Christopher Corbitt — Direct/Cross/Redirect (Recall 2)
485 linesJUDGE HANKINSON: Where do you expect to start today, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: We're starting with Sergeant Corbitt, part three, to start introducing the wire.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm sorry?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Sergeant Corbitt will be recalled to start laying the foundation for the wire.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Dealing with the wiretap this morning?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if the government... Good morning.
MR. DECOSTE: If the government happens to have a presentation for Sergeant Corbitt, we haven't received it?
MS. NORRIS: I don't have a presentation, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. All right. So let's go through the wiretap. Does the State still intend to present the K through SS that was presented Friday?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Why don't we go through each of those — I'm going to group these a little bit so we can move this along. You're automatically on a general objection. First — if it's real brief.
MR. DECOSTE: Real brief. With respect to the transcripts: I know that the State — or David — advised me that they're not seeking to have them go back with the jury, so they're staying consistent with the case law. These transcripts were given to us on Friday. They were not shown to us before that. They were not on the table when we were reviewing things. I see from the transcripts themselves that they were produced in early August. The State knew at that time that they would be using these transcripts and should have given it to us then. With respect to accuracy, there is no ability for us to be able to determine the accuracy. Frankly, we can't go over all of it in 48 hours.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: If they say so, Judge. I mean, I sent them to be discovered as soon as I received them.
JUDGE HANKINSON: So what do you mean, you sent them to be discovered?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All I — I don't know. They're saying they didn't get anything, so I don't know what to do about that. I invited them to come look at everything and they didn't take me up on it, and now they're telling you they didn't get anything, and I don't know what to tell you other than—
JUDGE HANKINSON: But what — what documentation do you have that they were sent to them?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I would have to consult my support staff to find out if they have any emails to show that they sent them. But all I show is, in my system, listed as discovery.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Their demonstrative aids, their transcripts of calls, have been known to the defense since the inception of the case. The whole point about transcripts is whether they have some objection to the accuracy of them.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I mean, how are they supposed to decide whether they're accurate without seeing them?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Well, there are some inaccuracies in the transcripts that I noted, and in general they're accurate, but I think that's why we give the instruction for the jury to rely on the evidence itself — that the transcript is just designed as an aid.
JUDGE HANKINSON: When did you get them?
MR. DECOSTE: When the court hit on Friday, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Well, I had time to review them, so I guess you did too.
JUDGE HANKINSON: We'll start with A, B, and C.
JUDGE HANKINSON: There's three conversations, and I'm just going to go in chronological order on these. April 19th — what's the State's theory of admissibility as to A, B, and C? I see Ms. Adelson to Charlie Adelson and back and forth.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: But they are not hearsay. They're not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather being offered to show what Mrs. Adelson does when she gets the information — has the contact with the undercover — and the effect on her as the listener, and then on Charlie as the listener.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. Yeah, I thought maybe you'd have a question.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I assume both defendants object to them as hearsay.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor. State of mind.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll sustain the objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: A, B, and C — will be sustained, objection as hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: An academic — perhaps only of academic interest, but I think of significance to the state of law and the State of Florida.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm sustaining this objection because the law in the State of Florida at this point says so.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Frankly, I think the law on conspiracy — admission of statements, hearsay statements — in the State of Florida is outdated.
JUDGE HANKINSON: They all go back to a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court case.
JUDGE HANKINSON: 336 U.S. 440 — that's K-R-U-L-E-W-I-T-C-H. Krulewitch does not appear to be followed by any circuit courts — federal circuit courts — in the United States that I can find at this point.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Predates, in fact, the common-law definition of conspiracy, which requires that the statements furtherance of the conspiracy charged in the indictment. Federal circuits does not require that. Florida law — Florida rules of evidence — are almost identical to the federal rules of evidence. However, no Florida case has ever recognized that change.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Therefore, I'm bound by the Florida law.
JUDGE HANKINSON: But frankly, I hope that if there's appeal out of this, the State needs to take a cross point.
JUDGE HANKINSON: There isn't much conspiracy law in Florida, and it just never has been updated.
JUDGE HANKINSON: But I'm current binding.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did Your Honor review United States v. Fields?
JUDGE HANKINSON: I already cited that on the earlier motion.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. So the A, B, and C would not be offered as—
JUDGE HANKINSON: I've sustained their objection.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Thank you.
JUDGE HANKINSON: E and E are on April 19th — Charlie Adelson to Ms. Magbanua. And then on April 20th, again, Adelson to Magbanua.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Defense wish to be heard on those?
MR. ZANGENEH: Mr. Garcia's position is that if the court does entertain these call, we would move to sever the cases between Mr. Garcia and Ms. Magbanua.
MR. ZANGENEH: If Ms. Magbanua was not a co-defendant of this case, this evidence would not be admissible against Mr. Garcia.
MR. ZANGENEH: And obviously this is something that incorporates culpability within the documents of Mr. Garcia. So with regards to the court's position. That's where Mr. Garcia stands, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Maganua?
MR. DECOSTE: Brief moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE HANKINSON: What I'm looking for is some special issue with these.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Very short on time. Y'all knew this was coming.
MR. DECOSTE: As to Mr. Adelson's portion, it would be hearsay. He lacks just the ability to be able to cross them as well, too.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll overrule that objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: D, E, and F will be admitted.
JUDGE HANKINSON: G, Mr. Adelson to Donna Adelson. Does the State have any new argument to make as to that?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It's the same argument, Judge, that it's not being offered as a co-conspirator statement, but rather as evidence of the conspiracy.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I assume both the defendants object to G?
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Sustained objection as to G.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's see. As to H.
JUDGE HANKINSON: H. Anybody — any of the defense have any special objection?
JUDGE HANKINSON: I understand you're generally objecting. Any special objection as to H?
MR. DECOSTE: I feel that the State is trying to bring in certain phone calls to get sound bites, not to try to establish that there was a conspiracy.
JUDGE HANKINSON: H will be admitted.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Wilson to Donna Adelson, and then back.
JUDGE HANKINSON: State has any new argument as to the admission of them?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I assume the defense is objecting to both I and J.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll sustain the objection as to I and J. K — does the defense have any... K and L, I'm sorry. Defense have any special objection as to K and L? Overrule objection to K and L. They'll be admitted. M — Charlie Adelson, needles on April 21st, and then Charlie Adelson and Donna Adelson on April 22nd. Does the State have any additional argument as to them? I assume the defense objection is to them again.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustain the objection as to them. And then we have a series — O, P, Q. Well, let's leave that. Listen: O, P, and Q. That's Charlie Adelson to Ms. Magbanua, then Ms. Magbanua back to Charlie Adelson, and then Mr. Garcia to Ms. Magbanua. Does the defense have any special objection as to those? O, P, and Q.
MR. ZANGENEH: Same objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua.
MR. DECOSTE: Same objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll overrule that objection. Be admitted.
JUDGE HANKINSON: There are two text messages I have not see text messages. Do we have copies of text messages?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir. Do you not have the content under the summary?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is that exactly what — in the content block, is that exactly what's said?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any special objection to R and S?
MR. ZANGENEH: No objection from Mr. Garcia.
MR. DECOSTE: Same objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overrule Ms. Magbanua's objection as to R and S.
JUDGE HANKINSON: T and U are conversations between Charlie Adelson and Donna Adelson.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Does the State have any new argument as to those?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I assume the defense objects to both?
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: T and U — sustained the objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: April 26 — a call from Ms. Magbanua to Charlie Adelson, a call from Charlie Adelson to Donna Adelson, then a call from Charlie Adelson to Ms. Magbanua, and then a call from Mr.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Garcia to Ms. Magbanua in Defense have any special objection as to any of those conversations?
MR. ZANGENEH: We, um, on that point, for Mr. Garcia, we do have a question as to authenticity with regards to a call, uh, line number 128, taken April 26, 2016.
JUDGE HANKINSON: We'll take those up during the course of the proceeding. Any other objections?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: No special objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I am going to admit the one call that is Charlie Adelson to Donna Adelson. I assume there's a hearsay objection as to that call.
MR. DECOSTE: Which call is this?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Do you wish to be heard?
MR. DECOSTE: Same objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I am going to admit the call between Charlie Adelson and Donna Adelson. And I know that's somewhat inconsistent with my prior rulings, but I think that in that series of phone conversations there's a showing of a direct connection between them — the discussion of the phone number. I think that connection is relevant. This statement is not being offered for the truth of the matter, but to show the connection. So I'm going to admit V, W, X, and Y.
JUDGE HANKINSON: to Charlie Adelson. Um, defense?
MR. DECOSTE: Sorry — trying to follow. We're on call 2176?
JUDGE HANKINSON: We're on 2125.
MR. DECOSTE: Same objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: We'll admit Z.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, I do have one additional one. I apologize.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Uh, so, Ms. Cappleman had shared with us the exclusion of some calls because it talks about potential —
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm sorry, you're talking to Ed, and I can't hear you. I'm sorry.
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah, so Ms. Cappleman had agreed to remove some phone calls because of reference to marijuana or potential marijuana.
MR. DECOSTE: Before we started today, I let her know that that call references it.
MR. DECOSTE: That would be an additional objection, because I don't believe it's been redacted out. There is conversation about that, and it isn't on judge's ground.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Conversation about marijuana?
MR. DECOSTE: Picking up a plant, picking up a plant. There's specific reference to picking up a plant, and I think that any lay person would tie that over to marijuana.
JUDGE HANKINSON: This lay person did not.
MR. ZANGENEH: Charlie Adelson — the transcript says, "Go on vacation, leave the effing kids at home, smoke a big fat effing joint, and have a cocktail." That portion has been redacted.
JUDGE HANKINSON: The reference to the plant — where are you getting that?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The plant is still in.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I don't — where do you see that, Mr. DeCoste?
MR. DECOSTE: I just have a quote in my notes. I don't have a page and line reference, because we had other things besides getting these transcripts to do this weekend.
MR. ZANGENEH: Page four, line seven.
MR. ZANGENEH: Page four, seven to ten.
MR. ZANGENEH: Mr. Adelson says, "So I was kind of thinking, if you want to go away for the weekend, it would be nice to have a gift card and a little tree to plant at your house."
JUDGE HANKINSON: That's been redacted on that copy.
MR. ZANGENEH: Thank you.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Has that been redacted from the tape?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: AA — AA and BB. On the fence about, truthfully. It is Donna Adelson to Charlie Adelson, and then back the other way.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Um, explains the wrong number that apparently is being used to show the connection between other calls. I'll hear any argument on AA and BB as to that situation again.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That's not being offered for the truth of the matter, sir.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That's actually not true, because Charlie has asked Ms. Magbanua to call the number, Ms. Magbanua has indicated to Mr. Adelson that she did call the number and nobody answered, and he's now relaying that to Mrs. Adelson — but no one's actually called the number yet.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So it's not that they have the wrong number — it's just that they're lying to each other about having attempted to call it.
MR. ZANGENEH: If I may, Judge?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
MR. ZANGENEH: With regards to AA and BB, given what the government's proffered, what this does is it further confuses the issue with the jury — especially given the fact that Donna Adelson and Charlie Adelson have refused to come, have refused to abide by subpoenas issued by the government in this case. So what we're doing is we're playing snippets of calls between the Adelsons, between the mother and the son, the son and the mother. And while the government's going to come forward and say, well, these are all lies, as counsel for Mr. Garcia, as the court knows, our defense is that the Adelsons enlisted Mr. Rivera's services for this. Someone from Mr. Rivera's camp came and gave an exculpatory type of statement, and so we don't have the ability to explore the contents of what this call meant, if there's other things that went outside of the call. So in addition to our previous arguments, we would say that this clearly violates our right to confront the witnesses in this call and to clarify issues which are relevant to our defense.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor. To add on top of that, Your Honor — you may see myself and Ms. Kawass feverishly talking back and forth, and what we're discussing at counsel table is whether we make the motion now under the rule of completeness, because this completely confuses what was going on. I'm not making that argument now, but allowing in just one side of all these conversations would be very misleading and confusing to this jury, because there were completely different conversations going on that were causing the conversations between Charlie Adelson and Katherine Magbanua, and then Katherine Magbanua and Sigfredo Garcia. They're just seeing the tail end of it. That's a very different picture.
JUDGE HANKINSON: As to AA and BB, I'll overrule the objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I think it's CC through EE, which are calls between Charlie Adelson and Ms. Magbanua. Uh, anybody have any special argument as to that from the defense side?
MR. ZANGENEH: I just want to be clear — you are admitting AA and BB?
JUDGE HANKINSON: AA and BB will be admitted.
MR. ZANGENEH: With regards to CC, we'll stand on our previous objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: CC, DD, EE — any special objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing special.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I'm going to allow CC, DD, and EE. Sustain the objection as to FF. And again — I'm a little bit on the fence as to GG. GG is a call by Mr. Adelson to the undercover.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any particular argument the State wants to make on that?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Just that it adds context to the later statements of Ms. Magbanua.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Defense?
MR. ZANGENEH: This again, Judge — this goes towards our previous argument about our right to confront Mr. Charlie Adelson regarding the contents of this conversation, and the previous objections we've made.
MR. DECOSTE: Would Your Honor mind if I remain seated?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may, if you keep your voice up.
MR. DECOSTE: Same objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm going to allow GG. Then we have this — it says "unanswered." I guess that means there's no conversation.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That's correct.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. And then we have a series of conversations between Ms. Magbanua to Mr. Adelson, Ms. Magbanua to Mr. Garcia, Ms. Magbanua to Mr. Garcia, and back and forth between the parties. On April 28th, it would be HH as simply a text message, JJ, KK, LL, MM, then NN, which is a text — phone conversation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any special objection from the defense side?
MR. ZANGENEH: On the summary that the government gave us on NN, call number 1483, April 28th, it says, "I called three times, no answer, and I didn't leave a message," and then in parentheses it says, "hang-up call approximately 2:10 on undercover's phone."
MR. ZANGENEH: Obviously, the government's not going to introduce this parenthetical, correct?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I think I can ask about that.
JUDGE HANKINSON: It's not a document.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is there a document about a hang-up call?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No.
MR. ZANGENEH: I was just confirming that that wasn't . . .
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Ms. Magbanua?
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing special for those.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I'll overrule the objection. Allow HH through OO. PP is the following day, April 29th, Adelson to Ms. Magbanua. Then there's May 13th, Adelson to Ms. Magbanua, and then from Ms. Magbanua to Charlie Adelson.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Do the defense have any special argument as to those?
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, under the rule of completeness, I would argue that calls 3769, 3939, and 2656 — these are calls on May 13th.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I don't have any of those before me. We'll take those up when you offer them.
MR. DECOSTE: Understood, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any special argument beyond that?
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing special, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. So I'm going to allow those calls, PP, QQ, RR. The last one, SS — I'm just struggling to see the relevance of the call. Explain the relevance of that, Ms. Cappleman.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: This is the call that's previously been admitted with Ms. Johnson.
JUDGE HANKINSON: The 180 was admitted, Johnson to Charlie. I'm talking about the one above that — SS.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Oh, it says Adelson. Uh, yes — that's being offered to show that Mr. Adelson was paying for Ms. Magbanua's Lexus.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Defense?
MR. ZANGENEH: Once again, um, with our previous objections. Also, I believe that there are discussions of marijuana use peppered throughout the call with regards to Ms. Magbanua. And once again, we believe that at this time, after completion of the court's determination as to what calls are to be admitted, it would be too separate — objects to relevance.
MR. DECOSTE: Again, I believe that the government is trying to get in certain calls to have sound bites and things to argue.
MR. DECOSTE: There's no relevance of the things being paid for. Throughout this entire trial, during the State's case, they've entered in text messages and other evidence that Charlie Adelson was paying for things for Katherine Magbanua well before the alleged conspiracy. This does not add to any conspiracy — they have more evidence of conversations of things being paid for. It's not relevant, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Anything further, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: That's the same objection as to SS. I mean, it's all over the waterfront. Um, there might be some slight probative value, but it causes a whole lot more confusion than it helps.
JUDGE HANKINSON: So that would be my ruling on those. Do you need me to repeat those, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's talk about the recording, April 20, 2016.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I previously ruled that the conversation was admissible, left open the use of the transcript, and I've had a chance to go back and again review that.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Ms. Cappleman, the defense contention is that your attempt to authenticate that is by Agent Sanford. Is that your understanding?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Consistent with Martinez, was he a party to the conversation or monitoring the conversation as it occurred?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Well, how do you square Martinez with admitting the transcript?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: He was being offered as having some expertise in specialized equipment for listening that would enhance his ability to hear what was being said beyond what the jury could hear.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I must sustain the objection as to the transcript. There's no doubt in my mind that the jury listening to this conversation would simply be reading the transcript. They would not be listening to the recording.
JUDGE HANKINSON: It is very difficult to follow. I did it multiple times with the aid of headsets. It is very difficult to follow. I don't the jury would make an effort to follow the recording.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll sustain the objection as to transcript.
JUDGE HANKINSON: He would make some argument that he's an expert?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir. We found some authority, which I can't put my hands on right this second, which indicated that if he had specialized equipment that would not — that we could not make available to the jury for listening to the thing — that made it easier for him to hear, that he could testify about what it was he was able to hear with the specialized equipment.
JUDGE HANKINSON: If you have some authority to that effect.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'll get it for you, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: At this point, I'll just consider it. It may be I need to have a proffer from Mr. Sanford, but I think that's unlikely.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right, what other issues do we need to deal with before we start with the jury?
MR. DECOSTE: Judge, we have an objection as well to the Dolce Vita enhanced version video.
MR. DECOSTE: During that deposition, we asked questions of Agent Sanford about what equipment he used to do the transcript, and we have argument on that, should Your Honor revisit the issue.
MR. DECOSTE: But we also asked him who it was that did the enhancement.
MR. DECOSTE: He could not answer that question during deposition. We asked him, can you get that information, give it to the state attorney's office, give it over to us. We have received no information as to who, how, and what equipment was used to enhance that audio.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'll just use the original audio. The enhancement was not effective.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. All right, anything else?
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right, we'll take five. Let's start with the jury.
Audio missing.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Certainly, it's Christopher Corbitt, and that's C-O-R-B-I-T-T.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You remain under oath. You may proceed, Ms. Norris.
MS. NORRIS: Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning again, Sergeant Corbitt.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Good morning.
MS. NORRIS: I want to start by just clarifying one thing you were asked last week about your marital status.
MS. NORRIS: Are you married to anyone on this prosecution team?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: No, I'm not.
MS. NORRIS: All right. So were you involved in securing a wiretap in this case?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I was, yes.
MS. NORRIS: What is a wiretap?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: A wiretap is sort of a general term for an order that allows us — law enforcement — to actually intercept the content of communication.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: So where with other forms of records or things, we're just seeing the numbers that are being called, with the wiretap we actually get the content. So we can hear the voice that's being spoken, we can read text messages, things like that.
MS. NORRIS: So what actually must be in place before you have the authority to monitor the content of calls or communications?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Well, obviously, we have to have the authority. We have to have that order actually signed. And then that is submitted to the carrier. They provision us. They set up their equipment so they're able to send us that information in near real time. And then once all that's in place, we're able to do it.
MS. NORRIS: What are the grounds for being able to get a wiretap on someone's cell phone?
JUDGE HANKINSON: That's a legal issue. Move on.
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: The court authorizes wiretaps. That's not a law enforcement decision.
MS. NORRIS: All right. So it's not true that law enforcement can just always listen to someone's phone calls?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct. We cannot.
MS. NORRIS: Can you explain to the jury what kind of equipment is used to do this type of monitoring?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Certainly. It is a rather complicated task, as you can imagine, but we do have software — computer-based software — that assists us in listening to or monitoring those communications. It displays for us the calls, it tells us the number that's calling in or being called, and gives us some control in being able to stop and start the recordings or enter information. We do synopses of the calls as they're coming in, to kind of generalize what that communication was about, so that when the case agents are reviewing it, they can see a written synopsis of what that call was involving.
MS. NORRIS: Is there any involvement of the actual phone company or carrier?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Oh, absolutely. I mean, they're the ones that have to provision equipment to send us that information, and then troubleshooting along the way — if something's not happening, or we're not getting everything that we're supposed to, there may be some additional contact with them.
MS. NORRIS: Is the monitoring done live, in real time?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, it is.
MS. NORRIS: You mentioned something about stopping and starting the recordings. Do you have to go through — you and the people who are conducting the monitoring of these conversations — any kind of training on how to do the monitoring?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, there is. Anyone who's going to monitor the intercept is, one, very thoroughly briefed on the case itself, so they know the persons that are involved, they know the types of evidence that we're looking for, whether it be about conspiracy or money or weapons or whatever it may be. They're aware of the types of evidence that we're seeking. And then, yes, they monitor in real time. We're not allowed to listen to all conversation, so with the wiretap we have to be able to minimize, or not listen to, either privileged communication or stuff that's not relevant to our case. So we do have a mechanism, as I mentioned, to stop the recording. And then we kind of spot check it to see if that conversation has come back to something that we're allowed to listen to and is relevant to our case.
MS. NORRIS: So you can't just listen to everything constantly from beginning to end of a conversation?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct. Again, only things that are relevant to the goals of our investigation are we allowed to listen to.
MS. NORRIS: Are you limited in time as to how long you can listen to something to determine if it's relevant or not before you do the minimization?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: We are. And that varies a little bit by who may be party to the conversation.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: The experience of the monitor — there's a lot of things that go into exactly how long it takes us to determine whether that conversation is relevant or not. But once we make that determination, then yes, then we minimize the things that are not relevant to our case.
MS. NORRIS: When you're listening, you have to be on the lookout for code talk.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, it is common.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: People don't speak openly or plain when
MS. NORRIS: When you're monitoring these conversations, do you have to be on the lookout for code talk?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes. As I was saying, it's quite common that people engaged in criminal activity don't necessarily speak openly about it, and they do use either code or some other ways to communicate, to kind of mask maybe the true meaning of what they're saying.
MS. NORRIS: Now, when you mentioned that you have to minimize — so you're listening, you don't hear anything relevant, so you minimize, and then you can come back to the conversation to see if now they may be talking about something relevant to the case. How does that sound, if we're listening to a wiretapped call? How do we hear that the officers are minimizing the call?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: As you're listening to the recordings, there will be an audio tone that you actually hear a couple of times, and that tone is when the call is minimized and then when it returns again. But there is a definite audio marker that tells us that that has been minimized, and we're not able to hear it when it's minimized. And it's not recorded, so it doesn't exist. It's not like we could go back and listen to it later if we wanted to. Once we hit that button, that voice is no longer being recorded.
MS. NORRIS: So every portion that law enforcement is listening to is recorded?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes. And only that portion.
MS. NORRIS: And the beeping — I think it's a beeping sound — is where it's minimizing and then coming back on?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. NORRIS: Which phones were tapped in this particular case?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: We did Mr. Charlie Adelson's phone, the phone ending in 9223, and two handsets for Ms. Magbanua — the 1312 and another phone later.
MS. NORRIS: When you say 1312, is that the phone number we were discussing in your earlier presentations with respect to the time period of this homicide?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, that's correct.
MS. NORRIS: And then there was a later phone belonging to Ms. Magbanua that was tapped as well?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. NORRIS: And do you recall that phone number?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do. It's 786-574-0338.
MS. NORRIS: And which time period was that particular phone monitored?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It started the end of May — I believe May 24th of 2016 is when we began receiving audio on that phone.
MS. NORRIS: And was the other phone number ending in 1312 active up until May 24th, 2016, or later?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe it was active later.
MS. NORRIS: Who is in charge of supervising the listening? I can't talk this morning. Who was in charge of being the supervisor over the listening of these wire calls?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Well, there were a few people involved in that. There were supervisors that did the scheduling of persons responsible for that. I was kind of the technical supervisor, overseeing the technical side of it, making sure the equipment was operational — headphones and all the things that it takes to actually implement the wire.
MS. NORRIS: And who keeps or maintains the recordings that were created from all of the phone conversations that were monitored in real time?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They're maintained by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. They're a partner agency to us that allows us to conduct the intercept, so they maintain them during the wiretap, and then they're immediately transferred to the Tallahassee Police Department.
MS. NORRIS: And at the Tallahassee Police Department, are those recordings kept in a locked cabinet that is secured?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They are securely maintained, yes.
MS. NORRIS: And only certain officers would have access to that locked cabinet.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. NORRIS: Is there anything else you think the jury needs to know about the process and the means by which law enforcement did the wiretap?
MS. NORRIS: All right, I have no further questions. Thank you.
MR. ZANGENEH: Good morning.
MR. ZANGENEH: Whose decision was it to focus on Charlie Adelson's and Katherine Magbanua's numbers?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Well, that certainly would have been the case investigators, or the investigative team as a whole. And it wasn't a focus to the exclusion of other people, but they were certainly of interest in our investigation.
MR. ZANGENEH: But these are the only two numbers that you guys were able to obtain Title III wire intercepts for, correct? I apologize.
MR. ZANGENEH: These are the only two people whose phone conversations you were monitoring, correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: Now, you're aware of the bump that was used to catalyze the intercept, correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I am, yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: And you'll agree with me that in the bump, somebody poses as a Latin King, correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe so, yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: And this person approaches Donna Adelson and gives her — I don't know if it's called a ransom note or a request or just a document — but the purpose of that document is just to initiate chatter, correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: Now, if you remember, we had conversations with regards to where Luis Rivera was staying, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: And there was an issue where we proffered to you that he had a home address that was on his license, correct? You remember that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: I'm getting there. Just give me just a little bit.
JUDGE HANKINSON: A little quicker.
MR. ZANGENEH: All right, so you remember Jessica Rodriguez, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do, yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: All right, and that was the person whose residence you had listed under Rivera?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: Did law enforcement initiate a Title III wire intercept on Jessica Rodriguez?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: We did not.
MR. ZANGENEH: And you'll agree with me that he, according to your own testimony, had been residing there — laying his head there every night — from the beginning of this conspiracy until after the conspiracy, correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't know the exact time frame that he was residing there, but certainly during the times that I was looking at, we thought that he was, yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: And it was your testimony to this jury that he laid his head there every night, right? Pretty much?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Pretty much, yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: And you're aware that he was the father of multiple children with Ms. Rodriguez, correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm not personally aware of that, no.
MR. ZANGENEH: Now, let's talk about the minimization.
MR. ZANGENEH: There is an agent that makes a determination as to what calls to terminate and which calls to memorialize, correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: And you weren't one of those agents, correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I assisted in monitoring, very limited. If someone needed a break or something like that, or we needed extra people, then I may do a small amount of monitoring, but for the most part, no.
MR. ZANGENEH: So there are other agents. Were these FBI agents, or were they local law enforcement?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe they were all Tallahassee Police Department members.
MR. ZANGENEH: And the people that made the determination to minimize these calls — whatever occurred after the minimization was initiated, that's lost data, correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: And give me one second.
MR. ZANGENEH: Thank you, Sergeant Corbitt. No further questions.
MR. DECOSTE: Good morning.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Good morning.
MR. DECOSTE: Everybody's talking really fast right now.
MR. DECOSTE: So again, we have wiretaps set up for Charlie Adelson, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Katherine Magbanua.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You work at TPD.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do.
MR. DECOSTE: The theory of the case is that the Adelsons are behind this.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That is, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Not one wiretap on any Adelson.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't know that I can speak to whether the authority existed or not for anyone else.
MR. DECOSTE: One could say it would have been cumbersome. It would have been a lot of work. But we're talking about multiple law enforcement agencies, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't know that I can speak to whether the authority existed or not for anyone else. Yes. And I don't know that cumbersome is certainly not the reason to do or not do an investigative task here, but I cannot speak, again, to the authority or the decision on whose phones were going to be intercepted.
MR. DECOSTE: So you can't tell this jury why Wendi Adelson's phone was not tapped?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So we don't know who she was contacting?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: We do know who she was contacting. We have phone records, we have communication records. We just don't have the content of those communications.
MR. DECOSTE: You have phone records for these people in 2016?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: For some, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't have them for Katherine Magbanua?
MR. DECOSTE: In 2016.
MR. DECOSTE: Call detail records?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, we do.
MR. DECOSTE: If we can go sidebar, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, do you know the dates of what's been referred to as the bump?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't recall the specific date, but I know that was in the initial part of our intercept.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct me if I'm wrong, the wiretaps begin early April of 2016?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They do.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you have any call detail records beginning in April of 2016 and going through the time of the wiretap?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: We do, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: For who?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I could not tell you specifically off the top of my head, and let me clarify — part of the wiretap also includes delivering to us, basically, real-time call detail records. So, as I mentioned, in addition to just hearing the voice, we're actually seeing the numbers that are being dialed, so we have a record of that. So even if we don't have communication or something else, we still know who is attempting to call who. As a process of receiving that real-time data, we receive that real-time information for other people involved in the investigation, as well as collecting historical call detail records for some persons.
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant Corbitt, we'll come back to that, because those are your records. Do you have call detail records for Katherine Magbanua during the time of the bump?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: During the time of the bump we were on a live intercept for her, so we do not have any historical records for that time. The other phone that I mentioned did not come into service until after the bump.
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, the 1312 number — now, this is the phone that you've had, that she had, 2014, 2015, 2016.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You do not have call detail records from the service provider for April, May, and June, during the time of the wiretap, do you?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: We do, and I'm sorry if I'm not clear, but the call detail records we receive include the date and time of a transaction, the duration, the calling parties, and location information — the cell sites being utilized. So we can get that information historically, or we can get that information in real time. We call that a pen register or trap and trace, and that is, again, the carrier in real time delivering us those exact same historical call detail records, but we're getting them in real time. So we're again able to see the date and time of a transaction, who's calling who, and the cell sites that are utilized. So while we don't have historical records — we didn't get something going back in the past — we didn't need to, because we were getting that exact same information in real time.
MR. DECOSTE: So let's now go over to Sigfredo Garcia. No wiretap for him, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So we don't have any call detail records either, from the service provider or what you just explained to the jury, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe there was a pen register and trap and trace on his number at the time.
MR. DECOSTE: Believe means you're not sure, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I could look and be certain, but we did obtain records for his handset and we were aware of who he was communicating with.
MR. DECOSTE: So now you are sure?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I would want to look and be certain of the dates of that, but yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The answer for right now is you're not sure whether you have it or not, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: The answer right now, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: To clarify, we don't have any wiretap of Wendi Adelson, Harvey Adelson, Donna Adelson.
MR. DECOSTE: Jessica Rodriguez — no wiretap, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about the wiretaps themselves. You said that law enforcement are sitting in front of a phone terminal. They start it, they stop it, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It's a computer screen, but yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So for the recording to start, there has to be someone there to say, well, we're going to start recording this one.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There has to be someone actively monitoring. The recording will begin as long as there's someone actually signed in and attending to the screen. As long as that's there, then the recording will start, and it's their obligation to end recording when it's not relevant.
MR. DECOSTE: And some of this was being done outside of the Tallahassee Police Department, right? Florida Department of Law Enforcement wasn't involved?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They were involved — again, they were the conduit, or the mechanism, for our connection to the carrier. But that information was delivered to the Tallahassee Police Department, and the point that it was actually heard or listened to was only within the Tallahassee Police Department.
MR. DECOSTE: All right, so let's come back to this. There's going to be a human being sitting there pressing start for it to be recorded, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They don't necessarily have to press start to initiate the recording. As long as they are present and logged in, then the recording will begin.
MR. DECOSTE: And if somebody is not logged in or present, then we won't have a recording of it, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, it goes a step further than that, because there can be an officer that's there and they deem something not relevant, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And we wouldn't have a recording of that.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: As long as they minimize that portion of the conversation, then no, we would not have record of that.
MR. DECOSTE: Well, they could deem the entire call not relevant as well, too.
MR. DECOSTE: Right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They could. I'm certainly not aware of that happening.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, it wasn't just a small team of people that were monitoring these calls. There were a lot of people at Tallahassee Police Department, a lot of law enforcement that were involved in this, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Working throughout the day, throughout the night.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct?
MR. DECOSTE: People need to take food breaks, take bathroom breaks — could have been left unattended. We could be missing calls, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Again, the scheduling of officers took into account all of that, and there were people to provide relief or breaks — something that I did myself. If someone needed to be away from the terminal, then someone else could log in and take that.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Or if it's really slow, one person could monitor multiple lines.
MR. DECOSTE: So there's not a reason that we shouldn't have at least attempted to listen to calls at the end of the day, though it's within the discretion of people at Tallahassee Police Department of what's recorded and what's not, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Who monitors you?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: The supervisors and the case agents.
MR. DECOSTE: Outside of Tallahassee Police Department, who monitors this whole process?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: The State Attorney's Office.
MR. DECOSTE: This State Attorney's Office?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: These prosecutors.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You were asked some questions about people talking in code.
MR. DECOSTE: Remember that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, I do.
MR. DECOSTE: And how the people wouldn't want to talk openly over the phone, and that they would use code to avoid sounding guilty, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Sometimes, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Wouldn't you agree with me that the logical step would be to just not use phones?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It would be.
MR. DECOSTE: Or to use encrypted communication like WhatsApp?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It would be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: None of what you have here through these wiretaps involves non-electronic communication, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Doesn't include FaceTimes.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Doesn't include WhatsApp.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Or any other encrypted forms of communication?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: One brief moment.
MR. DECOSTE: The wiretaps begin early April, they end mid-June, early June?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You have — correct me if I'm wrong — 359 recorded phone calls?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe we probably have more than that. I don't know the exact number.
MR. DECOSTE: Is it around that number, give or take 50?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Well, between the three intercepts, it could be around that number.
MR. DECOSTE: And given the fact that Katherine Magbanua was one of the only two people that was being recorded on those wiretaps, you agree with me that it's a lot of her phone calls that are being recorded?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Well, the number of phone calls being recorded would be directly relative to how frequently someone is on the phone. If they're communicating a lot, then there would be a lot more recordings than if they were not. But we don't have an effect on how many are actually made.
MR. DECOSTE: My question is a lot simpler than that. You have the recordings, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: We do, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: A lot of them are of Katherine, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They are, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Before you do these wiretaps, you don't send notification to the people that you're recording, do you? They don't know they're being recorded, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And this is all after what's been termed the bump?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Before and after, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Of those hundreds of phone calls, not once does Katherine Magbanua talk about being involved in the murder of Dan Markel, does she?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I think others would be better to speak about the content of the communications and what the meaning behind those might be.
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing further.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Redirect.
MS. NORRIS: You were asked some questions about who oversees law enforcement, and you mentioned the State Attorney's Office is involved, and it's also overseen by a court, correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct. The judge ultimately oversees. There are periodic reportings that are made to the judge on a 10-day or a different incremental time.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There is a report made to the judge so that the judge may see the types of communications that are being intercepted — that we are, in fact, getting communications that are relevant to the investigation — and then the judge continues to authorize that continued interception.
MS. NORRIS: And the minimization you were asked about is not a choice of law enforcement. It is — you are required to do that by the court order authorizing the tap.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct, yes.
MS. NORRIS: Mr. DeCoste asked you about not having any wiretaps on the Adelsons. You did have a wiretap on an Adelson family member.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: We did, yes.
MS. NORRIS: Charlie Adelson.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. NORRIS: With respect to whose phone you're tapping — if you have a wiretap on Katherine Magbanua's phone, for example, which you did in this case, would that capture any calls that she made to Charlie Adelson?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It would, yes.
MS. NORRIS: Any calls that she made to Sigfredo Garcia?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It would, yes.
MS. NORRIS: Or any other people that she calls on that particular phone number?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. NORRIS: Same for Charlie Adelson. If he were to call Donna Adelson, would you be able to monitor that phone call?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: We would, yes.
MS. NORRIS: And if vice versa — Donna Adelson or Harvey Adelson or Wendi Adelson called him — you would be able to monitor that conversation as well.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. NORRIS: Can you go back in time and do a wiretap?
MS. NORRIS: So you have to have everything in place to monitor calls in the future?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct, yes.
MS. NORRIS: So we can't go back to June or July 2014 to listen to the content of conversations?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: No, we can't.
MS. NORRIS: And what is the purpose? I know you were mentioning shifts. My understanding, based on what you just testified to, was these calls are being monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week by someone, correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct, yes.
MS. NORRIS: That way you can make sure everything is monitored, exculpatory or otherwise?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MS. NORRIS: Thank you, Sergeant Corbitt. I have no further questions.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Alright. Any juror have a question of this witness on this topic? Alright. You can step down. Call your next witness.