1.Christopher Corbitt — Direct/Cross/Redirect (Recall 2)
563 linesPROCEEDINGS
BAILIFF: All rise. Court's now in session. The Honorable Judge James C. Hankinson's presiding.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be seated, please, folks. We're here in the State of Florida v. Garcia and Magbanua. Let the record reflect the defendants are present with their attorneys.
where do you expect to start today, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: We're starting with Cor -- 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: We're going to be dealing with the wiretaps this morning?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if the Government -- good morning. 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.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. So let's go through the wiretaps. Does the State still intend to present the A through SS, that was presented Friday?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. we'll go through each of those. I'm going to group these a little bit so we can move this along.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, may I lay out a general objection, first?
JUDGE HANKINSON: If it's real brief.
MR. DECOSTE: Real brief. with respect to the transcripts, I know that the State -- or they've advised me that they're not seeking to have it 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, and 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. Should have given it to us then.
with respect to accuracy, there is no ability for us to be able to determine the accuracy, because, frankly, we can't go over all that in 48 hours.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Ms. Cappleman.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: If they say so, Judge. I mean, I sent them to be discovered as soon as I received them. So...
JUDGE HANKINSON: 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: well, 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 e-mails to show that they sent them. But all I show is in my system them listed as discovery. So I think -- they're demonstrative aids. They're transcripts of calls that have been known to the defense since the inception of the case.
JUDGE HANKINSON: The whole point about transcripts is whether they have some objection to the accuracy of them. 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. I mean, in general, they're accurate. But I think that's why we give the instruction for the jury to rely on the evidence itself, but the transcript is just designed as an aid.
JUDGE HANKINSON: So when did you get them, Mr. DeCoste?
MR. DECOSTE: when the Court did, on Friday, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, I've had time to review them. So I guess you did, too.
we'll start with A, B, and Cc. There's three conversations that 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, Ms. Adelson to Charlie Adelson and back and forth?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That they are not hearsay. They're not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted but rather being offered to show what Ms. 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.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Are you done?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yeah. I thought maybe you'd have a question.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I assume both defendants object to them as hearsay.
MR. ZANGENEH: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor. The state of mind of --
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I'll sustain the objection. A, B, and C will be -- sustain objection. It's hearsay. An academic -- perhaps only of academic interest, but I think of significance. The state of the law in the State of Florida -- I am sustaining the objection because the law in the State of Florida, at this point, says so. Frankly, I think the law and conspiracy admission of statement, hearsay statements in the State of Florida is outdated.
They all go back to a 1949 US Supreme Court case, Krulewitch v. US, 336 US 440. That's K-R-U-L-E-W-I-T-C-H. That says a conspiracy ended at the time the conspiracy is ended. Frankly, Kru/ew7tch is -- does not appear to be followed by any circuit court -- federal circuit courts in the United States that I can find at this point in time. I haven't done a totally exhaustive research, but Kru/ew7tch predates the Federal Rules of Evidence.
It applied to common law definition of conspiracy which requires that the statements in -- be jin furtherance of the conspiracy charged in the indictment. That's no longer followed by any of the federal circuits based upon Federal Rules of Evidence. 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. Therefore, I'm bound by the Florida law. But, frankly, if there's appeal out of this, the State needs to take a cross appeal as to that point. There isn't much conspiracy law in Florida, and it just never has been updated but it should be. But anyway, based upon current binding precedent, I sustain the objection to A, B, and Cc.
Next we have --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And, Judge, may I add one quick thing to that? Did you -- did Your Honor review Un7ted States v. Flelds? I already cited that --
JUDGE HANKINSON: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: -- on an earlier motion. Okay. So that A, B, and C would not be offered as a coconspirator --
JUDGE HANKINSON: I've sustained their objection. Thank you.
D and E are on April 19th, Charlie Adelson to Ms. Magbanua. And then on April 20th, again, Adelson to Magbanua. Defense wish to be heard on those three calls?
MR. ZANGENEH: Your Honor, the def -- Mr. Garcia, good morning, Your Honor. Mr. Garcia's position is that, if the Court does entertain these calls, that we would move to sever the cases between Mr. Garcia and Ms. Magbanua, that if Ms. Magbanua was not a codefendant in this case, this evidence would not be admissible against Mr. Garcia.
And, obviously, this is something that incorporates culpability within the Government's case towards Mr. Garcia. So with regards to the Court's position, that's where Mr. Garcia stands, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua.
MR. DECOSTE: One brief moment, Your Honor.
(off-the-record discussion.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: And what I'm looking for is some special issue with these.
(off-the-record discussion.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Come on now. we're very short on time. Y'all knew this was coming.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, sir. Mr. Adelson's portion will be hearsay. Lacks us the ability to be able to cross him, as well, too.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. I'll overrule that objection. D, E, and F will be admitted.
G, Mr. Adelson to Donna Adelson. 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 coconspirator statement but rather as evidence of the conspiracy and it's not hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I assume both the defendants object to G?
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. ZANGENEH: Mr. Garcia does.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I sustain the objection as to G. It's hearsay.
H, anybody -- any of the defense have any special objection? I understand you're generally objecting. Any special objection as to H?
MR. ZANGENEH: Just renew my previous objections, Your Honor.
MR. DECOSTE: Same and add relevance. Your Honor, 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: Okay. H will be admitted.
I and J are Ms. Adelson to -- Charlie Adelson to Donna Adelson and then back. State have any new argument as to admission of them?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: NO, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I assume the defense is objecting to both I and J.
MR. ZANGENEH: Mr. Garcia is, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Sustain the objection as to I and J.
K, defense have any -- K and L, I'm sorry. They're both April 21st. Defense have any special objection as to K and L?
(off-the-record discussion.)
MR. ZANGENEH: Just what's been previously stated with --
COURT CLERK: Okay.
MR. ZANGENEH: -- regards to Mr. DeCoste's --
JUDGE HANKINSON: That's what I'm looking for, anything new.
MR. ZANGENEH: ~-- previous argument.
MR. DECOSTE: Same here, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I'll overrule the objection to K and to L. They'll be admitted.
M, Charlie Adelson to Donna Adelson on April 21st. And then Charlie Adelson to Harvey Adelson and Donna Adelson on April 22nd.
State have any additional argument as to them?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: NO, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I assume defense objects as to M and to N.
MR. ZANGENEH: Correct, Judge.
(off-the-record discussion.)
MR. DECOSTE: Same objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I sustain the objection as to M and N. Then we have a series of O, P, Q, R -- well, let's leave out R and S. Let's see. 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. Defense have any special objection as to those sets of --
MR. ZANGENEH: Just to --
JUDGE HANKINSON: -- conversation, O, P, and Q.
MR. ZANGENEH: Same objection, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua.
MR. DECOSTE: Same objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I'll overrule that objection. Will be admitted. There are two text messages. I have not seen 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 --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: -- is that exactly what's said?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any special objection to R and S?
MR. ZANGENEH: Actually, no objection from Mr. Garcia.
(off-the-record discussion. )
MR. DECOSTE: Same objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll overrule Magbanua's objection as to Rand S. Admit R and Ss.
T and U are conversations between Charlie Adelson and Donna Adelson.
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 I'll sustain the objection.
Then we have, on April 26th, a call from Ms. Magbanua to Charlie Adelson. There is a call to -- from Charlie Adelson to Donna Adelson, then a call from Charlie Adelson to Ms. Magbanua, and then a call from Mr. Garcia to Ms. Magbanua.
Defense have any special objection as to any of those conversations?
MR. ZANGENEH: Judge, we, we -- Saam Zangeneh for Mr. Garcia, we do have a question as to authenticity with regards to, to call Y, No. 128, taken April 26th, 2016, at 5:30 --
JUDGE HANKINSON: we'll take those up during the course of the proceeding. Any other objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua?
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: WwW.
(off-the-record discussion.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Do you wish to be heard? Yes?
MR. DECOSTE: Same objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I am going to admit the call between Charlie Adelson and Donna Adelson. I know that's somewhat inconsistent with my prior rulings, but I think that that series of phone conversations there's a showing of a direct connection between them. As to the discussion of the phone number, I think that connection is relevant. The statement is not being offered for the truth of the matter but to show the connection. So I'm going to admit V, WwW, X and Y, on April 26.
There's Z on Ms. Magbanua to Charlie Adelson.
Defense have any special objection to that?
MR. ZANGENEH: Same objection for Mr. Garcia, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I'm trying to follow. we're on call 216?
JUDGE HANKINSON: we're on 2125.
MR. DECOSTE: Same objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I'll overrule the objection. I'm going to admit Z.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, I do have one additional one. I apologize.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: So Ms. Cappleman had shared with us exclusion of some calls because it talks about --
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm sorry. You're talking down, and I can't hear you. I'm sorry.
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah. So Ms. Cappleman had agreed to remove out some phone calls because of reference to marijuana or potential marijuana. Before we started today, I let her know that that call references it. That would be an additional objection, because I don't believe it's been redacted out. There is a conversation about that, and it isn't a charged crime.
JUDGE HANKINSON: A conversation about marijuana?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct, Your Honor. Picking up a plant.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Say what?
MR. DECOSTE: Picking up a plant. There's specific reference to picking up a plant, and I think that any layperson would tie that over to marijuana.
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, this layperson did not.
MR. DECOSTE: And on page 4, Charlie tells her to smoke a fat one, a big effing -- I'm getting this from codefendant counsel right now, Your Honor.
MR. ZANGENEH: Yeah, Judge. It's on page 4 -- Saam Zangeneh on behalf of Mr. Garcia. Charlie Adelson -- the transcript says, go on vacation, leave the effing kids at home, smoke a big, fat effing joint, and have a cocktail.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That portion has been redacted.
JUDGE HANKINSON: what about the reference to the plant? where are you getting that?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The plant is still in. TI don't --
JUDGE HANKINSON: where do you see that --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: -- it.
JUDGE HANKINSON: -- 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 reviewing these transcripts to do this weekend.
MR. ZANGENEH: Page 4, line 7. I'm sorry. It's page 4, seven to ten. Judge, 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 my copy.
MR. ZANGENEH: Thank you.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Has that been redacted from the tape?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: AA and BB, I'm kind of on the fence about, truthfully. It is Donna Adelson to Charlie Adelson, and then back the other way. Kind of explains the wrong number that, apparently, is being used. Shows the connection between the other calls. I'll hear any argument on AA and BB that you want to make specific as to that situation.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Again, Judge. It's not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It'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 is now relaying that to Ms. Adelson. But no one's actually called the number yet. 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.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Defense.
(off-the-record discussion.)
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 had refused to come -- had refused to, to abide by subpoenas sent 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 and the son and the mother. And while the Government's going to come forward and say, well, these are all lies and, you know, people proffer X and people proffered yY.
As counsel for Mr. Garcia, as the Court knows, our defense is that the Adelsons instilled Mr. Rivera's services for this. Someone from Mr. Rivera's camp came and gave a threatening -- or gave an extortionist type of document to wendi Adelson. And so we don't have the ability to explore the contents of what this call meant, if there were other things that went outside the call.
So in addition to our previous arguments, we would say that this clearly violates our right to confront the witnesses in this, in this call and to clarify issues which are relevant to our defense.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor. To add on top of that, Your Honor may see myself and Ms. Kawass feverishly talking back and forth. And what we're discussing at counsel table is whether we make a 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 is completely different conversations going on that were causing the conversations between Charles Adelson, Katherine Magbanua, and then Katherine Magbanua and Sigfredo Garcia. They're just seeing the tail end of it. That paints a very different picture.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right.
MR. DECOSTE: Our position is --
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm going to allow AA and BB. I'll overrule the objection.
That will take us to CC through EE, which are calls between Charlie Adelson and Ms. Magbanua. Anybody have any special argument as to that from the defense side?
MR. ZANGENEH: Judge, I just want to clarify. You are admitting AA and BB? TI couldn't --
JUDGE HANKINSON: AA and BB --
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay. Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: -- will be admitted.
MR. ZANGENEH: with regards to CC, we'll stand on our previous objections.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. All right. CC, DD, EE, any special objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge. Not from Mr. Garcia.
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing special, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I'm going to allow CC, DD, and EE.
Sustain the objection as to FF and -- again, I'ma little bit on the fence as to GG. Is a call by Mr. Adelson to the undercover agent. 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, this goes towards our previous argument about our right to confront Mr. Charlie Adelson regarding the contents of this conversation, and the previous objections that we previously made.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua.
MR. DECOSTE: would Your Honor mind if I remained seated --
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
MR. DECOSTE: -- to move faster?
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. If you'll keep your voice up.
(off-the-record discussion. )
MR. DECOSTE: Same objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I'm going to allow GG.
Then we have -- this says, unanswered. I guess that means there's no conversation, Ms. Cappleman.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That's correct.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. And then we have 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. That would be HH, II, simply a text message, JJ, KK, LL, MN -- MM, then NN, which is a text, and 00, which is another phone conversation.
Anybody have any special objection from the defense side as to that series of calls?
MR. ZANGENEH: The only question that I have is, Judge, on the summary that the Government gave us on NN, call No. 1483, April 28th -- I'm sorry. The text. It says, I called three times. No answer and I didn't leave a message. And then in parentheses, it says, hang up call at approximately 2:10 on undercover's phone.
Obviously, the Government's not going to introduce what's in parentheses, correct?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I think I can ask about that.
JUDGE HANKINSON: It's not a document, though.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is there a document about a hang up call?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
MR. ZANGENEH: I just was confirming that that wasn't --
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right.
MR. ZANGENEH: -- part of --
COURT CLERK: Magbanua, anything special as to those?
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing special.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I'll overrule the objection. I'll allow HH through oo.
PP is the following date, April 29th, Adelson to Ms. Magbanua. Then there's May 13th, Adelson to Ms. Magbanua. And then from Ms. Magbanua to Charlie Adelson.
Defense have any special argument as to those?
MR. ZANGENEH: Not for Mr. Garcia, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, under the rule of completeness, I would argue that calls 3769, 3939, and 2656, these are calls on --
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: So I'm going to allow those calls, PP, QQ, and RR.
The last one, SS, I'm just struggling to see the relevance of the call.
Do you want to explain any relevance as to that, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: This is the call that's previously been admitted with Ms. Johnson.
JUDGE HANKINSON: One-eighty was admitted, Johnson --
JUDGE HANKINSON: -- to Charlie. I'm talking about the one above that, SS.
JUDGE HANKINSON: It says Adelson to Magbanua.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes. That's being offered to show that Mr. Adelson was paying for Ms. Magbanua's Lexus repairs.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Defense.
MR. ZANGENEH: Judge, we'd object, once again, with our previous objection. Also, I believe that there is discussions of marijuana use peppered throughout the call with regards to Ms. Magbanua. And, once again, we believe, at this time, after the completion of the Court's determination as to what calls are being admitted, we'd move to sever Mr. Garcia and Ms. Magbanua's trial.
MR. DECOSTE: Ms. Magbanua objects to relevance. Your Honor, again, I believe that the Government is trying to get in certain calls to have sound bites of things to argue. There's no relevance of things being paid for. Throughout this entire trial during the State's case, they've entered in text messages, other evidence that Charles Adelson was paying for things for Katherine Magbanua well before they thought 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: Further, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll sustain the objection to ss. I mean, it's all over the waterfront. There might be some slight probative value, but it causes a lot more confusion than it helps. So that would be my ruling on those. Do you, do you need me to repeat those, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Let's talk about the recording April 20th, 2016. I've previously ruled that the conversation was admissible, left open the use of the transcript. I've had a chance to go back and again review that.
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: And consistent with Martinez, was he part of the conversation or monitoring the conversation as it occurred?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Well, how do you square with Martinez to admit the transcript in that process?
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'm going to 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. It is very difficult to follow. I did it multiple times with the aid of headsets. It is very difficult to follow. TI don't think a jury would make the effort to follow the recording which is, as pointed out, is the evidence, not the transcript. And so I sustain the objection as to the transcript.
He would make some argument that he's an expert? I didn't quite follow that, Ms. Cappleman.
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: I hope you have some authority to that effect. I need to see it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. I'll get it for you, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. At this point, my ruling is it's not admissible. You show me something new, I'l] consider it. It may be. I need to have a proffer from Mr. Sanford, but I think that's unlikely.
All right. what other issues do we need to deal with before we start with the jury?
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, we have an objection, as well, to the Dolce Vita enhanced version video. During deposition -- now, 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.
But we also asked him on who it was that did the enhancement. 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.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Ms. Cappleman.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'll just use the original audio. The enhancement was not effective.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. Anything else? All right. we'll take five minutes and start with the jury.
(Brief recess.)
BAILIFF: All rise and come to order. Court is back in session.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's have a jury, please.
(Jury enters.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Everybody be seated, please.
Good morning, folks. Thank you for being back here this morning. we're ready to proceed.
You may call your next witness.
MS. NORRIS: State recalls Sergeant Corbitt.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. State your name for the record, please, sir.
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.
whereupon, CHRISTOPHER CORBITT was recalled as a witness, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: 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. Are you married to anyone on this prosecution team?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: No, I'm not.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. 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 to actually -- law enforcement to actually intercept the content of communication. 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 conversations?
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 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.
JUDGE HANKINSON: The Court authorizes wiretaps. That's not a law enforcement decision.
All right. Proceed, Ms. Norris.
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: So it's not true that you -- law enforcement can just always listen in 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 or monitoring those communications. It displays for us the calls. It tells us the number that's calling in or being called. And it gives us some control in being able to stop and start the recordings or enter information.
We do synopsis 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, you know, kind of 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 has to provision equipment to send us that information, and then troubleshooting along the ways if something's not happening or we're not getting everything 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: And you mentioned something about stopping and starting the recordings. Do you happen to go through, you and the people who were 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, you know, conspiracy or money or weapons or whatever it may be. They're aware of the types of evidence that we're seeking. And then, then, yes, they monitor in real time.
we're not allowed to listen to all conversation, so 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 what 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, that varies a little bit by who, who may be party to the conversation, the experience of the monitor. And there's a lot of things that go into exactly how long it take us to determine whether that conversation is relevant or not. But once, 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, do you have to be on the lookout for code talk?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes. It is common. People don't speak openly or plainly --
MR. ZANGENEH: Judge, I have an objection to this. Can we approach?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
(Sidebar discussion held as follows):
MR. ZANGENEH: Your Honor, at this time I would object to any reference to code or attempting to manipulate conversations into something other than they are. what they would do is that would qualify Sergeant Corbitt as an expert in that field. And if they attempt to qualify that, that record, then we would ask for a Daubert hearing with regards to the specific issue of translating conversation into code.
MR. DECOSTE: Same objection, improper in --
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll overrule that objection. He's explaining how they do the minimization. I think it's necessary for him to explain how they decide that.
(Sidebar discussion concludes.)
MS. NORRIS: May I proceed?
BY MS. NORRIS:
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 mention 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 do we -- how does that sound if we're listening to a wiretapped call? How do we hear that the officers are minimizing the convo?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There is -- as you're listening to the recordings, there will be an audio tone that you'll 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 can go back and listen to it later if we wanted to. Once we hit that button, that, 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 that beeping -- I think it's a beeping sound -- is where it's minimizing and 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: Ido. 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 is -- of 2016 was when we began receiving audio on that phone.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. 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 was in charge of supervising and 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, who were responsible for that. I was kind of the technical supervisor in 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: Okay. And who keeps or maintains the recordings that were created from all of the phone conversations that were monitored?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: In real time, they are 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 securely 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?
JUDGE HANKINSON: That's not a proper question.
MS. NORRIS: All right. I have no further questions, Sergeant Corbitt. Thank you.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Thank you.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Cross. Garcia.
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, Judge.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ZANGENEH:
MR. ZANGENEH: Good morning, Sergeant.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Good morning.
MR. ZANGENEH: whose decision was it to focus on Charlie Adelson and Katherine Magbanua's numbers?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: well, that certainly would have been the case investigators or the investigative team as a whole. And I don't -- we didn't 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 ill wire intercepts for, correct?
JUDGE HANKINSON: I think you said three numbers.
MR. ZANGENEH: I apologize.
BY MR. ZANGENEH:
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, 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 that's, that's -- the purpose of that document is just to initiate chatter, correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: who, who -- now, if you remember, we had conversations with regards to where Luis Rivera was staying --
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: -- correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, sir.
MR. ZANGENEH: And there was an issue where we proffered to you that he had a home address that was on his license, correct? Do you remember that?
MS. NORRIS: Objection, outside the scope, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Are you going to tie this into the wiretap process, Mr. Zangeneh?
MR. ZANGENEH: I'm getting there, Judge. Just give me a little --
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, you got to be a little quicker getting there, please.
MR. ZANGENEH: A little leeway.
BY MR. ZANGENEH:
MR. ZANGENEH: All right. So you remember Jessica Rodriguez, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Ido. Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: All right. And that was the person whose residence you had listed under Rivera's residence, correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: Did you -- was -- did law enforcement initiate a Title ill 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: Okay. And that 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. 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 --
MR. ZANGENEH: Give me one second, Judge.
(off-the-record discussion. )
MR. ZANGENEH: Thank you, Sergeant Corbitt. No further questions.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Good morning.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Good morning.
MR. DECOSTE: I feel like everybody is talking really fast right now. So, again, we have wiretaps set up for Charles Adelson, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Katherine Magbanua.
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. Let me correct that. Wendi Adelson wiretap?
MR. DECOSTE: Harvey Adelson?
MR. DECOSTE: Donna Adelson?
MR. DECOSTE: Jessica Rodriguez?
MR. DECOSTE: This could have been done.
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: 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, 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.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: In 2016?
MR. DECOSTE: Call detail records.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, we do.
MR. DECOSTE: If we can go sidebar, Judge.
(Sidebar discussion held as follows):
MR. DECOSTE: All right, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: what?
MR. DECOSTE: I think the witness -- and I thought -- asked for a sidebar. He may be a little bit confused, and I wanted to bring it to the Court's attention. We have no call detail records after early 2016.
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, you asked him about 2016.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Right.
MS. NORRIS: Right.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And you said there were call details from 2016. So --
MR. DECOSTE: The way he answered it, I felt it was almost going to give the indication that they do exist, which we don't have past --
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, you just said they have 2016 records.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And that's what he said.
MR. DECOSTE: All right.
JUDGE HANKINSON: what's the issue?
MR. DECOSTE: Then there is no issue.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
(Sidebar discussion concludes.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, do you know the dates of what has been referred to as the bump?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't recall the specific date, but I know that it 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 cannot tell you specifically off the top of my head. And let me clarify that 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 was 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 and then again, 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 we receive -- call detail records 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 pin register or trap trace.
And that is, again, the carrier in real time is 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: Perfect. 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 pin register and trap trace on his number at the time.
MR. DECOSTE: Believe means you're not sure, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm -- I could look and be certain but we were -- 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 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: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: The answer right now.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: To clarify, we don't have any wiretap of wendi Adelson, Harvey Adelson, Donna Adelson --
JUDGE HANKINSON: We're not going to repeat, Mr. Decoste. Do you have something new?
BY MR. DECOSTE:
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, a 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 somewhere -- someone to be 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 -- or if it's not relevant.
MR. DECOSTE: And some of this was being done outside of the Tallahassee Police Department, right?
MR. DECOSTE: 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 a 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 as, too, 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 was 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: People need to take food breaks, take bathroom breaks. Could have been left unattended. we could have been missing calls, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: No. 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. or if it's really slow, one person could monitor multiple lines. So there's not a reason that we shouldn't have at least attempted to listen to calls.
MR. DECOSTE: 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?
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?
MR. DECOSTE: These prosecutors.
MR. DECOSTE: You were asked some questions about people talking in code. Do you 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 using encrypted communication, like whatsApp?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It would be. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: None of what you have here for these wiretaps involves nonelectronic 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, Your Honor?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
(off-the-record discussion.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, last few questions. The wiretaps begin early April. They end mid June?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Early June, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You have, and 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 it doesn't -- we don't have an effect on how many are actually made.
MR. DECOSTE: My question was a lot simpler than that. You have the recordings, right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: we do. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: A lot are -- 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 people that you're recording, do you?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: we do not.
MR. DECOSTE: 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: Yes, sir.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. NORRIS:
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 oversaw by a Court, correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct. There is -- the judge ultimately oversees -- there are periodic reportings that are made to the judge on a ten-day or if --
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, relevance.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MS. NORRIS:
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Or a different incremental time 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: Charles 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 Charles 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 Charles Adelson, if he were to call Donna Adelson, would that -- 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 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've just testified to was these calls are being monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week by someone.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct. Yes.
MS. NORRIS: And that way you can make sure everything is monitored, exculpatory or inculpatory.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MS. NORRIS: All right. Thank you, Sergeant Corbitt.
MS. NORRIS: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Any juror have a question of this witness on this topic?
(No audible response.)