1.Christopher Corbitt — Cross/Redirect
2,052 linesPROCEEDINGS
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Good morning to everyone. we are here this morning in the State of Florida versus Katherine Magbanua, 2016CF3036, 2018CF497. And Ms. Magbanua is present, along with her counsel, and counsel also for the State.
All right. Let's address a few issues first before we start the testimony this morning. The first issue I want to address is in regards to the telephone calls that were provided to the defense from the State on Friday. And so let me go to you first, Ms. Cappleman.
Ms. Cappleman, did the State have an opportunity to review these calls, as it's my understanding that you hadn't even heard what they were?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That's correct, Your Honor. Somewhat is the answer. I ran into a couple of problems in reviewing the calls over the weekend. First, is that I ran into the issue of Ms. Kawass being present on a calls, as she brought to the Court's attention. I did not listen to those calls. I wanted to get a ruling from Your Honor, first. So I can't advise you in reference to those. I do have argument in reference to the defense's claim or work product privilege.
Secondly, there were more Spanish calls or Spanglish calls than I anticipated. There's about 15 of those. And I don't have those translations done yet. I'm running into a couple of problems with that, which I also want to address with the Court. So, do you want me to just go through all of that?
JUDGE WHEELER: well, the calls that Ms. Kawass was potentially a party to, those were calls with Mr. Garcia?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. And so the calls with Ms. Magbanua, I listened to those ones in particular. And so we don't have -- at this point, from the -- from a -- we don't have any issues with those in regards to any work product?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Correct.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. So do we know how many calls that we're dealing with in regards to the work product privilege? Do you know? I'm going to ask the defense in a minute, but do you know?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I think it's approximately 15.
JUDGE WHEELER: Fifteen calls that Ms. Kawass is on --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I think so --
JUDGE WHEELER: -- and Mr. Garcia?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: -- Judge.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Okay. Because I didn't listen to any of those. I started listening to the Garcia calls, quite honestly, and then there were calls between him and his mother and then I'm just said, well, I'm going to wait until I know what calls are going to be the subject of any type of needing them here in the trial.
well -- so you have to get some calls, I guess, still translated, but are you anticipating using any of these calls?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: As of right now, my limited knowledge of the calls, I'm thinking just for potential impeachment of Mr. Garcia. So it is stuff -- there are several calls that I can provide to Your Honor and to the defense that I think potentially he could be asked about, but none that I intend to introduce in my case-in-chief.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. And are those calls from the list of the 49 calls?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. All right. Let's address, then, the calls that Ms. Kawass is a party to, and then that way we can see whether or not we're going to be limited -- you know, those calls are going to be included at all.
So, MS. Kawass, I received some correspondence from you last night that gave the Court a heads up in regards to your presence on some of these phone calls, along with Mr. Garcia. Is there a third person on these calls, also?
MS. KAWASS: No.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. Just you and Mr. Garcia?
MS. KAWASS: Just me and Mr. Garcia. And just so the Court is aware Mr. Garcia has been incarcerated in a prison, so this was my only ways of communicating with him.
I only -- I don't know if I have all the calls --
JUDGE WHEELER: I mean, let me ask you that question. I mean, because you can always go and meet with somebody.
MS. KAWASS: Judge, the procedure in getting a room and getting into the prison in and of itself is such -- I can't even begin to express words --
JUDGE WHEELER: ATl right. well, I understand how it might be difficult for you, but that's not the only way that you can meet with somebody.
MS. KAWASS: No. And -- but, Judge, I can let you know that these calls are the week preceding jury selection.
JUDGE WHEELER: I understand.
MS. KAWASS: So --
JUDGE WHEELER: So you have a work product --
MS. KAWASS: Right.
JUDGE WHEELER: And so once you make --
MS. KAWASS: The argument --
JUDGE WHEELER: Tell me why they're work product and what remedy you are seeking.
MS. KAWASS: Okay. Judge, Mr. Garcia is a listed witness of ours, and so in the dates leading up to jury selection there was a lot of discussions with me and Mr. Garcia in terms of what -- in terms of directly dealing with his testimony, but just that he is going to be transported, what the Court's rulings had been up until that point and what the testimony was going to be, and I discussed a lot of defense strategy with Mr. Garcia on the phone.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. You are preparing him to be a witness in trial.
MS. KAWASS: Correct, Judge. Yes.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. So you're claiming it's work product.
MS. KAWASS: Correct, Judge.
JUDGE WHEELER: And what remedy are you seeking? That those calls not be used?
MS. KAWASS: Yes, Judge. And I am requesting that the State not even listen to those calls, because defense strategy was discussed to those phone calls.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. And, Ms. Cappleman, you had advised the Court that you have not listened to those calls.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I listened to a few minutes of the whatever is the very first call on that list that includes Ms. Kawass. I did not hear any defense strategy in that portion that I'd listened to. And my team, I think, listened a little -- had listened to a few more minutes of that call. But beyond that call, no one from my team has listened to any of the calls involving Ms. Kawass at all.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Now, what is your argument in regards to -- first of all, are you going to use any of those calls?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I don't know, because I haven't listened to them.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So I wanted to get a ruling from Your Honor before I listened to them and then I can do that. As soon as you make a ruling, you know, we can begin working on that and advise Your Honor at the next recess, hopefully, a little bit more.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. So what's your argument in regards to whether or not they are work product?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, my argument is that there is no attorney-client privilege and no expectation of privacy as all parties on the calls are aware that the calls are being recorded. You know, they are froma detention facility.
The definition of work product in the rules does not include recorded statements of witnesses that the defendant intends to call as a witness in the trial. This witness has been disclosed as a witness in the trial.
In fact, Judge, Rule 3.220(d)(1)(B)Ci) expressly requests that the defense -- or requires that the defense disclose to the State any statements of witnesses that are recorded, if that's a witness they intend to call at trial or a hearing. I would also add that the statements under 3.220(1)(B) are defined to include, any recorded statement of the witness.
So, because the defense was aware that this was a potential witness they intended to call at trial, they were aware that this was a recorded statement of the witness, I think it's, you know -- they should have disclosed these to me as part of discovery in their discovery obligation.
Balboa v State, 446 So.2d 1134 out of the Third DCA, indicates that opinions, theories or conclusions of attorneys are privileged, but recorded statements of witnesses to attorneys are not.
Judge, these are recorded statements of witness -- of a witness to an attorney. They were not privileged, and the State should be permitted to listen to those calls.
would Your Honor like a copy of Balboa?
JUDGE WHEELER: I would please.
MS. KAWASS: And, Your Honor, briefly just in response?
JUDGE WHEELER: Are you done, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay.
MS. KAWASS: So, Your Honor, by the State's own argument, then I would be entitled to any of their pretrial notes that they've taken in preparation of any of their witnesses, if that is how they are interpreting the rule. Any time they sat and met with any of their witnesses in preparation for trial and going over them, what their testimony would be, I would thereby be entitled to that, which I am not allowed because it's --
JUDGE WHEELER: well, let me ask you this, Ms. Kawass. when you make these telephone calls --
MS. KAWASS: Yes, Judge.
JUDGE WHEELER: -- and you know that they all going to the jail, you know that all of these telephone calls are recorded?
MS. KAWASS: Yes, Judge.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. That they may be reviewed by somebody, listened to by somebody, regardless of whether it's the State or somebody else. Somebody associated with the State, law enforcement -- okay, not, not the prosecutor's office. But the State -- I mean, with law enforcement or somebody working at the jail or somebody is going to review this telephone call.
MS. KAWASS: And, Your Honor, that is why timely discovery is normally, you know -- if I had been put on notice that the State was going to be pulling his jail calls, that would be different. But, also too, Judge, if the Court is going to find that because the calls were recorded, my portions of the conversation should not be admissible.
If they want to take a listen to Mr. Garcia's portions of the conversation, that's fine. But any discussion that I have made with him is entirely my opinion and work product in preparation for the defense with my witness.
JUDGE WHEELER: You know all of these are recorded and somebody is going to listen to them.
MS. KAWASS: well, it doesn't say --
JUDGE WHEELER: Isn't that a waiver of your work product? I mean, you can't go into -- you know, to talk in a crowded room and not expect your work product to being heard by somebody. Isn't this the same thing, even more so where you're -- where you get a recording at the beginning that says, these are going to be recorded. Somebody is going to be listening to this, somebody is going to get it and it's not now a confidential information or a confidential conversation between you and whomever at this time, some third party has already listened to it.
MS. KAWASS: Isn't this the same thing --
JUDGE WHEELER: Isn't this a waiver of the work product?
MS. KAWASS: -- got calls from me and Ms. Magbanua. The moment that they realized what it was, even though it was being recorded, they had to stop listening to it.
JUDGE WHEELER: TO MS. Magbanua?
MS. KAWASS: In previous hearings, Judge --
JUDGE WHEELER: That's different. That's attorney-client privilege. That's not what this is. work product privilege is very different from attorney-client privilege. I would agree with you with that. I mean, and that's why they say, if this is attorney-client or they make some statement like that, don't say anything. You're on the wrong line. You need to call somebody out. You need to get another line and make that call in a different manner. That's what they tell you. And so -- but this -- that's what they tell you in the jails if you listen to --
MS. KAWASS: Judge, actually it says, This call is subject to monitoring. It doesn't say, You are being monitored or you're monitoring live. But I agree. I'm just letting you, because I can memorize the recording.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. You know it was being recorded? You know that somebody is going to be listening to it and at some time or another, or it has potential for that?
MS. KAWASS: Yes, Judge.
JUDGE WHEELER: Isn't that a waiver?
MS. KAWASS: Not in my opinion, Judge. I would love to have some research on this. It's just that this is such a unique circumstance, Judge, just because the nature of the fact that this person hasn't been available to us.
JUDGE WHEELER: well, I agree with that.
MS. KAWASS: And that he is a codefendant. Up until the fact that his case was over, we didn't have access to him. So, I mean, I'm of the position now, Judge, that the only thing that they shouldn't be able to listen to is my portions of the conversation, because I can tell you I directly discussed defense strategy with Mr. Garcia.
But if you want to listen to his portions, I mean, that's -- I don't know how they can go to manage to do that. I would --
JUDGE WHEELER: That was my --
MS. KAWASS: -- and it would be subject for impeachment, Judge, if he were to take the stand and testify to something different. But as it -- as it stands right now, I mean, I agree with Ms. Cappleman. They're not admissible in her case-in-chief, but I do think it would be improper for them to listen to the calls as it relates to my portion discussing defense strategy with him.
JUDGE WHEELER: ATl right. I don't think she said that they were inadmissible in her case-in-chief. I think she said she was not going to use them in manner. So that's different.
All right. So you're saying that just your statements --
MS. KAWASS: Just my statements, Judge. Because I don't believe that he -- if my statements are the only ones I believe would be considered work -- defense strategy, because I listened to some of the calls, Judge. So my words, I believe, are defense strategy.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right.
MS. KAWASS: And, Your Honor, if you want -- I mean, I will discuss something with Ms. Cappleman of some other things that I'd heard before that -- Judge, I will discuss something with Ms. Cappleman and see if she wants to change her position on something.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. I'm going to reserve on it --
MS. KAWASS: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE WHEELER: -- at this time because I'm having some research done on it, also. And I wanted an opportunity to really look at this Balboa case.
MS. KAWASS: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE WHEELER: SO I will reserve on it, and then make a decision in regards to whether or not they will be admissible at all and to what extent.
MS. KAWASS: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay? All right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And, Judge, can we take up the issue with the Spanish calls that I'm having --
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So I had an interpreter listening to the Spanish calls and preparing translations for us all to review, and that way I could advise the Court whether there was anything in those calls that I intended to use in some way in this case. That witness has advised me that they are not available to testify. They are leaving town Monday -- no, I'm sorry, wednesday morning.
JUDGE WHEELER: The person who does the translation?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Right. So I anticipate a problem. You know, we're not going to have the stipulation to a transcript. we're going to need a witness.
My thought was to use Ms. Sadler, who is, you know, the Court's official translator.
JUDGE WHEELER: Right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: She is available and can do it, but cannot do it without a court order. I thought that might accomplish a couple of things.
One, have us have a witness available, if and when those, you know, calls become relevant and admissible. And, two, may lessen the room for argument over the quality or interpretation of the translations. So I was hoping that Your Honor would go ahead and orders Ms. Sadler to do the translations of those calls. And then we can all review those once she has completed that.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Does the defense have a position on that?
MS. KAWASS: Judge, I just want to just lay my record again, as to the untimeliness of this discovery. These calls all -- I believe in the email Ms. Cappleman said she received them on May 13th, which was prior to the commencement of trial.
I would only lay my objection. I understand this is the most neutral way to do it, Judge. It's a court ordered interpreter. Obviously, our objection would be -- is that we wouldn't have an opportunity to vet our own expert to ensure that that is the proper translation due to the untimely nature of the State turning over these recorded calls.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Do you have any order prepared for me, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir. I will work on that.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. If you can get an order for me, I think -- let's at least get them translated. And then I still haven't made a ruling in regards to their admissibility. But let's also have a Richardson hearing at this point to see how we're going to proceed in that manner.
So, Ms. Cappleman, do you want to make any argument in regards to -- I mean, we've been talking about these substantive, but now it's whether or not they'll be admissible based on the three-prong analysis in Richardson. So, do you want to make any argument was it willful or inadvertent, trivial or substantial and what's the prejudicial effect? I know that we don't have some of these translated --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yeah. I think just by that --
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Let's wait until we get them translated and then I think we will probably know. I just don't want to forget to do that, because that is required.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And, Judge, may I provide one more case to Your Honor for consideration on the calls? This is Mcwatters v State, 36 So.3d 613, from the Florida Supreme Court.
JUDGE WHEELER: And this is in regards to what?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: when -- it sort of lays out the factors of consideration for when -- when we have work product, so that might be helpful to the Court.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. All right. Let's get those translated. And then once we know the substance of them, and -- then we will have our Richardson hearing and then I will make a ruling on the work product. All right.
what about -- let's also quickly address -- we had an issue on Friday in regards to a document that had been -- I guess, it was a subpoena to Apple as to whether or not that had been provided to defense. Did we get some information on that, Ms. Cappleman? You had mentioned that that had been provided to the defense at one period of time.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Your Honor. Ms. Dugan is prepared to call Investigator Newlin to testify about when and how those documents were provided.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. When and how was it provided?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Our position is that they were provided in the original discovery.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. Do you have any record of that?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes. we have a copy of the original discovery, electronically certified by the Clerk of Court, indicating that Apple records, one USB drive, one CD and one Blu-ray were provided to the defense on May -- on November 7th, 2016.
JUDGE WHEELER: SO On November 7th, 2016. And this was in regards to the 934 number; correct?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. So, Mr. DeCoste?
MR. DECOSTE: Okay, Judge. So, I was on the case -- good morning.
JUDGE WHEELER: Good morning.
MR. DECOSTE: I was on the case at the beginning. I have done all of the data organization for this case. Unlike the government, where they've multiple people, a lot of hands in pies, I have done it. I have gone through and meticulously organized everything. The government is using a pleading for another phone number to try to pirate in this item.
Back in 2016 when they gave it over, what they gave to us was the cell phone records for Luis Rivera -- and if I can, Your Honor?
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: For the first phone number, for 8153. Now, that's a phone number that ties to the morning of July 19th, things like the money drop. They have those call detail records. That stuff, we've had and we've had that for years.
Now, over the years we have made argument, in the prior trial about the 6615 number. I presented the documents that were the subject of a subpoena to Apple and I cross examined Agent Sanford on the fact that the phone number tied back to a different phone number. The government never presented this form that they're now saying that they gave over years ago. They never presented this and said, Hey, there's evidence showing that it's his number.
Even the other day when we were before the Court and we were arguing about this demonstrative and I said, that phone number, the 934-6615 is wrong, the government didn't come forward and say, we gave this document. It wasn't until Friday morning when Ms. Dugan came over to me and she goes, we are going to use this document. And I go, we'd have never gotten that. And I responded back to her and I go, There's no reason for you to come over and show me a document if I've apparently had it for years.
Another thing that's interesting is that Ms. Cappleman explained that this -- that this document was given over with a CD and a flash drive. why would you have to have a flash drive or a CD to give over one page? You wouldn't. You would give this over as a piece of paper, because this is all they have for 8153. we have no call detail records. we have no information.
The information that was given in 2016 was for the first number, the 8153, because that's always been the important one. The fact that Ms. Cappleman has come in here and argued and said this was given over in that discovery filing is constitutionally offensive.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. That document is what and where is it from?
MR. DECOSTE: So, we don't know more than that. what I don't -- Your Honor said subpoena. I have -- I will get behind the microphone for the court reporter. we have no subpoena to Apple. we have no business record certification, like we have for the other --
JUDGE WHEELER: I thought I saw a subpoena --
MR. DECOSTE: No.
JUDGE WHEELER: -- for this document.
MR. DECOSTE: So what I have in discovery and what I received in 2016, the government subpoenaed from Apple -- and it's an important one, Apple Confidential. And Apple responded with this spreadsheet and it is titled, Apple confidential, and the file name that I have in discovery is that same APLO0001, underscore, Apple, underscore, Confidential. I have an Excel spreadsheet that was provided to me in discovery. It's under that file name and we received this.
There's also a 302 that discusses this item. So we have the phone number and we know. what we don't have for this other new document, which is absolutely new, is any subpoena, any report, any evidence whatsoever that it was given. If the government had --
JUDGE WHEELER: What is that? what is it?
MR. DECOSTE: So -- all right. TI don't know --
JUDGE WHEELER: who made it and where is it from? Do you know that?
MR. DECOSTE: That I don't know.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. How are you prejudiced by getting this document now, which we don't know where it's from or who created it? But how are you prejudiced when you know that this 6615 number has been a point of contention for years?
MR. DECOSTE: we have always operated that the only evidence that we have in the case is that 935-6615 corresponds to Luis Rivera. That's what we have in discovery. That's the only thing we've had. The fact that the government now has a document, and, frankly, we don't even know where this document is from. The prejudice is the government's going to be able to now potentially argue 934-6615 belongs to Luis Rivera and we've never been able to investigate the background of this document, whether it is actually his, what records, you know, could potentially disprove what they're talking about. But it also changes our theory.
This case is all about the cell phone communications. Sergeant Corbitt testified all afternoon, they're talking about the volley of calls. Now, the government is trying to conclusively argue that Ms. Magbanua absolutely did communicate with Luis Rivera, so that's how we're prejudiced, because we came into this trial knowing that's not his phone number. The records show, the records that we have in discovery show that that's not his phone number, so we don't have to go further on that argument.
JUDGE WHEELER: Now, you know that was the State's assertion all along?
MR. DECOSTE: No. So, when I have cross examined Agent Sanford years back and I entered in this Apple spreadsheet, they did not come back and rebut that with user detail showing that it belonged to Luis Rivera. Even when we were arguing the demonstrative, they didn't come in and say, we have this document that proves that it's his. That proves to me that they just got this document or they just found it and go, we'd better give it over to them. And that's why Ms. Dugan came up to me and goes, Hey, I'm going use this document.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Ms. Dugan.
MS. DUGAN: Yes, sir?
JUDGE WHEELER: What is this document? where is it from? who created it?
MS. DUGAN: So, the -- what the defense was showing where they showed the 302 and their Apple subpoena that says 935, those are records from the FBI in this case. The records that we disclosed that says the Apple records and the three different ways that we gave it to them, those are the records of iclouds in this case, is my understanding. One being Katherine Magbanua's, which has the 9 --
JUDGE WHEELER: Ms. Dugan --
MS. DUGAN: Right.
JUDGE WHEELER: -- who -- just tell me who created this document and where is it from?
MS. DUGAN: I think it's -- it's Apple account details of Luis Rivera --
JUDGE WHEELER: And did they send it to you directly? Did Apple send it to you directly?
MS. DUGAN: I believe so.
JUDGE WHEELER: And was it in response to a subpoena?
MS. DUGAN: They sent it to TPD. TPD -- in response to a court order, they sent it to TPD.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. And so this was -- you've had this document in your possession for how long?
MS. DUGAN: Since 2016.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. And this -- and you're saying that as an officer of the State that this document was provided to defense counsel in discovery?
MS. DUGAN: And I asked Jason Newlin to walk --
JUDGE WHEELER: Is that a yes, MS. Dugan?
MS. DUGAN: That's a yes. And I asked him to walk me through how to get there from these things. And he did that this morning.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. That's all that I need to hear.
MS. DUGAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. I'm not going to find that there's any of discovery violation. The State has represented, as an officer of the court, that they have provided this document to you. I know you say that you haven't seen it and that there was some interaction that you had with Ms. Dugan prior, and, therefore, you're assuming that it was never provided to you. But with the representations that are made here in court, I'm going to find that it was not a discovery violation.
Now, if for some reason it was, I'm going to find that it's not willful. I'm going to find that it -- in the scope of things that it's not substantial and that it doesn't have a prejudicial effect on your preparation, because you've known for years that the State has been asserting that this number is attributable to Mr. Rivera.
And so I don't think it changes any of your preparation just because now you have this one document and -- provided to you. I think you've known that information for quite some time, and, therefore, even if it is, I'm going to -- discovery violation, I'm going to find that there is no prejudicial effect and it can be used. And I have concluded on that issue.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I can make an ore tenus motion for the government to give me the subpoena that apparently was sent to Apple for these records.
JUDGE WHEELER: They didn't say it was by a subpoena. It was through TPD through a court order, is what Ms. Dugan represented.
MR. DECOSTE: Then, I would ask for the court order for those records. we do not have that. I am 100 percent positive that we do not have any information beyond that one page for this item. If there's call detail records, if there was or was not a subpoena --
JUDGE WHEELER: You know what? You can ask the witness that. You can ask the witness that. If this witness is from TPD and has access to all of the documents, I mean, that's a matter for cross examination. You can ask this witness how they got these documents and what the significance of them -- that's a matter for cross examination.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, respectfully, it's a matter for deposition, and had we been on notice of it, we would have asked that. It's not something that I can ask him on the stand about that. If there is a court order, the government should have it and I'm requesting through the Court that the government give me that court order.
JUDGE WHEELER: If it has not already been provided to you --
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: -- they are required to provide to you with all of that discovery, if it's not already been provided.
MR. DECOSTE: It has not. It has not been provided. I have the original CDs here. I'm going to go through it and I'm positive it's not in there.
JUDGE WHEELER: It will be provided to you if it has not previously been provided to you, okay, by lunchtime.
MS. DUGAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right.
Anything else from the State before we continue with the testimony with Sergeant Corbitt?
MS. DUGAN: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Anything from the defense?
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Thank you. All right. Let's bring the jury in, please.
Is Sergeant Corbitt available outside of the courtroom?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Let's go ahead and bring him in and put him on the stand. Madam clerk, we will swear him in again. Okay?
COURT CLERK: Yes, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: Thank you.
(Jury enters the courtroom at 9:21 a.m.)
JUDGE WHEELER: Good morning everyone.
JUROR: Good morning.
JUDGE WHEELER: Good to see you. Good morning. Good morning to the back row there. Good to see everybody. All right. Please be seated.
And I apologize for the delay this morning. we had a few things that we had to take care of here in the courtroom. we are ready to proceed with the testimony of Sergeant Corbitt with the cross examination, and since it's a new day we are going to go ahead and swear him in again.
Okay. Madam Clerk.
whereupon, CHRISTOPHER CORBITT was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
JUDGE WHEELER: Please be seated. Mr. DeCoste.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Good morning, Sergeant. How are you?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Good morning.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's start off a Monday morning with some technical = data.
If you could explain to the jury, what geolocation is?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: well, geolocation can mean a lot of different things, but, in essence, we're talking about locating something, an object, an address, a place, on a map ora coordinate system.
MR. DECOSTE: Did we have geolocation in this case?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: well, if you mean geolocation in terms of -- I guess I should say there's a lot of different ways that we can look a handset, if we're talking specifically about phones, and that is historically we have the cell site usage and so we estimate the coverage area of a cell site and we include or exclude locations. Sometimes from the carriers we're able to get more precise information. If we did it right away, that may give us better locations, or geolocation that may actually produce an estimated location of the handset as opposed to the cell site. In this case, from the carriers we only have the ~cell site.
Additionally, sometimes from forensic examinations of handsets we may see locations that the phone itself stored. Maybe when you are navigating, looking something up, or you just have locations enabled, then we may get more precise geolocations from a handset. And I'm not aware of having that in this case either.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's unpack that a little bit more. If I -- let's say I Uber Eats whataburger from over on Thompson, the way my Uber Eats driver is able to find me is that my phone has geolocation; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Your phone has the ability to locate itself through GPS satellites, Wi-Fi networks, cellular networks, a variety of different resources, yes. Your handset can determine its location to a fairly high degree of accuracy.
MR. DECOSTE: To deliver the food directly to me; right?
MR. DECOSTE: And it's the same thing with, you know, in my phone if I want to drive there myself, I mean, I know the route, but I put it in my maps and I go over there, geolocation is precise; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: well, again, I -- the term geolocation is very general. There is very precise location information that can be developed from a handset, if that answers the question.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. And that's different than what we have in this case, which is call detail records; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Some forms of call detail records do have that more precise information, but what we have here -- then, yes, it is more accurate than what we have.
MR. DECOSTE: And you would agree with me that what we have here through our call detail records are giving estimations of locations?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: No. They are given exact cell site locations. we're the ones estimating or doing the analysis to say that an address is included or excluded.
MR. DECOSTE: So, let's keep going on that topic. Geolocation gets you to the person. So they're more precise. Call detail records, put you in the vicinity of an area; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That would be fair, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. And that is vicinity can be -- it's not feet. I mean, we're talking it can be, you know, a mile?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes. Absolutely.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. And if my food delivers a mile away, I'm not getting it; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: You are not.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So let's now talk about cell sites. And is as always the case when we talk, you're the expert. You are going to have to explain it to me like I'ma seven-year-old.
All right. So when you have a cell site, cell sites are the antennas, the equipment; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes. A cell site generally refers to the location, that may be a tower, it may be a structure, it may be a building. And then, yes, the antennas and the radios and all of the infrastructure that it takes to actually produce that radio signal for the handsets to use.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So that's what you mean when you refer to it as a tower; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes. I always refer to it as a site. ASI mentioned, it’s not always a freestanding tower, so I will refer to them as cell site.
MR. DECOSTE: we will do it as cell site. So these cell sites, and there are cell sites all over the place; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There are, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And the cell sites, some of them being towers, those the ones that we see that kind of look like a tree sometimes?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They can be disguised, where, yes, they do look like a tree. Sometimes they are that traditional metal structure tower that you'd envision with a cell site. Sometimes they are merely a pole. They can come in a variety of forms.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, all of these cell sites they come together to form the network; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: The cell sites, along with a lot of other equipment would form the network, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Form the cell network; right?
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So we're taking a look now at your Slide 26. Do you have yours up in front of you as well, too?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I can see this one here.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Feel free if you need to look at any of that. This is one cell site within a network; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: This is actually -- we used this Friday to show an example of how we selected cell sites for the tower dump analysis. So what we have here is actually the Premiere Health and Fitness is in the center. And that radius that's drawn around is just kind of an arbitrary visualization of a circle, that we would go out so far and see how many cell sites are close to that. In this case, there's actually -- I believe six cell sites represented. Those would be the small tower icons.
MR. DECOSTE: It's these right here for the jury Cindicating). So cell site, cell site, cell site, cell site; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And all of those would have a corresponding range around it; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They would, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And there's a matter of redundancy for these cell sites, that they overlap each other; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They do.
MR. DECOSTE: So we can maintain our phone calls?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, you used the word “arbitrary” a second ago. The -- and I just want to make sure that it's clear. The range is not defined to a circle? It's not like when you reach the edge of that. It's just like a cliff and it drops off; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct. And, again, just to be clear, the circle here has nothing to do the range of the cell sites shown. This is a circle drawn around Premiere Health and Fitness and I'm just trying to take that circle out far enough until I encompass all of the cell sites that are close enough to service that location, and then those are the cell sites that we would request the data from in the tower dome.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, that range, it also wouldn't be unified as a circle. There's different things that will impact how far the range of a tower goes; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: For instance, the power of the cell site?
MR. DECOSTE: Some cell sites are more powerful than the other?
MR. DECOSTE: The -- now, you discussed this, this is where it's going to get technical. There's different sectors on a tower; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: It can -- traditionally it's three or five?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Most common is three, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, we're talking about the factors that impact the range. You would agree with me that the angle of each one of those sectors, whether it's pointed straight down or if it's straight out, would affect the range of the tower?
MR. DECOSTE: For instance, if you're in a heavily populated city, that antenna could be pointed more downwards?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It could, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: whereas, if you were in the middle of nowhere are Nebraska it could be pointed more up to go out further?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It -- the downtilt of the antenna is one of many factors that the carriers use to shape the coverage area of a cell site, which again is based on service, population density, coverage, proximity to other cell sites, a number of other factors.
MR. DECOSTE: And you would agree with me as well, too, that each sector could have a different -- its azimuth?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Each sector would, yes, have a different azimuth.
MR. DECOSTE: So a different angle. So you could have one sector, let's --
If we were to break this up into -- into three, so make it a peace symbol, right, you could have the lower sector pointing more downward, the upper sector pointed more up; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes. And we may have crossed terms here. Each sector will definitely have a different azimuth. It will be + =pointed in a different direction. Each sector may also have a different downtilt or angle of the actual antennas. And that can be more down or up, again, to help direct where that radio energy flows.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, there's -- and we're really focusing here on range, so it's not, you know, this defined circle. Other things can impact it, like buildings; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: If you have a populated city like Miami, where you have a lot of buildings, that could impact the range of an individual tower?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It can, yes. It probably more affects a handset's ability to see the tower than for the tower to actually propagate. But, yes, buildings are definitely a factor.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. And if you were in another state, potentially mountains?
MR. DECOSTE: To determine the true range of a cell site, again not the circle, to figure out the true range, that's called radio frequency mapping; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It can be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Do we have -- was any radio frequency mapping done in this case, either in Tallahassee or in Miami?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It was not.
MR. DECOSTE: So, there's no way for us to know the true range of = any of the towers that are involved in this case?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: well, I would say it depends what we mean by true range. we look at an effective coverage area of a cell site and a sector, again for that very general analysis of, is this location consistent with being service by this particular cell site and sector. So many --
MR. DECOSTE: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: So many factors --
MR. DECOSTE: Go ahead and give the information.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: If we're going to talk about the theoretical maximum coverage area of a cell site, no, we don't have that in this case.
MR. DECOSTE: For instance, these two towers right here, they're very close to each other; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They are.
MR. DECOSTE: And they are going to overlap?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: To some degree, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the other things that dictate what this is the true range of a site, the power. Do you have the power of any of the cell sites that were used in Miami?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: The antenna angle, for any of the sectors of any of the cell sites?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Do we mean azimuth or the downtilt?
MR. DECOSTE: Azimuth is a big word. Let's use downtilt. I ~will --
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not have the downtilt. we certainly have the azimuths. we know the direction that those sectors are oriented.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. But you don't have the downtilt?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Ah, all right. So azimuth is on the horizontal access?
MR. DECOSTE: All right. And then downtilt is on the vertical access?
MR. DECOSTE: This is why you are the expert.
So -- and then radio frequency mapping, you don't have that for anything in Miami?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Let's talk about call detail records now. You would agree with me that it's an estimation on location?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It is an estimation on location.
MR. DECOSTE: Of the handset, not of the person?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Basically, you are saying that the handset could be somewhere within the area?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. I'm going now to your Slide 46. You did this and discussed that this was the potential path of travel to Ms. Magbanua to Comfort Rent a Car; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: with your call detail records, you are not able to say that that's the exact path that was taken; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: No, it's not. The question asked of me was approximately how far was this from her residence. Our mapping software, our GIS software has the ability to map routes. So this would be the most efficient route or the shortest likely distance that was traveled, but by no means would be the exact route.
MR. DECOSTE: what we're getting here is that call detail records and the information that you have, it's not giving you this level of specificity?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It is not.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go back to Slide 26. So I want to use some examples. And you know the cell sites well around this area; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Let's say there's maybe 50 people in this courtroom right now?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Approximately.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that there's a chance that some of us are on a different cell site than others?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Certainly. Based on carriers, most of us have one of the three major carriers, so we would be on one of three different networks. They have cell sites located in different locations around here. And there is a chance, yes, that in one location you could be within the coverage area of more than one cell site.
MR. DECOSTE: So you and I right now, my phone -- I'm assuming you have your phone on you right now, we could be hitting on different tours right now?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: well, the first question is: What carriers are we --
MR. DECOSTE: Even if we are the same carrier.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Even if we are the same carrier, yes, it's possible we could be on different cell sites.
MR. DECOSTE: If at lunch I go downstairs, I go out of the building, I walk over to Metro Deli, you would agree with me that I could be on the same cell site, same sector? I could maintain that same cell site and same sector?
MR. DECOSTE: I have left this building and I have walked, what, may be a quarter of a mile?
MR. DECOSTE: If instead I, you know, go out the front, go straight across, behind the capitol building, visit a friend at the Supreme Court, I could also still be on the same tower at the same sector?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: You could be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about your testimony here today. You are not here to say exact locations; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You're only asked to include and exclude locations?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: The government asked you if a handset could -- and I stress the word “could” -- be at in an address during an event; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you're also not making a determination on how close the phone is to the cell site?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I am not.
MR. DECOSTE: Because, again, it could be miles away?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes. The effective coverage area of a cell site can certainly vary in all of the factors that we've talked about. In this case, again, if you want to talk a specific location, but I'm always looking at, is that address serviceable by that particular cell site and sector.
MR. DECOSTE: In staying on the topic of your testimony, it's -- not making the determination of how close to the tower, but also just that a phone could be serviced by a cell site fora certain activity; right?
MR. DECOSTE: In a nutshell, it could be there; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes. I mean, that -- the handset could be at that particular address, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you would agree that also it could not?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You're -- the data that you have available to you in this case, in your level of expertise cannot given you that level of precision of saying anything more than could?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct. I hope I've been clear that with the cell site we are looking at including and excluding addresses. I'm never trying to say that a handset was at one particular address.
MR. DECOSTE: So -- and I also want to make sure that it's clear for the jury as well, too, that the -- how big these cell sites are. Again, I could be miles away from this cell site, from the tower, and still hitting on the tower; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: You could be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And it's not -- I mean, at times it can be up to six, seven miles away?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It would depend upon a number of factors, Primarily location. In rural areas where the cell sites are spread much further apart, then, yes, you can be miles from that cell site and still communicate with it. You could be on the top of a mountain or a ridge, and, therefore, your handset is able to see cell sites much further away. There are a number of factors like that. But our analysis here, again, is looking at the cell site and sector that was used and determining if that address is consistent with the coverage area of that particular cell site.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Sergeant.
Let's now talk about the -- we are staying on the topic of location accuracy. You can't give an absolute because it's unknown variables; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's fair, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, in fairness -- and let me ask it a little bit better. I think you knew what I was asking, but you can't give an absolute as to a person's location because of unknown variables; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: well, I'm not sure what variables we would know that would help. We would need to be exact -- to show an exact location, we would need much more detailed records or information. The variables of cell site in height and power and weather and all of those kinds of things, it's not going to help me. I would have to have something much, much more specific from the handset to say exactly where it was.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's back up for a second. we are talking about the location of a person?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: One of the reasons why you can't, you know -- can't give absolute, the first thing is, who has the phone?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Again, I'm talking about the location of a handset.
MR. DECOSTE: Next, the system itself -- so the -- both the cell site and the network -- there's -- there are variables that can dictate what tower, what cell site somebody is communicating with; correct?
MR. DECOSTE: For instance, the amount of traffic on a certain cell site -- and I don't want to use it interchangeably, so I'm going to stay on cell site instead of tower, cell site -- the amount of traffic on a cell site is important to know; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It's a factor in the performance of the network, cell breathing, it's sometimes called. If there is a significant number of handsets, then there is a greater amount of noise for the cell site and so it may restrict or pull back its coverage, its power a little bit to help offset that. But that's something that, again, that occurs -- it occurs regularly throughout the use of a cell site.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So let's unpack what you just said there. You would agree with me that there are limits on cell sites? The amount of data that it can process at any given time, that there's a limit on it?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There's a limit to the number of subscribers a cell site can handle.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So let's say here that this -- the Premiere cell site, the circle that we have. This is your best mantra of effective use of this. Let's imagine that there's an international airport, a large international airport right there. Okay? with the amount of traffic on that tower, if it reaches its limit, you would agree with me that you could get kicked to another cell site?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There are a number of things that would affect which cell site your handset communicated with. Population or number of subscribers are certainly one of those. But if you were to use a different cell site, that different cell site and sector would still have a coverage area of where you were. Otherwise, your handset couldn't use it. So, in our analysis, that address would still be within the coverage area of that cell site and sector.
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, I want to ask that question again to make sure that we're clear on the topic. You could -- I could be right here and communicating with this cell site; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: You could.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, if this cell site has a traffic limit and it's reached that limit, it could kick me -- the network could kick me to another cell site; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes. Your handset could select another cell site.
MR. DECOSTE: And if it's a massively populated area, I can even be kicked to another tower and another tower, correct, another cell site?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: well, there is certainly a limit to how far -- how far away a cell site could be that your handset could communicate with. The good thing is, is that when, in this case Sprint, designed their network, they knew that the Miami International Airport was there and so they designed their network and their proximity of cell sites and their capacity, taking those kind of things into account.
MR. DECOSTE: So you would agree with me that you could kick from one cell site to another, meaning that you are even more miles away from the cell site? There is that potential; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes --
MR. DECOSTE: -- we are talking about what could happen here?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes. I'm not sure about the term "kick". Your handset certainly could select a different cell site that is further away.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, there are records on cell site limits; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm not aware if there are specific records for cell site limits.
MR. DECOSTE: One brief moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE WHEELER: Uh-huh.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Now, we're talking about location accuracy. A cell site can also be out of service; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It can, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: It's rare?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, rare.
MR. DECOSTE: we can agree on that. Things like storms can impact «it?
MR. DECOSTE: Or the cell site could be under maintenance?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It could be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: They could be changing out equipment and stuff like ~=that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Could be.
MR. DECOSTE: There are records of outages of cell sites; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Allegedly, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you don't have those in this case?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not. TI understand that those records may exist. I've never been successful in obtaining them.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now what we've learned, let's apply it to this case. You've review the call detail records in this case?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I have, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And the call detail records that we have are for the different characters involved, Professor Dan Markel?
MR. DECOSTE: wendi Adelson?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Harvey Adelson?
MR. DECOSTE: Donna Adelson?
MR. DECOSTE: Charles Adelson?
MR. DECOSTE: Katherine Magbanua?
MR. DECOSTE: I'm pointing --
MR. DECOSTE: -- because she is here.
Sigfredo Garcia?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And Luis Rivera?
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the purpose of your review of the call detail records was to determine locations of people; correct? Locations of handsets?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That was one purpose, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So you're taking a look at their call detail records to see what cell site they communicated with on significant dates?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you're also looking within the call detail records of the patterns of communications; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you would agree with me that there are other limitations on call detail records?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Specifically?
MR. DECOSTE: Do Facetime calls show up on call detail records?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Facetime calls do not.
MR. DECOSTE: what about iMessages?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They do not.
MR. DECOSTE: You began your review of the evidence and the call detail records in this case back in 2016; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: The review actually started the day of the homicide.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that the specificity -- I want to use the word evolved, but I don't want to say that it was corrected. Your analysis, it has evolved over the years; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: As the investigation expanded and as new information was learned throughout the course of the investigation, then, yes, we'd certainly go back and relook at those records for whatever it may be, an event or something that we discover and we want to go back and compare the records to that. So, yes, the analysis has been updated and evolved as the investigation did.
MR. DECOSTE: The 139-page presentation, you didn't create that back in 2014; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Back then it was, okay, this number is communicating with that number?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's where it started, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And then you are looking deeper into it to determine cell site communications and it got more detailed over the years; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It did, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, your -- the information that you're reviewing, the results that you get from your analysis, that gets transferred over as you're doing it to members of the Tallahassee Police Department; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It does, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator Craig Isom up until 2017 when he retired?
MR. DECOSTE: And now Investigator/Detective Sherrie Bennett?
MR. DECOSTE: In some of the -- and you're aware, because this is your department that some of the information that you had in your early analysis was put into the arrest warrant narratives --
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe so, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: -- for the arrests of these two guys?
MR. DECOSTE: For the record, Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera.
Now, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was also involved; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They were, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you were in frequent conversation with Agent Patrick Sanford?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you're aware that he also drafted reports that included your results?
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you're also aware from -- you're a sergeant with the Tallahassee police department, you're also aware that these reports that are authored by Tallahassee Police Department, at least those, are given over to the defense in what's called discovery?
MR. DECOSTE: And at one point in time Luis Rivera wasn't a witness, he was a defendant?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So, in all likelihood, he is receiving the reports with your analysis of when communications happened?
MS. DUGAN: Objection as to speculation.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled, if you know.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not. I'm aware that my analysis gets documented. I am aware that documents are turned over in discovery. As far as exactly when that happened or what detail was in any particular report, I do not have any personal knowledge.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Then, there is the Leon County State Attorney's office and Investigator Jason Newlin. You know who he is; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And he possibly drafted reports with your results?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: He may have. Again, I'm not aware.
MR. DECOSTE: But you are aware that one of his roles as an investigator for Ms. Cappleman is to provide all of the reports to the defense?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm not aware that that's his role. Are you saying that he is responsible for --
MR. DECOSTE: If you don't know --
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not know his exact role.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's turn now to June 2nd, 2014. This is around the time of the car rental and the June trip; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, in your presentation you used a map. This is the map that you used. How do you describe what kind of a map that is? It doesn't look like an actual map. It's just got sort of like outlines of area.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: well, it is a -- again, from our mapping application, our GIS application, we are able to select a variety of base maps. And this base map is just a light gray map that allows the features that we put on it, the icons and those things, to standout a little bit more against the background. It varies by scale as to how much detail you actually see. And in this case where the scale is very large, it's pulled back very far, then correct, we don't see a lot of detail on the roadways.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you could use a map with detail; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I could have used a map with more detail, but you wouldn't be able to see the detail.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now -- but it would show that these aren't just, you know, open wastelands; right?
Let me give you an example. So that was Slide 42. Let's go to Slide 66. Now, in Slide 66 you chose to use -- because you're trying to show the proximity of the Prius to Ms. Magbanua's residence; correct? This time you used what is a satellite image.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Aerial photography here, but in my presentation I used Google Earth View or how ever we commonly refer to it, but a view that has imagery of buildings and streets and roads. I used that only for the GPS locations of the vehicle, only maps that represent that. And that's because the GPS location of the vehicle is much more accurate than the cell site.
So, I feel comfortable zooming in or going to a scale that actually shows the detail of buildings when I know that the location I'm talking about is relatively precise. If I were to show a map of this scale and be talking about cell site coverage, it would not accurately represent the coverage area of that cell site. It would be misleading. So when I'm scaled out, when I'm zoomed out, to a scale that accurately representations the cell site I don't generally recommend this imagery, because you're so far out you can't make any detail.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me, though, that it would be helpful when you're testifying of what something is consistent with?
we will get back to that one. But I want to sidetrack for a second and you said it and I'm like, it's a perfect example. The Prius, and the GPS in the Prius, that's a perfect example of geolocation. It gives you absolute, precise location within a few feet?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Again depending upon our usage of the term, yes. The GPS device on the vehicle is actively trying to locate itself. It's using satellites and other infrastructure and reporting that back, and almost always that is going to be more accurate than a cell site location.
MR. DECOSTE: Geolocation within a few parking spots; call detail records within a few miles?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Could be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I could approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, I'm showing what you has been premarked as Defense Exhibit 10. You know what that is; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's a Google Map of Miami International Airport and the surrounding areas?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know that that is a map of the area, because you've looked at these maps and you also reviewed these documents?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That is correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Is this a fair and accurate depiction of the Miami International Airport?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It is, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The defense offers into evidence what has been premarked as Defense 10.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MS. DUGAN: No, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: It is admitted as Defense Exhibit 10.
(Defense's Exhibit No. 10 received in evidence.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: So, Sergeant, we're talking about the use of maps, and I'm going to now publish to the jury the Miami International Airport.
So in your document it just shows -- Miami International Airport just shows here, but you don't see the amount of houses, buildings in the area; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct. The map you are showing is only one of several maps that we have for the travel to Comfort Rent a Car. And one of those maps is a smaller scale or zoomed in, tighter than that one.
MR. DECOSTE: So let's zoom out a little bit here. So, again, your testimony was that she is -- Ms. Magbanua's handset is servicing a cell site that's up here in the northeast corner of the airport?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that this map shows the literal thousands and thousands of homes that are in the area?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It shows a lot of something. I would assume that most are houses. There's businesses. There's a number of different structures.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So to get an idea as well to what we are talking about, these look to be two different golf courses; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They would appear to be.
MR. DECOSTE: we have Miami International Airport, large airport?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Have you ever flown through there?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I have.
MR. DECOSTE: It's big; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It is.
MR. DECOSTE: There's multiple major waterways; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes. To be fair --
MR. DECOSTE: Shipping ports? Go ahead.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct. To be fair, based on where the cell site is located and this sector orientation, a majority of this image would not be within the coverage area of this cell site. we had shift low right to really represent the coverage area of that particular cell site.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me, there's going to be a whole bunch of cell sites in that area?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There are a number of cell sites in that area, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. And we can agree on that. we are just talking about right now the level of congestion in that area. You would agree with me that beyond waterways, shipping ports, there's also multiple major highways that intersect with the airport, like most airports have? They would have a major roadway going through?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That is correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you were saying that you would have to focus into the bottom right?
MR. DECOSTE: I want you to take a look at right to the right of the airport, that golf course, and I'm now going to go to the next slide. Do you trust that this gives us an idea of the level of density in that area, the density of homes?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes. It gives an idea of the area of density. I'm not sure that it represents -- for -- this particular density is within that cell site, but it is representative of the ~=density.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that these homes are closely packed together?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They are.
MR. DECOSTE: And for each individual little rectangle, if there's 25 homes, then there's potentially thousands of homes just within that one little area?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There could be a number of homes, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you were asked if this was consistent with Ms. Magbanua driving to Comfort Rent a Car; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that it could be consistent with Garcia, the father of her children, asking for a ride; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It could be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Not explaining what it was for?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct. They are not strangers?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They are not.
MR. DECOSTE: It would also be consistent with her visiting a friend; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It could be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you have -- and you've testified about this on direct -- Ms. Magbanua's contacts?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: we have some of them, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you plugged in certain names for certain phone numbers, but you didn't do it for her friends; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: we have those from an iCloud account. we do have names associated with certain phone numbers. And if there was a question or a need to identify a phone number, then those contacts were looked at.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know who her close friends are?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know which one lives near the airport?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know who Kenya Revellas (phonetic) is?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, in the -- let's take just June and July of 2014, how many times did Ms. Magbanua service that cell site?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Twice.
MR. DECOSTE: No more?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: No more.
MR. DECOSTE: what about over the greater period of time? How many times she service -- well, let me actually rephrase that. How many times did she service a cell site in that location?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: The particular cell site and sector that she was communicating with for those events that we determined was consistent with Comfort Rent a Car, from the period of records that we have, which would -- the largest period of record, which was May of 2014 into August or September of 2015, about 17 months, her handset communicated with that cell site three times, June of '14, July of '14 and September -- or, I'm sorry -- March or April of 2015.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, what you just said there was that cell site, that one sector?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: How many sectors does that cell site have?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It has three.
MR. DECOSTE: How many cell sites are around the Miami Airport?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: In 2014, there were a number. There is a cell site, actually, within the airport itself that is designed to handle the traffic of the commuters right directly within the airport. And then there are -- looking at my map here, there are at least five other cell sites in that general area.
MR. DECOSTE: So you have it on your computer?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. I'm going to click over to you, you show us. I'm going to ask the question again. we are on yours now; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: We are, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So I thought you had the cell sites up.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do. The red dots represent the cell sites.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now my question to you again is, if you were talking about one cell site, one sector, how many times did she communicate with these cell sites?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not know. we could certainly -- certainly find ~=out.
MR. DECOSTE: That would be important to know if it's area that she frequents; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: well, again, looking at the principle cell site we did look at that. As opposed -- or as far as all of the other cell sites before and after, no, we do not.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's now -- we will stay on the June trip, June 4th, 2014, this is your Slide 54?
MR. DECOSTE: These are the -- and, again, you don't know the exact path that Rivera took. You can just estimate it based on when this handset is communicating with the cell site?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct. And, first, let me say this, my Slide 51, not 54.
MR. DECOSTE: So, it's 54 in your 139 presentation, but the numbers on the bottom right don't correspond to the actual page number. So I'm going off based on your bottom right, but based on the greater 139 pages.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: well, again, when we printed out the PowerPoint document, we added some extra pages to cover animation. So I think the easiest for me is the actual slide number that's printed on the slide.
MR. DECOSTE: we will do what's easiest for you. That's fine with me.
So these are events; correct? That's what you mean by events, when a phone -- a handset communicates with a cell site?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That is correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You have no events for Sigfredo Garcia?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: we have no events with location.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that that's consistent with Rivera being alone driving up there? Understanding you have other information -- we're going to talk about that -- but that's consistent with Rivera being alone; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It could be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Garcia could have rented the car for Rivera; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: He could have.
MR. DECOSTE: Or Rivera could have cheated the system, right, rented under Garcia's name?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I suppose it's possible.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know if the car rental guy, Waldo Nunez, identified Garcia as the one who rented the car?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't have no knowledge of that.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm going to -- now, I'm going to say Page 52, but it's 48. Of course, though, you have the citation with Garcia in the car. And I agree with you on that. That's one of the pieces that you have that ties him to the car; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: It puts him in the vehicle?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It does, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me, though, that that's two days before that trip?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It is, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Doesn't prove that he went up from Miami to here in Tallahassee in June with Rivera?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It does not.
MR. DECOSTE: And, again, we're talking about June 4th is when Rivera makes this trip, Garcia is in the car two days before?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, one of the other things you talked about on direct examination and you knew this because you are also TPD, is that there is a drug dealer that apparently saw Mr. Garcia?
MR. DECOSTE: And we would have to rely on his word?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes. I'm not familiar with his exact testimony, but, yes, there was someone here who saw Mr. Garcia.
MR. DECOSTE: And we would have to rely on his memory?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I suppose so, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that you don't have, in between this drug dealer and Garcia, any call detail records, any events where Garcia is communicating with this drug dealer?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not believe we do, no.
MR. DECOSTE: But you do have it for the murder trip in July?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe that's correct, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing in June, only in July?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: correct.
MR. DECOSTE: we've just reviewed all of the evidence that Sigfredo Garcia was with Luis Rivera on that June trip; correct? And, of course, Luis Rivera saying that that's the truth?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: My analysis is pertaining to the call detail records. I certainly do not know all of the evidence or all of the witnesses or all of the other pieces that may lend the idea that Mr. Garcia traveled as well. As far as the call detail records, what I have knowledge of, no.
MR. DECOSTE: Fair enough. I1'11 keep it with the technical operations unit here.
I'm now going to go now -- I have this as Slide 64, but it is 60B, B as in boy. This is June 5th, 2014; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It is June 4th and June 5th.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, there's communications. Now what you have here is that Katherine Magbanua is communicating with Sigfredo Garcia and then communicates with a phone number for Luis Rivera?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: How do you know that that phone number is Luis Rivera's?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That was provided me -- to me through the course of the investigation.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. You don't have in your possession any call detail records or any subscriber information proving that that is Luis Rivera's number?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not in my possession, no.
MR. DECOSTE: we talked a lot about what it's consistent with. You'd agree with me that this could be consistent with Katherine Magbanua communicating with the father of her children; correct?
MR. DECOSTE: And the mother of Garcia's children communicating with Garcia's childhood friend, Luis Rivera; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Could be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Not knowing that they're traveling to Tallahassee to potentially commit a murder?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now I want to focus on -- these aren't all of the communications, correct, for that time period?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: These are all of the communications between these specific phone numbers.
MR. DECOSTE: what's been done is you took Katherine Magbanua's call detail records, you removed out other communications and ~=you conflated all of the communications with Garcia and Rivera. It's not that she was only communicating with Garcia, then Rivera, and then only Garcia; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, I'm showing you what has been premarked as Defense 11. You know what that is; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do, sir, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That is your call detail records that have been color coded for certain phone numbers of interest?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They are, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know that that is the -- your call detail records because you've reviewed those records extensively?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I have, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And that is a fair and accurate depiction?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It is.
MR. DECOSTE: Defense offers into evidence what's been premarked as Defense 11.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MS. DUGAN: No, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: It will be admitted as Defense Exhibit 11.
(Defense's Exhibit No. 11 received in evidence.)
MR. DECOSTE: Publish, Your Honor?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So, Sergeant, what we have here are your call detail records, but we have color coded numbers of interest. You would agree with me that the 9223 number is Charles Adelson?
MR. DECOSTE: And the 5986 in green is Sigfredo Garcia?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know who the 5403 number -- is it 5403? 6403. Do you know who that belongs to?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Not personally.
MR. DECOSTE: Have you heard that it belongs to Sigfredo Garcia's mother?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I have heard that, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That would be the grandmother of Katherine Magbanua's children?
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that this is an accurate reflection of the volley of communications during this time period of June 4th and June 5th?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It is certainly the actual raw call detail records for that time period.
MR. DECOSTE: So, for instance, on the bottom here of Page 2, she speaks to Sigfredo Garcia, then who you may or may not believe is Sigfredo Garcia's mother, and then Charles Adelson?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So she goes from speaking to the father of her kids, to then the grandmother of her kids, to then the guy that she's dating?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's now go to your Slide 62. I've got it as 66.
what you have here or what you're trying to explain here is that on June 6th -- that's after the trip; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It is, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: On June 6th, the Prius -- I'm sorry, the rental car. It was different rental car. That the rental car was near Magbanua's residence; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about what that could be consistent with. It could be consistent with Garcia seeing his kids, having been out of town for a couple of days; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Could be.
MR. DECOSTE: Unbeknownst to Katie that he was up here potentially trying to kill somebody?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: It's consistent with that; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It is.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's now talk about the car return; June, 2014. So on direct examination you were asked a question about when the car was returned. You don't know when it was returned; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: we do not.
MR. DECOSTE: At all. That is a true estimate -- it's an assumption that the car was returned on June 6th; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm not aware of any specific knowledge about exactly when the vehicle was returned.
MR. DECOSTE: Could it have been returned on June 7th?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It could have been.
MR. DECOSTE: June 8th?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: The morning of June 6th?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It could.
MR. DECOSTE: So the testimony that we had -- that you testified about a trip out to the area of the airport by Ms. Magbanua on June 6th around 5 p.m.; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you're assuming that the car was returned on 6/6? June 6th?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You're assuming that it was returned around 5 p.m.?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: what I'm representing is that the call detail records show the same pattern of travel to the same area as when the vehicle was rented.
MR. DECOSTE: But that's not my question. we're not talking about the rental of a vehicle days before. we're talking about the return of the vehicle.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't know when the vehicle was returned?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: They don't know when the vehicle was returned?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That I'm aware of, no.
MR. DECOSTE: It could have been June 7th?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It could have been.
MR. DECOSTE: It could have been June 8th?
MR. DECOSTE: You do not know that it was returned on June 6th at 5 p.m.?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: That's an assumption based on an assumption?
MR. DECOSTE: And you're also then further assuming that Ms. Magbanua drove Mr. Garcia; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Again, it's the analysis of the records and the locations of the cell sites that I'm depicting.
MR. DECOSTE: You have this out here, that there's a trip out there at 5 p.m. You would agree with me that Ms. Magbanua driving out to the Miami -- let me withdraw that.
The Miami International Airport that you've been to -- have you been outside of the airport?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I have.
MR. DECOSTE: It's not in the middle of nowhere; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It is not.
MR. DECOSTE: It's right smack-dab in the middle of a whole bunch of other stuff, like we saw; golf courses, waterways, highways; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: It's not like some of the rural areas if you go to Louisville, Kentucky, the airport is sort of in the middle of the nowhere?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I will take your word for that. But the Miami airport is not in the middle of nowhere.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So, that travel -- again, you're assuming that the car was even returned that day at that time -- it's consistent with Ms. Magbanua doing a whole bunch of other things; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It could be.
MR. DECOSTE: Consistent with her going to any number of the businesses that are right around the airport?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Could be.
MR. DECOSTE: Consistent with her picking up a friend from the airport?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Could be.
MR. DECOSTE: Consistent with her visiting Kenya Revellas who lives right below the airport?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: No personal knowledge of where they reside, but that's possible.
MR. DECOSTE: It's consistent with a lot of other things, is what ~=we're getting at here?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It could be.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's now talk about the -- let's talk about a third trip. The next trip that you had -- and you had a look on your face of, wait, what? Am I correct in that, in the reading of your face?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. The next trip that you have -- you have the June trip and the murder trip in July; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: There was never a mention to you of a third trip?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I say never mentioned. I have heard third trip come up before. I'm aware of nothing that substantiates that.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, let's make sure that we're clear for the jury what we're talking about. You've learned that Luis Rivera has talked about a third trip recently?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe that's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: That is not something that TPD had received years back and investigated a third trip because he never said it?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I would not want to comment on Mr. Rivera's statements at any particular time. And I can't tell you that it's very recently that I've heard this, but there has been discussion previously about a possible third trip.
MR. DECOSTE: No mention of another trip by Garcia and Anthony Ortiz; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Not that I'm aware of.
MR. DECOSTE: who is Anthony Ortiz?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Anthony Ortiz, as I understand, is a friend of Mr. Rivera's.
MR. DECOSTE: You have phone numbers for Mr. Ortiz?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe so, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: (305)896-3720?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That sounds correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And then (305) 762-0648?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm not sure about the second one.
MR. DECOSTE: All right.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I could have a brief moment here?
One brief moment, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, do you remember at the end of last year we sat and took a deposition and you had given another -- that there was another phone number for Anthony Ortiz?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's possible, and I can look that up. I'm just not familiar about the number off the top of my head.
MR. DECOSTE: we'll come back to it. They're taking a look at the deposition.
But would it be a stretch of the imagination that in your investigation you had two phone numbers for Anthony Ortiz?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: would not be a stretch.
MR. DECOSTE: Was -- and this is getting to the core question here. Was any investigation done into those phone numbers?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Not that I'm aware of.
MR. DECOSTE: Subscriber information?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe there was a request for subscriber information for one of those numbers that was not returned. I'm not aware of any other -- personally aware of any other investigation into those numbers.
MR. DECOSTE: what about call detail records?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Not that I'm aware of.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that call detail records would be important to determine what, if any, involvement this third person had in this case?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It would be helpful.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the 3720 number, am I incorrect in that the subscriber information comes back to Jessica Rodriguez?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm not aware of having any actual subscriber information from a carrier for that number.
MR. DECOSTE: So we can agree, no investigation into Anthony Ortiz?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That I'm aware of.
MR. DECOSTE: So now that we don't have any investigation of a third trip, let's go to the next one that you have, the murder trip in July.
MR. DECOSTE: One second, Your Honor. Okay.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: we have your Slide 66A. I have it as Page 70. You would agree with me that the same thing that's being done here -- now I'm not saying that it's trickery, but that there was a lot of communications in between these communications between Ms. Magbanua and Sigfredo Garcia and then her speaking to Charlie Adelson. You would agree with me; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There are other communications, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: what I don't want is the jury -- you would agree with me that it would be wrong for the jury to have the impression that she was literally, you know, getting off the phone and the next call that she had, understanding it's about an hour later, but she's only speaking to Sigfredo Garcia and Charles Adelson?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's see here. Okay. I have this as Page 88, your Slide 98.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: One second, wrong page. (Pause.)
Okay. So it's actually -- I get it as Page 111, you get it as 98.
So July 18th, these communications as well, too -- now this is an important day. This is the day that Professor Markel is murdered; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: That -- you would agree with me that the jury shouldn't have the impression that the only communications that any of these people are having are up here in this demonstrative?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Or in this exhibit? Right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: It's not accurate because Katherine Magbanua spoke to a whole bunch of other people that morning?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes. I believe we were clear when talking about these summaries that they were filtered down to just contacts between certain people.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So here we have your Slide 91B. I've got it as 102.
This 12:30 call an important call for the case; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe so, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: It's your understanding that Sigfredo Garcia, per Luis Rivera, called Katherine Magbanua and said, It's done?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm aware that he called. As far as what was spoken, I do not know.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the record of that call, that's one of the things that you would have put and given over to TPD and FBI and potentially it goes in their reports; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So it wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination that Luis Rivera knew that there was this call at 12:30 from Garcia to Magbanua?
MS. DUGAN: Objection to speculation.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I have no, again, personal knowledge about exactly what details went in what reports, which may have been turned over at any particular time. So, it's possible, but I have no knowledge of that. +BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Your analysis can't protect against if Luis Rivera is lying; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: The analysis is the analysis. The records are what they are. And I -- we can't change them.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. The -- you would agree with me that the theory here is that Ms. Magbanua found out from somebody else that the murder had happened; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe that's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And the thought is that potentially wendi Adelson informed somebody and then informed Ms. Magbanua; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe that's a possibility.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So, 12:30 is the phone call. There's no question about that; right? That Sigfredo Garcia communicates with Katherine Magbanua at 12:30; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. I'm now going to -- I believe the page is 10 and your slide -- it is. It's 10.
You would agree with me that wendi Adelson is just leaving home at 12:31; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: About that time, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So she's not in the area. And what we're talking about here is that she is servicing a cell site all the way up here at 12:31, a minute after the phone call between Sigfredo Garcia and Katherine Magbanua; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And it's not until she's down here that she's near the crime scene; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: which would be nearly, let's say an estimate of 12:40?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm now going to your Page 104; I've got it as 118.
This is July 18th. You would agree with me that, again, there are a bunch of communications between Ms. Magbanua and other people. It's not that she's calling Charles Adelson, then Yindra Mascaro, then Sigfredo Garcia, then Yindra Mascaro; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: correct.
MR. DECOSTE: She's communicating with a whole bunch of other people that morning?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Certainly with other people. I don't know a whole bunch, but others, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, I'm showing what is premarked as Defense 12. You know what that is; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's your call detail records that have, once again, been color coded for the people of interest?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: well, they're Sprint's call detail records, but, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Those are the call detail records that you received from Sprint?
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now you know that those are the call detail records of Sprint because that's what you've been working on for years here?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And those are in the same or substantially the same condition they were in the last time you saw them?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Defense offers into evidence what's been premarked as Defense 12.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MS. DUGAN: No, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: It will be admitted as Exhibit 12.
(Defense's Exhibit No. 12 received in evidence.)
MR. DECOSTE: Publish, Your Honor?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: So, Sergeant, what we have here is these are all of Ms. Magbanua's communications for July 16th, 2014 through July 18th; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe so, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And, again, we have it color coded. That blue is Charles Adelson?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Green is Sigfredo Garcia?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: And purple is Sigfredo Garcia's mother?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: This would give a better representation of who she is communicating with, how and when; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It is all of her communications, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: For instance, in the hours after the murder, she speaks to Charles Adelson, she then speaks to Sigfredo Garcia in green, speaks to Charles Adelson, maybe a text message, has conversations with the grandmother of her children, but that there is a whole bunch of other phone calls as well, too?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There are, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So it's not something that she's speaking to Charles Adelson, hanging up the phone and calling Sigfredo Garcia; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Isn't that sort of the point that the government is trying to make with the call patterns, that somehow they're coordinating this through Ms. Magbanua and these calls? That she's speaking to Sigfredo Garcia, she's hanging up the phone, she's then calling Charles Adelson? Isn't that the theory with these call patterns?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't believe that's the theory with the call patterns. The summaries that we use are, again, as we stated, filtered down to show those contacts between the relevant people. And I don't believe that -- the times of those communications are accurate. It's easy to see that these are not back-to-back communications with those involved people. But I believe to make it more relevant, we look at the major parties in this and when they're communicating.
MR. DECOSTE: So you said the times aren't accurate. The times in these records are accurate; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Hopefully I said the times are accurate. In our summaries, the times are accurate in that if there is a phone call between Ms. Magbanua and Mr. Garcia at 1 p.m., and then there is a call to Mr. Adelson at 2 p.m., we all recognize that an hour has elapsed between those calls. They're not -- we leave all of that in. They're not designed to look like they're back-to-back calls.
And then as far as accuracy of the times, as we're aware, the text messages here are one hour off. So if we were to look at any event that is a text message, we would need to add an hour to that. That's just the way that Sprint provides their records.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So there's a lot of talk of what it's consistent with. You would agree with me that this is consistent with Ms. Magbanua, Katie Magbanua, speaking to the guy that she is dating at the time; right?
MR. DECOSTE: And then at another time, speaking to the father of her two children?
MR. DECOSTE: Now, we talked a moment ago about the call patterns. And I want to use another phrase that you used, significant days. when you're investigating this and the records that we've looked at so far, those are significant days; the June trip, the July murder trip. And those are the days that you're looking at; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: well, we look at all days. But the detailed analysis or what's part of the presentation was selected from those significant dates.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So you pick a significant day, you look at it and you go, wow, she's speaking to Charles Adelson, she's speaking to Sigfredo Garcia. Could be something; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Again, I'm looking at just the communications. As far as the meaning or what's behind that, I do not know.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me, to see if this is in any way unusual, we would also have to look at insignificant day?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Is May 1st through May 2nd, 2014, a significant day?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Not that I'm aware of.
MR. DECOSTE: Defense 13.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, I'm showing you what has been premarked as Defense 13. You know what that is; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's some more Sprint records that have been color coded with people of interest?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know that those are the Sprint records because you've reviewed them several times?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I have, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And they're in the same or substantially the same condition they were in the last time you saw them?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They are, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Defense offers in what's been premarked as Defense 13.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MS. DUGAN: No, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: May I publish?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
It will be admitted as Exhibit 13.
(Defense's Exhibit No. 13 received in evidence.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So, Sergeant, we have insignificant date. A lot of communications with Sigfredo Garcia in green. And here on May 1st, we have communications with Sigfredo Garcia in green; in purple, the grandmother of her children; Sigfredo Garcia again; some communications with Charles Adelson; and then again with Sigfredo Garcia; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So you would agree with me that when we compare an insignificant day to a significant day, that this pattern is not unusual?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There is daily communication between these parties, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: On insignificant days and significant days?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So, Sergeant, two years later. We're now in 2016. So we are going to jump from May of 2014 to 2016. The intercepts begin?
MR. DECOSTE: This is where law enforcement has gone to a judge and gotten an order so that they can listen to certain people's phone calls?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: April 8th, 2016, they begin; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm sorry?
MR. DECOSTE: April 8th?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That sounds correct.
MR. DECOSTE: April 19th, 2016, there is what's called the bump?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe so, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: where an undercover federal agent goes up to Donna Adelson with a piece of paper; right?
MR. DECOSTE: And you would agree with me that this puts certain people on notice?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Agreed, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you've reviewed those communications; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Limited.
MR. DECOSTE: You -- my question is not have you listened to all of them, but have you reviewed the volley of communications?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Not in some time. I was certainly aware of them at the time I had those records, but I have not reviewed them recently.
MR. DECOSTE: So you would agree with me that, you know, the intercepts begin, there's this bump, and out of nowhere if Charles Adelson and Katherine Magbanua aren't speaking, that that could be something; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: If out of nowhere they were not speaking. Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Not speaking, this bump happens, and all of a sudden they're on the phone together.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That could be something, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that the days preceding the bump on April 11th, April 12th, April 13th and April 15th, they spoke?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Again, I do not have those records in front of me. I know that they were in communication. I don't know specifically those dates. we can certainly look at them, if need be.
MR. DECOSTE: Before the bump? Can we agree on that?
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Let's talk about July 1st, 2014, now. So we're going back in time. We jumped ahead and we're going back.
July 1st, 2014. And just for the jury to go through it, I want to go to the other pages here. So let's go back to 2014 for a second. The communications for Katherine Magbanua between Sigfredo Garcia and Charles Adelson, that -- it's a normal volley. It's a normal pattern for her on this insignificant day; correct? And it continues in these records on the other pages?
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So, your Slide 27B, I've got it as Slide 29. You've got direct communication between Sigfredo Garcia and Harvey Adelson; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Direct communication via voicemail, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But you have Sigfredo Garcia contacting Harvey Adelson --
MR. DECOSTE: -- without the involvement of Katherine Magbanua?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I couldn't speak to who was involved or not, but we do have communication from Mr. Garcia to Harvey Adelson.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you would agree with me -- I'm showing you now defense demonstrative. You would agree with me that for the defense's theory that this was between Sigfredo Garcia and the Adelsons, that that would be a great piece of evidence; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It could be.
MR. DECOSTE: But this trial is about presenting the truth; correct?
MR. DECOSTE: You know from the investigation what was going on that day and why Sigfredo Garcia contacted Harvey Adelson; right?
MR. DECOSTE: In it's separate and apart from Yindra Mascaro?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go through that.
MR. DECOSTE: One second, Your Honor.
Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, I'm showing you what's been premarked as Defense 14. You know what that is; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Another color coded Sprint document?
MR. DECOSTE: And you know that that is the call detail records because you've reviewed them so much in this case?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And they are in the same or substantially the same condition as they were in, except for the color coding, the last time you saw them?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They are.
MR. DECOSTE: Defense offers what's been premarked as Defense 14.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MS. DUGAN: No, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: Admitted as Defense 14.
(Defense's Exhibit No. 14 received in evidence.)
MR. DECOSTE: May I publish, Judge?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: So, Sergeant, let's first look at the communications here. This is Katherine Magbanua and Sigfredo Garcia?
MR. DECOSTE: You've got a lot of back-to-back-to-back communications; correct?
MR. DECOSTE: And this continues throughout the day; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It does.
MR. DECOSTE: where you would agree with me here that Sigfredo Garcia is desperately trying to communication right now with Katherine Magbanua?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe it's the other way around. These are almost all outbound from Ms. Magbanua to Mr. Garcia.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. But there's inbound as well, too; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I would have to go through. I don't see -- on that page, everything is outbound. Again, so outbound from Ms. Magbanua's records would mean her calling Mr. Garcia.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. But there is whole bunch of communications =that are in here?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There are, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now at some point in time, Ms. Magbanua also calls Harvey Adelson there in yellow; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And then there's communications with Charles Adelson that are later on; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Attempted communication, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And again, beyond Yindra Mascaro, you know what was going on on this day? This is 17 days before the murder; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. In your review of this case, you received Charles Adelson's iCloud data; right?
MR. DECOSTE: And for the jury, that's -- a subpoena is sent to Apple and all of the data that somebody has and communicates with Apple, anything that they have backed up with Apple, be jit contacts, calendar events, notes, recordings, iMessages, you get that information; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: we don't get it with just a subpoena. It takes a little more of a legal demand. And, yes, it has the potential to have all of that information in it. It may not, based on what the user is actually backing up.
MR. DECOSTE: And you received Charles Adelson's icloud = information?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I did not receive it directly, but I have reviewed it, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. And reviewed the iMessages; correct?
MR. DECOSTE: Specifically for that day between Katherine Magbanua --
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Reviewed --
MR. DECOSTE: -- and Charles Adelson?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: For a number of days, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you're aware that what happened on that day, from your review, is that Sigfredo Garcia confronted Charles Adelson when he was with Katherine Magbanua?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe -- I do not have personal knowledge of that. I have heard of that confrontation, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: would it refresh your recollection to take a look at the messages?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I could approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, sir, I'm familiar with these.
MR. DECOSTE: If I could approach? +BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Is it your understanding of that day -- and again, trying to get to the truth, not just come back and say that there was a direct communication by Sigfredo Garcia -- that Ms. Magbanua was very upset at what Sigfredo Garcia had done?
MR. DECOSTE: That Sigfredo Garcia, again, had run up on them in traffic and started banging on the window?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Again, I have heard something about that incident. There's nothing in the messages that reference that incident.
MR. DECOSTE: Now there is reference, however, that Ms. Magbanua did not like the fact that someone -- Sigfredo Garcia -- thinks they can make the decisions in her life?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So our understanding of all of these communications, Sigfredo Garcia confronts Charles Adelson when Katherine is with him. Katherine is then communicating with Sigfredo Garcia, presumably upset about the fact what he had just done; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Again, I have no personal knowledge of the interaction between Mr. Adelson, Ms. Magbanua and Mr. Garcia, the physical interaction that day. So I cannot speak to that.
There are a number of calls from Ms. Magbanua to Ms. Garcia, attempted calls or texts. The text messages, the review of the icloud, do reference Mr. Garcia leaving a message. She was presumably with Mr. Harvey Adelson. She's certainly upset with him. There's communication about that. But nothing that references a physical confrontation.
MR. DECOSTE: So now there is something that references the fact that Sigfredo Garcia had left a message?
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So, there is this phone call where -- at 5:20 where Sigfredo Garcia calls Harvey Adelson and leaves a message; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And then you have two hours later where Katherine Magbanua is calling through as well?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me, though, that this is a great example. The call detail records potentially could say one thing, but the iMessages, which you have, gives the proper context of what's going on?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't believe that either are in conflict. I think the volume of calls are indicative of some emotional event. when we see this rapid, repeated texting and calling for such an extended period of time, we know that it was somewhat urgent for someone to get hold of someone else. The text messages represent a conflict, a fight, the leaving of a message.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's use the language that they've used. These communications, it's consistent with a whole bunch of different things happening; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It could be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: These messages let us know what it's consistent with?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's now go to July 19th, 2014. Now we're not talking about locations. Now we're talking about first communications.
All right. I've got this as Page 132. You've got it as Slide 116.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: This is the morning after Professor Markel is murdered; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And --
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, I'm showing you what has been premarked as Defense 15. You know what that is; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That is another color coded Sprint document; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It is, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know that that is a Sprint document because of your review in this case?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And except for the color coding, it's in the same or substantially the same condition it was in the last time you saw it?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you.
MR. DECOSTE: Defense offers in what's been premarked as Defense 15.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MS. DUGAN: No objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: It's admitted as Defense 15.
(Defense's Exhibit No. 15 received in evidence.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: So, Sergeant, what we have here first, this is your document of the communications; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you said that you didn't have any user detail for Anthony Ortiz, but you've got Anthony Ortiz's name in there?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: why is that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Through the course of the investigation, I was advised that this number was associated with Mr. Ortiz.
MR. DECOSTE: So you can confirm Mr. Ortiz has his own phone?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Can I confirm that he has his own phone? I'm sorry?
MR. DECOSTE: I mean, you've got a phone number that's associated with Anthony Ortiz. Your belief is that that's his handset; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's what was reported to me, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. And that's the theory that you've been investigating on for years; right? That that is actually Anthony Ortiz and he had his handset?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe so, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So, now I'm going to --
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, may I publish?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: I'm showing you just Katherine Magbanua's call detail records from that morning. Again, it's color coded. In green you have Sigfredo Garcia. And you'd agree with me, the 8153 number in red is Luis Rivera?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, on direct examination you were asked, you know, was this consistent with them meeting up that morning; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now this volley of communication where Katherine Magbanua is -- now, these are outbound; right? This is why you're the expert. You can explain this to me.
This is Katherine Magbanua calling Sigfredo Garcia over and over and over again; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Calls and I believe at least one text message.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that that's consistent with the mother of two children trying to find the father of her two children who has been out of town for a couple of days? It's consistent with that; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It could be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now at this point in time, Sigfredo Garcia has already turned off his phone?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Katherine Magbanua didn't do that, though; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: She did not.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, I'm showing you what has been premarked as Defense 16. You know what that is; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Those are Luis Rivera's call detail records from the morning of July 19th?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They are, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know that because you have reviewed them in the case?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I have, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And that one page is in the same or substantially the same condition it was in the last time you saw it?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Defense offers what's been premarked as Defense 15.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MS. DUGAN: No, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: 16 for the record, Your Honor. My apologies.
JUDGE WHEELER: It will be admitted as Defense 16.
(Defense's Exhibit No. 16 received in evidence.)
MR. DECOSTE: May I publish?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So, Sergeant, what we have here is Luis Rivera's for the 8153 number, that number that's in red. we have his call detail records for the morning of July 19th; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, for the jury, this -- this one page is a good depiction, right, because it shows -- this lets you know what communications he's having; right?
MR. DECOSTE: And the far right, that's where you get the cell location to determine what cell site he's communicating with?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. And that's how these records are of use to you. You can figure out who they're communicating with, but then also the location from the data on the right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And those are latitude and longitudes on the right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They are.
MR. DECOSTE: The latitude and longitude to the cell site, not to the exact location of the handset?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, we talked a lot about what things are consistent with. The fact that Ms. Magbanua communicated with Luis Rivera, the childhood friend of the father of her children, and I'd asked you a moment ago if it was consistent with her being upset because Sigfredo Garcia has been gone for days. These communications between Luis Rivera and Katherine Magbanua, it's consistent with her calling the friend because she can't get in touch with Sigfredo Garcia; right?
MR. DECOSTE: You know who Luis Rivera is; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. In these communications on that morning, who calls who? Does Luis Rivera call Katherine Magbanua? Or does Katie -- and I want to make sure this is clear -- or does Katie call Luis Rivera?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: The first communication, and especially here on your slide, is from Mr. Rivera to Ms. Magbanua.
MR. DECOSTE: Not the other way around?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And your review over these years, you've always operated -- and, again, Luis Rivera is your cooperating witness; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: He is, I believe, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And he's giving you the information and that's dictating what you're investigating and some of the things that you're investigating; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't -- I don't say that what he's telling us is dictating what I'm investigating. We review the records, we look at the communications. And, again, they are what they are.
MR. DECOSTE: And you have always investigated under the theory that he had the 8153 handset on him that morning; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe so, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Not Anthony Ortiz or any other person; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I have heard that Mr. Ortiz may have had his phone. I have no personal knowledge of that or reason to believe that.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if we could approach sidebar?
(A Bench Conference was held as follows:)
MR. DECOSTE: I'm sorry for the abrupt sidebar.
COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.
JUDGE WHEELER: Start again. You had an issue with the rule of sequestration?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct. I think that Ms. Cappleman and I could agree that it was a surprise when Luis Rivera said -- and his testimony was, would it surprise anybody that everybody had burner phones. He's never said that before ever. The fact that this witness now knows that Luis Rivera testified about there being a burner phone -- and he's an expert. He can listen to our expert. But I don't know how he knows that.
JUDGE WHEELER: He could get that information from the attorneys. I mean, he can talk to his -- he can talk to the attorneys.
MR. DECOSTE: About the testimony of a witness mid-trial? I disagree, Your Honor.
And the additional testimony was that Ortiz had his phone. That was a surprise because that's never been said before. But my fear is -- look, I trust Sergeant Corbitt, but he should not know that information.
JUDGE WHEELER: well, does the State have a response?
MS. DUGAN: That's not something we elicited. That's something the defense elicited.
JUDGE WHEELER: Did you have a discussion with this witness about whether or not -- about the testimony of Rivera in regards to this burner phone?
MS. DUGAN: I know we specifically talked about Ortiz's number and the fact it was found in the contact list as Jessica. I don't remember if we talked about -- I'm not sure.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. You just asked him what specifically? You asked him --
MR. DECOSTE: I asked him that he's always operated under the theory that Rivera had the 8153 phone on him that morning. And then he goes, I have heard of testimony that he gave his phone to Anthony Ortiz. That witness should not know that.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. So what are you asking for as a remedy?
MR. DECOSTE: I mean, if the rule of sequestration has been violated, he should be struck as a witness and his testimony should be disregarded.
JUDGE WHEELER: Well, we can't do that at this stage. we can't do that.
MR. DECOSTE: TI understand --
JUDGE WHEELER: -- the testimony that he's provided to the jury.
MR. DECOSTE: So my next question to him right now is going to be where he found that information from. After that, at the point of the break, I can make a potential request to the Court for a curative. But if the rule has been violated, there could be repercussions beyond just a curative.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Okay. You can ask him that question and then let's not go any further with that to see how we're going to proceed.
(The Bench Conference concluded.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, do you remember the last answer that you gave us?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: where did you get that information from?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I could not tell you. You asked the question if there was anything about Mr. Rivera having his handset or not having his handset. And as I said, I have no information, personal knowledge, that Mr. Rivera did not have his handset that morning.
I have heard through the course of discussions and many meetings and questions that were asked, is it possible that Mr. Ortiz had Mr. Rivera's phone. TI don't know that that's accurate. I don't know that that's true. I'm only looking at the location of the handset.
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, you would agree with me that that's been over the past couple of days, not years; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I could not tell you the first time I heard that question.
MR. DECOSTE: You have given two depositions and you've sat on that stand before in 2019; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: In any of those sworn testimonies, have you ever = stated that before?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: That would be a no; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct, I have not stated that before. I don't know that I've been asked that question before.
MR. DECOSTE: So this is something that's just come out recently?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Again, I don't know how recently I've heard the question. I can tell you that I do not recall being asked that previously in any proceeding or deposition. I don't recall being asked that question. But the way you asked it, I gave you the answer.
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, all of your slides in here with respect to Luis Rivera the morning of July 19th, and you're doing locations, you have on the bottom corner or the top corner, Rivera; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Not ortiz?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Because the theory has always been, from your cooperating witness over the many years, that he had his phone that morning?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Again, I don't know the theory or -- I'm looking at the account that is associated with Mr. Rivera and those handset locations. And that's what I'm mapping.
MR. DECOSTE: So the communications that are in here, there is, of course, the communication with Katherine Magbanua; correct?
MR. DECOSTE: There is also communication with Luis Rivera's -- the mother of his children, Jessica Rodriguez?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct?
And it's this data that you're using to place Mr. Rivera with Ms. Magbanua for this alleged payment; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: This is -- without this, you can't place where Rivera was? Right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Again, Rivera's handset, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So if Rivera doesn't have his handset, then there's no way to place him with Ms. Magbanua that morning?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct. I have no information that Mr. Rivera did not have his handset.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So we agree on that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: we do.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, again, all these communications were Ms. Magbanua, she's trying to reach Sigfredo Garcia, consistent with trying to find the father of her kids; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: At this point, you know that Sigfredo Garcia has been in Tallahassee for a couple of days?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Gone?
MR. DECOSTE: All right. For a co-parent, that could be frustrating; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I assume it could be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now this communication with Mr. Rivera, it's consistent with his childhood friend potentially calling Ms. Magbanua to calm her down or to buy Mr. Garcia time while he gets in communication with her; correct? It's consistent with that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It could be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Consistent with a lot of things?
MR. DECOSTE: Let's now talk about locations. So you have that Katie pinged on a tower near Jessica Rodriguez's address; right?
MR. DECOSTE: You cannot say that she was at that address?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I cannot.
MR. DECOSTE: with your data and in your expertise, there is no way to say that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: She could have been miles away?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't know about miles, but she certainly could have been a distance away.
MR. DECOSTE: Luis Rivera could have read your analysis of the report that the handsets are close to each other and made this all up; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm certainly not aware of that. I assume it's possible.
MR. DECOSTE: You did tell me that you're aware of who Luis Rivera is; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I am, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that he is a dangerous guy?
MS. DUGAN: Objection to speculation.
JUDGE WHEELER: If you know, you can answer.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm aware that he had a violent criminal past.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Are you aware that he was a Latin King boss?
MR. DECOSTE: were you aware that he was charged with first degree murder?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't know that I'm aware of that particular charge.
MR. DECOSTE: He was charged with murder here.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Oh, I'm sorry, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah. And that he would have an incentive to try to get out of that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I can't speak to his motivations or anything else.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, again, we have communications, but you also have the potential context of things through iMessages; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: we do in some cases, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: On this case, on this day, on the morning of July 19th, 20, 30 minutes after that communication with Rivera, where was Ms. Magbanua?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: which communication with Mr. Rivera?
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So we're saying at the bottom there, at 10:30 --
MR. DECOSTE: -- she's apparently communicating with Rivera. And your thought is that because of Rivera, that there's this meeting and this payment; correct?
And what we're talking about -- sort of like the example of July 1st. we have call detail records and communications, but you also have iMessages from Charles Adelson and communications with Ms. Magbanua that potentially put her morning in context as to what she was doing and where = she was at.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm not sure that it puts her morning in perspective, but it does in the day.
MR. DECOSTE: You do know that, from those messages, that by mid-morning she's at the pool with her kids?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't believe that, no.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Do you not remember or do you not believe that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't believe the timing of that.
MR. DECOSTE: what do you believe the timing to be?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not believe that she was at the pool until later in the afternoon.
MR. DECOSTE: But you would agree with me that the discussions about going to the pool begin mere minutes after this alleged meeting?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There is a discussion about the day's activity and what she intends to do with Mr. Adelson. And, I mean, I can look up the specifics if we need to. But when she references getting back from the pool, I believe it's closer to 4:00 in the afternoon.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's be clear here because I want to correct you on that. It wasn't a matter of going to the pool with Mr. Adelson; she was going with her kids; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So Ms. Magbanua has her kids; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: She does.
MR. DECOSTE: Two young kids?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not know their exact ages.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So let me get this straight, if you know on this one. Luis Rivera is saying that at around 10:30 in the morning, that Ms. Magbanua and Mr. Garcia have this meeting where money is exchanged, this alleged meeting. Right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm aware of that, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: He never said the kids were there; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't know that he did.
MR. DECOSTE: So if her kids are young, and we'll figure that out through another witness, where are the kids?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: well, the kids could be anywhere.
MS. DUGAN: Objection to speculation.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's sustained.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: You don't know where her kids were; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not know where the kids are.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Let's now talk about Luis Rivera and his handset. I've got your Page 119B; mine is 136.
Based on the call detail records, you can place Rivera's placement that entire morning; right? Or the handset's placement that entire morning; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I can when we have events. If there are events with location, then we can make a determination. If there are periods of time without events, then I could not say where he was.
MR. DECOSTE: That right-hand column, those are all events; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They are, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you can place all of those; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I can, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you have?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I have, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now all of them are not here?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They are not.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, you know what that is; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe so, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You know that that is a Google map that includes Jessica Rodriguez's address in the greater Miami area, including Miami Beach?
MR. DECOSTE: And you know that because you reviewed it before today?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And that's a fair and accurate depiction of those locations?
MR. DECOSTE: Defense offers what's been premarked as Defense 17.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MS. DUGAN: No, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: Admitted as Defense 17.
(Defense's Exhibit No. 17 received in evidence.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So, Sergeant --
MR. DECOSTE: Publish, Your Honor?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: So, Sergeant, what have here is Jessica Rodriguez's house; right?
MR. DECOSTE: This is where the alleged meeting happened?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: From my understanding, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So I'm going to go to the next one that pans -- you'd agree with me that this pans out, but Jessica Rodriguez's address is still in the middle?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Going out again, that hers is still in the middle?
MR. DECOSTE: Now, your understanding of the placement -- your understanding of Luis Rivera, what he says, is that he's on a -- that he's at a barbershop that morning when Katie calls him; not vice versa, him calling her; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yeah. I'm aware that there was discussion about a barbershop.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. And you know from your review of this case that this road running north and south is Biscayne Boulevard?
MR. DECOSTE: And the barbershop is north up here; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not know the exact location of the barbershop, only that it's supposedly relatively close, or very close to the residence.
MR. DECOSTE: So what we're saying is that it's in the vicinity between, let's say, here and here; right around Jessica's address?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Going to the next slide, you would agree that Jessica Rodriguez's address is still in the middle?
MR. DECOSTE: And in the bottom right -- not to the right but sort of in the middle, this almost circular shape here, this pork chop shape right here, that's Normandy Isle; correct?
MR. DECOSTE: That Isle ties back to Luis Rivera in other documents; correct?
MR. DECOSTE: His license, for instance?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you would agree with me that this is a close-up of Normandy Isle?
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you did a distance for Katherine Magbanua's house all the way to the airport; right?
MR. DECOSTE: And you could do the same for Jessica Rodriguez's all the way down to Normandy Isle; correct?
MR. DECOSTE: If you were to go straight as the bird flies, that's miles away; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe so, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But your choices are to either go over a bridge and go south on the beach and over another bridge, or go further south over a bridge onto the Normandy Isle; correct?
MR. DECOSTE: Now, around the time of this communication between when Luis Rivera contacts Katherine Magbanua, you have his location on Normandy Isle, not up near Jessica Rodriguez's house; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I -- so his handset initially at the very onset of communication is consistent with his residence or the barbershop. It does travel to the area of Normandy Isle, or probably a little north of that, and travel back. I would have to look at the exact time of those communications to tell you exactly where he was for what particular phone call.
MR. DECOSTE: So what you have is that he's on a cell site here near Jessica's house; right?
MR. DECOSTE: You can't say that he was actually at the barbershop; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I cannot.
MR. DECOSTE: He then travels all the way down to Normandy Isle?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't know that I could say his handset was consistent with Normandy Isle. I believe it's a little north of Normandy Isle. But it does travel to that general area.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that that's a long distance; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It is.
MR. DECOSTE: 15, 20 minutes?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe that the trip took 30-some minutes, round trip.
MR. DECOSTE: If Luis Rivera is saying that his morning is entirely comprised of going from Jessica Rodriguez's residence to the barbershop and back, but the call detail records are showing him on Normandy Isle, that could indicate that he's not telling the truth; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't know exactly what his statement is, but I can tell you that the handset is consistent with traveling to that area, or immediately north, and then back to the area of his residence.
MR. DECOSTE: Or, that there's an unreliability in cell site locations; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't believe that there's an unreliability.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So you're fairly confident that Luis Rivera's handset traveled to Normandy Isle?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Again, not specifically to Normandy Isle, but it did travel away from the area of his residence.
MR. DECOSTE: where is the cell site?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm sorry?
MR. DECOSTE: what's the location of the cell site?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There are several.
MR. DECOSTE: That he's communicating with. Does he communicate with a cell site that's on Normandy Isle?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, out of fairness, you're saying just north, where are you talking about? Here?
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So we're not talking about up here. we're talking about he's somewhere in this area?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct. I believe that he's more on the island -- I guess that would be on your map North Beach Oceanside -- than Normandy Isle.
MR. DECOSTE: Based on your review of everything, can you say to this jury that Katherine Magbanua and Luis Rivera ever met that morning?
MR. DECOSTE: Does your analysis and your work, does it in any way protect against Rivera making things up?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm not quite sure I understand the "protect against.”
MR. DECOSTE: If -- well, let me ask that question in a different way.
In your analysis and what you then provided to Tallahassee Police Department, to your colleagues there and to the FBI and to the state attorney's office, that included that there were communications and that there were locations; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you would agree with me that that information is making its way into reports and over to Luis Rivera?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Again, I don't know specifically what information, what report or when, but I have no reason to believe that it couldn't happen.
MR. DECOSTE: That he could just be peppering in facts to get a deal?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I have no personal knowledge of that.
MR. DECOSTE: Something happened that morning; right? But we've got to take his word for what happened?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Again, I'm not intimately familiar with his word.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So Anthony Ortiz, just to go back on that for one quick second, you have that he's involved. It appears that Anthony Ortiz has his own handset that morning; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It does.
MR. DECOSTE: And he's involved in communications; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That number is, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Never interviewed?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not know.
MR. DECOSTE: Never investigated?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I am not aware.
MR. DECOSTE: Don't have his call detail records?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: And if we did, we could plot his movement that morning, potentially?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: we could, potentially.
MR. DECOSTE: How long do the different carriers maintain records for?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It varies by carrier. It can be as little as six months; and with some, a number of years.
MR. DECOSTE: So there could have been a matter after 2014 when you had these records. Not saying that it was your responsibility. You analyze the data. Somebody else collects the data and gets it to you. They could have gotten it in the years after. They knew that Ortiz was communicating. They could have gotten those call detail records; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: we could have, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go back to Rivera for a second. Your understanding, he's been cooperating since 2016?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe so, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And although you may have heard it, you -- you have nothing direct that he has -- that he ever said prior, prior to this year, that the 8153 phone was given to Anthony ortiz that morning?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I have no information about that.
MR. DECOSTE: Always operate -- you always operated on the notion that he was in possession of that phone that morning?
MS. DUGAN: Objection, asked and answered.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's been asked and answered.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: That's the only phone that you have that communicated with Katherine Magbanua?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Of Mr. Rivera's?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, there was never a mention, there was never an investigation, there was never a theory that Katherine Magbanua ever had a burner phone; right? That morning?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That morning, no.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct. To say otherwise would be incorrect; right?
MS. DUGAN: Objection, improper.
JUDGE WHEELER: If you know, you can answer it.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm not aware of her having any additional phone that morning.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Now, just for anybody that doesn't know, a burner phone is a phone that you can -- you can go into a store and buy it. You buy prepaid minutes?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: A burner phone has a lot of definitions. In general, it's a phone that cannot be associated with you. However it's purchased, if it's borrowed from a friend or prepaid, postpaid, it's a phone that you believe you're distanced from in those communications.
MR. DECOSTE: well, that's not the only purpose; right? They can be -- you can go into a Walmart and buy a Straight Talk wireless phone, you buy prepaid minutes, and you're using that phone for -- it's a limited use phone; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It doesn't even have to be limited use.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. There is -- you phrased it well, that there is a big spectrum on it. You can buy, you know, a throwaway phone, a burner phone off the street; right?
MR. DECOSTE: Or you can go into a walmart and buy these phones?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you believe that Walmart is only selling these phones for people that are involved in something that's illegal?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They are not.
MR. DECOSTE: There could be many different uses. It's consistent with a whole bunch of different reasons why somebody would have an additional phone?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So, let's now get into the intercepts. And we're close to being done here.
Again, your characters, you have -- you have, at that time, wendi Adelson, Harvey Adelson, Donna Adelson, Charles Adelson, Ms. Magbanua, Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera?
MR. DECOSTE: And there was a decision, not saying that it was yours, to only monitor two of the people?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You only got intercepts on Charles Adelson and Katherine Magbanua?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Not Sigfredo Garcia?
MR. DECOSTE: Not Donna Adelson?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: But you could have?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't know that I can speak to the level of authority or justification for those lines, but presumably, yes, we could have.
MR. DECOSTE: Understanding it's a lot of personnel time listening to these calls, because each time this happens, you know, an officer sits down, they're taking notes, they're listening to the call, minimizing where they need to. It's a lot of personnel hours; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It can be.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. But when it comes down to the amount of personnel hours and the money into it, that's not usually how the Tallahassee Police Department works; correct? It's a matter of what do we need for the investigation?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you would agree with me that listening to Sigfredo Garcia and finding out who he's contacting could have yielded information?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It potentially could have.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. The amount of intercepts that you have, you have approximately 400 calls; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't know the exact number of calls.
MR. DECOSTE: It's in the hundreds?
MR. DECOSTE: And it's over a course of roughly two months?
MR. DECOSTE: would you trust me that it's approximately 70 calls between Katherine Magbanua and Charles Adelson?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That sounds appropriate.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that there is nothing in there about her being involved in a murder?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't want to comment to the -- I guess to the content of those communications.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, when I asked you the question about the disposable phone, you hesitated. And I think you did this because you know that in May of 2016 there were disposable phones that were purchased?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So in fairness, we're now going to get into that.
You would agree with me that when these intercepts are placed -- now the intercept means that you're communicating with a carrier and the carrier is recording the call; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: The carrier is providing the call content to us. we are doing the actual recording.
MR. DECOSTE: And that act -- now us as private citizens, all our calls are not recorded by our carriers; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They are not.
MR. DECOSTE: It is a function that the carrier can do, but they have to then change things to the account to be able to monitor it?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They don't need to change anything to the account.
MR. DECOSTE: well, they've got to like toggle a button that says record; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Not on the account itself, no.
MR. DECOSTE: We're getting into a different topic here so we can skip over that.
You would agree with me that when an intercept is put onto a phone, that it can create technical issues with the line?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It shouldn't create technical issues. I --
MR. DECOSTE: Background noise? You've heard that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It should not.
MR. DECOSTE: Connection issues?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It should not.
MR. DECOSTE: The phone itself being very, very hot? You've heard ~=that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It should not.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you've listened to some of these intercepts; right?
MR. DECOSTE: And, in fact, you have the people that are on it, Ms. Magbanua and Mr. Garcia, talking about connection issues ~with the phone and how their phones are not operating correctly?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm not -- I don't recall specifics of that, but it's certainly possible.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, your understanding in this case and what gave you pause is that Mr. Garcia, not Ms. Magbanua, went into a walmart and purchased two Straight Talk wireless phones; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't know if I know specifically who went in and made the purchase, but, yes, two phones were acquired.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree that walmart almost certainly is under surveillance as well, too? These weren't phones that were bought off the street?
MR. DECOSTE: And this would have been in May of 2016, after law enforcement has already come and spoken to Sigfredo Garcia?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe so, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So specifically on phones -- and I'm not trying to say that Sigfredo Garcia was not involved. I do not disagree with that. Garcia disconnected his phone right after the murder. we saw that; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Rivera later disconnected his phone as well, too?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: He stopped using it, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Ms. Magbanua did not?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: She did not.
MR. DECOSTE: She didn't dispose of her cell phone, the 1312 number; did she?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: She kept it; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: She did.
MR. DECOSTE: Kept using it?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Up until she was arrested in 2016; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe that's correct, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: In fact, you have a phone in property for Ms. Magbanua for that 1312 number; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe so, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And all her data is also on that phone as well?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't know that it is the same handset in 2016 that she was using in 2014, taken that people upgrade their phones and whatever gets transferred from one to the next. But it was serviced by the same phone number.
MR. DECOSTE: Now you would agree with me that there is data that carries when you get a new handset?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There can be.
MR. DECOSTE: You can transfer data?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There can be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That phone was fully analyzed.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe so, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Nothing about her being involved in a murder?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm not the one that reviewed all of that content.
MR. DECOSTE: So based on what you're saying here, to make sure that it's clear, Ms. Magbanua did not dispose of the 1312 number and go out and get a burner phone; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about Charles Adelson. You talked about the -- you talked about iCloud and the iMessages. And over the years, you've spent a lot of time reviewing that; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I have, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that there is evidence of Garcia upset and somehow knowing about a dinner? If you remember.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There is, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that that's consistent with him stalking Katherine Magbanua if he knows about this dinner? It's consistent with it. We're not saying that it proves it, but it's consistent with it?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I assume it could be consistent with stalking as much as it is Knowing what the mother of your children are doing day-to-day.
MR. DECOSTE: There's also evidence of that dinner happening; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm not aware -- I don't know -- if you're speaking of a dinner between Mr. Adelson and Ms. Magbanua? I'm not aware that there's anything that --
MR. DECOSTE: So what we have is is that Garcia is upset that a dinner happened. Now the question is, evidence of a dinner happening between Ms. Magbanua, Charles Adelson and others, outside, at a place called Yardbird?
MR. DECOSTE: There's also evidence of communications between Sigfredo Garcia and Charles Adelson?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There is not that I'm aware of.
MR. DECOSTE: would it refresh your recollection to take a look at the iMessages?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, if you could take a look at this. And let me know if that helps your memory.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, sir, I'm familiar.
MR. DECOSTE: So, Sergeant -- and I want to clarify the question. I'm not asking, you know, in Charles Adelson's iCloud is there -- is there a communication directly to Sigfredo Garcia.
The question to you is is that within the iCloud, is there evidence of communications between Garcia and Charles Adelson?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: So, in your review of the iMessages, you did see that months prior to the murder in April, the end of April, April 25th of 2014, that Katherine Magbanua sends a message to Charles Adelson saying, did Tuto to call your phone?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. You would agree with me that that's consistent with -- understanding that you may not know the full context -- that's consistent with the fact that she has a belief that Sigfredo Garcia is in direct communication with Charles Adelson? It's consistent with it; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't -- with the remainder of the text messages, I think it's clear that communication did not happen. TI don't know that the question, did he call your phone, necessarily means there's a belief that they were in communication.
MR. DECOSTE: Is it consistent with Katherine Magbanua seeing Charles Adelson's number in Sigfredo Garcia's phone and asking Charles Adelson, did Tuto call your phone? Is it consistent with that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It -- I don't know what prompted that text message.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. You would agree with me that Charles Adelson's response was joking?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Right? He brushed it off?
MR. DECOSTE: So let's go back to the overall information. You have evidence from the iMessages of Charles Adelson planning to dump Katie right after the murder? If you remember?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't remember specifically. There were certainly changes in their relationship status.
MR. DECOSTE: would it refresh your recollection to take a look at the messages?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I could approach?
This is a short one so I'll stay up here.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Okay. +BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Did that help?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: To some degree.
MR. DECOSTE: So the question again is that in review of the iMessages was there evidence that Charles Adelson was planning to break up with Katherine right around the time of the murder?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Again, I know there were changes in their status. The messages you showed is asking if they were eloping and a response of no. I can't tell you that I derive a lot about his future plans or going to dump her. He was apparently not eloping with her.
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, that wasn't fully accurate; is it? Because what it also explains and what it says is, we're going to the Keys and it's the goodbye tour. Those are the exact words; right? It's the goodbye tour?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe so, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And this is the end of June; right?
MR. DECOSTE: This is two weeks before the murder happens?
MR. DECOSTE: And in the greater review of all of the iMessages and all of the communications, you actually see that the communications between Charles Adelson and Katherine Magbanua drop off significantly after the homicide?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: The communication -- and I have not looked at the volume or the numbers in the icloud -- but from the carrier records, we do see that there are periods of limited communication and then periods where they communicate more frequently. But it does vary through the course of the months.
MR. DECOSTE: It does drop off after July 18th, 2014?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: And I believe it returns after that.
MR. DECOSTE: And then in August, you have evidence of Charles Adelson pushing Katie out of his life; right? If you remember? If you don't, I've got something that will refresh.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't specifically remember.
MR. DECOSTE: One brief moment, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Are you almost concluded, Mr. DeCoste, because we're going to need to take a break. I thought you were close to completion before.
MR. DECOSTE: What I can do is this one last and it will be a good time to take a break in between. I'm close. Final pages here.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, no pressure. Our break is depending upon you.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: (Pause.) Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: Does that help your memory?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It does.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that there's evidence in late August of 2014, the month after the murder, where Katherine appears to be getting pushed out of Charles Adelson's life?
MR. DECOSTE: Good to time break, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Okay. we'll take our break now. I apologize for not taking it earlier. And so we'll be in recess for about 15 minutes.
Please, no discussions about the testimony or the case; okay? The deputy will take you out.
(Jury exits the courtroom.)
JUDGE WHEELER: The jury is out of the courtroom, the door is closed. we're going to have a one minute, brief sidebar over here, and then we're going to all break. But I just want to make sure that I get something on the record first.
(A Bench Conference was held as follows:)
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. I didn't want to say this in the front of the witness since there was an issue with this particular witness, but based on your further questioning, I don't think there was any evidence or testimony that the rule of sequestration had been violated. He speculated that he had heard this at one time or another. He didn't know where. He didn't say that he heard it from counsel.
So I'm not going to give any curative instruction. I'm going to find that there wasn't any -- any evidence of that presented through his testimony.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, just for posterity, and for record purposes, would the Court be willing to voir dire him and ask him where he heard it from?
JUDGE WHEELER: You asked him. You asked him. You asked him that specifically.
MR. DECOSTE: So I didn't want to denigrate counsel and say, did ASA Dugan, you know, talk to you about the testimony.
JUDGE WHEELER: we're not going to go any further into it. You asked him that specifically because I permitted you to do that. And he said, I don't know. And then he kind of speculated that he might have heard it sometime. It wasn't like, I talked about it with counsel before we came in here into the courtroom, then we might have had some issues.
But he was speculating that he had heard it at some time, never mentioned counsel. And, therefore, we don't have any violation of that rule.
MS. KAWASS: Just to bring to the Court's attention, they're still amending discovery with more jail calls. I just got notice that they're filing more jail calls during the cross examination. Just to bring it to your attention.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. All right. Thank you.
(The Bench Conference concluded.)
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. we'll be in recess for 15 minutes, please.
(Recess taken.)
JUDGE WHEELER: ATl right. Anything from counsel before we bring in the jury? we're all good? All right.
Let's bring in the jury, please.
(Jury enters the courtroom.)
JUDGE WHEELER: Are you ready to continue with the cross examination, Mr. DeCoste?
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Sergeant.
All right. Let's stay on the topic of the intercepts, 2016. Now, when these intercepts are done, law enforcement is keeping logs of the calls that are being recorded; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't, however, have the call detail records for that time?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: well, so the -- when we're doing the wiretap, when the intercept is actually running, we are receiving in realtime from the carrier the date and time of the call, who is calling who, the cell sites that are used. This is the exact same information that comes to us in the call detail records, and the benefit of we get to hear the audio or see the text message.
But these are the exact same records that we would get if we asked for the historical call details. So we do have a record of every phone call, every text message, every location, just as if we had those historical records.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. And, again, there's hundreds of communications.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: Or actually you said you didn't know the exact, but you would agree with me that it's in the hundreds?
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, let's talk about minimization. You have law enforcement there at a terminal listening to the call. You would agree with me that it is up to that law enforcement officer to determine when they should minimize and ~=when they shouldn't?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There are some general instructions and requirements. Further on top of that, it is that investigator's knowledge of the case, knowledge of who they are communicating with, understanding of what's being said that would influence how quickly or how often they might minimize a call.
MR. DECOSTE: which could be contingent on what -- contingent on what Tallahassee Police Department's working theory of the case is; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It's contingent upon what we're actually allowed to listen to. And that is established in the affidavit. we're only allowed to listen to communications -- certain communications that revolve around certain pieces of evidence. And so we're given direction about what kind of conversations we can actually listen to.
MR. DECOSTE: Now you say, given direction. You're the one that oversaw the intercepts for TPD; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I oversaw the technical side of that.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct.
Now, for instance, at one point in time you told your team, look, if there is discussion by Charles Adelson of other crimes, we can't record that.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: we can record that, but then we actually have to go back and seek approval from the court to continue to listen. There is a process in place. But in general, no, if we hear evidence of other crimes, we can't just carte blanche record those because that's not part of our original authority. But we can seek to add those.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, we're staying on the topic of minimization. If an officer in this case were listening to a phone call where Sigfredo Garcia is telling Katherine Magbanua, the less you know the better, that wouldn't be a smart call to minimize; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I would have --
MS. DUGAN: Objection to speculation.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's -- yeah, that's speculation. I'm not going to allow that question. +BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, you oversaw TPD law enforcement and gave them the instruction on what to minimize and what not; correct?
MR. DECOSTE: And who gave them that instruction then?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: The instruction -- again, I oversaw the technical of it; how to minimize, what button to press. The direction as far as the conversations came from the affidavit and from the state attorney's office.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So let's stay on the topic of the intercepts. You've listened to a good number of the calls; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I have, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You have awareness from those calls of Charles Adelson -- you have aware of Charles Adelson's awareness that he doesn't discuss crimes over the phone; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm not sure --
MR. DECOSTE: Let me give you an example. On April 19th, 2016, he's having a discussion about potential stock fraud where there is the comment, talk to you on the app. Do you remember ~=that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It sounds familiar.
MR. DECOSTE: On 4/20/2016, not a phone convo. Remember that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: May 3rd, 2016, his friend Adam says, I'll explain it in the app. May 4th, Adam abruptly says, text me on the app.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you'd agree with me that all of these communications, none of them were with Katherine Magbanua?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Those that you mentioned, no.
MR. DECOSTE: So this lets -- this lets you know that Charles Adelson is aware that you don't talk about certain things over the phone; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That could be inferred, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And the working theory has always been that these call patterns are potentially Ms. Magbanua talking to Charles Adelson about the murder and then speaking to Sigfredo Garcia; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's part of it, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But Charles Adelson doesn't talk on the phone when he's talking about committing crimes; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: well, I do believe that at least some of the calls that he spoke on the phone about did involve committing a crime.
MR. DECOSTE: In all of these recorded phone calls, and nearly 100 of Ms. Magbanua, was there ever a, we need to talk to the app?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Not that I am aware of.
MR. DECOSTE: And for those that don't know what whatsApp -- or the app is, do you believe that to be whatsApp?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It's likely whatsApp or another internet-based communication chat app.
MR. DECOSTE: That's an encrypted communication?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It can be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And it can also be messages as well, too?
MR. DECOSTE: Now, in Charles Adelson's iCloud data, you don't have all of his whatsApp activity; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: All of his whatsApp? No.
MR. DECOSTE: But you do have Katherine Magbanua's activity from her phone because you have the physical phone; correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe there is some. Again, I not review the contents of her phone. TI don't know exactly what is there or not.
MR. DECOSTE: But what you did learn between Charles Adelson's information and the limited that you have on Ms. Magbanua, is that the only time she used wWhatsApp to communicate with Charles Adelson while they were dating is when he was out of the country?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm not personally aware of that.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I could have one brief moment?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, smarter legal minds have reminded me of something. So your testimony was, and this has to do with the intercepts and call detail records, and you said you get a realtime list of everything?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Is it your testimony that every single phone call was recorded?
MR. DECOSTE: So if a phone call isn't recorded, you're still going to have a data log of that?
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Fair enough.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Redirect.
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing further.
JUDGE WHEELER: Thank you.
Redirect.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. DUGAN:
MS. DUGAN: All. Right I'm going to try to get through this as quickly as I can, Sergeant Corbitt. First, I want to show you all of the defense exhibits with the phone records.
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah, give me a second here to sort them out.
BY MS. DUGAN:
MS. DUGAN: The defense showed you several records that are the records from the cell phones?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: Now, these are like the raw data from the actual records; right?
MS. DUGAN: Okay. So, the times that we see here, are these times correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: The times for the voice calls are correct. The text messages would be an hour behind. They report text messages in Central Time Zone.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And as far as -- I know on Friday you told us about how when you get raw data from the cell phone company, sometime there will be duplicate events.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: Now on these records, have these duplicate events been changed to single events by you?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They have not.
MS. DUGAN: All right. So, we may see calls that look like they're happening multiple times, but there is actually only one call?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And you haven't gone through these and made a summary like you did for Friday?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I have not.
MS. DUGAN: The defense threw out a bunch of terms; the amount of power, radio frequency mapping, downtilt. Do we need any of those things in order to determine which cell site a cell phone is communicating with?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: In this case, no.
MS. DUGAN: And why is that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Again, we know that that particular antenna or that particular cell site was operational and in use because the handset communicated with it. And from there, it's a matter of just determining if that location could be serviced by that particular cell site or not. And we say that it was.
Again, the carriers design the networks very carefully, very purposefully to provide coverage to everyone. And so, you know, we know that it's functioning. We know that it's operating. And we know that that location could be consistent with being serviced by that particular cell site and sector.
MS. DUGAN: The defense asked you about, you know, not having location data for Sigfredo Garcia in June. we just see Rivera's locations going up to Tallahassee and back.
Do we have any evidence to show that Garcia was not on the trip in June, 2014?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: we do not.
MS. DUGAN: we just don't have his locations at all during June of 2014?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. But we do have his locations in July of 2014?
MS. DUGAN: And that's when, after that point, we could track his location?
MS. DUGAN: Could up pull up your slide that shows the more zoomed in where Katherine Magbanua's consistent with the cell site servicing Comfort Rent a Car?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: For the 2nd? would that be June 2nd?
MS. DUGAN: Thank you.
All right. So we see there's, looking at the top of the screen, looks like one; bottom of the screen, two; over here closest to you, three; four; five in the middle; and then this one right here, this dot that the arrow is next to. So six total cell sites just in that small area of Miami?
MS. DUGAN: You mentioned a little earlier about how more densely populated areas, there's more cell sites than in a rural area?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: And we've seen evidence of that throughout your slideshow presentation. Actually travels from her house to comfort, which is about 10-miles. She's going through several different cell sites on that path?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: And as she travels from Charlie Adelson's residence to Rivera's residence on July 19th, she's hitting several different cell sites. That's how we're able to know what time she's at where; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. So the areas when looking at -- in looking at a place like Miami and like this area, for instance, where there are so many cell sites, the area that she would be consistent with would be smaller than in a rural area where there would be less cell sites?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, that's correct.
MS. DUGAN: And you said that these cell sites were designed to service a lot of people, given their location, or a lot of handsets?
MS. DUGAN: And of all of the places that she could be in Miami, all of the cell sites that she could be communicating with or even just in this little portion, these six cell sites that she could be communicating with, of all of those, you said she's communicating with the one servicing Comfort Rental, right there in the middle of the map, at the same time Garcia, the father of her children, is renting a car from Comfort Rental.
JUDGE WHEELER: Hold on a second.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, leading. And I don't know if that was a question.
JUDGE WHEELER: Is that -- place it in the form of a question.
MS. DUGAN: Yes, Sir.
BY MS. DUGAN:
MS. DUGAN: Is that the case?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It is, yes.
MS. DUGAN: You were asked about a series of events that could happen. A cell tower could go down, you're kicked to another tower. Do you have any indication that those things are happening in this case with any of the locations, the cell sites that you plotted?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not.
MS. DUGAN: would we have records of a handset communicating with a cell site if that cell site was down?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: we would not.
MS. DUGAN: It wouldn't be communicating with the cell site if it was down?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. Defense asked you a bit about Rivera's communication and his locations on the day -- on 19th, the day the money was exchanged?
MS. DUGAN: I want to ask you about that.
Now, in our presentation on Friday, we were showing how Katherine Magbanua travels down to that address. Rivera is consistent with being there. we show the flurry of communication. And then we show when he's consistent with being there again, which was around the 10:30 time frame. Is that the case?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, leading and counsel testifying.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled.
BY MS. DUGAN:
MS. DUGAN: Have you looked at, though, in the past all of Rivera's locations that morning?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I have, yes.
MS. DUGAN: And have you mapped those before?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I have, yes.
MS. DUGAN: Do you have that handy?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I could, yes.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. I just want to ask you about the locations that he's consistent with once he leaves his residence and before he comes back and the times on that.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection to anything being shown before it's in evidence.
JUDGE WHEELER: This is something that's already been admitted into evidence? Is this part of --
MS. DUGAN: It's been talked about. And I just wanted, since the defense opened the door, for the jury to be able to see exactly where he went and what times and what it was and was not consistent with.
JUDGE WHEELER: I'm going to allow it to be shown. He can testify to it, but I'm not going to allow it to be shown to the jury.
MS. DUGAN: Yes, Sir.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: You may want to make sure that I'm muted.
MS. DUGAN: Okay.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do have it.
BY MS. DUGAN:
MS. DUGAN: Okay. All right. Can you walk us through -- oh, actually, maybe it would be helpful for you to put up the -- I have it as Page 120, which is the call flurry on July 19th. That way we can see the times of this communication. Can you do that?
JUDGE WHEELER: Do you have an objection?
MR. DECOSTE: Can the State identify the calls so I know what the witness is looking at?
JUDGE WHEELER: well, this is a something that's been admitted into evidence; right? Part of the presentation --
MS. DUGAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: -- of the summary?
MR. DECOSTE: My mistake.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: And I'm sorry, which summary page?
BY MS. DUGAN:
MS. DUGAN: This would be the call flurry on July 19th. I have it as Page 120.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe that this is what you're -- I guess you will have to unmute me.
MS. DUGAN: Okay.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Is that the one you're referring to?
MS. DUGAN: And I think there was a couple after that as well. Maybe the one that goes all the way from 9:44 to 10:31. Try 118, Page 118. There you go.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't know which is easier to look at.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. All right. So look at Rivera's -- the location, let's see. So we have on this that Katherine Magbanua tries to call Sigfredo Garcia six times between 9:44 and 9:46? Is that correct?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: One is a text message.
MS. DUGAN: Oh, I'm sorry about that. Thank you. So five times and a text message.
And then she has an outgoing call to the number that you have as Anthony Ortiz. And while we talk about that, I just wanted to be clear. So that was a number that law enforcement received as a possible number belonging to Anthony Ortiz. But you told us on Friday that was also found in Katherine Magbanua's contacts, iPhone contacts, as belonging to a Jessica Flaca?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: The mother of Luis Rivera's children, do you know what her name is?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Jessica.
MS. DUGAN: whoever this is, Jessica or Anthony Ortiz, which they both are familiar with both Garcia and Rivera; right?
MS. DUGAN: All right. Then they start participating -- the person that Katherine Magbanua calls here, then starts participating by calling Sigfredo Garcia on the next line. And then Luis Rivera starts calling Sigfredo Garcia and calls him -- calls him, texts him and then calls him right after that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: And this is all like one minute, the next minute, the next minute?
MS. DUGAN: Okay. Then it looks like the Ortiz number calls Garcia again, after Luis Rivera does?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, leading.
JUDGE WHEELER: These are leading questions. You need to frame it in the form of a question and no testifying. Let's leave that up to the witness.
BY MS. DUGAN:
MS. DUGAN: where was Luis Rivera's location when he made those contacts, outgoing contacts to Sigfredo Garcia?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: So for the event -- the outgoing voice call that's at 9:50, which I don't know if we can see is this one. So for the 9:50 through 10:02 events for Mr. Rivera -- which the 10:02 would be an incoming voice call from the Ortiz number -- for all of those events, he's communicating with cell sites that are consistent with the area of his residence and/or the barbershop, which is nearby.
MS. DUGAN: Now which one of these calls is he no longer consistent with his residence? And where does -- and where does he go?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: So the next events beginning at 10:04 for Mr. Rivera, through 10:23 a.m., so for about 18, 19 minutes, for that time frame his handset begins communicating with cell sites and sectors that are consistent with moving east and towards the island, and then south. Towards the direction of Normandy Isle, but also consistent with Mr. Garcia's residence.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And Mr. Garcia at the time -- you say his residence. who is the information that the investigators had in the case that he was living with at the time, besides maybe Ms. Magbanua?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Stefanie Carmona.
MS. DUGAN: You said on Friday that Stefanie Carmona's address was the last address that his phone was consistent with before it was dumped earlier that morning on the 19th?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: So that was the last known location that we ever had for that number was Stefanie Carmona's residence?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MS. DUGAN: And when Rivera's handset moves away from his residence that morning after he can't get -- or after his handset cannot in touch with Garcia's handset, his handset then travels towards Stefanie Carmona's residence where Garcia was staying. Is that the case?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And then where does it go after it leaves Stefanie Carmona's residence?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: So those events, again, from 10:23 on, we have locations at 10:23, 10:34, 10:35, those are consistent with travel back towards the area of his residence. And really beginning -- the events beginning at 10:34 are consistent with either his residence or the area of the barbershop.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And so he's back consistent with his residence by 10:34, you said?
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And the last -- there's two calls down at the ~=bottom of the list that are outgoing from Katherine Magbanua to Luis Rivera. what times are those at?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: The one is at 10:23 and the second at 10:31.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And then by -- at 10:31, whose residence is she consistent with?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: For her 10:31 event, it would be consistent with Mr. Rivera's residence.
MS. DUGAN: And then by 10:34, three minutes later, he's back, consistent with that area as well?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: He could be there sooner. I have events at 10:23 with location. And then the next that I have shown here is 10:34. So sometime in that time frame, in that window, he became consistent with the area around his house.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. The defense asked you where -- about what Katherine Magbanua was doing today in the iCloud, where her children were. I have a couple of questions about that.
First of all, the iCloud messages that you've been being shown, those are all from Charlie Adelson's iCloud; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And all of the iCloud messages in this case that include Katherine Magbanua are ones that we have from Charles Adelson's iCloud?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. Now, there were also things that were deleted from that iCloud; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There were, yes.
MS. DUGAN: I want to ask you about the message that they showed you.
MS. DUGAN: I've marked this as State's 132. I'd enter this in, Judge, as an admission, State's 132.
MR. DECOSTE: I haven't seen it and I would ask for recross if there's going to be exhibits on redirect.
I'm fine with that one. we wouldn't need a recross on that.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. So you don't have any objection to it?
MR. DECOSTE: To that document being entered in, no. No objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. It will be admitted.
Now the last -- I know that I've been provided this before. And the last one that I have is 128 that's coming in and I want to make sure our numbering is right. So you want this as 132?
MS. DUGAN: Yes, sir. These are the -- these are the same texts that the defense asked the witness about.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. So State's 132 is admitted.
(State's Exhibit No. 132 received in evidence.)
BY MS. DUGAN:
MS. DUGAN: Okay. This is what you were shown by the defense, Sergeant Corbitt?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I was asked about these texts, yes.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. What time is this saying that -- so it looks like Charlie Adelson here is saying, are you going to take the kids to the beach, it's so nice?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes. And that's at 12:13 p.m.
MS. DUGAN: 12:13 p.m?
MS. DUGAN: And the times and locations that we were looking at earlier, that was from 9:44 to 10:31?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MS. DUGAN: And so then she says, it is beautiful, probably the pool. what time was that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: 12:18.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. Then what time does she say she got back to the pool? Back from the pool, I'm sorry.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: 4:54 p.m.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. So does that indicate she was at the pool the morning of July 19th?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It does not.
MS. DUGAN: Does that indicate that her children were with her from 9:44 to 10:30 a.m.?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It does not.
MS. DUGAN: All right. I want to ask you specifically -- can you go back to the slide we were just looking at? Let me put this back over to you.
Now we saw that -- can you go to the next one that shows that she has the 11:23 communication? Okay. were -- ~you were able to get a location for the 11:23 location, or time. what location was that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That location was a cell site south of the one that she was communicating with when she was consistent with Mr. Rivera. So it's a little south from that previous location.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. Can you go to your next slide? And the one after that, too? Thank you.
You said that -- that cell site, her communication here is more consistent with Yindra Mascaro's residence than it is with Luis Rivera's residence?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: And so all of those text messages that we just saw where she said it might go -- she might go to the pool that day, referencing her children later in the day, that was all after she was consistent with Mascaro's residence around 11:23?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. You were asked about Comfort Rent a Car. we don't know when the car was taken back. I do want to bring something to your attention, though.
You said that you received GPS pings -- or that Comfort Rent a Car receives GPS pings every several hours for these cars. It's not a constant thing; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: I'm going to show you the GPS pings that we have in this case for the car rented in June. If you could look at the bottom of that location. I'm sorry. Each location map at the bottom will tell you the date and time.
when is the last GPS ping that we have for that car that was rented in June by Sigfredo Garcia?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe the last is going to be June 6th. Yes, the morning of June 6th.
MS. DUGAN: And that was when the car was consistent with being at Katherine Magbanua's home?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. So that's the last location that we have for that car. And then we see that Ms. Magbanua's cell phone -- or handset is back consistent with the Comfort Rent a Car location that afternoon?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: Communicating with that same cell site.
And you said that she had only been to that location or communicating with that cell site one other time in June, and that was on June 2nd?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes. I do want to make sure I said that correctly the last time. For this particular cell site and sector that we say is consistent with Comfort Rent a Car, three periods of time. It would be the June 2nd, the June 6th and then a time in -- I'm sorry again, March or April of 2015.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. One other thing in June. Could you show us the -- I think it was around 61 -- Katherine Magbanua's communication with the Luis Rivera 934 number?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: And this is during the June trip?
MS. DUGAN: Yes, sir.
Can you go -- yes, sir. Thank you.
All right. So I just want to be clear. we have two numbers for Luis Rivera in this case. One is the one that's the 570 number; right.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes. We have at least two numbers.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And the 570 number is the one that he was actually using during the summer of 2014 that we have call detail records for?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: And that's the number that he and Katherine Magbanua called each other and had actual communication on July 19th?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: And he called her first that day?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: He did.
MS. DUGAN: She then called him back and they exchanged a few different calls?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: All right. And that's the one that you were telling us about his locations on a second ago?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: And she never, other than that day, never talks to that 570 number again; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe there are at least a couple of events after that, but that was the first time.
MS. DUGAN: Thank you. Nothing prior to that --
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MS. DUGAN: -- that whole summer? Okay.
And he called her first from that number?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: He did.
MS. DUGAN: It's not a number that she had that she called?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That I'm aware of.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. Now looking at this number, though, this number, the one that starts -- the 305-934, so I'll just call it 934 -- that's the number that you said the Defendant had in her phone. And what was the contact name?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It was listed as Tato.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And can you tell us -- she called this number how many times in June?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Just once in June.
MS. DUGAN: And that's what we have here?
MS. DUGAN: And she calls it at 10:59:17 after two outgoing calls to Sigfredo Garcia?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And then after she calls -- and what duration are those calls, the 10:57 and the 10:58?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They're 31 and 34 seconds.
MS. DUGAN: Can you tell whether they connected or went to voicemail?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I cannot.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. After she called his number twice with those short durations, she then calls Luis Rivera's number. And then does she call Garcia's number immediately again thereafter?
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And then it looks like she then sends a text to Sigfredo Garcia immediately after that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: So she only calls Luis Rivera's 934 number one time in June?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, leading. Asked and answered.
JUDGE WHEELER: She hasn't completed her question yet so overruled.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is that correct?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, leading. Asked and answered. Move to strike.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled.
BY MS. DUGAN:
MS. DUGAN: And she's calling it -- is she calling it during a time that she's also trying to get in touch with Sigfredo Garcia?
MS. DUGAN: Okay. Same thing for July. Is she also trying to get in touch with Sigfredo Garcia during that time?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: She is at different points, yes.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And she calls the Luis Rivera number how many times in July?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe twice.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And both the June call and the two July calls are on their trips to Tallahassee?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. The defense asked you about the pattern of communication. when I'm talking about patterns of communication, I mean Donna Adelson never calls Katherine Magbanua?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: Charlie Adelson never calls Sigfredo Garcia or Luis Rivera?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. It's Donna Adelson contacting Charlie Adelson; Charlie Adelson who is contacting Katherine Magbanua; and Magbanua who is contacting Garcia or Rivera?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: correct.
(Pause. )
BY MS. DUGAN:
MS. DUGAN: I want to ask you a couple of questions about information from the icloud on July 1st, Charlie Adelson's icloud. On the July 1st messages, do you see any iCloud messages about the domestic incident, giving us any more insight into that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not.
MS. DUGAN: On July 1st I'm talking about.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, Your Honor, mischaracterization of a domestic incident. I don't believe that Sigfredo Garcia and Charles Adelson were married.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Overruled.
BY MS. DUGAN:
MS. DUGAN: Did you see anything that gave us any insight into any type of incident from July 1st from the icloud?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I do not.
MS. DUGAN: Looking at July 2nd, the defense asked you a question, I can't remember exactly what it was, but something about them having a conversation about the incident that happened the day before on July 1st. Is that right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. Was there -- is there anything here where the -- where Charlie Adelson says anything other than, this sucks, as far as how their conversation begins?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm sorry. He does say other things. He does say, this really sucks.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. How does the conversation begin? Could you read it to us?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It begins with -- from Ms. Magbanua: I haven't slept at all. I'm spoke to him. I'm so angry and hurt. I don't even know what to do with myself.
MS. DUGAN: And this was what time on July 2nd?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: This is 8:03 p.m.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And then what does he say in response?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Mr. Adelson responds, that -- or, this really sucks.
MS. DUGAN: And then what does Ms. Magbanua say in response?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I just don't like the fact that someone else thinks they can make the decisions in my life and to apologize for shit when it's too fucking late.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. What does she say next?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Actually I believe -- she says, I'm sorry, but he's a fucking pussy. All of that --
MR. DECOSTE: Objection. Just for clarification, I believe that it's Charles Adelson saying that.
JUDGE WHEELER: Yeah. Just let's sure it's clear on the record who is stating what.
MR. DECOSTE: Withdrawn, withdrawn, withdrawn.
JUDGE WHEELER: Go ahead.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It shows as incoming to him.
BY MS. DUGAN:
MS. DUGAN: From who?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: From Ms. Magbanua.
MS. DUGAN: And what does it say about the message?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I'm sorry, but he's a fucking pussy. All that leaving messages is fucking retarded and so childish, but whatever.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. So on the 2nd, she's referencing that someone was childish to leave a message?
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And July 1st was the day that you have Garcia leaving a message, leaving a voicemail on Harvey Adelson's phone?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And then you said that you have Katherine Magbanua calling Harvey Adelson's phone. was that right before or right after Garcia left him a voicemail?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It was after.
MS. DUGAN: So you have Garcia calling Harvey Adelson's phone, leaving a voicemail, and then Katherine Magbanua calling Harvey Adelson's phone. And does that call connect?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It does.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And does it go to voicemail?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It does.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. Is the duration even shorter than Garcia's duration with Adelson's voicemail?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, it is.
MS. DUGAN: And so you have him calling, the 30-second voicemail, then her calling, an even shorter message, and then the next morning her complaining about this to Charlie Adelson, him saying, this sucks, and her saying that leaving a message was so childish?
MS. DUGAN: All right. I want to show you this one that I have premarked and shown to defense as 129. I want to ask you about this one. Did she say something at 12:10 p.m. on March 12th about dinner the night before?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: She does.
MS. DUGAN: what does she say?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: The message is, I guess. I don't know. He called me and said have a nice dinner and to never call him again. I'm like WTF, question mark.
MS. DUGAN: And what does she say after that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There's some other exchange, but she --
MS. DUGAN: No, no, this one after.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: He's acting like a child. I don't even call him unless it has to do with the kids.
MS. DUGAN: Then she says, I love you?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Baby, I love you, too. I can't stand not hugging you before we go to bed and not waking up with you -- to you.
MS. DUGAN: Is there any indication of what Charlie Adelson said to prompt this response from her about the -- he told me to have a nice dinner and not call him again?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: There is not.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And am I missing any messages here?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: we could be.
MS. DUGAN: But there's nothing in the iCloud that we can see that shows that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: That's correct.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. I want to ask you about one more, or actually two more. The defense showed you one from August where Katherine Magbanua -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but she said something like, go on with your life, have a great life?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: To that effect, yes.
MS. DUGAN: So they never communicated again after that?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Oh, they definitely communicate after that.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. So she and Charles Adelson continued to communicate after that text?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: They do, yes.
MS. DUGAN: That's not the end of their relationship?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It's not.
MS. DUGAN: who contacted who more in August and September? Did charlie contact Katherine more or did Katherine contact Charlie more?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't recall specifically who was initiating more. I know that I've looked at that. But I believe in looking at the communications, Ms. Magbanua more; just in looking at the messages.
MS. DUGAN: were they still talking several times a week?
MS. DUGAN: He asked you about -- he showed you a message where his mother asked if he was eloping with Katherine Magbanua in June of 2014. And he said, no, there's a goodbye tour, and we're going on a goodbye tour in Key west. Does it say goodbye to who in those messages?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: It does not.
MS. DUGAN: Could be goodbye to Katherine Magbanua or it could be goodbye to Daniel Markel; you don't know?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't.
MS. DUGAN: I have one more that I want to enter into evidence as State's 130.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Did you show that to defense counsel?
MS. DUGAN: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: I think so, yeah.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MR. DECOSTE: I didn't have any objection to any of them.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. So State's Exhibit 130 is admitted.
MS. DUGAN: Thank you.
(State's Exhibit No. 130 received in evidence.)
BY MS. DUGAN:
MS. DUGAN: Did you consider this conversation evidence of a communication between Charlie Adelson and Sigfredo Garcia?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I did not.
MS. DUGAN: why not?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe from the content of the communication, it's very clear that communication did not happen; that Mr. Adelson is being sarcastic in his response; and that, at least at this point, Mr. Garcia doesn't even have a phone number for Mr. Adelson. I'm not quite sure how he would get one, if it's not posted online.
MS. DUGAN: So Ms. Magbanua says to Mr. Adelson, did Tuto call your phone?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MS. DUGAN: So she appears to be worried that that may have happened?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Correct.
MS. DUGAN: And then he says, actually, he did. He invited me go deep- sea fishing. He was so nice.
And then she responds, I'm serious.
MS. DUGAN: That's why you took that as a joke?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: well, I think the deep-sea fishing is a little sarcasm. And, of course, she says, yes, that she's being serious, indicating that he's not.
MS. DUGAN: Was there any record of a call from Garcia to Charlie Adelson anywhere in the phone records?
MS. DUGAN: At this time point, Judge, that was my last question, but I would ask to approach about one topic.
JUDGE WHEELER: ATI right.
(A Bench Conference was held as follows:)
MS. DUGAN: Judge, earlier in the trial we took up possibly being able to play clips that the Defendant said in the previous trial. I would like to play a clip of the Defendant admitting that this message was a joke and saying that she does not know of any communication between Garcia and Charlie, Charlie Adelson, and doesn't know why that that's -- why that's being put out there in the trial.
JUDGE WHEELER: The clip is from her trial testimony that has her testifying --
MS. DUGAN: It's audio only. She acknowledges that this message is a joke. She says she does not know of any communication between Garcia or Adelson, and that she does not know why anyone is trying to suggest that.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Any objection?
MS. KAWASS: I mean, I have no objection but you're going to explain that -- how are you going to lay the foundation for that?
MS. DUGAN: TI don't think it needs to be authenticated.
MS. KAWASS: Are you going to say when and where she provided this sworn testimony to?
MS. DUGAN: I could ask if we could announce that in court as part of it. It was October 9th, 2019. I don't think they need to know what it was from.
MS. KAWASS: Judge, I --
JUDGE WHEELER: well, you're going to get it in through this witness?
MS. DUGAN: No.
JUDGE WHEELER: So you're -- so you're going to just play it after? You're just going to play it as an independent statement?
MS. DUGAN: It could be played with him on the stand or afterwards, but, yeah, just as an admission by her. And I would ask that we could just announce this one, and any others that are played. They're all from October 9th of 2019.
MS. KAWASS: And, Your Honor, I would just reserve my argument. we now have the rule of completeness coming into play, whereby, we would there be able to introduce any other statements by her to put a proper context. I think the case law is clear on that, that the State can't just select certain portions. All of that testimony was given in one day so.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. well, this one is specific as to the issue that's been raised as to whether or not this is a joke. So I'll allow this one to be played and then -- so we're done with this witness?
MS. DUGAN: we are.
JUDGE WHEELER: So we'll make an announcement that they're going to hear a recording from -- what's the date?
MS. DUGAN: October 9th of 2019.
JUDGE WHEELER: October 9th of 2019 of the Defendant --
MR. DECOSTE: Testifying under oath.
MS. KAWASS: I would ask that she was under oath and she was being questioned by Ms. Cappleman.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. So you ask for it to be played and then I'll grant that. And then we'll play it. what -- you have it on your computer?
MS. DUGAN: I do. And I also have the transcript on my computer -- it's only like a page, but it's redacted -- that I could scroll down while it's being played with audio only.
MR. DECOSTE: No, we'll just play it as the audio and that's it.
MS. DUGAN: Now I do have one question though. You know, the case law is clear that the defense would be able -- you know, for rule of completeness, the Court would have discretion for anything that the State is taking out of context, anything that has to be, you know, explained or shed light on the statement, any portion of that recording. If it's, you know --
JUDGE WHEELER: well, just make sure we get all of the testimony related to that particular issue and then it's complete.
MS. DUGAN: This is the only part on that issue.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right.
MS. KAWASS: May we have an opportunity to review, Judge, later?
JUDGE WHEELER: And if they have any objection, if there's something else that needs to be played, we can always revisit it.
MS. KAWASS: Thank you, Judge.
MS. DUGAN: Thank you.
JUDGE WHEELER: ATI right.
(The Bench Conference concluded.)
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Ms. Dugan, you've completed your redirect?
MS. DUGAN: NO more questions on redirect, Judge.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Sergeant, you can step down. Thank you.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Thank you.
JUDGE WHEELER: You are subject to recall.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Thank you.
Let's wait until the witness is out of the courtroom.
Ms. Dugan, you have a request?
MS. DUGAN: Yes, sir. At this time, Judge, the State would ask to play State's 133 and ask to move it into evidence as an admission.
JUDGE WHEELER: State's Exhibit 133. All right. And what's the content? what is the content -- not the specific content, but what is -- where is this content from?
MS. DUGAN: This was from a prior statement made by the Defendant on October 9th of 2019.
JUDGE WHEELER: And it was in response to what?
MS. DUGAN: Questions by Ms. Cappleman.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. It will be admitted as State's 133, subject to any previous objections that were made.
MS. DUGAN: Thank you, Judge.
(State's Exhibit No. 133 received in evidence.)
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. This is just a short recording for the jury to hear.
(State's Exhibit No. 133 played in open court as follows:)
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That you, after reviewing this text, do not believe that Mr. Garcia was actually inviting Mr. Adelson to go deep-sea fishing, that --
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: You mean Charlie inviting -- oh, Mr. Garcia inviting him? No, I believe not.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So that was a joke?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I -- I took it as a joke. I mean, from reading it --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And --
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: -- as being sarcastic.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: well, not just reading it. It was -- you were involved in the text; right?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So was it a joke or not?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: To me, yes, it was a joke.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. So you were worried about Mr. Garcia contacting Mr. Adelson?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: But you don't have any knowledge of whether he did or that he actually did?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. why are your lawyers trying to suggest that Mr. Garcia contacted Mr. Adelson?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: why are they trying to suggest that he contacted him?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yeah.
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I don't know.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did Mr. Garcia even know that Charlie Adelson was the one paying for this murder?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: Repeat that question again.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did Mr. Garcia even know that Mr. Adelson was the one behind this whole thing?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: well, what time?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Ever?
CHRISTOPHER CORBITT: I believe not.
(State's Exhibit No. 133 stopped.)
MS. DUGAN: That was all of it.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. All right. we're going to break for lunch now. It's 12:30. Okay. we'll break for an hour. we'll give you until 1:30 and then we'll come back and start the testimony again at that time.
Please, no conversations with each other. Nothing on the internet. No news reports. And we'll see everybody back here at 1:30 to start back with the testimony, okay? Thank you very much.
(Jury exits the courtroom.)
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. The jury is out of the courtroom. The door is closed. Okay. So, Ms. Cappleman, do you intend to start the afternoon session with Ms. Umchinda?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I don't know, Judge. we're having to make some accommodations to witnesses.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So it will either probably be Ms. Umchinda or Ms. Mascaro Velazquez.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. All right. And -- all right. Anything else before we break for lunch?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor. when we were at sidebar, Ms. Dugan explained that there was a limited statement that she was going to play, and it had to do specifically with the text messages. And we trusted that that's what they were going to present.
But Your Honor heard that there was a line of questioning at the end of it where Ms. Cappleman was talking about knowledge of the murder. And, obviously, that was not part of the topic that was going to be played.
But I would want to state for the record now, the government has now opened up the door to a whole bunch of other parts of her testimony by bringing in that little snippet and then cutting it off, that in asking the question about the knowledge of the murder, which had nothing to do with the text messages.
So if the government wanted to present something about the text messages, they should have done just that. But they've opened up the door now pretty much to all of the testimony as to any knowledge. Because that is our defense, that there is no knowledge. But now you need to have the entire testimony to be able to understand that.
JUDGE WHEELER: Ms. Dugan.
MS. DUGAN: I don't recall anything in her testimony that there was any knowledge so I don't know how that would be taken out of context or, you know, the rule of completeness would be needed for that.
JUDGE WHEELER: I'm not going to find that it is. The focus of that testimony was in regards to the messages and what the intent or -- of the messages were. And so if you're making any request, I don't know what your request is, but I'm not going to find that it expands any type of rule of completeness to play the entire trial transcript of the previous trial.
Okay. we are in recess until 1:30. we'll start back up with testimony at that time.
(Lunch recess.)
JUDGE WHEELER: Ms. Cappleman, anything before we bring the jury in?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Anything from the defense?
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Thank you.
Let's bring the jury in, please.