11.Craig Isom — Direct (Recall 2)
187 linesMR. DECOSTE: Craig Isom.
(Pause in proceedings.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Come back up here, please, sir.
whereupon, CRAIG ISOM was recalled as a witness, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
JUDGE HANKINSON: And state your name for us again, please, sir.
CRAIG ISOM: Craig Isom.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And you remain under oath.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may proceed, Mr. DeCoste.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator, how are you?
CRAIG ISOM: Good.
MR. DECOSTE: I want to ask you some questions about your September 30th, 2016 meeting with Luis Rivera. Do you have your report?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct me if I'm wrong. Luis Rivera tells you in that September -- or, before I go further, the only record that we have of this meeting is your report, right?
CRAIG ISOM: To my understanding.
MR. DECOSTE: we have no recording?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: No other reports?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know of any other reports.
MR. DECOSTE: Luis Rivera tells you that the paperwork that was in the car with him and Sigfredo Garcia was a color photo, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Can you refer to the paragraph, please?
MR. DECOSTE: Page 3, right in the middle of the page. So third body down --
CRAIG ISOM: well, I may be looking at a different format than you. You can just give me a key word on the beginning of the paragraph would be very helpful.
MR. DECOSTE: If I can approach?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator, I'm going to give you the report as I have it.
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: So if you could take a look at the third body down, second to last line, beginning with, Rivera recalled.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: He told you it was a color photo, right?
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm missing the words. You're looking down as you're speaking. You said what?
MR. DECOSTE: Color photo.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Go to the next body. During the discussion -- so Luis Rivera explains to you that during discussion with Sigfredo Garcia while waiting to see the target, that he learned the ex-wife's name was wendi, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And Garcia said, hired Katie to have her ex-husband killed?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: wendi wasn't arrested, right?
CRAIG ISOM: NO.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, Luis Rivera also explains to you how on the morning of July 17th that he's allegedly by the house of Dan Markel and sees Wendi Adelson and the two boys, right?
If you want to take a look at the bottom of page 3.
CRAIG ISOM: He asked who the lady was that was watching their car go by, and Garcia responded, That's the lady that wants this done.
MR. DECOSTE: Luis Rivera didn't tell you on September 30th the additional fact of, oh, I saw her walk down the driveway of Dan Markel's house and go into the house? He didn't share that with you, did he?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Improper impeachment.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
CRAIG ISOM: That Wendi -- who he identifies as wendi walked down the driveway and went into a house.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: So I'm asking if Luis Rivera said something during September 30th, specifically the fact that when he saw this woman with these two kids, that he also saw the woman --
Question?
CRAIG ISOM: wendi saw this woman, is what I just heard. I want to make sure --
MR. DECOSTE: we'll back up. we'll back up.
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Did Luis Rivera on September 30th -- did he say that the woman that he saw, that he claims Sigfredo Garcia identified as wendi Adelson, that he saw that woman and the two boys walk down the driveway of Dan Markel's house and go into the house right after he saw them?
CRAIG ISOM: I didn't hear that. I never heard that.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, during your investigation you actually learned that it was not possible that she could have been there with the boys because the boys were at preschool, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to the next page. During the September 30th, 2016, meeting Luis Rivera tells you that on the second trip they only brought one handgun, right?
Fifth line down, page 4.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, going to the bottom of page 4, still on September 30th, 2016, Rivera explains to you how after the homicide that there was this apparent phone call between Sigfredo Garcia and Katherine Magbanua. And all he tells you was that -- the words, It's done. And there was an answer of, I know. That's it, right?
To make sure we're clear here, because you gave me a look there for a second. Luis Rivera says that after the homicide, that Sigfredo Garcia calls Katherine Magbanua, says, It's done. And that her response is only, I know?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, initially Luis Rivera said that Garcia told him her response, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And then during this meeting on September 30th he then later clarified that he could actually hear the voice through the phone?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to the next page. On September 30th, 2016, Luis Rivera tells you how on the morning of July 19th, that he received a call on his cell phone from Katherine.
So we're on page 5, and we're one, two, three, four, five lines down.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Is that correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: In your investigation of the case, you found out that it was not Katherine Magbanua calling Luis Rivera but the reverse?
CRAIG ISOM: To my understanding is what I was told, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Further, in his explanation of the morning of July 19th, he gives you the Latin King name of Jibaro, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know Jibaro's real name?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall it. I think we identified him at some point, but I don't recall his real name or his last name.
MR. DECOSTE: Ever met with Jibaro?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Ever know if Jibaro is Anthony Ortiz or not?
CRAIG ISOM: I'm not quite sure if that was the name.
MR. DECOSTE: It's your understanding that Jibaro is a Latin King --
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: -- based on what Luis Rivera said?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Your understanding of Latin Kings is that they have a name -- like, Luis Rivera is King Tato, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That Anthony Ortiz is King Little Anthony, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't -- I can't clarify that. I can't confirm that's the name, Latin King name.
MR. DECOSTE: The only thing he gives you that morning is the name Jibaro, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah. And that's a Spanish name. I don't know anything more than that, as far as clarifying.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Let's talk about the money now. Luis Rivera says that the money came in a shopping bag, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Not a brown bag?
CRAIG ISOM: He identified it as a disposable-type grocery sack.
MR. DECOSTE: Like a Publix plastic bag?
CRAIG ISOM: I believe it was Publix or some type of plastic brown bag.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, he claimed that he took some of that money, and he gave it to his mother?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And to his ex-wife Jessica Rodriguez?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You never met with Luis Rivera's mother to confirm or deny that, did you?
CRAIG ISOM: Nope.
MR. DECOSTE: And correct me if I'm wrong, that after you meet with Luis Rivera on September 30th, you allow him to use your personal cell phone to contact Jessica Rodriguez?
CRAIG ISOM: No. No, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: Did Luis Rivera contact Jessica Rodriguez after that September 30th meeting, if you know?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know. Not in my presence.
MR. DECOSTE: One brief moment, Your Honor.
(Pause in proceedings.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator, final questions. Luis Rivera never mentioned to you hoods and masks, did he?
CRAIG ISOM: One more time. I'm not sure I heard it right.
MR. DECOSTE: Late in the day. I'm talking quiet. He never mentioned hoods and masks, did he?
CRAIG ISOM: I never remember -- I don't remember that term in the September 30th interview.
MR. DECOSTE: So, just to make sure that you have the question clear, September 30th, you're meeting with Luis Rivera. You're talking about the June trip and the July trip. Luis Rivera never mentions the bringing of hoods and masks, did he?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Luis Rivera never mentioned to you the third trip to Tallahassee, did he?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: The third trip between, allegedly, Sigfredo Garcia and King Anthony, he never mentioned that, did he?
CRAIG ISOM: Rivera mentioned -- he did not mention that specifically. But he did mention that because Garcia did not need a map or anything else, he had to have been up here at some time before. But I don't know of a third trip.
MR. DECOSTE: Before you meet with him -- correct me if I'm wrong. This meeting that you're having with him, you've been contacted by the State Attorney's Office. Luis Rivera wants to cut a deal. We need you to go in there and get his information?
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: And you go in there, and you swear him in. wWe want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: He never shared with you that there was a third trip by Sigfredo Garcia with King Anthony?
CRAIG ISOM: Not specifically that. But, once again, when the question came up about how Garcia knew where to go -- where to go in Tallahassee, he didn't need a map. He didn't need directions. So Luis shared that he must have already been here before, but I don't have any other knowledge than that.
MR. DECOSTE: That's not in your report, is it?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, after -- whenever this was said, you, of course, immediately then went and met with King Anthony, right?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Because the information that was given to you was not specific saying the name King Anthony, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct. we didn't know who -- if that was even -- that was just Luis's assumption. Luis Rivera's assumption that by not needing a map and not needing directions, he must have been here before.
MR. DECOSTE: One brief moment, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: We're going to have to work on Mr. Decoste's definition of one question.
MR. DECOSTE: In my defense, Ms. Kawass gave me a piece of paper with another question. No questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Garcia.
MR. ZANGENEH: No, I have no questions.
JUDGE HANKINSON: State.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Any juror have a question of this witness?
All right. You can step down. Let's go sidebar with the attorneys, please. It doesn't need to be written.
COURT REPORTER: Is this off the record, Judge?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Yes.
(Off-the-record sidebar conference.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Y'all okay with breaking for the night?
All right. 8:45 tomorrow, same place, same time. Have a good evening.
(Jury exits.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Everybody have a seat. Let's come back in session for a moment. So how much more are you anticipating, Mr. DeCoste?
MR. DECOSTE: I'm just conferring.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. DECOSTE: An hour. An hour and then the decision whether Ms. Magbanua is going to testify or not.
JUDGE HANKINSON: So y'all going to discuss that tonight?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct.
MS. KAWASS: Yes, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. Any other issues from anybody?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Not from the State.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I could bring up an evidentiary issue.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Just to make sure that the Court's clear on what we've been trying to do here. So, I've tried a few times to move in an exhibit. And it's documents that were received in response to a subpoena by the State Attorney's Office to Apple. I have the business record certification. It's the same thing that I've shown with respect to this incorrect phone number for Luis Rivera.
I have -- and we have the witnesses testifying. we have the warrant that's sent to Apple, the business record certification from Apple. And also what Agent Sanford has identified as the response to the subpoena from Apple for the phone number for Luis Rivera that has that information in there.
He testified. It's in his report. He received this. we're seeking to move this in. I think that we've established enough, and especially with the business record certification. We've authenticated it. The business record certification works around hearsay.
we also have Sherrie Bennett that's coming to the stand, and she's the one that did the warrant to go to Apple to get these documents.
JUDGE HANKINSON: So what's in there, other than his phone number?
MR. DECOSTE: I can hand it up to Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: For the record, it's premarked Defense 25.
JUDGE HANKINSON: So the defense theory is that this shows another phone number for Mr. Rivera; is that what you're saying?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct, Your Honor. It also impeaches him. Because he testified that he had a different phone number -- or he testified that he had a certain phone number. Yet the response from Apple is as to a different phone number. So there's multiple theories of which we believe that it is admissible at this point. And I would --
JUDGE HANKINSON: State?
(Pause in proceedings.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Are you thinking, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir. I didn't know if you were waiting on me or you were looking at the exhibit.
JUDGE HANKINSON: No, I asked what the State's position is.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm objecting, Judge. 1I'11 rely on my previous relevance objection and lack of foundation, since we don't know how this information is created and how it is inputted, whether it's done by the user or by the company. So I don't think it's properly admitted as a business record.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, I can respond to that.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
MR. DECOSTE: So, under the first prong it would be that we have a business record certification. And it's relevant on the issue -- if it were something that were entered in by Luis Rivera, then it comes in for the purpose of impeachment.
So there are two ways with which it can come in, either through the business record certification -- it's already been authenticated. It's a matter of hearsay now, either the business record certification or to impeach the testimony of Luis Rivera that the State elicited as to his phone number.
So if he's entering into his iPhone a phone number that's different than the one that he testified about, then it's a matter of impeachment.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Say that last part again.
MR. DECOSTE: So Luis Rivera testified that he had a certain phone number.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: And if the Government -- and the Government is saying that it's now unreliable. It's their evidence. They got it from Apple -- directly from Apple, but their belief is, well, it could have been entered in by Luis Rivera. Well, it would still then be admissible for the purpose of impeaching Luis Rivera because if Luis Rivera is entering into his iPhone a different phone number, it impeaches his testimony that a different phone number belongs to him.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is this the complete record?
MR. DECOSTE: That's what we received in discovery along with the business record certification and also the search warrant that was sent to Apple by Investigator Bennett, and that was the response that they received.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is it your understanding this is the full record, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I have no reason to dispute that, Your Honor. TI don't know the answer.
JUDGE HANKINSON: It's very confusing truthfully. It looks like what it's showing is that Rivera bought a phone on February 11, 2013, an iPhone, but some of the dates in here are very confusing because one of the pages in here shows an inception date of 10-17-12 which doesn't really make any sense that we have an inception date before -- six months before he bought the phone. TI don't know. Have you asked somebody to attempt to explain that?
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, we're not going to be arguing any of that. So I can tell Your Honor the answer to that. It's you set up an iCloud account -- you set up your Apple account, and that can predate the phone that's set up. The only reason why we're bringing this in right now is specifically as to phone number that's entered in there.
The reason that this is so necessary -- the Government is going to argue that Katherine Magbanua was calling a phone number that the first three digits after the area code was 934. And Luis Rivera got up on the stand and he goes, that's my phone number, 934, I think it's 1165. And he testified, and he said that.
And they're going to say, well, there's communication between that phone number that Luis Rivera has identified as his own and Katherine Magbanua before the June trip and before the July trip. The information that they received -- that the Government received from Apple from their search warrant was for a phone number that is one digit different. It's 935-1165.
whether it was entered in by Luis Rivera, whether it is the actual assigned phone number to him, it is admissible. If it is him entering it in, it's to impeach his testimony. If it's not considered to be impeachment, we have the business record certification. It is absolutely relevant that the number that Apple has for Luis Rivera is not the phone number that he is saying is his and the phone number that the Government is going to say was communicating with Katherine Magbanua before the June trip and before the July trip.
I believe for the Government to argue in light of this known evidence --
JUDGE HANKINSON: That's enough. 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. It is not. It is a record from Apple relating to his purchase of a phone or perhaps the setting up of an iCloud in which they have noted this is the subscriber information provided by the customer.
That's different than saying, this is a phone record for this phone number. It is not a phone record for this phone number. So there are many explanations for how that could be -- it could be right. It could be wrong. That's what they have listed as subscriber information. I don't want to hear any argument to the contrary on it, but I will allow it in evidence.
All right. Further?
MR. DECOSTE: That's all, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Anything else? All right. We will see you-all at 8:30.
(Court is in recess at 5:30 p.m.)