Skip to content
Dan Markel — Case Archive
Garcia–Magbanua trial-day trial-day Georgia CapplemanAnna NorrisChristopher DeCosteSaam ZangenehLouis BronsteinChristopher CorbittCraig IsomPatrick SanfordMichael DillmoreJohn SawickiStephen DowningMary HullJason Newlincrossredirectrecrossjury_questiondirectDay 8 - October 8, 2019 FBI Agent Patrick Sanford underwent extended cross, redirect, and recross before the prosecution rested; Judge Hankinson denied both defendants' motions for judgment of acquittal, and the defense case began with Downing and Sawicki before Garcia waived testimony and rested. Magbanua's defense continued with Dillmore, Corbitt, Newlin, and recalled Isom, closing with an Apple subscriber-record ruling.
← Day 7 Garcia–Magbanua Day 9 →

Day 8 - October 8, 2019

Sanford Cross-Examination, State Rests, Acquittal Motions Denied, Defense Opens

Judge James C. Hankinson
29 Proceedings
11 Pages
9 Witnesses
3,626 Lines
Day 8 of 11
Appearing:
Georgia Cappleman Anna Norris Christopher DeCoste Saam Zangeneh Louis Bronstein Christopher Corbitt Craig Isom Patrick Sanford Michael Dillmore John Sawicki Stephen Downing Mary Hull Jason Newlin

FBI Agent Patrick Sanford underwent extended cross, redirect, and recross before the prosecution rested; Judge Hankinson denied both defendants' motions for judgment of acquittal, and the defense case began with Downing and Sawicki before Garcia waived testimony and rested. Magbanua's defense continued with Dillmore, Corbitt, Newlin, and recalled Isom, closing with an Apple subscriber-record ruling.

Full day summary

The day opened with a brief scheduling discussion about closing-argument preparation time before FBI Special Agent Patrick Sanford returned for extensive cross-examination by Christopher DeCoste, who probed the nightclub, wiretap, bump-flyer, and proffer investigations; Sanford agreed Rivera was the only witness on Magbanua's involvement and admitted the FBI failed to photograph the original bump flyer. Judge Hankinson struck DeCoste's "Federal Bureau of Intimidation" remark and warned against further personal comments. On redirect, Georgia Cappleman introduced a November 2014 text in which Charlie Adelson told Magbanua to describe her work as office-based, and elicited that Sanford did not hear Donna say "Katie" in the three identified calls before Charlie contacted Magbanua, and that Charlie contacted only Magbanua among his self-reported 87 ex-girlfriends after the bump. Jury questions followed on nightclub income, an April 28 call attributed to Garcia, and the Rivera custody video; the judge gave the jury a plain-language hearsay instruction explaining why wiretap calls are treated differently from Rivera's own interview. After lunch, FBI Agent Louis Bronstein described a poor-quality Dolce Vita surveillance recording of Charlie Adelson and Magbanua, and recalled witnesses Craig Isom and Mary Hull addressed Wendi Adelson's proximity to the crime scene, an attorney's call during Magbanua's arrest, and Magbanua's and Garcia's tax and bank records, including bounced Club Fate checks and Garcia's zero-income filings for 2013-2014. The prosecution then rested. Both defendants moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing the case rested on Luis Rivera's inconsistent testimony and failed to exclude reasonable innocent hypotheses; Judge Hankinson denied both motions. The defense case opened with FHP Sergeant Stephen Downing on a 2014 Rivera traffic stop, followed by Garcia's retained digital-forensics expert John Sawicki, who identified gaps between Charlie Adelson's carrier records and iCloud data and could not exclude off-carrier communication apps, while conceding the gaps were consistent with messages simply not being present rather than proof of deletion. Garcia then completed a formal colloquy waiving his right to testify, and the Garcia defense rested. Magbanua's defense continued with TPD's Michael Dillmore and Christopher Corbitt recalled on phone contacts and cell-tower data, SAO investigator Jason Newlin questioned about unrecorded cooperation meetings and gun searches and agreeing his approach to one interview had been "the wrong approach," and Craig Isom recalled again on inconsistencies in Rivera's initial September 30, 2016 proffer. The day closed with argument outside the jury's presence over a disputed Apple subscriber record showing a phone number one digit different from Rivera's testimony; Judge Hankinson admitted the record but barred DeCoste from calling it a phone record for the disputed number.

Video thumbnail 4:06:53
Watch →

1. Patrick Sanford — Cross (Continued)/Redirect/Recross

Day 8 opened with a brief scheduling discussion on closing arguments, then continued and completed the cross-examination of FBI Special Agent Patrick Sanford — including redirect, recross, and juror questions — before the lunch recess.

→
Procedural
Closing-Argument Schedule and Charge-Conference Logistics
Cross
Patrick Sanford Christopher DeCoste
1661 lines

DeCoste used Sanford's cross to emphasize Rivera's importance, elicit limits in Sanford's own investigative work, challenge the unrecorded proffer and unphotographed bump flyer, and present alternative readings and communication theories without establishing them as fact.

Redirect
Patrick Sanford Georgia Cappleman
184 lines

Cappleman used redirect to answer cross themes with the bounced Club Fae checks, employee knowledge, Exhibit 185's work-location direction, Donna's three pre-contact calls, and the absence of identified Charlie-Latin King communication; the prosecution theories remained attributed.

Recross
Patrick Sanford Christopher DeCoste
19 lines

On a recross limited to Exhibit 185, Sanford confirmed the text's exact wording; the judge then stopped DeCoste's unfinished effort to state an inference from that wording as speculation.

Jury Questions
Patrick Sanford James C. Hankinson
113 lines

Jury questions covered tax, employment, searches, and undercover contacts; follow-up showed Sanford was unaware of nightclub subpoenas and could not identify who made the hang-up call attributed to Garcia, while LL placed Garcia on a separate call nine minutes later.

Procedural
Juror Evidence Questions and Lunch Recess

Highlights

Patrick Sanford - Cross ruling Judge Hankinson stopped DeCoste's personal comments, later struck the 'Federal Bureau of Intimidation' remark, instructed the jury to disregard it, and warned that further violations would bring additional consequences. Juror Evidence Questions and Lunch Recess procedural action Judge delivered an impromptu hearsay instruction explaining why wiretap calls are treated differently from Rivera's interview video, spanning a four-utterance plain-language explanation. Juror Evidence Questions and Lunch Recess “it is not hearsay when somebody takes somebody's statement and presents it against them, but it is hearsay if that person who is making the conversation tries to use it back.” — James C. Hankinson The judge's plain-language summary of the hearsay rule directly responds to a juror question and frames why wiretap calls are admissible against defendants while Rivera's own interview video is not.

2. Louis Bronstein — Direct/Cross

FBI Special Agent Louis Bronstein described a covert April 2016 recording of Charlie Adelson meeting Katherine Magbanua at a Dolce Vita restaurant in Sunny Isles — a surveillance operation he participated in as a junior agent, though the resulting audio-video recording was largely unintelligible.

→
Direct
Louis Bronstein Georgia Cappleman
56 lines

FBI Agent Bronstein authenticated the covert Dolce Vita surveillance recording of Charlie Adelson’s April 2016 meeting with Magbanua; State’s Exhibit 154 was admitted despite largely unintelligible audio, with only one audible fragment — referencing ‘Mrs. Adelson’ — recovered from the session.

Cross
Louis Bronstein Saam Zangeneh
49 lines

Zangeneh established Bronstein's junior role, that Bronstein personally received no instruction to record Garcia and Magbanua together, and that the Dolce Vita device was a laptop-sized messenger bag.

Cross
Louis Bronstein Christopher DeCoste
25 lines

DeCoste established general FBI report-writing practice and elicited that Bronstein could not confirm from his vague memory that Charlie Adelson showed Magbanua a paper consistent with Exhibit 120.

3. Craig Isom — Direct/Cross (Recall 1)

Recalled TPD detective Craig Isom addressed Wendi Adelson's July 2014 crime-scene visit and a phone call from Charlie Adelson's attorney during Magbanua's October 2016 arrest; brief cross-examination on voluntary surrender followed, and Judge Hankinson issued three clarifying instructions to the jury on stricken testimony and the non-evidentiary status of attorney questions.

→
Direct
Craig Isom Georgia Cappleman
32 lines

Isom confirmed Wendi Adelson's reported approach to the crime-scene tape and a call from Charlie Adelson's attorney during Magbanua's arrest; a sidebar interrupted before any answer about the caller's awareness.

Cross
Craig Isom Christopher DeCoste
15 lines

Isom said he had not been informed before Magbanua's arrest that she would voluntarily surrender; the court then blocked DeCoste from reopening the September 30 Rivera meeting as outside the recalled direct.

Procedural
Isom Juror Question and Evidence Clarification

4. Mary Hull — Direct/Cross/Redirect (Recall)

Mary Hull's recall testimony covered Magbanua's 2013–2015 tax returns and a prosecution demonstrative comparing $46,820 in 2014 cash deposits against $15,390 in reported wages, followed by cross-examination on gaps in Garcia's bank records and whether Magbanua could have earned unreported income at nightclubs.

→
Direct
Mary Hull Anna Norris
169 lines

Hull introduced Magbanua's 2013-2015 tax returns and demonstratives comparing reported wages with cash deposits, including $46,820 deposited in 2014 against $15,390 in wages; the comparison did not establish the deposits' source.

Cross
Mary Hull Saam Zangeneh
12 lines

Hull said Garcia's 2013-2014 account was closed, archived retrieval could be possible, and she did not have the records; the examination did not establish whether retrieval was attempted.

Cross
Mary Hull Christopher DeCoste
37 lines

DeCoste used record gaps and employer payroll taxes to challenge Hull's analysis; Hull could not explain why formal employment was used and could not say from her records that Magbanua did not work at nightclubs.

Redirect
Mary Hull Anna Norris
11 lines

Hull confirmed that two Club Fate entries in Magbanua's 2015 records were checks, not cash, and that both bounced; the exchange did not address all possible nightclub income.

Highlights

Mary Hull - Direct (Recall) testimony highlight Demonstrative Exhibit 189 compared Magbanua's reported wages with cash deposits, including $46,820 deposited in 2014 against $15,390 in reported wages. The demonstrative treated the deposits as additional income for comparison; it did not establish their source.

5. Stephen Downing — Direct/Cross/Redirect

The State rested and the court denied both defendants' motions for judgment of acquittal. The defense then called FHP Sergeant Stephen Downing to examine a June 2014 traffic citation issued to Luis Rivera, touching on a defense hypothetical about the signs expected after cocaine consumption and whether a passenger was in his vehicle.

→
Procedural
State Rests and Judgments of Acquittal
Direct
Stephen Downing Saam Zangeneh
116 lines

Garcia's defense used Downing's June 2014 citation and qualified answers to a cocaine-impairment hypothetical to challenge Rivera's account; the proceeding did not establish that Rivera had consumed five grams before that stop.

Cross
Stephen Downing Georgia Cappleman
45 lines

Cappleman established that Downing had no memory of Rivera or the stop, believed non-criminal dash-camera footage was retained for 30 days, and could not use the citation's default field to establish whether an ordinary passenger was present.

Redirect
Stephen Downing Saam Zangeneh
23 lines

Downing repeated that the citation field defaulted to 'no' and could omit actual passengers, then confirmed a 2018 deposition passage discussing the displayed notation; the record did not establish whether Rivera had a passenger.

Highlights

State Rests and Judgments of Acquittal procedural action Prosecution formally rests its case-in-chief, closing the State's evidence. State Rests and Judgments of Acquittal ruling Garcia moves for judgment of acquittal on all three counts — murder in the first degree, solicitation, and conspiracy — arguing the case rests entirely on the incredible and inconsistent testimony of Luis Rivera. Judge Hankinson denies the motion. State Rests and Judgments of Acquittal “We believe that no reasonable juror can come back with a finding of guilt, based on the fact that all the evidence that pertains to these specific charges — the solicitation, the conspiracy, and the first-degree murder charge — are elicited by Luis Rivera, which is undoubtedly one of the least credible witnesses that I've seen testify in any proceeding.” — Saam Zangeneh Zangeneh's thesis for the Garcia JOA: all three charges rest entirely on Rivera, whom he characterizes as the least credible witness he has encountered in any proceeding. State Rests and Judgments of Acquittal ruling Magbanua moves for judgment of acquittal on all counts, arguing the wholly circumstantial case fails to exclude reasonable innocent hypotheses and that Rivera himself admitted he had no direct communication with her. Judge Hankinson denies the motion, applying the same ruling to all previous motions. State Rests and Judgments of Acquittal “The only testimony that they have at this point is from Mr. Rivera, who was impeached not only by direct evidence and records, but also by his own statements. And he essentially is stating — he also testified, sorry, Your Honor — that he had no communication with my client, Ms. Magbanua, before, and that all of this information was coming through Mr. Garcia.” — Tara Kawass Kawass draws on Rivera's own trial testimony that he never communicated directly with Magbanua — framing the prosecution's entire chain of evidence to her as passing through Garcia, not established by direct contact.

6. John Sawicki — Direct/Cross/Redirect

Garcia's retained digital-forensics and cell-tower expert John Sawicki testified on direct, cross, and redirect about gaps between AT&T call-detail records and Charlie Adelson's iCloud extraction, alternative communication channels in Adelson's iCloud, and Magbanua's July 19 Biscayne Boulevard tower activity.

→
Direct
John Sawicki Saam Zangeneh
216 lines

Garcia's expert found large CDR/iCloud count gaps for Adelson, identified off-carrier apps, and described Magbanua's frequent historical use of the Biscayne tower; he did not establish why events were absent, any direct Adelson-Rivera contact, or Magbanua's exact July 19 location.

Cross
John Sawicki Christopher DeCoste
30 lines

DeCoste cross-examined Garcia's digital forensics expert Sawicki on behalf of Magbanua, extracting testimony that phones connect to the strongest signal rather than the nearest tower, that network congestion can redirect connections to a different tower entirely, and that a single tower's coverage can extend ten or more miles — all aimed at undermining the prosecution's use of Magbanua's July 19 Biscayne Boulevard tower hit as location evidence.

Cross
John Sawicki Anna Norris
51 lines

Norris qualified the CDR/iCloud count and obtained Sawicki's agreement that Magbanua's July 19 tower activity could be consistent with Rodriguez's home; the testimony did not place her there.

Redirect
John Sawicki Saam Zangeneh
32 lines

Zangeneh established that Sawicki had reviewed none of Rivera's phones and lacked all associated numbers, then elicited general possibilities involving deleted FaceTime records and disposable phones; no Adelson-Rivera contact was established.

Highlights

John Sawicki - Direct testimony highlight Sawicki revealed that between May 1 and June 20, 2014, Charlie Adelson's AT&T CDR showed 3,084 SMS and MMS messages while his iCloud contained only 1,241 — leaving more than 1,800 messages unaccounted for.

7. Garcia Waives Testimony and Rests

Garcia waived his right to testify after a formal colloquy with Judge Hankinson outside the jury's presence, then the Garcia defense rested without presenting defendant testimony.

→
Procedural
Garcia Waives Testimony and Rests
30 lines

Judge Hankinson conducted an on-record colloquy with Garcia, who said he understood his rights, had not been pressured, and did not wish to testify; Zangeneh then rested the Garcia defense.

Highlights

Garcia Waives Testimony and Rests procedural action Judge Hankinson conducted a structured defendant colloquy confirming Garcia's voluntary and informed waiver of his right to testify: Garcia confirmed he was not impaired, had not been pressured, understood the decision was his alone, and declined to testify. Garcia Waives Testimony and Rests “No, I do not.” — Sigfredo Garcia Garcia's formal on-record waiver of his right to testify in his own defense in a first-degree murder trial. Garcia Waives Testimony and Rests procedural action With the jury seated, Zangeneh announced the Garcia defense rested, closing the Garcia case-in-chief without defendant testimony.

8. Michael Dillmore — Direct (Recall)

Defense recall of TPD digital-forensics investigator Michael Dillmore to read phone records linking a contact saved as "T" on Garcia's device to eight May 2016 messages, including one reading "It's me, Tato," and a number common to both Garcia's phone and Charlie Adelson's iCloud.

→
Direct
Michael Dillmore Christopher DeCoste
89 lines

Magbanua's defense recalled prosecution investigator Dillmore to establish that Garcia's seized phone shared a contact with Charlie Adelson's iCloud and that May 2016 messages on Garcia's phone referenced 'Tato' and Luis Rivera.

9. Christopher Corbitt — Direct/Cross (Recall 3)

Defense recall of TPD analyst Christopher Corbitt addressed cell-tower evidence bearing on whether Wendi Adelson could have been near Trescott on July 17, the Markel children's preschool drop-off schedule, and whether a July 19 phone sector was consistent with Yindra Velazquez's address.

→
Direct
Christopher Corbitt Christopher DeCoste
71 lines

DeCoste recalled Corbitt to revisit Wendi's July 17 tower data, read the preschool stipulation, and test alternative meanings for the Prius lot and Magbanua's July 19 route; Corbitt rejected the proposed Yindra destination for the 10:31–10:32 event.

Cross
Christopher Corbitt Anna Norris
17 lines

On a short cross, Corbitt was uncertain about the exact June vehicle placement, confirmed the July Prius location was consistent with Carmona's residence, and agreed the June phone records were consistent with Magbanua's residence.

10. Jason Newlin — Direct/Cross/Redirect

SAO investigator Jason Newlin testified on defense direct, cross by both co-defendant counsel and the prosecution, and redirect about evidence handling, cooperation-contact sequences, and recording gaps in the investigation.

→
Direct
Jason Newlin Christopher DeCoste
268 lines

Newlin did not remember whether Rivera mentioned Magbanua in August, confirmed he named her on September 30 before her October 1 arrest, described unrecorded contacts, and acknowledged using 'the wrong approach' in the Vega interview; he did not establish a name-for-deal exchange.

Cross
Jason Newlin Saam Zangeneh
6 lines

Zangeneh's two-question cross established that Newlin personally interviewed no other Latin Kings from Rivera's RICO indictment beyond Juan Marcos Vega.

Cross
Jason Newlin Georgia Cappleman
16 lines

Cappleman established the August contact was indirect and unnoted; Newlin did not remember whether Magbanua was mentioned, could identify no inconsistency from what he remembered, and observed no direction about what Rivera needed to say.

Redirect
Jason Newlin Christopher DeCoste
5 lines

Newlin agreed that only Rivera and his attorney were inside Rivera's room during the August information exchange; the answer was limited to firsthand knowledge of that room.

11. Craig Isom — Direct (Recall 2)

Defense recalled TPD Detective Craig Isom to examine inconsistencies in Luis Rivera's first cooperation statement, then the court ruled on admission of Apple subscriber records outside the jury's presence.

→
Direct
Craig Isom Christopher DeCoste
119 lines

DeCoste used Isom's September 30 report and recollection to surface omissions and changes in Rivera's account, including no Wendi-driveway detail, a qualified call-direction discrepancy, no hoods or masks, and no specific third-trip description.

Procedural
Rivera Apple Subscriber Record Ruling

Highlights

Rivera Apple Subscriber Record Ruling ruling Judge Hankinson allowed the Apple material into evidence but barred DeCoste from calling it a phone record for the 935 number. The judge described it as Apple's notation of customer-provided subscriber information associated with a phone purchase or iCloud setup and said the entry could be right or wrong. He also flagged an inception date that preceded the apparent phone purchase. Rivera Apple Subscriber Record Ruling “I'm going to allow it in, but I want you to be careful. Do not argue that this is a phone record for 305-935-6615.” — James C. Hankinson The ruling — admission granted with an express use restriction, preventing the defense from overstating the document as a direct phone record for the disputed number.
← Day 7 Garcia–Magbanua Day 9 →