1.June Umchinda — Direct/Cross/Redirect
623 linesPROCEEDINGS
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be seated, please.
We're here in the State of Florida v. Garcia and Magbanua. Let the record reflect the defendants are present with their attorneys.
Let me raise one -- or it really ended up being two issues. The State had contended yesterday that Garcia had opened the door to other criminal activity between Mr. Garcia and his codefendant yesterday from their opening statement. I did go back and listen to the opening statement. I do not find that they have opened the door to other criminal activity at this point in time.
There is certainly a discussion about Mr. Rivera's gang affiliation. He does say Mr. Rivera would have the ability or wherewithal to involve other gang members it and might make common sense that he would do that, but he does not make the statement that Latin Kings only do criminal activity with other Latin Kings. Were that the case, I would let the State -- I would agree with the State that it's opened the door, but that's not what was said in the opening statement.
Although I wasn't watching it or listening to it for this purpose, there was an issue that I had forgotten that Mr. Zanganeh did bring up in opening statement. He very clearly says that he and Mr. Rivera were here in Tallahassee not to do a murder, but to engage in drug dealing. So the objection to I think it was cocounsel's question about drug dealing, I think that Mr. Zangeneh has opened that door.
There was some dispute whether the witness answered the question or not. I don't think the witness answered the question, but I guess the record will reflect that better than my recollection. But I believe there was a motion for mistrial. I think this would bear on that also in that it's very clear Garcia has opened the door to discussion of drug dealing.
So those were just two observations. I don't intend to go back and undo anything or redo anything, but those are observations from review of opening statement.
Any other issues from the State this morning?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, there is one issue that I we'd like to address at sidebar with Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: What's that?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: There is one issue that we'd like to address at sidebar with Your Honor.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct, Your Honor, of a somewhat personal nature.
AT THE BENCH
MR. DECOSTE: Good morning, Your Honor. Last night, both the government and myself and Ms. Kawass found out that we are currently ineligible to practice law with the Florida Bar. Everything has been corrected this morning. It was a paper filing situation.
Both myself and Ms. Kawass are attorneys for the office of Regional Counsel for the Third Region. They pay our Bar dues. There's also a separate filing that needs to be done to attest pro bono hours and also whether a trust account needs to be maintained and whether it was correctly maintained. For some reason it wasn't processed. It's now been processed, it's good.
But we're all of the understanding that it was suspended -- that it was ineligible on 10/1 and 10/2. I believe that once it's reinstated, that it's retroactive. Just wanted to let Your Honor know all the information that we had.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Did it involve you also?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It did not involve me. He did make it sound like that.
MS. KAWASS: Ms. Cappleman reached out to us and brought it to our attention the moment she found out.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. All right. All right. Is there some action you want me to take?
MR. DECOSTE: No, just putting you --
MS. KAWASS: No, we just wanted you to know.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. All right.
MR. EVANS: I think we need to address the Johnson case so you may want --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You can handle this, if you want.
MR. EVANS: Judge, there -- basically there is a case -- I can give the cites to put in the record. Johnson v. State, which is 256 So. 3d 208, a Fifth DCA case from 2018, which also relies on Dolan, D-O-L-A-N, v. State at 469 So.2d 142, a Third DCA case from 1985.
It would indicate so long as the ineligibility was not for a major process, but more of the administrative type deal here, there should not be an issue. We just want to put it on the record -- because that was the reason we put on the record what the suspension was for. And we believe these cases control and there is no grounds for any error, reversible error to have occurred.
MS. KAWASS: And, Your Honor, I can also add that I did discuss at length with my client this morning what occurred. So she is aware and she is fine with everything, that we're now back in good standing and has no problem with the representation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. You've been a little bit engaged so I can see things slip through. Thank you.
MS. KAWASS: Thank you, Your Honor.
IN OPEN COURT
JUDGE HANKINSON: Anything else from the State?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Garcia?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua?
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I said we were going to discuss jury instructions a little bit. who is going to be handling that for the State?
MR. EVANS: I will, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You can be seat. Y'all can remain seated during this process. I know it's hard to read and stand up and talk at the same time.
Mr. Zanganeh, are you handling this for Mr. Garcia?
MR. ZANGENEH: That is correct, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And for Magbanua, who is speaking?
MS. KAWASS: Ms. Kawass. Thank you.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Go through the -- I would assume everybody's got what I sent out to you.
MR. EVANS: Yes, Sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Mr. Zangeneh and Ms. Kawass, do you have the --
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You can remain seated.
MR. ZANGENEH: Thank you, Judge.
MS. KAWASS: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: The first part of it is fairly standard. Anybody found any issues in the statement of charge, introduction to homicide, justifiable homicide, or excusable homicide?
MR. EVANS: No.
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge. would you like me to stand when I --
JUDGE HANKINSON: You can just remain seated.
MR. ZANGENEH: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Relax. I know I've got you well-trained now.
(Laughter. )
JUDGE HANKINSON: Ms. Kawass, have you found anything?
MS. KAWASS: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: First degree murder, the only theory that has been presented to the jury was premeditated murder. I think it's all simply a standard instruction.
Anybody found any issue there?
MR. EVANS: No, Sir.
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge.
MS. KAWASS: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: MS. Kawass?
MS. KAWASS: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: What lessers is Garcia seeking?
MR. ZANGENEH: None.
JUDGE HANKINSON: what?
MR. ZANGENEH: No lessers, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua?
MS. KAWASS: None.
JUDGE HANKINSON: State?
MR. EVANS: We would like the standard lessers, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Which you would see as what?
MR. EVANS: Second degree murder and manslaughter.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any of the defense attorneys have any legal cause why I would not give the lessers of second degree murder and manslaughter? It would appear they're Category 1 lessers and either side is entitled to request them.
Somebody have a legal argument they want to make?
MS. KAWASS: Your Honor, the only argument I'd make as to Ms. Magbanua is there is zero evidence to support a manslaughter or second degree as it goes to my client because she's charged as a principal to first degree murder. And manslaughter, for example, is -- there is no specific intent there. So I don't -- it would be a clash of legal terms if she's a principal to manslaughter.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Garcia?
MR. ZANGENEH: And, Your Honor, if I may, I believe that while they are Category 1 lesser includeds, the government's theory and the evidence that they produced doesn't qualify for either second degree or manslaughter. I think the factual evidence and the government's case does purport and abide by the jury instructions for first degree murder. So we'll reserve the -- whatever the Court rules.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I mean, truthfully, there are many cases where I'd love not to give any lesser includeds, but I think the law is pretty clear that Category 1 lesser includeds, either party or any party can request and the Court is obligated to give them. So I'll overrule the defense objection. I'll instruct on second degree murder and manslaughter.
Noting that objection, anybody found an issue with the second degree murder instruction?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge, not for Mr. Garcia.
MS. KAWASS: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You can remain seated, MS. Kawass.
MS. KAWASS: Oh, sorry.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Just speak up.
Mr. Evans?
MR. EVANS: None from the State, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Manslaughter. Anybody found an issue on that?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge, not for Mr. Garcia.
MS. KAWASS: None for Ms. Magbanua.
MR. EVANS: None from the State.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Aggravation of a felony by carrying a firearm. The second degree murder and manslaughter can be reclassified based upon the firearm. The 10-20-Life provisions only apply to second degree murder. That's why there's a difference as to one of them says as to second degree murder, manslaughter, one says only as to second degree murder.
Anybody found any errors or have an objection to that instruction?
MR. ZANGENEH: Not for Mr. Garcia, Judge.
MS. KAWASS: We object, Your Honor. There is no indication whatsoever that Ms. Magbanua was ever in possession of a firearm.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Right.
MR. EVANS: None from the State, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I would probably -- we'll talk about how we would word that. I think there is -- Ms. Kawass is correct, at least at this point. TI don't really anticipate a charge in that.
I would think that what we could do is simply say: If you find that the Defendant Garcia committed second degree murder, or if you find the Defendant Garcia committed second degree murder in the second paragraph, I think that would be the fix to that.
Somebody have a different idea?
MR. EVANS: Your Honor, I don't know that needs to be done for this reason. In the first paragraph of the instructions you gave us, on the line that -- I guess it would be the end of the first line, it says the defendant personally used a firearm. So I think that distinguishes between the allegations against Mr. Garcia versus the allegation against Ms. Magbanua that there is no allegation that she personally -- so I think the jury would be adequately informed that there has to be --
JUDGE HANKINSON: I don't agree. It's essentially a judgment of acquittal as to any firearm charge as to Ms. Magbanua as to personal use. So it would be improper to instruct the jury in such a way that they could conceivably come back with that if they misunderstood the jury instructions.
what about my suggestion, Ms. Kawass?
MS. KAWASS: Your Honor, I have no objection and I think that is appropriate.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Mr. Zanganeh?
MR. ZANGENEH: Respectfully, Judge, you would put it where in the jury instructions?
JUDGE HANKINSON: On each of the first two paragraphs it says, "if you find that the defendant committed second degree murder," I would simply say, “if you find that the Defendant Garcia committed second degree murder.”
MR. ZANGENEH: Or manslaughter, okay. That's fine, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I mean, we could set it all out again, his full name and all that if you want, but it seems --
MR. ZANGENEH: That's fine; that's fine.
JUDGE HANKINSON: -- but it doesn't seem necessary.
MR. ZANGENEH: That's fine.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. So that's what I'll do.
And I'm not granting the judgment of acquittal at this point. I'm kind of assuming where we stand at the end of the case, but anyway.
Principals. It's a little confusing on the facts of our case as to the principal instruction as to which one should be used or whether there should be some combination of that.
what's the State's position?
MR. EVANS: The state's position is that both of them should be read, Your Honor. Maybe some modifications just like you would do, for instance, if we have a felony murder when you were explaining first degree murder, you know, it may be proved two ways.
And it may be a situation here where something to the effect that, you know, principal can be done two ways; one of which, the standard principal instruction, the second one would be, when active participant hired by the defendant.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Garcia?
MR. ZANGENEH: Judge -- I was getting ready to stand up.
I believe the general instruction relates to Mr. Garcia. I think that -- I don't think the second principal portion applies to Mr. Garcia. I believe that Mr. Rivera's testimony was that Ms. Adelson, the lady he keeps referring to over and over again, was the person that was going to pay him. And there's no direct testimony that my client actually paid him.
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, it could be construed that Mr. Garcia was paying Mr. Rivera; although Mr. Rivera was aware or had a belief where the money was ultimately coming from.
Anyway, what's Magbanua's position?
MS. KAWASS: Your Honor, I would object to the principals, when active participant hired by the defendant. I believe the standard principal instruction sufficiently covers the allegations in the case.
Subsection 2 specifically says that the defendant did some act or said some word. The jury doesn't need a specific instruction that specifically says, paid or promised. I feel like it's giving almost like an improper bolstering to the State's theory.
They can argue in closing argument that, if you find that she paid for it, that is an act. I mean, to then have that and then another instruction separating paid for, the jury instruction as it stands is sufficient enough for the jury.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I didn't make this up. This is the standard instruction.
MS. KAWASS: I'm just --
JUDGE HANKINSON: What's that?
MS. KAWASS: I apologize, Judge. I just think having both of them is not necessary and just the one would suffice. I think it would confuse the jury to have both.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Mr. Evans?
MR. EVANS: TI don't think it would confuse the jury. And just because somebody is a subcontractor, to address Garcia's argument, it doesn't take it out of being a principal hired by the defendant. So I think the evidence supports giving both instructions and we would be requesting both instructions. I think they're both a fair and accurate statement of the law and that's what the State is entitled to.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Well, I'll reserve on that. We don't have to resolve everything today. I'm going to rough something out and I'll send it to you and we can make a final determination at a later date.
Is the defense seeking the independent act instruction?
MR. ZANGENEH: Judge, with all due respect, at this point we haven't made a determination. I'd like to see the rest of the government's case.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. well, that's fair. Generally what I find is that if the State seeks principal, the defense seeks independent act. That's why I included it. But if you all don't want it, I'm sure the State will be happy not to include it. But y'all can make a final determination on that later.
All right. The conspiracy. What's the defense position on lessers? Garcia's position on lessers on the conspiracy and solicitation?
MR. ZANGENEH: Not requesting either.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua?
MS. KAWASS: Relying on the case law you provided, Judge, we're not asking for lessers.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And the State -- I assume the State is okay with that?
MR. EVANS: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I highlighted the part that is an affirmative defense. I was just waiting to see what evidence develops over the course of the proceedings. So that's the only reason that's highlighted because it's an affirmative defense.
As to the instruction itself, anybody found any errors or have objection?
MR. EVANS: None to the instruction itself. I don't believe the evidence supports it at this time.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Say what?
MR. EVANS: I don't believe there's sufficient evidence to support it at this time. But as to the form of the instruction, I think what you're asking for, I don't see any error in how it states the law.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Garcia?
MR. ZANGENEH: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Kawass?
MS. KAWASS: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: As to the solicitation, it's the same thing; I've highlighted. Make a determination at the end of the case whether there's evidence of an affirmative defense. But as to the instruction itself, anybody have objection?
MR. EVANS: No, Your Honor.
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge.
MS. KAWASS: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Those are the instructions on the charge itself. Is anybody aware of any others they're seeking?
MR. ZANGENEH: Not at this time, Judge.
MR. EVANS: No, sir.
MS. KAWASS: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: what about -- from some of the conversation, I wondered whether the State was going to seek a voluntary intoxication instruction or not.
(Attorneys confer.)
MR. EVANS: Given opening statement, Your Honor, that probably -- we probably would. That probably is a good idea to go ahead and do that. we would request it.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll add it in and we can have a discussion about it at a later point. All right. That gets us a little closer. So we'll give you until 9:00 to take a break.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Recess taken from 8:52 a.m. to 9:03 a.m.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's have the jury please.
(jury returned to the courtroom at 9:03 a.m.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Everybody be seated, except the witness.
If you would face the clerk and be sworn. Raise your right hand, please.
whereupon, JUNE UMCHINDA was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
JUDGE HANKINSON: Have a seat, please, ma'am.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what is your name?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Hi, I'm June Umchinda.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: will you please spell Umchinda?
JUNE UMCHINDA: U-M-C-H-I-N-D-A.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: where do you live?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I live in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you know Charlie Adelson?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I do.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How do you know Mr. Adelson?
JUNE UMCHINDA: He's my ex-boyfriend.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what were the periods of time that you dated Mr. Adelson?
JUNE UMCHINDA: we dated from October 2015 to June 2017, about.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And was that steady or was that kind of off and on?
JUNE UMCHINDA: well, it was off and on, I would say. Like, it was steady for a year and then, you know, a little break. I'm still in touch with him now, but we're not together.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: when was the last time you spoke to Mr. Adelson?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yesterday.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And has Mr. Adelson ever talked to you about the murder of Dan Markel?
JUNE UMCHINDA: He has because it got -- it's a big, you know, thing right now. So we did, obviously, speak about it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And he's never made any admissions to you, has he, about being involved in the murder?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did he ever -- I don't know.
Let me ask you this: Around the time of May, 2016, when the arrests were made in this case or some arrests were made and there was some media attention increased, did you notice a change in the behavior of Mr. Adelson?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes, I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Could you explain that to the jury, please?
JUNE UMCHINDA: He was just acting stressed and irrational. Sorry, were you talking about when the media broadcasted everything or beforehand when people were taken into -- were arrested?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: why don't we start with when people were arrested. Did you notice a change in his behavior at that time?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Tell us about that.
JUNE UMCHINDA: well, obviously, they were tracing things back to him so he was nervous and worried and just not himself.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And was he doing things like sleeping with a gun?
JUNE UMCHINDA: He does -- he did, but he usually does that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Oh, he did that anyway?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yeah.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And so you just noticed that his demeanor had changed? He seemed to be more stressed out?
JUNE UMCHINDA: There was something about him and he wouldn't really tell me. So, yes, he was stressed out.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So he wouldn't tell you really what the problem was?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: would you routinely sleep over at his place during the time that you were a couple?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I slept there every night, yeah.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And where was he living at that time?
JUNE UMCHINDA: whale Harbor Lane, where he lives now.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what does Mr. Adelson do for a living?
JUNE UMCHINDA: He's a periodontist.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you ever observe him engaging in any type of gang-related activities?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you ever see him interacting with or associating with any known gang members?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you observe him dealing in cocaine?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No, definitely not.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Purchasing cocaine?
JUNE UMCHINDA: (Indicates negatively.)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Using cocaine?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No, never.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Did you observe Mr. Adelson to have large amounts of cash?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Like how much?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I don't know. I have never seen all of it, but I know he has access to it in his house.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. where is it kept in his house?
JUNE UMCHINDA: It's in his bedroom in a safe.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is it like a small safe or one that's like the size of a refrigerator?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Like a refrigerator.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And is there anything unusual about the way Mr. Adelson packages his cash?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No, I've never seen it physically. Like, I don't look in his safe --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Uh-huh.
JUNE UMCHINDA: -- so I've seen him take money out of it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. So you didn't -- do you recall giving a statement back on July 24th, 2018, to law enforcement?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes. And I wanted to say at that time, obviously, you know, he just had a baby with someone else and that's the primary reason we broke up. So when I gave that interview, they were -- the baby was six months old. And Brie moved into the house and they got a dog and I thought I'd never speak to him again. So I was obviously, you know, hurt and angry.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. So were you lying to law enforcement back in July 24th, 2018, because of your --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: -- anger?
So I want to ask you specifically, in that interview, did you talk about observing large amounts of cash lying around the house when you were dating Charlie Adelson?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did you talk about a particular way that the money was separated or packaged?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I did mention that there was a staple on one of them. So I kind of like joked to him about it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: In fact, you said that the money was stapled into stacks of $100 bills; didn't you?
JUNE UMCHINDA: They were hundreds, yes. And I don't know if they were stacks, but there was a staple on it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You didn't say that there were multiple stacks of $100 bills that were stapled?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Not that I saw, no.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did you know how much -- I guess if you didn't see any stacks, you don't know how much money was in the stacks?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you see him actually stapling the money?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you know where the cash came from?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Did Mr. Adelson give you a lot of gifts during the time that you were dating?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what about after you were dating? Did you get any gifts after --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: -- you broke up?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I mean, I got usual birthday gifts and such like Christmas, but not anything out of the ordinary.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did he buy you any cars?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did he pay for any trips for you to go on on your own? without him?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No. He helped me visit my sister for her wedding in Seattle.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And was that during the time you were dating or after you broke up?
JUNE UMCHINDA: During.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. What about Katherine Magbanua, do you know who she is?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I've met -- I've seen her once. I have never physically met her so, no.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: where did you see her?
JUNE UMCHINDA: well, we met briefly. I would say see or met. She worked at Jerry's -- I'm sorry, the dermatologist's front desk. So when I walked in as a patient of Jerry's and briefly, you know, she greeted me.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what dermatologist was that that she worked for?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Broward Dermatology.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And the person you referred to as Jerry, that's Dr. Obed?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And that was somebody who was close with Mr. Adelson?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And were they roommates at some point?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So Ms. Magbanua was working at the dermatology office. Do you know the time frame that you observed her working there?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No. I saw her for a second so I don't even know if she recalls.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did you notice an increase in Mr. Adelson's contact with Ms. Magbanua after the media attention started in reference to this case?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No, no.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you remember giving that statement back on July 24th, 2016 [sic] to law enforcement?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I remember something was brought up about Katherine's car needed to be fixed. So that was brought up and I mentioned it to him, you know, just asking about it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And did you tell law enforcement that Charlie started talking to Katherine a lot more after the media attention started?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I noticed he met with her like twice, I would say.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you ever know of Katherine Magbanua working for Charlie at his dental practice? I'm sorry -- yeah, periodontal practice?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No, I met him after he was with Katherine so.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And when you met him in October of 2015, Ms. Magbanua was not employed at his office, to your knowledge?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I actually met Charlie like a year ago before that, but we reconnected a year later.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. I guess during any of the time that you knew Mr. Adelson, were you aware of Ms. Magbanua --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: -- working at his office?
Did you ask Mr. Adelson about the paychecks that were going to Ms. Magbanua?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, personal knowledge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did mr. Adelson ever express to you interest in purchasing a BMW for Ms. Magbanua?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you tell law enforcement back on July 24th, 2016, that Charlie wanted to get her a BMW before the case, but said he couldn't do it because the cops were watching his spending?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, misleading the jury.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll overrule that objection.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you make that statement to law enforcement?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You did not?
JUNE UMCHINDA: (Indicates negatively.) I don't know if they confused it. Like, I was asking for a BMW; TI actually got one myself now. But before then, I was talking to Charlie about it and he just says, you know, there's so much going on.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Oh, okay. So you were referring to yourself?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That he considered buying a BMW for you but could not?
JUNE UMCHINDA: It was brought up. I didn't -- he didn't consider it. He -- you know, just a lot of -- once the case started, everything kind of changed.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Thank you.
Did Mr. Adelson ever mention to you giving Katherine Magbanua a Lexus that his dad wanted to get rid of?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did he mention to you that he collected any money from Ms. Magbanua in exchange for the Lexus?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No. It was in her name though, I believe.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. So your understanding was that he gave it to her, as a gift?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, improper opinion.
MR. ZANGENEH: Objection, calls for speculation.
MR. DECOSTE: That, too.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'1I1 sustain the objection.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: would it refresh your recollection in reference to your prior statements regarding the money that you saw around Mr. Adelson's residence to see a transcript of your interview?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, improper refresh -- withdrawn.
JUDGE HANKINSON: ATI right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: One moment, please, Your Honor.
(Attorneys confer.)
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Did you say back on July 24th, 2018, quote, “but there was always stacks of hundreds, like a lot of cash in there. TI don't know exactly."
Agent Sanford said: "Yeah. Thousands and thousands of dollars you think?"
And your answer was: "Yeah."
Agent Sanford: "Stacks of hundreds?"
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, improper impeachment.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Your answer: "Yeah. Like, it's like dollars to him. Like he --"
Does that -- does that sound like what you said on the interview?
JUNE UMCHINDA: It -- it was something along the lines of that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Exactly that, right? Or do you have a reason to think the transcript is incorrect?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No, I mean, if -- I believe I was recorded without my knowledge during the transcript so if that's what it said, then that's what I said. I don't remember.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did you also say on that occasion when you were interviewed by law enforcement: "So I was always, like, who staples money and stuff? Like, use a paperclip or something.”
And then there was a question: "So you've seen his money stapled together?"
Answer: "Yeah."
Is that -- was that your statement?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes, I mentioned he had the staples on the hundreds before.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And then did you also say: "One thing I did, like, I thought was weird was I had one time -- like, he was giving money to count or something and all of his money is like stapled together, the hundreds in bundles.”
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, improper impeachment.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you make that statement, Ms. Umchinda?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I don't recall.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And it would not refresh your recollection to review the transcript?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, improper impeachment.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
JUNE UMCHINDA: JI can. If it's there, then I'm assuming I made it.
JUDGE HANKINSON: why don't you let her read it, Ms. Cappleman.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Sure.
JUNE UMCHINDA: So, I don't --
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Page 42, Lines 18 through 23. It is kind of small so it's this portion here. Just take a moment and review it.
JUNE UMCHINDA: (witness complies.)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Does it refresh your memory at all?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes, we did -- we did talk about the stapled money.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So you did make that statement?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: One moment, please, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No further questions.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua -- I mean, Garcia.
MR. ZANGENEH: Thank you, Judge.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ZANGENEH:
MR. ZANGENEH: Good morning.
JUNE UMCHINDA: Good morning.
MR. ZANGENEH: I represent Mr. Garcia and I'm going to ask you some questions with regards to your involvement in this case, okay?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Okay.
MR. ZANGENEH: Now you said on direct examination that you were unaware that you were being recorded; is that correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: And just so I can get a better understanding, did law enforcement come to your home or did you get summoned to go to a police station?
JUNE UMCHINDA: They came to my home multiple times, like, banging on my door and -- you know, throughout the year. They came to my home, attempted about like two or three times until I finally got a hold of someone to get the subpoena back then.
MR. ZANGENEH: So the date in question -- Ms. Cappleman, what is the date of that?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: July 24th, ‘18.
MR. ZANGENEH: 2018?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Sir.
BY MR. ZANGENEH:
MR. ZANGENEH: So the government has been referring to a transcript of an interview that you were involved in on July 24th, 2018; correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: And this interview, did it take place at a police station? At your home?
JUNE UMCHINDA: It was in my condo lobby at my home.
MR. ZANGENEH: when you took the -- when you were involved in the interaction with law enforcement, was there a stenographer there taking notes?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Not that I can recall. There were two -- two officers.
MR. ZANGENEH: And I'm asking this because it was your direct testimony that you said that you didn't know you were being recorded. So I would assume they didn't advise you that we're recording this statement?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Right.
MR. ZANGENEH: Did they give you an opportunity to review the transcript to see if there's any problems with it?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I didn't even know they took what I said and put it anywhere, so.
MR. ZANGENEH: So you wouldn't know when they turned the recording on versus them not recording; correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I'm sorry, what was?
MR. ZANGENEH: Let me ask that again. I'm sorry.
JUNE UMCHINDA: That's okay.
MR. ZANGENEH: So since you didn't know they were recording it, it would be impossible for you to know when they began recording it; correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Right.
MR. ZANGENEH: So you can't tell the members of this jury whether or not prior to the beginning of this recording that they discussed stapling the money together; correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: Now you were with Charlie Adelson from October of 2015?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Until June of 2016?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Seventeen.
MR. ZANGENEH: I'm sorry, ‘17.
Almost -- almost a two-year relationship; correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: And it was your testimony that you would spend almost every night at his house; correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: During this two years, did you ever see him smoke marijuana?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Did you ever see him take any kind of bodybuilding supplements?
MR. ZANGENEH: You know he went to a gym; correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: He would work out?
JUNE UMCHINDA: would I work out?
MR. ZANGENEH: I'm sorry, no.
JUNE UMCHINDA: I'm sorry.
MR. ZANGENEH: He would work out; right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes, he has stuff in his house, like a gym, a home gym.
MR. ZANGENEH: Did he have a gym that he would go to like a membership gym?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: And would it be safe to say that Charlie Adelson had a wide spectrum of friends; correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: would it also be safe to say that Charlie Adelson, I don't know if this would be a correct designation, but he frequented nightclubs?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Not -- like, what do you mean by frequent?
MR. ZANGENEH: Did he go to nightclubs in South Beach?
JUNE UMCHINDA: He went to nightclubs -- it wasn't specifically South Beach when I was with him.
MR. ZANGENEH: So he would go to nightclubs in multiple areas of South Florida? would that be a better generalization?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Honestly, when I was with him, he didn't go to clubs, like, a lot. We went to Vegas one time and we went there to clubs, and to Miami once and, like, maybe Fort Lauderdale, but it wasn't frequent enough like that so.
MR. ZANGENEH: And you began dating him in 2015; correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: So you don't know what his frequency of going out to nightclubs was in, let's say, 2013?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Right.
MR. ZANGENEH: Or 2014; correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: And you also wouldn't know whether or not he was doing cocaine in 2013; correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Right.
MR. ZANGENEH: Or 2014; correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: But he did smoke weed in front of you?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Did you smoke it with him?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I have, yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Now, you ended your relationship with him because he was cheating on you; right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: That was the primary reason.
MR. ZANGENEH: So he was withholding things from you; correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Right. We were on a break and got back together and found out --
MR. ZANGENEH: That he got another girl pregnant?
JUNE UMCHINDA: -- got a girl pregnant, right.
MR. ZANGENEH: Now the prosecutor asked you if he knew -- if you were ever introduced to any gang members by Mr. Adelson; correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Now you don't know if he knew any gang members in 2013; correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Right.
MR. ZANGENEH: You don't know if he knew any gang members in 2014; correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: The only information you can give this jury is what occurred in your relationship, which started in October of 2015; is that correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Now, with regards to the fact that Mr. Adelson, Charlie Adelson, had gotten another female pregnant, you were hurt by that; correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Of course.
MR. ZANGENEH: And when the police spoke to you on that interview in summer of 2018, the police told you about the stapled money; correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: They told me about it?
MR. ZANGENEH: Right.
JUNE UMCHINDA: No, because when they showed up, they were conversating with me. So it was mentioned -- it was during a bad time when we weren't together that they testimonied me so.
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay. So did they bring up the stapling of the money? They did, right, the police?
Let me rephrase it. Did they ask you about stapled money?
JUNE UMCHINDA: They asked me, yes, about --
MR. ZANGENEH: You didn't bring it up on your own; right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Right.
MR. ZANGENEH: You said that you spoke to Mr. Adelson yesterday?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: was he going to ask you about your testimony today?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: -- hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: She's already answered.
MR. DECOSTE: The answer is no?
JUDGE HANKINSON: I find the objection is untimely. I sustain the objection for further purposes.
You can move on, Mr. Zangeneh.
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, Judge, give me a minute.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
(Defendant confers with counsel.)
MR. ZANGENEH: JI have no further questions of this witness. Thank you.
JUNE UMCHINDA: Thank you.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Good morning, ma'am.
JUNE UMCHINDA: Good morning.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you have any children?
MR. DECOSTE: You were asked questions about cash inside of the house. You remember that; right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, Charles Adelson was a generous guy; right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: In fact, at one point you explained in your statement how you had counted the money because he would give loans to people? To friends?
JUNE UMCHINDA: He helped out friends and gave loans. I didn't physically count the money he gave out to them, no.
MR. DECOSTE: Fair enough. But you knew that he would lend out money to people that needed it and they would pay him back?
JUNE UMCHINDA: He has told me, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Help me understand this a little bit. Law enforcement came and spoke to you at one point in time. You remember that; right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And this would be July 24th of 2018, if you remember?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: It was Investigator Sherry Bennett of the Tallahassee Police Department; is that correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And an FBI agent?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Patrick Sanford?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes, I have their cards. I can't quote their exact names, I'm sorry, but I believe that's them.
MR. DECOSTE: was the agent medium height, shaved head?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you had said -- I don't know if it was on cross-examination or direct examination -- that they had banged on your door before?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Multiple times a prosecutor or whoever came to my residence, would knock and repeatedly come back, you know.
MR. DECOSTE: You didn't open the door though; right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: well, no. A few times I wasn't home, my roommate was. And then another time -- no, I never caught them like at my place and opened the door, no.
MR. DECOSTE: If you could explain to this jury, in Miami, somebody bangs on your door, possibly a couple of men, are you quickly opening that door or are you concerned to open that door, in Miami?
JUNE UMCHINDA: well, definitely concerned. They actually just did it to me to come here. So a day or so ago they were banging at 6:00 a.m. and I was sleeping so.
MR. DECOSTE: For you to come here today?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yeah. Then I got blocked calls like calling me so I didn't know, you know, who was behind the door. And I have a guard at the gate and they didn't call me so I was really ~worried.
MR. DECOSTE: It's scary?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: For a woman? And in Miami it's an even more scary thing because there's a lot of threats out there in Miami; right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I guess in South Florida anywhere, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Two strange men come banging on your door, you're concerned and may not answer the door? Fair?
JUNE UMCHINDA: (Nods affirmatively.) Just any banging, yes, would be a concern to me.
MR. DECOSTE: Agent Patrick Sanford and Investigator Sherry Bennett, they sit down with you to talk to you. Isn't it true that they told you, you're not being recorded, this is all going to be confidential, nobody will know about it?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: And then later in time you find out that you were, in fact, being recorded?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes. I believe when I spoke, I was -- I had to do another testimony and that person told me so.
MR. DECOSTE: So law enforcement can, in fact, secretively record you, if they want?
JUNE UMCHINDA: They did, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Change gears. Talk about Charles Adelson and his work. what did he do for work?
JUNE UMCHINDA: He was a periodontist, or he is a periodontist.
MR. DECOSTE: would you have termed him a traveling periodontist, that he went to different locations, that he was routinely at different locations?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Primarily, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you were in a relationship with him, and you explained it kind of off and on between October 2015 and June of 2017?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Did you get familiar with his -- with his work practice?
JUNE UMCHINDA: with the Adelson Institute or with his schedule, you mean?
MR. DECOSTE: Schedule is the better way to say it.
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes, of course.
MR. DECOSTE: would he be at the Adelson Institute every day, 8:00 in the morning there until 5:00, or was he all over South Florida?
JUNE UMCHINDA: He was all over. He had appointments at different offices. He stopped in his frequently as well, if needed.
MR. DECOSTE: Now let's talk about Ms. Magbanua. You were asked questions about whether she did or didn't work for Charles Adelson. Do you just not know the answer to that question?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No. I mean, when I was with him, we never spoke about Katherine working for him. I didn't even know who she was. So during that time, I didn't know. Right now, obviously, I know he mentioned that she did. So -- and his parents said she did.
MR. DECOSTE: You having been his girlfriend at the time, would you think that there may be objection if you had found out that his ex-girlfriend was working for him? That could maybe cause a problem?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Maybe.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you think it's reasonable that he would say, hey, I'm not going to share this with her, she may be upset that Katherine is working for me, Ms. Magbanua?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Maybe, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about his friends. It's my understanding that after this case hit the media, that he had some falling out with a lot of his friends; is that correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But he kept a few of them, a few -- a few friends? He maintained a few of them; right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Are you talking about at this moment or, you know, within the last two years or so?
MR. DECOSTE: All I have to go based on is your statement in July of --
JUNE UMCHINDA: In July?
MR. DECOSTE: -- 2018. Correct.
But my question is this: was Sully one of the friends that he maintained?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know Sully?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: He's a mechanic; right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes, he was. He just sold his business so he's doing something else now.
MR. DECOSTE: And that business was the Eco-Friendly Body Shop?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: what does he do now?
JUNE UMCHINDA: He got another position and moved to Orlando. I'm not 100 percent what the title is.
MR. DECOSTE: when you met with law enforcement in July of 2018, you said that you were mad at Charles Adelson?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And that that may have influenced what you said when you were meeting with law enforcement?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Definitely. I felt like I was very vulnerable at the time. So when they showed up, it was kind of like conversating with, you know, somebody that had sympathy for what I was going through. I was -- it was just sucha terrible time for me while the other woman was pregnant. So it was during all that time when she just had the baby. So, yes, I was very upset.
MR. DECOSTE: At him? At Charles Adelson?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And do you believe the investigators played on your emotions?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, let's go in the months and the years prior to that. You had seen about this case in the media; right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: In fact, at one point in time they confused you with Ms. Magbanua and the news posted pictures of you online?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Right. And at that time, also, I didn't even know about the case. So they took whatever I said and spun it around.
MR. DECOSTE: Between you somehow being dragged into it and also you dating Charles Adelson, who was in the middle of it, you then began to look at a lot of the media stuff; right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you were well versed on the case when you started talking to law enforcement in July of 2018; right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Right. They advised me of the case right there in front of his house when they showed up.
MR. DECOSTE: But what I'm getting at is that you knew about the case well from the media; right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No, I never knew about this case at all until I pulled up to his house that day and the person outside told me about it.
MR. DECOSTE: well, help me understand this because I'm getting a little bit confused. That day that the media pulled up in front of the house, that was well before law enforcement came and met with you; right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: About a year ago. We were still together then, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: when you say "a year ago,” you're not talking about a year from today, you're talking about 2017, a year prior to the statement?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So 2017 you get confronted by the media, they put your picture on the Internet, they confuse you with Ms. Magbanua. You then get involved in all the media. Anda year later, you then have this conversation with law enforcement; right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: And at that time, you're really mad at him?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes, I was -- everything, like the press, horrible, horrible.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to the final topic. The prosecution asked you about how his mood changed at one point in time. I think your words were that he was stressed and irrational; is that correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: would you agree with me that it was obvious through the media, through everything that you had seen, through Ms. Cappleman herself on Tv, that they were trying to build a case against Charles Adelson and Katherine Magbanua?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Definitely.
MR. DECOSTE: One brief second, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing further, Your Honor. Thank you.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Redirect.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Ms. Umchinda, you mentioned that prosecutors were at your door. what prosecutors were at your door?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I don't know because I didn't answer the door.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you have any reason to think that I or any member of the prosecution team ever came to your door?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I don't think you would physically come. It was probably a server or something.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Like law enforcement?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I was looking at the beginning of the taped interview and Investigator Sherry Bennett, who was the female that came to interview you, indicates at the very beginning of the transcript that she's putting the date on the --
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: -- she's putting the date down. You know, “today is 7/24/2018. It's 6:30 p.m. we're here with June. Okay. So we can just go ahead and talk. I just want to put the date down."
what did you think -- that didn't clue you in that she was recording the interview?
JUNE UMCHINDA: well, I would think she was taking notes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Did you see her taking notes?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I can't really remember. I believe there was paper and pen around, someone was note taking.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Thank you. No further questions.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Any juror have a question of this witness? we'll go sidebar.
AT THE BENCH
JUDGE HANKINSON: Prior to yesterday, when was the last time you talked to Charlie Adelson?
Anybody have objection to that?
MR. ZANGENEH: NO.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No objection.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: When she spoke to him yesterday, did he call her or did she call him?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No objection.
MR. ZANGENEH: No objection.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
IN OPEN COURT
JUDGE HANKINSON: I believe you indicated you talked to Charlie Adelson yesterday; is that correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And was that by phone or in person?
JUNE UMCHINDA: It was by text message on the phone.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. So did he text you or did you text him?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yesterday -- I'm sorry, I was flying. I'm trying to think of exactly yesterday. Yesterday I texted him first because I left work.
JUDGE HANKINSON: what?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I texted him. I was leaving work at lunchtime to go on a plane to come here. So I texted him first to let him know.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And did he respond?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And is that the only communication you had or did you talk to him also?
JUNE UMCHINDA: We just talked throughout the night, like, you know.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Texting back and forth?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. And prior to yesterday, when was the last time you had talked to him, either in person or by text or e-mail?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Maybe two days before or the night before.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. Ms. Cappleman, any follow-up?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No follow-up.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Garcia?
MR. ZANGENEH: Give me one second, Judge.
(Defendant confers with counsel.)
MR. ZANGENEH: Nothing else from Mr. Garcia.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua.
MR. DECOSTE: No questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. You can step down.
Do we need to keep her any further?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Anybody need her any further?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. You're excused to go about your business.
JUNE UMCHINDA: Thank you.