Name: Craig Isom — Direct/Cross (Recall 1) - Day 8 - Garcia–Magbanua
Uploaded: 2019-10-08
Description: 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.

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.

← Day 7

Day 9 →

Proceedings

Direct Craig Isom - Direct (Recall) Line 1

Cross Craig Isom - Cross Line 33

Procedural Isom Juror Question and Evidence Clarification Line 48

Direct Direct Craig Isom Georgia Cappleman

1 17:22

JUDGE HANKINSON: Have a seat, please. Put your name again for the record, please.

2 17:23

CRAIG ISOM: Craig Isom.

3 17:32

CRAIG ISOM: Yes, sir.

4 17:34

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Recall going to the crime scene?

5 17:37

CRAIG ISOM: Yes.

6 17:37

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And are you familiar with the area around the crime scene, meaning the ingresses and egresses off of Trescott?

7 17:44

CRAIG ISOM: Yes.

8 17:45

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And are you familiar with where the crime scene tape was located in this case?

9 17:45

CRAIG ISOM: There was — I know there was crime scene tape north of the residence. I just — I think I saw it at one point, probably three or four houses north of 2116.

10 18:07

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And my question is, could one have seen the crime scene tape if one was passing by on Centerville Road looking down Trescott?

11 18:17

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you conduct an interview of Wendi Adelson on July 18, 2014?

12 18:28

CRAIG ISOM: Yes.

13 18:29

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?

14 18:40

CRAIG ISOM: Yes.

15 18:40

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were you present for the arrest of Katherine Magbanua?

16 18:47

CRAIG ISOM: Yes.

17 18:48

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And that was on October 1st of '16?

18 18:51

CRAIG ISOM: October 1st, 2016.

19 18:52

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And you traveled down to Miami for this arrest?

20 18:58

CRAIG ISOM: Broward County, yes.

21 19:00

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And Agent Sanford was there?

22 19:03

CRAIG ISOM: Yes.

23 19:04

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was there anything about the show of force for this particular arrest that was unusual or different from other homicide arrests?

24 19:12

CRAIG ISOM: No.

25 19:16

MS. CAPPLEMAN: At the time of Ms. Magbanua's arrest, did you receive a phone call?

26 19:23

CRAIG ISOM: Yes.

27 19:24

MS. CAPPLEMAN: From whom did you receive a phone call?

28 19:27

CRAIG ISOM: Charlie Adelson's attorney, identified as David Marcus.

29 19:32

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did Mr. Marcus indicate that he knew Ms. Magbanua was being arrested?

30 19:37

JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm going to direct this to your side. Let's go to the sidebar, please.

31 23:29

JUDGE HANKINSON: Garcia.

32 23:44

MR. ZANGENEH: Nothing from Mr. Garcia.

Cross Cross Craig Isom Christopher DeCoste

33 23:46

JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua?

34 23:52

MR. DECOSTE: You were asked questions about the arrest of Ms. Magbanua. You remember that, right?

35 23:57

CRAIG ISOM: I was just asked — I believe it was one question.

36 23:59

MR. DECOSTE: Just operating fairly here.

37 24:01

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, I'm gonna move to strike that comment.

38 24:05

JUDGE HANKINSON: Certainly. Jury, disregard the comment. Ask the question, please, Mr. DeCoste.

39 24:10

MR. DECOSTE: You were informed prior to her arrest that she would voluntarily surrender if need be, right?

40 24:15

CRAIG ISOM: No.

41 24:15

MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about your meeting with Luis Rivera on September 30th of 2016.

42 24:22

MR. DECOSTE: You wrote a report —

43 24:22

MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm going to object. Outside the scope.

44 24:22

JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.

45 24:22

MR. DECOSTE: All right. Judge, thank you.

46 24:22

JUDGE HANKINSON: Redirect?

47 24:22

MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.

Procedural Proc. Isom Juror Question and Evidence Clarification

48 24:39

JUDGE HANKINSON: Any juror have a question of this witness on this topic? Okay, let's go to sidebar.

49 34:31

JUDGE HANKINSON: There was a question about whether Mr. Markel was wearing a seatbelt.

50 34:37

JUDGE HANKINSON: Investigator Isom wasn't on the scene until he'd been removed from the car. He would not be a proper witness to ask that question.

51 34:46

JUDGE HANKINSON: There was also a question I asked about disregarding certain questions or answers. I know that can get a little confusing sometimes.

52 34:58

JUDGE HANKINSON: If a question is asked and answered and there is a basis for me to do what we call strike it, I will tell you so and I will tell you to disregard it. Other than that, you're to consider whatever questions and answers are given.

53 36:17

JUDGE HANKINSON: Now, we've had a lot of cases where a question is asked and then there's an objection and there's 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's been withdrawn — you've had some instances where the questions were withdrawn — or I've sustained an objection to it, and that means there's a legal bar to answering that question, so you're not to speculate what the answer might have been. So those are three situations that come up. Hopefully that answers your question. I'll call your next witness.

Insights

Direct Craig Isom

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.

Case Significance

Isom confirmed that Charlie Adelson's attorney called him while Magbanua was being arrested, but the open record contains no answer about whether the caller knew of the arrest. Isom also confirmed Wendi Adelson's statement that she approached the crime-scene tape on the murder date.

Charlie Adelson's attorney David Marcus called Isom during Magbanua's October 2016 arrest
Sidebar halted testimony before Isom could answer whether Marcus indicated knowledge of the arrest
Wendi Adelson's approach to the active crime scene tape was placed on the record

Highlights

Testimony

Isom confirms Wendi Adelson told him she drove up Trescott and approached the crime scene tape while it was up on July 18, 2014, establishing her proximity to the active scene on the day of the murder.

Procedural

Isom identified a call received while Magbanua was being arrested as coming from Charlie Adelson's attorney, David Marcus. Before Isom answered whether Marcus indicated knowledge of the arrest, the court called a sidebar.

“Charlie Adelson's attorney, identified as David Marcus.”

— Craig IsomIsom identifies the caller during Magbanua's arrest as Charlie Adelson's own attorney, setting up the prosecution's follow-up question — whether Marcus indicated knowledge of the arrest — which the court immediately cut off with a sidebar.

People Mentioned

Wendi Adelson Charlie AdelsonDavid Marcus

Deep Analysis

Attorney Strategy

Prosecution targets Charlie Adelson's response to the arrest

Cappleman asked whether Charlie Adelson's attorney indicated knowledge of Magbanua's arrest after establishing that he called Isom during it. Because the court called a sidebar before an answer, the prosecution did not establish awareness or coordination in the open record.

Case Theory Connections

Unresolved question about attorney call during arrest

The State began to explore whether Charlie Adelson's attorney knew of Magbanua's arrest when he called Isom. No answer was given in the open record, so the exchange itself does not establish knowledge, coordination, or a continuing connection.

Evidentiary Or Procedural Notes

Sidebar before attorney-call testimony

A sidebar was called before Isom could answer whether David Marcus indicated knowledge of Magbanua's arrest. The substance and outcome of the sidebar are not captured in the target record.

Followup Questions Or Open Threads

Content of the Marcus call left unresolved

What David Marcus said to Isom during Magbanua's arrest — and whether the sidebar resulted in that testimony being excluded or addressed later — remains an open thread from this brief examination.

Impeachment Or Tension Points

Sidebar halts testimony about the Marcus call

The judge called a sidebar before Isom answered whether Charlie Adelson's attorney indicated knowledge of Magbanua's arrest. The point remained unresolved in the open record.

Testimony Themes

Wendi Adelson and the crime scene tape

Cappleman established that Wendi Adelson told investigators she drove toward the crime scene tape on Trescott on July 18, 2014, while the scene was still active.

Charlie Adelson's attorney call during Magbanua's arrest

Isom confirmed receiving a call from David Marcus, identified as Charlie Adelson's attorney, during Magbanua's Broward County arrest. The prosecution's follow-up — whether Marcus indicated awareness of the arrest — was cut off by a sidebar.

Witness Role And Importance

Witness Role And Importance

Isom was recalled for two short factual topics: Wendi Adelson's reported approach to the crime-scene tape and a call from Charlie Adelson's attorney during Magbanua's arrest. The latter line ended before any answer about awareness.

Cross Craig Isom

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.

Case Significance

The brief recalled cross established only that Isom had not been informed before Magbanua's arrest that she would voluntarily surrender. A scope ruling prevented DeCoste from revisiting the September 30 Rivera meeting.

Scope objection sustained, blocking any examination of the Rivera September 30 meeting
Isom said he had not been informed before the arrest that Magbanua would voluntarily surrender
Cappleman declined redirect after the court sustained a scope objection

Highlights

Objection

Cappleman moved to strike DeCoste's editorial aside ('Just operating fairly here'); the judge granted the motion and instructed the jury to disregard the comment before directing DeCoste to ask a question.

“No.”

— Craig IsomIsom denied having been informed before the arrest that Magbanua would voluntarily surrender if given the opportunity. He did not testify whether she actually would have surrendered.Ruling

The court sustained the prosecution's scope objection when DeCoste attempted to revisit the September 30, 2016 Rivera meeting, cutting off that line of questioning and effectively ending the cross-examination.

People Mentioned

Luis Rivera Katherine Magbanua

Deep Analysis

Attorney Strategy

DeCoste attempted to probe arrest logistics and reopen Rivera meeting

DeCoste asked whether Isom had advance notice that Magbanua would voluntarily surrender and attempted to revisit the September 30 Rivera meeting. Isom denied receiving such notice, and the court sustained a scope objection to the second topic.

Evidentiary Or Procedural Notes

Scope objection sustained; Rivera September 30 line blocked

The court sustained the prosecution's scope objection to DeCoste's attempt to revisit the September 30, 2016 Rivera meeting, holding it was outside the bounds of the recalled direct examination.

Notable Admissions

Isom had no advance notice of proposed voluntary surrender

Isom said he had not been informed before Magbanua's arrest that she would voluntarily surrender if given the opportunity. He did not address whether she actually would have done so.

Witness Role And Importance

Witness Role And Importance

Isom's brief recalled cross established that he had no advance notice of a proposed voluntary surrender. A scope ruling prevented examination of the September 30 Rivera meeting.

Summary

Prosecution recalled TPD detective Craig Isom for two narrow topics. Cappleman established that Wendi Adelson told investigators she drove to Trescott and approached the crime-scene tape while it remained in place on July 18, 2014. Cappleman then elicited that during Magbanua's Broward County arrest on October 1, 2016, Isom received a phone call from David Marcus, Charlie Adelson's attorney. A sidebar interrupted before Isom could address whether Marcus indicated knowledge of the arrest; the open record reflects the call and its timing only. On cross, DeCoste asked whether Isom had been told before the arrest that Magbanua would voluntarily surrender if given the opportunity; Isom said no. The judge granted Cappleman's motion to strike DeCoste's aside — "Just operating fairly here" — and instructed the jury to disregard it. A subsequent attempt to revisit the September 30, 2016 Rivera cooperation meeting was cut off by a sustained scope objection. Cappleman waived redirect. Following the testimony, Judge Hankinson took up juror-submitted questions. A question about whether Dan Markel was wearing a seatbelt was declined because Isom did not arrive at the scene until after Markel had been removed from the vehicle. The court then gave the jury three clarifying instructions: stricken questions and answers must be disregarded; attorney questions are not evidence; and jurors may not speculate about what a witness might have said when an objection was sustained or a question was withdrawn.

← Louis Bronstein — Direct/Cross 3 of 11 Mary Hull — Direct/Cross/Redirect (Recall) →