3.Craig Isom — Direct/Cross (Recall 1)
150 linesMS. CAPPLEMAN: The State recalls Craig Isom.
(Pause in proceedings.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Have a seat, please, sir.
whereupon, CRAIG ISOM was recalled as a witness, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
JUDGE HANKINSON: State your name again for the record, please.
CRAIG ISOM: Craig Isom.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Investigator Isom, do you --
JUDGE HANKINSON: And you remain under oath, Mr. Isom.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, sir.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you recall going to crime scene in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And are you familiar with the area around the crime scene, meaning the ingresses and egresses off of Trescott?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And are you familiar with where the crime scene tape was located in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: There was -- I know there was crime scene tape north of the residence. I think I saw it at one point probably three or four houses north of 2116.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And my question is, could one have seen the crime scene tape if one was passing by on Centerville Road looking down Trescott?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Did you conduct an interview of Wendi Adelson on July 18, 2014?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And during that interview, did she indicate that she drove up Trescott and approached the crime scene tape while it was up during this investigation?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were you present for the arrest of Katherine Magbanua?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And that was on October 1st of '16?
CRAIG ISOM: October 1st, 2016.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And you traveled down to Miami for this arrest?
CRAIG ISOM: Broward County, yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And Agent Sanford was there?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was there anything about the show of force for this particular arrest that was unusual or different from other homicide arrests?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: At the time of Ms. Magbanua's arrest, did you receive a phone call?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: From whom did you receive a phone call?
CRAIG ISOM: Charlie Adelson's attorney identified as David Marcus.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did Mr. Marcus indicate that he knew Ms. Magbanua was being arrested?
MR. ZANGENEH: Judge, I'm going object as to hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's go sidebar, please.
(Sidebar conference had as follows):
MR. ZANGENEH: It's hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. So tell me what you expect to come out, Ms. Cappleman.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That this witness received a call from Charlie Adelson's lawyer while he was on scene of the arrest. That no press release had been made as to the arrest at that time. Mr. Adelson's lawyer was aware of the arrest. And that Ms. Magbanua had been permitted to make a phone call prior to this witness receiving a call from Mr. Adelson's attorney.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Your theory of admissibility?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: To the statement that the objection is on, the hearsay?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That it is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It's being offered to show that this information went from Ms. Magbanua to Mr. Adelson immediately upon her arrest.
MR. ZANGENEH: Judge, let me -- I'm sorry.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let me just make sure. All right. So she's arrested. She's allowed to make a phone call. we don't know exactly who that call is to?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Well, we do. But I plan to elicit that it was not to Mr. Adelson, and it was not to Mr. Adelson's attorney. Yet Mr. Adelson's attorney called him within minutes of that phone call being made.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And we know it's Mr. Adelson's attorney how?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Because he represented himself as Mr. Adelson's attorney. I've since had lots of contact with him, and that is, in fact, the person representing Mr. Adelson.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. Mr. Zangeneh?
MR. ZANGENEH: Do we know who she called?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, her attorney. But I'm not intending to elicit that. Ms. Kawass.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Her attorney, Ms. Kawass?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
MR. ZANGENEH: So here's the problem. This is what I think, Judge. Mr. Marcus, Ms. Kawass share close office space. There could be a -- I'm sorry, that's Mr. DeCoste. I apologize.
There may be an improper reference brought out here. I don't see what the relevance of this is. She called her attorney. And at no point do you know if her attorney had a preexisting relationship with Mr. Marcus, or if they had joint defense meetings. we don't know that.
It's just the jury is going to pull an assumption that I think is inappropriate because Mr. -- what is his name?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: why would her arrest be of interest to Mr. Adelson's attorney? That's the relevance.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: This is, frankly -- for the Government, iS Outrageous. They're trying to smear the name of attorneys right now, including us, to establish that there's some sort of conspiracy.
It is very common amongst attorneys, especially when they have clients of like kind in the same position, to communicate. Ms. Kawass communicated with Mr. Zangeneh and Mr. Marcus once the arrest -- to find out what's going on. That's doing due diligence.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I don't think there's anything outrageous about it. But I think the potential prejudice outweighs any probative value. And I'm not going to let you get into that, just too many variables involved.
Okay?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Are you going to have further from this witness?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No further questions.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Garcia?
MR. ZANGENEH: Just one second, Judge.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. ZANGENEH: Nothing from Mr. Garcia, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator Isom.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You were asked questions about the arrest of Katherine Magbanua. You remember that, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I was just asked -- I believe it was one question.
MR. DECOSTE: Just operating fairly here.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, I'm going to move to strike that comment.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Certainly. Jury, disregard the comment. Ask a question, please, Mr. DeCoste.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: You were informed prior to her arrest that she would voluntarily surrender if need be, right?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about your meeting with Luis Rivera on September 30th of 2016. You wrote a report --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I am going to object to outside the scope.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
MR. DECOSTE: All right, Judge. Thank you.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Redirect?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, Sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Any juror have a question of this witness on this the topic? All right. Let's go sidebar.
(Sidebar conference had as follows):
JUDGE HANKINSON: The question: Are we supposed to disregard the comment about Charlie's attorney?
There was a question. And I don't know how far it got. I forget what the investigator said or what the answer was truthfully. But, anyway, I just think we -- I think we just disregard the question frankly. whatever was out there, it's out there.
Anybody have a different position?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I think you should answer the question. If they're confused about whether -- I mean, I don't know why since you didn't tell them that.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I don't remember exactly what was said. That's my concern.
MR. ZANGENEH: I think the Court sustained the objection. So I think the answer should be that there's a question posed. I sustained the objection to the question. That's it.
MR. DECOSTE: From Magbanua, we would first move for a mistrial. Second, we would move to strike witha curative.
MS. KAWASS: That was a completely baseless question by the State.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Further, Mr. DeCoste?
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor. Just those two. First, motion for a mistrial. This ties into --
JUDGE HANKINSON: What's your theory for a mistrial?
MR. DECOSTE: This ties into motions in limine. They don't want us to bring out the fact that this -- the fact that this investigator conveyed to Ms. Kawass immunity. And we are not allowed to get into that, yet they're getting into the topics of that conversation. Almost to the point of making Ms. Kawass a witness because she was involved in the communications. That's -- and they know that. That's exactly what happened with the communications.
So, first, we would move for a mistrial. And the secondary thing is, if the motion for a mistrial is denied, it would be a motion to strike with a curative.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I will deny the mistrial. That's quite a stretch. Ms. Kawass is not mentioned. I sustained your objection. There's nothing to grant a mistrial. There have been -- a lot of questions have been asked and not answered.
Maybe I should comment that, questions are not evidence. I've instructed you earlier not to speculate as to answers. That's part of the preliminary instruction. I may just remind them of that. Anybody have a problem with that?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: A little bit because I think before the objection there was a question and answer which was: Did you get a phone call? Yes. who was it from? Charlie Adelson's attorney.
There was no objection at that time. So I think they want to know whether that's to be disregarded or not. And I would suggest there was no timely objection and there's no basis to disregard it.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I could proffer what it is that the State knows.
JUDGE HANKINSON: why does that have anything to do with anything, Mr. DeCcoste?
MR. DECOSTE: For the record. But, also, we would argue that they've opened up the door then by that to us being able to allow in the immunity, that it was offered.
JUDGE HANKINSON: That's denied.
MR. DECOSTE: Understood.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I don't -- what is the defense recollection of the question that was asked and answered?
MR. DECOSTE: Did you receive a call from Charles Adelson's attorney? Answer, yes.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. So that was not objected to. So there's nothing for them -- was there a question asked then to follow up on that, that was objected to?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes.
JUDGE HANKINSON: What was the next question?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did Mr. Adelson's attorney indicate he knew that Ms. Magbanua had been arrested?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. And there was an objection and no answer, correct?
MR. DECOSTE: And they know the volley of communications that happened. Because Ms. Kawass, after speaking to Ms. Magbanua, spoke to Mr. Zangeneh and Mr. --
JUDGE HANKINSON: The jury does not know. That's what I'm worried about, Mr. DeCoste. You keep trying to make something much bigger out of this than what's before the jury.
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor, I just want it on the record what the Government --
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
MR. DECOSTE: (Sidebar conference resumed as follows):
MS. NORRIS: Before the next witness I call, I don't want to have another sidebar. I had Mary Hull create, over lunch, two exhibits demonstrating -- based on the income tax questions. I've e-mailed them to the defense counsel. Given the -- how we ended on those questions, this is the first time I was able to do that. My intent to use these -- and I've e-mailed them these copies -- summarizing her income tax information.
JUDGE HANKINSON: whose income tax?
MS. NORRIS: Katherine Magbanua for 2013, 2014, and 2015. I just didn't want to have to come sidebar again.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. For the record, I have no e-mail. And I'll show it to the Court. There's no e-mail.
Oh, there it is. It came through nine minutes ago.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. So you had the tax records previously?
MS. NORRIS: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Yes.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. And you've just outlined them in a summary form?
MS. NORRIS: In a more readable format for the jury, yes, sir.
(Bailiff delivers another jury question to the sidebar conference.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. I was confused, but -- it says, was Mr. Markel wearing his seat belt?
I guess -- I don't know at what point in time Isom got there. I think the testimony is Markel had already been removed from the car when he got there, wasn't it?
MR. ZANGENEH: Correct.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
MR. ZANGENEH: And it's outside the scope of cross-examination.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Right. Right. He doesn't know, but, anyway. All right. So you want to be heard on that?
MR. ZANGENEH: I mean, this is the only thing, is that we really haven't had a chance -- even though we have the documents in our possession -- to be able to cross reference the investigator's work to see if she's consistent.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. And this information comes directly from the line items of the reported wages and income. The only thing on State's one eighty -- so, this one is directly from the income tax filings. The only thing that has been added on here, which is already in evidence, are the cash lines for that amount that she testified to previously, and then total --
MR. DECOSTE: A couple of objections here. First, it's Richardson. Second is --
JUDGE HANKINSON: What is your Richardson? what is your discovery allegation?
MR. DECOSTE: The fact that we're just getting these summaries right now, before they want to -- this witness is done and they want to call Mary Hull in a few minutes. we don't have -- now, we're prejudiced because I don't have time to be able to review. we can't do it on the fly.
JUDGE HANKINSON: This is not discovery. It is a summary for a visual presentation to the jury. The items are already -- have previously been provided to you.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct. There is a greater objection here. They are seeking to enter -- the reason why I am saying that it is evidence is because they're marked it as evidence, and I believe that they are going to try to enter it in.
But they are going to try to bring in tax returns and say that she did not claim on her taxes cash. Those are uncharged crimes that they're bringing up in front of this jury. That is much more -- that is unfairly prejudicial -- much more prejudicial than it is probative.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I overrule that objection. I mean, you're the one saying she had cash that was unclaimed, not the State. All right. we'll proceed.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: You can step down, Investigator.
CRAIG ISOM: Will I be recalled today?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You'll have to ask the attorneys. There was a question about whether Mr. Markel was wearing his seat belt. Investigator Isom wasn't on the scene until he had been removed from the car. So he would not be the proper witness to ask that question of.
There was also a question asked about disregarding certain questions or answers. I know that can get a little confusing sometimes. If a question is asked and answered and there is a basis for me to what we call strike it, I will tell you so; and I will tell you to disregard it. Other than that, you are to consider whatever questions and answers are given.
Now, we've had a lot of cases where a question is asked, and then there is an objection; and there is no answer. Questions are not evidence. Questions are something that the attorney has asked. It is not something that you should consider as evidence. And as I told you in the opening comments, my opening instructions, you're not to speculate what a witness might have said had the witness answered that question.
Either the question has been withdrawn -- you've had some instances where the question is withdrawn, or I've sustained an objection to it. That means there's a legal bar to answering that question. So you're not to speculate on what the answer might have been. So those are three situations that have come up. Hopefully that answers your question.
All right. Call your next witness.