The State rested after Sanford, surveillance, and financial-record testimony. The court denied acquittal motions as both defenses began presenting witnesses.

Day 9 →

.transcript-viewer .proc-meta-panel { position: static; } .transcript-viewer .proc-meta-panel .proc-meta-list[hidden] { display: block; position: static; box-shadow: none; } .transcript-viewer .proc-current-row { display: none; } .transcript-viewer .proc-divider-first { height: auto; padding: var(--cd-krt-s8) 0; overflow: visible; }

State Rests and Judgments of Acquittal

ProceduralProc.State Rests and Judgments of Acquittal

JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. You remain under subpoena. Call your next witness.

255:53

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, at this time the State rests.

355:54

JUDGE HANKINSON: Okay. I need to let the jury step out.

(Jury exits.)

556:29

JUDGE HANKINSON: All right. Everybody be seated. Garcia wish to be heard on the judgment of acquittal motion?

656:39

MR. ZANGENEH: Yes, Judge. Judge, at this time Mr. Garcia asks for a judgment of acquittal as to all three counts, murder in the first degree, solicitation of murder, and conspiracy to commit murder.

we believe that no reasonable juror could come back with a finding of guilt based on the fact that all the evidence that pertains to these specification charges, the solicitation, the conspiracy, and the first degree murder charge are elicited by Luis Rivera, which is undoubtedly one of the least credible witnesses that I've seen testify in any proceeding.

He has inconsistent variations of story after story. He -- there is documentation showing that he is the person that rents the Prius. He is the person whose firearm is used in the murder. Yet, he is the only person that alleges that my client was involved in this. Now, I know the Government has a circumstantial case, but there is nothing to show a jury that my client wasn't simply an uninvolved -- an innocent conspirator or an innocent third party in a conspiracy.

Simply being -- merely being present at the place of a crime that in some way acts in furtherance of that crime, doesn't make you a potential conspirator. The only evidence that the Government has that solidifies their position is through Mr. Rivera. And we believe that based on his substantial amount of inconsistencies, as well as his, I would say, refusal to answer our questions with regards to his gang affiliation and our questions with regards to the Latin King organization, that no reasonable juror could come back with a finding of guilt.

758:28

JUDGE HANKINSON: I'‘11 deny the motion for judgment of acquittal. Magbanua?

858:33

MS. KAWASS: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, on behalf of Ms. Magbanua, at this time, since the State has rested, we would renew all previous motions and objections and at this time make our first motion for judgment of acquittal as to all three counts in the case.

The Court is aware that the standard at this point is the Court is to take the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, and it is our position that even at this point they have failed to establish a prima facie case of guilt against Ms. Magbanua. This is a purely circumstantial case.

According to Ehrhardt, direct evidence is evidence which requires only the inference that what the witness said is true to prove a material fact. Circumstantial evidence is evidence which involves an additional inference to prove the material fact.

It is our position that this is a completely circumstantial case because Mr. Rivera's testimony requires inference upon inference in order to establish certain elements of the crime. For example, one of the elements in the first count, which they are charging her as a principal to first degree murder, the State has to prove that Ms. Magbanua knew that a murder was going to be committed and that she did something to assist.

The only testimony that they have at this point is from Mr. Rivera, who was impeached not only by direct evidence and records but also by his own statements. And he, essentially, is stating that -- he also testified -- sorry, Your Honor, that he had no communication with Ms. Magbanua before and that all of his information was coming through Mr. Garcia.

So at this point they don't have any evidence, number one, that she knew that there was -- a murder was going to be committed or that she did anything to assist in that event. And as the Court is very well aware, circumstantial standard, when the evidence -- a criminally accused person is circumstantial, a motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted if the State fails to present evidence from which the jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. when circumstantial evidence is relied upon for a conviction, circumstances when taken together must lead to a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and no one else committed the offense.

And then in relation to that, Your Honor, as to the conspiracy count, a conspiracy exists when there is an express or implied agreement between two parties. The only direct evidence that the State gave in that respect was that there is phone communication between people who they don't have enough probable cause to arrest and my client.

we have also presented evidence of a reasonable explanation that is not one of guilt, which is that she was communicating with her boyfriend as well as Mr. Garcia. They admit that they do not have the contents of those conversations; and not even Mr. Rivera, who claims that he knew -- found out that it was a murder on the drive up. So there is no evidence, direct evidence or otherwise, of any agreement between anyone for her to commit murder in order to establish the conspiracy element of the murder.

Then we also -- the same argument I would say too as to the solicitation, Your Honor, because solicitation then has the commanding, hiring, requesting, or encouraging another person to commit the crime. Mr. Rivera testified that he had never spoken to her, and everything that he said came across more so as a guessing game from Mr. Rivera. You know, Mr. -- she's behind the whole thing. These were all statements that are conclusory statements that weren't based on any direct evidence.

And the case that I would have the Court turn its attention to that we're relying on in terms of how the Court is to handle this type of evidence, we are relying on Rocker v. State. It's a case that I relied on in the Arthur hearing. It's 122 So.3d 898, and that's R-O-C-K-E-R, and that's from the Second DCA from 2013. Thank you, Judge.