9.Craig Isom — Direct/Cross/Redirect
1,792 linesMS. CAPPLEMAN: The State calls Craig Isom.
JUDGE WHEELER: Craig Isom, please.
(Pause. )
JUDGE WHEELER: Good afternoon.
BROCK DIETZ: Good afternoon.
JUDGE WHEELER: Before you have a seat, we are going to swear you in. Please raise your right hand and respond to the clerk.
whereupon, CRAIG ISOM was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
JUDGE WHEELER: Thank you. Please have a seat.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Good afternoon. Please introduce yourself and spell your name.
CRAIG ISOM: Craig Isom, C-R-A-I-G, I-S-O-M.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How are you employed, Mr. Isom?
CRAIG ISOM: I'm currently retired.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what are you retired from?
CRAIG ISOM: Tallahassee Police Department.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How long did you work for TPD?
CRAIG ISOM: Twenty-eight and a half years.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what were your duties at TPD?
CRAIG ISOM: I had numerous over the time period. The last 10, I was in criminal investigations.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: As part of your duties in criminal investigations, did you investigate homicides?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: were you assigned to investigate the homicide of Dan Markel?
CRAIG ISOM: I was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: were you the lead investigator in that case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, I was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: were you assisted by any other law enforcement agencies?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what other agencies?
CRAIG ISOM: Specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Did you personally respond to the crime scene in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And is that crime scene located in Leon County?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And when you arrived at the scene, had the victim already been transported to the hospital?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, he had.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. was there any evidence that you observed on the crime scene that this was a robbery or a break-in?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Any evidence that anything had been stolen or removed from the property of the vehicle?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So where do you start an investigation like this?
CRAIG ISOM: well, you try to find out as much background as you can on the victim and what his activities and actions were leading up to the crime.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Let's talk about what evidence there was on the scene. Do you know if the victim was dressed in gym clothes?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And had a gym bag or a gym towel in the car?
CRAIG ISOM: There was items of that nature in the car.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. we've heard testimony that he had a cell phone in his hand. Do we have any evidence that he was on the phone at the time?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. There was a reporting person who actually was conversing with Mr. Markel at the time that the incident occurred.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And was that the person whose business card was located inside the vehicle?
CRAIG ISOM: I believe so.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And was a neighborhood canvass done to see if anybody in the neighborhood saw anything?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, there was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And were you able to develop a witness? The neighbor Mr. Geiger, who we already heard from?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Anybody else see anything in the neighborhood?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And when you were working on establishing a timeline of the victim's activities, we talked about him being in gym clothes. was there any evidence collected to suggest he actually had gone to the gym that day?
CRAIG ISOM: we found that he had been at Premier Fitness Club on Maclay Boulevard, and we obtained video surveillance from that establishment, that business, that showed him there.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Did you find any evidence to suggest where he went prior to the gym that day?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. We were able to determine that he had dropped off his two young boys at day care on west Tharpe Street, and the time was 8:50 a.m. approximately.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And then what time -- did he go straight from the day care to the gym?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what time did he arrive at the gym?
CRAIG ISOM: I believe it was 9:12.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. I'm going to show you what's been introduced into evidence as State's Exhibit 89, the gym surveillance. Could we publish that now, please? what can you tell us about the camera angles that were available or the surveillance images that were available from Premier gym?
CRAIG ISOM: There was numerous on the outside. There was a couple on the inside where you see his image entering and exiting the gym. You can see where his car pulls into the parking lot and parks.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you know how long the victim was inside the gym?
CRAIG ISOM: It was more than an hour.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So are there six to seven different camera angles that show the victim or the vehicles that we are interested in?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And are you familiar with the exhibit where they were compiled for ease of presentation?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So let's take a look at this exhibit. ~=All right. what is this vehicle in the blue circle?
CRAIG ISOM: That is Mr. Markel's Honda, four door, black.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And is he entering the gym parking lot in this image?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. He's entering off of village Square Boulevard. Once again, that's him coming down north to south from village Square Boulevard in the parking lot.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And is that him pulling into that parking spot behind the flag?
CRAIG ISOM: It is.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Does he exit his vehicle immediately?
CRAIG ISOM: No, it takes a couple of minutes. This is what's been determined as the suspect vehicle.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And does the suspect vehicle turn into the parking lot behind Mr. Markel?
CRAIG ISOM: Not directly. The suspect vehicle goes all the way on Village Square Boulevard to Maclay and then comes in the main entrance of Premier.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So is that the suspect vehicle driving past the victim?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct. Correct. And that's Markel exiting his car.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And is the time on this correct? 9:12 a.m?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is this Markel in the red shirt entering the gym?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct. Here's Mr. Markel entering the front doors.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what does the suspect vehicle do while Mr. Markel is in the gym for approximately an hour or a little better than an hour?
CRAIG ISOM: The driver of the suspect vehicle moves to different locations within the parking area, off to one end, and then moves again and then ends up behind trees.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: But as far as you can tell, stays in the parking area?
CRAIG ISOM: Oh, yeah. Yes. So Markel has already entered, and now the car is driving past by again.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you know the make and model of this vehicle?
CRAIG ISOM: It's a 2008 Toyota Prius, and the color is silver pine mica.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is this another area of the gym parking --
CRAIG ISOM: Correct. This is at the south end; as it denotes, south parking.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. What's happening now?
CRAIG ISOM: Mr. Markel is now exiting the building of Premier.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: At what time does he exit?
CRAIG ISOM: 10:39 -- I'm sorry. It says 10:33. I guess it was -- he is not outside in the parking lot. But it says 10:33, and that is accurate.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So are we going to see Mr. Markel pull out of the parking lot here?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And the suspect vehicle follow behind?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct. That's Markel's car heading back the way it came in. The circle is indicating where the suspect vehicle is coming from in the back.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: were you able to get a tag number off the vehicle from the surveillance we just watched?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. were you able to review or find some other surveillance images of this vehicle?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Let's talk about the bus. Are there cameras mounted on our city buses here in Tallahassee?
CRAIG ISOM: There are.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And did those buses capture some of the route from where these two vehicles went after they left Premier gym that morning?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, a good deal of it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: where did Mr. Markel head when he left the gym that morning?
CRAIG ISOM: He went out to Village Square Boulevard, to Thomasville Road, and then southbound on Thomasville Road towards his neighborhood in Betton Hills.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And let's start with State's Exhibit 90, which has been previously introduced into evidence. If you could tell us about Bus 505. What does that show us?
CRAIG ISOM: Bus 505 is pulling up here. The bus is traveling east on Maclay Commerce Drive. It comes up to this intersection, and that is what appears to be Markel's black Honda southbound on Thomasville. So he's left Premier, gone to Thomasville Road, and now he's southbound.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right.
CRAIG ISOM: That's what appears to be the same Prius -- green Prius that was in the Premier parking lot. It was following in the direction that Markel went. This same bus turned off of Maclay Commerce Drive, went southbound, and caught up to a similar Prius here at the intersection of Metropolitan Boulevard.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And were you able to get the tag from the Prius off of these images?
CRAIG ISOM: No, unfortunately not.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is the route we are seeing the Prius take in this portion of the exhibit consistent with heading toward the Markel residence?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Does this bus catch up with the Prius again before he turns off toward the Markel residence?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. Right there where the circle is, that appears to be the same Prius in the left-hand turn lane for Betton Road.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right.
CRAIG ISOM: Once again, the Prius is making a left-hand turn onto Betton Road.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And at what time does the Prius make that left-hand turn?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't have the exact time. I'1Il have to look for it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Does 10:51 sound right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And do you have an idea of when Mr. Markel was murdered?
CRAIG ISOM: It was before 11:00 a.m.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And then was there additional surveillance video from a city bus that captured this Prius after the murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And was that Bus 707?
CRAIG ISOM: It was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: If we could publish -- we might have a little of 505 to finish watching here. Okay. Here we go, 707.
CRAIG ISOM: This is 707. It's northbound. It stopped -- it's on Thomasville. It's northbound. It stopped at the light at Armistead Road, and this is the suspect vehicle passing by.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Could you rewind it and watch that clip one more time?
were you able to learn some more information about the suspect vehicle based on this -- these images?
CRAIG ISOM: These images provided us with a couple of characteristics -- a few characteristics about the car. One of them is you can see the passenger mirror casing. The outside mirror casing is black. All the Priuses come with the same body color on the mirror casing. This one, obviously, has been replaced at some point; so you've got a black passenger-side mirror casing.
There's a -- what appears to be a SunPass or some type of sticker up in the top center window that is common for tolls. And then I don't think you can see it from here, but if you back up just a hair, there will be a -- kind of grainy on this image. Maybe you-all's is better, but there is a black hole just below the driver's side headlight.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I think you have a pointer up there to assist you.
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No one has had much luck with the pointer; so you will be in good company if you can't get it to work.
CRAIG ISOM: If you just look below the driver's headlight where the bumper is, there is a black hole, and that --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So kind of this area?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay.
CRAIG ISOM: That is where a tow hook would mount if the car needed to be pulled or towed, and it's missing -- the cover -- the plastic insert that covers that hole is missing on this car.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Let's let it play through. Looks like something -- can you back it up just a hair. I'm sorry to keep doing that to you. Okay. Stop. Right there.
Something white on the windshield there. Do you know what that is?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah, there's what I was referring to as possibly a SunPass adhesive toll reader transponder for when you drive through tolls -- so you don't have to stop.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is that a South Florida thing, or do we have those here?
CRAIG ISOM: Central and South Florida, predominantly down in that area. Very rare up here.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What can you tell us, if anything, about the passengers based on this video?
CRAIG ISOM: The passenger is animated, and it appears there is some type of white clothing or a towel or something is moving around on the passenger's side. And then there's nothing -- you can't really tell on the driver's side. It looks like it is black as far as any type of clothing or --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Let it play one more time, please.
CRAIG ISOM: There you have the three characteristics that I was referring to.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is this the same bus?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. It's just another angle. The camera is mounted up on the front part of the bus. The Prius is passing in the left-hand lane.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And the 707 bus video occurs at approximately 10:55 a.m.?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah. I have 10:55 where it's at the stoplight.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So then the murder -- that puts our time of the murder between 10:51 and 10:55; is that about right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct, yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And do you know what time the 911 call came in from Mr. Geiger?
CRAIG ISOM: 11:02.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Let's talk about the SunPass. You mentioned you thought the suspect vehicle appeared to have a SunPass. What, if any, investigative efforts were done to try to locate that particular SunPass?
CRAIG ISOM: well, there was a lot of painstaking effort to figure out if this car had gone through tolls and which tolls. The closest SunPass or toll system is north of Orlando down in wildwood, Florida, where I-75 intersects with the Florida Turnpike. That was checked exhaustively without luck. And we didn't really have anything else to go on, just a Prius. Come to find out, there is thousands of Priuses and a lot of SunPasses attached to them; so that wasn't working out too good.
But eventually we did locate the location where a car like this utilized the SunPass through tolls down in South Florida on I-75, but that was in correlation with the cell phones that we eventually got.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So after you got cell phone records for suspects, you were able to kind of go back to the SunPass records and narrow down the timeframes?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct. That helped us in determining their route -- the travel route they took. And then we were able to determine -- there's a toll on each end of Alligator Alley down in extreme South Florida, and the toll transponder activity was consistent with where these cell phones went.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And do you know the times exactly that this thing went through those tolls?
CRAIG ISOM: The one for leaving Miami -- leaving Miami and getting on I-75 eastbound -- or westbound to go across the state towards Naples was at 2:18 p.m. on July 16th; so that's two days before the murder.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And what about going home after the murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Going home was the date of the murder, same date. That evening at 5:23 p.m. that transponder activated at the Alligator Alley toll plaza going eastbound from approximately Naples towards Fort Lauderdale.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And is the timeframe of the Prius passing through this tollbooth on the way home consistent with them leaving Tallahassee, as we just saw on the bus video, and going straight south to that toll plaza?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And how many -- once you narrowed down the timeframes based on phone records, how many Priuses with SunPass passed through those transponders at both the times when we know the phone records were coming and going?
CRAIG ISOM: Only one.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. were you able to -- once you identified this particular SunPass transponder, does it have, like, a unique identification number attached to it?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: were you able to track that particular transponder to a business?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Tell us about that.
CRAIG ISOM: I subpoenaed records through the Department of Transportation -- State Department of Transportation, and they returned information that showed this particular car. Obviously, I'm only looking for anything during those time ranges. And they provided this particular car, and it was one of numerous SunPass transponder adhesive-type that go to a business in Miami -- North Miami called Save Gas Hybrid Rent-A-Car.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Is that located at 11032 Biscayne Boulevard?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And was this particular Prius ever located?
CRAIG ISOM: It was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Tell us about that.
CRAIG ISOM: well, by the time we got to it, it had been sold. It actually had been sold twice, but we were able to track it down and find the current owner. It had been painted. It was actually painted white. New SunPass, obviously, because the old SunPass went with the previous owner. But everything was determined to be accurate as -- at the time that this incident happened. The tag number, the transponder number, and so forth matched what the records were from Save Gas, this business.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did Save Gas have records that indicated this SunPass was affixed to a Prius, and that Prius had a particular VIN number?
CRAIG ISOM: Right. That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And when you found the particular Prius, were you able to confirm, even though it had a new owner and new SunPass, that it had that same VIN number that was attached to the SunPass in question?
CRAIG ISOM: Right. The vehicle identification number that's unique to each individual car was the same.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. when you went to the Save Gas, were you able to get any documents associated with who rented this Prius at the time of our murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. I'm going to show you what I've marked as State's Exhibit 67.
And, Judge, at this time I would ask to move into evidence State's Exhibit 67, the rental agreement from Save Gas, and the GPS information with the certification of authenticity.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. State's Exhibit 67 will be admitted.
(State's Exhibit 67 received in evidence.)
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So State's 67, does that look familiar?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And who was the person, according to the rental agreement, that rented the car to come to Tallahassee?
CRAIG ISOM: Luis Rivera.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And I'm showing you now 48 through 52. Take a look through each of those.
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Are those all fair and accurate photos of the Prius?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: As you observed it when you located the actual car?
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Years later after having been sold twice?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, at this time I'd ask to move into evidence 48 through 52.
COURT CLERK: Any objection?
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: Be admitted as 48 to 52.
(State's Exhibits 48 through 52 received in evidence.)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And, Judge, I made a mistake. when I introduced the State's Exhibit 67, I indicated that contained the GPS data. But that is actually contained in a separate exhibit, State's 72, which also contains a business record affidavit of authenticity; so I would ask to move into evidence State's 72 as well.
MR. DECOSTE: Can we go sidebar?
(Sidebar conference as follows:)
MR. DECOSTE: I did want to have a conversation sidebar. Have we not reviewed this yet? Is it okay to cross talk?
JUDGE WHEELER: I mean, you can ask that. It's been reviewed?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes. I mean, I don't know. Everything was made available for you to inspect.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. These were previously provided though, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Because I just didn't know why we were being handed them now.
MS. DUGAN: They were previously --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Because I screwed up and said that this was in this, but it's not. It's its own thing, and I thought you would want to look at it.
MR. DECOSTE: I apologize for the sidebar, Judge. It was just because we had reviewed it, since you were showing me something, I thought it was something new.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, it 71s not new.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. So you don't have any objection?
MR. DECOSTE: TI don't. Withdrawn.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. Thank you.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
JUDGE WHEELER: All right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, 72?
JUDGE WHEELER: That will be admitted as State's Exhibit 72 without objection.
(State's Exhibit 72 received in evidence.)
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Publishing State's Exhibit 48. Is this what the vehicle looked like once you tracked it down?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And was a photo taken of the unique VIN number? State's 49?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And that's the same one that corresponds to the SunPass records that we just introduced?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: State's 67 -- what were we able to learn about our suspect from the rental car agreement?
CRAIG ISOM: well, the phone numbers were consistent with what we had already. Obviously, there's an additional phone number. Up there it says, Brother. That was determined to be one of ~=the co-defendants.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And who's that?
CRAIG ISOM: Sigfredo Garcia.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And this phone number -- was that discovered to be the real phone number for Rivera?
CRAIG ISOM: It was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And what about this address, Normandy? Is that linked to him as well?
CRAIG ISOM: That was his current address at the time.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what about -- he had another address too, didn't he, with Jessica Rodriguez?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What address was that?
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, can we just get for the record what it is that Mr. Isom is taking a look at?
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. Are you reviewing your report?
CRAIG ISOM: I'm looking to make sure I have the address right.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: In your report, though, sir, or something else?
CRAIG ISOM: It is just a sheet that has addresses on it.
MR. DECOSTE: I completely understand -- if we can go sidebar?
JUDGE WHEELER: All right.
(Sidebar conference as follows:)
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Do you know what he's looking at?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: He said a sheet with addresses on it.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. TI don't know if it is his official report and he is refreshing his recollection or if it is just something where he has taken down notes.
MR. DECOSTE: So from the last trial and from what I just saw, I think it is a combination of the two. He has the same folder with him that has some handwritten notes probably but then also the reports. And I completely understand that he needs to refresh. I just want to make sure on the record that we have it when he's refreshing if he doesn't remember something.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. I want to get that on the record too. So I didn't see him looking at his report. So if he's looking at his report, you can go through that colloquy about, you know, what are you referring to, are you refreshing your recollection, that type of thing.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So have you had an opportunity to refresh your recollection with the papers in front of you?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And what was that other address?
CRAIG ISOM: 1505 Northeast 135th Street, North Miami, Florida.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And back to this rental agreement, when was this vehicle rented?
CRAIG ISOM: On the 15th of July.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And when was it due back?
CRAIG ISOM: It was due back on the 17th of July, two days later.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Obviously not returned on time?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It was in Tallahassee on the 18th, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
JUDGE WHEELER: Mr. Isom, are you referring to that exhibit? Is that what you're looking at there?
CRAIG ISOM: Okay. This is what I'm looking at for the address.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. What I want you to do is if you -- either I want you to look at the exhibit, if you need to respond with the exhibit. If you need to refer to your notes, if you could just tell counsel that you need to refer to that, and then she will ask you to refresh your recollection. Okay?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
JUDGE WHEELER: Thank you.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And I can bring it over to you if you can't see the exhibit from there. It should be on your screen there as well.
JUDGE WHEELER: We took that screen out.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay.
CRAIG ISOM: I am going blind here.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I can carry it over if there is something you need to see closer.
All right. Let's talk about phone numbers. we talked about that phone number that was listed on the rental agreement for Luis Rivera. Did you subpoena call detail records for that phone number?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And would you be the person responsible for analyzing the call detail records, or is that done by someone else?
CRAIG ISOM: It is done by the technical operations unit.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And would that be Sergeant Corbitt?
CRAIG ISOM: Sergeant Chris Corbitt.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: But you did the subpoena and received the returns for these phone numbers?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So specifically in reference to the (305)570-8153 for Rivera, that is not one of these. One moment. I'm sorry?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Your Honor, I'll come back to that. I think it's going to be Exhibits 91 through 98 that we're hunting.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So the phone number that was listed on the rental car agreement for brother, (786)372-5986, you mentioned that that phone number was associated with Sigfredo Garcia. Was that phone number subpoenaed for the call detail records?
CRAIG ISOM: It was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And did you receive a return for those as well?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Did you also subpoena social media content that contains that phone number?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And under what Facebook name is that -- does that number appear?
CRAIG ISOM: The Facebook identifier is Tuto Dade.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Let me show you 60 and 61, if I can find them. I found them.
Take a look at these exhibits, please. And there's front and back to one of those. I lied. Just the front.
Do you recognize those exhibits?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. This is part of the return that -- showing that -- this image was on Tuto Dade's Facebook page.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And the phone number associated with brother is associated with this Facebook?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And the Facebook image, is that someone that you recognize?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: who is that?
CRAIG ISOM: This is Sigfredo Garcia.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Thank you. Permission to introduce State's 60 and 61.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MR. DECOSTE: No.
JUDGE WHEELER: Exhibits 60 and 61 will be admitted.
(State's Exhibits 60 and 61 received in evidence.)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: May I publish?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So 61 is the page that you can't see, but that contains that phone number; is that correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And then 60 is the cover photo for that Facebook account?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And that's Sigfredo Garcia?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And does he have children?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And who is the mother of his children?
CRAIG ISOM: Katherine Magbanua.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. I want to show you State's Demonstrative Exhibit C. Have you had a chance to review this exhibit before today?
CRAIG ISOM: I have, yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And could you explain to us -- starting with Luis Rivera and Sigfredo Garcia, those are the two in the Prius, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And how they are related or connected to the other players on this image --
That's pretty terrible. Could we try displaying it from the laptop maybe? Sorry.
while she's working on that, I will hand you this demonstrative exhibit and just ask you to kind of walk us through who is who in this case. You can go ahead and start explaining it while she is working on that. I don't want the jury to have to wait.
CRAIG ISOM: Can they see it?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No. You have to just tell us.
CRAIG ISOM: Luis Rivera and his friend Sigfredo Garcia were the two individuals operating in the Prius. Sigfredo Garcia's -- the mother of his children is the Defendant, Katherine Magbanua. There's two children by them. It was determined Katherine had a relationship also with Charlie Adelson. Charlie Adelson is Dan Markel's -- was Dan Markel's brother-in-law, Wendi Adelson's brother.
Charlie Adelson's parents are Donna Adelson -- she would be to the -- second from the left at the top, and the father is Harvey Adelson, top left corner. So you have Harvey -- across the top from left to right, Harvey; Donna; Charlie; wendi, Dan Markel's ex-wife; and then on the far right is Dan Markel.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So the investigation into the Prius -- the buck kind of stops with these two down here, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did you have some ATM images in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Tell us about the ATM images. where did they come from?
CRAIG ISOM: we found out that there was a bank transaction at an ATM drive-through in Broward County -- I believe it was Broward County -- where they were on their way home and they stopped. And Rivera, who was operating the car -- he withdrew money at an ATM, and we were able to get images of both of them in the car.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Still in the green Prius?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Consistent with being on the way home from Tallahassee?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: After the murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: State's Exhibit 39, who is that?
CRAIG ISOM: That is Luis Rivera.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: State's Exhibit 40?
CRAIG ISOM: That's Luis on the driver's side, and the far image -- or the far person on the passenger's side is Sigfredo Garcia.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: State's 41?
CRAIG ISOM: Once again, Rivera is operating the car. He's in black; refer back to the bus video. Garcia is in white. He is on the passenger's side.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And State's 42 -- you can't really tell from here, but were you able to get the tag off of this image?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. You mentioned that the Prius was the only lead that you got from the crime scene. was there a lead that started with Dan Markel's personal life?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. Dan and wendi Markel -- well, Dan Markel and wendi Adelson had gone through a very lengthy and contentious divorce starting in 2012.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And as part of your investigation, did you review the divorce file in their case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: was the divorce file pretty voluminous?
CRAIG ISOM: very, very large.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Over 700 pages?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah, it was a lot.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm going to show you what I've marked as State's Exhibit 59. You don't have to look at every page. Just flip through and tell me if you recognize it.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. It's a lot.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Does that appear to be a fair and accurate copy of the Markels' divorce file?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you reviewed that as part of your investigation?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I want to ask you about a couple of documents in there specifically. Do you know when their divorce was finalized?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: And what is your objection?
MR. DECOSTE: Motions in limine, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Your previous objection is noted.
Are you asking for the file to be admitted at this time, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. So I'm going to allow him to refer to it, and so your motion -- it's denied for my previous reasons stated on the record.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: when was their divorce final, is the question?
CRAIG ISOM: It was July 31st of 2013.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So a year before the murder in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: was the finalizing of the divorce the end of the litigation between Dan Markel and his former wife, wendi?
CRAIG ISOM: Not at all.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Were there numerous filings that occurred between the time their divorce was finalized and the time of Mr. Markel's murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Even including as recently as March 26th of 2014, shortly before his murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Could you tell us about that March 26, 2014, filing that Dr. Markel made?
CRAIG ISOM: Mr. Markel was -- had found out that his children -- his two young children had been spending time with Markel's mother-in-law, Donna Adelson. And from the children, they said that -- they said disparaging things that Donna Adelson had told them or said in their presence about Dan Markel. And these were things like, Grandma says you're stupid. Grandma hates you. And that was kind of the last straw, the way it looks when you read through this stuff, that --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was that -- I'm sorry. I didn't mean no interrupt you. Go ahead.
CRAIG ISOM: -- that Markel had decided that he wanted to have -- that his mother-in-law should have supervised contact with the children, some type of supervision.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Only supervised contact?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, yes. He did not want the mother-in-law to have unsupervised contact with the children; so that was the filing.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was that motion ever heard by the Court?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: why not?
CRAIG ISOM: Because Dan Markel was murdered.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Judge, at this time I would ask to move into evidence the divorce filing exhibit, which is marked as State's Exhibit 59.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Subject to the previous objection noted on the record, anything else that you need to add?
MR. DECOSTE: One moment, Your Honor. No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. It will be admitted as State's Exhibit 59.
(State's Exhibit 59 received in evidence.)
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And, Mr. Isom, in those documents, just to sort of the give the jury an idea of what we are talking about, they were -- this couple was arguing over things as small as a tennis racket?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And quite large things that were very valuable as well, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And are you familiar with a motion that's included in that exhibit where wendi Adelson was seeking to relocate to South Florida with her children?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what was the outcome of that motion?
CRAIG ISOM: It was denied with prejudice.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So she was not legally permitted to move from Tallahassee to South Florida.
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. who was in South Florida? why did she want to move there?
CRAIG ISOM: Her parents, Harvey --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: where did they live?
CRAIG ISOM: At the time they lived in Coral Springs, Broward County, Florida.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And are you familiar with some emails between wendi and Donna Adelson in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Let me show you what I've marked as State's Exhibit 63. How did you come into possession of those emails?
CRAIG ISOM: They were obtained through the voluntary submission of wendi Adelson's computer, and I also believe there was a subpoena for her Google account.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: well, we can't find them at the moment; so I'm going to move on and come back to emails.
Fair to say that the emails were unfriendly to Dan Markel?
CRAIG ISOM: very much so.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And did the emails -- what kinds of things did the emails include?
CRAIG ISOM: Before the ruling that she could not -- that wendi could not relocate to South Florida with the two boys, there was a lot of suggestions by her mother, Donna Adelson, to compel or insist that relocation was very important, and they needed the stability of the boys in South Florida because they were divorced now, and now we are talking about two different single parents.
After the denial, which was, I believe, in June of 2013, Donna -- according to the emails, she ramped up her suggestions to wendi and wanted to attempt to coerce Markel to allow the relocation by bribery, by suggesting that the children would be moved from a Hebrew Jewish religion to Catholicism and possibly even baptized in the Catholic church, knowing full well that Dan Markel was very devout in his faith, being Jewish, and that it would get under his skin. And they thought maybe this would trigger something to -- for him to voluntarily allow them to take the kids to South Florida.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And was another suggestion that they could even bribe Markel into allowing the relocation?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And was a specific amount mentioned?
CRAIG ISOM: A million dollars.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So, obviously, this was a lead, right? This nasty divorce and custody battle?
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you interview the ex-wife, wendi Adelson?
CRAIG ISOM: I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: when was she interviewed?
CRAIG ISOM: within hours after Dan Markel was shot in his garage.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: where was Ms. Adelson located?
CRAIG ISOM: She was at a restaurant in Killearn -- in the Killearn area north of I-10 off of Market Street.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And did she, during her interview with you, suggest who might have wanted her husband dead?
CRAIG ISOM: well, she said that somebody may have -- somebody could have done it as if it was to help her.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: who? Did she say who?
CRAIG ISOM: She just said that somebody that she knows could have possibly done it. But she also made the statement that her brother, Charlie, had stated previously that he looked into hiring a hit man and found it was cheaper to buy a television for her as a divorce gift.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Her brother, Charlie, is that Charlie Adelson on this sheet?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Had looked into hiring a hit man?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: To kill Dan Markel?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. That was the conversation that she reiterated that he told her.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I want to circle back now to the phone evidence. And you mentioned that Sergeant Corbitt was responsible for analyzing the phones. But there were several different sets of records that you obtained for his analysis; is that right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So State's Exhibit 91 pertains to Luis Rivera, (305)750-8153. And, Judge, at this time I'd ask to move into evidence, pursuant to stipulation, 91, which does contain a certification of authenticity.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MR. DECOSTE: I didn't hear what it was, but probably not.
JUDGE WHEELER: State's Exhibit 91, with the prior stipulation.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's do it. No objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: Be admitted as State's Exhibit 91.
(State's Exhibit 91 received in evidence.)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: 92, the records of Sigfredo Garcia, also containing an affidavit of authenticity. That phone number is (786) 372-5986.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. State's Exhibit 92 will be admitted.
(State's Exhibit 92 received in evidence.)
MR. DECOSTE: Just -- I'll point out it is 5968.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Sorry. Sorry, jury. 5968.
All right. State's Exhibit 93 relates to the call detail records of wendi Adelson, phone number (954) 803-0079, also containing an affidavit of authenticity.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: It will be entered as State's Exhibit 93.
(State's Exhibit 93 received in evidence.)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Next, Judge, State's Exhibit 94, the call detail records of Donna Adelson, phone number (954)396-0997, also with an affidavit of authenticity.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Be admitted as State's 94.
(State's Exhibit 94 received in evidence.)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: State's 95, the call detail records of Charlie Adelson, phone number (954)254-9223, also with the record certification.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: Thank you. It will be admitted as State's 95.
(State's Exhibit 95 received in evidence.)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: State's 96, the cell phone records of Harvey Adelson, phone number (954)980-9032, also with an affidavit of authenticity.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: State's Exhibit 96 admitted.
(State's Exhibit 96 received in evidence.)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The cell phone records of Katherine Magbanua, phone number (786)564-1321, also with an affidavit of authenticity.
MR. DECOSTE: 1312, no objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Be admitted without objection, State's 97.
(State's Exhibit 97 received in evidence.)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did I say that one wrong as well?
MR. DECOSTE: You said 1321.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Dyslexic today; not normally.
State's Exhibit 98, the call detail records of Dan Markel, (202)276-8200, and that one has an affidavit of authenticity included as well.
MR. DECOSTE: No objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: Be admitted as State's 98.
(State's Exhibit 98 received in evidence.)
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So, Mr. Isom, you received all of these records from the phone companies and turned them over to Sergeant Corbitt for analysis?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I want to ask you about another aspect of your investigation: your meetings and interviews with Luis Rivera. I want to start with a meeting or an interview that occurred on September 30th of 2016. Were you present for that?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And in that interview, did Mr. Rivera include the name Katherine Magbanua as someone that was involved in this murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was there ever a time where you, or any other law enforcement or person of authority in your presence, said, Rivera has to say the name Katherine Magbanua to get a deal?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Did you make some efforts to check out some of the things that Mr. Rivera told you that were stuff you hadn't heard before and didn't already know pursuant to your investigation?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. I want to ask you specifically about the hole in the Prius. Can you tell us -- summarize what Mr. Rivera told you about the hole in the Prius?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay as to what Mr. Rivera is saying.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's sustained.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. ~=BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you have reason, after Mr. Rivera's testimony, to think there might be a hole in the Prius?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you go to look at the Prius -- okay. This was before or after you had already found the actual vehicle?
JUDGE WHEELER: Hold on one second.
Do you have an objection?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor. This line of questioning is premised now on hearsay.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled. You may proceed.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: was this -- when you went to look for the hole in the Prius, was it before or after you had already found the actual Prius the first time?
CRAIG ISOM: we had already found the Prius. Did not even know about a hole in the floorboard of the Prius until Rivera provided that information.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So you go back to find the Prius again and look to see if there's a hole in the floorboard?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And was there a hole in the floorboard?
CRAIG ISOM: There was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. I'm going to show you some additional -- I think we've already admitted them.
Publishing State's 50. All right. what does the orange rod in this photo signify?
CRAIG ISOM: This is a straight rod that has been positioned from the inside down through the outside showing the trajectory of the hole.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. State's 51?
CRAIG ISOM: Same thing, closer, and you're starting to see what is going to be the gas line of the car.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: State's 52, is this demonstrating a repair to the = gas line?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And was the repair still holding when you found the vehicle and discovered this hole?
CRAIG ISOM: It was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. There was an additional proffer on October 4th of 2016. were you present for that meeting as well?
CRAIG ISOM: I was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Did you, as a result of your meetings with Mr. Rivera, attempt to locate the murder weapon in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: we did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what did you do to attempt to locate the murder weapon?
CRAIG ISOM: I queried him extensively. And then we actually took him on a road trip, for lack of a better term, in a van and then later on in a car to attempt to locate the body of water that they were close to when he stated that Garcia -- they stopped off of I-75, and Garcia got out and threw the gun towards the water.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And you did not recover any firearms as a result of those efforts, did you?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How many bodies of water on the side of an interstate are there between here and Miami?
CRAIG ISOM: Numerous.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I want to ask you about the arrest of Katherine Magbanua. On what day was she arrested?
CRAIG ISOM: October 1, 2016.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: were you present for her arrest?
CRAIG ISOM: I was.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And was that in Miami?
CRAIG ISOM: It was in Davie, Broward County.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And when she was arrested, was there anything unusual about the law enforcement presence there? Was there more or less law enforcement than there typically would be for a murder arrest?
CRAIG ISOM: It would be -- it was the status of what you would go for a murder suspect. You want to make sure that they are not going to get away.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. But was it heavier or lighter or typical?
CRAIG ISOM: It was just typical.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And on this date when you were in the process of making this arrest, did you get a phone call?
CRAIG ISOM: I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Was that subsequent to Ms. Magbanua being permitted to make a phone call?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
JUDGE WHEELER: Hold on one second. Do you have an objection?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Sidebar, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. we will have a brief sidebar.
(Sidebar conference as follows:)
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. what was the question?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was it subsequent to Ms. Magbanua being permitted to make a phone call?
Answer: Yes.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right.
MR. DECOSTE: I believe that the government is about to get into a line of questioning about the volley of phone calls amongst attorneys that were involved, that Ms. Magbanua called Ms. Kawass, and then the theory that somehow the call 10 minutes later by Charles Adelson's attorney, David Markus, to Investigator Isom is somehow a tie in between the Defendants.
Your Honor, for the Defense, it is a very normal thing that when there are arrests, there is a saying: My enemy's enemy is my friend. That there is communication amongst people that are involved in a conspiracy, that phone calls are made to find out is anything going on with the other people involved. In fact, there were several phone calls that were made. One was made to Sigfredo Garcia.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It's really loud.
MR. DECOSTE: One was made to Sigfredo Garcia's attorney, Saam Zangeneh, to find out if he had copies of the arrest warrant. Sigfredo Garcia is already arrested. Then at the same time, there is phone calls that are placed -- and we don't deny it -- that were placed to the other attorneys of the other people that were looked at to see if they had copies of the arrest warrants.
what the government is not bringing out is a series of emails from Ms. Kawass to Ms. Cappleman trying to get the copy of the warrant to find out what was going on, because at the same time this investigator and the FBI agent were trying to force cooperation right then and there to have a meeting. That's the reason why the phone calls were made, but the jury will never hear that.
Instead, the jury will think that there is some sort of connection amongst the attorneys, and Ms. Kawass can't get up on the stand and testify to clear it up. It would also be hearsay, anything about the conversation. Plus, it is hearsay for Investigator Isom to say that it was David Markus that called. There is no cell phone records. He's never, I don't believe, ever spoken to David Markus in person or at any other time over the phone.
So it's also based on hearsay, but it is troubling that this jury will get the impression, from attorneys just trying to be diligent, there is somehow a connection between Ms. Magbanua and Mr. Adelson. I never had a case where there are arrests -- and it is usually on the federal side, 5 o'clock in the morning --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: There is no way they can't hear every word you are saying. You've got to be quieter.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. I've heard enough.
Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: My understanding of your ruling, Judge, was that it was going to be admissible that a phone call was placed by Ms. Magbanua. Immediately thereafter, this witness received a call from Charlie Adelson's attorney. I was not going to elicit the content or who Ms. Magbanua called.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. I am going to find that it is relevant and it's admissible. we are done.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
JUDGE WHEELER: You may continue.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So during the arrest of Ms. Magbanua, is she permitted to make a phone call?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And at the conclusion of that phone call, do you receive a phone call?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How much time passed between her phone call and the one that you received?
CRAIG ISOM: Less than 20 minutes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And who was calling you?
CRAIG ISOM: An attorney named David Markus.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And who did David Markus represent?
CRAIG ISOM: He indicated he represented Charlie Adelson.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I want to ask you about Ms. Magbanua's employment status around the time of this murder. Did you get some evidence that she was receiving checks from the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: After the homicide, yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And what is the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: It's a periodontal office in Broward County; does dental work.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And who owns the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: Harvey and Charlie Adelson.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And did Donna have some connection to that business as well?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what was that?
CRAIG ISOM: I think she did a lot of the clerical stuff there. She wrote the checks that were received by Katherine Magbanua. She signed them.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you make any effort to determine what, if anything, Ms. Magbanua was doing to earn the money from the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what did you do to try to determine that?
CRAIG ISOM: we subpoenaed their office. I went to the office -- myself and Special Agent Sanford went to their office and provided a subpoena to two employees that happened to be there at the time seeking employment records and documentation showing her duties and so forth at the office.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And did you interact with employees when you went into the business?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I know what kind of a business it is, but is ita large enterprise? Like, how many employees do they have?
CRAIG ISOM: There was only two there. And from my understanding, it was maybe two others that worked there, I believe, was what the records show.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And were the employees there able to enlighten you as to what it was Ms. Magbanua did there?
CRAIG ISOM: No. One had never heard of her, and another said she heard the name but --
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor. Move to strike, hearsay.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's sustained. That's hearsay. That will be struck.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: were you up on a wire, a T3 wire, when you went into the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And as part of that wire, were you listening to Charlie Adelson's phone calls?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And during the time that you were physically present in the Adelson Institute with your subpoena, was a phone call made to Charlie Adelson?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: was Charlie Adelson physically present at the Adelson Institute when you went in?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was it regular business hours when you went into the business?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So one of the employees there made a phone call that was recorded?
CRAIG ISOM: From another location outside my presence.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And ultimately you left your subpoena there; is that right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And left the business not knowing what her employment was at that time?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And were you provided with any documentation from the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Did you receive a copy of the checks that Ms. Magbanua received from the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. I know we had a list of checks --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay.
CRAIG ISOM: -- that were provided.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And when you left your subpoena there, you got back a copy of those checks, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Or a list of those checks?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you ever get anything? Like, an application?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: A job description?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Any w-4?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Schedule?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Personnel file?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So I'm going to show you what I've marked as State's 68. Do you recognize 68?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is that what you got from the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: Is that what?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is that what you received from the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And that was in response to your subpoena for all documentation regarding the employment of Katherine Magbanua?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what's contained in the exhibit?
CRAIG ISOM: It's just that she was given these paychecks on an incremental -- approximately every two weeks, there was a paycheck or a check written from the Adelson Institute to Katherine Magbanua.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And when did the payment begin? when did these checks begin?
CRAIG ISOM: In September.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: September of what?
CRAIG ISOM: 2014.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: SO approximately two months after the murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And how long did they continue?
CRAIG ISOM: All the way through March of 2016.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Until there were arrests in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, pretty close to that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. were you able to get any evidence through the course of your investigation that Ms. Magbanua was physically going to the Adelson Institute to perform some job?
CRAIG ISOM: There was no indication of that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: was there a pole camera on the Defendant during your investigation?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what's that?
CRAIG ISOM: A pole camera is utilized for surveillance in an open public setting; so it would be attached to a utility pole. In this case it was attached to a utility pole in the neighborhood where Katherine Magbanua and Sigfredo Garcia resided at the time, and it's a continuous feed. It's just images. It is video. It is not audio, and it is up for a long duration of time.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So was she observed coming and going maybe on the weekends consistent with going to the business to clean when the business was not open?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor. The evidence speaks for itself, if it's in evidence.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Overruled. You can answer.
CRAIG ISOM: She did not go to anything that was consistent with that.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Didn't seem to go to the Adelson Institute on the weekends?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Evenings?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what about any evidence of contact with patients, like, by phone or some other means?
CRAIG ISOM: we were monitoring her phone as well as Charlie's -- Charlie Adelson's, and there was no contact with patients through that resource.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what was the timeframe that you were monitoring the phone calls of Ms. Magbanua?
CRAIG ISOM: It started in April of -- April, I believe, 7th or 8th of 2016 all the way through -- past the arrest of Sigfredo =Garcia.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you didn't capture any calls to patients on there?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you know whether wendi Adelson was able to relocate with her children after her husband was murdered?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: She was?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: where did she move?
CRAIG ISOM: She moved to what ended up being Miami Beach. I believe -- well, the memorial service for Dan was two days after he was shot. It was on a Friday. The memorial service was on Sunday, and her and her parents were on the road to South Florida on Monday, the 20th.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: One moment. Okay. There is some confusion about Sigfredo Garcia's phone number that I want to try to clear up. Could you -- is there anything in your records that you could refresh your recollection and tell us what his phone number was at the time of this murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Sigfredo Garcia's phone number at the time was (786)372-5986.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Thank you. I apologize if I created that confusion. May I have one more moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE WHEELER: Sure.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No further questions at this time, Judge.
JUDGE WHEELER: We are going to take our afternoon break now.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: So we will break for about 10 minutes or so, give you a chance to stretch your legs, use the facilities, and then we will come back and start with the cross-examination. Okay. Please no talking about the case, and the deputy will escort you out.
(Jury exits the courtroom.)
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. The jury is out of the courtroom. The door is closed. we will be in recess for about 10, 15 minutes. And you are free to get down, if you choose to.
CRAIG ISOM: Thank you.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. we will be in recess.
(Court is in recess.)
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Ms. Cappleman, anything from the State before we bring the jury in?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: From the Defense?
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Let's bring the jury in, please.
(Jury enters the courtroom.)
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Please be seated. And we are ready to continue with the testimony, the cross-examination.
Mr. DeCoste?
CROSS- EXAMINATION BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator, how are you doing?
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: So I think you and I can agree on some stuff.
MR. DECOSTE: And, Your Honor, if I could approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: You know what those are, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Those are still photographs of the characters involved in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know it because it's from the State's demonstrative?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And because you were the investigator on the case for years, and you know the faces?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And those photos fairly and accurately depict those people?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And for the record, those are premarked as a demonstrative.
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator, this is a confusing case with a lot of characters, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And I want to make sure that we have it right on who's who. Dan Markel, he was murdered, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Before he was murdered, he was married to wendi Adelson?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And wendi Adelson's father is Harvey Adelson?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Her mother is Donna Adelson?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And wendi has a brother, Charles Adelson?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, at one point in time, Charles dated Katherine Magbanua, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And Katherine, in high school, met this guy Sigfredo Garcia?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know when they met, but they have two children together.
MR. DECOSTE: And based on the ages that you know of Mr. Garcia and Ms. Magbanua, she had those children when she was young? In her early 20s?
CRAIG ISOM: I haven't done the math.
MR. DECOSTE: But we agree -- and we're talking about what we agree on here. we agree that he is the father of two of her children?
CRAIG ISOM: On birth records, that's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, Sigfredo Garcia, not a Latin King, right?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: But this guy is?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's Luis Rivera, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's a childhood friend of Sigfredo Garcia?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: He was a Latin King boss. Not just a member, but the boss in Miami, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: we agree on this?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And we agree that these two guys, Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera, were the hit men in this case that murdered Dan Markel -- Professor Markel, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: We agree on all that?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about the motive in this case. We agree that the motive in this case was over a divorce, right?
CRAIG ISOM: The divorce was an element of -- relocation for -- with the children and wendi Adelson was the bigger motive.
MR. DECOSTE: So Dan Markel -- Professor Markel and wendi Adelson were going through a divorce?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And it got bad?
CRAIG ISOM: Oh, yeah.
MR. DECOSTE: And you and I agree that that was the motive for them to have Professor Markel murdered, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I believe that they ran out of any other option, and they chose this.
MR. DECOSTE: So we agree on that, that the motive was because of the divorce and the child custody battle in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: The Adelsons' motive.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But in your investigation, there was an issue -- how these two Miami guys connected to the Adelson family -- right?
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: We agree on that?
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: And you worked hard to try to figure out what connection could there be between these people, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And, ultimately, you came upon Katherine Magbanua, and you believe that the connection between these two guys from Miami and the Adelson family was through Katherine, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, if, during your investigation -- now, correct me if I'm wrong. Shortly after Ms. Magbanua is arrested -- before other arrests have been made in this case, you retire?
CRAIG ISOM: She was the last arrest before I retired, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And there's been arrests since you retired?
CRAIG ISOM: There has been an arrest, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And work and investigation since you retired?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Had there been information that showed that these two guys, specifically Sigfredo Garcia tied directly to this guy Charles Adelson, there could have been a different outcome while you were the investigator, correct?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Calls for speculation.
JUDGE WHEELER: He can answer the question. Overruled.
CRAIG ISOM: Can you repeat it, please?
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: If you had found information tying Sigfredo Garcia to Charles Adelson completely separate from Katherine Magbanua, that would have led to a different outcome in your investigation, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Not necessarily, because the same stuff would have come up eventually concerning Ms. Magbanua.
MR. DECOSTE: I want to focus on what we agree on here. So perhaps we agree on this. The government's demonstrative, Demonstrative C -- we agree that's the government's demonstrative, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And this is the government's -- now focus -- theory of the case: That the Adelson family, through Katherine Magbanua, hired Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera. We agree on that, that that's the government's theory, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you're aware of what ours is. So their theory is that it was through Katherine Magbanua, right? We agree on += that?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm showing you now what's been premarked as a demonstrative. You would agree with me that that is our theory, the Defense's theory: That the Adelson family hired Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera without going through Katherine Magbanua. We agree on that, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't agree on this demonstrative. But as far as the case, is that what you're asking me? I'm not sure what you're asking me.
MR. DECOSTE: So let's back up because I want to make sure that we are clear on this.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm showing you, again, government's C. The government is arguing this, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That it was through Katherine, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And we are arguing this, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: That it wasn't through Katherine, right?
CRAIG ISOM: That's what you're saying. I mean, I'm not sure what you're asking me.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm asking you if you are aware of the argument that we're having, that it was about Katherine Magbanua and not through her?
CRAIG ISOM: No, I'm not aware of that.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Let's go back to before you retired, and let's focus now on general duties of law enforcement. Do you believe that they've changed since you retired?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: would you agree that the job of law enforcement is to objectively investigate a case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: To then present the evidence, whether it's good or ~=—ibad?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, when you're investigating cases, you compile reports, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You record your activities?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You provide that to the prosecution?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And then we end up getting all that in what's called discovery, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: That applies to anybody who's charged in a case, whether it is Luis Rivera, Sigfredo Garcia, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, another important aspect of those reports and recording and taking down everything is for when you're testifying like today, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Because you need -- those reports are in front of you, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Some of them, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And that refreshes your memory and helps you remember what was said, what was done, stuff like that?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go back now to May of 2016. The two guys on the bottom, Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera, they are arrested in May of 2016, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that -- we can go back to agreeing on stuff. You would agree with me that the evidence against those two guys, Luis Rivera and Sigfredo Garcia, was strong?
CRAIG ISOM: Absolutely.
MR. DECOSTE: we went over -- or you went over it on direct examination with Ms. Cappleman. There is evidence that they were here and that they were in that Prius?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That they murdered Professor Markel?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But, of course, you were lacking the connection to the Adelson family, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I'm not sure what was the question was on that.
MR. DECOSTE: we are in May of 2016.
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: At that point in time, you were lacking a connection to the Adelson family. You've got those two guys. You've got them dead to right, but what you don't have is any connection to Charles Adelson and the rest of the family?
CRAIG ISOM: we already knew about Magbanua, if that's what you're referring to. we already knew that Magbanua was with Garcia and that she had also been with Charlie. And after researching and finding no connection between Garcia and Charles Adelson, she's it. She's the only connection.
MR. DECOSTE: So going back now to the question that I asked you at the beginning. Had you uncovered at that time evidence tying Charles Adelson to Sigfredo Garcia, that would have taken your investigation in a different direction, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Calls for speculation. Asked and answered.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's speculation. That's sustained. You don't need to answer that.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: So let's turn to another topic. The day of the shooting, July 18, 2014 -- you would agree with me that when TPD responds out to a crime scene like this, that you want to keep it quiet for multiple reasons, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that it's only fair to family and friends, to loved ones, that they learn from you and not through the media or from other people, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: It's also important for the integrity of your investigation because you don't want -- I mean, if there's anybody that you could then arrest that day in the area, you don't want it out there that -- what you know, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That same day, in the afternoon, you go and find Wwendi Adelson at Mozaik restaurant and take her back to TPD for some questioning, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And it wasn't until late in the afternoon that you let her know that her soon-to-be-ex-husband, Professor Markel, had been murdered?
CRAIG ISOM: I let her know that, within 15 minutes of the interview, that he had been shot and he most likely would not survive.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me, though, that that was well after 12:30 in the afternoon?
CRAIG ISOM: Oh, 12:30. Yes, it was after that.
MR. DECOSTE: well after that phone call that apparently was made by Sigfredo Garcia to Katherine Magbanua, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's now focus on Luis Rivera. I'l] put his picture up so we can remember who the characters are.
At the time you arrested Luis Rivera, you would agree he was in a desperate position, given the evidence you had against him, right?
CRAIG ISOM: A desperate position?
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go over that. You had strong evidence against him placing him as involved in the murder, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: He's then charged with first degree murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And, if you know, looking at the death penalty?
CRAIG ISOM: Okay. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: There was also the potential that his non-Latin King co-defendant, Sigfredo Garcia, could flip on him and cooperate against him, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Are you asking me my perspective of what was going to happen?
MR. DECOSTE: I'm talking about what your knowledge of Mr. Rivera is before you get into a cooperation agreement with him.
CRAIG ISOM: I knew that -- and he knew that there was a mountain of evidence against him.
MR. DECOSTE: would you agree with me that there would be a danger in telling this guy what to say to get a deal? Can we agree on that?
CRAIG ISOM: A danger?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes.
CRAIG ISOM: A danger to whom?
MR. DECOSTE: A danger to a miscarriage of justice if this guy is told what he needs to say to get a deal.
CRAIG ISOM: I would never consider telling him anything.
MR. DECOSTE: So let's get into that. You would agree this is a bad guy?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah, he's a bad guy.
MR. DECOSTE: A gang leader?
CRAIG ISOM: From my understanding, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Has a potential to lie?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Has a motive to save himself?
CRAIG ISOM: I would say so.
MR. DECOSTE: And you deny -- deny giving him the script of what to say in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: I did not give him a script of what to say in this case.
MR. DECOSTE: He ultimately cooperates in this case and gets a plea agreement, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And he gives you a series of statements in between September 29, 2016, through October 4th, 2016?
CRAIG ISOM: That's about right.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, we talked about discovery in this case, all the reports. And you-all authored a bunch of different reports in this case, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Before that there were arrest warrants for Luis Rivera and Sigfredo Garcia, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Before what? I'm not following. Before?
MR. DECOSTE: That was confusing. Let me back up.
So before you author any reports, right -- before you author reports about their arrest, you first have to arrest them, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Sorry. I jumped ahead there. So you draft and you get arrest warrants for Luis Rivera and Sigfredo Garcia, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And if you could explain to the jury, what kind of information is contained in an arrest warrant?
CRAIG ISOM: It has their name, their date of birth, identifiers, Social Security number, last known address, what the elements of the crime were, what the evidence against that individual is.
MR. DECOSTE: And that's what I want to focus on. The evidence -- that's a detailed narrative of the case, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: It is -- there is some detail in there. Probably not always everything in the warrant.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that the arrest warrant for Luis Rivera was dozens of pages of the facts in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall how long it was for that guy.
MR. DECOSTE: You agree with me, though, that it was multiple pages?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall. Do you have a copy of it?
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah. we will come back to that.
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's turn now to your reports, and then we will come back over to it. So you authored two main reports. September 14, 2016, you author a report, right? Do you have it there in front of you?
CRAIG ISOM: Can I refer to this?
JUDGE WHEELER: You can refresh your recollection.
CRAIG ISOM: Please give me the date again.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: So top, right-hand corner, 9-14-2016 at 15:35?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, sir, I have it.
MR. DECOSTE: Now for juror reference, this is authorized 9-14-2016, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And this is before Luis Rivera starts cooperating?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And in these reports -- and I'll refer you to page 4 specifically -- it talks about your belief that Katherine Magbanua was involved, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You also authored another report, and the date is 7-12-2016, top, right-hand corner. A 31-page report?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that's several months before Luis Rivera starts cooperating?
CRAIG ISOM: It's July versus September.
MR. DECOSTE: So July 12th, 2016, you author this report; give it to the State Attorney's Office. It gets sent over to Luis Rivera in discovery to his attorneys; and then roughly two and a half months later, he is cooperating in this case and giving you information, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know the timeline of all that. I don't know when the State received it for sure. I don't know when it was provided in discovery.
MR. DECOSTE: So let's talk about what you can give me. This is authored and this is finalized on 7-12-2016, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Actually, it is approved on 7-27, but --
MR. DECOSTE: So the end of July, this thing is done?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah.
MR. DECOSTE: Luis Rivera -- the first time that you meet with him to get his statement, his proffer -- and we will talk about the difference between an interview and a proffer -- that is done on September 29, 2016?
CRAIG ISOM: Actually, I was notified on the 29th. I didn't meet with him until the 30th of September of 2016, for the record.
MR. DECOSTE: So there was the potential of a couple of months to review your report?
CRAIG ISOM: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that this report details what your believed theory of the case is?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That it was through Katherine Magbanua?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know if it's part -- in that one or the first one you referred to for 9-14 of 2016.
MR. DECOSTE: would it help you to review your 31-page report?
CRAIG ISOM: I'm looking at it. Do you have a specific section or page? And please don't give me a page number. It is probably not going to be the same as my format.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: So if you could, just take a look at this. And you can flip through the next couple of pages. Let me know if it helps.
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: That help?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me there is a lot of talk of Katherine Magbanua in this report?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, in order for Mr. Rivera to get a deal, he has to advance your theory, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know how -- I'm not sure how to even answer that. I already gave my part in here. You're asking me for -- a lot of questions that is outside of my purview, not being the prosecuting attorney.
MR. DECOSTE: I understand. You were the lead investigator, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. And you went and met with Luis Rivera in May of 2016, when he was arrested, right?
CRAIG ISOM: We met with him at the federal detention center: Coleman in Central Florida.
MR. DECOSTE: And that interview was recorded?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you would agree with me that you told hin, Giving us Garcia is not enough. we already have him.
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: You agree with me that that was said?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So you have that meeting in May of 2016, where it's not enough to give up Sigfredo Garcia because you already have him. There's then arrest warrants and reports that are talking about wendi Adelson and Katherine Magbanua. And several months later, he comes back to you and says, Wendi Adelson and Katherine Magbanua were involved, right?
CRAIG ISOM: In so many words, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And it was his words -- this guy's word -- his word alone that resulted in the arrest of Katherine Magbanua?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Calls for speculation.
JUDGE WHEELER: If you know, you can answer.
CRAIG ISOM: After his proffered interview on September 30th, she was arrested the very next day.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: And you would agree with me that it was not enough without his testimony?
CRAIG ISOM: It wasn't enough for the State Attorney's Office to approve the warrant, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So let's talk about what Luis Rivera says, the direct evidence that he gives against Katherine Magbanua. First, Luis Rivera says that Sigfredo Garcia told him that Katherine was involved, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: These reports explain how Garcia was involved, right?
CRAIG ISOM: How Garcia was involved?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And his movements and his actions and his phone calls, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: In fact, one of the pages in here talks about specifically the volley of communications -- not the substance of it but just when the communications happened between Mr. Garcia and Ms. Magbanua, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The next thing -- the second thing that Luis Rivera gives as evidence is that he overheard some phone calls, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that the discovery discusses the call frequency between Garcia and Magbanua?
CRAIG ISOM: Are you talking about my discovery? Is that what you're asking?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct. Yes.
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall when it was brought up or how it was brought up. But as you're referring to this section that you pointed out to me, there's phone calls between Garcia, Magbanua, and Charlie Adelson back and forth but not between -- directly between Adelson and Garcia. They all go back through her.
MR. DECOSTE: we are getting a little bit off track here --
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: -- so I want to bring it back in. we are talking about what Luis Rivera tells you is the direct evidence against Katherine Magbanua. The first one is Sigfredo Garcia telling him that she was involved. The second one, that Luis Rivera says that he overheard some phone calls that were being had between Sigfredo Garcia and Katherine Magbanua, right?
CRAIG ISOM: No. He overheard one particular one immediately after the homicide.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. And you would agree with me that he didn't have to make up that there was a phone call because it was right there in your report that said there was a phone call at 12:30 after the murder, right?
CRAIG ISOM: If he had access to it or if it was read to him or given to him, yeah, he could do that.
MR. DECOSTE: He would just have to pepper in what the conversation was about?
CRAIG ISOM: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: You have no reason to believe that he didn't get your report and discovery, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I have no idea. I have no idea.
MR. DECOSTE: In your many years as an investigator --
CRAIG ISOM: Once again, I have no idea. That's my answer.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. But let me ask the question. In your many years as an investigator, you learned that these reports become part of the process and go to the defense? You know ~=that, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you have no reason to believe that that didn't happen here?
CRAIG ISOM: I have no reason to believe otherwise in this case.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, the third thing that Luis Rivera says -- the third and final piece of direct evidence -- all the evidence that he gives against Katherine Magbanua -- is that there was this supposed meeting the day after the murder where the payment was made, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that your reports discuss the cell phone proximity of all these people on the morning of July 19th?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So let me back up to make sure that that's clear for the jury here. The murder happens on July 18, 2014?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: July 19, 2014, it is believed that there is a meeting between Luis Rivera, Sigfredo Garcia, and Katherine Magbanua where a payment is made?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And Luis Rivera says, well, Katherine is there, and she makes a payment, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, there's some cell phone communications that morning, and then there is also the general proximity of cell phones in the Miami area, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And all of that is explained in the report about the communication activity and the proximity of the phones, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So all Luis Rivera would have to do is just pepper in some details to make it into evidence, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: well, let's make sure that the jury is clear that the conversation was not captured. It was just where their phones were and the duration of the calls. So as far as the payment or anything, that came directly from Rivera.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct. So what we're talking about is that Luis Rivera can take and go: All right. So there's a phone call at 12:30. I know there's a phone call, and I know that because they are telling me. Oh, yeah, that was the phone call where I heard there was a murder.
He could do that, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And, again, you agree this is a dangerous guy?
CRAIG ISOM: I already answered that. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes. And although you said that you didn't give him the script intentionally, didn't you unintentionally give him the script of what to say?
CRAIG ISOM: If you want to look at it from that hindsight, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's all the direct evidence he gives, correct, against Ms. Magbanua?
CRAIG ISOM: To my recollection.
MR. DECOSTE: So let's go to one of the pieces of circumstantial evidence that the State asked you about: The paychecks from the Adelson Institute, right? Your theory is that it was payment for involvement in the murder, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I just know she received compensation for no known duties, nothing that -- she didn't do anything for them.
MR. DECOSTE: And that's great for their theory, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I guess so, yeah. I mean, getting paid and not having responsibilities.
MR. DECOSTE: Again, their theory. That's great for their theory to have payment for no actual work, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you can't say whether she actually worked there or not because you agree with me that you didn't fully investigate.
CRAIG ISOM: I'm not following you.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So Charles Adelson, he works at the Adelson Institute. And that's a brick-and-mortar location, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But he is a traveling periodontist?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And if you could, explain to the jury what that is.
CRAIG ISOM: He goes to other dentists’ offices to do special work.
MR. DECOSTE: So he is not working at one location constantly?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you were aware of Katherine Magbanua's job description, right?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: You weren't aware that she was communicating with patients?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you not remember, or is that a, no, she wasn't?
CRAIG ISOM: (No audible response.)
MR. DECOSTE: Do you not remember, or is that a, no, she wasn't?
CRAIG ISOM: To my knowledge, she was not contacting patients.
MR. DECOSTE: would it refresh your recollection to take a look at your deposition?
CRAIG ISOM: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Page 117, lines 4 through 10. Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you. If you could, just read that portion.
JUDGE WHEELER: NO, no, no, don't read it out loud. Just read it to yourself. And then when you are done, look up.
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Did that help?
CRAIG ISOM: Go ahead. Please rephrase.
MR. DECOSTE: Did that help your memory?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: what was Katherine Magbanua's job description at the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: According to what was talked about on the phone, it was contacting patients. And that would be the wiretap of Charlie and Katie -- Katherine Magbanua's phones.
MR. DECOSTE: So surreptitious recordings of Katherine Magbanua speaking to Charles Adelson talks about her working at the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: It just references contacting patients.
MR. DECOSTE: And that would -- and his patients are what? He's only a dentist, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah.
MR. DECOSTE: He's not a doctor. He doesn't have patients in = another field of work, right?
CRAIG ISOM: NO.
MR. DECOSTE: So his only patients would be through his dental ~=~work?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And she was getting paid for doing work for the dental office?
CRAIG ISOM: That's what was said on the wiretap. That was what was captured, and that's what I was referring to in my depo.
MR. DECOSTE: So you would agree with me that she's working at the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: No. No, I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: would the work of communicating with patients require her to be in any specific office?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: were you aware whether she did or did not have a work phone?
CRAIG ISOM: I was never -- I never found any evidence of a work phone. I do not know whether she had a work phone.
MR. DECOSTE: If you could, explain to this jury what you did to look for it.
CRAIG ISOM: I didn't come across anything. There was never a reference to any other phone number besides the one she maintained that we had.
MR. DECOSTE: My question was: what did you do to look for it?
CRAIG ISOM: I didn't have anything to do with it. I didn't look for a separate phone, if that is what you are asking.
MR. DECOSTE: You had this information from surreptitious recordings -- recordings that they don't know about -- where she is talking about communicating with patients. So you knew that there was a lead there, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't remember if the reference to patients was at the beginning of the wiretap or later on when they -- when I felt like they were suspicious of being wiretapped.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about what other investigation you did. Did you go and speak to patients?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: whether they have spoken to Katherine Magbanua?
CRAIG ISOM: Once again, no.
MR. DECOSTE: Did you even try?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Could have gone to the Adelson Institute, stood out front and asked people, Hey, do you know who this person is?
CRAIG ISOM: Did not do that.
MR. DECOSTE: Going back for a second to the wiretaps. The wiretaps were over a period of time in April, roughly May of 2016, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you reviewed those yourself?
CRAIG ISOM: I reviewed a good portion of them, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, what's been termed as the "bump," the communication between law enforcement and Donna Adelson, that doesn't happen until around the 20th, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: I believe that's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And in your review of all of the phone calls prior to that bump before anybody knew anything was going on, you heard phone calls where it was talking about --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Hearsay.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's sustained.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if we can go sidebar.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right.
(Sidebar conference as follows:)
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, this is for impeachment purposes now. The State opened the door to this. They asked him the question whether there was any evidence that she was working at the Adelson Institute. And the answer was: There is no evidence.
He has just told us that he listened to the wiretaps. There is a phone call on 4-15-2016 where Katherine Magbanua says, I still work for you. It also goes towards his motive to build a case against her instead of --
JUDGE WHEELER: I mean, regardless, if it is hearsay, you need to either have an exception or it needs to be not hearsay.
MR. DECOSTE: It's impeachment, Your Honor. I'm not substantively entering it in now, but it is impeaching his testimony. It is factually inaccurate for him to say there is no evidence when there actually is evidence that he knows about.
JUDGE WHEELER: So what is the question that you want to ask?
MR. DECOSTE: He's already said that he reviewed all the wiretaps, and now the question is as to a specific wiretap on April 15th, where there is, quote, unquote, that, I still work for you.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. I will allow it.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator, I am going to frame this a little bit better for you -- for the jury here.
The government asked you the question about whether there was any evidence that she worked for the Adelson Institute on direct, and your answer was no, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: I've now asked you whether you reviewed the wiretaps, specifically those prior to the bump, before anybody was thinking, Hey, law enforcement is looking at us, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. In your review of the wiretaps, are you aware of the call on April 15, 2016, at 12:03 and 10 seconds, where Ms. Magbanua says to Charles Adelson, quote, Still work for you?
CRAIG ISOM: Still what?
MR. DECOSTE: Still work for you?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall that offhand.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that a phone call where she says "Still work for you" is evidence that she works for him?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know what context that was in. I'm not sure what preceded that or what was discussed beforehand. That terminology could mean a lot of things.
MR. DECOSTE: It could also mean that she works for the Adelson Institute and is legitimately receiving paychecks, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yep.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, not only did you have the wiretaps and have all this call detail record, at one point you get Charles Adelson's icloud data, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, iCloud data -- for anybody that doesn't know, that's all your information that you have in the cloud with Apple for an iPhone, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: To my understanding, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: It includes text messages, phone call logs, notes, calendar events, contacts, stuff like that, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know to what extreme it collects everything but --
MR. DECOSTE: And you -- as the lead investigator, of course you reviewed those iMessages, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I reviewed some. They may not have been reviewed by myself for all of them.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you remember on August 12th, 2014 --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Hearsay.
MR. DECOSTE: Same response, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: -- on August 12th, 2014, through August 13, 2014, where Ms. Magbanua sends a text message to Mr. Adelson saying: Can you call me when you get a chance? Have something to ask you about your site. I'm not saying today, any time of the week, because he's asking me and telling me to call your office to get some info and to set up a meeting. But I'm going to tell him to just meet you up anywhere you're at.
Response: I will call him first break today, today -- repeated -- to set something up. Can I -- text me his contact info.
And that was read correctly. There was just a mistake.
CRAIG ISOM: That was from Magbanua to Charlie Adelson?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct.
CRAIG ISOM: And that was August ‘14 -- August of 2014?
MR. DECOSTE: August 12th and August 13th.
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall that specifically, no.
MR. DECOSTE: You remember the government's exhibit -- it's somewhere here but -- here we go. The government's exhibits -- the paychecks, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, when did these paychecks start?
CRAIG ISOM: Down at the bottom, the date right there. I can't read it from here, but I believe it is September of 2014.
MR. DECOSTE: September 18, 2014, that's when the paychecks start, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, staying on the topic of the iMessages. In your review -- your objective review -- do you remember the text message where Katherine Magbanua texts Charles Adelson on September 14th, 2014 -- four days before that -- texts him: I'll let you know my availability so you can know more or less how many hours I can dedicate. Thank you again.
Is that or is that not evidence that she's about to start work working for him and receiving paychecks?
CRAIG ISOM: That sounds like it is.
MR. DECOSTE: Next, on September 17, 2014, Katherine Magbanua sends a text message to Charles Adelson: That's awesome! Thank you so much. I'll call them to make sure they put me in the schedule. You said my full name.
Charles Adelson to Katherine Magbanua: No problem. You're helping me out more than I'm helping you. I'm excited -- or, excuse me. That's Katherine Magbanua: No problem. You're helping me out more than I'm helping you. I'm excited to start. Yay.
Next message: Cool. It should work good. I did say you would call. I did not give your full name, but just say -- but just call. It's cool.
Response: KK.
Now, these messages are on September 17th, 2014, the day before she starts receiving the paychecks. It is evidence that she's working there, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Sounds like it.
MR. DECOSTE: So the answer that was given to the State of, No evidence that she's working there, that was incorrect, right?
CRAIG ISOM: No, that was my answer to the State.
MR. DECOSTE: In your --
CRAIG ISOM: These are text messages. I don't even know what preceded the first part of that. Awesome -- what was the awesome in reference to?
MR. DECOSTE: How do you not know? You said you reviewed the iMessages.
CRAIG ISOM: I don't have them all right here in front of me. You're referring and picking out in midstream and saying "Awesome" and starting off this whole diatribe. I don't know what the message was before that that she's referring to.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So do me a favor. Explain to this jury what could have preceded: I'1l1 let you know my availability so you can know more or less how many hours I can dedicate. Thank you again.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Calls for speculation. Argumentative.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. He's already answered the question. Let's move on.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: In your review of the iMessages, you also came across the messages on November 6, 2014, where Charles Adelson writes to Katherine Magbanua: Put that you work in the office, not at home.
CRAIG ISOM: "Put"? was that the first word you said?
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah, let me know if you need me to reread it. Put that you work in the office, not at home.
Next message: No shit, Sherlock.
My apologies, Judge.
Response: LOL.
Next: I don't know pay period dates. Can you call me? I'm driving.
Focusing first -- so you would agree with me November 2014 is right at the beginning of when she's working there, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And there's a message. It says: Put that you work in the office, not at home, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I heard you.
MR. DECOSTE: That would indicate two things to you, right? That she is working for the Adelson Institute, right?
CRAIG ISOM: He's telling her what to put on something. I have no idea what that's in reference to.
MR. DECOSTE: But it says in there: Put that you work in the office, not at home. That was a big deal for you on direct, the fact that you never saw her leave home and go to the Adelson Institute, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: All of this lines up with the fact of what you found out in your investigation, that what she was doing was communicating with patients, and she was doing it remotely?
CRAIG ISOM: It could have been easily explained answering the subpoena, but it never was.
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator, do me a favor. Look at this jury. Can you tell them conclusively that she did not work for charles Adelson, legitimately receiving that money?
CRAIG ISOM: I can tell you that I could find no evidence of what duties, how she was employed, what schedule, or any way that would adjust for this compensation, nothing.
MR. DECOSTE: And as the --
CRAIG ISOM: I could not find anything, and it was a subpoena to the office. You would think that an office could supply an application, a w-4, a schedule, duties. Nothing was provided, only that these paychecks were paid to her on those dates.
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator, my question was: Can you conclusively say to them, No, she didn't work there?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Because there's evidence that indicates that she did, right?
CRAIG ISOM: You've read it out. I've stated my answer.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Let me give you a name, and this is -- we are talking about your investigation. Juan Marcos Vega, are you aware of who that is?
CRAIG ISOM: I vaguely remember the name.
MR. DECOSTE: That he was a Latin King?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't even recall whether he was a Latin King.
MR. DECOSTE: Did you ever take a look at Luis Rivera's federal indictment?
CRAIG ISOM: I'm sure I did. I don't -- at this point I don't recall what exactly it said.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you recall that he was a co-defendant in Luis Rivera's federal indictment?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Relevance.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: would it refresh your recollection to take a look at =the indictment?
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. The objection is overruled, and go ahead and show it to him.
CRAIG ISOM: Sure.
JUDGE WHEELER: Make sure you show that to the State.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. +BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Take a look and just scan.
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall reading this before. I mean, I can sit here and read the whole thing, but I don't recall reading this before. This is a federal indictment. Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Fair enough, if you don't remember reading this and taking a look at it.
Now, Jason Newlin, he is an investigator for Ms. Cappleman in the State Attorney's Office, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: works with the prosecution?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: when you were working the case and still the lead investigator, did you ever receive information from him concerning the name Juan Marcos Vega?
CRAIG ISOM: I did receive a couple of different names from him, and that may have been one of them.
MR. DECOSTE: Was any investigation done into Juan Marcos Vega?
CRAIG ISOM: I did not. I don't know if Investigator Newlin did. But unless I documented it and have forgotten about it, then it was not my play.
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah. we are just talking about you.
CRAIG ISOM: I did not.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go back to Luis Rivera and specifically the statements that he made to you. On October 4th, 2016, you and Agent Patrick Sanford from the FBI -- you sit down with him, and you have a recorded interview, right?
CRAIG ISOM: October 4th, 2016, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And that was at Jefferson County?
CRAIG ISOM: Jefferson County Jail.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, a couple of days before that, September 30th, 2016, you have your first meeting with him?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, for the jury, these two meetings -- these aren't investigative meetings, right? These are proffers?
CRAIG ISOM: They are referred to as a proffer by a defendant.
MR. DECOSTE: This is where he's showcasing what information he can give you to get a deal?
CRAIG ISOM: I just take the information as part of the investigation. I have nothing to do with the deal, but yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah. You get the information. You then pass it over to the government. But it's ultimately the currency that he has to get a deal, right?
CRAIG ISOM: That's what -- yes, that's the way I understand it works, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The first meeting with him on September 30th, 2016, it was not recorded, right?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: But could have been?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You were notified, as you told us before, the day before, on September 29, 2016, right?
CRAIG ISOM: September 29th I was notified that the next day they requested me and -- myself and Agent Sanford to interview him at the Jefferson County Jail, which would be September 30th.
MR. DECOSTE: So you would agree with me that you had time to prepare?
CRAIG ISOM: Time to prepare?
MR. DECOSTE: A recording device.
CRAIG ISOM: There was already a recording device at the Jefferson County Jail. I was told -- I was informed of that.
MR. DECOSTE: And yet it still wasn't recorded?
CRAIG ISOM: It was not recorded.
MR. DECOSTE: And that was a decision to not record it because the capabilities were right there. You were in an interview room?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: In fact, you were in the same room that days later you did the recorded interview, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You also had cameras of your own?
CRAIG ISOM: Back up a minute. Cameras of my own?
MR. DECOSTE: Let me help you out. Right after that meeting, you get into a van and go looking for the gun, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Right. I was supplied a body cam that uniformed officers primarily wear. I was supplied that right before we went on a van ride on September 30th, 2016, to retrace the steps -- the route they took that day.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me, as law enforcement, you don't need approval to record? You can do it surreptitiously?
CRAIG ISOM: Right. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that the September 30th, 2016, interview or proffer should have been recorded, right? You would agree with me on that?
CRAIG ISOM: Not necessarily. It was a decision by the State Attorney's Office not to record it. we didn't record it.
MR. DECOSTE: And all we have is your account of it?
CRAIG ISOM: I did a detailed report on what was said during that meeting. It is not verbatim. It is not a recording, but it is my record.
MR. DECOSTE: It's summarized, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And that word is specifically used in your report, that this is “summarized”?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So it is more of your opinion of what he is saying?
CRAIG ISOM: No, it's not an opinion. It's what -- it's just not all regurgitated in detail.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that you are not writing down quotes. Like the court reporter here is taking down exactly what I'm saying, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: That's not what's in your report?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Your report is: Rivera said this. Rivera said that.
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Not a, quote -- open quote, This is what he said, close quote. It's you saying what you think he is saying?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to another name: Anthony Ortiz. You know who that is, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I know the name. It's been a while. I don't recall his involvement of anything. Anthony Ortiz -- I do remember the name.
MR. DECOSTE: And he goes by the nickname of Jibaro?
CRAIG ISOM: Okay. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know that he was a Latin King, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you're saying that you're not sure of any involvement. On direct examination the government moved in, through you, Luis Rivera's call detail records. And you reviewed those when you were on the case, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The morning of July 19th, there was a bunch of communications with Luis Rivera and Anthony Ortiz -- King Anthony, right?
CRAIG ISOM: We weren't monitoring Luis Rivera's calls. Is that what you're referring to?
MR. DECOSTE: Let me rephrase it. July 19, 2014, the day of the murder --
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: -- when Luis Rivera tells this story that Katherine Magbanua is there for the payment of money -- you remember that, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You have Luis Rivera's call detail records from that morning, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: And there's a whole bunch of communications amongst all the other people where he is communicating with King Anthony, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I'll have to take your word for it. I don't recall it specifically. But I know that King Anthony, or Jibaro, does get involved as far as going to pick up someone.
MR. DECOSTE: You never interviewed King Anthony, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall interviewing King Anthony, no.
MR. DECOSTE: You think that you would have written a report if = you interviewed King Anthony, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And Luis Rivera never made any mention to you about a third trip to Tallahassee, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I've never heard of a third trip; only two.
MR. DECOSTE: In all his statements to you -- and in total, how many statements were there? 5-27-2016; 6-3-2016; 9-30th, 2016; 10-4-2016; right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah.
MR. DECOSTE: No mention of a third trip, right?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MR. DECOSTE: Your reports only talked about two trips, though, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about the gun. You don't have the murder weapon in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: Do not.
MR. DECOSTE: You know the route that was taken by Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera after the murder, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: I-75?
CRAIG ISOM: well, from here, I-10; but, yes, to 75.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you know this because the cell phone communications track the route that they take?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Ultimately the search for the murder weapon has stopped?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: There was a few attempts that were made in 2016?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And that's it, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know if there's been anything since I retired.
MR. DECOSTE: In your time on it, it was limited to the end of September, the beginning of October 2016?
CRAIG ISOM: The end of September through October, you said?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct.
CRAIG ISOM: That sounds about right. I don't recall exactly when the last attempt was. It may have been as late as early November.
MR. DECOSTE: But, ultimately, you made a few attempts to try to find this --
CRAIG ISOM: we desperately were looking for where the gun had been discarded.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the reason why you're out there looking for it is because Luis Rivera is supposedly trying to help you find it, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah.
MR. DECOSTE: He tells you Sigfredo Garcia, you know, threw it near a bridge?
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: But, ultimately, he was never able to give you the = exact location?
CRAIG ISOM: No, he was not.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I could approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: I'm showing you what has been premarked as Defense 6. You know what that is?
CRAIG ISOM: I've seen it, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's the -- well, I have to lay these foundation questions.
CRAIG ISOM: I'm with you. I'm with you.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know what that is?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. That's the drawing that Luis Rivera did for you to help you locate the murder weapon, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. And you know what that is because you were in the room when he handed it over to you and Agent Sanford?
CRAIG ISOM: I believe, yes, on October 4th, I believe.
MR. DECOSTE: And it is in the same or substantially the same condition it was in when you received it on October 4th?
CRAIG ISOM: It does appear.
MR. DECOSTE: The Defense offers into evidence what has been premarked as Defense 6.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. It will be admitted as Defense Exhibit 6.
(Defense Exhibit 6 received in evidence.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: This is the best he could do for you, right?
CRAIG ISOM: He offered it. It was not even solicited. He just -- when he came in for the interview, at some point he produced it. And with his limited education, that's what he got.
MR. DECOSTE: Dangerous guy, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah.
MR. DECOSTE: Career criminal?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. To my understanding, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Potentially with a motive of not wanting you to find that gun, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I truly believe he thought it would help somehow for his credibility. If he could find the gun, it would -- he believed it would help his credibility.
MR. DECOSTE: He thought this would help his credibility?
CRAIG ISOM: He thought finding the gun would help his credibility. I can't help his artistic talent.
MR. DECOSTE: But --
CRAIG ISOM: That's what he drew. He explained -- he was very consistent in explaining you cross over this bridge and you pull over on the side of the road right next to this guardrail. well, there's only about ten dozen of those things along I-75 if you go south.
MR. DECOSTE: Or perhaps he just wanted to present himself as appearing helpful so that he could get a deal?
CRAIG ISOM: I think the deal was already done at that point.
MR. DECOSTE: October 4th, 2016?
CRAIG ISOM: October 4th, 2016?
MR. DECOSTE: Took the plea the next day, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know. I mean -- but these trips were after that. These trips were all later than that. These trips down to South Florida to try to locate the gun were after he had already entered his plea, to my understanding.
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator, I understand you have been retired for years and it's years out. Correct me if I'm wrong. You speak with him on September 30th, 2016. You get into a van that day, and you're going to look for the gun, right?
CRAIG ISOM: No, that's incorrect.
MR. DECOSTE: You disagree that you went to look for the gun on September 30th, 2016?
CRAIG ISOM: I do disagree with that.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Let's go back to Ms. Magbanua and her arrest. You were present with Agent Sanford in South Florida when Ms. Magbanua was arrested?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And she's arrested the day after Luis Rivera names her?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: It's 10 to 15 law enforcement that surround Ms. Magbanua?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Guns are drawn?
CRAIG ISOM: There are some guns drawn.
MR. DECOSTE: She didn't flee?
CRAIG ISOM: She did not flee.
MR. DECOSTE: She was so scared by the police presence and the fire power that she urinated herself?
CRAIG ISOM: Apparently.
MR. DECOSTE: Apparently? You saw it, right? You were there.
CRAIG ISOM: I was told. I did not witness that actual action, but I was told she had.
MR. DECOSTE: The reason why you and Agent Sanford were there -- you didn't have to be there for the arrest, right?
CRAIG ISOM: we wanted the opportunity -- in case her counsel decided to allow her to speak to us, we wanted to be there.
MR. DECOSTE: You were hoping that she would cooperate --
CRAIG ISOM: Of course.
MR. DECOSTE: -- to further advance this theory that you believed =~was correct?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Argumentive.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled. You can answer.
CRAIG ISOM: Sure.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: To further advance the theory?
CRAIG ISOM: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. And it was your words that if she had cooperated, no charges, nothing. You can walk out of jail once we get all this testimony from you?
JUDGE WHEELER: Hold on.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: what's the question? That he made that statement?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. You can answer whether or not you made that statement.
CRAIG ISOM: I'd like to have it repeated now.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. If you can repeat that.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: would it help you to read your deposition? Do you want that, or do you want me to read it?
CRAIG ISOM: Just the question is fine. There was a lot going on here.
MR. DECOSTE: And your words specifically and your intent and your motive at that point specifically was no charges, nothing. You can walk out of jail once we get all this testimony from you.
CRAIG ISOM: That's what I reportedly said?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes.
CRAIG ISOM: No, totally incorrect.
MR. DECOSTE: One brief moment, Your Honor. Investigator, give me one quick second.
One brief moment, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Briefly.
(Pause. )
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. May we approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay.
(Sidebar conference as follows:)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, my objection is that this line of questioning goes directly to an offer of compromise, which I thought we had a pretrial ruling on.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. well, what is this? why don't we have it on paper? I don't want all these different things with laptops and iPads and everything. I want to have something on paper if you are going to cross-examine a witness and you're challenging his credibility or need to refresh his recollection. So what are we dealing with? His deposition?
MR. DECOSTE: So, Your Honor, it is a deposition. we were having a hard time finding the page and line reference. I've got to grab the deposition. But this is the exact same copy.
So what we have in here is that he makes a statement: No charges, nothing. You can walk out of jail once we get all this testimony from you.
Now, I'm not getting into immunity. What I'm getting into is the fact -- his motive to build a case, and now I'm impeaching him because he denied ever saying that.
JUDGE WHEELER: That goes right to immunity. I already made a ruling on that, and he's -- on behalf of the State, and they are all one and the same at this point. You are making that clear on the stand. So that's an offer of immunity. whether or not he has the power to do that, I don't know; but that goes directly to that.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I could just respond on that. My difference would be this: Transactional immunity would be we're never going to arrest you and we can't. All this says is that we are going to allow you to walk out of jail.
JUDGE WHEELER: They had already arrested her?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes.
JUDGE WHEELER: No. That is for an offer of immunity. I'm not going to allow it.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator, you said a moment ago the hope was -- you talked to Ms. Magbanua's attorneys and hoped to get cooperation, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you had talked about -- on direct examination about some phone calls, right? That you allowed Ms. Magbanua to call Ms. Kawass?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And about 10 minutes later, you get a phone call from Mr. Adelson's attorney at the time?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And your belief is that that somehow establishes a connection in between Ms. Magbanua and Mr. Adelson, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Relevance.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled. If you know, you can answer.
CRAIG ISOM: I thought that it was quite significant that another co-defendant -- or unindicted co-defendant's attorney had already learned about Ms. Magbanua's arrest so quickly. There was no press release. It was within minutes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Let's jump into this. So Ms. Magbanua is arrested?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You contact Ms. Kawass, and the hope is for cooperation at that point in time?
CRAIG ISOM: Actually, it was just the phone was held up so Ms. Magbanua could talk to her counsel.
MR. DECOSTE: You didn't take the phone away and have a specific conversation with Ms. Kawass where she asked you for a copy of the arrest warrant to even know why Ms. Magbanua was arrested?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't recall that. I think we had a separate phone call from my own phone.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, are you aware of who else Ms. Magbanua called? Now, are you aware that she called Sigfredo Garcia's attorney, Saam Zangeneh, to find out if he = knew anything about what was going on?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Calls for speculation.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled. If you know.
CRAIG ISOM: I've heard of it. I've heard that she did call more than one attorney, yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know whether Mr. Zangeneh called Mr. Markus?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Speculation.
JUDGE WHEELER: If he knows, he can answer.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the purpose of the communications -- there would be nothing wrong with attorneys communicating with another to say, Hey, has your client been charged as well too? I don't have a copy of an arrest warrant. We want to know what's going on. Anything wrong in that?
CRAIG ISOM: At face value it doesn't sound like it. It sounds like it was pretty quick, though.
MR. DECOSTE: Isn't it just looking at everybody and anything through dirty windows instead of clean windows?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Argumentative.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's argumentative. You don't have to answer that. Next question.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: You don't deny that Ms. Kawass was trying to get a copy of the arrest warrant from you to know the basis for the arrest, right? You don't deny that?
CRAIG ISOM: No. I just -- I didn't have a copy with me. I didn't have a copy on me to provide. She was not on scene. Ms. Kawass was at another location, and I told her where Katherine Magbanua would be transported, which was the Broward main jail, it’s called, and that's where she could meet her client. And if she had -- after meeting her client, if she decided to provide us any information, she knew my phone number.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, one brief moment?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Investigator, last topic here. we are going to turn the attention back onto Ms. Magbanua specifically with evidence of innocence. There are hundreds of phone calls in this case, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You've reviewed those?
CRAIG ISOM: I can't swear that I've reviewed all of them, but I've reviewed a good portion.
MR. DECOSTE: You trust that they've been reviewed by law enforcement, though, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes. To my knowledge, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree that in those secretive recordings of literally hundreds of phone calls of Ms. Magbanua, there is not one admission of involvement or reference of involvement in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: There is evidence, though, that she was working at the Adelson Institute, though, right?
CRAIG ISOM: From what she provided beforehand.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, there's also text messages -- hundreds, thousands of text messages right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Those have been reviewed by law enforcement, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I did not review them, no, but someone else may have. I'm sure they did.
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing incriminating against Ms. Magbanua?
CRAIG ISOM: I have no idea. I can't attest to that.
MR. DECOSTE: Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera are arrested in May, June 2016, and there is a lot of media about it, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: She didn't flee, right?
CRAIG ISOM: She didn't flee.
MR. DECOSTE: Continued living her normal life, right?
CRAIG ISOM: To my knowledge.
MR. DECOSTE: There was probable cause affidavits -- now, for the jury, again, a probable cause affidavit -- that's attached to the arrest warrant, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's that narrative, that long explanation of what's going on. There was an earlier version of an arrest warrant that was leaked to the media months before Ms. Magbanua's arrest, correct?
CRAIG ISOM: I remember something to that effect, but I don't think that was Magbanua's arrest warrant.
MR. DECOSTE: That it was both Charles Adelson and Ms. Magbanua, that there was arrest warrants that were leaked?
CRAIG ISOM: I just recall the one for Charlie Adelson. I didn't remember that there was one -- I don't recall there was one specifically for Magbanua. There could have been. I don't know how they were leaked.
MR. DECOSTE: So let's stay on your topic of that. One was leaked for Charles Adelson to the media, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I just know I remember seeing it, but that's the only knowledge that I have.
MR. DECOSTE: And within that arrest warrant, that PC affidavit to the arrest warrant, it talked about the theory that Ms. Magbanua was involved, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't know if that was in there or not. I don't know if that part of my report or any documentation that I did was in that document.
MR. DECOSTE: But those narrative sections are pretty thorough, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I'm sorry. The narrative sections?
MR. DECOSTE: of a warrant; to get a warrant. Because you have to establish enough to be able to make an arrest, right?
CRAIG ISOM: They don't necessarily -- are not, you know, everything in the case, if that's what you're saying.
MR. DECOSTE: But what we're getting at here is that that's leaked to the media, and it's out there for Ms. Magbanua to see, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: She doesn't flee?
CRAIG ISOM: She never fled.
MR. DECOSTE: There was a special on 20/20. You saw that, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: A 20/20 special, national television, naming her as involved in this case, right?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, she was named.
MR. DECOSTE: She went about her normal day. It is evidence of innocence, right?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't think you want me to comment on that. It is either way.
MR. DECOSTE: One brief moment, Your Honor.
Nothing further, Your Honor. Thank you.
JUDGE WHEELER: Redirect?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Are you familiar with the attempts to interview Katherine Magbanua?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And simultaneously Sigfredo Garcia, her husband, the shooter?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And that was done on what date?
CRAIG ISOM: The twenty -- I think it was May 24th, if I remember right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Of what year?
CRAIG ISOM: I'm sorry. Of 2016.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And were you part of those --
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: -- interview attempts?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what was your role in the interview attempts?
CRAIG ISOM: Myself and a task force officer from South Florida went to the residence at the time for Ms. Magbanua. we knew she was home, and we went there --
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor. Beyond the scope of direct and cross-examination.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled.
MR. DECOSTE: Permission for recross on this limited topic?
JUDGE WHEELER: NO, not at this point.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: She was home?
CRAIG ISOM: we went to that location in an attempt to interview her, to talk to her about her involvement and get as much information from her as possible before arresting her. we had no intention of arresting her. She would not come to the door. She actually was on a phone call with a coworker of the -- Sigfredo Garcia and said she knew --
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Hearsay. Move to strike.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's sustained.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So she didn't come to the door?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How long were you out there?
CRAIG ISOM: 15 minutes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Knocking on the door?
CRAIG ISOM: Knocking on the door, standing out front, showing ourselves visibly.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what did she do after that?
CRAIG ISOM: She called back -- well, she tried to get ahold of Rivera -- I'm sorry, Garcia. And eventually they did talk to each other. I don't recall what happened after that specifically that same day.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yeah. She packed up her stuff, didn't she?
CRAIG ISOM: well, okay. Yes, eventually, later that day, she did pack up her stuff.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And she left that residence?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: She fled that residence?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor. Mischaracterization of the evidence. If we can please go sidebar.
JUDGE WHEELER: No, I don't need to at this point. It is overruled. You can continue.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: She didn't stay at that residence again, did she?
CRAIG ISOM: No, she did not.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And she dumped her cell phone that day, didn't she?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And went and bought a burner phone, didn't she?
CRAIG ISOM: They met at Walmart, her and Sigfredo.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Her and Sigfredo both got burner phones that day, didn't they?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. You don't make deals with criminal defendants, do you?
CRAIG ISOM: No, I have no authority to do that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you negotiate how many years somebody is going to get?
CRAIG ISOM: Nothing like that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you control what it is that a witness is going to give as a statement?
CRAIG ISOM: No, nothing.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you suggest certain things would be good to give as a statement?
CRAIG ISOM: I can't. I have no authority, and I wouldn't do that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And you didn't do that with Luis Rivera, did you?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you ever hear a statement come out of Luis Rivera's mouth -- were you ever present for a statement from Luis Rivera that did not include this Defendant, Katherine Magbanua, hiring him and Sigfredo Garcia to come up here and kill Dan Markel?
CRAIG ISOM: No. It was consistently -- his statement always included Katherine Magbanua.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: when you went to Coleman prison to talk to him initially, he wasn't under arrest?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: He didn't have anything to plead to?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor. we are getting into leading questions.
JUDGE WHEELER: That is leading questions. Please rephrase your questions, Ms. Cappleman.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did he have anything to plead to?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: He wasn't charged with anything?
CRAIG ISOM: He was not at that time.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Wasn't it Luis Rivera that told law enforcement for the first time that the money drop occurred the morning after the murder?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Because we thought maybe it was the night before. we really didn't know, right?
CRAIG ISOM: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And after Luis Rivera told law enforcement that the money drop happened the morning after the murder, that's when Chris Corbitt looked at the phones and found all the evidence to corroborate that statement?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Leading.
JUDGE WHEELER: What's your objection?
MR. DECOSTE: Leading and beyond the personal knowledge of this witness. She's talking about what another witness knows.
JUDGE WHEELER: It's not leading. Overruled. You can answer the question.
CRAIG ISOM: That's how it occurred, correct. That it provided -- what he provided was a basis to look at where each individual phone was -- each of the phones were that day.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: At a certain time?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And that wasn't something he read in a report?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: In fact, he didn't read anything in the report, did he?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor. Again, leading questions.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's a leading question. Rephrase.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did Luis Rivera read anything?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't think he's capable of reading.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Not very well?
CRAIG ISOM: No. My -- I don't know what education level he's at, but I know that he's limited on what he can read.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. The Defense asked you about the evidence that their client was contacting patients. And was the evidence that you were shown on cross-examination by the Defense any evidence of her -- I mean, was she contacting a patient in what they showed you?
CRAIG ISOM: It didn't show that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So she's talking about contacting a patient?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And you're familiar with the wiretap in this case?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Maybe not every single call verbatim, but in general you get the idea of the wiretap?
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You've heard a lot of those calls?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And are the parties speaking in code on those calls?
CRAIG ISOM: They --
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor. Move to strike. Improper opinion.
JUDGE WHEELER: I'm going to agree with that. That's sustained, and so the jury is to disregard that. Ask another question.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Are the parties on those calls specifically referencing contacting patients in a way that does not suggest they are really contacting patients?
JUDGE WHEELER: Hold on.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, objection. And for the record, counsel has just done air quotes to indicate that somehow it was code, and this is a violation of the motions in limine. If we could please go sidebar.
JUDGE WHEELER: No. That is overruled. I will allow the question.
CRAIG ISOM: Please repeat it.
JUDGE WHEELER: Ask the question again.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Are people talking about contacting patients on this wire in such a way that does not appear there are any contacts being made with patients?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Improper opinion. Move to strike.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled.
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, it appears that it's staged language.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Thank you. And you don't, anywhere on the wire, have any calls where Katherine Magbanua actually called any patients?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Are you familiar with Katherine Magbanua’s prior testimony in this case on October 9th, 2019?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor.
CRAIG ISOM: No.
JUDGE WHEELER: Hold on. what's your objection?
MR. DECOSTE: Can we go sidebar on this one?
JUDGE WHEELER: We will go sidebar on this one.
(Sidebar conference as follows:)
JUDGE WHEELER: So what is the question, and what is the --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The question is: Is he aware of her testimony where she admitted to not calling patients? But I think his answer is no; so I'm not sure we need to --
JUDGE WHEELER: This testimony is from where?
MR. DECOSTE: The trial.
JUDGE WHEELER: From the prior trial?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. What is your objection?
MR. DECOSTE: Simply put, improper impeachment, and just wild that a prosecutor would try to bring out in front of a jury prior testimony at this point in time.
I mean, it's one thing to have transcripts and enter it in -- addressing the Court -- it's one thing to have transcripts and to present that before the Court. But right now to improperly impeach by counsel talking about the prior testimony to a witness who was supposed to be sequestered --
JUDGE WHEELER: So is this an out-of-court statement that's made by the Defendant, and you're using it to -- I mean, you're not impeaching him with it?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: An in-court statement --
JUDGE WHEELER: An in-court statement.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: -- made by the Defendant under oath. I think this witness said he was not aware of it anyway. I don't think there would be anything improper regarding him being aware of it. He was released from the rule of sequestration. He hasn't been under the rule of sequestration since 2019.
JUDGE WHEELER: It is public record, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yeah, it's an admission.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, so the question itself is improper. Counsel knows that he doesn't know about it, but she is trying to, through her question, put before this jury that she testified and perhaps said something different. It is improper impeachment. It is one thing to impeach if you have the transcript, if Ms. Magbanua were to take the stand and say something different. And say: Isn't it true that at a prior setting, you said xX, Y, and Zz?
JUDGE WHEELER: I'm not going to allow it because I do think it's more prejudicial than probative because it is going to put before the jury that she testified in the prior trial, and the jury doesn't need to know that at this point. So I'm not going to allow it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: In general in this trial, her statement is not admissible as an admission?
JUDGE WHEELER: It was her -- in this trial?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, it's her prior testimony.
JUDGE WHEELER: If she is impeached with her -- if she testifies? Is that what you are saying?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No. I mean, why couldn't I play her entire thing, if I chose to, in my case in chief?
MS. DUGAN: Using clips but not taking anything out of context.
MR. DECOSTE: No, it's got to all be --
MS. KAWASS: All be played, rule of completeness.
MS. DUGAN: Maybe if we could bring some case law about that, and we could take it up at a later time.
JUDGE WHEELER: I'm not going to allow it at this point.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Thank you.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So I wanted to ask you about some of these iCcloud text messages that you were asked about on cross-examination.
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: One of them had to do with -- just a moment -- getting on the schedule. Do you recall that one -- being asked about that?
CRAIG ISOM: Something about a schedule, yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And that was offered to you as evidence that Ms. Magbanua worked at the Adelson Institute. Do you recall that?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: would it refresh your recollection to see the entire text thread in context?
CRAIG ISOM: Sure.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: If I can approach?
MR. DECOSTE: Counsel.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: May I approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So on page 2 here, the top message is about this "Put me in the schedule." That's the quote you were asked about. If you will, take a moment and just review this whole thread. You have to work your way backwards. And let me know when you're done.
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So does that refresh your recollection?
CRAIG ISOM: I don't -- yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You reviewed the context of that "Put me on the = schedule" comment now?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what does it appear, based on your review of the context, that they were talking about in reference to putting her on the schedule?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Relevance and improper opinion.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled.
CRAIG ISOM: It's -- Ms. Magbanua is scheduling to get a wisdom tooth removed.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: By whom?
CRAIG ISOM: By Charlie Adelson.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Look at it again, because maybe it's not clear. Let me look.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I can hear you from here, so -- ~=BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So she is communicating with Charlie Adelson?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: She's making arrangements to get a wisdom tooth pul led?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And that is his line of work?
CRAIG ISOM: That is his line of work, yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. One moment, please.
(Pause. )
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if we can go sidebar, please.
(Sidebar conference as follows:)
JUDGE WHEELER: I don't even know what the question is going to be, so --
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, so what we've received here is what the government, I think, is trying to establish is the greater volley of a conversation.
My issue with this after my own copious review of the iMessages -- they are conflating different conversations over different days out of order. You've got 8-13, 8-12, 8-13 -- so on different days at different times and conflating issues to make it look like it's something else. But there's many communications in between. But even the order -- see, 1 through 13, but it goes the 13th --
JUDGE WHEELER: I see this one out of order down here. But other than that, it's 8-12 up to 8-13.
MR. DECOSTE: So there's other communications in between those. It's skipping days. It's skipping many hours.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I will just use this exhibit for this line of questioning. This is not particular to this.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Let me ask you this before we go. Is this your last line -- is this your last questioning?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm getting there, yes. I'm not promising it is my last question.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. And at this point -- there is no recross at this point unless she goes into something different. Okay. Let's speed it up.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. You were asked about -- on cross about her making a phone call for him in August of 2014, and you +were specifically asked about a message involving something about a site. Do you remember that?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. That was in -- that was August 12th of 2014. I'm showing you what's been entered into evidence as State's 68. Are those the paychecks that Ms. Magbanua received?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: when did she begin receiving paychecks?
CRAIG ISOM: September 18th, 2014.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So not during the timeframe of the message you were shown?
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And then, lastly, you were asked about a message involving Charlie Adelson instructing Ms. Magbanua to say she worked at the office rather than -- or to put that she worked at the office rather than at home?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And in that message -- did you have an opportunity to review that message?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm showing you what's been marked as Defense Exhibit 5, and the content is shown down here where it says, Body. So if you will just take a moment and review those.
CRAIG ISOM: Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So what is Charlie Adelson advising her to do in those?
CRAIG ISOM: It's hard for me to see. It appears that he's saying: Put that you work in the office, not at home. She responds --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No shit?
CRAIG ISOM: Yeah. well, we already went over that: No shit, Sherlock, LOL.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right.
CRAIG ISOM: And I can't make out --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And we don't know the context as far as what form or document or to whom she is representing she works at the office, do we --
CRAIG ISOM: Right. No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: -- based on that exhibit?
CRAIG ISOM: Right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And it appears -- it suggests that she's to misrepresent where she's working, doesn't it?
CRAIG ISOM: That's what it sounds like, because it says: I don't know pay period dates.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Leading. Counsel testifying.
JUDGE WHEELER: Put that in the form of a question.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: would you expect someone to know the pay period dates if they were employed?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So based on this further review of those text messages, as you sit here today, do you have any evidence that Katherine Magbanua was, in fact, employed at the Adelson Institute?
CRAIG ISOM: No.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: She was getting a paycheck from there?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Nothing further.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. That concludes our testimony for today, and so I'm going to excuse you for the day. I'm going to ask that you come back tomorrow again at 8:30. we will start promptly after everyone has arrived.
And I'm going to again remind you: Don't watch any news reports. Don't look at anything on the Internet. Don't have any conversations with any friends or family members or with each other. And we will see everybody here tomorrow morning at 8:30, and we will start soon after that. Okay?
Have a good evening. Thank you. You can just leave your pads on your chairs, and we will take care of those.
Mr. Isom, you may step down.
(Jury exits the courtroom.)
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. The jury is out of the courtroom, the door is closed, and that concludes the testimony for today.
Just a few things before we break. Tomorrow morning we are going to hear from wendi Adelson's attorney. we will hear that first off. And whatever he wants to put on the record, I've given him permission to do that.
I think you already have my ruling in regards to Ms. Adelson's testimony. So we anticipate that she will be testifying, Ms. Cappleman, tomorrow morning?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. So my previous ruling is that the cross-examination will be limited by whatever the direct examination is. And, also, any future calling of Ms. Adelson for purposes of testifying under a Defense subpoena, if we know now what we anticipate we're going to hear from her attorney, that she’s just going to take the Fifth, that she will not be called to testify under those pretences.
Also, just for planning purposes and security purposes, will we have -- do you anticipate that Mr. Rivera will be testifying tomorrow, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Your Honor. We do hope to get to Mr. Rivera tomorrow afternoon.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. Tomorrow afternoon. All right. And so that was one thing that -- Mr. DeCoste, that you had requested in regards to particular witnesses, to know if they are going to testify so that you can be prepared with whatever items you need to bring for court. So you do know that those two particular witnesses -- we anticipate they will testify tomorrow, okay?
All right. So we will break for the evening. The jury is coming at 8:30. Let's be ready to go here in the courtroom at 8:45, and then we will start either -- at that time, we will hear from wendi Adelson's attorney first, and then we will start with the testimony back up. Okay. Everyone have a good evening. Thank you.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, one brief matter.
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator Isom, we would like him to remain under the government's subpoena. He is also under ours and most likely will be called in our case in chief.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. So, Mr. Isom, you are still under subpoena. You need to communicate with the State in anticipation of potentially being recalled. And they will let you know -- either side will be in contact with you in regards to that, okay?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Thank you.
MR. DECOSTE: And, Your Honor, a final order from the Court that the rule has been invoked and that he not watch any of the testimony of other witnesses?
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. Mr. Isom, you know that. No discussions with any other witnesses. You can talk with the attorneys, but no reading of anything else in regards to the trial until your testimony is concluded, okay?
CRAIG ISOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Thank you, sir.
Now, Mr. DeCoste, is it okay if we break for the evening? we are in recess.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
MS. DUGAN: Have a good night. Thank you.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Thank you, Judge.
(Court is in recess at 5:06 p.m.)