1.Patrick Sanford — Cross (Continued)/Redirect/Recross
2,465 linesPROCEEDINGS
JUDGE HANKINSON: Be seated, please. We're here in The State of Florida versus Garcia and Magbanua. Let the record reflect the defendants are present with their attorneys.
Let me take up one issue. Mr. Zangeneh asked a question at the end of the day about time for preparation for closing. I didn't give him much of an answer. Probably deserves a little better answer there. There's still too many variables to be -- to know for sure, but it's unlikely that I'm going to stop the trial to provide recess time for closing preparation. So you probably need to do that on your own time.
I will say, we will have to have a charge conference, and it takes the Court some time to prepare jury instructions. So the best I can suggest is a little division of labor among the attorneys. All the parties have multiple attorneys. So a little division of labor might help on that.
Any other issues we need to deal with before we move back into closing argument?
From the State?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Defense?
MR. ZANGENEH: NO, Your Honor. Good morning.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Good morning.
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
MS. KAWASS: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, good. we'll start with the jury at 9 o'clock. All right.
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Court is in recess.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's have the jury, please.
(jury enters.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may proceed, Mr. DeCoste.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
whereupon, AGENT PAT SANFORD, was recalled as a witness, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: CROSS-EXAMINAT ION
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent Sanford, you're with the FBI, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: You're a special agent?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: I just want to clarify for the jury, all agents are special agents, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: with the FBI, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You start at as a special agent?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Just to clarify that there's not something special about you as an agent, you're all special?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You've been with them 20 years, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And in those 20 years, you've worked on about a dozen homicide cases?
PATRICK SANFORD: In my FBI career, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you've worked many more cases than those 12 or so homicide cases, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: A vast majority of the cases that you've worked have been federal prosecutions?
PATRICK SANFORD: Quite a few of them, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that it's not standard, it does happen, but it's not standard that the Federal Bureau of Investigation comes in on a state level prosecution?
PATRICK SANFORD: It happens quite a bit.
MR. DECOSTE: It happens when help is needed outside of Leon County. That would be an example, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's sometimes an example, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And that was one of the reasons why you were brought into this case, because help was needed outside of Leon County, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: At the beginning, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: what does FBI stand for?
PATRICK SANFORD: Federal Bureau of Investigation.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that the purpose of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is to investigate, by its name, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's one of our purposes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, it's not just to investigate -- just talking about the investigation portion -- not just to investigate but to objectively investigate a case, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure. That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You shrugged a little bit there, why?
PATRICK SANFORD: Because we investigate a wide variety of things and we need to cover those aspects.
MR. DECOSTE: we're just talking about when you're brought on to a case, state level homicide prosecution. You're investigating it. That your job is to objectively investigate it, versus subjectively investigate it?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: So you agree with me that your job is to objectively investigate a case?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's one of our jobs, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: whether it is state or federal?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And once you've done your objective investigation, and present what you have to the prosecution, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes. Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: That would be your role in a case like this?
PATRICK SANFORD: One of our roles, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: I want to talk to you about your theory of the case. Agent you've seen that board before?
PATRICK SANFORD: Just a few minutes ago.
MR. DECOSTE: You know who all those people are, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I do.
MR. DECOSTE: You have -- to the far right you have Dan Markel, to his left on the top you have wendi Adelson?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Then Harvey Adelson?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Donna Adleson?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Charles Adelson?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: My client, Katherine Magbanua?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Sigfredo Garcia?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Luis Rivera?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you believe that that is the group, more or less, that caused the death of Dan Markel?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Adelson's wanted it to happen, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Rivera and Garcia did it?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And the connection is through Katherine Magbanua?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: The four people on the top, the Adelsons, let's start with Harvey Adelson. Has he ever been arrested on the case?
MR. DECOSTE: Ever been charged?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, he has not.
MR. DECOSTE: what about his wife Donna?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. Not yet.
MR. DECOSTE: Daughter, wendi?
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go back to that, not yet. You plan on arresting Donna Adelson?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Relevance.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Wendi Adelson ever been arrested?
MR. DECOSTE: Ever been charged?
MR. DECOSTE: we're talking about this case, of course?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Charles Adelson, has he ever been arrested in relation to the murder of Dan Markel?
MR. DECOSTE: Ever been charged?
MR. DECOSTE: Now, focusing on Katherine Magbanua. The only witness who gives you any testimony about Katherine Magbanua's involvement is Luis Rivera, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: He's the only one?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: He was originally looking at the death penalty, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know what he was looking at. I don't charge them.
MR. DECOSTE: well, you've worked murder cases before?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: It's not abnormal for you to work them, you know about them, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I do.
MR. DECOSTE: And in a case like this, with the facts that you have, that would lead to a charge of first-degree murder, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's possible. Not in every case.
MR. DECOSTE: You know in this case that Luis Rivera was charged with first-degree murder, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And first-degree murder normally carries with it the death penalty?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Or life?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: He cooperated, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Became your witness, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: In exchange for that needle coming out of his arm, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know what he exchanged it for. But he did cooperate.
MR. DECOSTE: And it was his words, and only his words that resulted in the arrest of Katherine Magbanua?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's incorrect.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go through the chronology of dates. Luis Rivera talks to you. He gives his formal statement to you for the first time on September 30, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: How many days later was Katherine Magbanua arrested?
PATRICK SANFORD: The next day.
MR. DECOSTE: How many hours?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know the hours.
MR. DECOSTE: Less than 24, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Possibly.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm going to ask you a few questions about the Latin Kings real quick. You have professional experience with them, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: They're a criminal organization?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: well organized?
PATRICK SANFORD: Somewhat.
MR. DECOSTE: They make money through crime?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Including murder?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: It's a Latin based gang?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Miami has a large Latin population?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Meaning they have a strong presence in South Florida?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Luis Rivera is not just a member, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: He's what's called the head crown?
PATRICK SANFORD: He's one of the leaders of the north tribe, is my understanding.
MR. DECOSTE: He's the boss?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: He's the god father?
PATRICK SANFORD: Of the north tribe, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Luis Rivera has a family with Jessica Rodriguez, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: whether it's his wife or his girlfriend, they're very close, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: As far as I can tell, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Part of your involvement coming on to the case, being that it tentacles down into other areas, you went down to South Florida and on two separate occasions you met with Jessica Rodriguez, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Both of those conversations were recorded, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, there was a third one, a third phone call with Sherry Bennett. You know about that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I was told about it. I was not present for it.
MR. DECOSTE: And that's a recorded phone call?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, let's put Luis Rivera aside for a second and talk about the other evidence that you believe that you have against Katherine Magbanua. Let me know if I'm leaving anything out.
Bank deposits, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Breast surgery?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The car?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The patterns of phone calls?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Paychecks?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And then post bump, more patterns of phone calls?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: what we refer to as Dolce Vita?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And that she didn't contact the police?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: That sums it all up, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. Not necessarily.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go through each one. And you can let us know what we're leaving out.
Before we get into the specifics of it, let's talk about how you approached the investigation of Katherine Magbanua. You're investigating this case -- you come on to the case in 2014, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Days after. You're brought in. You're the lead agent involved in it?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you guys investigate Priuses all over the state all over the south east?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You investigate any and all leads that you can?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: But it comes up with nothing?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Nobody else was arrested in relation to this, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You eventually come back to this theory that the Adelsons were behind it, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And then more evidence develops and then you learn of Katherine Magbanua?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You want her to cooperate, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: To give you the people that you think caused this to happen?
PATRICK SANFORD: To tell the truth.
MR. DECOSTE: My question to you is, to give you the people that caused this to happen?
PATRICK SANFORD: My answer is, for her to tell the truth.
MR. DECOSTE: You want her to cooperate, that's what you'd like to see happen, personally?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Asked and answered.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
MR. DECOSTE: That's personally what you --
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I may impeach?
JUDGE HANKINSON: No. You can move on.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Going to the next topic. To get her to cooperate you needed to build a case, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Repeat that question.
MR. DECOSTE: To get her to cooperate you needed to investigate and get evidence against her, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: People cooperate without evidence. People just come forward and cooperate with us and tell us the truth sometimes without evidence against them.
MR. DECOSTE: well, that's not what you did here. what you did is, you started to investigate. You started to look into the bank deposits, the breast surgery, the car, the call activity, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: To tighten the screws?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. To find out the truth.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you found facts. You found the facts that we just talked about. The other -- or, non-Rivera stuff, you found that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: On its face, a woman driving around, the Adelson's Lexus. She has children with Garcia who knows Rivera, she dated Adelson. On its face, looks incriminating, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's not what led us to her.
MR. DECOSTE: My question though is, it looks incriminating, you can agree with me?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: It's okay.
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: And that's how it was presented here, Katherine -- Ms. Magbanua is driving around in Adelson's black Lexus. That's your words, driving around, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I said I saw her in the Lexus, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And that's, again, good evidence for your theory up here?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's piece of the evidence, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Unless -- and we're just talking about this piece right now -- unless it was a legitimate purchase, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not necessarily.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about the condition of the car. what year?
PATRICK SANFORD: I think it was a 2001.
MR. DECOSTE: So it would be 13 years old, give or take, in 2014?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: The mileage, do you know what it is?
MR. DECOSTE: If I were to say is 160,000-miles, would that seem correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: I have no idea.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know if the car was involved in any accidents?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm not sure.
MR. DECOSTE: would you agree with me -- well, actually, let me show you Magbanua 1. You've seen this before, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: It's the car title to the Lexus?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, if you could, for the jury, can you see on here the mileage of the car?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's the written mileage, yeah, 160,000-miles exactly.
MR. DECOSTE: You agreed you looked at this objectively, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But you just said it there, you go, that's the written mileage, insinuating that somehow it was written there falsely?
PATRICK SANFORD: Because I have to take that with a grain of salt. It was handwritten on there, not verified by anybody.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know the difference of looking at the world through clean windows versus dirty windows?
PATRICK SANFORD: Absolutely. And that's how I looked at it.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So looking at it through clean windows. There's a title for a vehicle. Selling price 1,700-dollars 160,000-miles, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you would agree with me that this was not exactly a new car?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Not a fancy car?
MR. DECOSTE: You have evidence that it was a legitimate purchase?
PATRICK SANFORD: I had evidence of a title. I had no other evidence to show that it was paid for legitimately.
MR. DECOSTE: So, again, looking at it objectively, no evidence that she didn't pay for it?
PATRICK SANFORD: There was no evidence that she did pay for it and I looked for that.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Let's talk about how you investigated it. Or better yet, how you didn't investigate it. You didn't deem it relevant to investigate any further, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm going to object to the argument of the --
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Did you deem it relevant to investigate it?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes. To a certain extent.
MR. DECOSTE: And what extent is that?
PATRICK SANFORD: Trying to find if a -- if a purchase was made with -- through checks, through cash withdrawals, through a loan, through her finances.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you remember what you said in deposition?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, not off the top of my head.
MR. DECOSTE: would it help you the take a look at it?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Pages 73, 74, starting on line 16, if you could take a look --
PATRICK SANFORD: which lines?
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah, you're going to start on line 16. Just read down. Let me know if that helps. And it goes onto the next page.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I recall that.
MR. DECOSTE: You didn't deem it relevant, did you?
PATRICK SANFORD: I did not find the blue book value to be relevant, which is what you were asking me in my deposition.
MR. DECOSTE: So the Lexus itself is relevant against her here in trial, but it's not -- I'll hold that question.
The idea of the Lexus is relevant here in trial, but to investigate it, it's not?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Argumentative.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: It doesn't fit your theory if Katherine Magbanua purchased an old beat-up Lexus from the guy she was working with, the guy she used to date? Right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Argumentative.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to the wiretaps, Government's 138. You remember yesterday how there was call RR played -- and I won't replay all these -- but how it was played yesterday, and there was a phone call from May 13th, how Charles helped her pay for tires for the Lexus?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Good for the theory, right? He's buying her things?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Yesterday I asked you to review some CDs of other phone calls.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you did that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I reviewed some of them. Other ones I had to just look at the summary because I didn't have time to review them all.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, there's one CD labeled 1672-934, and that's from April 22nd of 2016. You reviewed that CD, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: which CD was it? 1672?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct.
PATRICK SANFORD: That was the call numbers, 1672? That is not here.
MR. DECOSTE: we'll come back to that. You have all of them up there, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: All of the CDs, I believe so. The ones you left up here.
MR. DECOSTE: we'll circle back around. You've listened to all the phone calls though, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Every phone call on the wire, no.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So you may or may not have listened now to call 1672?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm not positive which one that is. I was in Miami for a lot of wire.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. when we take a brief break, we'll grab it, we'll bring it up, and we'll come back to that.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: In the review of the calls that you did review, you remember hearing conversations about how Katherine purchased the vehicle from Charles Adelson for $2,500, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, not in the conversation. I remember conversations where he's telling her to get it titled, and she had the vehicle.
MR. DECOSTE: Again, we'll come back to 1672.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go over to the paychecks now. Your theory that she's getting paychecks from a place that she's not working, right, that's your theory?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's what the evidence shows.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the evidence you say, you're talking about the pole camera, the eight months' worth of video that you took out in front of Katherine Magbanua's house, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's some of the evidence, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: That's the evidence that you have that you believe that she wasn't working there because she wasn't physically going to the Adelson Institute, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Along with her cell phone that showed she wasn't going, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, we'll get into that. Charles Adelson, the traveling periodontist, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Never at one location really for that long. He's traveling around to different dental offices. He's all over the place, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sometimes, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you learned that Katherine Magbanua's job for the Adelson Institute is to contact patients, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I did not learn that.
MR. DECOSTE: Yesterday when we played call E, you remember that, in Government's 138?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: You remember at the 1031 mark where Charles says to Katherine, "Did you call those patients?”
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you want to hear it again?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. I believe you.
MR. DECOSTE: You -- you agree with me that there's evidence in a phone call from your wiretaps where Charles is telling Katherine, "Call the patients"?
PATRICK SANFORD: I agree that Charles told her a lot of things, like thanks for cleaning it up on the weekend, too.
MR. DECOSTE: we're not talking about that right now. we're talking about the fact -- now, let's back up here. The bump happens on what date?
PATRICK SANFORD: The bump is on the 19th of April, ‘16.
MR. DECOSTE: Say that again now.
PATRICK SANFORD: April -- April 19th.
MR. DECOSTE: April 19th. And you would agree with me that there was no communication to these people that they were being monitored?
PATRICK SANFORD: These people? which people?
MR. DECOSTE: The people that you had wiretapped, Katherine Magbanua and Charles Adelson.
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't send them notification, hey, we're taking a wiretap on you. Because you're trying to catch pure communications, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not ahead of time, that's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: In front of you, you have a CD for 899-519/520?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You listened to that last night, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, that's a call from April 15th, 2016?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Days before the bump?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Days before anybody would think, hey, we may be getting wiretapped?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And on that call Katherine says --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled. This is one of the ones in evidence; is it not?
MR. DECOSTE: It's not, Your Honor. I've got it premarked.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll sustain the objection.
MR. DECOSTE: Defense moves in what's premarked as Defense 26.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is there objection?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, in the phone calls that you reviewed that are pre-bump, there's no conversation, I don't work for you, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go back to the investigation and what wasn't done. You learned that her job is contacting patients.
PATRICK SANFORD: That's incorrect. I heard that on a call, but that's one of the many conversations they had. I did not learn any other way that she was doing that.
MR. DECOSTE: You believe she doesn't work there because she's not going to a location, because her cell phone shows that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: And because we're listening to her phone and there's no calls being made to patients.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't know her job description, whether it requires her to go to the office, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, we don't.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't know what software the Adelson Institute runs to allow people to work remotely, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, we don't.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't know that they use Dentrix where you can log in and you can view patient files, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No idea.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't know if she was supplied a work phone or has a home line to be communicating with those patients, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: There was no evidence of that. She actually made comments about working on her cell phone.
MR. DECOSTE: There's no evidence because it wasn't investigated, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Argumentative.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is that your computer that's beeping? whose computer --
MR. DECOSTE: I think so. I just unplugged it.
Your Honor, I believe there's an objection for the Government.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm sorry, the beep distracted me. I'm sorry. The objection is what?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Argumentative.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll sustain.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, you're aware that people can make phone calls through internet devices as well, too, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: On a case-by-case basis, yes, it's possible.
MR. DECOSTE: So what you're saying is, is that you have evidence that she's using her phone for work but at the same time saying that that's evidence that she's not working there?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. There was no evidence that she was using that phone for work. She stated she used that phone for work, and we had zero evidence of it because we were listening to all of her calls.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, again, you objectively investigated all of this?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: At some point in time you get Charles Adelson's iCloud messages, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: His Apple information?
PATRICK SANFORD: His Apple information, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You went through all of it, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I personally didn't go through all of it, no.
MR. DECOSTE: This may be where the problem is then. I'm showing you what's been --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Move to strike.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Mr. DeCoste. The jury disregard counsel's comments.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: I'm showing you what's been entered in as Defense 15. Before I show you that, though, when was it that Katherine Magbanua started receiving checks from the Adelson Institute; do you remember?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't remember the exact date. I want to say it was September of ‘14.
MR. DECOSTE: If I were to say that the first check in the memo line was September 15, 2014 through September 18, 2014 --
PATRICK SANFORD: Sounds correct.
MR. DECOSTE: -- would that seem about right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Seems about right.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm showing you what's been entered as Defense 15. Ever seen that before?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I have not.
MR. DECOSTE: So this is a text message from Katherine Magbanua to Charles Adelson saying, "I'll let you know on my availability so you can know more or less how many hours I can dedicate. Thank you again.”
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: And if you could take a look at the top of that where the time stamp is. what's the relation of the time stamp date?
PATRICK SANFORD: 9-14 of ‘14.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct me if I'm wrong. That's one day before the date of employment in the memo line.
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to the next topic, breast surgery. At some point you get the records, her medical records from the breast surgery that she had, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Those were sent to TPD, not to me.
MR. DECOSTE: But you see it eventually, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't think I saw the records, no.
MR. DECOSTE: You know about it?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm not going to ask you specifics on it, but you know about it?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: The breast surgery was paid for partly in cash -- mostly in cash, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you believe that that goes to your theory, that that was a gift from Charles Adelson for helping commit the murder of his brother-in-law, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Partially, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You cannot say where that cash came from, can you?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, we couldn't trace it back to anything -- any legitimate purpose, legitimate source.
MR. DECOSTE: That goes right into our next topic, the cash, including the cash deposits. You can't say where any of the cash that was deposited into her account came from, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, we cannot.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about what investigation you did. You learned that Katherine was working at nightclubs in 2013, 2014 right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You had no doubt that she was working at nightclubs, your words?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: And one working VIP bottle service in a nightclub in Miami would make cash tips, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: In your investigation of Katherine Magbanua, of course, you looked at her social media, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Some of it, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You went through the photos, you -- in conjunction with the Tallahassee Police Department -- subpoenaed her Facebook records, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And on her Facebook account there are photos. You looked at those, you looked at communications, anything you could find to help build your case?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm showing you what's been premarked as Defense 21. You know what that is, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I've seen it.
MR. DECOSTE: That's a photograph --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'‘1l overrule the objection. You can answer that question.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: You know that's a photograph from Katherine Magbanua's Facebook account, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you know that because you reviewed it, and she's in the photo?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And that fairly and accurately depicts what you saw on Facebook, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Historical Facebook, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: I move in what's been premarked as Defense 21.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Objection?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Hearsay and lack of foundation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll overrule the objection. It will be admitted, 21, Defense -- Magbanua Defense 21.
(Magbanua Defense Exhibit No. 21 received in evidence.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, before I move on to the Facebook photo and publish it for the jury, part of the investigation you did as well is you pulled Katherine Magbanua's e-mail accounts, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I did not personally pull her e-mail accounts, no. TPD did. TPD did.
MR. DECOSTE: were you -- and it may be a no here -- were you advised of e-mails from a company called to TU-BE; T-U, dash, B-E Branding from 2012?
PATRICK SANFORD: 2012, no.
MR. DECOSTE: what about Dollhouse Marketing from 2013?
PATRICK SANFORD: Thirteen, no.
MR. DECOSTE: This would be along the lines of -- did you ever learn that she was helping do brand promotions for liquor companies in conjunction with working at nightclubs?
PATRICK SANFORD: I think we had the indication of that early on in "12 and '13, well before everything.
MR. DECOSTE: And this is your indication, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And if you could, tell the jury when is this from?
PATRICK SANFORD: Looks like May of 2013.
MR. DECOSTE: You've gone through all her financial records?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: No paychecks from these companies, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: In 2013, no, there was not.
MR. DECOSTE: What about 2014?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, there was not.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that a liquor company doing an event at what looks like a park may be paying their people in cash.
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure. Absolutely.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, at some point you learn of the nightclubs that she was working at in South Florida, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And those nightclubs are -- what are the names of them?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall off the top of my head.
MR. DECOSTE: You investigated them, though, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Move to strike.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
PATRICK SANFORD: Investigated what?
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: You don't know the names of them?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't remember them today, no.
MR. DECOSTE: But you remember all the facts that helped the theory, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Move to strike.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Mr. DeCoste, that's not appropriate. Jury, disregard counsel's comments.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, you're brought onto this case to investigate things in South Florida, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: There's two nightclubs in South Florida that you learned that Katherine Magbanua was working at, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: One of them is Hollywood Live, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: The other, Club Fate?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You made many trips, many trips to South Florida -- actually, all over the state of Florida, many trips. You never once went to one of those nightclubs, did you?
PATRICK SANFORD: Because -- no, I didn't.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you've learned that her employment with these nightclubs, with Brand Promotions continues 2013, 2014, and 2015, right?
MR. DECOSTE: TI don't think that is mine, Judge. I think that's this other laptop.
JUDGE HANKINSON: It's beeping for some reason.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, through your investigation you learned that that employment continued, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: which employment?
MR. DECOSTE: working at the nightclubs.
PATRICK SANFORD: Until when? My -- my investigation showed it probably stopped around mid '14.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, part of your investigation of my client, you looked at all her financial records, too, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Including her income tax, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: what's the name of the nightclub that she's receiving a check from for tips?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sinz Club.
MR. DECOSTE: what's below that?
PATRICK SANFORD: Fate.
MR. DECOSTE: That's the nightclub that we just brought up a minute ago, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: And what's the date of that check?
PATRICK SANFORD: 6 of '18 -- or 6 of ‘15, I mean.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, this -- have you ever seen this before?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I have seen that.
MR. DECOSTE: That was an irregularity. She wasn't receiving -- you knew she was working there in 2014 and ‘13, but there was never a point where she was receiving checks for tips, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: So this seemed like a one-off thing?
PATRICK SANFORD: It seemed like they were giving her a check, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But you agree with me that she's working there in 2014, and in 2015 she still has an association with them?
PATRICK SANFORD: In -- yes, in June of 2015 she received a check, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That memo line doesn't say 2014, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: And you have no evidence that there was a break in her employment there, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I have no evidence there was a break. I have no evidence that she was -- continued working there between then and then, between then and way back then.
MR. DECOSTE: Never spoke to a manager, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Nope.
MR. DECOSTE: Never spoke to an owner?
PATRICK SANFORD: Nope.
MR. DECOSTE: Never spoke to any of their regular patrons on their vIP list --
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I did not.
MR. DECOSTE: -- to find out their net worth and the type tips one would give a VIP bottle girl in Miami?
PATRICK SANFORD: Nope.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me Miami is a lively place?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The nightlife is almost like Las Vegas of the east, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: There's a lot of high-net-worth people that live there and that travel there.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: That the tips -- do you agree?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know personally, no.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree that the tips that one would give at a place like that may be different than other locations?
PATRICK SANFORD: I have no idea.
MR. DECOSTE: Your neighborhood bar -- bartender may be making less than a VIP bottle girl at a massive nightclub?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Calls for speculation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: without ever having gone to Club Fate, you can't even say the magnitude of the nightclub, can you?
MR. DECOSTE: You -- in your review of my client's social media and Facebook, you came upon other pictures, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm showing you what's been premarked as Defense 22. You know what that is, don't you?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's another photograph from her Facebook, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know that that's a photograph from her Facebook because she's in the photo and you also reviewed her Facebook, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And that fairly and accurately depicts what she had on social media, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Move in what's been premarked as Defense 22.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Objection?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Hearsay. Relevance, and lack of foundation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if we could approach sidebar.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right.
(Sidebar conference had as follows):
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, I know it's early for a morning break. But I'm --
MR. DECOSTE: Good morning, Your Honor.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: -- needing one whenever you're --
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, everything that I'm bringing in right now is impeachment. The first photograph that we have impeaches him as to when she started working. The next photograph --
JUDGE HANKINSON: I granted that into evidence.
MR. DECOSTE: This is along the same lines. This is a photograph --
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sometimes, I'm wrong, so -- all right.
MR. DECOSTE: This photograph is along the same exact lines, as to the fact that she was still working there in 2015. Again, this agent has said, well, you know, there's no evidence of where the cash came from. This is evidence that we have from the social media that he reviewed, that he has, that she was working there.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I don't think there's anything about State's Exhibit 22 that indicates that she's working anywhere in particular. And I don't know when the photo was taken. So I maintain my objections.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, this was shown to the Government. The date is 4-7-2015.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Which would be when it was put on Facebook?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct. Now, the Government has used Facebook photos in their case in chief. And I would note in the background there's a velvet rope. Velvet ropes aren't normally around places outside of nightlife. As well as her attire as well, too. Now, they're open to cross on it saying, this doesn't -- it's a different date. But I think that their -- I think their objection is as to cross-examination not as to admissibility.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I sustain the objection.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: There was a request for a break. we'll take 15 minutes.
(Jury exits.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Mr. DeCoste, I was informed you wanted to make something of record.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor, if we could either have access to the record, or as an alternative if I can make argument now. It has to do -- my cross-examination right now, I believe, is being limited by the Court.
This witness -- and I've got specific language that I do want to read into the record. But, in a nutshell, this witness has a bias. I am trying to cross that witness on that bias.
Part of it is the investigative decisions that he made. And what I'm trying to introduce in is not being entered in for the truth of the matter asserted, it's thing that he knew. For example, the phone call talking about purchase of vehicle. This witness has testified saying there's no evidence whatsoever that it was legitimately purchased. There is evidence.
The Government yesterday was allowed to enter in a phone call that had nothing to do with an alleged conspiracy but instead was about tires on a Lexus, as well, and I believe that it's along the same lines.
when they called Erika Johnson to the stand, when she testified inconsistently, they were allowed to play an entire phone call to the jury. I am doing the exact same thing; that this witness has testified there's no evidence of something when there is clear evidence from their own evidence. If Your Honor wants me, I can read this in now, or if Your Honor wants me --
JUDGE HANKINSON: I don't know what you're talking about.
MR. DECOSTE: The State is confusing argumentative questions with effective cross-examination or impeachment.
Crossing on investigative decisions goes to witness bias and/or motive to lie. So statements going towards establishing that are not offered for the truth of what Ms. Magbanua is saying, it's being offered to show what the witness chose to ignore. All witnesses are subject to cross-examination for the purpose of discrediting them by showing bias, prejudice, or interest.
This is especially so where a key State witness is being cross-examined. That comes Jones v. State, 385 So.2d 132. It's a Fourth DCA case from 1980.
Another quote, this one comes from Lavette v. State, that's L-a-v-e-t-t-e, v. State, 442 So.2d 265. That's a Florida First DCA case from 1983. Defense should be allowed wide latitude to demonstrate bias or possible motive for witness testimony.
Your Honor, when I was asking questions of this agent, what he personally wanted -- we have a recording of him saying, "I want the people that I believe were involved in this, that's what I want." And he used the words personally.
I was trying to impeach him, trying to ask him first and then was planning on impeaching him with that recording.
The third topic that we had, the Court is effectively limiting Ms. Magbanua's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. That's coming from DCV v. State, 400 So.2d 825. It's a Third DCA case from 1981.
Quote: The right to confrontation under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments may in certain case require an opportunity to develop issues of bias by cross-examination. All witness are subject to cross-examination for the purpose of discrediting them by bias, prejudice, or interest, especially where a key witness is being crossed. This is the lead agent.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I deal with each question as it comes up. I do the best I can to make an appropriate ruling. If there is a conviction in the case, an appellate court will decide whether I was right or wrong. So that's where we stand on that. That's arguable.
But what is not arguable, Mr. DeCoste, is you making comments in front of a jury. There is no excuse. There is no basis for you making personal comments in front of the jury, and we're not going to have anymore of those. Do you understand? Do you understand me?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Let's have a jury, please.
(Jury enters.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may proceed.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, before we broke, we were talking about my client's employment at nightclubs during 2013, '14, and ‘15. And we were talking about how that related over to cash deposits. You remember that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's turn over to other sources. You know that Katherine Magbanua had how many children with Sigfredo Garcia?
PATRICK SANFORD: Two.
MR. DECOSTE: Two young children, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's pull that check, please, Mr. DeCoste --
MR. DECOSTE: It's actually there so nobody walks over the --
JUDGE HANKINSON: What?
MR. DECOSTE: It's there so nobody walks over the cables, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: On the screen, I'm talking about. Pull the check off the screen. Thank you.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: You don't know how he was helping provide for those children, do you?
PATRICK SANFORD: Toward the end he was working at Rapid Capital Funding, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: what you just said, I don't know if the jury heard it. Rapid Capital Funding, he was working at Rapid Capital Funding?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Receiving a paycheck?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Prior to that, you don't know, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, we had no evidence of what he was earning.
MR. DECOSTE: You were there for his arrest, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct me if I'm wrong. when you arrested him, he had $5,000 cash on him?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's turn now to the bump. This took place south of Fifth in Miami?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: It was a big operation, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Compared to -- sure. Yeah, it was a big operation. Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: You had a pre-operation meeting at the Miami Beach Police Department?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You had personnel from the Miami Beach Police Department. You had agents flown in. Right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, that's incorrect.
MR. DECOSTE: You only had local Miami agents?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You're not a Miami agent, are you?
PATRICK SANFORD: I did not fly in myself, and the undercover drove down, and we were the only ones from out of town.
MR. DECOSTE: Drove. The FBI pays for gas, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Pays for car?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: For people to travel down to South Florida for this operation?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: That costs money?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: There was also task force officers present, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I know of one or two.
MR. DECOSTE: Robert Lanier?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And those are people that work in conjunction with the local police force and a federal agency, in this case Federal Bureau of Investigation, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: There was also a lot of video equipment that was brought, and it was filmed from multiple angles, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you were the lead of this operation, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now -- and I'm thinking it was probably somebody above you said, Hey, we should have a high-altitude plane flying overhead as well, too?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Not a helicopter, not a small but a high-altitude plane flying overhead doing additional video surveillance.
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Not an inexpensive operation.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm showing you what's been entered in as Government 120. You know what that is, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I do.
MR. DECOSTE: What is it?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's the copy of the -- the flier that the undercover provided to Mrs. Adelson.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the only reason why we have a copy is because you don't have a copy of the original, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Asked and answered.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: It, quote, slipped our minds.
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct, and --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Argumentative.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct. During the operation I was responsible for getting everyone on the street, getting out there on time. We were debating on the amount to put on there. And I was talking on the phone to TPD, sending people out the door. We were trying to get out there before Mrs. Adelson crossed the street. And at the last second we wrote it down on the paper and ran out the door. And it was my mistake for not taking a picture of it.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: You agree with me that you should have copied it?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: It didn't have to be done last minute, did it?
PATRICK SANFORD: It did because we were debating on the amount.
MR. DECOSTE: That doesn't necessitate the need to do it at the last minute, does it?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's what happens. It happened at the last minute.
MR. DECOSTE: Could have done it at the pre-operational meeting?
PATRICK SANFORD: This was the pre-operational meeting.
MR. DECOSTE: So you have a pre-operational meeting at the Miami Beach Police Department before all this happens, and nobody can take out a cell phone, snap a photo?
PATRICK SANFORD: we could have. And, like I said, it slipped my mind because I'm worried about officer safety getting and everything on the street. But that was not our key piece of evidence that we were worried about at that time.
MR. DECOSTE: we have to take the FBI's word of what was written on the piece of paper that was handed to Donna Adelson, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Along with the phone calls that substantiate what was written on it, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: well, on none of those calls did we hear anybody say exactly what was written on there, did we?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, but you can hear inferences of what was written on it.
MR. DECOSTE: So we're taking somebody else's opinion of what was on there as evidence of what was on there?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's not an opinion when they're talking about the amount and the phone number, and that's what the key evidence is, was them calling back to that phone number.
MR. DECOSTE: Does that mean they read the entirety of what was on there? Let me rephrase that because that was a little bit confusing for you.
You're talking about how on the phone Donna Adelson says 5,000, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Does that mean that she was reading everything that was written on there?
PATRICK SANFORD: Absolutely, because that was the only thing written on there besides the phone number.
MR. DECOSTE: Did she say anything about there are definitely people that I continue to run into in Miami, people who ran into Dan, did she say that over the phone?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. We didn't handwrite that.
MR. DECOSTE: So she didn't say everything that was on the paper, all the words on the paper?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the activity and the purpose of this whole bump is, you hand the paperwork to Donna Adelson, and you want to see what happens, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct. We want to see if that number -- who that number goes back to and who it ends up with --
MR. DECOSTE: Correct. So --
PATRICK SANFORD: -- the phone tree.
MR. DECOSTE: And it goes from Donna Adelson to Charles Adelson to Katherine Magbanua to Sigfredo Garcia, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: But this was a controlled bump, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: what do you mean by controlled?
MR. DECOSTE: Let me explain. They didn't just walk up and hand this piece of paper to Donna Adelson and see what happens, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's pretty much what we did, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: No. Correct me if I'm wrong. The undercover said your son, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Oh, yes. He had a conversation with her, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Said the name Katherine twice.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Said the name Tuto twice?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So it was controlled -- the information that was given was controlled, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: The information that our agent gave them, we gave him specific information to give them, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And that was the exact communication pattern. Donna calls her son going, Hey, a guy just gave me a piece of paper, said you, said Katherine, said --
PATRICK SANFORD: That's incorrect.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about it.
PATRICK SANFORD: That's incorrect.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about that.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Because you're talking about the fact that you don't know whether it was Katherine or ex-girlfriend, right? That's what you're talking about?
PATRICK SANFORD: Exactly. That's exactly what she said.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you don't have any whatsApp communications between Donna Adelson and Charles Adelson, do you?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, we don't.
MR. DECOSTE: But you know from the wiretaps that he uses it, don't you?
PATRICK SANFORD: At some point later it on it seems he does, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, let's talk about his -- and the language was ex-girlfriend, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Charlie told his mother that, yes, they said ex-girlfriend.
MR. DECOSTE: we're going to step aside for a second, and we're going to talk about his relationships.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Through your investigation you meet with many people, one of them is June Umchinda, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, when you met with her, she was his then girlfriend, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's -- that's incorrect.
MR. DECOSTE: She explains to you the series of girlfriends, right? How she -- how she was his girlfriend at one point?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: And before her there was a girl named whitney?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And before whitney there was Katherine?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You knew that the relationship with Katherine was a long relationship, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Somewhat, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you believe that during that relationship that Katherine met one or all of the Adelsons. well, obviously, Charles because they're dating, but the other three of the Adelsons, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't know the extent of the relationship with whitney, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yeah, I believe I do.
MR. DECOSTE: You have no evidence that she ever even met his parents?
PATRICK SANFORD: we interviewed whitney.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if we can go sidebar. Richardson hearing.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
(Sidebar conference had as follows):
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, at no point in time have we received (inaudible) on this matter. More importantly, when we deposed this agent several months ago, I went through every single action, every single thing he did on it, every witness he met with, everything. And asked the question: Is there anything that we're leaving out? I believe that this Government knows that there was a conversation with whitney because every time he is meeting with somebody, he's with either Sherrie Bennett, Craig Isom, or Jason Newlin.
we are on no notice, and I think that codefendant counsel is in the same position, that there is no evidence whatsoever that's been presented to us that there was a meeting with whitney.
MR. ZANGENEH: TI don't have anything to show that a report was drafted with regards to this meeting also.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I don't know if there was either. I'll have to look into that.
MR. DECOSTE: I would ask that we take a recess and then inquire from this witness.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I decline that request. we'll move on.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, you remember when I took your deposition March 6th, 2019, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: I went over every single action you've done, every single report. You remember that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And I asked you: Is there anything that I'm leaving out? Do you remember that?
PATRICK SANFORD: I do.
MR. DECOSTE: Never mentioned ever meeting with whitney, did you?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't remember.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you want to take a look at it?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. Did you bring up if I -- did you ask me if I interviewed whitney?
MR. DECOSTE: Do you remember when I asked you: Is there anything that I'm leaving out?
PATRICK SANFORD: And I said as far as I can remember.
MR. DECOSTE: when did you meet with her?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't remember the dates. It was -- it was, of course, after the -- after the bump, after the arrest.
MR. DECOSTE: And who was present for this meeting?
PATRICK SANFORD: Investigator Isom.
MR. DECOSTE: So this would have been before he retired. It would have been years ago?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: As you sit here, though, you have no idea of the extent of the relationship that Charles Adelson had with whitney.
PATRICK SANFORD: The extent of the relationship, I don't know what you mean by that.
MR. DECOSTE: whether Donna Adelson would ever consider whitney an ex-girlfriend as opposed to a fling.
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe Donna knew who whitney was.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't know that for sure, though, do you?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'd have to go back and -- and review stuff. I don't remember exactly off the top of my head, no.
MR. DECOSTE: So June was post everything, so it couldn't have been June. You have the bump. So, again, this is 2016. The bump is going on. And during the time -- around that time of the bump, he's with June?
PATRICK SANFORD: Around the time of the bump?
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah.
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So it can't be June. She's not the ex-girlfriend, she's the current girl.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Katherine is the ex-girlfriend, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure. One of them.
MR. DECOSTE: So let's come back over to this. You have the bump, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The communication then goes to Charles, right? whatever the conversation in between him and Donna, whether it's on whatsApp, whether it's the inferring that's -- it's got to be Katherine because she's the ex-girlfriend. He then contacts the other person that the undercover named. Katherine, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Katherine gets the information from Charles, says the other name, and then she contacts the other person that was named, Tuto?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Controlled -- controlled growth, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: what would have been stronger evidence is if you had done this -- correct me if I'm wrong -- without giving any message whatsoever?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Argumentative.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go over the wiretaps. The wiretaps -- correct me if I'm wrong -- are going on around the time of the bump?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: They start a little bit before, and they continue about month and a half after?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You got wiretaps on Katherine Magbanua and Charles Adelson, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Not on Wendi Adelson?
MR. DECOSTE: Not on Donna Adelson?
MR. DECOSTE: Not on Harvey Adelson?
MR. DECOSTE: Not on Jessica Rodriguez?
MR. DECOSTE: Not on Sigfredo Garcia?
MR. DECOSTE: You had a plane, high altitude, to film the handing of a piece of paper, but you don't get wiretaps on people that you believe are involved in the conspiracy, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Argumentative.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: You don't have any access to what, if any, whatsApp messages were going on amongst anybody, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, WhatsApp -- and you know what whatsApp is, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You can make phone calls through whatsApp as well, too?
PATRICK SANFORD: You can.
MR. DECOSTE: Coming back over to Apple, one could make a FaceTime call. No records of that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You wouldn't even know that any of these communications ever happened. Not only is there not a recording, there's no data saying, Hey, on this date these people spoke, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I think on the cell phones it actually shows a data transmission, if I'm not mistaken. But that's a Corbitt question.
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant Corbitt?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sergeant Corbitt question, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: we'll ask him.
Now, during these wiretaps there's 359-some-odd phone calls, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I guess.
MR. DECOSTE: You listened to them, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not all of them.
MR. DECOSTE: There's over two months’ worth of recordings?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, given the fact that Katherine Magbanua is one of the two people being wiretapped, it's a lot of her phone calls, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Not once does she say anything about being involved in a murder. Not once.
MR. DECOSTE: The whole purpose of these wiretaps is to secretly record people, to get their conversations, to see if there is evidence, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: To get certain types of evidence, sure.
MR. DECOSTE: And, again, it's done in secret. It's not done putting these people on notice, Hey, we're listening to your every word, your every communication, your every thought, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Instead yesterday we listened to -- to conversations about TI and tattoos, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Among -- among other things, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Charles and Katherine communicating after the bump, that wasn't irregular, was it?
PATRICK SANFORD: wasn't what?
MR. DECOSTE: It wasn't out of the blue. It wasn't, Hey, I haven't talked to you in long time. I'm immediately going call you because this bump just happened?
PATRICK SANFORD: You said irregular. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: It wasn't irregular, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: The wiretap begins on April 8th, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: One could think that when the bump happens, people may start thinking, Hey, we may be listened to, right? That's natural assumption.
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: So between 4-8 -- so April 8, 2016 going up to April 19th, 2016 when the bump happens, they're regularly communicating, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: There's calls on April 11th, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: April 12th?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: April 13th, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: If it's -- if you're saying so. I don't have the list in front of me.
MR. DECOSTE: You're -- you're the lead --
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't have it in front of me.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. But you know that they were regularly communicating?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, prior to April 8th, we don't have any call detail records. Let me rephrase that. You have call detail records from years prior. But from the beginning part, let's say the start to April of 2016, you don't have call detail records for Katherine Magbanua or anybody else?
PATRICK SANFORD: what do you mean call detail records?
MR. DECOSTE: Stuff from the cell phone providers saying, Hey, these are all the communications somebody's having.
PATRICK SANFORD: Prior to April --
MR. DECOSTE: Just prior to the bump.
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm not aware of that.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you believe that it's evidence because Katherine didn't herself call the police, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
PATRICK SANFORD: That's part of the evidence.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Let's get into that now. Katherine wasn't bumped, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: Nobody went up to her with a flier making demands, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Nobody called her, no undercover called her, right, threatening her?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Nobody messaged her?
MR. DECOSTE: E-mailed her?
MR. DECOSTE: She was never contacted?
PATRICK SANFORD: By the undercover?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So it wouldn't be her position to say, Hey, I'm going to call the FBI because somebody else is being harassed, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Can you repeat that question?
MR. DECOSTE: All right. we're talking about if it's her position --
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: She hasn't been contacted. She isn't being harassed. It's not her position to call the FBI because somebody else is being harassed, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I disagree.
MR. DECOSTE: Yesterday the Government -- Government's 138, they played call D, and that was the first call post-bump between Charles and Katherine.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, correct me if I'm wrong, there's three prior calls to that, between Charles and Donna?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Charles never said to Katherine, Don't talk in the apartment?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, he did not.
MR. DECOSTE: But he did say it to Donna?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Post-bump Charles and Donna are talking. The first thing Charles says is, “Don't talk in the apartment,” right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's not the first thing he said, no.
MR. DECOSTE: It's one of the things that he says in those calls, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It is one of the things, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You believe that he's involved in a conspiracy with his mother and also Katherine, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the meaning of that statement would be, Hey, you could say something that could get both of us in trouble, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: But he doesn't say it to Katherine, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Moving forward. Now, do you have you -- your spreadsheet up there?
PATRICK SANFORD: Of the calls?
MR. DECOSTE: It's fine if you do.
PATRICK SANFORD: Of the calls?
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: we next go the call E, right? Still in Government's 130, for the record. And now it's call E, April 19th, 2016. And, again, we're not going to play it again for this jury. we've gone through it. We went through all that yesterday. Charles says to Katherine, "If it involves you, I'll keep you in loop,” right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Then we move forward to Dolce Vita? April 20th, 2016, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: It's a meeting. It's a public restaurant, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: There's people there?
PATRICK SANFORD: There's a couple of people there, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: In fact, one of your agents was able to walk up and sit down pretty close to them.
PATRICK SANFORD: A couple tables away.
MR. DECOSTE: There's servers in there?
PATRICK SANFORD: There are.
MR. DECOSTE: There's people around working at the establishment?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Much different scenario, much different setting than the meeting that he had with his mother Donna, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: At that particular point it was a little bit different.
MR. DECOSTE: Do we need to pull up the picture?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. I remember the meeting with Donna.
MR. DECOSTE: You know the picture that we're talking about, where Charles and Donna are out by the water --
PATRICK SANFORD: I took it.
MR. DECOSTE: -- at a picnic table, completely away from everybody else?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Much different setting, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: A different setting, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Moving forward now to call K, still in Government's 138. Sigfredo Garcia says to Katherine Magbanua, "The less you know," right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I believe that's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You remember that?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe that's correct, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So at this point you believe the information has gone from Donna Adelson to Charles Adelson to Katherine to Sigfredo?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So Sigfredo Garcia now has the information. He knows the information, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: what information are you referring to?
MR. DECOSTE: well, the --
PATRICK SANFORD: From the bump?
MR. DECOSTE: The bump, correct.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: It's made its way around to him?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And from his statement, "The less you know," that would indicate that he knows something, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Or the less you Know in the future, too. It could be either way.
MR. DECOSTE: You agreed to look at this objectively, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right. That's what I'm doing.
MR. DECOSTE: So let's look at it objectively. There's something that he won't let her know, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, he also sounds very angry in that phone call, doesn't he?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe so, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: At one point in time he says, you know, somebody can soothe you?
PATRICK SANFORD: Somebody can do what?
MR. DECOSTE: Soothe you.
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't remember that.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me, though, that he seemed angry?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But you don't know why he was angry, did you?
PATRICK SANFORD: Angry because of everything that's going on, it seemed like.
MR. ZANGENEH: Objection, Judge. It calls for speculation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Or maybe it -- it was a situation that he was upset that Charles Adelson was again contacting Katherine.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Argumentative.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
PATRICK SANFORD: It's possible.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: As the calls progressed between Charles Adelson and Donna Adelson, you would agree with me that Charles Adelson increasingly is more confident that it's law enforcement, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't agree with that statement.
MR. DECOSTE: Have you listened to call 1557?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I have.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's go sidebar, please.
(Sidebar conference had as follows):
JUDGE HANKINSON: Yesterday I sustained the defense objection as to most of the calls between Charles Adelson and Donna Adelson. And now it seems that we're getting into the substance of those calls that I sustained the defense objection on.
I don't know whether it's the defense intention to have the Court revisit that ruling, and you're withdrawing your objection, because it seems to me we're getting into where they're going to have to be played for the jury. So let's address that.
MR. ZANGENEH: My objection is still there. And if defense counsel for Ms. Magbanua opens that door, I'm going to move to sever and move for a mistrial.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I mean, we'll see what happens. And you can make whatever motion is appropriate at the time. But I want to bring -- alert this. If that's what you're intending to do, so be it. But we're not going to then make it look like the State was hiding those matters. It's going to be made clear to the jury that I sustained your objection to keep them out before when they're played, so --
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, humbly, I don't think that that would be the right recourse. when it all comes down to it -- I would ask counsel for the Government to not snicker when I'm making an argument.
The situation that we have here is a matter of hearsay. The Government was seeking to bring them in as evidence of a conspiracy.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I sustained your hearsay objection.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, when I'm bringing it in, I'm not bringing these in for the truth of the matter asserted. I'm not trying to prove that Charles Adelson believed that it was Cinaudible).
This investigator has said that he reviewed everything and that there wasn't evidence of an increasing belief that Charles Adelson thought it was the police. where, actually, there is. It begins with, I think that it's law enforcement. It then goes to 99 percent, 100 percent, 1,000 percent, 10,000 percent.
what I'm doing right now is impeaching this investigator. He said that he's reviewed it. He said, No, I disagree with that. where in these audios it's clear that he is having an increasing belief --
Now, I'm not looking to elicit the entire call. Frankly, I don't think that it would all be relevant. But the specific portions where Charles Adelson is talking about his belief that the undercover was law enforcement is relevant for the purpose of impeaching this witness.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. Well, I understand what you may think. But I'm telling you that if you get into the substance of the statements between Adelson, Donna, and Charlie Adelson, I'm going to reconsider my ruling on suppressing those wiretaps.
So you just -- I'm not telling you to do anything or not do anything. I'm alerting you that that is an issue that I'm going to revisit. All right. So you may proceed.
MR. DECOSTE: One question, Judge. On a call-by-call basis or on all calls?
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm not going to try to prejudge that.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent --
MR. DECOSTE: Good to go, Your Honor?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, we're going to pause right now because that break reminded me of something that I needed to go back to. we're going to go back to the cash deposits working in the nightclubs, okay?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm going to give you a reference, I want to be fair here. So during your investigation at some point you receive Charles Adelson's iCloud data, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I did not receive it. And I believe it was later in the investigation when we received it.
MR. DECOSTE: Eventually, you get it and review it, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I reviewed some of it, not all of it.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, when you say, some of it, you're saying that you haven't gone through the 300,000 events that are in his iCloud data?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct, I did not. Somebody else did.
MR. DECOSTE: So you don't know if there are text messages in there talking about Katherine quitting her job working at a nightclub in April of 2015; you don't know that?
PATRICK SANFORD: I haven't seen that text. I've seen a lot of them, but I don't remember that text.
MR. DECOSTE: But, again, you haven't gone through every single one?
MR. DECOSTE: It's a lot, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It is.
MR. DECOSTE: But, again, with this evidence of cash potentially coming from Sigfredo Garcia, coming from the nightclubs, you still maintain, well, it's still off-the-books cash; it came from the murder, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: we weren't able to trace that cash back to anything, especially off of her tax returns, it was not there.
MR. DECOSTE: The Federal Bureau of Investigation, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Not the Federal Bureau of Imagination?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Move to strike.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Jury disregard Mr. DeCoste's comments.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to the call log. Do you have your spreadsheet?
PATRICK SANFORD: I do.
MR. DECOSTE: That's April 25, 2016, Charles Adelson wants to meet with Katherine Magbanua at the Icon; remember that --
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: -- from yesterday?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that in that call, in your lay opinion, Charles Adelson sounds worried. "we've got to meet. We've got to meet." Right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Katherine Magbanua, on the other hand, is reluctant, "I don't want to drive all the way down there." Right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: Not worried?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not worried, is that a question?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes.
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe she was worried because she was asking if he could talk through the whatsApp in that particular call.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, at this point in time -- correct me if I'm wrong -- there's already a bunch of media following the death of Dan Markel, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: At this exact point?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes.
PATRICK SANFORD: I disagree.
MR. DECOSTE: There was media out there?
PATRICK SANFORD: A year prior. After it happened --
MR. DECOSTE: Speculation --
PATRICK SANFORD: -- the media died down.
MR. DECOSTE: Sorry to cut you off. Speculation that the Adelsons were involved, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go now to call AA from April 27th -- April 27th, 2016, there's a call in between Charles and Donna; do you remember that?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, at this point Charles sounds confident, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't remember how he sounded, but okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go now to call BB, and we'll go with a quote because I don't want your opinion here on what was meant, instead we'll go with what was said. That Charles says to Donna that he's not worried, that he knows who it is.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: That was said, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Starting to believe that it's law enforcement.
PATRICK SANFORD: I disagree. I can explain if you want.
MR. DECOSTE: No. GO now to call DD. Charles, in that call, at the beginning of it, in the first 30 seconds says that there was a guy looking for Harvey, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm sorry. Repeat that. He said what?
MR. DECOSTE: Charles, in beginning of the phone call -- now, we're on DD. Do you have your spreadsheet?
PATRICK SANFORD: I have my spreadsheet, sure.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, at the beginning of that call he says a guy called the Adelson Institute looking for Harvey.
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall that.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that within that call that Charles says to Katherine, "Find out who the fuck it is"?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: To his mother, he knows who it is, right? Yet to Katherine, Find out who it is, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm confused. Repeat that.
MR. DECOSTE: So am I. You have a call the same day, April 28th, 2016, Charles is speaking to Donna in call BB, and he says, "I know who it is,” right?
PATRICK SANFORD: He tells his mother that he knows who it is?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: And then that same day, in call DD, he's saying to Katherine, Find out -- quote, Find out who the fuck it is.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay. Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Did it dawn upon you that Charles immediately knew that it was law enforcement because the information that was presented to him that Katherine was involved was wrong. And he immediately knew. Immediately knew.
PATRICK SANFORD: No, he did not. He was trying to soothe his mother's fears by telling her everything was okay. Every time he talked to her, he tried to just calm her down. And then he turned around with the real panic after that.
MR. DECOSTE: That's your opinion, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's what the evidence showed.
MR. DECOSTE: well, he doesn't say that in a phone call, saying, Hey, I'm just trying to soothe my mother; he doesn't say that, does he?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. But everything surrounding it supports it.
MR. DECOSTE: But, again, that's your opinion. You believe that's what he's doing, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's what the evidence showed.
MR. DECOSTE: But the evidence doesn't say that, though, right? Just to be clear, the evidence doesn't say, what I'm trying to do is trying to make sure that my mother's okay?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Asked and answered.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to some more statements that were made in call DD. Katherine in that phone call is frustrated, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: She says, quote, I'm trying --
JUDGE HANKINSON: What call? I'm sorry.
MR. DECOSTE: ODD.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. I thought you said BB as in boy.
MR. DECOSTE: Boston accent. Sorry, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Katherine says, quote, I'm trying to get whoever is threatening your family and helping you guys out. She says that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: She doesn't say "us," helping us out, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right. She's trying to separate herself.
MR. DECOSTE: So the undercover says to Donna, Hey -- and I can't remember his exact language -- my brother up in Broward, you know, they helped you out. But he uses that language “helping you guys out," right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Katherine is referring to it saying, "I'm trying to --" and she's arguing with Charles Adelson, saying whoever it is that's threatening your family and helping you guys out. Not, This guy's on to us for a murder.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Argumentative.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Not helping "us" out, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: She also says that, Someone is harassing you guys, referring to Adelson family, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, she does.
MR. DECOSTE: And using her name?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But not harassing "us," not harassing "me," correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: But you still believe that she's guilty because she didn't call the FBI because other people were being harassed?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Calls to the ultimate conclusion.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: who is the one person in all of the wiretaps who talked about calling the FBI?
PATRICK SANFORD: The one person?
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah.
PATRICK SANFORD: Charlie did, mom did, and Katie did.
MR. DECOSTE: Katherine said -- you would agree with me that when Charles and Donna are talking about it, it seems staged, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Argumentative.
JUDGE HANKINSON: He's asked his opinion. You can answer. I overrule the objection.
MR. DECOSTE: Withdrawn. withdrawn.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Jury disregard the question then.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Call DD, quote, I'm about to go to the fucking FBI. Katherine said that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, again, it wasn't her family getting harassed, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: It was the Adelson family getting harassed?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, in that same call Charles is reluctant to call the phone number for the undercover, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: He wants Katherine to call?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Your belief is that the two of these are involved in a conspiracy to commit murder, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: whether it's tied to the gang or whether it's the FBI, that would mean that Katherine would then have information that could implicate Charles Adelson, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: She -- possibly, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: It would be massively risky to say, Katherine, I want you, almost as a representative of this, to go in there and talk to these people, Knowing that his butt is on the line.
PATRICK SANFORD: what's the question? I'm sorry.
MR. DECOSTE: That Katherine could mess up and say something wrong, could implicate him in some way, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm not sure of the question.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Let's back up and I'1l1 go over it. And this is fine. Let me know if it's confusing.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Charles was reluctant to call himself?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the reluctance, that could be because he doesn't know whether it's the government or not, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: There's a lot of reasons to be reluctant; but that's one of them, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: If he were to contact directly over to Sigfredo Garcia or Luis Rivera, one of them may already be working with the government, wearing a wire, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: He's got to maintain that distance, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's one reason.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, what we're talking about is the fact that he wanted Katherine to call.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Katherine, you make that phone call.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, your belief is that Katherine was involved in a conspiracy with him, involved in the murder with him, right? Meaning that she would have knowledge --
PATRICK SANFORD: That's what the evidence shows, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: -- of his involvement. She would have knowledge of his involvement?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So, meaning, when she picks up that phone and makes the phone call, she could say something, do something that could affect him?
PATRICK SANFORD: Potentially.
MR. DECOSTE: well, maybe it's the alternative. Maybe he knew that there was no risk because she knew nothing, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I disagree.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that this continues into the next phone calls on April 28th where Charles is saying things; and, again, quote, Call the fucking number I gave you the other day. And where Katherine says, You call yourself, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: Back at Government's 138 --
MR. DECOSTE: Judge, it's called JJ.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: -- where Katherine Magbanua says to Sigfredo Garcia, quote, Putting my name -- they're putting my name in this, she says that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And, again, these are secretive recordings, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: She doesn't say, They're on to us. They know. She doesn't say that, right?
MR. DECOSTE: She says, They're putting my name in this.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, that's what she said.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, on to call MM. Katherine Magbanua to Charles Adelson, quote, Harass you people, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: She says that again?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Not harassing us, harassing you people.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But, again, it's the Government's belief that because she didn't call the police, she must have been involved?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's part of it.
MR. DECOSTE: Going to go now to call PP, Government's 138.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, PP.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: we heard that phone call yesterday. You remember that, right? It's a long phone call.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: It's about a 25-minute phone call.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And at one point in the phone call they reference something that you knew about already, a fight in between Sigfredo Garcia and Charles Adelson. A confrontation. You remember that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: we did not know that at the time, no.
MR. DECOSTE: well, Yindra Velazquez told you about a confrontation --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Yindra Velazquez -- when did you meet with Yindra Velazquez; do you remember?
PATRICK SANFORD: well after this. I don't remember the date of it, but it was well after this. we didn't know at the time of the call about it. We learned about it later.
MR. DECOSTE: we're talking about it now.
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: But at some point during the investigation you meet with Yindra Velazquez?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'1Il1 sustain the objection at this point.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: During the course of your investigation, did you learn of a confrontation between Charles Adelson and Sigfredo Garcia?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Relevance.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, I can tie it together with this next question.
JUDGE HANKINSON: He's answered the question. Go ahead.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: In the -- in the call that we heard yesterday, there was reference to that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall the exact reference.
MR. DECOSTE: At the 22-minute mark they talk about a situation where they had jet skis and how he didn't know the Lexus could drive that fast.
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: Did you not tie that together that that was --
PATRICK SANFORD: It could possibly be. It could possibly be something else.
MR. DECOSTE: During your investigation you looked at the call activity detail, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And there was something that happened on July 1st of 2014, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: There was a lot of phone calls from Katherine Magbanua to Sigfredo Garcia.
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Tons of them. And then there's this call from Sigfredo Garcia to Harvey Adelson.
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You've never been able to explain that.
MR. DECOSTE: As the calls progressed with Donna Adelson, it's your belief that it was soothing the mother. But you would agree with me that it goes increasing soothing saying positive law enforcement, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, he never called law enforcement, right?
JUDGE HANKINSON: I assume we're talking about Charles Adelson --
MR. DECOSTE: Correct.
JUDGE HANKINSON: -- as “He.”
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Charles Adelson never called law enforcement?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: The money was never paid. The money was never paid, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Paid to the undercover, no.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct. Let's go back to the theory here, to the flow. Charles Adelson is, and you say soothing his mother saying, I'm positive it's law enforcement. Telling Katherine Magbanua, Find out who it is, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: You never hear Katherine Magbanua say to Charles Adelson, It's law enforcement, right? Never hear that?
MR. DECOSTE: who told Charles Adelson?
PATRICK SANFORD: who told Charles Adelson what?
MR. DECOSTE: That it was law enforcement.
PATRICK SANFORD: I still don't believe that he thought it was law enforcement.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go a step further. Luis Rivera and Sigfredo Garcia.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Federal inmates have what's call Corrlinks. You know about that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Have what?
MR. DECOSTE: Corrlinks.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yeah.
MR. DECOSTE: The ability to e-mail?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: In fact, when you met with Luis Rivera you actually gave him your card and said, Hey, e-mail me. Do you remember that?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall that, but okay.
MR. DECOSTE: You know that they have the ability to be able to e-mail, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: During your investigation, have you reviewed the e-mail, specifically around 5-11-2016, in reference to communications in between Luis Rivera and Sigfredo Garcia?
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that at some point in time Charles becomes almost positive it's law enforcement and says that to his mother?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't think he says law enforcement in general.
MR. DECOSTE: But he's -- to a very high degree he's positive and they're relieved?
PATRICK SANFORD: He's positive he knows what it is.
MR. DECOSTE: Right. And that days later, in one of the calls that we heard, he then tells Katherine, You know, it's what I thought it was.
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: You can't say, sitting here, not knowing whatsApp, FaceTime, or person-to-person communication, that there was not a line of communication set up between either Charles Adelson and Sigfredo Garcia or Charles Adelson and Luis Rivera, can you?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. Direct line?
MR. DECOSTE: And that Charles Adelson was just using Katherine to find out more information of what was going on at the bump. Because, you know what? She's an expendable. He can use her without any risk to himself.
PATRICK SANFORD: I totally disagree.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about Charles Adelson. You've listened to a lot of the wiretaps, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: within those wiretaps there's talks of falsifying medical records, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: There's -- there's insinuating circumstances, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Specifically, he says he wants to rewrite a chart changing what type of anesthesia was used.
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall that.
MR. DECOSTE: There's conversation about guns; you remember that?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That he has fully automatic machine guns.
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall that.
MR. DECOSTE: There's talk about steroids.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm going to object to relevance, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
MR. DECOSTE: A statement against penal interest, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: TI beg your pardon?
MR. DECOSTE: If it's a hearsay objection, it's a statement against penal interest.
JUDGE HANKINSON: It's a relevance objection, as I understood it.
MR. DECOSTE: I can -- I can tie it up with a few questions Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I've sustained the objection. Move on, Mr. Decoste.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: we did get the answer, the steroids and the guns, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You did answer that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't know where he was buying those steroids from, right.
PATRICK SANFORD: It appeared to be some friends of his.
MR. DECOSTE: Oh, he wasn't -- have you arrested any of them?
MR. DECOSTE: would that be because you don't know who he was actually getting it from?
MR. DECOSTE: No, you don't know; or you do know?
PATRICK SANFORD: I do not know exactly who he got it from.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, he was buying these drugs without the use of Katherine Magbanua, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: He has the ability to commit crimes without Katherine Magbanua, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Having a fully automatic machine gun is illegal, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It depends.
MR. DECOSTE: You can't go -- fully automatic?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yeah. It depends if you have a license or not, things like that.
MR. DECOSTE: Did you investigate if he has a license?
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So you can't say whether Charles Adelson was buying drugs from the boss gang member in South Florida, can you?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You can say that he wasn't?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes. There was no communication with any of the bosses or any of the gang members down in South Florida.
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, you've been at the Bureau for 20 years. You would agree with me that sometimes people commit crimes without using a cell phone, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sometimes, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Before the age of cell phones, there was crime, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The mob, for years, was able the communicate through an intricate network?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You see it in movies with pay phones and stuff like that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: That they're trying to operate off the grid.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So for your theory we have to assume that it did all take place over cell phones.
PATRICK SANFORD: He's talking about buying steroids over the cell phone with people.
MR. DECOSTE: But he doesn't talk about where he got it from.
PATRICK SANFORD: He might be talking to the supplier, is what it sounded like.
MR. DECOSTE: Or he may have gotten it from one of the many Latin Kings, right? You don't know.
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know.
MR. DECOSTE: And if that were to have happened, he would have a direct communication in between either Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Say that again.
MR. DECOSTE: A direct line of communication without the use of Katherine Magbanua, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I disagree that he had a direct line of communi cation.
MR. DECOSTE: Sure about that?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Mr. DeCoste, that's argumentative. Ask a question.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: I'm showing you what's been entered in as Defense 12. Have you seen that before?
PATRICK SANFORD: I can't see it now.
MR. DECOSTE: You've never seen this before?
PATRICK SANFORD: I can't see what it is.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. what's the date?
PATRICK SANFORD: Oh, yes, that's one that you showed me earlier in the trial. It's 4-25 of ‘14.
MR. DECOSTE: That I showed you?
PATRICK SANFORD: Somebody showed me, yeah. I think it was shown to me.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that this is a question from Katherine Magbanua months before the homicide saying to Tuto, Call your phone?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you're not here to interpret what this means, but you would agree with me that at one point in time he says, actually, he did?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And then there's almost a joking exchange?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You can't say that there wasn't communication via whatsApp, other phones, other means in between Charles Adelson and Sigfredo Garcia?
PATRICK SANFORD: Can't say for a hundred percent sure, no.
MR. DECOSTE: But from this, there's a clear belief that Katherine Magbanua thought Sigfredo Garcia is going to be calling Charles Adelson, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes. At some point I believe she thought he would have tried to call him, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And the reason is because he objected to the relationship with Charles Adelson.
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: He desperately wanted her back.
PATRICK SANFORD: That's my opinion.
MR. DECOSTE: So you have an indication here of communication between the two of them.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I think we've exhausted this, Mr. DeCoste. Move on, please.
MR. DECOSTE: Sure.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go back to your theory. You have these things, the cash deposits, the paychecks, the car; but it wasn't until Luis Rivera gives you his statement that the theory comes alive and you make the arrest of Katherine, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's when we got the warrant, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Rivera flips, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Luis Rivera flips?
PATRICK SANFORD: If that's a question, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, he's a violent gang leader, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: He has a -- he has a criminal history, yes. And he was a gang leader, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Violent gang leader?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Asked and answered.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: You arrested him for murder, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Violent. He's a gang leader, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'1Il1 sustain the objection at this point. We've done this several times.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: You go down to South Florida, you have a team of law enforcement with you, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: when?
MR. DECOSTE: For the arrest of Katherine.
PATRICK SANFORD: There's agents in Miami who assisted me, yes. I did not take a team with me.
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator Isom was with you?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: There were other law enforcement there?
PATRICK SANFORD: From Miami, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. when I'm saying take, I'm saying to the location where you arrested Katherine Magbanua.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, that's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You were in multiple cars, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Guns were out?
PATRICK SANFORD: They were doing surveillance on her, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Scared her so much she urinated herself?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm not aware of that.
MR. DECOSTE: You were present with Isom, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: when? At the arrest?
MR. DECOSTE: correct.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And the reason why you guys went from up here down to South Florida was because you wanted her to cooperate?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: You have this big show of force, slap the cuffs on her, and want to talk to her, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That is not the reason for the big show of force.
MR. DECOSTE: Federal Bureau of Investigation, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Exactly.
MR. DECOSTE: Not the Federal Bureau of Intimidation?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge --
JUDGE HANKINSON: Mr. DeCoste. Jury disregard Mr. DeCoste's comments. I'm not going to warn you again, Mr. DeCoste. We're going to start having something further than that.
MR. DECOSTE: Understood, Your Honor.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about discovery. You know what discovery is, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: In this case you have a manifest within the FBI. Let's talk about sort of the inner workings of the FBI. For each case you have a running manifest of all the reports and all the things that are done, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you -- do you agree with that?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Now, the work that's done by the FBI, you then share it with the State Attorney's Office, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: But the FBI is different than state level police departments and is different than the State Attorney's Office in that you can choose, we're not going to provide some things?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know if I would agree with that statement.
MR. DECOSTE: There's a video of the arrest, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Of what arrest? which arrest are you referring to?
MR. DECOSTE: Either of them, Katherine or Sigfredo Garcia.
PATRICK SANFORD: No, there's no video of the arrest.
MR. DECOSTE: One brief moment, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
(Pause in proceedings.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to policy, other policy within the FBI. The recordings of interviews. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, the policy for the Federal Bureau of Investigation is that recordings need to be made if it's pertinent, if the person is in custody, or if there is approval, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That is not totally correct, no.
MR. DECOSTE: what's policy?
PATRICK SANFORD: The policy is we have -- we are not allowed to record interviews unless we have special permission from the supervisor. And the other policy is if somebody is in our federal custody, then we have to record that interview if they're in federal custody.
MR. DECOSTE: So your testimony is that if somebody is in custody but not in custody of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, that you don't have to record it?
PATRICK SANFORD: If they're in custody, if they're in our custody that is the policy.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that you've met with many people on this case, many inmates, and you've recorded a lot of those?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: One brief moment, Your Honor.
(Pause in proceedings.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Just to make sure I have that correct, if they're in your custody or if you have special approval.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's policy, that's not law, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, if you're not doing a recording, though, you write a report?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's also policy?
PATRICK SANFORD: we write reports for interviews that we do, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: I just want to make sure that I got it down. And I'm not trying to be repetitive here.
You record interviews if you have special permission or if the person is in DOJ custody, right? Department of Justice custody?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Otherwise, if you meet with somebody, you're going to write a report?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Called the 302?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, step aside for a second. when it comes to recordings, you don't have to let somebody know you're recording them; you can do it secretively?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the Tallahassee Police Department, they have their own policy, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: when you met with Dr. Heinke (phonetic) -- do you remember that name?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: There was somebody from the Tallahassee Police Department there with you, and they recorded the interview?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Same thing with June Umchinda?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: On that topic, you never told Ms. Umchinda that you were recording her, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I did not, no.
MR. DECOSTE: Neither did Sherrie Bennett?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: Caridad Herrera Cabello, you recorded that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I did not.
MR. DECOSTE: well, the person in the room with you recorded it, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Also Francis Magbanua, that was recorded as well, too. Not by you, but it was recorded?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct. That was in the Police Department, I believe.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that the most accurate reflection of what somebody said would be a recording, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sometimes, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Your reports aren't word-for-word like the court reporter here.
PATRICK SANFORD: No, they're not.
MR. DECOSTE: It's giving your version of what was said?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's my report, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, yesterday Mr. Zengeneh asked you a question, and you did answer. whether you believe Luis Rivera. And you said yes, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: In the times that you met with Luis Rivera -- let's go -- let's go with September 30th and October 4th, one is recorded, one is not. Before you started you told him -- or someone in the room -- you've got to tell the truth and the whole truth, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Did he ever tell you about hoods and masks?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not that I recall.
MR. DECOSTE: Did he ever tell you about the third trip to Tallahassee?
MR. DECOSTE: whole truth and nothing but the truth, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Did he explain to you how that third trip was between Sigfredo Garcia and King Anthony?
MR. DECOSTE: And King Anthony, you know, is Anthony Ortiz?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: who is now deceased?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: which, for Luis Rivera, would be convenient for him to bring up that name, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know what's convenient for him, no.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go through the dates of when you met with Luis Rivera. May 27, 2016. He's incarcerated. You and Investigator Isom meet with him. It's recorded.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Is that correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: It sounds correct. I don't remember the date exactly.
MR. DECOSTE: Same thing on June 21st.
PATRICK SANFORD: we went to the prison and talked to him on June 21st?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct. 2016.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Some time in August or September he makes the decision, I'm going to cooperate, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm not aware of the date, no.
MR. DECOSTE: well, eventually on September 30th of 2016 you go in there to get his statement?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: To get his proffer, as you call it?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So that he can get a deal, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know why he was doing it. But that's between him and the State Attorney's Office.
MR. DECOSTE: He's incarcerated --
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: -- at the time.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So he's in custody?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You're on the case?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: He's in custody in Jefferson County, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe so, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Right next door.
PATRICK SANFORD: A county over, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: No FBI recording of this meeting?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. We don't record proffers.
MR. DECOSTE: You didn't say that a moment ago, though. You said we record if somebody is in custody or if we have special permission.
PATRICK SANFORD: In federal custody.
MR. DECOSTE: well, you're on the case, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You took part in the investigation and his arrest, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: He's in the State custody. It was not a federal warrant, not a federal facility.
MR. DECOSTE: I got it. So yesterday you said something along the lines that this office, the State Attorney's Office, told you not to record it?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes. It was their decision.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't work for them, right?
MR. DECOSTE: You work for the federal government?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Your policy doesn't say, well, if the Leon County State Attorney's Office says otherwise, then we, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, will act accordingly.
PATRICK SANFORD: My policy says I could not record that because it's not in federal custody.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. But you could have gotten special permission?
PATRICK SANFORD: I could have gone back and gotten special permission, sure. But it was their proffer.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, after this conversation with Luis Rivera, y'all get into a van and you go around Tallahassee, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And in that van Investigator Isom had a camera.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And that van ride was right after the meeting, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Could have used that camera to record the meeting.
PATRICK SANFORD: Could he have physically used it?
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah.
PATRICK SANFORD: Possibly.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Tallahassee Police Department has their own policy on recordings, as we talked about a moment ago with all those other witnesses. They can record whenever they want.
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: So, in DOJ custody, recording; special permission, recording; otherwise, a report, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: But you never did a 302. You never did a report of your meeting with Luis Rivera.
PATRICK SANFORD: Because Investigator Isom did.
MR. DECOSTE: That's not what your policy says, though.
PATRICK SANFORD: we don't duplicate reports. The policy is it is documented, and Investigator Isom documented it. So I would not do a separate documentation on the exact same interview.
MR. DECOSTE: You remember a guy by the name of Shootie (phonetic), right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Vaguely, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Last name Virella, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: He was in custody, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: In a state prison, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And on May 31st, 2016, and June 29th, 2016, you and Investigator Isom went and met with him.
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you have a DOJ recording of those investigations, right, of those interviews?
PATRICK SANFORD: A DOJ recording?
MR. DECOSTE: A "Hawk video," as they call it.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I have a recording of that. At the request of the State Attorney's Office, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Are you aware if Shootie has testified in this trial? If you're aware.
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know who would testify in this trial.
MR. DECOSTE: You record two of the meetings with Shootie, but you don't record the meeting --
PATRICK SANFORD: I did not record two of them.
MR. DECOSTE: -- or do a report?
PATRICK SANFORD: I did not record two of the meetings with Shootie. Only one of them. The other one, I did a report.
MR. DECOSTE: Can you name one inmate in this case, be it either federal or state custody, one inmate through this entire investigation, besides Luis Rivera, that was not recorded? Just one.
PATRICK SANFORD: I didn't record any other ones. That's the only one I recorded. I recorded none of them.
MR. DECOSTE: Or maybe it was recorded, and it's just not being provided to us.
PATRICK SANFORD: That is incorrect.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm going to object, Judge. That's argumentative. Move to strike.
JUDGE HANKINSON: It's -- it's not a question of this witness anyway. Jury, disregard the question.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that if there is evidence that Luis Rivera gave an inconsistent statement on 9-30, inconsistent to his other statements, that that would undercut his credibility which could undercut your theory?
PATRICK SANFORD: Absolutely, and I would bring that forward.
MR. DECOSTE: And what you want to see happen is this theory, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. I want to see the case resolved with the truth.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about the cell activity, cell phone activity. And we're talking about 2014, not 2016. You know who Sergeant Corbitt is, you said it earlier in the cross, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, during the course of your work on this case you put together some reports about the information that he was giving you about the cell phone activity, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, this wasn't as detailed as the work that Sergeant Corbitt has done. It was more simple, you know, this person contacted this person on that date, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You did one report on -- date of entry, June 20, 2016. Do you remember that?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I do.
MR. DECOSTE: And that talked about May and June of 2014?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, that sounds correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And, again, it laid out so-and-so called so-and-so, this person called that person. And then there was some, but, again, very simple, cell phone location information.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You also do another report dated -- and I'm not going to talk about the contents of the report -- but dated February 8th of 2016. And that talked about -- and if you have it there, feel free to reference it -- and that talked about July of 2014, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, it did.
MR. DECOSTE: This discovery was provided over to the State Attorney's Office, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you, being a tenured investigator and having worked on these state cases before, you know that once they get the stuff, that they give it over to defense counsel.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: In federal court it's a little bit different, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: little bit more constrained?
A It's about generally the same.
MR. DECOSTE: But in state court all that information is given over.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: So we have reports detailing activity for June and July, and these reports are written and completed before the prosecution of Luis Rivera really gets going, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe so, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: To make sure that we have the dates here, you do these reports, date of entry, February 8th, 2016; June 20th, 2016. And then in September of that year, then Luis Rivera sits down with you for the meeting that we know was unrecorded.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You can't say that Luis Rivera wasn't just regurgitating the theory and the facts that you guys had, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Oh, absolutely, I can. Yeah, he wasn't regurgitating that. He was coming out of his memory.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to Anthony Ortiz. Never investigated him, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Investigated him how?
MR. DECOSTE: Did you ever meet with him?
MR. DECOSTE: Did you ever pull his cell phone records?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe they did.
MR. DECOSTE: Again Luis Rivera says that King Anthony went up to -- came up here in relation to the Markel murder.
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm not aware of that.
MR. DECOSTE: Because Luis Rivera didn't tell you, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, he didn't.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about Juan Marcos Vega. You're squinting.
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know who that is.
MR. DECOSTE: You remember me bringing up that name before, though, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: when? In a deposition?
MR. DECOSTE: would it refresh your recollection to look at the depo?
PATRICK SANFORD: Was it in depo or today?
MR. DECOSTE: Depo.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes. Yes, depo. Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: My belief is that you have no information about Juan Marcos Vega.
PATRICK SANFORD: That's true.
MR. DECOSTE: Are you aware that Juan Marcos Vega was a codefendant on Luis Rivera's federal RICO case?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: If you know.
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the work on this case was a joint effort between yourself, the Leon County State Attorney's Office, and the Tallahassee Police Department, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: It wasn't something that somebody was going to run off and do one part, and you were going to do another, and nobody would communicate, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not that we wouldn't communicate, but we did do separate aspects of the investigation, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know the saying with big organizations, one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing?
PATRICK SANFORD: I know the saying.
MR. DECOSTE: Was it like that?
MR. DECOSTE: But you have no idea who Juan Marcos Vega is?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not off the top of my head, I don't.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about Luis Rivera now. In your many reports you have different addresses for Luis Rivera, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Different residential addresses?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: One of them that you have is 1805 Normandy Drive, Apartment 3, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you believe that to be one of his addresses?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: During your investigation of the case and Luis Rivera, did you look at his financial records?
PATRICK SANFORD: we tried to, yes. Oh, his bank records?
MR. DECOSTE: His Chase records.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, I'm showing you what comes from Government's 144. It's been premarked Defense 23 and 24. You know what those are, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Appear to be Chase bank records for Mr. Rivera.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know that because, again, you reviewed and investigated his financial activities.
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And those fairly and accurately depict what you saw in his financial records, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe so. It's been a long time since I looked at them.
MR. DECOSTE: Move in what's been premarked as 23 and 24. Again, it comes from Government's 144.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is there objection?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: NO, Sir, not -- not other than my general objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I admit 23 and 24 for Magbanua.
(Magbanua Defense Exhibit No. 23 and 24 received in evidence.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, I see you looking at it, trying to figure out what I'm going to ask you. It's real simple. what was the address on his bank statements?
PATRICK SANFORD: Oh, I didn't look at the address. But it is Normandy Drive, 1805 Normandy Drive.
MR. DECOSTE: And this is around the June trip?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, May 22nd to June 20th.
MR. DECOSTE: So the address of 1805 Normandy Drive, May 22nd, 2014 through June 20th, 2014?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, I'm showing Magbanua 24. Same address?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Around the time of the homicide?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: I want to talk to you about photo lineups now. we talked about Shoddrick Nobles yesterday. The photo lineups that you and Investigator Isom did with him, do you remember those? Do you need me to show them to you?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I remember them.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, your testimony yesterday is the reason why you did it is that you want to be sure, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That you must, quote, must be objective? Right?
PATRICK SANFORD: who said must be objective?
MR. DECOSTE: You did. Do you remember that?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I didn't.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you disagree that you must be objective?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yeah. Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So you show him a photo lineup for the purpose of identifying Luis Rivera and Sigfredo Garcia, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Luis Rivera says -- let me just go right to it. Did you ever show a photo lineup to Luis Rivera of wendi Adelson?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, we did not.
MR. DECOSTE: Luis Rivera gives you testimony saying, I saw her the day before the homicide at the home on Trescott, Dan Markel's home?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you remember that?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And he says that he sees her between nine and noon, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: Says that he makes eye contact, that he's positive that's her?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Never do a photo lineup, though?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. He had apparently already seen a photo of her.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm sorry?
PATRICK SANFORD: He'd already seen a photo of her.
MR. DECOSTE: During the course of your investigation you learn of several phone numbers that belong to Luis Rivera, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, do you have your 302s in front of you?
PATRICK SANFORD: which 302?
MR. DECOSTE: Date of entry February 23rd, 2016.
PATRICK SANFORD: what's it of? Of who?
MR. DECOSTE: would it help you to remember taking a look at it?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Sorry, Mr. DeCoste, what's the date?
MR. DECOSTE: February 23rd, 2016.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Take a look. And let me know if that helps.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you have that with you?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't think I do. It's just the --
MR. DECOSTE: will you do me a favor -- because I'm going to ask you questions off that -- can you write down in your notes the phone numbers for Luis Rivera?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Just hold on to the document. You can proceed.
MR. DECOSTE: TI needed to ask the question.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Hold on to the document.
You can proceed, Mr. DeCoste.
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah, we'll wait.
JUDGE HANKINSON: we're due for a break. we'll take 10 minutes. Make a copy of the document for him. we'll take 10 minutes.
(Jury exits.)
(A recess was had.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's have the jury, please.
(jury enters.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may resume, Mr. DeCoste.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, we were talking about your 302 from June 23rd, 2016.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You have it in front of you, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I do now.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, during the course of your investigation you received from the Tallahassee Police Department a response to a subpoena sent to Apple for records of Luis Rivera, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And they respond back with two phone numbers --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Go ahead and ask your question.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: They respond back with two phone numbers, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you put that in your report?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And the source of the information that's in your report were the documents that were sent and the data that was sent from Apple, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe it was the documents, the subscriber information.
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, I'm handing you what's been premarked as Magbanua 25. Take a look at that. You know what that is, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yeah. I believe that's the records they sent in response.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you know that those are the records that they sent in response because you received it from Investigator Isom, you reviewed it, you used to put together your report, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know that it applies to Luis Rivera because of the documentation and what was given to you along with it, the subpoena and whatnot, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And that printout fairly and accurately depicts what one would see online with what you use to put together your report, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: See online?
MR. DECOSTE: Let me rephrase that. A little jumbled.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: That printout looks the same as what it would look like if you pulled it up on a computer, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Move in what's been premarked as Magbanua 25.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Hearsay and authentication.
MR. DECOSTE: Not introduced for the truth of the matter, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustain the objection.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator, in your report for the phone numbers that you have for Luis Rivera, you do not have the phone number (305)934-6615, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's not on my report, no.
MR. DECOSTE: There is a phone number, but it's one digit different, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Calls for hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I think the inquiry is as to information he has of Mr. Rivera. Is that the question? From Mr. Rivera?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll overrule the objection as to that question.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, during your investigation the phone number that you find out belonging to Luis Rivera is (305)935-6615, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Not -- not (305)934-6615, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall.
MR. DECOSTE: Is the phone number with 934 in your report?
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll sustain that hearsay objection.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to the gun now. It's a murder weapon, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You've stopped searching for it?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: There were a few attempts made, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yeah, a couple of extensive attempts.
MR. DECOSTE: High-altitude plane for South Florida, but just a few attempts to find the murder weapon up here, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I spent days looking for it, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: It was never found?
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the only information that you have, the only person to help you find it was Luis Rivera, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you talked about -- yesterday about the route that he took you on, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And he also drew you a picture, too, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: We went on a route that the cell site data showed us they went on.
MR. DECOSTE: But when it came to stopping at bridges -- or you had no evidence that it was actually dumped in a body of water, right?
MR. DECOSTE: For all you know, it's in a slab of concrete in Miami?
PATRICK SANFORD: Could be.
MR. DECOSTE: The only thing that you had to go on was Luis Rivera saying, We dumped it on the trip back. And then you cross-referenced it with the route that they took with their cell phones, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: He drew this for you, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That looks -- that looks like --
MR. DECOSTE: You smile as you're looking at it.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: It's not a good drawing, is it?
MR. DECOSTE: It's almost laughable.
PATRICK SANFORD: Depending, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Perhaps Luis Rivera did not want you to find the gun. That's possible, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not in my opinion, that's not what happened.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about that. You're also a federal agent.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: There is a potential on a case like this that it could become a federal case, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you would agree with me that -- and I'm going to get into the legalese here -- that the federal government can prosecute a case that's already been prosecuted in state court, the same thing. They're considered separate sovereigns.
PATRICK SANFORD: That's my understanding, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And on many of your federal investigations and many ways that you end up getting jurisdiction to prosecute a case is on interstate commerce, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So what would be like an armed robbery case, a Hobbs Act robbery, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You know what Hobbs Act robbery is, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes. what's the question?
MR. DECOSTE: If there was a gun that's used in that, and that gun can be tied to interstate commerce, if the gun was produced in Cleveland, that's interstate commerce, you can prosecute in federal court?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Meaning Luis Rivera, if the gun were found and it could be tied to interstate commerce, could be prosecuted in federal court, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Possibly, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Most gun manufacturers are outside of the state of Florida.
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And, again, this is a guy that, when he's cooperating, he's already a federal inmate.
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: with a lot of guys that have had cases dealing with interstate commerce, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: who is Cecelia Magbanua?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe that Ms. Magbanua's mother.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, we're going to go back to the topic of money into Katherine Magbanua'’s account.
During your investigation you see that there are moneys being transferred to Katherine, at the time in her 20s, from her mother giving her money, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You never interviewed Cecelia Magbanua, right?
MR. DECOSTE: She's located down in South Florida, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: She was.
MR. DECOSTE: You say "was" because during this prosecution she passed away.
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Relevance.
JUDGE HANKINSON: It's already been asked and answered, so the objection is not timely.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: She passed away during this --
JUDGE HANKINSON: I sustain the objection at this point in time.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Never interviewed her, right?
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about evidence of innocence, of Katherine's innocence. Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera are arrested. You would agree with me that there was lots of media?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Katherine didn't flee, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe she did.
MR. DECOSTE: wouldn't flee mean she's gone?
PATRICK SANFORD: Flee means she left her apartment that we were -- we had the camera on, and she stopped using her cell phone and would not respond to us. We tried to contact her, and she wouldn't respond.
MR. DECOSTE: You're talking about the one time that -- not yourself, but that two men went and knocked on her door and didn't identify themselves as law enforcement, that's the time you're talking about, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: with their badges showing. And she knew they were law enforcement.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't know if she knew that.
PATRICK SANFORD: She said it on the phone.
MR. DECOSTE: You can't say that she knew why they were there, right? You can't say that, whether it was for Sigfredo Garcia, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: You can't say that.
MR. DECOSTE: And you can't say that the reason why she moved out of her apartment is because now the person that she was sharing with it has been arrested by you, and she can't pay for it.
PATRICK SANFORD: That happened before she was arrested. This happened after I spoke with Mr. Garcia, then they left the apartment.
MR. DECOSTE: Let me give you the reference points again. Sigfredo Garcia, Luis Rivera are arrested, right? There's lots of media. During that time she moves out of the apartment, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, that's not correct.
MR. DECOSTE: wasn't that the reason why you said she fled?
PATRICK SANFORD: She moved out of the apartment before he was arrested.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. At some point in between May of 2016 and her arrest in October, the actual probable cause affidavits, meaning the paperwork that explains everything, signed by a judge, to arrest somebody, that's released in the media. You know about that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I heard about it, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Didn't flee, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: what's your definition of flee?
MR. DECOSTE: Getting on a plane and leaving the country. She didn't do that, did she?
PATRICK SANFORD: She didn't leave the country, no.
MR. DECOSTE: Didn't leave the state?
MR. DECOSTE: Didn't leave the county of Miami/Dade.
PATRICK SANFORD: I disagree with that.
MR. DECOSTE: She went to Broward which is the next county over?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Sort of like going from here to Jefferson?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So that's your definition, she went to hide out --
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: -- down the street?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, she did.
MR. DECOSTE: Before her arrest there was also a 20/20 special; you know about that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I've heard about it.
MR. DECOSTE: This prosecutor, Ms. Cappleman, she appeared on it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Relevance.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Ms. Cappleman appeared on it, was interviewed, and talked about the case. You remember that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I didn't see the episode, but I heard about it.
MR. DECOSTE: And that it talked about Katherine Magbanua's involvement, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know what it said.
MR. DECOSTE: One brief moment, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. DECOSTE: Let's sum up the theory here. And, Your Honor, to let you know, it's --
JUDGE HANKINSON: We're not going to recap if that's what you're about to do --
MR. DECOSTE: No, no, no, it's not --
JUDGE HANKINSON: -- Mr. DeCoste.
MR. DECOSTE: Not a recap. I just want to let you know that I think this time will be about five minutes.
JUDGE HANKINSON: we're still not going to just go back and summarize what you've already asked. Do you have a new question? Ask a new question.
MR. DECOSTE: Just giving Your Honor a time reference.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm not caring about your time line --
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Okay, then, we'll --
JUDGE HANKINSON: -- I'm caring that it's a new question --
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. we'll keep it moving.
JUDGE HANKINSON: -- that we've not covered.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: During the course of your investigation, you learned that Katherine Magbanua and Charles Adelson take a trip to Key west, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you learned during that investigation that it was considered by Charles to be the good-bye tour?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I didn't learn that.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that during time of June and July of 2014 that Charles Adelson and Katherine Magbanua break up?
PATRICK SANFORD: we had indications of that. we weren't positive. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Before the homicide?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: what evidence do you have that this wasn't all an agreement between Charles Adelson and Sigfredo Garcia?
JUDGE HANKINSON: That's a summary question. That's not an appropriate question. Do you have a new question, Mr. DeCoste?
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: I'll ask you a hypothetical. Charles Adelson is communicating with Sigfredo Garcia. One wants his brother-in-law murdered, the other one wants the girl that he loves back. The exchange is $100,000 and the murder; in exchange, I'll break up with the girlfriend. what evidence do you have that says that that didn't happen?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Speculation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustained.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: And, again, the breakup happened right when the murder happened, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know that.
MR. DECOSTE: One second, Your Honor.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing further, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Redirect.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Publishing Defense 21.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You were asked about this check from Club Fate?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were you aware that this check bounced out of Ms. Magbanua's account?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I was not.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And this check is for the amount of $985.62?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: we heard testimony that Ms. Magbanua worked about two nights a week at the clubs. How many nights would that be for the period of this --
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Mischaracterization of testimony.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Sustain the objection.
MR. DECOSTE: Lack of personal knowledge.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. If she was working for a month, isn't that what the memo line indicates?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Speculation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Does the memo line indicate she was being paid for about a month, $985 for the month of April?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And if she worked eight nights during the month of April, that would be about $123 a night, correct?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Speculation as to how many nights she worked in each given month.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: If she worked eight nights in the month of April, that would be about $123 a night, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And, apparently, Club Fate, since the memo indicates that this is for --
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Leading and counsel testifying.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Since the memo line indicates this $985.62 is paid to Katherine Magbanua for tips, then Club Fate, apparently, does not pay for tips in cash?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Calls for speculation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And is there anything about this check that accounts for the spike in cash income around the time of the homicide as shown in State's Exhibit 118?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Personal knowledge, calls for narrative and speculation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Can that check explain this spike?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, it cannot.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You were asked about, basically, do you have any evidence to indicate that Ms. Magbanua was not employed at the Adelson Institute. Do you remember those questions?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And you mentioned a couple of things. But the employees there did not know what -- what it was that she did there, correct?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Personal knowledge and hearsay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, the witness was asked what evidence he had.
JUDGE HANKINSON: well, let's clarify what his knowledge is. I'll overrule the objection. But there needs to be a foundation. Let's not lead your own witness, please.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you go into the Adelson Institute?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you inquire of the employees there what it was that Ms. Magbanua did there?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And were those employees Ms. Lebredo and Erika Johnson?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, they were.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And were those witnesses able to give you any explanation as to what, if anything, Ms. Magbanua did for that business?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Calls for hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were Ms. Lebredo and Ms. Johnson able to shed any light as to what, if anything, it is that Ms. Magbanua did for the Adelson Institute?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, they were not.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you received or reviewed some employment records from the Adelson Institute as well?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The exhibit that's in evidence here today?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And did that exhibit shed any light on what it was that Ms. Magbanua was doing for the Adelson Institute?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, it did not.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you were shown some texts. I'm going to show you what I've marked as State's Exhibit 185.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, can we go sidebar?
(Sidebar conference as follows):
MR. DECOSTE: Object to the Government entering in text messages on redirect. And, also, given the fact that they're, frankly, being able to use all of these text messages, yet the defense is not able to use any of the ones that put any of this in light.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Ms. Cappleman.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, this exhibit comes from 170, 171 and 172, which were not admitted into evidence, but were previously authenticated. And are relevant at this time to go through the door that was opened by Mr. DeCoste in regards to whether or not the employment of Ms. Magbanua was legitimate at the Adelson Institute.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, all we're asking for is that this jury is allowed to see all of the information. Text messages like this are themselves inherently reliable because of the fact that this was not after arrest or after investigations. All of the text messages, frankly, I believe that the Court could determine are inherently reliable.
But the fact that the Government is being allowed to paint this picture, to use text messages for their own theory, yet we're not allowed to show things like that the car was purchased, that she quit a cash tip job, and that she worked at the Adelson Institute is giving this jury a complete different picture than what was actually going on.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Frankly, I don't know what you're talking about, Mr. DeCoste. I rule on each thing as it comes up.
I overrule your objection in this instance. And let me clarify. You attacked him as to his investigation of what information he had. The State is free to now bring out what information he had to the extent he had information. And you need to lay a foundation, Ms. Cappleman, that he was aware of this information.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I can add, I tried to bring in a phone call that talked about her employment to attack him. The Court did not allow that. He's being able to be rehabilitated without my ability to be able to effectively attack him.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I've overruled the objection.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Agent, please take a moment to review State's Exhibit 158 and advise if you recognize it.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I do recognize it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is that a text thread from mr. Adelson's iCcloud?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, it is.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And is it a fair and accurate depiction of the text thread?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, it is.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: who is the conversation between?
PATRICK SANFORD: Between Charlie Adelson and Katherine Magbanua.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: On what date?
PATRICK SANFORD: Date is 11/6 of 2014.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, at this time I'd ask to introduce into evidence State's 185.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Subject to my prior ruling it will be admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 185 received in evidence.)
MR. DECOSTE: Defense asks for a recross on that one exhibit.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let me hear what the discussion is before I rule on it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: May I publish?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. If you could read us the text thread and tell us who's saying what to whom. If you can see that from there. Can you?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm sorry, you want me to read it?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes.
PATRICK SANFORD: Just the body?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes. And tell us who's saying what to whom?
PATRICK SANFORD: From Charlie Adelson, "Put that you work in the office not at home." Then the response from Ms. Magbanua is, "No shit, Sherlock." Then Ms. Magbanua again says "LOL." Then she says again, "I don't know pay period dates. Can you call me? I'm driving." Mr. Adelson responds, "Our pay period is Monday through Monday."
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That would have been an exchange that occurred after Ms. Magbanua began receiving paychecks from the Adelson Institute?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. You were asked about -- on the wire calls, and particularly in reference to the bump, you were asked, basically, questions about the flier and how do we know that there was really $5,000 written on the flier, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did you say that the wire calls contain the amount of $5,000?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, there was some wire conversation about 5,000.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And is that an amount that was reported in those first three calls between Donna Adelson and Charlie Adelson?
PATRICK SANFORD: Between Donna and Charlie, I don't recall exactly --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay.
PATRICK SANFORD: -- if it was in those three or not.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. You were asked about the issue of whether -- of the legitimacy of Mr. Charlie Adelson contacting Ms. Magbanua after the bump.
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So there were a lot of questions about her ex-girlfriend and isn't it natural that he would have contacted Katherine Magbanua because she was his ex-girlfriend?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And isn't it true that on the calls Mr. Adelson indicates he's got 87 ex-girlfriends.
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Facts not in evidence.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And that's in call D that has been introduced into evidence. would you agree with that?
PATRICK SANFORD: I agree. And I do recall earlier the question also.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And so we watched the bump video, and the undercover does say Katie. You were asked about Katherine, but it's actually Katie, correct --
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: -- that the undercover says to Mrs. Adelson?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Does Ms. Adelson, in any of those calls that preceded -- okay. I want to know about the calls between Donna Adelson and Charlie Adelson before Charlie Adelson calls Katherine Magbanua. Do you understand what -- the time I'm asking about?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, the three calls.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: During those calls does Mrs. Adelson tell Charlie Adelson that the undercover said Katie?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Hearsay. Court's prior ruling.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Do you understand the question?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm sorry. I know it's convoluted.
PATRICK SANFORD: No, it's fine. She does not say Katie. She never says the name Katie.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So when Charlie Adelson first contacts Katherine Magbanua, all he knows is that the undercover mentioned ex-girlfriend, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, that's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, at this time I would ask to move into evidence the calls listed as A, B, and C.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm not going to revisit my ruling at this point in time.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How many of the 87 ex-girlfriends did Mr. Adelson contact after talking to his mother about the bump?
PATRICK SANFORD: Only one.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And who was that?
PATRICK SANFORD: Katherine Magbanua.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You were asked about whether there's any evidence of contact between Charlie Adelson and Sigfredo Garcia; do you recall that?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And we do have the one unanswered call from Sigfredo Garcia to Harvey Adelson on July 1st, 2014, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. That's not the same thing as Charlie Adelson.
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And it was suggested that that call could have had something to do with this interaction about the jet ski. Do you remember being asked about that?
PATRICK SANFORD: I do.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And if the call -- if the call to Charlie -- strike that.
If the call from Sigfredo Garcia to Harvey Adelson on July 1st had to do with Charlie Adelson trying to confront -- strike. I've got to start over.
Okay. If the call on July 1st, 2014 from Sigfredo Garcia to Harvey Adelson, the one that was the link that we got from the tower dump --
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: -- if that call was, as has been suggested, Sigfredo Garcia angry about the relationship between Charlie and Katie, trying to confront Charles Adelson, wouldn't that indicate that Sigfredo Garcia did not have contact with Charlie Adelson prior to that?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Speculation.
MR. ZANGENEH: TI join in on that objection, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: TI -- I think it calls for speculation. Sustain the objection.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. But the first murder trip occurred prior to that July 1st call. It happened in June, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And the murder didn't happen that trip.
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: But whoever hired these guys to go kill Dan Markel did it before July 1st?
PATRICK SANFORD: Exactly.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Still speculation.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you have any evidence through the entire investigation of any communication between Charlie Adelson and any Latin King?
PATRICK SANFORD: None.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is -- in your experience is a drug buyer-and-seller relationship, does that usually have some type of phone communication associated with it?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Relevance.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, absolutely.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And we didn't see any such communication between Charlie and any Latin King drug seller?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct, none.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was there anything unusual about the procedure that was used to arrest Katherine Magbanua?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, absolutely not.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was it a typical show of force for the arrest of a--
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Motion in limine.
JUDGE HANKINSON: we'll have to go sidebar on that.
(Sidebar conference as follows):
JUDGE HANKINSON: I -- I don't know what you're talking about, a motion in limine.
MR. DECOSTE: If Your Honor would allow Ms. Kawass, because she did the motions in limine.
MS. KAWASS: Your Honor, there is just one where it says that when the lead investigative officer gives an opinion as to how investigations are regularly conducted, it gives an improper inference to the jury. And I cited the case in my motion in limine. That's all it was.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Right. I overruled the objection. The defense made a big deal about how the arrest was done. He can respond whether it's unusual or not.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: was the show of force employed in the arrest of Ms. Magbanua a typical show of force for the arrest of a murder suspect?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you were asked about your opinion as to whether or not Charlie Adelson believed that the undercover and the bump was a law enforcement officer. Do you remember that?
PATRICK SANFORD: I do.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And you said, no, your belief was that he was just trying to assuage his mother that it wasn't going to be a problem?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And does call I on State's Exhibit 138 illustrate your belief?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, at this time I'd ask to move in and publish call I of State's 138.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is there still objection to I?
MR. DECOSTE: Absolutely, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. I'm not going to revisit my ruling.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You were asked about Luis Rivera's arrest around our operative time frame, so June and July of 2014; remember that?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you were shown a Chase account that lists the Normandy address as his address; do you recall that?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did Luis Rivera tell you where he was staying at the time of the arrest? Not the arrest --
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Hearsay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Strike that.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did Luis Rivera tell you where he was staying around the time of the two murder trips?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And where was that?
PATRICK SANFORD: That was at his girlfriend's apartment, Jessica Rivera -- Jessica --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Rodriguez?
PATRICK SANFORD: Rodriguez.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay.
PATRICK SANFORD: And it was on 135th.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And Jessica -- did we also look at Luis Rivera's phone location information to indicate that he was physically laying his head at Jessica Rodriguez's residence around that time?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, we did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And on September 17th, 2015, did law enforcement respond to that address?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, they did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what was that in reference to?
PATRICK SANFORD: Domestic.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Domestic between who?
PATRICK SANFORD: Mr. Rivera and Jessica Rodriguez.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So both the two of them were there on 9-17 of ‘15?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You were asked about your efforts to look for the gun, and it was suggested that maybe you should have used a high-altitude plane to look for the gun. Is that something that you think might have been helpful?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, not at all.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. But you did go to the area where Mr. Rivera indicated the gun may be and do your best efforts to look for the gun in that location?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Leading.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, we did.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: whether or not the gun was recovered, could Luis Rivera have been prosecuted in federal court?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Personal knowledge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm sorry?
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I mean, he could have been prosecuted for murder in federal court; couldn't he?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, absolutely.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: whether or not you had a gun?
PATRICK SANFORD: Absolutely.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No further questions.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll allow recross limited to State's Exhibit 185. Anything --
MR. ZANGENEH: Nothing from me, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, I'm showing Government 185. He said, “Put that you work in the office, not at home," right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: Not, put that you work in the office, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Confusing.
MR. DECOSTE: Legal objection?
JUDGE HANKINSON: I think the question's been asked and answered. Do you have another question, Mr. DeCoste?
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, I actually haven't gotten an answer to it.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I thought he said that it said, "Put that you work in the office, not at home." Did you not answer that question?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's what it says, yes.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. We've got an answer. Move on, Mr. Decoste.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: This answer, "Put that you work in the office,” would indicate that it was all a sham?
JUDGE HANKINSON: We're not going to speculate on what it meant. Move on, Mr. DeCoste.
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing further.
JUDGE HANKINSON: No further? All right.
Anything further, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Ready for lunch? Okay. I'm sorry, questions. I forgot. I am sorry.
All right. Go sidebar.
(Sidebar conference had as follows):
JUDGE HANKINSON: So the question is: Did Mr. Garcia's 1040s -- so his tax records -- for 2013, 2014, 2015, match his deposits?
MR. ZANGENEH: I don't think we've had any evidence of any IRS tax returns, right? Did he say anything about that?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: There has not been any testimony from this witness about tax returns of Mr. Garcia. So I don't know if he knows the answer. But it's clearly outside the scope.
MR. DECOSTE: The lead investigator -- I think that the Government right now is concerned because the answer to this -- of what it will be. But he's the lead investigator. He knows the answer to it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Well, I'm not concerned. TI don't have an objection to it. I just don't know what his answer would be.
MR. DECOSTE: If he knows it.
MR. ZANGENEH: Yeah, if he knows.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You don't object? Mr. Zangeneh, do you object or not?
MR. ZANGENEH: Yeah.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll sustain the objection. It goes outside of what this witness was asked.
Did Coastal Masonry report Mr. Garcia's wages on their unemployment tax -- reemployment -- reemployed tax returns?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No objection.
MR. ZANGENEH: Yeah, I don't think that this was -- I'm going to object to this. This is outside the scope. The issue of taxes wasn't really brought up with regards to --
JUDGE HANKINSON: JI think the juror's gone back to Ms. Hull, I think, is the witness who talked about pulling up the wage reports. I think that's what they're referring to.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, this witness was asked about Mr. Garcia's employment during the time frame that we're here about. And he did talk about the Rapid Capital. So I'm sure they're wanting to explore any other employment during our time frame.
MR. ZANGENEH: Right. But the only thing that --
MR. DECOSTE: That would be relevant to the first topic, too. Because I did talk to him about whether the deposits into her account could have come from Sigfredo Garcia. So I know that Your Honor said -- and this is as to both questions, but it applies more to the first one, that he was asked about this on direct and cross-examination.
MR. ZANGENEH: There's been no evidence about -- what this is potentially inferring is that there was some sort of improper activity by Mr. Garcia with regards to reporting his taxes, which would be, in essence, an uncharged crime. I object to it.
JUDGE HANKINSON: They're asking what Coastal Masonry did, not what Mr. Garcia --
MR. ZANGENEH: well --
MR. DECOSTE: I think they're trying to see if there's cash coming from Sigfredo Garcia into Katherine Magbanua’s account. I think that that's what those two questions are about. It was discussed on cross. He can answer if he knows.
MR. ZANGENEH: I'm still objecting.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Do you have a position?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I don't object.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I think I'll ask a little bit broader question and see what he says he's looked at. we will see where we go from there.
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And then they asked, does that match what was deposited in Mr. Garcia's bank accounts? Let's just kind of see what he says.
MR. ZANGENEH: If the Court recalls, they said that they didn't have bank records during the time of the -- the only bank records they had was from '15, not ‘14, which is the time -- for Mr. Garcia. They said they subpoenaed the bank records. They didn't have anything so --
JUDGE HANKINSON: He'll say he doesn't have them then.
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Did Ms. Magbanua have w2s from bars, nightclubs, and Adelson Institution?
MR. ZANGENEH: No objection from us.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No objection.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Did Ms. Magbanua report tips on her 1040s for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015?
MR. ZANGENEH: No position.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No objection.
MR. DECOSTE: If he has personal knowledge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: If he reviewed the 1040s; is that what you're saying?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. And then, did the tips match her deposits made?
I guess they're saying, did the information from the 1040s match the deposits made? I guess it would depend whether he looked at that or not, but any objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: No position.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No objection.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Did Adelson Institute pay unemployment tax or reemployment tax for Ms. Magbanua?
MR. ZANGENEH: No position.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No objection.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: It says: Is the video of Rivera's in-custody interview in evidence?
MR. ZANGENEH: The answer is, no. That's a legal -- that's a question for you, Judge, not for the witness.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Do we agree?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. Have there been any searches of any homes for the gun?
Anybody have objection?
MR. ZANGENEH: No objection.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No objection.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Was a similar show of force used during the arrest of Mr. Garcia?
MR. ZANGENEH: It was, and no objection.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No objection.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: How many times was the undercover agent's number called and by whom?
MR. ZANGENEH: No objection.
MR. PADILLA: He's already testified to it, I think.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I mean, it's going to be more than -- it's going to be more than what was admissible per your rule --
JUDGE HANKINSON: What's that?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It's going to be -- include more calls than what were admissible per your ruling. TI don't object to it.
JUDGE HANKINSON: The undercover number we're talking about?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, because Mrs. Adelson also called it.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Do you have objection?
MR. DECOSTE: No.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. Then there's a legal question: why is the Rivera interview video considered hearsay, but the phone calls from the wiretap not considered hearsay?
So, that's a legal question I'll respond to. Okay.
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay. Thank you.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Did you look at any tax information as to Ms. Magbanua, in other words, 1040s on Ms. Magbanua?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, sir, I did.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. And were there w2s for Ms. Magbanua from the bars and nightclubs and Adelson Institute?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not that I recall about the bars. The Adelson Institute, there were some records.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Make sure you speak where they can hear you. I know I'm asking the question.
PATRICK SANFORD: Sorry.
JUDGE HANKINSON: It's a little awkward.
PATRICK SANFORD: Sorry.
JUDGE HANKINSON: So there were some w2s from the Adelson Institute, but you don't recall any from the bars or nightclubs?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And were the bars from the nightclubs -- I'm sorry. Was the cash from the bars and nightclubs or other income shown on Ms. Magbanua's 1040s?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, that was not claimed.
JUDGE HANKINSON: What's that?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, that was not claimed.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Did the Adelson Institute pay unemployment tax or reemployment tax on Ms. Magbanua?
PATRICK SANFORD: From my recollection, I believe they did pay some taxes on it, yes.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Did you look at any employment records for Mr. Garcia?
PATRICK SANFORD: TI don't believe I found any, other than when he was working at Rapid Capital. So I did not get their employment records.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You didn't see anything from Coastal Masonry?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm sorry. We did get something from Coastal Masonry, too, for a period.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And did they report their wages?
PATRICK SANFORD: They did.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And did you attempt to match that with what went into Mr. Garcia's bank account?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, we did.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Now, did you have bank records for Mr. Garcia back in the 2014 time?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe so. I believe we did.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Were there any searches made of any residences to search for the gun?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, there were not.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Now, you were asked about the show of force in terms of arresting Ms. Magbanua.
was a similar show of force used as to the arrest of Mr. Garcia?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, it was.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And I don't know whether you have ready access to this, but do you know how many times the undercover number was called?
PATRICK SANFORD: It was less than a handful.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Do you have some record of that?
PATRICK SANFORD: I might be able to refer back. I believe from my recollection Charlie called it once -- Mr. Adelson called it once. Mr. Garcia called it one time and got the voice mail, and Mrs. Adelson called it once. I think she might have called twice.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Mrs. Adelson?
PATRICK SANFORD: Donna Adelson called it twice. She called one time and didn't reach him, and then she returned the call, I believe. So possibly a total of four. I could be mistaken on that, but around four.
JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Any follow up from the State?
FURTHER EXAMINATION
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: when did Donna Adelson call the undercover? Actually, a better question would be, if you could give us all of those calls and the dates and who called each time. would that take you time, or can you tell us that?
PATRICK SANFORD: I might be able to --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay.
PATRICK SANFORD: -- pull that up pretty quickly. So Mr. Adelson, Charlie Adelson, called the undercover on 4-28.
MR. ZANGENEH: I'm sorry. Can you say that again? I couldn't hear you.
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm sorry. Mr. Adelson, Charlie Adelson, called the undercover on 4-28 of '16. I do have on 5-6 is when Donna Adelson called the undercover agent and got his voice mail. The UC actually tried to call her back. She didn't answer. And then she calls him back on the same date, all on 5-6 of '16. And the date that Mr. Garcia called -- I don't think I have that, but let me make sure.
JUDGE HANKINSON: So that's one in evidence?
PATRICK SANFORD: It is one in evidence, yes, sir. I think it was on the 28th also because that's when he got the voice mail. That's when Mr. Garcia called the undercover is on 4-28 of ‘16.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And so since Charlie Adelson's call was on 4-28 and Mr. Garcia's was, could you give us the times?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, so Charlie called the undercover agent at 11:33 a.m., and Mr. Garcia called just prior to -- it was around 2 o'clock p.m. that afternoon.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Thank you. No further questions.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And just for the record, that is called the undercover -- call by -- I'm sorry. I'm looking at the wrong one. Never mind. Garcia?
FURTHER EXAMINATION
BY MR. ZENGENEH:
MR. ZANGENEH: Special agent, the call for Sigfredo Garcia that you have on 4-28, that came from a handset associated with Mr. Garcia, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe so -- no, I don't recall exactly which handset it came from. TI don't recall off the top of my head.
MR. ZANGENEH: well, the reason why I'm asking that question is because there's no actual voice mail left, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct, there's no voice mail.
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay. So you don't know who actually picked up the phone on the handset that belonged to Mr. Garcia and made that call, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. ZANGENEH: And at that time was Mr. Garcia -- who was he staying with at that time?
PATRICK SANFORD: He was staying with Ms. Magbanua.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Magbanua?
MR. DECOSTE: Are you done?
MR. ZANGENEH: Yes.
FURTHER EXAMINATION
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, you were asked questions about tax and employment information for bars and clubs?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: There's no bars involved here. It's just nightclubs, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure. The two nightclubs you brought up earlier.
MR. DECOSTE: Hollywood Live and Club Fate?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: You were asked about employment documentation. Were subpoena's ever sent to either of these companies, these nightclubs, to get any documentation?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not that I'm aware of, no.
MR. DECOSTE: You were asked about the communications between the undercover. Correct me if I'm wrong. There was also a text message that was sent by the undercover to Donna Adelson in the middle of the night?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Have you brought that up yet?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall if I have or not.
MR. DECOSTE: You have the body of that message?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not with me.
MR. DECOSTE: It was a threatening message?
PATRICK SANFORD: Threatening, no, not really. I mean, somewhat but --
MR. DECOSTE: Somewhat threatening?
PATRICK SANFORD: Somewhat, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Turn your attention now to the arrest of Sigfredo Garcia.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you remember being asked about that a minute ago?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. with respect to Ms. Magbanua -- and this ties into the same topic. Do you remember at one point when the State Attorney's Office was trying to litigate over her medical records?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: You were present for that, at times?
PATRICK SANFORD: For the hearing? I'm not sure what you're asking me. Present for what?
MR. DECOSTE: Were you ever -- so this hearing, you know of the time frame, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: The hearing of the -- the actual hearing of --
MR. DECOSTE: It was like right before her arrest?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay. No, I'm not familiar with -- I don't recall that.
MR. DECOSTE: A couple of months before her arrest, would that sound right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm not sure. I don't recall.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Were you ever made aware that she was willing to voluntarily surrender?
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Nothing further, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Redirect, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, I guess.
FURTHER EXAMINATION
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You were asked about the call from Mr. Garcia to the undercover, and that was on 4-28 around 2 o'clock you said?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And he didn't leave a voice mail. So we can't prove that was him that called the UC was the idea?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: with me so far?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. There was a call which was admitted into evidence, LL.
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And who is on that call?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's Mr. Garcia.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And at what time -- that's on 4-28 as well, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So about nine minutes after the -- well, I guess I need to ask you first, what time was LL placed?
PATRICK SANFORD: 2:09 p.m.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So about nine minutes after the hang-up call to the undercover?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No further questions.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And I misspoke when I said the Garcia call was in evidence. I was mixed up with -- the Charlie Adelson call to the undercover is the one that's in evidence. So I misspoke. You can step down, Agent Sanford.
There were two legal questions asked that -- I have to deal with legal questions. It's not for the witness to deal with.
It asked whether the video of Mr. Rivera in custody was in evidence, and the answer to that: It is not.
And the follow-up question to that was, why is the Rivera interview video considered hearsay but the phone calls from the wiretap are not considered hearsay?
And let me say, hearsay is a very complicated subject. There are books and books written on hearsay. There are law school classes on hearsay. You cannot become a hearsay expert today. There are approximately 30 exceptions to the hearsay rule. There are circumstances where hearsay does not apply. So just accept that you're not going to become an expert on hearsay based upon your involvement in this trial.
But, in general, the hearsay -- 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. I know that's a little confusing. But, in other words, if it's being used against someone, it is not hearsay. If it's trying to be used by the person, it is hearsay. That's a little confusing.
As I said, as to Mr. Rivera's statements, what he said that was inconsistent with what he said in court is admissible against him, but not everything he says is admissible in court. So that probably just fuels your confusion, but that's what I get paid to try to sort out; and I've done my best to do so.
So, anyway, y'all have a good lunch. Let's be back at 1:30, please.
(Jury exits.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Either side have any issues?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, Your Honor.
MR. ZANGENEH: No, Judge.
MR. DECOSTE: No.
JUDGE HANKINSON: See y'all at 1:30 then.
(A lunch recess was had.)
JUDGE HANKINSON: Let's have the jury, please.