Skip to content
Magbanua Retrial trial-day trial-day Georgia CapplemanChristopher DeCostePatrick SanforddirectcrossredirectDay 6 - May 25, 2022 FBI Special Agent Patrick Sanford completed his direct examination narrating wiretap calls and Magbanua's post-interview conduct, then faced extended cross-examination focused on the unrecorded Rivera proffer and a recorded exchange about whether information could produce a benefit. The State formally rested after six days of testimony, and a Richardson issue arose over a defense witness whose account appeared to change mid-trial.
← Day 5 Magbanua Retrial Day 7 →

Day 6 - May 25, 2022

FBI Wiretap Narrative Completed, State Rests; Defense Cross Extracts Key Concessions from Lead Agent Sanford

Judge Robert R. Wheeler
7 Proceedings
3 Pages
1 Witnesses
3,510 Lines
Day 6 of 8
Appearing:

FBI Special Agent Patrick Sanford completed his direct examination narrating wiretap calls and Magbanua's post-interview conduct, then faced extended cross-examination focused on the unrecorded Rivera proffer and a recorded exchange about whether information could produce a benefit. The State formally rested after six days of testimony, and a Richardson issue arose over a defense witness whose account appeared to change mid-trial.

Full day summary

Day 6 was consumed almost entirely by the conclusion of FBI Special Agent Patrick Sanford's testimony, bookended by pre-session evidentiary rulings and a post-rest procedural dispute. Before the jury was seated, Judge Wheeler admitted two phone recordings over defense hearsay objection. Defense counsel DeCoste argued that the government's undercover ruse did not transform other participants' statements into non-assertive acts. Wheeler overruled, admitting Exhibit 128 to show the existence of an additional contact and Exhibit 134 — Charlie Adelson's return call to the undercover — as a fact-of-communication exhibit to contextualize subsequent wire calls. On direct examination, the prosecution narrated wiretap calls spanning April 20–29, 2016. Sanford testified that the Dolce Vita surveillance recording contains no mention of Dan Markel's name, the word "murder," or any background explanation of the Adelson family's exposure — framed against Magbanua's October 2019 sworn statement that she knew nothing of the murder until Garcia's arrest. He identified digits Magbanua relayed to Garcia in Call I as matching the last four of the undercover's phone number on the flyer handed to Donna Adelson. In Call W, Magbanua repeatedly told Charlie she had personally called the undercover number and found it non-operational; Sanford testified she never called the number and it was active and working. Charlie Adelson's direct call to the undercover on April 28 (Exhibit 134) was played, in which the undercover referenced "Katie and Duca" as people whose hired man had not been paid. That evening, Magbanua speculated on wire that "it could have been another Katie and another Tato." In Calls GG, Donna Adelson reassured Charlie he had "nothing, literally nothing to worry about," characterizing the FBI approach as someone fishing for money. Sanford closed the direct segment by describing Magbanua's conduct after the May 24, 2016 interview attempt, the night before Garcia's arrest. He said she did not return to the residence, that someone else later removed her belongings, and that investigators did not know exactly where she went; the testimony did not establish why she changed residences. On cross-examination, DeCoste targeted several evidentiary gaps. He established that the September 30, 2016 Rivera proffer — the first session in which Rivera named Magbanua — was neither recorded nor documented in a 302, and that Sanford had told defense counsel under oath at his 2019 deposition that DOJ policy required recording any inmate in any custody. Sanford acknowledged he was "mistaken" and had never corrected the record before trial. A court-read stipulation directly refuted Rivera's claimed sighting of Wendi Adelson with the Markel children the day before the murder: daycare records showed Dan Markel dropped the children off on both July 17 and 18, 2014, a discrepancy Sanford acknowledged. Defense exhibits introduced iMessages between Magbanua and Charlie Adelson concerning her work availability and office-logging instructions, admitted over hearsay objection as impeachment. A color-coded demonstrative showed the government played only a fraction of approximately 400 intercepted calls. DeCoste advanced a "pawn theory" — that Charlie used the bump naming "Katie" to deploy Magbanua as an unwitting intermediary — which Sanford categorically rejected. Near the end of cross, DeCoste played a recording from the May 27, 2016 first Rivera meeting and argued that investigators supplied a "person in the middle" and possible-benefit cue. Sanford disputed that interpretation, asked that the recording be considered in full context, and said he may have mentioned possible time off or that information could get Rivera something. Defense Exhibit 28 was admitted when cross briefly reopened. On redirect, Sanford said the surrounding iMessage context apparently concerned wisdom-teeth work by Charlie Adelson, qualifying the point with "I believe." He defined "walling off," agreed Magbanua did not name Garcia or Rivera to Charlie, and said she appeared to have walled Charlie off when speaking to Garcia. Sanford also agreed that the volume and pattern of calls did not by itself prove the participants committed murder together, while saying contact spikes around significant events raised investigative suspicion. He testified that Magbanua's 2019 statement was inconsistent with what he heard in the enhanced Dolce Vita recording, over a defense objection Wheeler overruled. Following Sanford's testimony, prosecutor Cappleman formally announced that the State rested. With the jury dismissed for the evening, defense counsel DeCoste raised an unplanned disclosure: ASA Dugan had spoken mid-trial with defense witness Trooper Downing, whose account of whether Rivera was alone during a traffic stop appeared changed, supported by a new database screenshot provided to the defense just before the State rested. DeCoste placed on the record his belief the contact was an attempt to alter Downing's testimony. Judge Wheeler declined to entertain the coaching allegation, found no intentional withholding because the document was new to the State the same day, ruled the defense not prejudiced, and ordered Downing available for interview the following morning.

Video thumbnail 9:20:55
Watch →

1. Patrick Sanford — Direct (Part 2)

FBI Special Agent Patrick Sanford's direct examination spans four segments on Day 6, covering the Dolce Vita surveillance recording, a sequence of wiretap calls tracing the undercover "bump" campaign from April 20–29, 2016, and testimony about Magbanua's movements in the months following a May 2016 law enforcement contact attempt.

Procedural
Pre-session ruling: FBI undercover bump calls (Exhibits 128 and 134) admitted over defense hearsay objection

Judge Wheeler rules Exhibits 128 and 134 — two FBI undercover recordings involving contact with the Adelson Institute and Charlie Adelson — admissible as not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

Direct
Patrick Sanford Georgia Cappleman
511 lines

FBI Special Agent Patrick Sanford resumes direct examination, identifying and dating wiretapped calls and texts from April 20–26, 2016, explaining minimization, and testifying that 6570 matched the undercover telephone number left with Donna Adelson.

Procedural
Brief Recess — Sidebar on Cameraman Issue

Defense raised sidebar regarding a cameraman; 15-minute recess with jury out.

Direct
Patrick Sanford Georgia Cappleman
535 lines

Sanford continues his direct examination through Calls R through FF, describing the FBI undercover contact, a conflict between recorded claims and call records, the nicknames 'Tuto' and 'Tato,' and a notes-refreshing dispute before lunch.

Procedural
Lunch Recess — Cross-Examination Setup Logistics

Lunch recess until 1:30; HDMI setup arranged for Sanford cross-examination.

Direct
Patrick Sanford Georgia Cappleman
52 lines

Patrick Sanford concludes direct by addressing Call FF and Call GG, then describing Magbanua's changed phone use and residence after a May 2016 interview attempt and the intermittent phone ping that led investigators to her October arrest.

Highlights

2. Patrick Sanford - Cross/Redirect

Defense attorney Christopher DeCoste continues and largely completes his cross-examination of FBI Special Agent Patrick Sanford, probing Luis Rivera's shifting statements, the unrecorded initial proffer and absence of an FBI report, the scope of the investigation into Magbanua's finances and alternate defense theories, and the bump operation; after an afternoon recess devoted to scheduling, prosecutor Georgia Cappleman then redirects Sanford on cooperation, timeline, and the limits of what communication patterns can show.

Cross
Patrick Sanford Christopher DeCoste
967 lines

Christopher DeCoste cross-examines Patrick Sanford about Rivera's statements, the unrecorded September 30 proffer, interview policy, alternate leads, bump documentation, and Magbanua's income. Sanford makes narrower concessions while disputing several broader defense premises.

Procedural
Afternoon Recess — Defense Scheduling and Trial Calendar

Ten-minute recess mid-cross of Sanford; Judge Wheeler lays out a schedule goal of finishing all defense witnesses Thursday and starting jury instructions and closings Friday morning.

Cross
Patrick Sanford Christopher DeCoste
1147 lines

DeCoste challenges financial, vehicle, employment, and wiretap inferences; advances a pawn or intermediary theory that Sanford rejects; and attacks Rivera's credibility using Sanford's recorded first-meeting remarks. Sanford gives narrower concessions, disputes several defense premises, and corrects the timeline of Magbanua's departure.

Redirect
Patrick Sanford Georgia Cappleman
211 lines

On redirect, Patrick Sanford testified that cooperation cannot be forced, offered qualified interpretations of text and wiretap evidence, gave his opinion that Magbanua's 2019 statement was inconsistent with the Dolce Vita audio, and agreed that call patterns alone do not prove murder.

Highlights

Patrick Sanford - Cross evidence event The court reads a stipulation establishing the Markel children's daycare drop-off and pickup schedule for the week of the murder. DeCoste uses it to challenge Rivera's account of seeing Wendi Adelson with the boys at the house the day before the killing; Sanford says it could possibly be an inconsistency and qualifies that it concerned what Rivera had been told. Patrick Sanford - Cross (Continued) admission After DeCoste corrects an earlier mistake about the Varela sessions, Sanford says Rivera's first proffer was the only in-custody witness meeting that Sanford personally neither recorded nor documented in his own report; Rivera's second proffer was recorded. Patrick Sanford - Cross (Continued) “Uh, none of them. Only Rivera.” — Patrick Sanford Sanford says Rivera's first proffer was the only in-custody witness meeting that Sanford personally neither recorded nor documented in his own report; the exchange also confirms that Rivera's second proffer was recorded. Patrick Sanford - Cross (Continued) impeachment Near the end of cross, DeCoste plays a recording from the May 27 first meeting with Rivera and argues that investigators supplied a 'person in the middle' and possible-benefit cue. Sanford disputes that interpretation, asks that the recording be considered in full context, and concedes only that he may have mentioned possible time off or that the information could get Rivera something. Defense Exhibit 28 is admitted when cross briefly reopens. Patrick Sanford - Redirect testimony highlight Sanford defines "walling off," agrees Magbanua did not name Garcia or Rivera to Charlie Adelson, and says she "appears" to have walled Charlie off when speaking to Garcia. Patrick Sanford - Redirect “It's where you protect yourself by not sharing all the information that you have with other people, and in that way those people can't use things against you, or whatever. But it's a term we use in law enforcement a lot — walling someone off.” — Patrick Sanford Sanford defined the law-enforcement term "walling off" as withholding information from others for self-protection.

3. State Rests Its Case — Jury Dismissed for Evening

The State rests after FBI Special Agent Sanford's testimony; defense counsel immediately raises a disclosure issue over a defense witness who said a database screenshot perhaps indicated a passenger in Luis Rivera's car, differing from his earlier recollection; Judge Wheeler rejected the suggestion that prosecutors had altered the testimony.

Procedural
State Rests Its Case — Jury Dismissed for Evening
7 lines

The prosecution formally rests its case; Judge Wheeler dismisses the jury for the evening and tells them the defense case begins the following morning.

Procedural
Defense Raises Richardson Issue Over Trooper Downing's Changed Account of Rivera Traffic Stop

Wheeler defers defense motions until morning, then addresses DeCoste's report that a conversation with Trooper Downing and a new database screenshot may affect Downing's expected testimony about whether Rivera was alone during a traffic stop.

Highlights

← Day 5 Magbanua Retrial Day 7 →