2.Mary Hull — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross
2,332 linesMS. NORRIS: The State calls Mary Hull.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Come on up here, please, ma'am.
If you would face the clerk and raise your right hand to be sworn, please.
whereupon, MARY HULL was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
MARY HULL: I do.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Have a seat. Slide up to the microphone, please, ma'am.
You may proceed.
MS. NORRIS: Thank you, Judge.
DIRECT EXAMINATION ~=BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Good morning.
MARY HULL: Good morning.
MS. NORRIS: Can you please introduce yourself to the jury, and spell your first and your last name?
MARY HULL: Sure. Good morning. My name is Mary Hull, H-u-1-1.
MS. NORRIS: How are you employed, Ms. Hull?
MARY HULL: I'm employed with the attorney general's office in the consumer protection division.
MS. NORRIS: what is your current role at the attorney general's office?
MARY HULL: Financial investigator.
MS. NORRIS: How were you employed back in the summer of 2016?
MARY HULL: I worked for the Department of Financial Services in the office of Fiscal Integrity.
MS. NORRIS: And inside the Office of Fiscal Integrity, what did you do?
MARY HULL: I was a criminal financial investigator.
MS. NORRIS: what does that mean?
MARY HULL: we investigated all fraud, waste, and abuse for all State funds.
MS. NORRIS: And you -- in your current position at the attorney general's office, what are your duties exactly?
MARY HULL: we handle more civil. I do have some dual criminal cases, but we cover the Florida deceptive -- unfair trade and deceptive practices statute.
MS. NORRIS: what's your educational background?
MARY HULL: I have a Bachelor of Science in finance from Florida State University.
MS. NORRIS: Do you have any minors, like a --
MARY HULL: Yeah. My major was finance, minor was accounting.
MS. NORRIS: Do you have any experience in analyzing financial data?
MARY HULL: Yes. I have 15 years of financial experience as an auditor and a financial investigator for the State of Florida.
MS. NORRIS: Do you have any investigative experience in white-collar crime?
MARY HULL: Yes. I have seven years of conducting white-collar crime investigations to include money laundering, contract fraud, counterfeiting, embezzlement, and identity theft.
MS. NORRIS: And have you worked both with federal and state authorities investigating, like, multiagency, complex financial investigations?
MARY HULL: I have. I've worked numerous complex multiagency financial investigations.
MS. NORRIS: And what's your area of expertise?
MARY HULL: My specialty is forensic accounting.
MS. NORRIS: what is forensic accounting?
MARY HULL: It's the very detailed analysis of financial records and data to be used as evidence in a court of law.
MS. NORRIS: Do you have any specialized training or certifications to be able to do forensic accounting?
MARY HULL: Yes. I'ma certified fraud examiner in good standing with the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners.
MS. NORRIS: Above and beyond that, did you receive any type of, like, in-service --
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: -- on-the-job training?
MARY HULL: Yes. As a criminal investigator, I had additional in-service training to include search and seizure requirements, the handling of evidence, chain of custody requirements, and the procedures for interviewing witnesses.
MS. NORRIS: Have you ever testified in a court as to your expertise in forensic accounting?
MARY HULL: Yes, I sure have.
MS. NORRIS: Approximately how many times?
MARY HULL: Approximately 18 times.
MS. NORRIS: At this time the State tenders.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Voir dire?
MR. ZANGENEH: None from Mr. Garcia.
MR. DECOSTE: None, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. You may proceed.
MS. NORRIS: Thank you.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: And eventually you became involved in this particular murder investigation; is that right?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: And what exactly were you asked to do?
MARY HULL: To look over all of the bank records and analysis, see if I could determine any associations between the subjects or the possible defendants.
MS. NORRIS: So you're looking for links or associations or trying to see where the money went --
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: -- fair to say?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: A easy way to put it.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. And what type of records did you review in trying to analyze the financial data in this case?
MARY HULL: Mostly, it was bank records, but I did have other records available to me.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. what type of -- or whose bank records did you have?
MARY HULL: I reviewed all of the Adelsons' bank records, Katie Magbanua's records, Luis Rivera, and Sigfredo Garcia.
MS. NORRIS: Now, for the Adelsons, when you say the Adelsons, did you review Harvey Adelson's financial records?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Donna Adelson?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: wendi Adelson?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Charlie Adelson?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: what about any Adelson businesses?
MARY HULL: There was numerous Adelson businesses.
MS. NORRIS: Particularly, did you also look at the Adelson Institute --
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: -- business record -- or bank records?
And what was the range of records that you had for the Adelson Institute?
MARY HULL: I believe it was 2013 to twenty- -- the end of 2016.
MS. NORRIS: For Charles Adelson, what particular bank records did you look at for him?
MARY HULL: I may have to refer to my notes to be specific, but just generally, all of his business accounts and his personal accounts.
MS. NORRIS: And what primary personal account did you rely on?
MARY HULL: He had a Regions account that was his primary account.
MS. NORRIS: Did he also have a credit card account that you examined?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: what credit card account was that?
MARY HULL: He had both American Express and a Capital One.
MS. NORRIS: How many different accounts for the Adelsons as a whole did you review?
MARY HULL: They had -- there was 13 bank accounts, two credit card accounts, but there was numerous investment accounts that I partially reviewed.
MS. NORRIS: And why didn't you fully review the investment accounts of the Adelsons?
MARY HULL: I actually changed jobs between Department of Financial Services and the attorney general. That limited my ability to investigate it. The accounts were -- there was 18 different investment accounts, and the return on that was 10,000 pages of information.
MS. NORRIS: Can you move your microphone a little bit or talk a little louder. I'm having trouble hearing you. I'm sorry.
MARY HULL: sorry.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. SO you mentioned that they had 18 different investment accounts.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And how many pages worth of accounts -- investment accounts did the Adelsons have?
MARY HULL: 10,000 pages.
MS. NORRIS: So you didn't get a chance to go through all of ~—s that.
MARY HULL: Correct.
MS. NORRIS: For Mr. Luis Rivera, how many accounts did he have that -- bank accounts that you reviewed?
MARY HULL: He had a checking and a savings account.
MS. NORRIS: with which company?
MARY HULL: I'd have to --
MS. NORRIS: I'll strike that. I know I'm asking you a lot of detailed questions.
Mr. Garcia, you reviewed his -- what type of records did you review for Mr. Sigfredo Garcia?
MARY HULL: He also had a checking and a savings account.
MS. NORRIS: Did he also have some employment records that you reviewed?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: From where?
MARY HULL: Coastal Masonry.
MS. NORRIS: Ms. Magbanua, what types of accounts did you review for her?
MARY HULL: Bank accounts and a couple of credit cards.
MS. NORRIS: You mentioned that in addition to -- you said it was primarily bank records, account records, but you reviewed some additional stuff, you said.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Did you review Ms. Magbanua's income tax filings?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: Are you aware that in this case there was a subpoena issued to the Adelson Institute, and they provided records in response to the request for any employment records associated with Katherine Magbanua?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: Did you review that?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: Did you review any records related to Ms. Magbanua's breast augmentation by Dr. Roudner -- Rudner (phonetic)?
MARY HULL: Roudner. Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Did you review any Broward Dermatology records?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: what about the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles? Do you use that in your investigation to do analysis on your following of the money?
MARY HULL: It's one of the areas I look. When I'm doing a financial investigation, I look for assets that have been purchased or acquired as a -- just a matter of rule, see if they bought land or homes or cars. So yes, I did look at that.
MS. NORRIS: You did look at DHSMV records.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And finally, did you have access to and review Charlie Adelson's iCloud contents?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: May I retrieve an exhibit, Your Honor?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
MS. NORRIS: May I approach the witness?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: First -- let me get near a microphone.
First I'm showing you what's already in evidence as State's Exhibit 144. Do you recognize that disc?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: And what does it contain?
MARY HULL: Luis Rivera's bank records.
MS. NORRIS: And is that your signature on the CD?
MARY HULL: It is.
MS. NORRIS: Is that indicating that you --
MARY HULL: I reviewed the file.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. You said those were Luis Rivera's bank records; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Sorry. Okay.
Now I want to show you what I've marked for identification as State's Exhibit 145. what does that disc contain?
MARY HULL: Luis -- I'm sorry, Sigfredo Garcia's bank records.
MS. NORRIS: And are those fair and accurate records that you received for Sigfredo Garcia in this case pursuant to subpoena?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Your Honor, at this time I'd offer into evidence State's Exhibit 145.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is there objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: I apologize, Judge. No objection from Mr. Garcia.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 145 received in evidence.)
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: I should note on 145, these bank records contain certificates of authenticity from the bank that these are, in fact, Mr. Garcia's records.
MARY HULL: They are.
MS. NORRIS: Now showing you State's Exhibit 146. Do you recognize that disc?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: How do you recognize it?
MARY HULL: Has my initials on it.
MS. NORRIS: And what does it contain?
MARY HULL: Ms. Magbanua's Bank of America bank records.
MS. NORRIS: Are these the records you reviewed?
MARY HULL: They are.
MS. NORRIS: And do they too contain a certificate of authenticity from the banking institutions?
MARY HULL: They do.
MS. NORRIS: State offers State's Exhibit 146 at this time.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection to 146?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 146 received in evidence.)
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: I'm showing you State's Exhibit 147. Do you recognize that disc?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: what does it contain?
MARY HULL: It contains Ms. Magbanua's Chase bank records.
MS. NORRIS: Do you recognize it because of your initial on the disc?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: And are these the records that you reviewed for Ms. Magbanua's Chase records?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And does it too contain that certificate of authenticity from Chase?
MARY HULL: It does.
MS. NORRIS: The State offers State's Exhibit 147 at this time.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: No objection.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 147 received in evidence.)
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: I'm showing you State's Exhibit 148. Do you recognize that?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: Do you recognize it because you initialed the disc?
MARY HULL: I initialed the disc, and it's Adelson Institute's Regions Bank records.
MS. NORRIS: And are those the records with the certificate of authenticity from Regions Bank that you reviewed in this case?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: I'd offer State's Exhibit 148 at this time.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: None from Mr. Garcia.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 148 received in evidence.)
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Finally I'm showing you what I've marked for identification as State's Exhibit 149. Do you recognize that exhibit?
MARY HULL: I do. Charlie Adelson's AMX, American Express, records.
MS. NORRIS: And you initialed that CD as well?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: And do those also contain a certificate of authenticity?
MARY HULL: They do.
MS. NORRIS: And are these the records -- part of the records for Mr. Adelson that you relied upon in this case?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: State offers State's Exhibit 149 at this time.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is there objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 149 received in evidence.)
MS. NORRIS: May I approach one more time, Your Honor?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Now I'm showing you State's Exhibit 87. what is that document?
MARY HULL: This was part of the subpoena response from the Adelson Institute for Katie Magbanua's paychecks.
MS. NORRIS: Is that the entire response from the Adelson Institute?
MARY HULL: I believe it is if it's got the -- yes. That looks like the entire response.
MS. NORRIS: And does it contain a certificate or declaration of authenticity from the Adelson Institute itself?
MARY HULL: It does.
MS. NORRIS: And you relied on these records in preparing for your testimony today.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: State would offer State's Exhibit 87 at this time.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 87 received in evidence.)
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Now I'm showing you what I've marked for identification as State's Exhibit 98. Do you recognize those records?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: what do you recognize them to be?
MARY HULL: Sigfredo Garcia's Coastal Masonry detailed earnings reports.
MS. NORRIS: And does this Exhibit 98 also contain a certificate or declaration of authenticity from Coastal Masonry?
MARY HULL: It does.
MS. NORRIS: And you relied on these records as well.
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: At this time I'd offer State's Exhibit 98.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 98 received in evidence.)
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: I'm showing you what I've marked for identification as State's Exhibit 99. Do you recognize that?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: And what is that?
MARY HULL: These are Dr. Roudner's records for the augmentation surgery.
MS. NORRIS: For Ms. Magbanua?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And does that exhibit as well contain a certification of authenticity for those business records?
MARY HULL: It does.
MS. NORRIS: I'd offer State's Exhibit 99.
MR. ZANGENEH: No objection, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 99 received in evidence.)
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Finally I'm showing you State's Exhibit 100. Do you recognize these records?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: what are they?
MARY HULL: They are Broward Dermatology's payroll summaries.
MS. NORRIS: And you relied on those in your analysis.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And they too contain the certificate of authenticity as a business record.
MARY HULL: They do.
MS. NORRIS: The State offers State's Exhibit 100.
MR. ZANGENEH: No objection.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 100 received in evidence.)
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Are you aware if there was ever a different financial analyst involved in this murder investigation?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: who is that?
MARY HULL: Her name is Penny Rose.
MS. NORRIS: Do you know where she's employed?
MARY HULL: She's with the FBI.
MS. NORRIS: And do you know where she resides?
MARY HULL: In Jacksonville.
MS. NORRIS: Do you know if she was as accessible in this case as you were?
MARY HULL: No. She lives in Jacksonville.
MS. NORRIS: You indicated that you looked at certain records from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles in order to look at any assets or --
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: -- things purchased. which type of -- strike that.
For which particular people were you looking at assets they may have come into possession of after the murder?
MARY HULL: Luis Rivera, Sigfredo Garcia, and Katherine Magbanua.
MS. NORRIS: Did you, in fact, get records for those three individuals?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: I'm showing you State's Exhibit 88. Do you recognize that document?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: And what is it?
MARY HULL: It is the title for a black Lexus titled to Katie Magbanua.
MS. NORRIS: Does this -- is this title certification from DMV a certified document?
MARY HULL: It is.
MS. NORRIS: Your Honor, at this time I'd offer State's Exhibit 88.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: Only that it's already in evidence.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. It'll be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 88 received in evidence.)
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Now I'm showing you State's Exhibit 101. Do you recognize these documents?
MARY HULL: Okay. It is the title history and the title for --
MS. NORRIS: without telling me the contents, to whom do these DHSMV records relate?
MARY HULL: Sigfredo Garcia.
MS. NORRIS: And are these records that you relied upon in your analysis?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And are they certified by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles?
MARY HULL: They are.
MS. NORRIS: At this time I'd offer into evidence State's Exhibit 101.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: NO.
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 101 received in evidence.)
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Next I'm showing you State's Exhibit 102 for identification. Do you recognize that?
MARY HULL: Yes. They are records for Sigfredo Garcia.
MS. NORRIS: Are these also records from DMV that you relied upon in this case?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And are they all certified?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: State offers Exhibit No. 102 at this time.
MR. ZANGENEH: No objection.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 102 received in evidence.)
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Now I'm showing you State's Exhibit 103 for identification. Do you recognize that?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Did you say yes?
MARY HULL: Yes, I recognize it. I'm just trying to find the person.
For Sigfredo Garcia.
MS. NORRIS: And are they also certified by the DmMv?
MARY HULL: Yes, they are.
MS. NORRIS: I offer into evidence State's Exhibit 103 at this time.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge, not from Mr. Garcia.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 103 received in evidence.)
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Finally I want to show you what's marked as State's Exhibit 104. Do you recognize those -- that document?
MARY HULL: Yes. For Luis Rivera.
MS. NORRIS: And these DMV records for Mr. Rivera, are they all certified by Dmv?
MARY HULL: They are.
MS. NORRIS: And you relied upon them in your analysis.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: The State offers State's Exhibit 104.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 104 received in evidence.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: /////
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: what, if any, vehicles did Sigfredo Garcia acquire after the homicide of Dan Markel on July 18th, 2014?
MARY HULL: May I refer to some notes?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
MARY HULL: Could you repeat the question again?
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Yes, I can.
what, if any, vehicles did Sigfredo Garcia acquire after the murder of Dan Markel on July 18th of 2014?
MARY HULL: Okay. Mr. Garcia purchased a blue Chevrolet Monte Carlo coupe July 26th, 2014. He also purchased a yellow and black Honda Racer, which I believe is a motorcycle, on August 22nd, 2014. He also purchased a gold Nissan Maxima sedan, four-door, on October 17th, 2014.
MS. NORRIS: So from July 26, 2014 --
JUDGE HANKINSON: We don't need to repeat what she said, Ms. Norris, if that's what you're about to do.
MS. NORRIS: TI want to ask about a time period.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: So the purchases of those three vehicles by Mr. Garcia spanned what time period?
MARY HULL: within four months of the murder.
MS. NORRIS: what, if any, vehicles did Luis Rivera acquire after the homicide?
MARY HULL: Purchased a yellow Suzuki motorcycle on July 28th, 2014. He also purchased a green Toyota Camry sedan on July 31st, 2014.
MS. NORRIS: what, if any, vehicles did Katherine Magbanua acquire after the murder?
MARY HULL: She acquired a black Lexus sedan, four-door, on January 23rd, 2016.
MS. NORRIS: Based on the records we just looked at for the Lexus, the title, can it -- does it indicate who owned the vehicle prior to Ms. Magbanua?
MARY HULL: Yes. That was Harvey Adelson.
MS. NORRIS: Did you look for any record of -- in Ms. Magbanua's bank records, or anybody else's records, did you look for any record of payment from Katherine Magbanua for that Lexus?
MARY HULL: I did. I looked through all of her accounts to see if there was a check written or even enough cash that had been withdrawn within a reasonable timeframe that could have made the purchase. I also checked the deposit records for the Adelsons to see if any of them had a matching deposit that would have been the equivalent of the car that was purchased.
MS. NORRIS: And does the title indicate the amount that was supposedly paid for the Lexus?
MARY HULL: Yes. It was $1,700.
MS. NORRIS: So you indicated that you searched through records to find a corresponding withdrawal or check from Ms. Magbanua's accounts that could have been payment for that Lexus. What were your results?
MARY HULL: I could not find any record of a payment.
MS. NORRIS: Tell me about your analysis of Mr. Rivera's bank records. when you looked at those records, what kind of patterns or spending habits did you notice for Mr. Rivera?
MARY HULL: I did. I had the records for his Chase bank account from May 14th to November 15th. He had a very distinctive pattern to his banking activities. He would be check direct-deposited weekly from his employment. Almost immediately the check -- a withdrawal for nearly the whole amount of his paycheck would be withdrawn in cash.
This caused the auto payments that he had set up through the account to add a number of overdraft charges. There were so many overdraft charges in a month that they actually equated to one paycheck. I did notice that there was a distinctive change in the pattern of his banking activity after the murder.
MS. NORRIS: How so?
MARY HULL: How so? Because after the change, he had very little cash withdrawals and no overdraft payments. He left his paychecks in there to pay his automated charges. But that only lasted a couple of months. Between -- the last large withdrawal would have been July 16th, 2014 and then not again until September 19th -- I'm sorry, September 10th, 2014. That banking pattern resumed with the large cash withdrawals and the overdraft charges. It resumed in November and continued on until the end of the bank records that went another year.
MS. NORRIS: So did you indicate that -- when you say large cash withdrawals, did you indicate that those were always after a direct deposit of a paycheck?
MARY HULL: Yes. As soon as the direct deposit hit his account, he pulled it out. If he had a $500 check that came in, he would pull 400 out in cash. He operated primarily in cash.
MS. NORRIS: And then after that withdrawal would be when the overdraft fees would -- or overdrafts --
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: -- would begin happening.
You said that the last large withdrawal from Mr. Rivera was on what date in July 2014?
MARY HULL: Two days before the murder, July 16, 2014.
MS. NORRIS: And is that the time period that began his failure to withdraw his direct deposit immediately?
MARY HULL: Correct.
MS. NORRIS: And that went back to old habits on what date?
MARY HULL: The first of November.
Q what would that be indicative of, from July 16, 2014 through November of 2014? A It signifies to me that he had an additional source of cash, and he was not relying on his payroll to provide cash for himself.
MS. NORRIS: what -- you indicated you analyzed Sigfredo Garcia's bank accounts.
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: And what time period -- I believe you said it was checking and savings. what time period did you have for Mr. Garcia's bank records?
MARY HULL: Yeah. The only available bank records were from June '15 to July of ‘16.
MS. NORRIS: So June 2015.
MARY HULL: June 2015.
MS. NORRIS: why did you -- did you not have any bank records for the time period of the homicide in July of 2014?
MARY HULL: The bank records were subpoenaed. we did have one identified, but because the account was closed, there were no responsive documents from the bank.
MS. NORRIS: what about the -- I forget what you called it, but the pay -- the records from Coastal Masonry, what did those -- what information did those give you?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You said for Garcia?
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I thought the masonry was Rivera.
MARY HULL: They both worked there.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Okay. But the records that we -- I'm asking you about the Coastal Masonry records for Sigfredo Garcia.
MARY HULL: Yes. But his records indicated that he worked sporadically for them. They did go back to 2009 but they would be a couple of months at a time; did not show a steady work history.
MS. NORRIS: How many -- and do the Coastal Masonry records for Mr. Garcia include records of all the payments made by that company to Mr. Garcia for the year 2014?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And how many paychecks did he receive from Coastal Masonry in 2014?
MARY HULL: I did not actually make that calculation.
MS. NORRIS: Do you have -- okay.
Can I have one moment, Judge?
JUDGE HANKINSON: we're about due for a break. Let's take ten minutes.
(Jury exits.)
(A recess in the proceeding.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's have the jury, please.
(jury enters.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may proceed, Ms. Norris.
MS. NORRIS: Thank you, Judge. /////
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Ms. Hull, the last question I asked you was how many paychecks Mr. Garcia received from Coastal Masonry in the year of 2014. would looking at the Coastal Masonry records refresh your memory as to how many paychecks he received --
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: -- that year?
MS. NORRIS: May I approach?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: I'm showing you State's Exhibit 98. I want to direct your attention to the first page, as well as the third page.
MARY HULL: He received two paychecks in April --
JUDGE HANKINSON: They're not able to hear you. If Ms. Norris'll get out from in front of you, we might hear you better. Okay.
would you repeat your answer, please?
MARY HULL: I will.
He received two paychecks in April of 2014.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: And did you also review any payment information for Mr. Garcia later in 2015 and 2016?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: And where was Mr. Garcia employed at that time?
MARY HULL: He was employed at Rapid Capital Finance.
MS. NORRIS: I want to turn now to Katherine Magbanua's records that you reviewed. Those were the CDs we introduced regarding the Bank of America records and the Chase records, I believe it was.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Did you create a multiple account analysis CD for all of her records?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: what is that?
MARY HULL: That is my tool, my analytical tool that I developed, that allows me to put all of the banking information on an Excel spreadsheet that I've developed myself. It wasn't something I learned in a finance class or an accounting class. It's a tool that I use to analyze all of the records, and then I can summarize them to a small summary of the activity.
MS. NORRIS: And where are you getting the data that -- what type of program are you using?
MARY HULL: It's an Excel spreadsheet.
MS. NORRIS: And where are you getting the data that you put into that Excel spreadsheet?
MARY HULL: From the bank statements.
MS. NORRIS: May I approach?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: I'm showing you what I've marked for identification as State's Exhibit 150. Do you recognize that CD?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: what does it contain?
MARY HULL: It contains my analysis for the multiple bank accounts for a Katie Magbanua.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. And is that your signature on the disc confirming that those are -- that's the analysis that you did on her banking records?
MARY HULL: It is.
MS. NORRIS: And are the records and entries and data on that disc accurate based on her bank records?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: At this time I'd offer State's Exhibit 150.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: Not from Mr. Garcia, Your Honor.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 150 received in evidence.)
MS. NORRIS: May I publish, Judge?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
(A pause in the proceeding.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: /////
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Okay. I'm going to start by looking at the tabs starting -- should I start from right and work my way left?
MARY HULL: Start with the farthest right one. But if you could move the -- use the bar to move it to the front to the far left. There.
MS. NORRIS: what data is contained in this particular tab of this Excel workbook?
MARY HULL: Okay. This is the Katie Magbanua's Bank of America savings accounts 7053.
MS. NORRIS: And is this the data that you entered from the bank records?
MARY HULL: It is. On my -- when I schedule out the accounts, every action that happens on the bank statement is reflected as a line item. There's also, on the farthest left, there is a number that shows the sequence that they were put into the spreadsheet, and this sequence in this tab reflects it's exactly as it's reflected on the bank statement.
Many times the bank records will have deposits, withdrawals and other charges in different blocks and so they're not necessarily all in date order. But this reflects it so that if you pulled up any particular bank statement, you would see them in that same order.
At the beginning, the very top, I start witha beginning balance. Every item is put in. It's either a deposit or withdrawal. And then at the very bottom you'll notice I have a sequence for verifying my data by a check box. It's a simple calculation of your beginning balance, your withdrawals, your deposits; and your ending balance will match what's left in the account.
MS. NORRIS: And is that your check box at the bottom to make sure that you've done your math correctly?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And that is the savings account?
MARY HULL: That was the savings account.
MS. NORRIS: Did you perform the same work for Katherine Magbanua's checking account with Bank of America?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And just to quickly scroll through, do we see the same type of data entry there?
MARY HULL: Yep.
MS. NORRIS: And you, again, check your math at the conclusion of the worksheet to make sure every cell is matching up.
MARY HULL: Right, every penny is accounted for.
MS. NORRIS: without going through them, did you do the exact same thing for the Chase savings account, as well as -- sorry, as well as the Chase checking account?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: what are the next four tabs that are --
MARY HULL: Okay. If you'll go to the farthest right, there will be a tab that has 2013, 2016.
MS. NORRIS: Yes, ma'am.
MARY HULL: That one.
This -- when I have the -- all the accounts footed out and calculated correctly, I combine them and then I sort by date order. This gives me -- and I do a running balance for all four accounts in this case. That gives me the best idea of what is going on in the account, what's happening that day. So I can see deposits that were made on that day, withdrawals that were made on that day. It gives me the best tool for analyzing the actions or the intentions that someone has in their accounts.
MS. NORRIS: Did you also separate out by year 2013, 2014, 2015, = and 2016?
MARY HULL: Yes. From this set, this shows everything, all transactions, all -- every activity in all four accounts. Then I go through and I sort by year and split them out so that you can have numbers broken down by year. And from the sort, I will add in -- there's the -- there's also a set of calculations to show my numbers are correct. But in this case, the beginning balance has the four different accounts and the ending balance are four different accounts, but still it adds up and balances out so I can show that all monies are accounted for.
MS. NORRIS: And then finally on this last tab --
MARY HULL: Go to -- go to one of the sorts.
MS. NORRIS: Yes, ma'am. So, for example, 2013 sort, what does that show?
MARY HULL: Okay. If you go to the -- are you at the very top?
MS. NORRIS: Yes.
MARY HULL: Okay. So then when I do the sort, I come out with by categories. I always put the deposits at the top and the withdrawals at the bottom so I can see how much money was in the accounts and how much was used. So each one is broken up into what particular category they fall into so that I can put all of the gas charges and convenience stores all into one category and I can summarize it easily.
MS. NORRIS: So, for example, all of the online banking transfers are in one section.
MARY HULL: Yes. These are all the sources of income she had. That bar represents a change between the deposits.
Now we're looking at withdrawals.
MS. NORRIS: Is there anything else we need to look at on this year sorts?
MARY HULL: No.
MS. NORRIS: And finally, the summary tab.
MARY HULL: Yes. From all of the sorting, I go through and I put it onto one simplified summary that shows how the money came in and how the money was spent. And, again, I have -- the check box at the bottom show my totals are correct.
MS. NORRIS: Now, is it -- is it correct that you prepared some summaries in this particular case?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: Are all of the summaries that we're going to talk about based on this financial data that you analyzed?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: May I approach?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: I'm showing you what I've marked for identification as State's Exhibit 106. Do you recognize that?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: what is that?
MARY HULL: It is, the top, income, the deposits that were made into her four accounts; and then the withdrawals; and the bottom is my check box.
MS. NORRIS: Now, is this document in State's 106 the exact same as that summary chart in the Excel spreadsheet?
MARY HULL: It is.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. And, Your Honor, I'd offer this into evidence as State's 106 at this time.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: Judge, can we come sidebar?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
(Bench Conference was held as follows:)
MR. ZANGENEH: There is a -- may I begin, Judge?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Yeah.
MR. ZANGENEH: There is a provision here where Ms. Magbanua made a payment to me on behalf of her husband. And, obviously, we're being tried together and I don't know how appropriate this is to put this in there in that manner. I understand it's there, but it clearly suggests something that an inference can be made that's completely nefarious and inappropriate.
And, once again, if myself and Ms. Magbanua -- Mr. Garcia and Ms. Magbanua weren't tried together, then this suggestion or this clear printout with my name on it with an account or an expense associated with Ms. Magbanua -- I don't think it's appropriate, Judge. I think it should be removed.
MR. DECOSTE: I would join in on that request. I believe that it can confuse the jury, and it would also lead to grounds for us to renew our motion to sever.
MS. NORRIS: I have no objection -- I didn't know it was in there -- to redacting the line. TI just -- I didn't --
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, I mean, it seems to me if Ms. Magbanua's playing -- paying for Mr. Garcia's attorney, that seems to be quite relevant. what is your theory of why that's not relevant?
MR. ZANGENEH: Judge, this was before Ms. Magbanua was arrested.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Right. I understand. That's -- it would be obvious.
I think there's an affidavit in the file that it's actually more than $3,000, isn't it?
MR. ZANGENEH: TI don't know how they got that number. I can't tell whether that was a check or how they paid. I don't know. I'm not privy to that.
JUDGE HANKINSON: On what -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
MS. NORRIS: And I understand. Now that the Court has mentioned that, I mean, I did provide this weeks ago to defense prior to Ms. Hull's deposition in this case, these Excel worksheets that she created. This is the first time it's being brought to my attention so I hadn't completely thought it through, but I'm not sure what the prejudice would be.
MR. ZANGENEH: Well, Judge, obviously, I know that I provided an affidavit, but the jury is not privy to that affidavit. Obviously, if they had any previous exposure, much less my affidavit to have my client declared indigent for cost, they would have been excluded from this jury.
I think it makes a -- I understand what the Court is saying. That's my client's wife and she made a payment towards her husband's defense. But it's -- I think it's more prejudicial than probative, and I think it, in essence, marries my client and Ms. Magbanua's client in a -- in a manner that's extremely prejudicial.
JUDGE HANKINSON: But I think that's what the State is trying to prove.
MS. NORRIS: And this is already in evidence in State's 150 that there was no objection to on the disc. This is exactly from the document.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You wanted to be heard, Mr. DeCoste?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor, just a little bit of clarification. The State said they didn't object. The Court said that it was inclined to let it in. Now Ms. Norris has changed her position and almost alluded to the fact that she did know that it had been in there.
The problem that it creates for us -- and this goes to the severance issue: Any way that that payment was made, now the Law Offices of -- what it's under -- now becomes witnesses that we potentially call to the stand to then bring up the fact of how it was paid for, who it was paid for, whether it was actually paid, whether it's actually correct, whether it's not, what it's for. It opens the door to a whole lot of issues that would have been -- that would have necessitated the severance.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I don't think it has anything to do with severance. I think it'd be admissible in a joint trial, it'd be admissible in a severed trial. But anyway, what -- you know, if State doesn't want to put it in, that's up to you, but I just --
MS. NORRIS: And, Your Honor, my position is it's already in evidence on State's Exhibit 150. This is just a more readable format for the jury that I printed out on paper because of the -- me not having to click through a computer. So it's in evidence and there was no objection -- no timely objection to that.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, the only thing that I can add, it would go along the same lines as the State never wanting the Court to know who's representing if it is public defender representing a defendant. So now they're going to want to bring up the fact that somebody is privately retained.
I think that that would open up the door for Mr. Zangeneh to go into the fact that his client is declared indigent for costs, that he's doing all this and the State of Florida is paying for it, that he doesn't have those monies, because it leads to the -- it leads to the thought that somebody is then paying for all of his legal fees as well, too, and it ties over to our client.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll overrule the relevance objection.
MR. DECOSTE: If I can handle another issue, I think it would be easier since we're already sidebar.
I don't know if the State intends to elicit from this witness that she, not in her expert opinion but in, what she said, was her professional opinion based on personal experience, that the deposits that Ms. Magbanua made were consistent with structuring, okay, because that would be an uncharged crime.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I didn't -- I didn't hear her say that.
MR. DECOSTE: I was afraid that it may come up because it came up in depo, and I think it's 31 U.S.C. 5324. It's an uncharged crime.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. Don't get into whether it's money laundering or some type of other criminal activity.
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir. Can I clarify? I do intend to ask her, no criminal violations, but did she appear to make multiple cash deposits at different ATM locations on the same day? That is the extent. No reference to structuring, money laundering, violation of statute, et cetera.
MR. DECOSTE: I would have to concede that's fair game.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right.
MS. NORRIS: Thank you, Judge.
(Bench Conference was concluded.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: You need to discuss this further with Ms. Cappleman?
MS. NORRIS: No, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. we'll proceed.
MS. NORRIS: Was the document State's 106 admitted, Your Honor?
JUDGE HANKINSON: It will be admitted subject to my ruling.
(State's Exhibit No. 106 received in evidence.)
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Ms. Hull, is this -- I think I mentioned this earlier, but the summary tab on State's Exhibit 150, is this just a printed copy that's a little easier to read without --
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: -- scrolling through the computer?
Okay. And what exactly -- the first section covers what type of transactions?
MARY HULL: That covers all of the deposits that were made into her account.
MS. NORRIS: And that is from 2013 to 2016.
MARY HULL: Yes. All of her accounts, actually.
MS. NORRIS: And the second page, sorry, covers what type of activity?
MARY HULL: It would be all of the withdrawals from the account. There would be debits and checks.
MS. NORRIS: And finally, that includes your check box where you check your work.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Now, on the sources of income or deposits, are they listed from highest to lowest?
MARY HULL: They are sorted on the total column from highest to lowest, and then there's a total at the very bottom, which is -- shows how much came in over that four-year period.
MS. NORRIS: And for the year 2013, what is the highest source of income?
MARY HULL: It would have been SoFi Dental.
MS. NORRIS: For 2016, what is the highest source of income?
MARY HULL: In '16?
MS. NORRIS: Yes. Yes, ma‘am.
MARY HULL: It was Sigfredo Garcia.
MS. NORRIS: was that consistent with the timeframe when he was employed with Rapid Capital Funding?
MARY HULL: It was.
MS. NORRIS: And what was Ms. Magbanua's highest source of income in 2014?
MARY HULL: Cash deposits.
MS. NORRIS: what about 2015?
MARY HULL: Cash deposits.
MS. NORRIS: Overall, from 2013 to 2016, what is her highest source of income?
MARY HULL: Cash deposits.
MS. NORRIS: Based on the bank records that you reviewed in this case, were you able to ascertain where Ms. Magbanua may have been employed during the time period that we discussed?
MARY HULL: Yes. There were several different employments. Do you want me to list them out?
MS. NORRIS: Yes.
what employment records did you have?
MARY HULL: From the bank records, I was able to identify she worked at Encore Nationwide in 2013, July 2013 to December "13; SoFi Dental from July 29th, 2013 to July 31st, 2014; Adelson Institute, sometime in September -- I think the check was written on the 17th, but it hit the account on October 7th, 2014 to May 17th, 2016; Broward Dermatology from July 29th, 2015 to March 23rd, 2016; Qintana Lopez from July 29th, 2016 to October 14th, 2016. And that's all that I had in the records for the banking where she had made a payroll check deposit.
MS. NORRIS: Did you have any records from Optimar Realty?
MARY HULL: I did not. There was no deposits into her account.
JUDGE HANKINSON: What was the last one you listed? I'm sorry.
MARY HULL: Qintana Lopez.
JUDGE HANKINSON: who is that?
MARY HULL: I believe she was a dentist. /////
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: And for the record, is that Q-i-n-t-a-n-a --
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: -- Lopez?
Did you say yes?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: I'm showing you what I marked for identification as State's Exhibit 107. You just spouted out a lot of dates and companies to us. Does this document accurately summarize, show on a chart form, the timeline of Katherine Magbanua's employment based on the records that you reviewed in this case?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And it is accurate.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And is it based on those Excel spreadsheets that we reviewed earlier?
MARY HULL: Yes. From --
MS. NORRIS: At this time -- sorry.
MARY HULL: From the bank records.
MS. NORRIS: At this time I'd offer into evidence State's summary Exhibit 107.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: No objection.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 107 received in evidence.)
MS. NORRIS: May I publish?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Now, I know the font is a little bit hard to read.
Is the green -- is the blue Encore Nationwide?
MARY HULL: It is.
MS. NORRIS: The green, SoFi Dental?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: The red, Adelson Institute?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: The purple, Dr. Obed?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And then the yellow, Ms. Lopez?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: I want to focus on Ms. Magbanua's employment with the Adelson Institute.
Did you review checks from the Adelson Institute to Katherine Magbanua?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: And where did you -- and those are the actual checks themselves, or photocopies of them.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: where did you have records of those checks? In whose records?
MARY HULL: The checks showed up as checks coming out of the Adelson Institute's Regions account and as deposits that went into the various accounts for Ms. Magbanua.
MS. NORRIS: what other records, besides the Adelson Institute's records and Ms. Magbanua's bank records, did you review as far as her employment at the Adelson Institute?
MARY HULL: The subpoena response from the Adelson Institute.
MS. NORRIS: May I approach?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Starting with State's Exhibit 108, do you recognize =what's contained in that document?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: what does it contain?
MARY HULL: It's a photocopy of all of the checks that she received from the Adelson Institute.
MS. NORRIS: And are they accurate copies of all of those checks?
MARY HULL: They are.
MS. NORRIS: At this time I'd offer State's Exhibit 108.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: It'll be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 108 received in evidence.)
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: would you agree with me that there's a voluminous amount of checks --
MARY HULL: Yes. There's 44, I believe.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. Did you prepare a summary Excel spreadsheet which included every single one of those checks in chronological order?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Showing you State's Exhibit 9 [sic]. Is that the summary you prepared of all the checks received by Katherine Magbanua from the Adelson Institute?
MARY HULL: It is.
MS. NORRIS: And it's an accurate summary based on the records you reviewed.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: At this time I'd offer State's Exhibit 109 as a summary.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: No objection, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 109 received in evidence.)
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: I want to publish for you the records received from the Adelson Institute, pursuant to law enforcement subpoena for Katherine Magbanua's employment file.
Are you aware of what all documents the police asked for in this case related to her employment?
MARY HULL: Yes. They asked for all available information for her employment, which would have been her personnel file and her banking -- the checks she would have received.
MS. NORRIS: And in your experience and in your employment over the years, have you routinely requested personnel files for certain employees?
MARY HULL: Yes, I have.
MS. NORRIS: what type of information do you usually receive from a business about their employees?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; relevance.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: In the response you received from the Adelson Institute, did it contain any employment application?
MARY HULL: No.
MS. NORRIS: Did it include any time sheets for Ms. Magbanua?
MARY HULL: It did not.
MS. NORRIS: Did it include any w-2 forms or tax filing records?
MARY HULL: It had the Department of Revenue's rehire information, the employment tax records.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. what about any evaluations about her performance?
MARY HULL: None.
MS. NORRIS: Did it include a job description for what she did for the Adelson Institute?
MARY HULL: No.
MS. NORRIS: In your experience, was that unusual?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; relevance.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: what exactly did we get? Is this what we got?
Let me zoom out.
MARY HULL: Yes. That's the -- it's actually just a QuickBook printout from their accounting software.
MS. NORRIS: what is a QuickBook printout?
MARY HULL: It's a -- it's a very common accounting program a lot of people are using. And they just ran a search based on her name and printed out the checks that -- a copy -- a summary of the checks she would have received from them.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. And the paychecks that were listed on the Adelson Institute's response, what was the time period covered? Can you read that?
MARY HULL: No, I really can't.
September 18th, 2014 to March 31st, 2016.
MS. NORRIS: Are you familiar with the date range that was of -- strike that.
Are you familiar with what date range we requested in that subpoena to the Adelson Institute for Ms. Magbanua's employment records?
MARY HULL: I believe the subpoena was late in 2016, and you requested any and all.
MS. NORRIS: Now I want to show you the summary of all of the checks that you reviewed from the actual accounts for Katherine Magbanua and the Adelson Institute. Do these go in chronological order from top to bottom?
MARY HULL: They do.
MS. NORRIS: I'm trying to get them all on the screen.
were all of these checks deposited by Ms. Magbanua?
MARY HULL: They were.
MS. NORRIS: And who signed each of the checks that you reviewed?
MARY HULL: Donna Adelson.
MS. NORRIS: what date was the first check issued to Ms. Magbanua?
MARY HULL: The first check was dated September 17th, 2014.
MS. NORRIS: And then did they continue biweekly or --
MARY HULL: They are biweekly checks.
MS. NORRIS: what can you tell us about the amount of each of those checks?
MARY HULL: with exception of the first one, all the other ones she deposited in her account were $407.58.
MS. NORRIS: The earlier packet of the photocopies of all of those checks, in the memo line of the check, is there a time period issued -- or not issued, but a time period indicated in the memo line?
MARY HULL: On most of them. You can see there is a couple of blank spots, which would indicate there was nothing in the memo field.
MS. NORRIS: So in this top -- in this far left column, we have the posting date of the check.
MARY HULL: Correct.
MS. NORRIS: That's not when the date is written but when it's deposited.
MARY HULL: It was deposited in her account.
MS. NORRIS: This fourth column over, is that the check number?
MARY HULL: It is.
MS. NORRIS: Fifth column, amount.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And then the date of the check is in this column here.
MARY HULL: Yes, the date it was written.
MS. NORRIS: And when you say memo, that's what was handwritten on the check in the memo line.
MARY HULL: Correct.
MS. NORRIS: I notice how -- the checks that the Adelson Institute responded with, pursuant to the subpoena here, what was the date of the last check?
MARY HULL: I believe it's March 31st, 2016.
MS. NORRIS: Did you find additional checks that had been paid to Ms. Magbanua by the Adelson Institute?
MARY HULL: Yes. There was three additional checks that went into her account.
MS. NORRIS: what was the total gross amount paid by the Adelson Institute to Katherine Magbanua from September 2014 into May of 2016?
MARY HULL: The total gross amount would have been 19,600.
MS. NORRIS: what would -- what would the net amount be?
MARY HULL: $17,729.73.
MS. NORRIS: You mentioned earlier, in discussing the items that you reviewed in this case, having reviewed Charlie Adelson's icloud contents.
Did you review any text messages of interest as it relates -- as it relates to Katherine Magbanua's employment with the Adelson Institute?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: May I approach, Your Honor?
MR. DECOSTE: If I could see what you're showing.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
MS. NORRIS: Sure. State's Exhibit 63.
MR. DECOSTE: You Honor, if we can go sidebar?
JUDGE HANKINSON: What's that?
MR. DECOSTE: If we can go sidebar?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's go ahead and take a lunch break. Let's be back and ready to go at 1:15.
(Jury exits.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Mr. DeCoste?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor. For the sake of the Court, I can show -- Your Honor, I believe what the State is seeking to elicit right now is another iMessage of Charles Adelson with Katherine Magbanua which would be around the time, 9/16/2014, which would correspond to work at the Adelson Institute. My objection is hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Isn't it already in evidence? She's just publishing what's already in evidence.
Is this from the icloud record?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct. But this is not in evidence yet. So they moved in -- I'll go back to counsel table.
At the beginning of the trial, they moved in the CD, the Cellebrite CD, and we agreed that it was authentic because of where it was obtained. But we said at that time for each time it comes in, there would need to be a hearsay exception to bring it in. My objection now is to hearsay. I also don't believe that this is a proper witness to bring it in through.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Explain to me, Ms. Norris, where this is coming from. I thought we had Mr. Adelson's iCloud account in full in evidence, based upon what Magbanua had brought up.
MS. NORRIS: No, sir. Actually, they objected to our introducing Charlie Adelson's iCloud earlier. we did lay the foundation for authenticity, should we need to later have excerpts from that. That, I believe, was through the testimony of Mike Dilmore.
I did have him authenticate further text messages, including the one in question here, so that I could lay the foundation for them to be entered. But the CD itself was not entered.
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, what were they reading -- what was Sergeant Corbitt reading from then? what was Sergeant Corbitt reading from as to the conversation between Ms. Magbanua and Mr. Adelson?
MS. NORRIS: That was from the icloud that is not in evidence.
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, I have that State's Exhibit 183 was placed in evidence without objection.
Madam Clerk, is that correct?
COURT CLERK: 183? Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is this not part of 183?
MS. NORRIS: Defense -- sorry. State's Exhibit 183 was an excerpt from Charlie Adelson's icloud. The CD with the entire contents, due to defense objection, was not introduced, and that was why defense exhibit regarding the text exchange about deep sea fishing was admitted over the State's objection. I was objecting because it was not in evidence at that time.
This particular text message is not being offered for its truth. I'm not offering it to prove the truth that Katherine Magbanua's date of birth is 12/22/84 or that that's her social or that that's her address. I'm offering it to show that on September 16, 2014, Charlie Adelson has to send his mother Donna Adelson the contact information, and yet she has a check from the Adelson Institute the very next day on July -- or on September 17th for an employment period beginning on July 15th; the argument being it's relevant for context of the payments from Adelson Institute to Ms. Magbanua.
They were employing her and writing checks for her for a period before they even knew what her name was, or her birthday, or her social for purposes of putting her in the system and filing taxes for her. So I'm not offering the truth of that particular statement from Charles Adelson; just that that information was sent on that particular day is highly probative to the dates of the checks being issued by the Adelson Institute, and the fact that on the memo line of said check, the employment period predated them even having any identifying information for her.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I could respond?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
MR. DECOSTE: Just to clarify a few things: So at the beginning of trial, they brought in the Cellebrite CD, and we agreed that it had been authenticated but we objected saying, well, you can't just enter it all in because there's so much hearsay with all these 300,000 communications.
There was the other problem as well, too, is that there was some privileged items in there that the State identified given the fact that Mr. Adelson being a dentist --
JUDGE HANKINSON: I understand all that, Mr. DeCoste. Get to your point, please.
MR. DECOSTE: So coming over to this, our objection remains. I think that it will be improper for the State to say what knowledge these individual witnesses have, whether they needed the name or why that text message was sent. Given the fact that it has a social security number, I would ask that that be redacted because that is not information that Ms. Magbanua would want to have out there. I would note that, and correct myself, that it is a text message in between two witnesses that are not testifying in this trial.
But I will withdraw my objection. The State can bring it in.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You what?
MR. DECOSTE: I'll withdraw my objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Garcia?
MR. ZANGENEH: I never made a -- I'm good with it.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. So I'm clear -- I just was operating under a misunderstanding. when the State offered 183, I thought it was the full iCloud records. Now I'm corrected. It was just an excerpt from them. And so this is marked what?
MS. NORRIS: This is marked, I believe, State's Exhibit 62 -- 63, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: It's two exhibit numbers?
MS. NORRIS: It's just one exhibit marked 63.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. So there's no objection to State's Exhibit 63?
MR. DECOSTE: Withdraw my objection. The only thing I ask -- I do object to her social security number being put in a piece of evidence.
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, I'm going to direct the clerk, upon conclusion of the trial, to redact the social security number. But I think for the jury's purposes and during the course of the trial, I think it's significant to the jury that that's the information. That's what really makes the text relevant, because if I understand the State's argument, they're saying they've written a check and don't even have the person's social security number at that point in time. So I agree it shouldn't be out there for all purposes but we'll --
At the end of the trial, Madam Clerk, please make a note to redact that.
COURT CLERK: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, my hope right now is to be able to mitigate. The unfortunate thing is my understanding is that we're live-streaming, that there's a camera that is on that overhead projector that Ms. Magbanua's social security number, date of birth could already be out there.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'‘11 seal the social security numbers, so it's not to be displayed other than to the jury.
MR. DECOSTE: Great. Thank you.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Anything else?
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
MR. ZANGENEH: Not from Mr. Garcia.
MS. NORRIS: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: So were you through? we needed to introduce -- how much more do you have with this witness?
MS. NORRIS: Judge, I think I'm about halfway. I do have -- I do have some other text messages from the icloud that I've provided --
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, y'all discuss those. See if there's objection. 1:15.
(A recess in the proceeding.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: You have an issue, Mr. Zangeneh?
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, Judge. Good afternoon.
I just wanted to bring it to the Court's attention we have had Trooper Downy -- Downing, I apologize, under subpoena to appear on Monday. we had communication with him earlier today where he indicated that he was adverse to appearing because of a conflict that he has.
we put the government on notice and provided them with information -- contact information for the trooper, and we just wanted to put it to the Court's attention that we have advised him that the Court has ordered all of our witnesses, which he is one of them, to be here Monday morning. Just wanted to lay the record that we're doing our due diligence and attempting to obtain a subpoenaed witness to appear in a death penalty homicide, and we have put the government on notice and given contact information of this trooper to the government, which they've listed and had listed as a witness in this case.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, I can -- I could add to that, that prior to trial -- now, I haven't served Trooper Downing, but prior to trial, I was communicating with their liaison that we would be anticipating calling him to trial so that there should have been well advanced notice to him.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Well, I mean, I don't know why y'all are telling me this, frankly, but --
MR. ZANGENEH: Just to put the Court on notice, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I'm on notice.
MR. ZANGENEH: And in conjunction with that, this morning we received amended discovery from the government with regards to what we believe is going to be information that the government is going to use when we do call Trooper Downing. It is FHP protocol. There's two documents, one which I believe is a dozen pages, one which is, like, 95 pages. We were just given this information. We've never seen it before and I would move to exclude it.
MR. DECOSTE: I would join.
JUDGE HANKINSON: We'll have a Richardson hearing at the appropriate time.
what are you thinking schedule-wise? Seemed like we've moved awful slow today, Ms. Cappleman. I'm looking at you --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir. I think we've got another -- she said she was about halfway through with this witness, so maybe another 45 minutes to an hour with her, and then we'll be ready to move on to some other witnesses that --
JUDGE HANKINSON: That's not my question. My question is when do you think you'll wrap up?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Monday.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You got an idea when?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Depends on how the rest of today goes. Sometime between noon and -- I'1l1 advise you at the end of today whether I think it's going to be midday or more like the end of the day Monday.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. well, why don't you ask the trooper to be here at 1:00 o'clock Monday. Maybe that solves the conflict with him.
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, Judge. Thank you.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Let's have the jury.
(jury enters.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may proceed, Ms. Norris.
MS. NORRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
And at this time I'd offer State's Exhibit 63.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is there objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. 53 will be admitted [sic].
(State's Exhibit No. 63 received in evidence.)
MS. NORRIS: May I publish?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Ms. Hull, is this one of the text messages that you reviewed from Charlie Adelson's iCloud account with respect to Ms. Magbanua's employment at the Adelson Institute?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: And what is the date of this text message from Charlie Adelson to Donna Adelson?
JUDGE HANKINSON: What number did we use on that?
MS. NORRIS: 63, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Five-three?
MS. NORRIS: Six-three.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Six-three, okay.
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. I'm sorry. I've got an ear that's plugged up. All right. 63, okay.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: So in State's Exhibit 63, what is the date of this text message from Charlie Adelson outgoing to his mom?
MARY HULL: It's September 16th, 2014.
MS. NORRIS: And what does it contain in the body of the text?
MARY HULL: The body of the text gives Katherine Magbanua's full name, her date of birth, and her social security number, and an address.
MS. NORRIS: what was the significance of this particular message to you in your financial analysis?
MARY HULL: when I reviewed the text message, I realized that this -- the date on the text was a day before her first employment check was written, and the employment check cited a day prior as being a day she was being paid for.
MS. NORRIS: I want to go back to State's Exhibit 109. In your analysis of the paychecks from Adelsons to Ms. Magbanua, I notice that some line items are in red ink as opposed to black. what do those indicate?
MARY HULL: Those indicated sequentially-numbered checks.
MS. NORRIS: Explain what you mean by that.
MARY HULL: That they went from check, it looks like, 1777, 1778, and 1779. So they would have all been in the same checkbook.
MS. NORRIS: And were those checks also dated by Donna Adelson at or about the same date?
MARY HULL: No. They had different dates.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. February 12th, 2015; February 26th, 2015; and March 11th, 2015.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And were they all deposited at or around the same date by Ms. Magbanua?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; confusing.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
MARY HULL: Can you make it a little bit bigger? It's in red.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's kind of specify where you're pointing to, Ms. Norris. You started reading from something. You can blow them up a lot bigger than that.
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: we don't have a binocular.
MARY HULL: There we go. I can read that now.
MS. NORRIS: Okay.
MARY HULL: All right. So the first set of checks that are listed in red would be February 12th, ‘15; February 26th, '15; March 11th, ‘15.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: And they were deposited -- and I know by blowing it up, I got rid of the column.
MARY HULL: Those were the dates they were deposited into her account.
MS. NORRIS: But the date that the check was written --
MARY HULL: Was February 4th, February 5th, and February 5th.
MS. NORRIS: And were there a number of other checks written by Ms. Adelson to Katherine Magbanua that were sequential, as in numbered consecutively in the checkbook?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And those are demonstrated in red, and everyone can read it for themselves.
MARY HULL: Right.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. What about this far right column?
MARY HULL: The one with the asterisks?
MS. NORRIS: Yes, ma'am, that's labeled --
MARY HULL: That just indicated to me that the check on the -- the date on the check was written prior to the date listed as worked. So she was actually written a check before the day she worked.
MS. NORRIS: On all of the rows with the asterisks in it?
MARY HULL: Asterisks.
MS. NORRIS: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: I'm showing you what I've marked for identification as State's Exhibit 64. Do you recognize that document?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: what does it contain?
MARY HULL: Text messages between Charlie Adelson and Katherine Magbanua.
MS. NORRIS: And did you review these from Charles Adelson's --
JUDGE HANKINSON: If we have a series of exhibits, why don't we see if there's objection to any of them and get them all in at once. we don't have to spend time on each one individually --
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir. I --
JUDGE HANKINSON: -- if you intend to do a series of --
MS. NORRIS: I would love to, Judge.
State's Exhibit 61 through 69.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Would you look at those, see if there's objection to any of those. I mean, you've already seen them multiple times.
MR. ZANGENEH: No objection from Mr. Garcia on any of them.
JUDGE HANKINSON: So the jury's aware, I've instructed the State to show the other side all the exhibits in advance as they're numbered so we don't have to spend a bunch of time looking through them each time. They've also had them in discovery previously with a couple of few discrepancies.
Any objection to any of those items?
MR. DECOSTE: Hearsay and relevance.
JUDGE HANKINSON: As to which ones?
MR. DECOSTE: All of them, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. Let's go sidebar.
(Bench Conference was held as follows:)
JUDGE HANKINSON: What's your theory of admissibility, Ms. Norris?
MS. NORRIS: Your Honor, numerous of the text threads are between the defendant herself and Charles Adelson and are relevant to cash benefits and financial assistance that she received from Charles Adelson in this case. There are, I believe, two text threads that I'm offering not for the truth of the matter. I would argue they're not being offered for the truth, but should they be hearsay, my exception would be a statement of intent, the state of mind as to what the people in the text messages intended to do.
For example, there are text messages between Charlie Adelson and his mechanic saying, “I'm going to pay for this for her. Go tell her I'm going to pay for this for her,” and they show his intent. we then have photographs from his icloud where he did, in fact, record that he made those payments for her and then corresponding American Express records showing a line item where he did, in fact, make that payment.
So they're being offered as state of mind, that he intended to do something and did, in fact, on the -- on the basis of the bank records, did, in fact, follow through with his intent.
MR. DECOSTE: May I respond?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor. The state of mind of people that are not testifying in this trial, Charles Adelson and Sully, are not relevant. More importantly, they absolutely are being entered for the truth of the matter asserted. And finally, it denies us the ability to be able to confront these witnesses. I would also cite back to State v. Brooks.
with respect to motion for severance, I believe that for Mr. Garcia that these items coming in would not normally come in, in a trial of his; whereas, it could come in, in a trial of Ms. Magbanua. Those are with respect to the communications that Ms. Magbanua is on.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Go ahead.
MS. NORRIS: Your Honor, the hearsay exception for the state of mind of the declarant has nothing to do with the state of mind of the defendant being a material element in the trial. It goes to the declarant's state of mind. If we're offering it to prove their future conduct, what they intend to do, that's an exception to the hearsay rule.
Those two text threads that do not include the defendant who -- I believe those are under the exception of admissions by a party opponent, those are being offered to explain the further actions of those parties, which are supported by the photos from his iCloud showing receipts that he did pay for her, as well as his own bank records showing that he did, in fact, pay for her.
For example, the one text thread about going to Key west, he says, "I'm going to Key West this weekend." And we have bank records showing he made a whole bunch of payments in Key West. That's being offered to show future conduct.
MR. DECOSTE: So it is being offered for the truth of the matter. Your Honor, it's also the aspect that this is getting so deep into hearsay and it is so beyond the time of the believed conspiracy.
I stand by the position that any alleged conspiracy stopped when original payment was made, but this -- there's no way for them to differentiate in between payments that are being made to a friend, as opposed to any conspiracy that is still being -- still going on at this point in time.
MS. NORRIS: My position is it goes to weight not admissibility.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Mr. Adelson's state of mind is not relevant to the proceedings here. His state of mind is not a relevant basis to present something. I'm going to sustain the objection as to the communication between -- that does not involve Ms. Magbanua. All right.
(Bench Conference was concluded.)
MS. NORRIS: Your Honor, if I could have one moment to --
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
MS. NORRIS: So, Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's Exhibit 64 through 69.
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, I've ruled that some parts of it may be admissible, some parts of it are not.
MS. NORRIS: I have excluded the two, pursuant to the Court's ruling.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Those will be -- so those -- 64 through 69 takes out any of the ones that I sustained the objection to?
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: In agreement, Mr. DeCoste?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. 64 through 69, as amended, will be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 64 - 69 received in evidence.)
MS. NORRIS: Now may I -- oh, okay.
Okay. May I approach with one more set of -- group of exhibits, Judge?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Now I'm showing you State's Exhibit 110. Do you recognize these Am Ex records?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: And are they accurate excerpts of the Charles Adelson American Express records that we introduced on CD earlier?
MARY HULL: They are.
MS. NORRIS: I'm showing you State's Exhibit 112. Do you recognize those American Express records for Mr. Adelson?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: And are those also off the same disc?
MARY HULL: They are.
MS. NORRIS: Finally, State's Exhibit 114, do you recognize those American Express records for Mr. Adelson?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: Off of the same disc and accurate?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And did you rely on all of these in your analysis?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: The State offers State's Exhibit 110, 112, and 114.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MR. DECOSTE: Same objections, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'‘11 overrule the objection and admit 110, 112, 114.
(State's Exhibit No. 110, 112, 114 received in ~=evidence.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: /////
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Did you look in the records in the icloud for indications that Charles Adelson was providing financial assistance to Katherine Magbanua?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: I want to first publish for you --
MS. NORRIS: If I may publish, Judge?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: State's Exhibit 110. Based on these particular records from Mr. Adelson's American Express account, did you observe numerous payments to businesses and things of that nature in Key west, Florida?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: And what timeframe was this for?
MARY HULL: It was the end of June, June 28th, 2014, through the July 4th weekend, I believe.
JUDGE HANKINSON: July what?
MARY HULL: July 4th, 2014. ~=BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: And can you tell the location based off of the --
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: -- records themselves?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Did Ms. Magbanua have any corresponding payments that she made to businesses in Key West at that time?
MARY HULL: Only a couple but they, as minor as they were, did put her in Key west at the same time.
MS. NORRIS: But it appeared that Mr. Adelson, based on his records, was making the payments while they -- during that Key west trip.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Did you locate evidence from either the iCloud or Charles Adelson's American Express records which indicated he purchased airfare for Ms. Magbanua?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: And what evidence was that?
MARY HULL: There was both discussion -- I'm sorry. There was a picture showing he purchased the ticket.
MS. NORRIS: This is State's Exhibit 68. And where is this photograph from?
MARY HULL: From his icloud account, Charlie Adelson's icloud account.
MS. NORRIS: And what is the date of the photograph that -- or what is the date of the item he is photographing to purchase?
MARY HULL: March 6th, 2015.
MS. NORRIS: And what does that purchase appear to be?
MARY HULL: Airline tickets for Ms. Magbanua.
MS. NORRIS: To where?
MARY HULL: Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
MS. NORRIS: Did you also find that corresponding American Express record in State's Exhibit 112 from the same date indicating that Charles Adelson paid for Ms. Magbanua for this flight to Santo Domingo?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And it was just under a thousand dollars.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And what -- you already said the date.
During any of the text message exchange -- exchanges, excuse me, did you find -- sorry. I'm jumping all over the place. I'm a little -- my exhibits are a mess. Strike that last question.
Did you find text exchange between Charles Adelson and Katherine Magbanua in which he indicates paying for additional travel for her and her relatives?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: I'm going to show you up here State's Exhibit 66. Referring to this message on October 19th around 3:00 p.m., is that Charles Adelson's outgoing message to -- asking, "Where do you want to take your mom?"
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And then on October 19th, messaging Ms. Magbanua, Do you want me to get a cruise for you and your mom?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Further messages indicating what time he thinks would be a good time for him to purchase travel for them?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And those were -- I apologize if I didn't ask.
Those were in approximately October of 2015.
MARY HULL: Yes, it is.
MS. NORRIS: with respect to the earlier documents we introduced from Dr. Roudner, what was the date of the breast augmentation for which you received records for Ms. Magbanua?
MARY HULL: The date we received the records?
MS. NORRIS: No. The date that they -- the surgery was performed, based on those records.
MARY HULL: The surgery is listed as October 18th, 2014.
MS. NORRIS: And based on the records, do you know how much the procedure cost?
MARY HULL: Yes. The total amount was $4,595.
MS. NORRIS: Are these the records in State's Exhibit 99 reflecting the financial aspect of the surgery?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Is there any evidence that Ms. Magbanua purchased or paid for the entirety of this breast augmentation?
MARY HULL: Yes. There were two charges from her --
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; mischaracterization of the evidence as to who paid for it.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll overrule the objection.
You can answer the question.
MARY HULL: Yes. There was two payments of 150 and 45 that were from her credit account -- from her debit account.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Okay. So you can find -- you can find in her -- not the Dr. Roudner records but in her own bank records that she spent or paid $195 for this procedure.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And did one of those appear to be a copay ora consultation fee, or both?
MARY HULL: They -- yes. They appeared to be consultation fee.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. So what was the remaining balance if you -- if you separate out the $195 that she paid that you see in her records, her bank records, what would the remaining balance be?
MARY HULL: 4,400.
MS. NORRIS: And how was that payment made in?
MARY HULL: In cash.
MS. NORRIS: Are there any -- did you review her accounts to see if there were any corresponding withdrawals of that amount of cash to pay for that?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: And what were your results?
MARY HULL: I did not find any corresponding cash withdrawals even leading up to the surgery date.
MS. NORRIS: So if the surgery's in October, I believe you previously testified, how far back did you go to see if you could come up with smaller cash withdrawals to total the $4,400 that she would have had to pay?
MARY HULL: January of 2014.
MS. NORRIS: So ten months.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And what were the total amount of cash withdrawals that she had over the ten months preceding the breast augmentation surgery?
MARY HULL: 2,180.
MS. NORRIS: was there any evidence of her accounts that you reviewed or her credit card accounts that she got a cash advance?
MARY HULL: There was no cash advance.
MS. NORRIS: while we're on the subject of the Dr. Roudner records, at the time that the surgery was performed in October of 2014, was she -- was that during her employment period at the Adelson Institute?
MARY HULL: It was.
MS. NORRIS: Was there any disruption in her -- is there any disruption in the paychecks that she received from the Adelson Institute in October of 2014?
MARY HULL: No.
MS. NORRIS: You just mentioned no disruption in paychecks. well, were any of the paychecks in lesser amounts to reflect period of absence from work due to recovery from a major surgery?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; leading, speculation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Restate the question, please, Ms. Norris.
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: During the timeframe -- you had her records so you knew what time her surgery happened or the date of her surgery; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Based on that, is there any corresponding paycheck ~which appears to be reduced in amount to account for her absence from work?
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'‘11 overrule the objection.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; speculation as to mis- --
JUDGE HANKINSON: JI overruled your objection.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Do you understand the question?
MARY HULL: I do. Am I allowed to answer?
MS. NORRIS: Yes, ma'am.
MARY HULL: Okay. There is no reduction in her pay.
MS. NORRIS: Did you review text messages between Katherine Magbanua and Charles Adelson in which she asks him for money?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: I'm going to publish to you what's in evidence as State's Exhibit 65. This first line, is this Katherine Magbanua to Charles Adelson?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And, I'm sorry, it cut off. Trying to zoom in.
These messages are dated May of 2015.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: So in the first message, we have the request for financial assistance; is that right?
MARY HULL: Yes, that's correct.
MS. NORRIS: And in these messages, does she indicate that she's short on money at that time?
MARY HULL: In those messages, it does say she's short on money.
MS. NORRIS: Are you aware of what her account balances were at -- on this date, May 20th, 2015?
MARY HULL: I am.
MS. NORRIS: what is the total amount of cash that she had in her accounts on that date?
MARY HULL: All of her accounts combined, she had $15,582.22.
MS. NORRIS: Did you review her accounts for any corresponding significant cash deposit?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: May I approach?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: I'm showing you State's Exhibit 113 for identification. Do you recognize that?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: And does this accurately summarize her records as to her deposits after this request for financial assistance --
MARY HULL: Yes. It has both withdrawals and deposits, and the deposit is $1,400.
MS. NORRIS: And this is an accurate summary of the Excel records we looked at earlier.
MARY HULL: It is.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. The State would offer this as State's Exhibit 113.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: None from Mr. Garcia.
MR. DECOSTE: Same objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'‘11 overrule the objection and admit 113.
(State's Exhibit No. 113 received in evidence.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: ~=BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Now, this isn't -- this deposit does not occur on the exact date that Ms. Magbanua asked for cash assistance +from Charlie Adelson, does it?
MARY HULL: No, it does not.
MS. NORRIS: May 26th, 2015 or six days later.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: In the bigger scheme of the records, though, is this a significant deposit after that text request?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Finally, was there any evidence that you reviewed regarding Charlie Adelson paying for the Mazda repairs for the vehicle that Ms. Magbanua owned?
MARY HULL: There was.
MS. NORRIS: I'm going to publish for you State's Exhibit 114. And what was the date of Charles Adelson paying Mazda?
MARY HULL: November 10th, 2015.
MS. NORRIS: what was the amount that was paid?
MARY HULL: $1,620.77.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. I also want to show you State's Exhibit 69. what is this document?
MARY HULL: That was a picture that was in the icloud records that's a credit card authorization from Charlie Adelson to pay for Ms. Magbanua's car repair.
MS. NORRIS: And the amount, 1650, corresponds to the Mazda payment on the records of 1620.77.
MARY HULL: Yes. This is an authorization to charge up to $1650.
MS. NORRIS: And was this photograph, based on your review of the icloud, sent to Katherine Magbanua?
MARY HULL: It was.
MS. NORRIS: And the date, as well: This is the authorization form on November 9th, 2015, and the payment in the Am Ex is on November 10th, 2015.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Last, I want to show you -- not last. Next to last, I want to show you State's Exhibit 67. This is a very extensive text message conversation. Would you agree with me?
MARY HULL: Yes, it is.
MS. NORRIS: I want to point out just a couple of things in the back.
Does this conversation reflect communications between Charlie Adelson and Katherine Magbanua about those Mazda repairs?
MARY HULL: It is.
MS. NORRIS: Oh, sorry -- yes.
And are these dated prior to the payments made by Charlie Adelson in October of 2015?
MARY HULL: It is.
MS. NORRIS: I want to point out one thing here on November -- tell me if you can't see it.
The very top, on November 5th, 2015, is that approximately two months before we see the title to the Lexus transferred from Harvey Adelson to Katherine Magbanua?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And read for me the text message at the top on November 5th, 2015.
MARY HULL: The very first one?
MS. NORRIS: Yes, ma'am.
MARY HULL: "By the way, Sully did about $5,000 work on the Lexus right before my parents sold it to me.”
MS. NORRIS: And on the 6th, I'm going to direct your attention to this text message at 9:21 a.m. incoming from Katie to --
MS. NORRIS: And I apologize, Judge.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Katie to Charles Adelson.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And what does it say?
MARY HULL: It says, "You're paying for this; right? LOL. Because I don't have the bread."
MS. NORRIS: And he responds that he will give you his --
MARY HULL: "T'1ll lend -- yes. I'll lend you the money. tI'11 give you my credit card.”
MS. NORRIS: And then they go on and they converse themselves, but it goes on to discuss paying for other repairs and sending his credit card authorization and et cetera; is that right?
MARY HULL: That's correct.
MS. NORRIS: Now, this is the very last question, and it's out of order, but going back to the Adelson Institute situation, we did see the text message sending her biographical or identifying information from Charles Adelson to Donna Adelson at the beginning of the employment.
At some point, were there text messages between them about payroll deductions?
MARY HULL: There was.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Well, there's no question on the floor at this point. She's answered yes.
Ask another question, Ms. Norris.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: On State's Exhibit 64, what is contained in this ~=text thread?
MARY HULL: Do you wish me to read it or just summarize it?
MS. NORRIS: Just read the first line for us on May 11th, 2015.
MARY HULL: "Hey, quick question. Can your mom text you really quick how much she deducts, like the three amounts for social security, et cetera, please?”
MS. NORRIS: And then further down in that exhibit, on May 11th, does Charles Adelson respond?
MARY HULL: "Gross salary, 450. Federal withholding tax is $8. Social security is $34.42. Net salary is $407.58. That is the categories for single and two dependents.”
MS. NORRIS: And finally, on May 11th, if you could read the message incoming.
MARY HULL: "Not that they ever call. Just in case. You can sure -- they can call me any time," he responds. "You're the best."
MS. NORRIS: Okay. Now I want to move to the Katherine Magbanua's accounts. we saw your analysis. Did you prepare summaries based on your Excel spreadsheet work?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: May I approach with my last set?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: I'm showing you State's Exhibit 15 [sic]. What does that document contain?
MARY HULL: This is a pie chart showing her income sources.
MS. NORRIS: For what year?
MARY HULL: 2014.
MS. NORRIS: And is it an accurate summary based on all of the data you examined?
MARY HULL: It is.
MS. NORRIS: Now I'm showing you State's Exhibit 16 [sic]. what does that contain?
MARY HULL: Her income sources for 2015.
MS. NORRIS: Similar pie chart.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And is it accurate based on the data you analyzed?
MARY HULL: It is.
MS. NORRIS: State's Exhibit 17 [sic], what does this document contain?
MARY HULL: This contains a list of all of her cash deposits as they went in, in date order listing all of the accounts.
MS. NORRIS: And is that accurate based on the data you analyzed?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: An accurate summary, I should say.
And finally, State's Exhibit 118, do you recognize that?
MARY HULL: Yes. It's a line graph visually depicting the cash deposits from 2013 to 2016.
MS. NORRIS: Summarized, based on your analysis of the -- of the records.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Your Honor, at this time I'd offer into evidence State's Exhibits 115, 116, 117, and 118.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: No objection.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. They'll be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 115 - 118 received in evidence.)
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: I'm going to start showing -- and I should have +=mentioned before.
Some of these pie charts, line graphs, et cetera, on the second page of each document, is that where you put your data that you're making these charts on?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. Starting with State's Exhibit 115, explain to me what you're demonstrating in this exhibit.
MARY HULL: The graph works -- the pie chart works clockwise. So the first section is the 63 percent showing cash deposits compared to the others. There's SoFi Dental, Cecilia Magbanua, Bancorp Bank, Adelson Institute, and miscellaneous.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. Now, the Magbanua income sources 2015.
MARY HULL: Again, the information is clockwise with the largest going to smallest, the largest being cash deposits followed by Adelson Institute, an IRS refund, Jerome -- Dr. Jerome Obed, Cecilia Magbanua, Garrison Insurance Company, and miscellaneous.
MS. NORRIS: Now, if you combined all cash deposits with all payments from the Adelson Institute, what percent of her entire income would that be for 2015?
MARY HULL: 70 percent.
MS. NORRIS: Next showing you State's Exhibit 117, can you explain -- I know you've identified what it is. Can you walk me through what the different lines mean, the different columns?
MARY HULL: The different columns. The columns -- two columns on the left are what I call my buoy markers that tells me exactly where I can find that transaction on a bank statement. Since there's two, that's coming from my combined 2013, 2016 section of that analysis that I did. There is the account that it's identified, the date that it happened, and the description was cash deposit, and the amount. There's a total that's to the right of this -- the column.
MS. NORRIS: So this is the -- this is based on the records that you had for 2013.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Then what follows going on to, sorry, the next page includes all of the cash deposits for 2014.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And then we continue on to 2015.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And you had some records you summarized here from 2016.
MARY HULL: Correct.
MS. NORRIS: what size deposits of cash would Ms. Magbanua usually make?
MARY HULL: You can look on there and see they range basically from $200 to 2,000, I think was one of the higher ones.
MS. NORRIS: And how much total cash was deposited into her account from 2013 to 2016?
MARY HULL: That would be the $88,021.33.
MS. NORRIS: And that's the total we have on the final page.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Out of that eighty-eight- -- I'm going to approximate.
Out of that $88,000 cash from 2013 through 2016, how much cash did she deposit in the 12 months immediately preceding the homicide?
MARY HULL: Immediately preceding was, I believe, 15,600.
MS. NORRIS: Out of those 12 months, how much of that 15,600 was deposited in the four months immediately preceding the murder?
MARY HULL: 10,000.
MS. NORRIS: Was there any increase in her cash deposit activity after July 18th, 2014?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: So let's use a 12-month period, for example. For 12 months from the murder out, so from July 2014 to July 2015, what were her cash deposits for that year period?
MARY HULL: I believe it was 41,000.
MS. NORRIS: And of all the months that you analyzed as far as cash deposits, from 2013 -- or July 2013 to July 2016, which month had the highest amount of cash deposits out of all the months?
MARY HULL: August 2014.
MS. NORRIS: And what was the total amount deposited in that single month?
MARY HULL: 13,200.
MS. NORRIS: Did Ms. Magbanua often make multiple ATM deposits of cash in the same day?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And would she make -- approximately how many hundred dollars per deposit?
MARY HULL: It varied a lot from two to even a thousand.
MS. NORRIS: And the -- on the dates that she would make multiple ATM deposits within the same day, would those be the same or different ATM locations?
MARY HULL: Different ATM locations.
MS. NORRIS: The last exhibit I introduced was State's Exhibit 118. what does this graph demonstrate?
MARY HULL: This graph shows the cash deposits from 2013 to 2016, all of the records I had available, showing by month the amount of the cash that was deposited.
MS. NORRIS: And are you able to match this timeline of her cash deposits from 2013 to 2016 with her timeline of her employment?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: I can't put two pieces of paper on top of each other so I'm using a transparency of this. Let me make sure they match.
Does that accurately reflect her cash deposits shown on top of where she was working at that time?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And during the time that her cash deposits are the highest, where is she employed?
MARY HULL: I do not have a record of her being employed.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. And what was the murder date in this case?
MARY HULL: July 18th, 2014.
MS. NORRIS: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: I'm just showing you a demonstrative.
MARY HULL: Okay.
MS. NORRIS: Does this line accurately depict on this chart where July 2014 and August 2014 are?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And that's the date Dan Markel was killed.
MARY HULL: It is.
MS. NORRIS: The time period.
The very beginning of your testimony we talked about all the records that you reviewed: Investment accounts for the Adelsons, business accounts, et cetera. Did they have access to a lot of cash?
MARY HULL: They did.
MS. NORRIS: Did they operate a lot in cash at their Adelson Institute?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; personal knowledge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Clarify her knowledge, please, Ms. Norris.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Based on your review of the records, did they give cash discounts for services?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; hearsay as to the basis of that knowledge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
MARY HULL: Yes.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: would you -- how would you characterize the wealth level of Donna and Harvey Adelson?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; improper opinion and personal knowledge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll sustain. There's no foundation been established.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Did you review how many investment accounts they had?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: Did you review all of their business records --
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: -- or business banking records, financial records?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Their personal financial records?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Did they have a lot of money?
JUDGE HANKINSON: At what timeframe, Ms. Norris?
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: During the timeframe of all the records, 2013 through 2016, that you had for them.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And was that a answer to yes, during that timeframe?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: what was the annual income of the Adelson Institute?
MARY HULL: Approximately $2 million.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I couldn't hear you.
MARY HULL: Approximately $2 million.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: And about how much did Charlie Adelson make annually?
MARY HULL: Between 3 million and 3.5 million.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Those figures were what? Different years? Clarify what -- you said three and three and a half.
MARY HULL: Right. Over the different years, it would be between 3 million and 3.5 million.
JUDGE HANKINSON: For what years?
MARY HULL: The 2013 to 2016 that I had the records.
MS. NORRIS: I have no further questions, Ms. Hull.
MR. ZANGENEH: Ms. Norris, are you concluded?
MS. NORRIS: Yes. I just said I have --
MR. ZANGENEH: I'm sorry. I didn't hear her.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I didn't hear her either.
MR. ZANGENEH: May I inquire, Judge?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, request, if possible? If I could either step out while Mr. Zangeneh is cross-examining or if we could take a five-minute break just so that I could set up for the cross-examination. It would make it move a lot faster for me if, after he does his cross, if we could take five minutes?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Your representations of being quick are not very credible, frankly, Mr. DeCoste.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm going to try my best.
JUDGE HANKINSON: We're about due for a break. we'll take -- we'll take ten minutes.
(A recess in the proceeding.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's have the jury, please.
(jury enters.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may proceed, Mr. Zangeneh.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ZANGENEH:
MR. ZANGENEH: Good afternoon.
MARY HULL: Good afternoon.
MR. ZANGENEH: My name is Saam Zangeneh. I represent Mr. Garcia. I'm going to ask you some questions with regards to your investigation and your testimony. Okay?
MARY HULL: I understand.
MR. ZANGENEH: So the government asked you to do your due diligence and kind of find out if my client, Mr. Garcia, had made any purchases with regards to automobiles or motorcycles; correct?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: And the information that you gave the jury on direct examination was from a time period from July of 2014 until a few months after that; correct?
MARY HULL: Correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: Now, one of the vehicles that you talked about, and this is Government's Exhibit 102, was a Monte Carlo; correct?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Do you remember what year that Monte Carlo was?
MARY HULL: Yes. It's a 1984.
MR. ZANGENEH: And do you remember the mileage on the Monte Carlo?
MARY HULL: I don't have it listed.
MR. ZANGENEH: will you agree with me that a car with more mileage would be an impact on the value of the vehicle?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: was there any information with regards to the purchase price of that vehicle in the documentation that you provided?
MARY HULL: I don't recall any.
MR. ZANGENEH: I direct your attention to Government's Exhibit, I'm sorry, 103. would it be fair to say --
I don't know how to turn this on. I'm not as savvy as --
(A pause in the proceeding.)
BY MR. ZANGENEH:
MR. ZANGENEH: You'll agree with me that it's a 1984 Chevrolet two-door, color in blue; correct?
MARY HULL: Correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: And the purchase date of this vehicle was what date; do you recall?
MARY HULL: July 26, 2014.
MR. ZANGENEH: And does this document show that the vehicle was sold a year later for $600?
MS. NORRIS: Objection; relevance.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled. He's just publishing a document that's in evidence, as I understand.
MARY HULL: I can't see that well enough to see.
BY MR. ZANGENEH:
MR. ZANGENEH: Oh, sure. No problem. Let me zoom in here.
Do you see what's circled there that says, Selling Price?
MARY HULL: I see it.
MR. ZANGENEH: what number is that? Can you tell the jury?
MARY HULL: $600.
MR. ZANGENEH: Let's go back a few smidges here.
And this is the title that my client purchased a 19- -- I'm sorry. There we go. There we go.
So this is the certificate of title for Sigfredo Garcia; correct?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay. And that's the same 1984 two-door Chevrolet; correct?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: which, a year later, was sold for $600; correct?
MARY HULL: Correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: Now, this is the person -- is this the person that bought the vehicle from Mr. Garcia?
MARY HULL: I can't see it well enough.
JUDGE HANKINSON: we can't read it from here, Mr. Zangeneh.
MR. ZANGENEH: I'm sorry, Judge. I can barely read it from where I'm at.
BY MR. ZANGENEH:
MR. ZANGENEH: That's the July 24th, 2015 date right there, ma'am.
MARY HULL: Yes. I see it.
MR. ZANGENEH: And it confirms again right here that the purchase price was $600; correct?
MARY HULL: That is correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: Now, in any of these documents that the government listed, do you see a purchase price -- a purchase price for Mr. Garcia buying that vehicle a year before that he sold it for $600?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. ZANGENEH: You'll agree with me that you had the person that he purchased it from; correct?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Did you make any efforts to contact this person to see what the sale of the vehicle was?
MARY HULL: I did not.
MR. ZANGENEH: You'll agree with me that your testimony here is to inform the jury of purchases that my client made post-murder; correct?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: And you'll agree with me that it would be important and imperative to be able to educate the members of this jury as to how much this 1984 Monte Carlo actually cost; correct?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: You'll agree with me that there is documentation which shows a year later that it was sold for $600; correct?
MS. NORRIS: Objection; asked and answered.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MR. ZANGENEH:
MR. ZANGENEH: Now, we also had discussions with regards to a motorcycle; correct?
MARY HULL: That is correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: And this is Government's Exhibit 102; correct, ma'am?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay. And that is a 1997 Honda motorcycle; correct?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: And -- go ahead and bring it up here.
You sent a subpoena to get the records from the Florida Department of Highway Safety -- Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle with regard to this purchase.
MARY HULL: Law enforcement did.
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay. I'm sorry.
well, did you use it in your evaluation to assist your testimony to the jury?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: All right. Now, you'll agree with me -- let me go ahead and zoom in here -- that says Sigfredo Garcia; is that correct, ma'am?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay. And -- sorry.
You'll agree that the date there is the date that you testified on direct examination, August 12th, 2014; correct?
MARY HULL: August 22nd.
MR. ZANGENEH: I'm sorry. August 22nd, 2014, roughly in the same time period that you testified in direct examination; correct?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Let's go down here. Let's go ahead and zoom this in.
Indicate purchase price, it says $500; yeah? Yes, ma'am?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Not an extravagant purchase; correct?
MARY HULL: I wouldn't think so.
MR. ZANGENEH: And last but not least, a 2000 gold Nissan. You recall that?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay. And that is Government's Exhibit 101; correct?
MARY HULL: I believe so.
MR. ZANGENEH: Now, the date -- this time I'll read it correctly -- December 17th, 2014; correct? It says 12/17/2014.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: It says my client's name, Sigfredo Garcia.
MARY HULL: It does.
MR. ZANGENEH: The seller here -- the seller information is a website; correct?
MARY HULL: I believe so, yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Nicecarsforless.com; correct?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: All right. Did you do any due diligence to subpoena or interview anyone from nicecarsforless.com to see what the purchase price of that 2000 Nissan was?
MARY HULL: I did not.
MR. ZANGENEH: You don't know if it was $1,000 or $100; correct?
MARY HULL: That's correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: Now, you testified on direct examination that you were unable to locate bank records from Mr. Garcia; is that correct?
MARY HULL: For the 2014, 2015 year.
MR. ZANGENEH: what about before that? Did you look before that?
MARY HULL: I don't believe those records were subpoenaed.
MR. ZANGENEH: And by saying that, that means that you were not asked or instructed by the prosecutors to go further back to be able to obtain financial records from Mr. Garcia; is that correct?
MARY HULL: I reviewed what law enforcement had provided me.
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay. So the answer is yes, right, that you only did -- well, let me ask it this way: You only did what you were asked to do; correct?
MARY HULL: I only review the information that's given to me.
MR. ZANGENEH: At any point during your evaluation do you ask, listen, I want to -- I want to go back and look at previous years to see if I can do, like, a more wide, global analyzation of the finances?
MARY HULL: If it's necessary.
MR. ZANGENEH: Did you find it necessary in this case?
MARY HULL: I did not.
MR. ZANGENEH: with regards to Mr. Garcia.
MARY HULL: I did not.
MR. ZANGENEH: You did indicate that Mr. Garcia received, I believe, two paychecks from Coastal Masonry in 2014.
MARY HULL: I did.
MR. ZANGENEH: And you found that out how?
MARY HULL: The records for the Coastal Masonry were subpoenaed.
MR. ZANGENEH: You indicated that Mr. Garcia had steady employment in 2016; correct?
MARY HULL: Yes. It was fairly steady, yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: By fairly steady, you mean he got a paycheck every week or two weeks --
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: -- from the same employer.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: You also agree with me that you prepared a chart with regards to Ms. Magbanua that in 2016, one of the highest contributors to her bank account was my client; correct?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: And you're aware that he has two children with Ms. Magbanua.
MARY HULL: I am aware of that.
MR. ZANGENEH: And you're aware that they were living together at that time; correct?
MARY HULL: That, I'm not sure of.
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay. Did it appear that the majority of my client's check would be transferred to Ms. Magbanua's account?
MARY HULL: I couldn't say a majority but --
MR. ZANGENEH: A healthy portion.
MARY HULL: A healthy portion, yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: It appears from your testimony, it looks like the government's position is that Ms. Magbanua was paid, like, an annuity for her involvement in a crime; correct?
MARY HULL: I don't know if I can characterize it by that.
MR. ZANGENEH: well, it wasn't one lump sum; correct?
MARY HULL: I do not Know how the payment was made.
MR. ZANGENEH: You'll agree that your analyzation of the payments given by the Adelson Institute and by Charlie Adelson spanned a long period of time; correct?
MARY HULL: That's correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: Did you see any such payments like that for Mr. Garcia?
MARY HULL: I did not.
MR. ZANGENEH: Did you see a -- any kind of specific cash withdrawal -- now, you indicated earlier -- let me -- let me strike that initial question.
You indicated earlier that your characterization of the Adelsons was wealthy; correct?
MARY HULL: That's correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: They had money market accounts, multiple investments; correct?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Bank accounts?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Substantial holdings in their accounts?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: In June or July of 2014, did you see what would sum to be a $100,000 withdrawal from any of their financial markets?
MARY HULL: I did not.
MR. ZANGENEH: In May -- I'm sorry, in 2016, were you able to see any substantial cash withdrawal from the Adelsons' account?
MARY HULL: In 2016?
MR. ZANGENEH: 2016.
MARY HULL: For what amounts?
MR. ZANGENEH: Any -- anything over $30,000?
MARY HULL: There were withdrawals.
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay. Cash withdrawals?
MARY HULL: No. They were for payments for income taxes --
MR. ZANGENEH: I'm sorry, maybe I didn't ask the question correctly.
MARY HULL: Okay.
MR. ZANGENEH: Let me ask it another way.
MARY HULL: All right.
MR. ZANGENEH: Did you see any substantial cash withdrawals from the Adelsons, whether it's Wendi, Donna, Harvey, or Charlie, cash withdrawals of 2016, substantial ones?
MARY HULL: No.
MR. ZANGENEH: Give me just one second.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
MR. ZANGENEH: Thank you for your time. No further questions.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua?
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Ms. Hull, good afternoon.
MARY HULL: Good afternoon.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that to make your financial analysis in any case, you need to have all the data; right?
MARY HULL: I can do an analysis on the data that I have.
MR. DECOSTE: You need more than just bits and pieces; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You need to have the full picture; right?
MARY HULL: I do my best to get the full picture. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you currently work at the attorney general's office. You've been there for a couple years; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Before that, the Department of Financial Services.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: work for the State of Florida; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So for about a decade, you've been working as an expert witness for the Leon County State Attorney's Office; correct?
MARY HULL: No. That's not really accurate.
MR. DECOSTE: You've been called as an expert witness by them over the past seven years.
MARY HULL: I have been called before, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Never by the defense.
MARY HULL: No, never by the defense.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. But that doesn't inhibit you here today with me looking at Ms. Magbanua's finances through clean windows; right?
MARY HULL: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know what I mean by looking at her through clean windows?
MARY HULL: I can only surmise that you want me to be fair and balanced.
MR. DECOSTE: Objective.
MARY HULL: Objective.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Let's go first to the Adelson Institute.
You received some documents in your analysis; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, let me ask you on that, when you're doing your analysis, it's based on what's given to you by the prosecutors; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you may make requests and say, look, I need more, but you're heavily depending that they're giving you all the information; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, in preparation for the testimony today and in preparation for all the work that you did on the case, and not saying that it's wrong to do, you met with these prosecutors multiple times, communicated with them; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So at some point, you get documentation -- it's entered in as State's 87 -- from the Adelson Institute. You remember that?
MARY HULL: I do.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you were asked some questions by Ms. Norris whether there were other documents that were provided to you. Do you remember those questions?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you said no, that they weren't in the packet that you received.
MARY HULL: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And presumably not given by the Adelson Institute; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: By law, none of those documents are required, though; right?
MARY HULL: Required under the subpoena?
MR. DECOSTE: No. So there's no requirement in the state of Florida for a business to describe, as part of their employee file, what somebody does for the business; right?
MARY HULL: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: It's not required by law that there's a job application; right?
MARY HULL: I suppose. Right.
MR. DECOSTE: You suppose. What do you mean you suppose? Is -- I don't know if there's a gradient on that.
MARY HULL: Oh, I -- there is no law requiring an application.
MR. DECOSTE: But there was a response to the subpoena with documents; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And these are documents that you could then corroborate through taxes that have been paid by the business over the time periods of the checks; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, I'm going to turn you over to State's 109. Now, Ms. Norris asked you questions specifically about the items in red. This is one of the other exhibits to make it easier.
MARY HULL: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: So let's take those three lines right there. Now, what did the red mean again?
MARY HULL: That they were sequential ly-numbered checks.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know the work schedule of Donna Adelson?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: when she takes vacations?
MARY HULL: NO.
MR. DECOSTE: what days she comes in during the week?
MARY HULL: No, I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: what about other employees? were you asked to do an analysis on how checks were written for Clariza Lebredo?
MARY HULL: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Erika Johnson?
MARY HULL: No.
MR. DECOSTE: whether, you know, Ms. Adelson came in one day a week, wrote checks, was gone the next week; you don't know that, do you?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: To come to a conclusion on that, you'd need to have all the information; right?
MARY HULL: A conclusion on the sequential checks?
MR. DECOSTE: That there's something nefarious going on with sequential checks.
MARY HULL: I don't think there's anything nefarious about that.
MR. DECOSTE: Because the -- now, the asterisks, that means that it was -- the check was written before the end of the period. Is that what that means?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, correct me if I'm wrong. This first column is when Ms. Magbanua deposits her checks; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Ms. Magbanua is not depositing the checks before the timeframe for when she's working; right?
Let's take, for instance, line 11. cCheck's written on 2/5.
JUDGE HANKINSON: We can't read that, Mr. DeCcoste.
MR. DECOSTE: Let me know when it's good. That better, Your Honor?
MARY HULL: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So let's take lines 11, 12, and 13.
Start with line 11. The memo line is January 26th to February 4th. Now, that's written on the check as the memo line; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: In presumably the work period.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, those checks are all written -- or that one's written on February 4th; right?
MARY HULL: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: when does Ms. Magbanua deposit it?
MARY HULL: On February 12th.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, let's go a line down. The pay period is February 9 to the 19th. when does she deposit it?
MARY HULL: February 26th.
MR. DECOSTE: And then the next one, February 23rd to March 5th, when's she depositing it?
MARY HULL: March 11th.
MR. DECOSTE: So isn't this in line with somebody working and then receiving a check and depositing it?
MARY HULL: It would represent that, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And doesn't this whole document actually represent ~=that?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: well over 90 percent of the time, except for -- and the jurors will be able to look at it later on.
All of her deposit dates come after what's in the memo line.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know how Ms. Magbanua was receiving her = checks?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: whether they were mailed?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: whether they were hand-delivered by one of the employees?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, along those lines, do you even know what she was doing for work?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: You were asked questions about how she was paid around the time of breast surgery. Do you remember that?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And the dates, to help you out here -- hold on, if I can find a sticker.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I could have one moment?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
MR. DECOSTE: I may be missing an exhibit sticker.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, what you were talking about was that she has breast surgery and how she's still receiving checks around that time period; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know whether breast surgery would inhibit her from doing the job that she was doing for the Adelson Institute?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: Because, again, you don't know what her work was.
MARY HULL: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Or whether she would have actually missed work.
MARY HULL: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: For instance, if her job was to log onto the computer, contact patients, that could be something that could be done from bed.
MARY HULL: I believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: Going back now to Government's 109, and this is in reference to some text messages. You were asked by the government -- here it is, Government's 63 -- how there was text messages by Charles Adelson talking about Katherine Magbanua's information and how that was in advance of when she was employed.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, correct me if I'm wrong. So this text message is September 16th, 2014.
MARY HULL: Uh-huh.
MR. DECOSTE: Her first day of work is September 15th, 2018 [sic.] The first check is written on September 17th, 2014. And she isn't paid or she doesn't deposit a check until October 18th, 2014.
MARY HULL: correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So it's all around the same timeframe.
MARY HULL: It is around the same timeframe.
MR. DECOSTE: Is this anything different than the normal practice of hiring an employee, get their information, they start working?
MARY HULL: Normally you would have all that information before you started working.
MR. DECOSTE: Depends on the business, though; right?
MARY HULL: Normally you have all the information of your employees before you start working there.
MR. DECOSTE: And your basis of knowledge on that is based on all companies in the state of Florida.
JUDGE HANKINSON: we're -- you asked the question, Mr. DeCoste. we're not going to then argue with her about her answer. Move on, please.
MR. DECOSTE: Not a problem.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go now to Government's 118. You created this chart; right?
MARY HULL: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the big thing here is the comparison between 2013 and 2014. It goes from 2800 to 46,820. It's a big jump; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct me if I'm wrong. You don't have any records from January to June of 2013.
MARY HULL: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Isn't that, then, giving inaccurate information by saying that for 2013, her total cash deposits are 2800?
MARY HULL: It's accurate based on the -- what I have for records, and I do denote that I do not have any records from January to July.
MR. DECOSTE: And you denote it by putting a dash.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But the government didn't ask you what that dash means.
MARY HULL: It means it's zero.
MR. DECOSTE: we know that now; right?
MARY HULL: I knew it then.
MR. DECOSTE: No. No. No. we, in this courtroom, we know that now because I've just asked you; right?
MARY HULL: If you look at the summary that comes from, it shows that I have partial records.
MR. DECOSTE: My question is you weren't asked that until I asked you, though; right?
MS. NORRIS: Objection; argumentative.
MARY HULL: You're correct.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Now, 2016, same thing: You don't have records from August until December; right?
MARY HULL: That is correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Because Ms. Magbanua has been in custody.
MARY HULL: That's most likely correct.
MR. DECOSTE: One second, Your Honor.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Now, we started out we were talking about needing to have the full information and not bits and pieces; right?
Let's come over to your graph here. Did the government give you information, evidence for your analysis, that Ms. Magbanua, starting in late 2013 and continuing for years, was working receiving cash tips?
MS. NORRIS: Object to facts not in evidence.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
MARY HULL: I base that on the bank records, and I do not have anything that would show she worked and made cash tips.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Because it wasn't given to you; right?
MS. NORRIS: Objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Your legal objection?
MS. NORRIS: Argumentative, lack of foundation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
MARY HULL: I was not given information. I was given the bank records.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Had you been given information, evidence that she was working a cash job starting in late 2013 and going years in the future, would that have changed the analysis?
JUDGE HANKINSON: That's a compound question. You asked her evidence or information. That's a compound question.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: All right. we'll cycle back to it.
were you aware, in your review, that she was working at a nightclub?
MARY HULL: I was not.
MR. DECOSTE: You received her bank records; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Bank of America; right?
MARY HULL: uh-huh.
MR. DECOSTE: You went through all of those records.
MARY HULL: I did.
MR. DECOSTE: Specifically, you went through her checking account 898004266984.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: My apologies, Your Honor. One second.
(A pause in the proceeding.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Ms. Hull, you know what that is; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Exhibit No. on this, Mr. DeCoste?
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Showing you what's been premarked as Defense 14.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's a printout of one of the pages of bank records for Ms. Magbanua's Bank of America account.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you recognize that because you've gone through all of her bank records.
MARY HULL: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And that's a fair and accurate depiction of her bank records -- or of that page.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Move in what's been premarked as Defense 14.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MS. NORRIS: No, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I assume this is a portion of a State exhibit?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You know what State exhibit it's a portion of, Ms. Norris?
MS. NORRIS: TI believe it's --
JUDGE HANKINSON: If you don't know, so be it, but --
MS. NORRIS: No, I don't offhand.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Just want the jury to kind of understand we're taking pieces of a whole that's been placed into evidence. So I admit Defense Exhibit 14.
(Defendant Magbanua Exhibit No. 14 received in evidence.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Ms. Hull, correct me if I'm wrong. This is a check from Fate for cash tips for April -- the month of April in 2015.
MARY HULL: Yes. That's the way the check was written.
MR. DECOSTE: That's not in any of the analysis that you've done, though; right?
MARY HULL: It is. It's just that that check bounced and so did the other one, so the net amount for that was zero. I did not show it on my analysis.
MR. DECOSTE: But you would agree with me that this is evidence that she's working at a nightclub in April up until May of 2015.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, I want to go back quickly to the government's demonstrative. You created this.
MARY HULL: I did.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you have in here that Adelson Institute, October 7th -- why October 7th?
MARY HULL: That was the day it hit her account.
MR. DECOSTE: You're talking about the first check that was deposited.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, when we come back to all these cash deposits, you can't say where any of this cash came from; right?
MARY HULL: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: whether it came from work, receiving tips at a nightclub; right?
MARY HULL: Seems like an awful lot for tips.
MR. DECOSTE: Have you ever worked as a bottle girl in a nightclub in Miami?
MARY HULL: No, I have not.
MR. DECOSTE: would you then be unable to make that opinion as to how much one would make?
MARY HULL: I've done a lot of bookkeeping for different institutions.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So then if you could, tell this jury what's the standard amount that one would make working as a VIP bottle girl in Miami at Club Fate, if you know.
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you have no way to determine whether it came from an Adelson, from Club Fate, from Sigfredo Garcia, do you?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: I want to turn over now to Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera. You were given bank records for them.
MARY HULL: The records that were available, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: No sizable deposits into their accounts.
MARY HULL: I'm not sure what you mean by "sizable."
MR. DECOSTE: Your belief is that this is money for a murder deposited into an account with her name on it. Did you see the same type activity on Luis Rivera's account?
MARY HULL: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, turn your attention over to Government's 117. You talked about the pattern of deposits made by Ms. Magbanua; right? And you're talking about how, on a given day -- and you tell me which one you want to use -- 6/9, how there was multiple deposits made at multiple banks; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, in fact, those are deposits made at different banks on the same day; right?
MARY HULL: I would believe so. I'd have to look at -- there's another chart done that represented what bank was used.
MR. DECOSTE: well, doesn't this show the account number --
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: -- and the bank?
All right. So if we look at 6/23 right here, you've got Bank of America and then Chase; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, that's one of the things that caught your attention; right?
MARY HULL: I noticed it.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Do you happen to know the maximum amount of deposits Ms. Magbanua could make at her respective accounts, whether it was 300? 500? 800? Do you know that?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you happen to know the costs it would cost her to transfer money from one account to the other?
MARY HULL: There's never any cost for transfers.
MR. DECOSTE: To make a transfer in between different banks, are you aware if there's a cost or not?
MARY HULL: I do not know.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So just to make sure that it's clear because my question was kind of backwards there, you wouldn't know if there was a charge for her to transfer money from her bank of -- account ending in 6984 over to the Chase account 3836?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would know or you wouldn't know?
MARY HULL: I would have known if there was a charge for that. It would have showed up in my analysis.
MR. DECOSTE: what I'm asking you is this: You don't see any transfers in between Bank of America and Chase for Ms. Magbanua's account, do you?
MARY HULL: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So you wouldn't know if her account, the way it's set up, that she would face a 25, $10, $50 charge for making a transfer in between banks.
MARY HULL: I would not.
MR. DECOSTE: Also, with respect to the ATMs, you didn't do any sort of analysis to determine whether they were miles away or right next door to each other; right?
MARY HULL: No.
MR. DECOSTE: So in your analysis, you're looking at around the time of the homicide, which is 2014, to make a determination or to make an analysis of 8/12, 8/11, that this is around the time of the homicide the deposits are being made into different accounts; right?
MARY HULL: That's what it shows.
MR. DECOSTE: But this is something that she had been doing throughout all the years of records that you have; right?
MARY HULL: She made -- often made cash deposits.
MR. DECOSTE: In 2013, that's not a date of interest in this case; right?
MARY HULL: It was for me to base my analysis.
MR. DECOSTE: Based on the records that you had.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You know about this case from your meetings with the government and from the news; right?
MARY HULL: I know about this case from the records I've seen.
MR. DECOSTE: But you also know about it from the news as well; right?
MARY HULL: I watch some of the news, but it's not something I relate -- I base my information on.
MR. DECOSTE: And I wasn't trying to insinuate that. The reason why I ask, and I'm going to tie this into a question, is because you know the relevant dates of the case.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: In fact, Ms. Magbanua didn't even know Mr. Adelson in 2013, in the middle part of 2013. Do you know that?
MS. NORRIS: Objection to lack of foundation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm sorry, Ms. Norris, when you make an objection, if you'd speak up where I could hear you and state your legal objection.
MS. NORRIS: Lack of foundation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know when Charles Adelson met Katherine Magbanua?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know of any significance of anything happening in 2013 with respect to this case?
MARY HULL: Could you rephrase that question?
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know of anything of significance happening on this case in the year 2013?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that Ms. Magbanua's deposit behavior is the same in 2013. On 11/29/2013, she makes a deposit at Bank of America and then at Chase for cash amounts.
MARY HULL: I see that.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know where that money came from?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know whether it came from working at Hollywood Live?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: And for the jury, the reason why we only have a couple lines of 2013 is because no records were obtained for prior to July of 2013; right?
MARY HULL: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: But they could have been.
MARY HULL: If they would have been subpoenaed, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about purchases now.
MARY HULL: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Looking at it through clean windows, the year 2014, Ms. Magbanua, she has breast surgery; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: No big purchases that you know of, like cars and stuff like that.
MARY HULL: No.
MR. DECOSTE: 2015, no.
MARY HULL: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Eventually she buys a Lexus from Harvey Adelson; right?
MARY HULL: There is a Lexus in her name. I never found payment for it.
MR. DECOSTE: But, again, you don't know the source of the cash.
MARY HULL: True.
MR. DECOSTE: Could it not have been a situation that she takes her tip wages, 17 -- we see it in the 2013 transaction. $1900 deposited on one day. Could it not have been a situation that she takes her cash tips and uses that to purchase the vehicle?
MARY HULL: Yes, except that I didn't see any corresponding deposits into the Adelsons' accounts.
MR. DECOSTE: would you agree with me that sometimes people don't deposit cash?
MARY HULL: That's true.
MR. DECOSTE: we have a title of the vehicle. The title shows that the vehicle was purchased; right?
MARY HULL: It shows an amount, a purchase amount.
MR. DECOSTE: The evidence that we have in this case, and it's admitted in, the evidence shows that it was paid for; right?
MS. NORRIS: Objection; asked and answered.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
MR. DECOSTE: If you could.
MARY HULL: It shows that she paid 1700 for it.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Now, again, you went through all of Katherine Magbanua's Bank of America accounts; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Every transaction, line for line.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm handing you what's been premarked as Defense 13. You know what that is; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's some of the transactions on Katherine Magbanua's checking account for Bank of America.
MARY HULL: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know what that is because you've gone through every line of every one of her bank statements.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And that is a -- or it's in the same or substantially same condition it was in when you reviewed it when you looked at all the records.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Move in what's been premarked as Defense 13.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is there objection?
MS. NORRIS: If I could see the exhibit. The records are voluminous. I don't know which particular page is being referenced.
Thank you.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Do you know what exhibit this comes out of, Mr. DeCoste?
MR. DECOSTE: It does. It is -- oh, the State's Exhibit No.? No, I don't. But it's the Bank of America records.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. In the future, it'd be helpful if you're going to pull a piece out to let us know this is a portion of what's already part of the record, and then everybody would be a little clearer on what you're doing.
MR. DECOSTE: Absolutely, Your Honor. will do.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Admit Defense Exhibit 13.
(Defendant Magbanua Exhibit No. 13 received in evidence.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: And, Ms. Hull, your belief is that this Lexus was given as a gift for a murder; right?
MARY HULL: I believe she got a gift from the family, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Yet she's paying for dental work at the Adelson Institute January 8th, 2015.
MARY HULL: Dental work.
MR. DECOSTE: You agree with me that she's paying for dental work; right?
MARY HULL: That's what it would appear to me going into their business account, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Doesn't really seem like something that one would do if they helped out in a murder; right?
MARY HULL: I'm not sure I understand that question.
MR. DECOSTE: Your belief is that they gifted her this vehicle; right?
MARY HULL: I could not find a payment for it.
MR. DECOSTE: Yet she's paying them for what they do as part of their business, dental work.
MARY HULL: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: why is that only coming out on cross-examination?
MS. NORRIS: Objection; argumentative, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Now, let's go back to people buying things. In the year 2010, what did Luis Rivera, Sigfredo Garcia, or Katherine Magbanua buy that was a big purchase?
MARY HULL: I did not have records for 2010.
MR. DECOSTE: 2011?
MARY HULL: I do not have the records before 2013.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me, as human beings, we acquire things in the course of our lives.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: we make big purchases.
MARY HULL: Some people do.
MR. DECOSTE: wouldn't it be looking at Ms. Magbanua and the other defendants through dirty windows to assume that any purchase that was made was, therefore, nefarious and tied to a crime?
MS. NORRIS: Objection to argumentative.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: You have no way to say that any of these purchases are tied to a crime, do you?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, turning back over to the breast surgery, you have no way to say that that money came from any Adelson, do you?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: Nor do you have the ability to be able to say that it came from her cash tips at one of the nightclubs that she was working at for nearly two years.
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: Government's 114. Do you know the dates of the relationship in between Katherine Magbanua and Charles Adelson?
MARY HULL: I don't know any specific dates of the relationship.
MR. DECOSTE: But you do know -- you said "relationship." You do know that they were dating at some point.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: would you agree with me that it's consistent witha relationship that one buys the other things?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Takes them on vacations?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Maybe to Key west?
MARY HULL: Possibly.
MR. DECOSTE: That is not abnormal behavior.
MARY HULL: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, this is Government 48 -- I'm sorry, that's 118. we talked about 2013. Let's talk about 2016 now.
we know why we have no entries from here on. When do the large cash deposits stop?
MARY HULL: Large cash deposits? Looks like on that May or April. I can't see. I could look at my --
MR. DECOSTE: well, correct me if I'm wrong. In May there's a $2,000 deposit and it drops down to $221.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: when was Sigfredo Garcia arrested?
MARY HULL: In May.
MR. DECOSTE: So how can this not be consistent with Sigfredo Garcia giving money to the mother of his two children over the course of time via cash payment, and then it drops off at exactly the time that he's arrested?
MARY HULL: Her payments to the -- from the Adelsons stopped at the same time too.
MR. DECOSTE: You agreed with me to look at this through clean windows, though; right?
MARY HULL: I'm giving you the information I know.
MR. DECOSTE: For this jury, there's no way to say one over the other, over the other, though; right?
MARY HULL: I know when the checks from the Adelsons stopped.
MR. DECOSTE: we're talking about cash here, though.
MARY HULL: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So there's no way for you to say that that cash is coming from an Adelson versus Sigfredo Garcia versus a =nightclub; right?
MARY HULL: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And there's no higher probability of one over the other. You can't -- let me know if you need me to help you.
You can't say --
MARY HULL: -- rephrase it.
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah. You can't --
JUDGE HANKINSON: Wait a minute. Stop. She --
Are you going to answer the question?
MR. DECOSTE: Oh, Your Honor, she asked me to rephrase it.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is that what you said?
MARY HULL: Yes. Please rephrase.
MR. DECOSTE: Sorry, Your Honor. /////
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: There's no way for you to say, well, it's more likely that it came from an Adelson than it came from a nightclub or Sigfredo Garcia; right?
MARY HULL: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: And, to be fair, there's no way for you to say that it's more likely it came from a nightclub or Sigfredo Garcia than an Adelson; right?
MARY HULL: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: The government asked you about text messages of Charles Adelson; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: They gave you a CD; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And on that CD, it had a program called the cellebrite Reader.
MARY HULL: Actually, I reviewed them prior to that, before they were on the Celebrex [sic].
MR. DECOSTE: All right. But you were able to look at many, many different transactions with a bunch of different information and a lot of the text messages; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you looked at it with the same level of detail as you looked at her financial records.
MARY HULL: The original format was very difficult to read.
MR. DECOSTE: But you were still able to find out the body of the message; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You were asked about text messages in and around September with respect to Ms. Magbanua's employment.
MARY HULL: I reviewed all of the messages, actually.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. One second, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
MR. DECOSTE: Ms. Hull, just one brief moment.
MARY HULL: Sure.
(A pause in the proceeding.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: So the line of questioning I'm going to have for you in a minute is going to be about this text message that you talked about.
Again, this is September 2014. This is right around the time period that checks from the Adelson Institute begin; correct?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Ms. Hull, I'm handing you what's been premarked as Defense 15 and 16. Can you take a look at those?
You know what those are; right?
MARY HULL: I've actually never seen this format, but it looks like the text messages from Charlie's icloud -- Charlie Adelson's iCloud.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you know that because the body of the text messages is in there, and you've reviewed all the text messages; right?
MARY HULL: I've reviewed many of them, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And those fairly and accurately depict the messages in between Katherine Magbanua and Charles Adelson; right?
MARY HULL: This only says To and From. It's an index, not any messages.
MR. DECOSTE: If you could take a look at the bottom right-hand corner where it says “body.”
MARY HULL: Okay. All right.
MR. DECOSTE: And if you would, take a look now, what's been premarked as Defense 16.
You also know what that is; right?
MARY HULL: Like I said, this is not the format I originally was looking at.
MR. DECOSTE: The information, though, is the same as what you reviewed; right?
MARY HULL: The information should have been the same as I reviewed, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And the dates correspond to the dates of the other text message the government entered in; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Move in what's been premarked as Defense 15 and 16.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any objection?
MS. NORRIS: Your Honor, can we go sidebar?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
MS. NORRIS: Thank you.
(Bench Conference was held as follows:)
MS. NORRIS: Your Honor, my concern with -- it appears there are numerous exhibits. I understand that we laid the foundation for Charlie Adelson's Cellebrite. It is a Blu-ray with a significant amount of information, hundreds and thousands of text messages. The defense has not indicated any items they intend to introduce into evidence so I have not reviewed any of these exhibits. There's a --
JUDGE HANKINSON: we have two. what is your objection to these two?
MS. NORRIS: Self-serving hearsay. That was my primary objection was lack of notice and them showing no exhibits to me.
JUDGE HANKINSON: So you object -- your objection is hearsay --
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: -- as to Defense Exhibit 16 and Defense Exhibit 15; correct?
MS. NORRIS: I do object, but that was not the reason for the sidebar. I just want to make sure if there are any other exhibits, if I can have them in advance.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's take a break.
(Bench Conference was concluded.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let the jury step out.
(Jury exits.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. we're going to take a break for a minute.
In the -- during the break, Mr. DeCoste, I want you to give to the State any of the text messages that you intend to introduce. There is a difference between the State putting in what your client says and you putting in what your client says. So you need to give them what you intend to offer, and then we'll have discussion about them. we'll take ten minutes.
(A recess in the proceeding.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Do we have exhibits that are being tendered that there are objections to?
MS. NORRIS: Your Honor, the defense allowed me to review proposed Exhibits 15 through 20, and I do have an objection to hearsay, self-serving hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: As to all of them?
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. Mr. DeCoste?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor. The government has entered into evidence text messages from September of 2014 in relation to Ms. Magbanua's work at the Adelson Institute to insinuate that there was something nefarious going on. I'm seeking to bring in text messages from exactly that same timeframe that talk about her employment, talk about her having a schedule there, which would be consistent with work.
Now, there's two cases I'd want to read into the record. The first is Guerrero v. State, 532 So. 2d 75. "As a general rule, defendant's out-of-court, self-serving exculpatory statements are inadmissible hearsay. However, where the State has opened the door,” which they have here, “by eliciting testimony as to part of that conversation, a defendant is entitled to cross-examine the witness about other relevant statements made during the conversation.”
Also out of the Fifth District, we have Antoury, that's A-n-t-o-u-r-y, v. State, 943 So. 2d 906. Again, that's a Fifth DCA case from 2006. Quote, "The reason for this rule is to ensure that the jury understands the entire context of statements elicited by the State and as not to mislead by exclusion of relevant sections of the conversation.”
Now, this isn't just confined within time --
JUDGE HANKINSON: What I really need to do is see the text messages you're talking about.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, first -- I can approach --
JUDGE HANKINSON: Yeah. Let me have them all.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. There's four different topics, Your Honor. There's different argument for each.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Well, the one you're making relates to which exhibit?
MR. DECOSTE: Should be the top one, the ones that are dated for September. There's two of them. I'm sorry, I don't have the numbers.
JUDGE HANKINSON: 15 and 16?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll overrule the State's objection as to 15 and 16.
what was the other one?
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, as to the next grouping, there should be two -- and it should be the next one that you have up. There's two sets of messages with respect to loans that were given by Charles Adelson to Katherine Magbanua.
The government has brought out in several of their exhibits monies given to Katherine Magbanua to make it look like she's getting a gift, and as co-defendant counsel said, an annuity for being involved in the murder. What we have puts that into proper context that she's paying him back for these loans.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And that's Defense Exhibit 17 and 18?
MR. DECOSTE: I apologize, Your Honor. I didn't organize which number was which. I was going off the documents themselves but it should be those.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I sustain the State's objection to 17 and 18. You can make those part of the record but they're not to go to the jury. Find them to be hearsay.
Then we have 19. TI don't know what this is. was this some notes of yours?
MR. DECOSTE: Oh, yeah. That's my cross. Thank you, Your Honor.
Your Honor, if I can take a look at what you're holding, I can tell you which one's which. Thank you.
JUDGE HANKINSON: So it's clear, I'm admitting 15 and 16.
(Defendant Magbanua Exhibit No. 15 - 16 received in evidence.)
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Your Honor, No. 19 and No. 20: No. 19 has to do with something that this witness has already testified about, which is that Ms. Magbanua saw Harvey Adelson for dental work. Not introduced for the truth of the matter asserted.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I sustain the objection to 19 and 20.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, 20 -- it is important to note first, and I know that the Court already knows, that this witness has been presented as an expert witness to evaluate the finances of Katherine Magbanua. Information that was not provided to her was her employment at nightclubs for years. It's giving the insinuation that there's off-the-books cash being received and deposited.
This expert, if she were given all the information, including what is Defense No. 20, it would change that analysis. The text message that you have is from late -- mid-to-late 2015 where Ms. Magbanua is talking about quitting the job where she's receiving cash tips at the nightclub. I believe that it is integral and, again, not introduced for the truth of the matter asserted. This is an expert witness who's testifying about my client's finances, and this supports where she's getting her finances from.
JUDGE HANKINSON: This expert witness has not testified to anything that doesn't relate to a financial transaction that was observed. And I know you may be thinking, well, with Sergeant Corbitt, I let in some other stuff, but he offered opinions that were based upon text messages. This witness has not done so. I sustain the objection as to 20.
Are we ready for a jury?
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Let's have the jury in, please.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I could approach for those two exhibits.
(jury enters.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sorry for the delay, folks, but every once in a while, I have to earn my money. All right.
Everybody be seated, please.
MR. DECOSTE: Defense moves in what's been premarked as Defense 15 and 16.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I've already admitted them.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Ms. Hull, you remember testifying to this jury talking about text messages regarding Ms. Magbanua and her employment at the Adelson Institute; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: How there was some information that was sent in a text message by Charles Adelson over to Donna Adelson. Do you remember that?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: There's more text messages about her employment though; right?
MARY HULL: I don't recall any additional ones.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, again, your analysis is based on what the government provides you; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you need all of it, not just bits and pieces.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong. Her employment starts September 15th; right?
MARY HULL: That's what it says in the memo field.
MR. DECOSTE: In this exhibit, Katherine Magbanua sending a text message to Charles Adelson saying -- can you read that?
JUDGE HANKINSON: It's kind of out of focus.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Hold on. That's out of focus.
That's the best it's going to get.
MARY HULL: Yes, I can read that.
MR. DECOSTE: If you could read it to the jury, please.
MARY HULL: Sure. "I'll let you Know my availability so you can know, more or less, how many hours I can dedicate. Thank you again.”
MR. DECOSTE: That's consistent with working for somebody; right?
MARY HULL: Yes, I believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: Showing you what's been entered in as Defense 16. Now, correct me if I'm wrong. This is a text message from Katherine Magbanua to Charles Adelson September 17th, 2014, again, same timeframe as her employment begins at the Adelson Institute; right?
MARY HULL: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: what's that message say, if you can read it to the jury?
MARY HULL: Yes. "That's awesome. Thank you so much. I'll call them to make sure they put me in the schedule. You said my full name?" question mark.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, here's another message from Katherine Magbanua September 17th, 2014, if you can read that.
MARY HULL: "No problem. Helping me out more than I'm helping you. I'm excited to start. Yay.”
MR. DECOSTE: That sounds like somebody who's about to start working for somebody on September 17th; correct?
MARY HULL: It could, but it doesn't reference what job.
MR. DECOSTE: we're talking about hours, I'm excited to start. You don't need to be an expert in finances to be able to come to a conclusion that's somebody that's about to start work; right?
MARY HULL: Possibly, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: what's the other possibility?
MARY HULL: well, it could be starting a different job. TI know --
MR. DECOSTE: well, correct me if I'm wrong. And let's go back to the second page here. They're talking about providing a name; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And in the text messages that were admitted by the government, it was Charles Adelson giving a name to his mother, the office manager; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: If you could read the next message.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong. This is from Mr. Adelson back to Katherine Magbanua, September 17th. And what's that message?
MARY HULL: "Cool. It should work good. I did say you would call, and I did not give your full name but I just call" --
MR. DECOSTE: "But just call. It's cool" --
MARY HULL: Yeah.
MR. DECOSTE: -- is that what it says?
Next message, Katherine Magbanua to Charles Adelson: And, again, that says "KK"; right?
MARY HULL: very common for "okay."
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Bits and pieces. This is the full picture; right?
MARY HULL: It could be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the government presented you with some exhibits talking about payment for repairs to a vehicle --
MARY HULL: Uh-huh.
MR. DECOSTE: -- and loans; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you reviewed the Cellebrite information for Charles Adelson; right?
MARY HULL: I viewed the icloud information in a different format. It was just on Excel spreadsheets, but the actual data was not linked like they are in Celebrex [sic].
MR. DECOSTE: with what you have reviewed, you're aware that these are not the only text messages talking about loans; right?
I'm not asking you for the content of it, but there are other text message talking about loans; right?
MARY HULL: I don't recall any other --
MS. NORRIS: Objection to hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: That calls for a yes or no. She said, I don't recall.
Is that your answer?
MARY HULL: Yes. I don't recall any other text messages on loans.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: would that be because you haven't seen --
JUDGE HANKINSON: Move on, Mr. Decoste.
MR. DECOSTE: Last question.
JUDGE HANKINSON: NO. Move on.
MR. DECOSTE: One brief moment, Your Honor.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Ms. Hull, final line here. Let's see if we can reduce the glare. Unfortunately we can't.
You put this together to show that there was a spike of money going into her account during a time period when she wasn't working; right?
MARY HULL: It was two sets of information that was overlaid.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. with use of a Kleenex box in the courtroom, I've gotten this: If she were to have been working receiving cash tips at a nightclub between late 2013 and the middle of 2015, we would have an additional bar right in the middle just like that; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: which would explain why there's increases of cash during a time period when she's not working day jobs and could be working more at night; right?
MARY HULL: I never saw any evidence to indicate she was working at a nightclub in that timeframe.
MR. DECOSTE: And, again, your opinion is confined to what they provide you; right?
MARY HULL: I had all of the bank records available to me in that timeframe.
MR. DECOSTE: Did you receive any response to subpoenas -- did you receive the response to any subpoenas by the Tallahassee Police Department or anybody else at the government with respect to employment records at Club Fate?
MARY HULL: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Hollywood Live?
MARY HULL: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Any witness statements from coworkers, managers, club owners as to the hours that she was working and the amount she was making?
MARY HULL: I saw no evidence that she was working at a nightclub.
MR. DECOSTE: Because it wasn't provided to you; right?
MS. NORRIS: Objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Had you received such information, would your analysis and opinion have been different?
MARY HULL: Any time there's a difference in information, it does change my analysis.
MR. DECOSTE: Great. Thank --
MARY HULL: And I did not receive any information to indicate she worked at a nightclub.
MR. DECOSTE: And just to make sure that it's crystal clear here and not to go over something we've gone over, as the financial investigator, you're not out there investigating things like an investigator for the Tallahassee Police Department; right?
Let me -- let me strike that question. How many subpoenas did you send out with respect to the analysis on this case?
MARY HULL: I did not send out any.
MR. DECOSTE: Those subpoenas were being sent out by either the state attorney's office, the Tallahassee Police Department, or = any of the other law enforcement to get you the information; right?
MARY HULL: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: One brief moment, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I could have a moment. The government has new exhibits.
Your Honor, if we could have a brief moment. There's a lot in here.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Why don't you finish your cross before we worry about their redirect.
MR. DECOSTE: I actually think it's done, Your Honor, except for this one topic.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. State?
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Do you have something other than what they're studying?
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir. I can proceed with that while they're doing that.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: In this case, you did have the ability to, if you wanted additional records, request that the State or law enforcement, on your behalf, issue subpoenas for additional information.
MARY HULL: Absolutely.
MS. NORRIS: And you actually did that, didn't you?
MARY HULL: Yes, I did.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. You don't have the authority or the power to issue a subpoena in this case.
MARY HULL: That's correct.
MS. NORRIS: I want to go back to the beginning of your cross-examination with respect to the DHSMV records for the Monte Carlo purchased by Sigfredo Garcia.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And you were asked some questions about it being sold a year after the fact for a $600 amount.
Do you know or have any factual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the sale after Garcia purchased it?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MS. NORRIS: If you know, and I don't know if you know the answer to these questions, when you have a transfer of a vehicle, can you insure a vehicle without transferring title?
MARY HULL: No.
MS. NORRIS: Do you have to put a sale price or list an item asa gift on a title transfer?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Now, if you put a sale item on a title transfer, are you taxed?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. So is there a financial benefit to putting a really low sales price on a title transfer for a vehicle?
MARY HULL: Yes, there is.
MS. NORRIS: And who decides what number goes on the title transfer?
MARY HULL: If it's not on a bill of sale, it's the person that's submitting it to the tax office.
MS. NORRIS: So if I sell something to you private transaction -- Craigslist, I mean, anything like that -- and we agree on 3,000, we can write 300 hundred on the title transfer when we file the paperwork.
MR. ZANGENEH: Judge, it's speculation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
MARY HULL: Yes.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: We can agree to put a much less significant amount on there for purposes of a tax benefit to us as the consumer.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: In your analysis of Mr. Garcia's bank records, over the time period for records that you had, did he appear to frequently use the services of a banking institution?
MARY HULL: Only to convert his checks.
MS. NORRIS: what do you mean “convert his checks"?
MARY HULL: He would get a direct deposit, and then he would pull money out and then basically use little debits -- some debit transactions.
MS. NORRIS: This is Mr. Garcia?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: Judge, just for clarification, what time period is this that she's testifying to?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Clarify your time period.
MARY HULL: 2015 to 2016.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Those were the only bank records you had for Mr. Garcia.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And how would you describe Mr. Garcia's spending habits?
MR. ZANGENEH: Judge, I'm going to object to outside the scope of my cross.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained. ~=BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: You were asked whether, in your analysis of the Adelsons' bank accounts, personal, business, investment and otherwise, whether or not there was a significant withdrawal of a large amount of cash during the time period of the murder or before or after.
MARY HULL: Correct.
MS. NORRIS: Did the evidence that you reviewed suggest that the Adelsons had a lot of stacks of cash in a safe?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Mr. DeCoste asked you -- I'm now on to his cross-examination -- asked you some questions about the Adelson Institute's subpoena response and whether it was a legal requirement that an employer keep on file a job application.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: In your training and experience -- how many years have you been doing financial analysis?
MARY HULL: More than 30.
MS. NORRIS: And during that -- your experience, do you frequently request employment personnel records from businesses?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Is it unusual to not see those items?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; relevance.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Is it unusual to not see those kind of items?
MARY HULL: It is unusual.
MS. NORRIS: Was the packet you received from the Adelson Institute sparse in comparison to all the other employment records you've reviewed previously?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; relevance.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Showing you what's in evidence as State's Exhibit 109. Trying to get it as big as I can here. Actually, let me show you this bottom part.
So from the records that you have summarized in this chart -- I'm going to have to stand over here so I can see it. For the red items, they were -- those are all sequentially listed. For example --
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; asked and answered.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let her finish her question.
Don't answer until I have a chance to rule on the question, please.
Ask your question, please, Ms. Norris.
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: For the sequentially-numbered checks written on -- sorry.
For the sequentially-numbered checks, was each date -- was each date on the check post dated?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; asked and answered.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Based on the date ranges in the memo line of the check, would the person receiving the check, Katherine Magbanua, know what time period that check was for so that she could deposit it after that time period?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; speculation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
MARY HULL: Yes.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: You don't -- let me get back to the microphone.
Do you know the arrest date of Sigfredo Garcia in this case?
MARY HULL: I believe it's May 25th, 2016.
MS. NORRIS: And is it your understanding -- and if you don't know, tell me -- that Katherine Magbanua was not arrested until later?
MARY HULL: I believe she was arrested October Ist, 2016.
MS. NORRIS: But the checks from the Adelson Institute to Katherine Magbanua ceased after Sigfredo Garcia's arrest, not her arrest; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: On Defense Exhibit 14, this is the check from Sins to Ms. Magbanua that I think you indicated bounced.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: The date of this particular check, was that anywhere in this -- well, sorry, I can't get that off -- anywhere in this timeframe where this big red spike is?
MARY HULL: No.
MS. NORRIS: And that was actually a check from a bar or club or some type of business; right?
MARY HULL: Yeah, Sins, LLC.
MS. NORRIS: Not cash, though.
MARY HULL: Correct.
MS. NORRIS: You were asked some questions about making -- working as a bartender or club life or something along those lines.
If Katherine Magbanua had worked one to two nights a week making, on average, $100 a night, maybe the best night, $400 --
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; speculation, personal knowledge. The witness said she does not know.
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, there isn't a question, so let her ask a question.
Don't answer until I have an opportunity to rule, please.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: And I'll preface this: You were asked some questions about what evidence you had in this case about whether or not Ms. Magbanua worked in a nightclub or a bar, whether she got paid cash. Do you remember that line of questioning?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: If I were to tell you -- give you a certain dollar amount, $100 an evening one to two nights a week --
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; counsel testifying, improper opinion, personal knowledge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: If you would let her ask a question, I can rule on whether it's a proper question or not.
MR. DECOSTE: Too much caffeine. Sorry, Your Honor.
MS. NORRIS: Okay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Don't answer the question until I've ruled.
MS. NORRIS: Don't answer the --
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's get to your question, please, Ms. Norris.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: This particular increase in cash deposits in August -- in July and August of 2014, would working one to two nights at a bar for an average of $100 a night, maybe a best night, $400 a night, account for the amount of cash deposits you saw in Ms. Magbanua's bank accounts for that time period?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; speculation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: It's a hypothetical to a expert witness. I'll overrule the objection.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: If that were the case, would that account for the amount of cash deposits you saw in Ms. Magbanua's account in July and August of 2014?
MARY HULL: No.
MS. NORRIS: was Ms. Magbanua -- how would you describe her relationship with money? That's a bad question. I'm sorry.
would you describe her money deposit habits as financially responsible?
JUDGE HANKINSON: That's not a proper question.
Move on, Ms. Norris.
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: when you analyze the records -- you were shown Defense Exhibit 13. Looking at January 8th of 2015, a check card payment to the Adelson Institute for $200.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Do you know who her -- which dentist she saw on that date?
MARY HULL: I do not know what dentist she saw.
MS. NORRIS: Not whether she saw Harvey Adelson, Charlie Adelson, or anybody else for that matter.
MARY HULL: I do not know.
MS. NORRIS: Mr. DeCoste asked you about when people are in a relationship, sometimes one person buys the other things and vice versa. who was doing the buying in the relationship between Charlie Adelson and Katherine Magbanua?
MARY HULL: Charlie Adelson.
MS. NORRIS: Did you find any significant records of Katherine Magbanua paying for anything for him?
MARY HULL: No, I did not.
MS. NORRIS: He also asked whether that would be abnormal behavior for people in a relationship to buy things for each other. Following up on that, would that be abnormal if they're not in a relationship and they're dating other people?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; improper opinion.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
MS. NORRIS: If I could have one moment, I believe I'm --
(A pause in the proceeding.)
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, the government has a new exhibit. If we could go sidebar.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
(Bench Conference was held as follows:)
MR. DECOSTE: So, Your Honor, the original one that I had had something that was unfairly prejudicial, a statement, for the record, "who loves cock,” exclamation point, exclamation point. "Me," with three Es, a chicken, and "LMAO." what I would ask is, instead of removing just that, remove everything, that text and everything after it, because it throws the context of the text communication off.
with respect to the lines from 4:58:42 starting from the -- it will probably be easier for Your Honor to see this one.
MS. NORRIS: I'm not using that exhibit. Can we use the exhibit I plan on offering, please? That's the correct one.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, I would ask for exclusion from the fifth line down: "Thanks again for having them squeeze me in," all the way up. I don't know if Your Honor has -- the one that I have still has the love comment in there.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You persist in using the one they're not proposing, Mr -- get that out of the way, please.
MR. DECOSTE: I didn't realize there was two copies.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: we would ask for exclusion from, "Thanks again for having them squeeze in," all the way to the top because of the removal of that one text message. Everything down we're fine with. we agree it adds in some more of the text messages in and around the messages that we admitted in, I believe before and after.
JUDGE HANKINSON: So you have no objection to anything after the 2:10:08 -- or starting at 2:10:08?
MR. DECOSTE: Actually, I would. TI believe that it takes it out of context. They're trying to merge two conversations. There's one with respect to wisdom tooth being removed and then it's talking about employment, and it can be confusing because it's two separate conversations on multiple different days. we entered in on the 17th, but they're incorporating some other days talking about wisdom teeth on the 15th.
JUDGE HANKINSON: What is your objection?
MR. DECOSTE: Irrelevant. Or relevancy, and also confusion -- confusing the jury and the issue. They had opened the door with respect to employment. I brought in other text messages about employment. Now they're trying to bring in text messages about a wisdom tooth appointment which is separate and apart from that. I think what they're trying to elude to is that the text message, "No problem. You're helping me out more than I'm helping you. I'm excited to start. Yay," is somehow incorporated with wisdom teeth being removed.
JUDGE HANKINSON: MS. Norris?
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir. Actually what we've done is pulled the entire context of the threat that the defense counsel introduced. The messages indicate that the reason she's making appointment and scheduling her in is not for employment purposes but actually to get her wisdom teeth extracted.
I have no objection to omitting the top two lines of State's Exhibit 184, but I do believe everything up and to "Thanks again for having them squeeze me in for my dental appointment" and "You're the best" are relevant to whether or not this was about employment or not. And I would have to use a Magic Marker, because we've been scrambling to get the full context of these defense exhibits that we didn't see.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, the problem is -- quick response: The problem here is that there's multiple phone calls intertwined with these text messages that are not here. They're also over multiple days. There's no question that the text message, "No problem. You're helping me out more than I'm helping you. I'm excited to start" is not about wisdom teeth.
what they're trying to do is incorporate a conversation about a dental appointment into this conversation about work to confuse the jury thinking that she wasn't talking about work and instead was talking about wisdom teeth. The message on nine -- first page, bottom, "Cool. It should work out good. I did say you would call. I did not give your full name but just cool -- it's cool” is clearly not talking about wisdom teeth. The whole "You're helping me out more than I'm helping you" one does not -- there's no quid pro quo in removal of wisdom teeth.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll overrule the objection. But are you going to take out the top two so the last comment would be 9/17 at 3:29?
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: May I recross on this topic? I was actually -- I was reviewing this before I stopped my cross and I said I may -- I may have -- I think I'm done, I think were my exact words.
JUDGE HANKINSON: No. If you want the witness, you can call her back.
MR. DECOSTE: Understood.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, may I inquire whether you'll be willing to stay a little late today or whether you --
JUDGE HANKINSON: I don't want to stay late today.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you.
MS. NORRIS: Your Honor, until I have a corrected copy, can I put a black marker over those two lines so we can get it done?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You'll have to copy it over the weekend --
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
(Bench Conference was concluded.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: I was asked if we wanted to go late today. I told them we did not want to go late today. If y'all have objection to that, I can hear from you. All right.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I won't identify the guilty parties.
Come on, Ms. Norris.
MS. NORRIS: Your Honor, at this time I'd offer State's Exhibit 184.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Subject to my ruling at sidebar, 184 will be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 184 received in evidence.)
MS. NORRIS: May I publish?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Before I publish, you were just asked some questions about Defense Exhibit 15 with the body about Katie letting Charlie Adelson know about her availability and asked some questions about whether that was consistent with employment. Do you remember that?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: I want to show you --
JUDGE HANKINSON: Give us the time on that one you were just showing. I was just writing it. It was September 14th.
MS. NORRIS: 2:25 p.m. UTC minus five.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Okay. Ms. Hull, can you see these communications between Charlie Adelson and Katherine Magbanua?
MARY HULL: I can.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. And on September 15th, 2014, can you read this message from Charles Adelson to Katherine Magbanua?
MARY HULL: The bottom one?
"Are you coming for me to take -- to take out your wisdom tooth?”
MS. NORRIS: And the response?
MARY HULL: "I can't today. I've got the kids. I need to have someone watch them."
MS. NORRIS: And then does the conversation continue, "Let me know a day this week™ --
JUDGE HANKINSON: Try to identify who's calling who -- or who's texting who, please, Ms. Norris.
And if she gets it wrong, correct her, please, Ms. Hull.
Come on.
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir. I'm sorry. ~=BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Okay. Now we should be better here.
So this message from Katie to Charlie Adelson: "Let me know a day this week when I can come in.”
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: This is after the -- okay.
And then this call from Katie regarding scheduling = after that.
MARY HULL: which line?
MS. NORRIS: Line --
MARY HULL: The bottom?
MS. NORRIS: Yes.
MARY HULL: "Hey, I called. You're there from two until what time? Can you call me or are you busy?"
MS. NORRIS: Okay. And then --
JUDGE HANKINSON: Again, if y'all would identify who's texting whom, I think the jury would follow a lot better.
Ms. Norris, you're jumping from one to another. Let's take them in sequence, please.
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Okay. Just read Katie's text messages from the bottom to the top to Charlie Adelson.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I couldn't understand what you just said. ~=BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: If you could start right here, this message from Katie to Charlie Adelson.
MARY HULL: And go up?
MS. NORRIS: Yes. And they're in reverse chronological order.
MARY HULL: "Okay. If you are, just hit me up tomorrow. It's not urgent. LOL. They do miss you. It has to be during the day. 8:30 at night and tomorrow. Are you just going to numb me or am I going to take something? Call me when you have a = minute."
MS. NORRIS: Again, from Katherine to Charles Adelson.
MARY HULL: "Good morning. My mom gets off really late today. where are you on Friday? That's awesome. Thank you so much. I'll call them to make sure they put me on the schedule. You said my full name?”
MR. ZANGENEH: Your Honor, if the government could confirm what date the second text message --
JUDGE HANKINSON: It would help if you had the date and time -- give us the date and time, please. You've kind of moved it over where we can't see that.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. I was just trying to make it large enough.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: where were we? So this is on the 17th.
MARY HULL: Yes.
JUDGE HANKINSON: 12:20?
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: And then on the 17th, this is Katherine Magbanua to Charlie Adelson. Could you read that one?
MARY HULL: "Yes. No problem. You're helping me out more than I'm helping you. I'm excited to start today. Yay.”
MS. NORRIS: And what does Charlie Adelson respond to Katherine Magbanua on 9/17 at 12:23 p.m.?
MARY HULL: "Cool. It should work good. I did say you would call. I did not give your full name but just say it's cool.”
MS. NORRIS: "But just call. It's cool"?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And Katie responds, "KK" shortly thereafter.
MARY HULL: Yes. It means "okay."
MS. NORRIS: And then moving up to the message on 9/17 at 3:29 p.m., what does Katie say to Charles Adelson?
MARY HULL: "Thanks again for having them squeeze me in.”
MS. NORRIS: And then what does she respond again to Mr. Adelson at 3:29 p.m.?
MARY HULL: "you're the best."
MS. NORRIS: Is that consistent with Charles Adelson squeezing her in for having her wisdom teeth extracted?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection; personal knowledge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
MS. NORRIS: Thank you, Ms. Hull. I have no further questions.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm going to allow recross on the last portion.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Garcia want to --
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge. I'll defer to Magbanua's counsels. /////
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Ms. Hull, I'd say this will be real brief but it's burned me before today. Showing you Government 184, I'm going to keep -- make sure that it's panned out.
Now, it started out talking about wisdom teeth; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: There's some conversations. Now, correct me if I'm wrong. This begins on -- it begins --
JUDGE HANKINSON: It runs backwards now, Mr. DeCoste. It took me a minute to figure that out.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: It begins on the 15th; right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Continues into the 16th --
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: -- right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you don't know what phone calls are being placed in between these text messages; right?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: So you don't know if the context of these text messages have changed?
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: You can't say whether, in between this message talking about excited to start, and to quote you, “yay,” and then this FaceTime call, if it then didn't change back over to a dental appointment.
MARY HULL: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: But, again, you don't disagree that there's a defense exhibit talking about Katherine Magbanua letting him know how many hours she could commit; right?
MARY HULL: Yes. I remember that text message. I do not know the context because I just read one text message.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Thank you.
Nothing further, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Further, Ms. Norris?
MS. NORRIS: No, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Juror have a question of this witness?
All right. You can step down.
Call your next witness.