. And so I would object to anything short of the Court ordering them to release and to divulge any attorney-client privilege so we can have a full range of appropriate cross-examination. And at this time, if the Court does allow the Government to keep these witnesses, I would move to adopt them on my witness list.
JUDGE HANKINSON: MS. Kawass.
MS. KAWASS: Your Honor, we're in a unique case posture where the State is trying to elicit -- you know, cherrypick the information that they want to get from the witness.
My problem is going to be -- is I don't want the jury to wonder why we, as defense attorneys, are not asking certain questions and why we're not even going near that.
It would be my position that they should not be allowed to testify at all. However, if the Court is going to allow them to testify, I want to be able to ask them about their conversations with Luis Rivera. And if they assert privilege on the stand, then --
JUDGE HANKINSON: And you want to ask them what?
MS. KAWASS: I want to be -- I mean, Your Honor, they're his lawyers, and if we are talking about the statements that were made in that room, I need to be able to ask them: what was said in that room, and what discussions did you have with your client?
And then this also puts them in a very awkward scenario. If they're going to be -- they are members of the Florida Bar. If they're going to be testifying after he testifies, they would be under a duty to disclose if they know that he testified differently in court today as opposed to what they have discussed with him on previous occasions.
They would have an obligation to tell us if what he testified in court is different to any statement he has ever previously given to them in the past. So I don't know how that's going to unfold at -- with -- it's going to come at odds with their duties as their attorneys to Mr. Rivera. I just don't want it to be a situation, Judge, where the jury is wondering why we are not asking these questions of Luis Rivera's attorneys --
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, that part of it is easy to fix. we can explain to them that there is a privilege involved. I'm not worried about that part. That -- we can fix that.
MS. KAWASS: At the very least, Judge, I would, at this point -- because they did indicate at some points during the deposition that they didn't have any independent recollection. So, at the very least, if the Court is going to allow them to testify, we would ask the Court to entertain an order compelling them to answer the questions that we ask so we are at least on notice of what it is that they are going to say.
JUDGE HANKINSON: But I thought you said they didn't answer any questions.
MS. KAWASS: They -- it was -- they -- it was very strange, Judge. when we were asking specifics about conversations they had with Mr. Rivera, they would assert privilege. But then we would ask about questions -- what questions were asked of the state attorneys that would come over in that meeting, and they would say, well, I don't have an independent recollection of those questions. So they were asserting privilege, but also saying that they didn't have independent recollection of certain specific details.
JUDGE HANKINSON: But they did answer questions about the process? That's a question.
MS. KAWASS: I believe Mr. Collins did. Mr. Chuck collins, Sr.
JUDGE HANKINSON: David Collins is the senior.
MS. KAWASS: I'm sorry, Judge. I was trying to --
JUDGE HANKINSON: That kind of confuses things.
MS. KAWASS: I apologize.
JUDGE HANKINSON: It's David Collins and Charles Collins. So say that again, please.
MS. KAWASS: So, it would be David Collins.
MR. ZANGENEH: Did what?
MS. KAWASS: He testified that he remembered that procedure, and he testified as to how that procedure transpired, but he would not answer questions that he believed fell on -- fell under attorney-client privilege as to any conversations that he'd had directly with Mr. Rivera when they were in that situation where they were alone.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I have done this a long time. Every day I have something new. It's what makes it interesting. It wouldn't be unusual if Mr. Rivera was not waiving the privilege.
The thing I'm puzzled about is him waiving the privilege and them still declining to answer the questions. I guess I'm going to need to hear from them as to what their thinking is. I don't want to assume that they're -- that they have no reason for what they're asserting. I guess I would like to hear from them.
when do you think you are going to get to Rivera?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Possibly this afternoon or tomorrow morning.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Why don't you ask Collins to be here tomorrow morning at 8:30 so I can hear from them --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: -- if -- what it is they're thinking. So I'm going to reserve ruling on that at this point in time.
we had one other issue. Officer Brannon was in the courtroom for a short period of time during Mr. Yao's testimony. Are you still planning to call Officer Brannon?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: What does his testimony relate to?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: He was holding the crime scene at the time that wendi Adelson approached the crime scene tape.
JUDGE HANKINSON: So it's not going to relate to what Mr. Yao was testifying to?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Defense wish to be heard?
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, Judge. while I understand his role as proffered by the government, which I take 100 percent to be what his role was, there was a situation where I saw this officer approach the prosecutors while Investigator Yao, or Mr. Yao, was testifying, and he provided them with what appeared to be a piece of paper.
I assume in that piece of paper was direction that he saw based on his experience and knowledge in the crime scene area to potentially give them a suggestion as to a question asked. I don't know if that's what happened -- if -- that's what it appeared to be. TI don't know if it was a personal note.
But these are one of the situations where I understand the rule of sequestration, not just to -- not just to have witnesses not be able to be influenced by testimony, but it kind of goes the other way around, that a person with experience, that understands the scene, that has a relationship with someone could come up and provide the Government with assistance and ask them a question.
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, I mean, we can all make assumptions. I assumed he was asking her to sign off that he was present so he would get paid. So, we can all make different assumptions.
what -- he did hand you some kind of piece of paper, Ms. Cappleman. what did that involve?
MR. ZANGENEH: It was a comment on Mr. Yao's testimony.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Have a -- sit down.
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: What was his comment?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Oh, yes. It was that the gangster style of shooting would be less accurate than the traditional.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. You wish to be heard further, Mr. Zangeneh?
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, Judge. And, candidly, the Government did delve into that area at the conclusion of the Investigator Yao's testimony. So I don't know what the appropriate remedy would be having a witness that shouldn't be in here providing additional information. And I believe these two prosecutors are extremely competent, but this is one of the reasons why we have the rule of sequestration.
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, that's not the issue. The issue is whether his future testimony would be tainted by what he'd heard. That's what the rule of sequestration involves.
MR. ZANGENEH: Correct. But I -- I think it's more cerebral than that. But in this specific scenario, this witness, in addition to seeing -- well, this is my position, Judge. I think this is --
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm sorry. The "cerebral" word didn't seem to fit with what --
MR. ZANGENEH: I just think it goes both ways.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to laugh, and I'm sorry.
MR. ZANGENEH: No problem. I just think that in addition to being exposed to this investigator's testimony, he provided the Government with something that he could potentially buttress as well, where he gave them a question -- if these prosecutors could ask him -- he is a crime scene analyst, that he could ask -- they could ask him the same question that he proffered to the Government to ask Investigator Yao, and then they would have two consistent testimony --
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm not going to let him do that. I'm not going to let him testify to anything that relates to what Yao is testifying. But the question is whether his testimony about what he was going to testify to, seeing Ms. Adelson, Adelson, at the crime scene, whether that's tainted by the fact he was in here during Mr. Yao's testimony.
Anything further? Mr. Magbanua --
MR. DECOSTE: Good morning, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: -- Decoste.
MR. DECOSTE: With respect to Officer Brannon and the testimony that I expect, we would have no problem with that. I do, for the record -- given the fact that Investigator Yao was asked the very question that Brannon tipped the prosecutor off about, I believe that he helped the prosecution. I would move to strike that portion of Investigator Yao's testimony with a curative instruction for the jury.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I would deny that request.
Anything further, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And we're not going to get into what -- anything relating to Mr. Yao's testimony, to the extent I take the defense's request, the motion to exclude Officer Brannon. Is that what your motion is, Mr. Zangeneh?
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay, thank you.
I would deny that request. I don't see that. Although there was a violation of the rule of sequestration, given the testimony that I'm going to allow, I don't see that his testimony has been tainted. whether he helped the prosecution or not during his brief time in here really has nothing to do with the rule of sequestration. That's not the purpose of the rule of sequestration.
The purpose of the rule is to prevent a witness from shaping his testimony to match what's said in the courtroom. It doesn't have anything to do with whether he has suggested a question to the prosecutor. To the extent that's the objection, I will overrule that objection.
All right. Any other issues?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Nothing from the State.
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing on behalf of Ms. Magbanua, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Anything other issues, Mr. Zangeneh?
MR. ZANGENEH: Not at this time, Judge. Just renew our previous objections.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Let's speak clearly. Once you make a specific objection and I rule on that specific objection, there is no need to come back and object again. That -- all that is is arguing with my ruling. So, I mean, I understand you did it very respectfully, but that's not appropriate. And if you do it in front of the jury, it will get a reprimand from me. That's not necessary. You've preserved your record. I have made a ruling. That's the end of it.
MR. ZANGENEH: I didn't want to -- that wasn't my intention, Your Honor. It's just to preserve the record.
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, I understand. That's why I'm saying it. I'm not trying to chastise you, but once you make a specific objection, I make a specific ruling, it's up to the First DCA or the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether I'm right or wrong. There's no need for a "I wish to preserve my objection.” You've made it. All right.
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Now, if you think you haven't made a specific objection, then you need to be clear on that. But you've clearly made a specific objection. I've clearly ruled on it. End of story for now.
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay. I didn't mean any disrespect to the Court by it.
JUDGE HANKINSON: NO, I understand. I think there was a misunderstanding.
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Anything else?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: who are you going to start with, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Tom Balboni.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. We will be in recess until 9:00.
(Break taken.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's have the jury, please.
(jury enters the courtroom.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: why don't have you a seat for just a second, Mr. Balboni? Let me make this comment. I know we need to swear you.
Good morning. Thank you-all for being back here this morning. I hope everybody had a nice weekend. Anybody experience any problems that we need to discuss with you? Anybody? No? All right.
If you would face the clerk and be sworn, please.
whereupon, THOMAS BALBONI was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
JUDGE HANKINSON: Have a seat please, sir, and slide up to the microphone.
You may proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Sir, please introduce yourself and spell your name.
THOMAS BALBONI: My name is Thomas Balboni. That's spelled B-A-L-B-O-N-I.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How are you employed, Mr. Balboni?
THOMAS BALBONI: I'm employed with the Criminal Investigation Unit for the office of the State Attorney, in and for the Second Judicial Circuit of Florida.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How long have you been so employed?
THOMAS BALBONI: Over 20 years now.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what are your duties at the state attorney's office?
THOMAS BALBONI: I provide investigative and logistic support to the assistant state attorneys in a variety of ways.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And does that include fingerprint comparisons?
THOMAS BALBONI: It does.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Could you tell the jury what your training and experience is in the area of fingerprint examination and comparison?
THOMAS BALBONI: I got involved in the fingerprint sciences when I attended the FBI Academy's Science of Fingerprint Course. I successfully completed that course, and since then taken numerous other -- both basic and advanced fingerprint examination courses presented by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Crime Scene Institute of Florida, as well as the International Association for Identification, of which I am an associate member under the discipline of fingerprint examiners.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And how many times have you conducted fingerprint analysis and comparisons?
THOMAS BALBONI: Thousands.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And have you ever testified as an expert in the area of fingerprint analysis and comparison?
THOMAS BALBONI: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How many times?
THOMAS BALBONI: Prior to today, 320 times.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, at this time, I would tender Mr. Balboni as an expert in the area of fingerprint analysis and comparison.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any voir dire?
MR. ZANGENEH: None from Mr. Garcia.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua.
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. You may proceed.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you have an opportunity to conduct a fingerprint analysis and comparison in this case that we are here about today?
THOMAS BALBONI: I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. I want to approach you with what's been introduced into evidence as State's 78. Do you recognize state's 78?
THOMAS BALBONI: I do.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How do you recognize it?
THOMAS BALBONI: The lower right-hand corner of this document has my personal notation written in blue ink indicating this was the specific document that I had conducted a comparison on.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what type of document is that?
THOMAS BALBONI: This is a -- this is a Uniform Florida Pawnbrokers Transaction Form.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And who purports to be pawning the item in this?
THOMAS BALBONI: It's listed as Sigfredo Garcia.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And is a thumbprint present on the form?
THOMAS BALBONI: There is.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did you have something to compare the pawn -- the thumbprint on the pawn ticket with?
THOMAS BALBONI: I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And I'm going to show you what I have marked as State's Exhibit 79. Do you recognize State's 79?
THOMAS BALBONI: I do.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And how do you recognize that item?
THOMAS BALBONI: This is the -- this is a standard preprinted Applicant Fingerprint Form. It bears my -- it has personal notations all over it. It has my signature, my printed name, my ID, the date these prints were obtained, the individual's name whose fingerprint appears on, the location that I obtained these fingerprints, as well as the Democrat information -- the demographic information of the individual whose prints are hereon.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So, you actually took the fingerprints contained in State's 79 from the individual?
THOMAS BALBONI: I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And does the exhibit appear to be in the same or substantially the same condition as when you collected the print?
THOMAS BALBONI: It does.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, at this time, I would ask to move into evidence State's Exhibit 79.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: None from Mr. Garcia.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: 79 will be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 79received in evidence.)
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Mr. Balboni, from whom did you collect the fingerprints in State's Exhibit 79?
THOMAS BALBONI: Sigfredo Garcia.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And do you see that person present in the courtroom?
THOMAS BALBONI: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Could you please point him out and describe what he is wearing?
THOMAS BALBONI: He is the individual with the blue shirt sitting to the right of defense counsel with glasses.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Let the record reflect the witness has identified the defendant, Mr. Garcia.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Now, Mr. Balboni, once you collected the fingerprints from Mr. Garcia, did you make a comparison between his known fingerprints that you collected and the ones -- or one present on the pawn ticket?
THOMAS BALBONI: I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Could you tell the jury about that process?
THOMAS BALBONI: I conducted what's referred to as a side-by-side comparison. In this instance, since I had two paper documents, merely determined, first of all, which digit appeared on the one bearing a single document. The document is actually listed as the right thumbprint of the individual who conducted the pawn transaction. Under magnification with appropriate lighting, I did a comparison for the purpose of determining whether or not that fingerprint matched the fingerprints that I had obtained from Mr. Garcia.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And is it true that fingerprints are unique to each individual person?
THOMAS BALBONI: Yes. That is one of the premises of fingerprints, that no two individuals are known to have ever had identical fingerprints.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what was the result of your analysis, of the comparison between the print you collected from Mr. Garcia and the one on the pawn ticket?
THOMAS BALBONI: It was my determination the fingerprint on the pawn ticket matched the No. 1 digit or the right thumbprint of the individual whose fingerprints I obtained.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And if you could just remind us what the phone number is that's present for Mr. Garcia on the pawn ticket?
THOMAS BALBONI: The phone number?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
THOMAS BALBONI: It's area code (786)372-5986.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No further questions.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Cross?
MR. ZANGENEH: Thank you, Judge.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ZANGENEH:
MR. ZANGENEH: Good morning, Mr. Balboni. How are you, sir?
THOMAS BALBONI: I'm good. Thank you.
MR. ZANGENEH: So Government's Exhibit 78 --
MR. ZANGENEH: May I approach, Judge?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MR. ZANGENEH:
MR. ZANGENEH: Mr. Balboni, with regards to this document, which is already in evidence, this is the -- I'm sorry.
You were able to obtain a fingerprint on the bottom right-hand corner of this Pawnbroker Transaction Form; is that correct?
THOMAS BALBONI: well, the fingerprint was already on the document.
MR. ZANGENEH: I apologize. You were able to utilize the fingerprint that was already on the document to be able to compare it to the print that you took of my client; correct?
THOMAS BALBONI: That's correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: Now, the Government went and asked you what the phone number was on this pawnbroker sheet, on this Pawnbroker Transaction Form; is that correct, sir?
THOMAS BALBONI: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: And you want to read that back into the record?
THOMAS BALBONI: Area code (786)372-5986.
MR. ZANGENEH: Now, why don't we also go ahead and read into the record -- I apologize. Let me ask this question first.
Are you familiar with the facts of the homicide investigation in this case?
THOMAS BALBONI: Not entirely, no.
MR. ZANGENEH: Are you aware that the homicide took place in July --
JUDGE HANKINSON: why don't you go back to the podium, Mr. Zangeneh. You can leave the document with him, if you want him to refer to it.
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Thank you.
BY MR. ZANGENEH:
MR. ZANGENEH: Investigator Balboni, would it sound about right, based on your knowledge -- and if you don't know, that's fine to say you don't know -- that the homicide in this case took place in July, mid-July of 2014; is that correct?
THOMAS BALBONI: I am not aware of the date of this -- the case -- ~=this case.
MR. ZANGENEH: would you go ahead and read to the members of the jury the date of the Pawnbroker Transaction Form? It's in the top corner. It's in the top portion of it, sir.
THOMAS BALBONI: Transaction date is 10/15 of 2013.
MR. ZANGENEH: So, that's the October 15th, 2013?
THOMAS BALBONI: Correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: And the location of this pawnbroker shop, do you know where that is?
THOMAS BALBONI: It's listed on here as 1823 Northwest 79th Street in Miami, Florida.
MR. ZANGENEH: Did you have an occasion to travel to the actual pawnbroker location?
THOMAS BALBONI: I did not.
MR. ZANGENEH: Did you contact the pawnbroker location to see if they had surveillance video that memorialized the actions that transpired on -- what was the date again, sir?
THOMAS BALBONI: 10/15 of 2013.
MR. ZANGENEH: On 10/15 of 2013.
THOMAS BALBONI: I did not.
MR. ZANGENEH: Are you aware of what the rules and regulations are within the State of Florida that require pawnbrokers to keep surveillance video?
THOMAS BALBONI: I am not.
MR. ZANGENEH: Are you aware of whether or not Sigfredo Garcia was accompanied by anybody during this transaction?
THOMAS BALBONI: I'm not aware of that.
MR. ZANGENEH: How long did you -- did you indicate that you had been a crime scene analyst, sir?
THOMAS BALBONI: Over 20 years.
MR. ZANGENEH: The limited portion of our investigation was with regards to verifying this fingerprint from the pawnbroker slip and the one -- and the prints that you were able to obtain from my client?
THOMAS BALBONI: That's correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: No other investigation?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's go sidebar, please. I'm sorry.
(A Bench Conference was held as follows:)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's be careful we don't stumble into something inadvertent. He often does reviews of defendant's criminal history, so prior judgments and convictions. We need to make sure we don't stumble into something like that, Mr. Zangeneh. It's a very broad of question. I don't want to cause a problem of that nature.
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay. I just wanted to see if he had done anything else in reference to this case.
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, what I'm saying, that's a dangerous question. He may say -- you know, I don't know what he did, but if he, for instance, did some fingerprint analysis of a judgment from your client or something of that nature, it could come out in response to that question. I'm not telling you can't do it. I'm saying you better approach with caution. All right.
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay.
(The Bench Conference was concluded.)
MR. ZANGENEH: May I approach, Judge, to get the document?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
MR. ZANGENEH: Thank you, sir.
BY MR. ZANGENEH:
MR. ZANGENEH: During your investigation, did you inquire from this same pawnbroker if there were additional forms from -- that were filled out related to Sigfredo Garcia?
THOMAS BALBONI: I did not.
MR. ZANGENEH: During this investigation, did you inquire to see if there were any Pawnbroker Transaction Forms filed out by Luis Rivera?
THOMAS BALBONI: I did not.
MR. ZANGENEH: And would it be safe to say that you were conducting your investigation at the direction of the state attorney; correct?
THOMAS BALBONI: That's correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: I have no further questions of this witness, Your Honor. Thank you.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua.
MR. DECOSTE: Very briefly, Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Good morning.
THOMAS BALBONI: Good morning, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: State's Exhibit 78, you were give a fingerprint of Sigfredo Garcia; right?
THOMAS BALBONI: I was provided -- I obtained the fingerprints from Mr. Garcia. I personally obtained the -- not on that document, but the other document. That was provided to me in a sealed-up envelope.
MR. DECOSTE: So, what was provided to you had Sigfredo Garcia's fingerprint?
THOMAS BALBONI: It has a single fingerprint on the lower right-hand corner of the form that was compared to the known prints of Mr. Garcia, and I determined that that, in fact, was the right thumbprint of Mr. Garcia on the pawn form.
MR. DECOSTE: No fingerprints for Katherine Magbanua; right?
THOMAS BALBONI: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing further, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Redirect?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any juror have a question of this witness?
write your question down, please.
we will go sidebar.
(A Bench Conference was held as follows:)
JUDGE HANKINSON: It says: Where was the fingerprint retrieved? was the first question -- oh: when was the fingerprint retrieved?
MR. ZANGENEH: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I don't know whether that relates to the pawn ticket or the fingerprint card.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: He has already testified about the pawn ticket; so I'm making an educated guess that she is referring to the inked fingerprints.
JUDGE HANKINSON: what? Do you want to assume them saying fingerprint card that we are talking about?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I mean, you could have him say both. That would be fine. when were each -- I mean, you would have to ask him when was the inked print on the pawn ticket reported to have been taken, and then when did you take the --
JUDGE HANKINSON: But the date of transaction -- I'ma little confused of what she's -- I don't know.
MR. ZANGENEH: TI don't know if this witness could testify as to when the fingerprint was done on the transaction. It could have been done the day in question. It could have been called in and do it later. I don't think he has the knowledge to be able to answer that question.
MR. DECOSTE: I agree with Ms. Cappleman. I think that the juror is asking about the latter: when was the standard taken?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's assume that. Do you think -- if you want to explore that, you can.
And then the second question is: How long cana fingerprint last on paper and remain identifiable? Anybody object to that?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No objection.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
MR. ZANGENEH: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
(The Bench Conference was concluded.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: So, when did you take Mr. Garcia's fingerprints?
THOMAS BALBONI: TI noted that on the actual document, and it was on 6/18/2019.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And how long can a fingerprint last on a piece of paper and remain identifiable?
THOMAS BALBONI: Indefinitely.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Any follow-up, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Garcia?
MR. ZANGENEH: Give me just one second, Judge.
Nothing further from Mr. Garcia, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua?
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing, Your Honor. Thank you.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. You can step down.
call your next witness, please.