June Umchinda — Direct/Cross/Redirect
499 linesBAILIFF: The court's now in session, the Honorable Judge James C. Hankinson presiding.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be seated.
JUDGE HANKINSON: The — The Court calls the case of Garcia and Magbanua. Let the record reflect that defendants are present with their attorneys.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I believe one issue — or it really ends up being two issues. The State had contended yesterday that Garcia had opened the door to other criminal activity between Mr. Garcia and the defendant yesterday.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Opening statement — I did go back and listen to the opening statement.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I do not find that they have opened the door to other criminal activity at this point in time.
JUDGE HANKINSON: There's certainly discussion about Mr. Rivera's gang affiliation. He does say — Mr. Rivera, you're aware that he would involve other gang members, and it might make common sense that he would do that. But he does not make the statement that he would only do criminal activity with other Latin Kings. Were that the case, I would let the State — I would agree with the State that the door was opened. But that's not what was said in the opening statement.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I wasn't watching it or listening to it for this purpose.
JUDGE HANKINSON: There was an issue that I had forgotten that Mr. Zangeneh did bring up in the opening statement.
JUDGE HANKINSON: 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 there's the objection to — I think it was co-counsel's question about drug dealing. I think 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 also.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And it's very clear Garcia has opened up the 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 the opening statement. Any other issues from the State?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: This morning, Judge, there is one issue that I think 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.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Anything else from the State?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Garcia? Magbanua? All right. I said we were going to discuss jury instructions a little bit.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Who's going to be handling that for the State?
MR. EVANS: I will, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. You can be seated. Y'all can remain seated during this process. I know it's hard to read and stand up and talk at the same time.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Mr. Zangeneh, you're handling this for Mr. Garcia?
MR. ZANGENEH: That is correct, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And for Magbanua, who's speaking?
MS. KAWASS: Mr. Kawass.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. All right. — go through them. I would assume everybody's got what —
MR. EVANS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You have the standard — Anybody found any issues in statement of charge, introduction to homicide, justifiable homicide or excusable homicide? You can, you can just remain seated. Okay, relax. I know — got you well trained.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay, first degree murder, premeditated murder anybody found any issue there?
JUDGE HANKINSON: What lessers is Garcia seeking?
MR. ZANGENEH: But no — second degree murder and manslaughter.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any defense attorneys have any legal cause why I would not give the lesser second degree murder, manslaughter? Would appear they're category one lessers — either side is entitled to request them. Somebody have a legal argument they want to make?
MS. KAWASS: Your Honor, the only argument that we — Ms. Kawass — is there is zero evidence to support a manslaughter or second degree as it is to my client, because she's charged as a principal to first degree murder. And manslaughter, because there's no specific intent. So I don't understand.
MS. KAWASS: It would be a clash of legal terms if she's a principal to manslaughter.
MR. DECOSTE: And Your Honor, if I may, I believe that while they are category one lessers, the government's theory and the evidence that they've produced doesn't qualify for either second degree or manslaughter.
MR. DECOSTE: I think the factual evidence and the government's case — the case does purport to abide by the jury instructions of Professor Riemer, so we'll reserve whatever the Court wants to say.
JUDGE HANKINSON: 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, any party, can request, and the court's 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.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right, you can remain. I'm sorry, Mr. Abbott?
MR. EVANS: None from the state, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Manslaughter.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Anybody found an issue on that?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge.
MR. ZANGENEH: Not from Mr. Garcia.
MS. KAWASS: None from Ms. Magbanua.
MR. EVANS: None from the state.
JUDGE HANKINSON: There's a reclassification of a felony by carrying a firearm.
JUDGE HANKINSON: 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 and manslaughter, one says only as to second-degree murder.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Anybody found any errors or have an objection to that instruction?
MR. ZANGENEH: Not for Mr. Garcia.
MS. KAWASS: We object, Your Honor. There is no indication whatsoever that she was ever in possession of a firearm.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Right.
MR. EVANS: None from the state, ma'am.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Probably we'll talk about how we would word that. I think the instruction is correct, at least at this point. I don't really anticipate a change in that.
JUDGE HANKINSON: 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 instruction you gave us, on the line — I guess it'd 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's no allegation that she personally did. So I think the jury would be adequately informed.
JUDGE HANKINSON: It's essentially a judgment of acquittal as to any firearm charge 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.
JUDGE HANKINSON: What do you — what about my suggestion, Ms. Kawass?
JUDGE HANKINSON: 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.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You can spell it all out again, his full name and all that, if you want, but that doesn't seem necessary. All right, so that's what I'll do.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm not granting a judgment of acquittal at this point. I'm kind of assuming where we stand at the end of the case, but It's a little confusing on the facts of our case as to the principal instruction, as to which one. Your whether it should be some combination of that. What's — what's the state's position?
MR. EVANS: Both of them should be read, and maybe with some modifications. It's 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 a principal can be done two ways — one of which is the standard principal instruction; the second would be the active participant hired by the defendant.
MR. ZANGENEH: The general instruction relates to Mr. Garcia. 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: It could be construed that Mr. Garcia was paying Mr. Rivera, although Mr. Rivera was aware — had a belief — where the money was ultimately coming from.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Anyway, what's Ms. Magbanua's position?
MS. KAWASS: I would object to the principal of an active participant hired by a defendant. I believe the standard principal instruction 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 an improper imprimatur to the state's theory. They can argue in closing argument that if you find that she paid for it, that is an act.
MS. KAWASS: I mean, to then have that and then another instruction separating out 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. What's that?
MS. KAWASS: I apologize. I just think that having both of them is not necessary, and just the one would suffice. I think it would confuse the jury to have both.
MR. EVANS: I don't think it would confuse the jury. And just because somebody's a subcontractor — to address Mr. Garcia's argument — that doesn't take it out of being a principal hired by a 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: All right. Well, let me — I'll reserve on them. We don't have to resolve everything today. I'm going to rough something out and I'll send it to you. We can make a final determination at a later date.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is the defense seeking the independent act instruction?
MR. ZANGENEH: I haven't made a determination. I'd like to see the rest of the government's case.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. That's fair. Generally, what I find is that if the state seeks principals, the defense seeks independent act. That's why I included it. But if y'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.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Conspiracy. What's the defense position on lessers — Garcia's position on lessers, on conspiracy and solicitation?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Ms. Magbanua?
MS. KAWASS: We're relying on the case law you provided, Judge. We're not asking for...
JUDGE HANKINSON: I assume the state's okay with that?
MR. EVANS: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Um, I highlighted the part of withdrawal from the proceedings. So that's the only reason that's highlighted, because it's an affirmative defense.
JUDGE HANKINSON: As to the instruction itself — has anybody found any errors or have objections?
MR. EVANS: As to the instruction itself, I don't believe that it's supported at this time.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Say what?
MR. EVANS: I don't think there's sufficient support 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: As to the solicitation, it's the same thing. I've highlighted it — 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 an objection?
MR. EVANS: No, Your Honor.
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge.
MS. KAWASS: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Those are the instructions on the charges themselves. Is anybody aware of any others they're seeking?
JUDGE HANKINSON: What about — from some of the conversation, I wondered whether the state was going to seek a voluntary intoxication instruction or not?
MR. EVANS: Given opening statement, Your Honor, yeah, that probably — that probably is a good idea. 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.
JUDGE HANKINSON: That gets us a little closer. We'll give you until 9 o'clock. Take a break.
JUDGE HANKINSON: If you would please take the witness stand — if you would face the clerk to be sworn, raise your right hand, please.
JUNE UMCHINDA: I do.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Have a seat, please, ma'am.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What is your name?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Hi, I'm June Umchinda.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Will you please spell it, 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 — 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: Okay. And was that steady, or was that kind of off and on?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Well, it was off and on. I would say it was steady for a year, and then, you know, a little break. And still in touch with him now, but we're not together.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. 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: Um, he has, because it's, um, 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?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. 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.
JUNE UMCHINDA: 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. Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Tell us about that.
JUNE UMCHINDA: Um, well, obviously they were tracing things back to him, so he was, um, nervous and worried and just not himself.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And was he doing things like sleeping with a gun?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Um, he does — he did, but he usually does that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Oh, he did that anyway?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yeah.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. 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?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No.
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: Will Harbor Lane, where he lives now.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. 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?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you ever see him interacting with or associating with any known gang members?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you observe him dealing in cocaine?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No, definitely not.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Purchasing cocaine?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No.
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've 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: Um, no. I've never seen it physically — like, I don't look in his safe. So I've seen him take money out of it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, so you didn't — do you recall giving a statement by 24, 2018, to law enforcement?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes. Um, 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, the baby was six months old.
JUNE UMCHINDA: And Bree moved into the house, and they got a dog. And I thought I would never speak to him again. So I was obviously hurt and angry.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. So were you lying to law enforcement back on July 24, 2018, because of your anger?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. So I want to ask you specifically about 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: Okay. And did you talk about a particular way that the money was separated or packaged?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I did mention, um, 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 hundred-dollar bills, didn't you?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Um, 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 hundred-dollar 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, right? Did you see him actually stapling the money?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you know where the cash came from?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Did Mr. Adelson give you a lot of gifts during the time that you were dating?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What about after you were dating? Did you get any gifts after 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: Okay. Did he buy you any cars?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No.
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: Okay. 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 — I met her briefly, I would say saw or met. She worked at Jerry's — I'm sorry, the dermatologist's front desk. So when I walked in, I was a patient of Jerry's, and briefly, you know, she greeted me.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And what dermatologist was that, that she worked for?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Broward Dermatology.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. 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: Okay. 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: Okay. 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 July 24th, 2016, to law enforcement?
JUNE UMCHINDA: I remember something was brought up about Katherine's car needing 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: Um, I noticed he met with her, like, twice, I would say.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. So did you ever know—
JUNE UMCHINDA: Um, maybe about two times.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you ever know of Katherine Magbanua working for Charlie at his dental practice — I'm sorry, yeah, dental, periodontal practice?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No, I met him after he was with Katherine, so.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, 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 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 working at his office?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you ask Mr. Adelson about the paychecks that were going to Ms. Magbanua?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did Mr. Adelson ever express to you interest in purchasing a BMW for Ms. Magbanua?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No.
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.
MR. DECOSTE: I'll overrule that objection.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you make that statement to law enforcement? You did not?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Um, I don't know if they confused it. Like, I was asking for a BMW — I 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: Okay, so you were referring to yourself?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yeah.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: He considered buying a BMW for you, but could not?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Um, it was brought — 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: Also, speculation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll sustain the objection.
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?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, improper refreshing of recollection. Withdrawn.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: One moment, please, Your Honor.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Did you say back on July 24, 2018, quote, "But there was always stacks of hundreds. It's like a lot of cash in there, I 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."
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Your answer: "Yeah, like it's, like, dollars to him, like he is " Does that sound like what you said in the interview?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Um, it — I would... something along the lines of that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. 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 paper clip or something." And then there's a question: "So you've seen his money stapled together?" Answer: "Yeah." Is that — was that your statement?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes. So 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.
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: I can.
JUNE UMCHINDA: If it's there, then I'm assuming I made it.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let her read it.
JUNE UMCHINDA: I don't—
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Just take a moment and review it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Refresh your memory at all?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes, we did talk about the stapled money, so yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So you did make that statement?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: One moment, please, Your Honor.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No further questions.
MR. ZANGENEH: Good morning.
MR. ZANGENEH: I represent Mr. Garcia, and I'm going to ask you some questions with regard 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, you know, throughout the year. They came to my home about like two or three times, until I finally got a hold of someone to get this subpoena back then.
MR. ZANGENEH: So the — the date in question, 2018 — So the government's 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: 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 — 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," right? 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?
MR. ZANGENEH: Let me ask that again. I'm sorry. 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, they discussed stapling the money together, correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: Correct. Now, you were with Charlie Adelson from October of 2015?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Until June of 2016?
JUNE UMCHINDA: '17.
MR. ZANGENEH: I'm sorry, '17.
MR. ZANGENEH: 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. Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Did you ever see him take any kind of bodybuilding supplements?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No.
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? I'm sorry, no. 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: Um, not like — what do you mean by "frequent"?
MR. ZANGENEH: Did he go to nightclubs in South Beach?
JUNE UMCHINDA: He went to nightclubs, um — 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 a lot. We went to Vegas one time, and we went there to clubs, and to Miami once, and maybe Fort Lauderdale, but it wasn't frequent enough like that.
MR. ZANGENEH: And you began dating him in 2015, correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Correct. 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?
MR. ZANGENEH: 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 — right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Right. We were on a break and got back together, and found out that he got another —
MR. ZANGENEH: Right. Now The prosecutor asked you if you were ever introduced to any gang members by Mr. Adelson, correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Now, you don't know if you knew any gang members in 2013, right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Right.
MR. ZANGENEH: You don't know if you 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: 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, um, 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 I say testimony me, so —
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay, so did they bring up the stapling of the money?
JUNE UMCHINDA: They did.
MR. ZANGENEH: Right, the police — let me, 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: Uh, yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Was he going to ask you about your testimony today?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Give me a minute.
MR. ZANGENEH: I have no further questions of this witness. Thank you.
MR. DECOSTE: Good morning.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you have any children?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No.
MR. DECOSTE: You were asked questions about cash inside of the house. You remember that, right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, Charlie 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 it would pay him back?
JUNE UMCHINDA: He's told me, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Help me understand this a little bit.
MR. DECOSTE: The 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: Right. It was Investigator Sherry Bennett of the Tallahassee Police Department.
MR. DECOSTE: 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: Um, 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: Um, well, no. A few times I wasn't home, my roommate was. And then another time, um, no, I never caught them like at my place and opened the door.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, if you can explain to this jury: in Miami, somebody bangs on your door, possibly a couple of men — are you quickly opening that door? 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 a.m. and I was sleeping, so for you to come here today. 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: Um, I guess in South Florida anywhere, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Two strange men come banging on your door, you're concerned, that may not answer the door. Fair?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Just any banging, yes, would be a concern to me.
MR. DECOSTE: Agent Patrick Sanford, 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.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes. And then later in time you find out that you were in fact being recorded?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes. I believe when I — I spoke, 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. Change gears. Talk about Charlie Adelson and his work. What did he do for work?
JUNE UMCHINDA: He was 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 primarily?
JUNE UMCHINDA: 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 — did you get familiar with his work practice with the Adelson Institute, or with his schedule?
JUNE UMCHINDA: You mean schedule?
MR. DECOSTE: Schedule is the better way to say it.
JUNE UMCHINDA: Um, yes, of course.
MR. DECOSTE: Would he be at the Adelson Institute every day, eight o'clock in the morning, there until five? Or was he all over South Florida?
JUNE UMCHINDA: He was all over. Um, 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 asked questions about whether she did or didn't work for Charlie Adelson. Do you just not know the answer to that question?
JUNE UMCHINDA: No. I mean, um, 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.
JUNE UMCHINDA: Right now, obviously, I know he mentioned that she did.
JUNE UMCHINDA: 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's 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, he had some falling out with a lot of his friends. Is that correct?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes, but he kept a few of them.
MR. DECOSTE: A few. A few friends he maintained. A few of them, right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Um, 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 2018, correct? Well, 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: Um, not — yes, he was. He just sold his business. So he's doing something else now, and that business was the eco-friendly body shop.
MR. DECOSTE: What does he do now?
JUNE UMCHINDA: He got another position and moved to Orlando. I'm not a hundred percent what the title is.
MR. DECOSTE: When you met with law enforcement in July of 2018, you said that you were mad at Charlie Adelson.
JUNE UMCHINDA: Yes. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And 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 somebody that had sympathy for what I was going through.
JUNE UMCHINDA: It was just such a 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 at him.
MR. DECOSTE: At Charlie 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 Charlie 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 is that you knew about the case, well, from the media, right?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Um, 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: It will 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: All right. 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, and a 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, depressed, horrible.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to the final topic.
MR. DECOSTE: Prosecution asked you about how his mood changed at one point in time.
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah, I think your words were that he was stressed and irrational.
MR. DECOSTE: 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 Charlie Adelson and Katherine Magbanua?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Definitely.
MR. DECOSTE: One brief second, Your Honor.
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing further.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Redirect.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Ms. Umchinda, you mentioned 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, she's putting the date down: "You know, today is 7-24 of 2018 at 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: Um, well, I would think she was taking notes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Did you see her taking notes?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Um I can't really remember. I believe there was paper and pen around. Someone was notating.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Thank you. No further questions.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Any juror have question of this witness. We'll go sidebar.
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: Um, it was by text message on the phone.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. So did he text you, or did you text him?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Um, yesterday — I'm sorry, I was flying, I'm trying to think of exactly. Yesterday, um, yesterday I texted him first, because I left work. What 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: 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: Um, we just talked throughout the night, like, you know, texting back and forth. Yes.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Prior to yesterday, when was the last time you had talked to him, either in person or by text or email?
JUNE UMCHINDA: Um, maybe two days before. The night before.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Follow-up?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No follow-up.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Garcia?
MR. ZANGENEH: Give me one second, Judge.
MR. ZANGENEH: Nothing from Mr. Garcia, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanau.
MR. DECOSTE: No questions, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. You can step down. Do we need to keep her any further?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right, you're excused. Go about your business.
JUNE UMCHINDA: Thank you.