2.Patrick Sanford - Cross/Redirect
2,777 linesJUDGE WHEELER: Cross-examination?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor. One quick second to set up here.
JUDGE WHEELER: Sure.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. DECOSTE: 1I'11 be with you in one minute, Agent.
PATRICK SANFORD: No problem.
MR. DECOSTE: Ms. Cappleman, can I get that HDMI cable from you?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It's right behind you.
CROSS- EXAMINATION BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Let's do this. You're law enforcement, you work for the FBI, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that your job is to objectively investigate?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Present the good with the bad, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And give that over to the government?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct, exculpable and inculpable.
MR. DECOSTE: Perfect. You answered it before I asked it.
Now, let's talk about FBI, Department of Justice, and reports. Your reports are called 302s, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And the purpose of those 302s -- and that's the way I'll refer to it if you're okay?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Is to record your activities, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: For the most part, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now that's important both internally to the FBI, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's more externally for prosecution.
MR. DECOSTE: They don't want to keep a record of all the investigation that was done in case an agent, you know, dies in the line of duty, passes away, or quits?
PATRICK SANFORD: As long as there's documentation somewhere.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct. You want to document the action that you're doing, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: It's also important to you, as an agent, when you're testifying -- you had to refer to some notes -- it helps your memory, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You're not just investigating one case at a time over the years; you're working multiple cases at any given time, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, again, you provide that to the prosecution, and it's important because, at least on the state level, it gets provided over to the Defense, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you had said at the beginning of your direct examination yesterday that you investigated the Defense's theory, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And I want to make sure that we're clear on what happened and what we're saying.
I'm showing you what's been entered as a demonstrative. Can you see that?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's a little blurry. Now it's better.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So -- well, it's blurry by design by the government's version. You understand this to be the government's version of the demonstrative, just the removal of Ms. Magbanua, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm sorry, repeat that.
MR. DECOSTE: So, the government has their demonstrative. This is the government's argument, right here?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And this is our argument?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, direct examination, you said that you investigated the Defense's argument, right here?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct. With the information that we had, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: what did you do to investigate it?
PATRICK SANFORD: we scrubbed all the phone records through all the intelligence agencies across the nation. we scrubbed -- I sat down with DEA and ATF, scrubbed all of their phone records, looked at every phone record that any of the individuals had that were associated with them, any investigations that those phone numbers were associated with, and identified who those phones were, and did everything we could to figure out if there was other phones out there that they could have been talking on.
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, you would agree with me that sometimes crimes are committed not using phones, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sometimes, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now in this case it's weird, at times there's arguments of burners and there's times that there are arguments of non-burners. Your investigation was limited to the phone numbers that you knew for these participants, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It was limited to that, plus all the records that we were able to search for other investigations, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So -- and that's what I'm asking. How many 302s did you draft about investigating that theory?
PATRICK SANFORD: I wouldn't do a 302 on not finding anything.
MR. DECOSTE: You wouldn't do a 302 saying, I investigated this, so that somebody else doesn't have to at a later time?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. That would be investigative analysts that would actually do the scrubbing of numbers; not me.
MR. DECOSTE: So my understanding of what you did is you looked at Garcia -- and I'm doing this off memory -- his 5986 number?
PATRICK SANFORD: One of his numbers, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. And then Charles Adelson, his 9923 number?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you didn't find anything, so that theory is knocked out?
PATRICK SANFORD: we tried every which way. we tried all the numbers in the past.
MR. DECOSTE: And I'm not saying you didn't, but what I want to explain to this jury, is that the investigation was limited to cellphones?
PATRICK SANFORD: I wouldn't say the investigation was limited to cellphones.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So, I'll ask again. what else did you investigate beyond phones to determine any link in between these individuals?
PATRICK SANFORD: we tried everything. we looked at all bank records, we looked at all credit card statements, we looked at -- tried to do surveillance, we tried to see if there was any connection, social media. We tried to do everything to find any links.
MR. DECOSTE: Did you ever meet with Juan Marcos Vega?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I did not.
MR. DECOSTE: Did you ever meet with Anthony Ortiz before he died in July of 2017?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I didn't.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Let's now talk about Katherine Magbanua. And we're going to sum up here the evidence against her. So the direct evidence is Luis Rivera, correct; he's the only witness that's saying she was involved?
PATRICK SANFORD: I would disagree with that.
MR. DECOSTE: That's saying that Katherine Magbanua was involved, there's another witness saying that?
PATRICK SANFORD: Saying those exact words? No, there's not another witness saying those words, no.
MR. DECOSTE: So the only witness that's saying that Katherine Magbanua is involved is Luis Rivera?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And essentially what he is telling you, there's three things, that Garcia said she was involved, Garcia told Rivera she's involved, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: He overheard some phone calls?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And then the morning of the alleged payment, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Ultimately, what he tells you is, Katie is the one in the middle doing everything?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, before we started here today -- I'll let you hold on to that. Before we started here today during the break, I showed you a video, and you know what that video was, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And that is a short segment of Luis Rivera's statement to you on October 4th, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know that that's a short statement of his, because you're present for it, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: And that fairly and accurately depicts that little snippet, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It does.
MR. DECOSTE: And you viewed that, but you trust that the snippet is on that CD?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'll take your word for it, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
MR. DECOSTE: My apologies on doing this a little bit backwards because it's after the break, so it's not premarked yet.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, Judge, we're publishing something that's not in evidence.
MR. DECOSTE: TI haven't published it yet.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Well, I can see it.
JUDGE WHEELER: well, I don't know what that is, but if that's what it is, then it needs to come off.
MR. DECOSTE: That's just my screen. Defense offers what's been premarked as Defense 22.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, hearsay.
MR. DECOSTE: It's not introduced for the truth of the matter, Your Honor. It's Luis Rivera saying Katie was in the middle doing everything.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, hearsay. Speaking.
JUDGE WHEELER: Let's go sidebar.
(Sidebar conference as follows:)
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. what is it?
MR. DECOSTE: It's Luis Rivera saying Katie is the one in the middle doing everything. Of course I'm not entering that in to prove that, so I'm not entering it for the truth of the matter asserted. It's important to later, in cross-examination, the fact that he said that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It's hearsay.
MR. DECOSTE: It's about five seconds.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: We all know what purpose it is being offered for, so I'm just going to make a hearsay objection at this point.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. tI'11 allow it in.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. It's marked as what number?
MR. DECOSTE: Twenty-two.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. It will be admitted as Defense 22.
(Defense Exhibit 22 received in evidence.)
MR. DECOSTE: May I publish?
THE COURT:
(An audio recording was published in open court. This transcript should not be considered a verbatim record of those proceedings due to inaudibles and inability to distinguish between speakers. It should be noted that the best evidence of the actual content of the digital recording is the digital recording itself.)
(Audio begins:)
AUDIO RECORDING: So he's saying Katie is the person between the woman that wants this done --
LUIS RIVERA: Katie is the one in the middle of all of that.
AUDIO RECORDING: And that's what he's telling you?
LUIS RIVERA: Uh-huh (affirmative response).
AUDIO RECORDING: Okay.
(Audio concluded. )
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: There's also some circumstantial evidence, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: His statements?
MR. DECOSTE: No, no, no. So we're moving on. We've --
MR. DECOSTE: That's Luis Rivera, that's what he's saying, she's in the middle doing everything and we talked about the three points that he gives. But there's circumstantial evidence too, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, there is.
MR. DECOSTE: There's cash deposits?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Breast surgery?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The car?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Call activity; we're talking about people being in touch with each other?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Paychecks?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Intercepts?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And Dolce vida?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: I hit all the major pieces of evidence, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe so, but I haven't been sitting in court, so I don't know what was presented.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Now, I am going to assume that you deny subjectively investigating this case?
PATRICK SANFORD: I deny subjectively, is that your --
MR. DECOSTE: Deny subjectively investigating the circumstantial evidence.
PATRICK SANFORD: I would agree with that.
MR. DECOSTE: You maintain that you objectively investigated it for guilt or innocence?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Instead of being personally or professionally motivated on building a case against Ms. Magbanua?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's true, I was not personally motivated.
MR. DECOSTE: You agree with me though that you wanted her to cooperate?
PATRICK SANFORD: I want everyone to cooperate and tell the truth.
MR. DECOSTE: we're going to come back to that.
Now, let's go to the direct evidence. Rivera, he cooperated, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Took the needle out of his arm?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know about that.
MR. DECOSTE: You knew he was charged with first-degree murder?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you do know from your experience that that could carry the death penalty?
PATRICK SANFORD: It could, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: His words resulted in Katie's arrest, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That, and other things, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So September 30th, 2016, Rivera named Katie, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: what was the date again?
MR. DECOSTE: September 30th.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The following day, she was arrested?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: I forget if there's 31 days in September. But 9/30, statement, 10/1, you're in south Florida putting cuffs on her, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe that's correct, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go back and talk about the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, specifically recordings and reports. You'd agree with me that to do recordings on witnesses that are out of custody, you have to get special permission?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And it has to be pertinent, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Has to be pertinent?
MR. DECOSTE: Or you tell me; you work there, I don't.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yeah, it has -- we have to have special permission, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: In custody is different?
PATRICK SANFORD: If they're out of custody, it's different, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So your testimony is that they have to be in your custody?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct. If we arrest somebody under FBI charges, we're required by DOJ policy to record them.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, I'm going to go through some questions and we're going to come back to that.
Real quick here, isn't it true that it's required by the Department of Justice, no matter whose custody they are in, to record?
PATRICK SANFORD: That is not my understanding, no.
MR. DECOSTE: would it refresh your recollection to take a look at your deposition?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Counsel, 169 to 170, and then page 20, 10 through 15.
Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Take a look at mine, there through there.
PATRICK SANFORD: And which deposition is this?
MR. DECOSTE: First.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: And then I'm going to give you another page number when you're done with that.
PATRICK SANFORD: (Witness reading document.) Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Then 169 to 170.
PATRICK SANFORD: You're referring to the pages, correct?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct, yeah.
PATRICK SANFORD: You said page 169 to 170?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct, 169 to 170, and take a look at that and let me know if it helps.
PATRICK SANFORD: (witness reading document.) Both pages?
MR. DECOSTE: 169 to 170.
PATRICK SANFORD: Right. Read both pages?
MR. DECOSTE: Is it your testimony that --
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm sorry, I'm still reading. I'm asking you, should I read both pages?
MR. DECOSTE: Please, yes.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: They're short pages.
PATRICK SANFORD: (witness reading document.) Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Does that help your memory?
PATRICK SANFORD: It does.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if it's okay with the government, if we can just leave that up there.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection to that, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: All right. You can just close it and then we'll reference it as needed.
Is it your testimony that if somebody is in state custody and an FBI agent goes inside to meet with them, that they are not to record it?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. That's not law though, is it, it's just policy?
PATRICK SANFORD: That is our -- that is policy, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, Tallahassee Police Department, they have a completely different policy, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You interviewed several people with Investigator Sherrie Bennett?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, we did.
MR. DECOSTE: All out of custody?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't remember if there was anyone in custody or not.
MR. DECOSTE: No, no, I'm going to give you the list.
PATRICK SANFORD: Oh, okay.
MR. DECOSTE: There was people that you met with that were out of custody, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Jessica Rodriguez?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: June Umchinda?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Samantha Chez-Magbanua?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe she was in custody.
MR. DECOSTE: Francis Magbanua?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Now, all of those are recorded, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So, just because there is an agent there doesn't mean, hey, it can't be recorded, because if there's another department there, they can do whatever their department allows, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You'd agree with me that a recording is more accurate, it's word for word, I mean, you can hear the inflection, you know the exact words, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sometimes, depending on the situation, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Reports, like the one that you did for Yindra Velazquez, those are summarized, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You're not giving a full transcript?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You're giving, and I use this word -- I don't want to convey an improper meaning -- you're giving your opinion of what they're saying? Because you're not writing exactly what it is word for word, you're giving what you're interpreting their words to mean, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's a fair -- that's a fair statement, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about Rivera in his plea agreement. You'd agree with me that he agreed to give the truth and the whole truth, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, as a disclaimer here, and I'm going to put it in the form of a question, you understand that I'm not arguing that Luis Rivera was not involved, right, you understand that?
PATRICK SANFORD: I haven't heard your argument yet.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So, you understand that I agree that he was there and he was with Sigfredo Garcia and the two of them killed Professor Markel?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay? Now, that goes into the topic that you had on direct examination, and you brought up the fact that he knew certain facts, like that Professor Markel was leaving town and the bullet hole and the drug dealer, do you remember that?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Put this in the form of a question: You understand that what I'm saying here is that he is untruthfully implicating others to get a reduction?
PATRICK SANFORD: what's the question?
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Let's go to --
PATRICK SANFORD: That you're implicating that?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct. I'm giving you this because it will help with the questions.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: That we're not saying that Rivera and Garcia were not involved. we're saying that he's untruthfully implicating Magbanua to get a deal?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's your statement you're saying --
MR. DECOSTE: All right.
PATRICK SANFORD: -- correct?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct, yes.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes. Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: So your testimony, you were saying that certain facts matched up. That would be consistent with the fact that he was actually up here murdering somebody, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: The leaving town thing could have been learned without Katherine Magbanua, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know --
MR. DECOSTE: If there's direct connection between Sigfredo Garcia and an Adelson, information can flow between an Adelson and Garcia, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: If there was that contact, then, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. The bullet hole. Rivera, in the car with Garcia, that doesn't involve Ms. Magbanua, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And this drug dealer, who I don't know if he's coming in this week, that has nothing to do with Ms. Magbanua, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, it doesn't.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So, you're also aware of Luis Rivera's inconsistencies in his testimony, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: A couple of them.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So let's go over those. You're aware that there's an inconsistency of when he found out it was a murder?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm going to object to improper impeachment.
JUDGE WHEELER: If you know, you can answer that.
PATRICK SANFORD: JI don't know -- I don't know of that, I don't believe.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: So correct me if I'm wrong, Luis Rivera, on 10/4, what he tells you is, that he learns, before the car is even rented, before they've left Miami.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: You're saying, okay, as if --
PATRICK SANFORD: I -- I vaguely remember that.
MR. DECOSTE: -- you're agreeing with what I said. Is that not what he said? I wasn't there; you were.
PATRICK SANFORD: I vaguely remember that, but I don't remember the exact date when he said that.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. There was an inconsistency, and you were there when he gave the statement, as to who drove on one of the trips, where he said he didn't drive, but he got a citation, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, improper impeachment. May we approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE WHEELER: No, this is not impeachment at this point. 1I'11 allow the question. Go ahead, if you can answer that.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes. No, he did not say that he did not drive at all. He actually said that I think they went back and forth driving. He was a little confused about who was driving exactly which point, but I believe he said that -- you know, he was a little mistaken about the timing of it, because he was mistaken about when he even got the ticket.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: He said that about the -- he said that about the trip that he got the citation on?
PATRICK SANFORD: He said he got the citation on the wrong trip.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay.
PATRICK SANFORD: And our records show it was different.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to the next one. How many trips did he tell you were made to Tallahassee for this murder?
PATRICK SANFORD: Two.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, hearsay or improper impeachment.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's hearsay.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, I'm now impeaching Mr. Rivera who has already testified. Mr. Rivera has given his statement to this witness.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Improper impeachment, Your Honor. May we approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: You can approach.
(Sidebar conference as follows:)
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. what's your objection?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Improper impeachment. Your Honor, this, I believe, is being offered, hearsay evidence, to impeach Rivera through this witness. I wasn't aware of any statements that Rivera made where he did not agree that he had made the previous statements, so I think it's improper to then use extrinsic evidence to impeach --
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. You're not impeaching this witness. You're trying to impeach Rivera through this witness.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Right, but if Rivera agreed to making those statements that are being offered, I don't think the extrinsic evidence is then admissible later through another witness. Only if Rivera denies having made prior statements can they then be admitted through another witness as impeachment.
JUDGE WHEELER: ATI right.
MR. DECOSTE: So it's very standard impeachment practice -- I know the Court knows, so I didn't mean that to be condescending -- to call a witness when a statement has been made to that witness. Luis Rivera, in his testimony, talked about three trips. He absolutely did say that, that there was a trip with Garcia and Ortiz.
JUDGE WHEELER: He didn't testify to that here at trial.
MR. DECOSTE: He did say that. I can go back to the testimony. He absolutely did say that.
JUDGE WHEELER: He said that there were three trips here?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct. Now, this witness has interviewed Mr. Rivera multiple times, and, importantly, one of them was on September 30th and it wasn't recorded and he didn't do a report, so I'm now asking him -- and it's appropriate for me to call a witness to impeach the previous testimony. I'm not entering in anything extrinsic. I'm not entering --
JUDGE WHEELER: And if he has testified to that specifically, yes, you can do that, if he testified to that in here specifically. So if you know with certain statements that you're impeaching Rivera's testimony with testimony that he had here in court, then I'll allow that.
MR. DECOSTE: well, your Honor, it's not his testimony. It's what he has received through his investigation as to what Rivera has told him.
JUDGE WHEELER: I understand that. But Rivera had to have made the statement here in court, and now you're impeaching Rivera with his out-of-court statement.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. I'll allow that.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, I'm going to ask you again, let's just preface it for the jury here, you met with Luis Rivera 5/27, 2016?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe that was the date.
MR. DECOSTE: Six --
PATRICK SANFORD: Five twent-- I'm sorry.
MR. DECOSTE: Five twenty --
PATRICK SANFORD: 5/27/16.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go with the end of May 2016.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Beginning of June 2016.
PATRICK SANFORD: You're talking about the jail interviews, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes. The end of September 2016?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And then again in early October 2016?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: How many trips did Luis Rivera tell you were made to Tallahassee for the purpose of this murder?
PATRICK SANFORD: By who? By him?
MR. DECOSTE: By anybody involved.
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe he told us two.
MR. DECOSTE: Through your investigation, this includes the statements that were obtained from Luis Rivera, your review of the call detail records, where was he the morning after the murder when the phone calls started going?
PATRICK SANFORD: You're asking for the cellphone records, where that was, or where he said he was? I can't recall --
MR. DECOSTE: Both.
PATRICK SANFORD: I recall him saying that he was at the barbershop.
MR. DECOSTE: And --
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall the cellphone records. That's a Sergeant Corbitt question.
MR. DECOSTE: And you remember writing a 302 about the cellphone communications that morning?
PATRICK SANFORD: I do.
MR. DECOSTE: And you'd agree with me that you wrote in there that he was at a different location on Normandy Avenue?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall. I'd have to look at that and refresh my memory.
MR. DECOSTE: Give me one second.
MR. DECOSTE: His report, bottom left, of the 302, bottom left-hand corner, January 20th, 2016. May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Agent, take a look at this.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, sir. which day am I looking at?
MR. DECOSTE: July 19th, the morning after.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay. (Witness reading document.)
MR. DECOSTE: Does that help?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Do you need me to ask the question again?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. where did your investigation of the date show that Luis Rivera was that morning?
PATRICK SANFORD: The investigation showed that his phone, from my report, I saw that his phone was in the area of 79th and Byron Avenue at 10:20 a.m., but I don't believe there was any other locations that morning of where his phone was.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, for the jury, Byron Avenue, that's on Normandy Isle, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe so. It was out close to the -- close to the beach. I believe that's where it is, from my memory.
MR. DECOSTE: And that's a wholly different location than where Jessica Rodriguez lives and that barbershop; is that right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe it's across the bridge, yes, right across the water.
MR. DECOSTE: And that's when the communications start, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Communications with Mr. Rivera?
MR. DECOSTE: So -- and if it's okay with the government to give a disclaimer, that morning of 7/19, and your report I think explains it too, the report that Mr. Rivera would have had, there's a volley of communications between Katherine Magbanua trying to find Sigfredo Garcia, then Anthony Ortiz enters the mix, then Luis Rivera and Ms. Magbanua communicate, right, there's a flurry of phone calls and then Luis Rivera explains, oh, this is the morning of the alleged payment, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: So I cannot say that those were the people speaking. Those were their phones that were communicating.
MR. DECOSTE: And you've always operated under the belief that Luis Rivera had that 8153 number, that handset with him that morning, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Because that's the phone number that's communicating with Ms. Magbanua, communicating with Jessica Rodriguez, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And that was something that he built his testimony around, the fact that he said, I spoke to Katherine, and then I spoke to Jessica, and I went back to the house, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know what he testified to today or this week.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm talking about the statements that you have received, not the testimony in this trial.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: In fairness to the jury, you're not allowed to watch that.
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So, who called who that morning? who called who first? Did Katherine called Luis Rivera, or did Luis Rivera call Ms. Magbanua?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't have the complete phone records. what I did on my 302 was take what I thought was pertinent out of the phone records, because there's a lot of phone records --
MR. DECOSTE: All right.
PATRICK SANFORD: -- and that's what I put in my 302. So I can't -- that would be a Sergeant Corbitt question because he was the expert. This was something for my reference to be able to go back to and remember if I needed to.
MR. DECOSTE: So what you're saying is that there was a communication between Luis Rivera and Katherine Magbanua that morning, but the report that Mr. Rivera has did not say who called who?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know.
MR. DECOSTE: Does it say it in there?
PATRICK SANFORD: Does it say what again? Say that again.
MR. DECOSTE: Does it say who called who?
PATRICK SANFORD: It says Rivera called Magbanua at 10:20, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. You know from your previous interviews from him that what Rivera said was that Katherine called him, right? Katherine called him and said, hey, I got the money, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall that off the top of my head, but it's possible.
MR. DECOSTE: If he did, that would be an inconsistency, correct? And that's what we're talking about here, his inconsistencies.
PATRICK SANFORD: It could be.
MR. DECOSTE: Now in your interview of him on September 30th and October 4th, he also tries to give information against wendi Adelson, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: where he says that the day before the murder, that they're driving by the house, that they see this woman with two little boys, he asked Garcia and Garcia says, that's her, that's wendi. And that Rivera then presses him and he goes, that's wendi, and then the woman actually walks into the same house where they commit the murder the next day, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't remember if he said he saw them go into the house, but, yes, the rest of that was correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Through your investigation you found that it was impossible that she could have been at the house that day with the boys, because the boys were in daycare, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: I didn't find that, but the team found that, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, we do have a stipulation, if the Court would be willing to read it. It has been reviewed by the government.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Do you want to see it again?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Your Honor.
Yes, Your Honor, I have reviewed it.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. If I can approach the bench?
JUDGE WHEELER: Please.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Your Honor. Sorry, this one is a little bit longer.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. All right. This is a stipulation. I'll read you the instruction in regards to stipulations first.
when parties agree that certain facts are true, that is called a stipulation of fact. You must accept stipulated facts as having been proven; however, the significance of these facts, as with all facts, is for you to decide.
In this case, the stipulated fact that you must accept as true is: The Markel children were enrolled at Creative Preschool, which is in Tallahassee, Florida. The dropoff/pickup schedule for the week of the murder is as follows: Monday, July 14th, 2014, dropped off at 8:55 a.m. by Dan Markel. Picked up at 5:00 p.m. by Dan Markel.
Tuesday, July 15th, 2014, dropped off at 8:25 a.m. by Dan Markel. Picked up at 4:50 p.m. by Dan Markel.
wednesday, July 16th, 2014, dropped off at 9:00 a.m. by Dan Markel. Picked up at 4:30 p.m. by wendi Adelson.
Thursday, July 17th, 2014, dropped off at 8:30 a.m. by wendi Adelson. Picked up at 4:45 p.m. by Dan Markel.
Friday, July 18th, 2014, dropped off at 8:50 a.m. by Dan Markel.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, that would be another inconsistency of Mr. Rivera, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: It would be on what he was told, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Or what he told you?
PATRICK SANFORD: It could be possible.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go back to FBI DOJ and the work that you do, and you said that, you know, the hope is cooperation. You would agree with me that on the federal level, many times the goal is, on these bigger federal cases, to get people to cooperate against each other?
PATRICK SANFORD: I find that in all cases, not just federal cases.
MR. DECOSTE: But you find that that's usually a drive to get the dominoes to fall, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: If we don't have evidence on other people, then that is one technique that you can use.
MR. DECOSTE: And you would agree with me that on the federal level, to get your 5K, your Rule 35, which are the legal terms for reductions, many times you have to actually lead to an indictment that leads to a conviction?
PATRICK SANFORD: In some cases.
MR. DECOSTE: And you understand that Luis Rivera had just come from the feds, right? He had just been federally prosecuted?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, he was in the federal system.
MR. DECOSTE: where he had gotten cooperated against?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know if he got cooperated against or not.
MR. DECOSTE: So he had just come from that system that talks about getting other convictions for reductions; now he's involved in this case and you're involved, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And he knows you're involved?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And he knows from your lapel pin and the badge probably on your hip that you work for the FBI, and the credentials that you showed him?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So he knows again that the feds are involved?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go now to 5/27, 2016. That's the first time you meet with Luis Rivera, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You interviewed him in custody?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You recorded it and you did a report?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: June 21st, 2016, you interview him again?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: He's in custody?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You recorded it again?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Sometime in August or September he comes to an agreement with that office, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know when they came to agreement.
MR. DECOSTE: But you do know that on September 30th, 2016, you interviewed him again?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: He was in custody, in state custody?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: It was not recorded?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Could have been?
PATRICK SANFORD: Could have been.
MR. DECOSTE: You were notified on September 29th, 2016, so it wasn't, you know, a last-minute thing; you could have gotten the gear?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Retired Investigator Isom actually had a camera with him that was used in the van ride right after, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I believe that was incorrect. I believe that was somebody else's camera that he borrowed when we went on the van ride.
MR. DECOSTE: But what I'm saying is, he had it?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, he didn't have it with him. He borrowed it when we went on the van ride.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you were in the Jefferson County Sheriff's office, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You were in the same interview room where on October 4th it was recorded, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So that room could have recorded it?
PATRICK SANFORD: It could have.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that on the September 30th interview, you did not write a report either?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I did not. That was a proffer.
MR. DECOSTE: So, Agent, is that not breaking policy, no recording, no report?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, it's not, not for a proffer.
MR. DECOSTE: And, again, I'm just going to ask you one more time, if they're in state custody, your testimony is that you don't have to record it?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Counsel, pages 169 to 170, 19 to 25, one to seven.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, you remember some years back, 2019, in the courthouse here, in Room 311, we took your deposition?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: It was myself, Ms. Kawass, I think Ms. Cappleman was there, there was a court reporter?
PATRICK SANFORD: That was the second time or --
MR. DECOSTE: First time?
PATRICK SANFORD: very first time, okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Second time is a short one.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you remember being asked the following questions and giving the following answers:
Question: So you will not record?
Answer: Unless it's special permission or it's DOJ policy, when they're in custody, we have to record.
Question: If it's an inmate?
You. If it's an inmate, if they're in our custody, if we arrest somebody and we're going to interview them, DOJ policy is now -- it's a newer policy, just a cou-- few years ago.
Question: Virella was recorded by you?
Answer: The -- yeah, he was in the -- he was in the jail, yeah.
Question, by me: But not your custody?
Answer: It's both. It's in custody, in our custody or in custody, jail.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Doesn't that mean any jail?
PATRICK SANFORD: And I was mistaken at the time, and I believe when we made those recordings, the policy wasn't even in place yet.
MR. DECOSTE: But you didn't say that when you were asked the questions in 2019?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. You didn't ask specifically, but, no, I was confused about exactly which recording. I've gone back and reviewed the policy since then.
MR. DECOSTE: when I asked the question to you, Virella was recorded, and this is Jorge Virella, AKA Shooty, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And he was in state custody?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you said -- and I said, he was recorded, and your answer was, he was in the jail. And I said, but not in your custody? And your answer was, it's both, it's in custody, in our custody, or in custody, jail.
PATRICK SANFORD: And I was confused at that time, because I actually interviewed him the first time and did not record him, and I went back the second time, when the State Attorney's Office asked me to record him the second time.
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, but what you said in 2019, when I asked this question, is that it's DOJ policy to record, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: And I just said I was mistaken when I told you that.
MR. DECOSTE: I understand that, but what --
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: But what you told us before under oath was, it's DOJ policy, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, and I was mistaken.
MR. DECOSTE: There wasn't a jury when you were getting asked those questions before, right?
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. It was just us talking, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes. About a lot of things.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. And thereafter, you never updated Ms. Cappleman to update us that you were incorrect in your deposition and that you were wrong on the policy, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: I forgot that I had that one little statement there, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Is it your testimony that -- so, with Jorge Immanuel Virella, AKA Shooty, you met with him on May 31st, 2016?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't remember the date.
MR. DECOSTE: In June 29th, 2016?
PATRICK SANFORD: If that's the two dates that you have in my reports.
MR. DECOSTE: And is it your testimony that you didn't record both of those?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: well, let me ask this in a different way. Were they both not recorded?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I believe the second one was recorded. The first one was just a 302, I believe.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So, Agent, if I have a Hawk -- what's a Hawk video?
PATRICK SANFORD: A Hawk video is a type of recorder. It's a type of software.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Used by the Feds?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And if I have a Hawk video from May 31st, 2016, and June 29th, 2016 for Jorge Immanuel Virella, does that not mean that the Feds recorded it?
PATRICK SANFORD: You're telling me you have two recordings for him?
MR. DECOSTE: I am.
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall that.
MR. DECOSTE: If that's true, doesn't that just impeach what you've just said, about the fact that the State told you to go back and record it again?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, it's not true. No.
MR. DECOSTE: But at the end of the day you, nonetheless, broke policy by not writing a report about your interview of the key witness in this case, Luis Rivera?
PATRICK SANFORD: Like I said a while ago, it was a proffer. we don't record proffers, we don't write reports on it, unless it's requested to by the prosecutors.
MR. DECOSTE: So you're telling me that it was these prosecutors that said, don't write down what he says?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, that's not what I said.
MR. DECOSTE: They're not your boss, are they?
MR. DECOSTE: You're above them; you're the FBI; you work for the Department of Justice?
PATRICK SANFORD: I do, and it's a joint case.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes. But you do not take orders from a local prosecutor's office, do you?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, but --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, argumentative.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. You can answer the question.
PATRICK SANFORD: TI wouldn't do that with a federal prosecutor either.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Their policy does not supercede FBI and DOJ, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right. And that was not our policy to record proffers.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So let's get to the conclusion on this topic. The only inmate interview in this case that was recorded by either TPD or yourself, the only one is Rivera, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. I'd like to see the recording of Virella, if you have it.
MR. DECOSTE: Sure. We'll come back to that when they pull it up. Other than those discs that we're getting right now, and to ask for the jury again, of all of the inmates that were met with in this case -- and there's a whole bunch of them, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not that I interviewed, no. There's only a handful that I interviewed.
MR. DECOSTE: The handful that you interviewed, of all of them, Luis Rivera being in custody when you met with him, him and -- we'll get the answer right now for Virella --
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: -- you know of no other inmates that were not recorded, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not off the top of my head, no.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that Mr. Rivera is more important than any other witness in this case?
PATRICK SANFORD: He turned out to be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: when you met with him on September 30th, that was the first time that he was giving you his information on the case?
PATRICK SANFORD: correct.
MR. DECOSTE: we have no way to bring that information and show it in front of the jury to show any more of those inconsistencies in his testimony, do we?
PATRICK SANFORD: Outside of our testimony, no.
MR. DECOSTE: we have to take your word, based on your memory, right, because there's no report either?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct. I believe Investigator Isom did a report.
MR. DECOSTE: I understand. You'd agree with me though that if we had a recording, it would be a more accurate reflection of the exact words that he said?
PATRICK SANFORD: That would be the case with anything, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk more about Luis Rivera, specifically on the murder trip. Now, for reference here, because of the mention of a third trip, I'm going to refer to the June trip and the murder trip. Okay?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Because I don't know when the third was, if it was before or after. So on the murder trip, you did an investigation into the hotels in the area, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: You say, I. It was the team of --
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah, you guys were working as a team?
PATRICK SANFORD: The team did, yeah.
MR. DECOSTE: And that investigation involved going to all the local hotels and pulling all their registration cards, all their databases to find out if these guys stayed anywhere, right? At this point, you already have the names of the people, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. I believe they started early on with the hotels and they went back and did it again after we got the names.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, for this murder trip, you were able to -- and when I say, you, you were saying it was a joint effort, so I'll just say the team -- you were able to uncover a registration card that tied back to Luis Rivera, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Brief second here. Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, I'm showing you what's been premarked as Defense 23.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: You know what that is, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: That's the registration card for the murder trip?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know that that's a registration card for the murder trip for the hotel because of your work in this case?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And that's a fair and accurate depiction of the actual registration card?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe so. I didn't collect it, but I saw it after it was collected.
MR. DECOSTE: Defense offers what's been premarked as Defense 23. There's the business record certification attached.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: It will be admitted as Defense 23.
(Defense Exhibit 23 received in evidence.)
MR. DECOSTE: Permission to publish?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
(Defense Exhibit 23 published to the jury.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: So, Agent, what we have here is a registration card for the Budget Inn, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: It's got Luis Rivera, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Normandy Isle address?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And he puts on there that there's two people, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Now, again, I don't disagree with you; Sigfredo Garcia is there. All right? But now I want to reference to you the June trip. You don't have any hotel paperwork for the June trip, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So there's nothing that's establishing that Luis Rivera wasn't alone on that June trip, right, with respect -- let me rephrase that.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: There are no documents from any hotels like this. Like this shows number of people in the party, two, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: There's no documentation like that supporting Garcia being there for the June trip, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No hotel documentation, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct. I'm not saying that there aren't other +things that's been discussed, but we're just focusing on this paperwork.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, let's talk about Anthony Ortiz. So, did Luis Rivera not say that he stayed at that same Budget Inn on the first trip?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe he did, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But somehow no records were able to be retrieved?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. We had to -- from my understanding, I believe Investigator Isom had to dig through basically an attic just to find that one, something like an attic to find that paper document. It was not a very well organized hotel.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm sure he loved that.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So, let's talk about Anthony Ortiz. You understand Anthony Ortiz to be known as King Anthony?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's what I've heard, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And what that means is, is that he was a Latin King member like Luis Rivera?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that he didn't say, in either the 9/30 statement to you, the one that was unrecorded and not reported, or the October 4th statement, he never mentioned --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, improper impeachment, Your Honor.
MR. DECOSTE: Establishing a negative, Your Honor. It's strictly impeachment.
JUDGE WHEELER: Let's finish the question. what's the question?
MR. DECOSTE: He never mentioned King Anthony's involvement.
JUDGE WHEELER: I'll allow it.
PATRICK SANFORD: Not that I recall.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: He never mentioned King Anthony's involvement in the alleged payment on the morning of July 19th?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall him doing that, no.
MR. DECOSTE: Never said anything about giving King Anthony his phone to go to Normandy Isle, stuff like that?
MR. DECOSTE: And, of course, now we talked about a third trip, but specifically now to King Anthony, Garcia never -- I'm sorry -- Rivera never told you about a trip between Garcia and King Anthony to Tallahassee, right?
MR. DECOSTE: Never mentioned any involvement whatsoever?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not that I recall in those meetings, no.
MR. DECOSTE: And for that reason, because it was never mentioned, you never investigated King Anthony?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And we touched on this before, but to give the exact date, you're aware that he died July 9th, 2017?
PATRICK SANFORD: I was not aware of the date, but I'd heard that he had passed away, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: If he died July 9th, 2017? Or do not remember when he died, or do you not know?
PATRICK SANFORD: I just don't remember.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I could have one brief moment?
JUDGE WHEELER: I think he said he couldn't remember the date, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, sir.
JUDGE WHEELER: He said he didn't remember the date.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: would it refresh your recollection to take a look at the obituary posting?
PATRICK SANFORD: Probably not. I think somebody else saw that, not me.
MR. DECOSTE: If he did die on that date -- well, he did die -- but if his death happened specifically on July 9th, 2017, you would agree with me that that was 12, 13 months after Luis Rivera is already cooperating?
PATRICK SANFORD: I would agree with that.
MR. DECOSTE: So had he mentioned him at all and given full and truthful testimony like he has to give with the cooperation agreement, the FBI can move fast on that and figure things out, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Possibly, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. And through that there could have been that possible connection between Garcia and one of the Adelsons?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know about that connection.
MR. DECOSTE: Because he's dead and you never met with him?
PATRICK SANFORD: I never saw any evidence to even allude to that.
MR. DECOSTE: If Rivera had said to you though this guy was involved, you would have met with him, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Now, Rivera never made any statements to you that on the morning of July 19th, everybody had burner phones, did he?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I don't believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: we touched on that a moment ago, you've always operated under the premise that Luis Rivera had his 8153 number, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And Rivera, in all of your other investigation, only showed that Ms. Magbanua had a 1312 number?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about Juan Marcos Vega. You've heard that name, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I've heard it.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know from the federal indictment that it's a co-defendant of Luis Rivera?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: He was a Latin King probationer?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay. I didn't -- wasn't familiar with him being a probationer, but okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Have you taken a look at Mr. Rivera's indictment?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's been years.
MR. DECOSTE: would it refresh your recollection to look at the indictment?
PATRICK SANFORD: Refresh my recollection of what exactly?
MR. DECOSTE: what his status was in the Latin Kings. You've reviewed indictments before, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You know that in all federal indictments that there's a factual section that explains who parties are, who businesses are, stuff like that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You read that before?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: If Juan Marcos Vega is a co-defendant, which you know him to be, there would be a description of his involvement in the RICO indictment within the indictment, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure. I'm not contesting that he's not a probationer. I just don't remember.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you trust me that he was a probationer of the Latin Kings?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure. Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Jason Newlin, he's an investigator with Ms. Cappleman, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So, he's law enforcement, but works for them?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Did you receive any information from Investigator Newlin about Juan Marcos Vega?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not that I recall.
MR. DECOSTE: would that be why the FBI, yourself, did not investigate Juan Marcus Vega?
PATRICK SANFORD: Didn't investigate him, because I found no other evidence of him linking -- being linked to any of the investigation.
MR. DECOSTE: well, you didn't get the evidence because Jason Newlin didn't tell you, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: If he had evidence, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. And if he had evidence and he gave that to you and said, hey, look, there is a lead here, we need to do something, you would have done something about that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: If it hadn't already been followed up on by them or if there was something valuable there, then, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that -- and you said it on direct examination, your role in coming in to this was to be the arms outside of Leon County, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: For the most part, yes. It's not that they can't do it, but, yes, I have a better mechanism to be able to make that happen.
MR. DECOSTE: So their jurisdiction is local, whereas yours is -- it's national actually -- but yours is throughout -- you have an easy reach throughout the state?
PATRICK SANFORD: I do, because I have agents in other locations I can reach out to.
MR. DECOSTE: But you actually have sort of like a -- you know, a cop here can't go to another county and arrest somebody, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: But you can?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Because you have national jurisdiction?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So, your understanding of Juan Marcos Vega is that he is indicted down in south Florida, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And that he's located in a federal facility outside of Leon County?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: we're jumping topic to topic. We're moving quick. Let's go to the bump now.
You would agree with me that it's not inexpensive?
PATRICK SANFORD: what's not inexpensive?
MR. DECOSTE: In costs money, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: What is?
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Let's break it down here. So the bump, Donna Adelson, she's handed the paperwork from the undercover, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: There's a lot of agents that are involved, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: There were.
MR. DECOSTE: They're paid by taxpayer money?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: There's a lot of Miami Beach Police Department that are involved?
PATRICK SANFORD: I disagree with that. There was a couple of people, task force members.
MR. DECOSTE: You didn't have a briefing at Miami Beach Police Department headquarters on Washington Avenue before the bump?
PATRICK SANFORD: we used their facility, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So, what we're talking about here is, it wasn't just a few people doing a quick bump; it was a big operation. And I'm not saying that --
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: -- it was improper, but you have a lot of this for safety, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you also had a high-altitude plane?
PATRICK SANFORD: It was -- yes, it's a Miami division plane, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That ain't cheap, is it?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know the cost of it, but they have it.
MR. DECOSTE: This is a plane literally just flying in a circle filming what's on the ground?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yeah. A single-engine plane, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And people look like ants running around, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Understanding it's for safety, but there's a lot that goes into it, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, there was a letter that was handed by the undercover to Donna Adelson. You know where I'm going with this question, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: This is the best copy -- and I'm showing State's 83 -- this is the best copy we have, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: Nobody thought to make a copy or take a photo of the actual paperwork that was given to Donna Adelson?
PATRICK SANFORD: we thought about it, and the problem was, the amount was being disputed between TPD and us on scene, and couldn't decide on an amount, and next thing we know, it was time to run out the door and get out there and get in place. So, the undercover wrote the number on there real quick and took it with him out the door. I was worried about everything else during the briefing, and I should have taken a photo of it, and I forgot.
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, before you could answer that question, I took a photo of that with my phone, before you could -- you'd agree with me, it can be done quickly, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure, absolutely, and I forgot.
MR. DECOSTE: Your words are, it slipped our minds?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You agree that you should have copied it?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you, as the lead agent, you cannot say that the document that was actually handed did not have additional things put on to it?
PATRICK SANFORD: I can very, very strongly say that that is accurate, there was nothing else written on there, because Oscar, the undercover, was only doing what I told him to do and that was it.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. But you didn't see it before it was handed over?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. I saw it when he walked out the door with it.
MR. DECOSTE: No report details exactly what was on it, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe there is reports saying the amount and the phone numbers on there.
MR. DECOSTE: But at the end of the day, we don't have an actual copy of it?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to our next topic. Let's talk about Instagram. Luis Rivera, in his statements to you, he talks about a time when he posted a photo on Facebook or Instagram, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And how -- somehow that Katie then orders the boss of the Latin Kings to take it down and he takes it down, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, before we jump into it, and I want to make sure that I get this clear, he tells you it was an owl, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: He did.
MR. DECOSTE: Not a lion?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I believe it was on owl.
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah. Definitely not a -- there's a big difference in between an owl and a lion, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, I'm showing you what has been entered as Defense 9. You recognize the guy in that little circle, right? Let me focus it for you a little better.
PATRICK SANFORD: It appears to be Mr. Rivera.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So this is Mr. Rivera's Instagram page, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Uh-huh Caffirmative response).
MR. DECOSTE: Now, in this case, to make sure that it's -- the chance that somebody doesn't know, your understanding is that Facebook owns Instagram, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's my understanding.
MR. DECOSTE: So when you want to get records from either Facebook or Instagram, you send a subpoena out to Facebook for either Facebook or Instagram and they send it back to you, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It depends on what kind of records they are. Sometimes it's a search warrant that's required.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. But you would send it to Facebook, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And in this case, subpoenas or warrants were sent to Facebook for Ms. Magbanua, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: For Sigfredo Garcia?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Did anybody ever get this guy's records?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm not sure. I didn't send those search warrants to any of the social media. I'm not sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Have you ever seen any response to any subpoenas or warrants sent to Facebook for Luis Rivera's Instagram records?
PATRICK SANFORD: I haven't seen any, but I haven't seen all the documentation with TPD on their court orders and stuff either.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, of course, Luis Rivera says he took the photo down, but you don't know how the data works at Facebook and Instagram as to pictures that are removed, and if that information is retained, correct; you don't know that?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I don't.
MR. DECOSTE: The only way that we would, you know, know if that's the case is if we were to get his records, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, it's different with respect to a search warrant; they get search warrants, not us, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Is the reason why this was never requested out of a fear that the deeper we dig into Luis Rivera, the greater the chance that we find more inconsistencies than what he's telling us?
PATRICK SANFORD: Absolutely not. My understanding was that they did dig into it, but I never saw it.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that it would have been smart to get his Instagram records after that claim?
PATRICK SANFORD: If it was available, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't know whether it was available or not?
PATRICK SANFORD: I personally do not.
MR. DECOSTE: And he gave his statement less than two years after the murder?
PATRICK SANFORD: That sounds right.
MR. DECOSTE: You're not aware of the retention period of Facebook?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't --
PATRICK SANFORD: Not of Instagram.
MR. DECOSTE: You have no reason to believe that it's less than two years?
PATRICK SANFORD: For Instagram, I'm not sure about that. I know Facebook is not. But Instagram's a little different.
MR. DECOSTE: But we'll never know?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know. You can check with the TPD officers.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Let's go through circumstantial evidence now. Let's start and we'll go in order of what we talked about before.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: If Your Honor wants me to stop ata point for an afternoon break?
JUDGE WHEELER: No, you can continue for just about 15 more minutes.
MR. DECOSTE: Cool. All right. Yeah, I can do that.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: So, circumstantial evidence. Let's start out with the cash deposits. The theory here is that it's payment from a murder, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's what the evidence led us to believe, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. And that's good for your theory, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's evidence.
MR. DECOSTE: It's evidence for your theory, we'll phrase it that way.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. You agree with me that you sitting here as the lead agent on it, you cannot say where that money came from?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. We tried to find where it came from. we looked at all possible avenues to try to figure out where it came from.
MR. DECOSTE: So let's talk about the evidence that we do have, and this is going to focus on nightclubs. Okay?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: In 2013, you're aware that Ms. Magbanua was working in nightclubs, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Actually, we're going to back up here. That in 2013 she was doing liquor promotions?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay. Yes, I believe that sounds right.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, I'm showing you what's been premarked as Defense 24. You know what that is, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I've seen it before.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. You know that that's a photo from Ms. Magbanua's Facebook account, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know that from your investigation in the case?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And that is in the same or substantially the same condition it was in when you first saw it?
PATRICK SANFORD: It appears to be.
MR. DECOSTE: Defense offers what's been premarked as Defense 24.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Be admitted as Defense 24.
(Defense Exhibit 24 received in evidence.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Now, Agent, what did you say about Facebook and record retention, what was your belief on the period?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe Facebook kept things longer than Instagram, but I don't really know about Instagram.
MR. DECOSTE: And Facebook owns Instagram?
PATRICK SANFORD: There is some belief -- I don't know exactly when and all that. I'm not --
MR. DECOSTE: when --
PATRICK SANFORD: -- sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Oh, I'm sorry, I cut you off.
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm not sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Permission to publish, Your Honor?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
(Defense Exhibit 24 published to the jury.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: So, Agent, sometime -- Ms. Magbanua is arrested 2016, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you're able to get a photo that had been uploaded in 2013?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know when they obtained this record. I'm not sure.
MR. DECOSTE: would you agree with me -- and we're not talking about the timeframe that you did it -- but you would agree with me that this is evidence that Ms. Magbanua was working liquor promotions?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And she's obviously not, you know, going back in time and posting in 2013. You believe that it's -- you believe that the post is contemporaneous with when the picture's taken?
PATRICK SANFORD: You're referring to the date at the bottom that says 2013?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct.
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Let's go forward now to 2014. There is no question that she's working in nightclubs, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: we had indication that she was, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But your words are, there was no question that she was working in clubs?
PATRICK SANFORD: Those are my words?
MR. DECOSTE: would it refresh your recollection to take a look at your deposition?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. If you say it's in there, then I'll trust you, but --
MR. DECOSTE: It's in there.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: No question she's working and no question she would be getting cash tips, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: You're sure to my question, or sure she would be -- I want to make sure that it's clear for the jury. You, as an FBI agent, with your professional and lay knowledge, it is no stretch of the imagination in 2014 that she's receiving cash tips if she's working in these nightclubs?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, it's very possible.
MR. DECOSTE: 2015, it's your understanding she, as well, is working in nightclubs?
PATRICK SANFORD: There was a check that was in 2015. I don't recall any other evidence that proved she was working in nightclubs in 2015. I don't recall.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the check that you're talking about -- and we'll come to that -- you're talking about Club Fate, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you have also -- you've seen that check, and that's 2015, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you've also spoken to Ramsey Neighbor (phonetic)?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you spoke to Yinger Mascaro (phonetic), right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And what Ms. Mascaro tells you is that Ms. Magbanua +worked at Fate in 2014?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And then you also have the checks from 2015?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Ramsey Neighbor did not have a great memory, did he?
PATRICK SANFORD: Depends on what you describe as great memory.
MR. DECOSTE: Remembering things.
PATRICK SANFORD: I mean, he remembered her, and that was pretty good.
MR. DECOSTE: Remembered her, but he did not remember exact -- he did not remember exact details about all the employees; it took him a while to remember; he didn't have any records and stuff like that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you don't know whether Ms. Magbanua worked there in 2014, left and came back in 2015, which would be consistent with Ms. Mascaro and the check, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: The only information we had was that one check that we could find.
MR. DECOSTE: But Ms. Mascaro specifically remembered that she worked there before she become pregnant, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct, I believe that's what she told us.
MR. DECOSTE: And there's no question that Ms. Mascaro had her child in 2014, or that she became pregnant in July of 2014, and nine month later had her child?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: Right? And we don't believe that Ms. Mascaro, as a young mother, is working at a nightclub all night, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: AS a young mother? TI don't know about that either.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. But the information that you do have is Ms. Mascaro -- that Ms. Magbanua was working there in 2014, and from the check, 2015, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's the information we had.
MR. DECOSTE: The phrase "consistent with" been thrown out a lot in this trial. Is that not consistent with Ms. Magbanua working at Club Fate at two different times?
PATRICK SANFORD: At two different times, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm showing you what's been entered as Defense 18. You've seen this before, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I have.
MR. DECOSTE: It's a photograph from 2015?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know when the photograph was taken, no.
MR. DECOSTE: Got a velvet rope in the background?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you've gone and tried to investigate these nightclubs?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, I'm showing you what's been premarked as Defense 25. You know what that is, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It appears to be the check that we were just referring to.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. And you know that's the check that we're referring to because you've seen it before when you investigated this case and you reviewed Ms. Magbanua's financial records?
PATRICK SANFORD: I didn't see the financial records. I saw it ata previous hearing.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. And that is in the same or substantially the same condition it would have been in the last time you saw it?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: Defense offers what's been premarked as Defense 25.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Be admitted as Defense 25.
(Defense Exhibit 25 received in evidence.)
MR. DECOSTE: Publish, Your Honor?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Agent, this is the check that we're talking about?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And -- all right. So what we've got here is, up top, Club Fate?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Timeframe, June 8th, 2015?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now that's the next summer after when Ms. Mascaro tells you that they're working at Club Fate, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: It's made out to Ms. Magbanua?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, this 4/1 to 5/1 tips, do you know, if you know, is that tips that she's getting from credit card transactions? Are those cash tips that she was supposed to receive? Do you have any knowledge?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know whether this check cashed or not?
PATRICK SANFORD: I was told that it bounced.
MR. DECOSTE: And if it bounced, are you aware if Mr. Neighbor instead gave her cash because he felt bad that the check had bounced?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I was never told that.
MR. DECOSTE: And again, Mr. Neighbor, all his records were ruined, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, let's talk briefly about the iCloud data in this case. You objectively reviewed, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you went through all of Charles Adelson's iMessages, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I can't say I went through all of them. TI went though some of them.
MR. DECOSTE: Are you aware of the message on April 30th, 2015, where Ms. Magbanua is talking about quitting the nightclubs because she's getting home too --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, hearsay.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Because she's -- do you remember?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall off the top of my head if I saw that one or not.
MR. DECOSTE: would it refresh your recollection to take a look at the iMessage?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: May I approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Take a look at that and let me know when you're good.
PATRICK SANFORD: Your Honor, if I can get my glasses?
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: And, Your Honor, I'll get through this topic and then I'll advise the Court for that break.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. If I could approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, did that help your memory?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, it did.
MR. DECOSTE: 2015, was Ms. Magbanua working in nightclubs?
PATRICK SANFORD: She makes the statement to Charlie that she is.
MR. DECOSTE: And that specifically that she's working a night job and she wants to let go of it because it's just too taxing to be working all night and coming home to her kids?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, hearsay.
JUDGE WHEELER: I'll allow it. You can answer, if you can.
PATRICK SANFORD: That's a statement she makes to Mr. Adelson, yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Now, on direct examination, there was a lot of talk about the intercepts in this case. And you listened to all of those intercepts, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not all of the intercepts, no. I was in Miami a lot and elsewhere. we had other officers monitoring things like that.
MR. DECOSTE: Are you aware of the phone call between Ms. Magbanua and Suzanna Garcia? Suzanna Garcia is Sigfredo Garcia's mother, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: where on April 23rd she's talking about working --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, hearsay, your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's sustained.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: So, Agent, what I'm asking you here is the evidence that you're able to deduce. So let me back up. You believe to be, the cash deposits, circumstantial evidence of Ms. Magbanua's guilt, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And we're asking about what investigation you did to objectively investigate the source of that money, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And what we have is that there -- the response is that there's limited evidence that she was working at those clubs, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So what I'm asking you now is, are there any phone calls where Ms. Magbanua is talking about working in those clubs as part of intercepts that this government has?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, hearsay, calls for hearsay.
JUDGE WHEELER: You can answer that question.
PATRICK SANFORD: TI don't recall any of those calls, no. +BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: You don't recall the phone call on April 23rd, 2016?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not off the top of my head, no.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Let's go now to the investigation of what you did for these nightclubs. There's some intercepts that you haven't listened to; that's what you just said, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Again, you were brought in for the investigation outside of Leon County?
PATRICK SANFORD: Initially, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you made many trips to south Florida in this case, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: with hopes of finding evidence to build the case against Ms. Magbanua to force her to cooperate, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's incorrect.
MR. DECOSTE: So, you get brought on two days after the murder, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Maybe three.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. You're already sending out emails looking for Priuses as early as July of 2014, are you not?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, it was maybe three days after, like the 21st, I ~~believe.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So I misunderstood. But we agree that you were on it from the beginning?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And over the years, 2014, '15, '16, '17, up until this year, you're making trips to south Florida?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And when was the first time that you did any investigation into Club Fate or Hollywood Live?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't remember the exact date when we went down. we learned about them and learned that they were going to be -- that that was her justification for having money. That's when we went back and tried to follow up on them.
MR. DECOSTE: So let's go through the chronology here. 2019, during the fall, you're on that stand and I'm asking you questions, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: You were questioned by me, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: About never investigating the nightclubs?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Then literally the day that the pandemic hits Florida, you're in south Florida with Jason Newlin, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You were down there to meet with some witnesses?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you went to Club Fate and knocked on the door?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: During the day?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: To a nightclub?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And nobody was there?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you were able to get on the phone with Ramsey Neighbor and have a conversation with him?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Get some details?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You then went over to Hollywood Live?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I believe -- that might not be the exact words.
(Audio playing out loud in the courtroom.)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Sorry, Mr. DeCoste.
MR. DECOSTE: That's okay.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: where was I?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know.
MR. DECOSTE: where were you was the question. Where were you?
JUDGE WHEELER: Hollywood Live.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: where were you? So you then go over to Hollywood Live, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't remember if it was the order, that exact order, but, yes, we went to both.
MR. DECOSTE: You speak to a guy?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: No idea what his name was?
MR. DECOSTE: No idea who the owner is now?
MR. DECOSTE: The owner may be in jail, something like that?
PATRICK SANFORD: Could be, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you get no information?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: 2021, you speak to Ramsey Neighbor again, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Again, over the phone?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Never met with him in person?
MR. DECOSTE: Haven't spoken to any of his coworkers?
MR. DECOSTE: No subpoenas for any records?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall. I thought we had a subpoena for the records, but I don't recall.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that this is not the level of investigation that you have done on other facts in this case, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's true, because the avenues to take to get to this information is totally different than other avenues. Because whether I find where somebody says that -- there were no records. So anybody's word about what she made, nobody had records of it. If there is absolute records, then, yes, I would go through the extent of getting those records, which is ~what we did.
MR. DECOSTE: Isn't she here because of the word of Luis Rivera?
PATRICK SANFORD: That is not the only reason, no.
MR. DECOSTE: Arrested the day after he gave his word that she was involved, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So the word of a co-worker of Ms. Magbanua working during that time, other than Ms. Mascaro, that wouldn't be important?
PATRICK SANFORD: If she said she made $100, if she said she made $10,000, it's not really --
MR. DECOSTE: Because it's better to show a bank account with cash deposits that you can't attribute to a nightclub, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I can't actually establish how much she made by talking to some other employee there. They don't have records of what she made.
MR. DECOSTE: But you can further educate this jury on the fact that there were cash income for years from cash paying jobs, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: How can I establish that through one of the witnesses? It wouldn't -- it doesn't evaluate to come out to be an actual direct evidence. That would be their opinion.
MR. DECOSTE: Is that written on a plaque in Quantico, if we can't figure it out, we won't look at it?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's argumentative. Ask another question.
MR. DECOSTE: Withdrawn.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, wasn't it a matter that you did just this very superficial investigation so that you could sit before a jury and say, hey, I did something, so I couldn't cross-examine you on not doing anything?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, still argumentative, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: You can answer the question.
PATRICK SANFORD: No, that is not true. we have a thousand different avenues you can take. There's thousands of rabbit holes out there. And you have to take your best options to go down these rabbit holes without wasting all of your time and to actually go after something that could be fruitful. If we value -- if we deem that it might not be fruitful by talking to some random waitress that might or might not know how much she made, that doesn't evaluate any true evidence. If there's some truly inculpable evidence out there or exculpable evidence out there, then we go after that and we go through that thoroughly.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: So you choose what to investigate and what not?
PATRICK SANFORD: we follow the evidence, is what we do.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, I've got a few more on this topic and then --
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Staying on the topic of cash deposits, in 2016 you interviewed Fabian Radoslovich.
MR. DECOSTE: For the court reporter, that's R-A-D-O-S-L-O-V-I-C-H.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: You spoke to that guy, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, we did.
MR. DECOSTE: And he operates Optimar International Realty, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. I believe he was just a licensed realtor within that office, that actually -- like a contractor in that office.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. we're on topic of explaining cash deposits. You learn from Mr. Radoslovich that Ms. Magbanua was paid in cash, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Ten dollars an hour, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you don't know the amount of hours that she worked, do you?
PATRICK SANFORD: She began working there on April 18th, like the day before the bump.
MR. DECOSTE: The government didn't ask you about that though, did they?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I don't believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: About her employment, her cash-paying employment at Optimar Realty?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I don't believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: Sigfredo Garcia -- this is going to be our last topic before the Court wanted to take a break -- you know him to be a drug dealer, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's the information we had, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You know him to also be the robber of other drug dealers along with Mr. Rivera?
PATRICK SANFORD: I know Mr. Rivera was. I don't think I have any evidence that Mr. Garcia did that.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. He didn't tell you in the 10/4 statement that they would do drug rips, and there was a time that they did a drug rip together?
PATRICK SANFORD: He possibly did tell us that, about one time, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Mr. Garcia, he is a hired hitman, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: He is, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And his support to Katie through that income, drug dealing, robbing, and murdering, that would be cash, right, most times?
PATRICK SANFORD: One would suppose that he would have to pay her cash. There was no other forms of payment to her that we found.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, he's a bad guy, he's a drug user, he's a drinker, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But there's no question, he knows how to make money?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know about that.
MR. DECOSTE: How much cash did he have on him when you arrested him?
PATRICK SANFORD: Didn't have any cash on him. There was, I believe, $4,000 in the vehicle, hidden in the vehicle.
MR. DECOSTE: You sure it wasn't five?
PATRICK SANFORD: Maybe it was five, yeah.
MR. DECOSTE: That's not a small amount of money, right?
MR. DECOSTE: That's not $10.00-an-hour-type money, is that?
MR. DECOSTE: So the question again is, this is a guy that knows how to get his hands on money?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know that.
MR. DECOSTE: And -- but what you do know, or what you can say, is that he didn't support the mother of his two young kids, and they were young kids, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: They were, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you can't say that he wasn't supporting the mother of his two young kids, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: we had no evidence to show he was supporting them, and I know with some of the calls, I can't say how -- if there was any payments being made. I don't know.
MR. DECOSTE: It doesn't mean it didn't happen though, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's possible.
MR. DECOSTE: And just so I'm clear, the spike in the deposits into Ms. Magbanua's account, right --
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: -- that would be consistent with the spike in Sigfredo Garcia's income by way of the murder, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It could be.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, this would be a good time. Then we're going to go into the other circumstantial stuff.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Okay. We're going to take our afternoon break now, and so the deputy will take you back. we'll take about 10 or 15 minutes. Okay?
(Jury exits courtroom.)
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Jury's out of the courtroom. The door is closed. Please be seated.
Mr. DeCoste, can you give me a good estimate at this point?
MR. DECOSTE: I was about to give you a page number.
JUDGE WHEELER: TI don't want pages.
MR. DECOSTE: I would say, right now, I'm saying 4:15.
JUDGE WHEELER: So another hour, you're saying?
MR. DECOSTE: I think so, yeah.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Okay. And then we'll have redirect, and then we'll see what happens after that.
So, let's go into recess for about ten minutes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay.
JUDGE WHEELER: And then we'll be back to continue.
MR. DECOSTE: To let Your Honor know, we've got a short witness, Investigator Sherrie Bennett, in the event that we start our case today, put on a witness. I can tell you I think that -- and it may be a good time to tell you -- our expert witness, John Sawicki, is not available tomorrow.
MS. KAWASS: Wait. I got an email that maybe -- he let me know that he may be able to come tomorrow, so --
MR. DECOSTE: Forget everything I just said.
JUDGE WHEELER: So, well, let's talk about your witnesses then real quickly. Are you going to have a list for me, the number of -- are you going to be able to finish your witnesses potentially tomorrow?
MR. DECOSTE: No.
JUDGE WHEELER: You're certain of that?
MR. DECOSTE: I think that we're going to be able to handle it and then -- so tonight we're going to put together our final witness list, now that we know the government -- assuming the government's resting, so we know the full landscape of the case. we have all of our witnesses lined up. The plan is to have them here tomorrow. We can knock all of them out. But it's a question of Ms. Magbanua, and I'll let Ms. Kawass, if the Court's okay with that, address it.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. And I don't need to know that now. But what I would like to do, though, is that if we could -- and any -- I know that we have to break at a certain time tomorrow for other reasons. But I want to do everything that we could potentially do to try to get all your witnesses done tomorrow.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay? And not go over into Friday, and then that way, Friday morning, we can start with jury instructions and closings. If the jury can get the case by noon or soon thereafter, then I will allow them to deliberate on Friday for a period of time. So, just so that you know that, that is our goal moving forward. Okay?
MR. DECOSTE: All right.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. we'll be in recess.
(Court in recess.)
JUDGE WHEELER: Please be seated. All right. Let's bring the jury in, please.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, just to put on the record, we've just received amended discovery before the State's about to rest.
(Jury in courtroom.)
JUDGE WHEELER: Please be seated. You may continue.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, when we broke we were talking about Sigfredo Garcia and his money. Let's talk for a second about Luis Rivera and his money. It's your understanding that he gave money from the murder, some to his mom?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: Possibly broke off Annie, the mother of his children?
PATRICK SANFORD: Possibly.
MR. DECOSTE: Jessica Rodriguez?
PATRICK SANFORD: Possibly.
MR. DECOSTE: And then stored the money with his sister, Maria?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's what he (sic) was told. That's what we were told, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now during the break, we also went over Virella. And I agree, I was wrong, you did not record the first meeting; only the second one, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And I'm going to admit when I'm wrong. You agree with me, though, you did a report.
PATRICK SANFORD: I did the report, yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: So I'll ask the question again. Of all the witnesses that you met with that weren't in custody, how many of them did you do neither a report or record it?
PATRICK SANFORD: None of them.
MR. DECOSTE: Only Rivera?
PATRICK SANFORD: Only Rivera, because that's the only proffer we did.
MR. DECOSTE: well, you did a proffer on 10/4 as well, too?
PATRICK SANFORD: we did.
MR. DECOSTE: So there's two proffers?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: The first one was unrecorded, no report?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: The second one was recorded?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: The first one was the first time you're getting this information though, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to our next topic, the breast surgery. Your theory, or the thought, is that this was paid for with cash from the murder, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's a thought?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's a possibility, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And that's a great piece of evidence for the government, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's a piece of evidence.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the records themselves, let's look at the actual records. The records themselves -- and I'm not going to put them up, because we've already seen it -- you can't say that that cash is from the murder, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I can't personally say that, no.
MR. DECOSTE: And we just went over all of the cash jobs that Ms. Magbanua had, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you have any reason to believe that she wasn't able to make $4,000 working at nightclubs over the course of years?
PATRICK SANFORD: I have reason -- I do know that it didn't come out of her bank account, where the cash deposits were put into. There was no $4,000 withdrawal to pay for that breast surgery.
MR. DECOSTE: And there's nothing wrong with people not putting money in the bank, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, there's nothing wrong with that.
MR. DECOSTE: They can set aside and say, this is the money that I'm saving for breast surgery, if they were saving up for it for a matter of years since having two children, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct. And that's in addition to the money that was in the account though.
MR. DECOSTE: But what's important here, and I want to make sure that it's clear -- and I'll ask you again -- you cannot say that she used proceeds from the murder to pay for her breast surgery?
PATRICK SANFORD: I can't say a hundred percent, no.
MR. DECOSTE: well, there is a way. So we're going to ask you the question here. Through your review, you met with one witness that said that Sigfredo Garcia paid for it, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That Sigfredo Garcia paid for it?
MR. DECOSTE: Jessica Rodriguez, you remember meeting with her, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I do.
MR. DECOSTE: So, Sigfredo Garcia, who is, in your understanding, madly in love with Ms. Magbanua, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: At certain times, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: No question about that though, that this is the love ~of his life?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know that.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So, it wouldn't be unusual to you if he were to pay for that surgery, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: The timing of it would have been, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. But he could have paid for that surgery where Ms. Magbanua doesn't know where he's getting the money from, right? That is possible?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's possible, but I don't think they were together at the time.
MR. DECOSTE: In your recorded interview with Jessica Rodriguez, she explains Sigfredo Garcia paid for it, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't recall on the recording, but you do remember her saying that?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall -- I don't recall her saying that.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go over to the car now. Your theory is that it was a gift from the Adelsons for the murder, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's not my theory. My theory is that there was no actual payment for the car that we could track down.
MR. DECOSTE: That would be a gift, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm sorry?
MR. DECOSTE: That would be a gift, that there's no payment, or you think that there was payment?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know. we could not find any evidence that she paid for that vehicle.
MR. DECOSTE: well, let's look at the evidence objectively here. Let's go into the investigation that you did. You didn't deem investigation into the car relevant, did you?
PATRICK SANFORD: what part of the investigation of the car? we looked at how it was paid for. we tried to look and see how it was paid for. we found a bill of sale for it, which had an amount on it, and then we looked for any cash or any check or any loans or anything else of how it was paid for, and we found nothing.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm showing you what's been entered in as government 69. This is evidence, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: This is the -- this is the ultimate piece of evidence for the sale of a vehicle?
PATRICK SANFORD: That is the ownership of a vehicle, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And this evidence, we're looking at it objectively, says that it was a legitimate purchase, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: we're looking at it with everything encompassing it, not just the title by itself. You look at it with everything, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But if you look at something objectively, if you objectively look at it, it's a sale of a vehicle, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you don't know the value of a -- what is it -- a 13-year-old Lexus, do you? You don't know what the value is, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: The online value of it was done through -- by the team, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. And before I ask you that, there's different online sources, right? Some of them value it higher, some of them value it lower, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Kelley Blue Book is the standard, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And there's a difference if it’s a private seller or if it's a dealership, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: But there's certain things that you have to know to determine the value, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And this is where we're going to get into the investigation. How many accidents had that car been in?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know off the top of my head.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. You know the mileage, it's 160,000, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's what was written on the title. I don't know if that was, in fact, the mileage.
MR. DECOSTE: You had the opportunity to inspect that car, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: About -- months after the time, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: when you arrested Sigfredo Garcia, what car was he in?
PATRICK SANFORD: He was in that car, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: when you arrested Ms. Magbanua, what car was she in?
PATRICK SANFORD: In that car.
MR. DECOSTE: And you were there both times, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I was.
MR. DECOSTE: You could have taken photos of the car?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yeah. At the time, it didn't seem necessary.
MR. DECOSTE: You didn't deem it relevant to investigate those facts, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Of how many miles were on the car at the time? No, I did not.
MR. DECOSTE: To find out the condition so that we could show this jury, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I saw the condition of it.
MR. DECOSTE: Understanding, just like you saw Luis Rivera give a statement on 9/30, but there have could been nonhuman actual, you know, physical evidence to be able to show this jury what kind of condition this vehicle was in?
PATRICK SANFORD: If I would have known that would be a question down the road, then, yes, I would have taken pictures of it. I didn't realize that was going to be a question at the time.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So sort of like the nightclubs, it may be something that you investigate after I ask you?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Just to make sure we're clear on here, so this ~vehicle is purchased in -- transfer of the title is 2016?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's the date on the title.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. And so it's a 2001 car, so it's more than a decade -- well more than a decade old at that time?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: 160,000 miles on it?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's what the title says, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Not exactly new?
MR. DECOSTE: You've reviewed the intercepts in this case, the wiretaps?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, some of them.
MR. DECOSTE: And in your review of that, you would agree with me that there's evidence that she bought the vehicle?
PATRICK SANFORD: I recall one statement of somebody saying she paid $2,400 for it.
MR. DECOSTE: And that was a call in between who?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe it was Katie and -- Katherine Magbanua and Charlie Adelson, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, the bump happened when?
PATRICK SANFORD: The bump was in April of ‘16.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that there is a phone call -- April 22nd would have been before or after the bump?
PATRICK SANFORD: After the bump.
MR. DECOSTE: That's like right after the bump, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You agree with me that there's a phone call where -- it's that phone call between Katherine Magbanua and Charles Adelson where they're saying --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, hearsay.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's hearsay. Sustained.
MR. DECOSTE: Defense offers into evidence what's been premarked -- it's the phone call, Your Honor.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Same objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: No objection?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Same objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: Same objection --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Hearsay.
JUDGE WHEELER: -- it's hearsay.
MR. DECOSTE: For the record, it's call 1672 and 934.
JUDGE WHEELER: It's hearsay. It's not coming in.
MR. DECOSTE: Understood, Your Honor.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Let's now talk about call activity. The theory on the call activity is that it's communication about a murder, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: which call activity? But, yes, some of it is.
MR. DECOSTE: The fact that there's calls between Katherine Magbanua and Sigfredo Garcia, and then Katherine Magbanua and Charles Adelson, that pattern, the theory is that they're discussing on these phones the murder, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, especially the ones right before the trips.
MR. DECOSTE: It's amazing for their case, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It is -- it's the evidence that it is. It's what we found.
MR. DECOSTE: But we're talking about looking at things objectively --
PATRICK SANFORD: Exactly.
MR. DECOSTE: -- right? It's nothing more than speculation that they were talking about it, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's incorrect.
MR. DECOSTE: when we look at insignificant days, like the beginning of May, the patterns are exactly the same as on the significant days, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: In May? You're talking about with Donna Adelson to Charlie Adelson to Katie, then to Sigfredo, then to Rivera?
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I could have one brief moment to find --
JUDGE WHEELER: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: -- where the defense items are. There we go.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So, Agent, now we're just taking a look right now -- before we do, let's talk about this. So, Charles Adelson and Donna Adelson, mother and son, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You would expect them to speak?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Katherine Magbanua and Sigfredo Garcia have two young kids. You would expect them to speak, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Katherine Magbanua is dating Charles Adelson. You would expect them to speak, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So it's speculation that those calls are somehow connected, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, it's not.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So, I'm going to show you -- was May lst an important date in the case?
PATRICK SANFORD: May 1st?
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah.
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall.
MR. DECOSTE: It's not. I'm showing you what's been entered in as Defense 13. Now, what we have here is, in green, 5986, you've got Sigfredo Garcia, in purple you've got Sigfredo Garcia's mother, and in blue you have Charles Adelson. Now, this pattern, does this mean that Sigfredo Garcia, his mom, and Charles Adelson and Katherine Magbanua are involved in committing a crime in May?
PATRICK SANFORD: oh, they did take the trip in June. Yes, this is right just prior to the June trip.
MR. DECOSTE: So May 1st right now, you're saying May 1st they're planning -- that's what you're saying, that this is planning?
PATRICK SANFORD: In a month prior to the trip to come and do a murder? I would say it's possible, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: If we look -- and what we're talking about is speculation right there, you're speculating that that has to do with the murder, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, argumentative.
JUDGE WHEELER: You can answer the question.
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm taking that information and comparing it to all the other phone records to show that pattern. That is not just one standalone phone record. All the phone records show that exact pattern leading up to both of those trips.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: And that pattern is there throughout her relationship with Mr. Garcia and Mr. Adelson, right, her separate relationships with them, with Mr. Garcia having two kids, and with mr. Adelson, the fact that she's dating him?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not in the exact pattern where one hangs up and then calls the other one and hangs up and calls the other one. Not in the pattern leading up before June and the 4th of July trips.
MR. DECOSTE: So, if I have kids with somebody and then I'm dating somebody else and we take a break and I call one and then call the other, you're saying that that's abnormal to do?
PATRICK SANFORD: Numerous times into one, two in the morning, yeah, I would say so.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Let's move to the next topic. Talk about the paychecks, your theory that those paychecks were further compensation for the murder, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And that there was no actual work being done?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Fantastic for their theory, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: we could find no employment for her.
MR. DECOSTE: so let's talk about the work that was done on that and the investigation. we're talking about you objectively investigating the evidence that is exculpatory to Ms. Magbanua that proves her innocence.
You would agree with me that -- so, Charles Adelson, he works for the Adelson Institute?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And that is a brick-and-mortar location?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: But he's a traveling periodontist?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: He works at other dentist offices?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sometimes, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Meaning he's all over the place most days?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, Ms. Magbanua's work, you don't know what her duties were?
PATRICK SANFORD: we could not find what her duties were, no.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. That doesn't mean that she didn't work there, though, does it; it just means that you don't know what her duties were?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure. Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: whether she worked in the office or whether she = didn't?
PATRICK SANFORD: we could find no evidence of her going to the office.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's find out about the investigation. Did you speak to any patients of Adelson Institute?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not patients, just employees.
MR. DECOSTE: So, if Ms. Magbanua is -- and I'm using this as an example -- if she is communicating with patients from home for Charles Adelson, doing follow-ups after surgery and stuff like that, and not physically in the location, it would be the patients that would have that knowledge, not the employees at the Adelson Institute, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct, and we had no information that she was even contacting patients to even know who to contact.
MR. DECOSTE: But you didn't talk to any of the patients?
PATRICK SANFORD: Because there was no communication between her and any patients we had. we had a wiretap on her phone. There were no phone calls to any patients. So we had no patients --
MR. DECOSTE: Agent --
PATRICK SANFORD: -- we could go and track down.
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, you have a personal phone, right?
MR. DECOSTE: You don't have a personal -- you have no personal phone?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I do not.
MR. DECOSTE: You know of agents and AUSAs where they have a personal phone and a DOJ phone, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I do know some, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And that's a very common thing, where somebody will have a personal phone and a work phone?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, it is.
MR. DECOSTE: Because I don't want patients calling me at 3:00 in the morning because their molar hurts, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: So, you could have investigated these facts, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I could have investigated what facts?
MR. DECOSTE: well, you could have gone to the Adelson Institute, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: we did go the Adelson Institute.
MR. DECOSTE: Did you talk to any patients coming out?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, there was no patients coming out when we were there.
MR. DECOSTE: How long were you there for?
PATRICK SANFORD: Probably a good 30 minutes.
MR. DECOSTE: To serve a subpoena?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes --
MR. DECOSTE: Okay.
PATRICK SANFORD: -- and try to talk to employees.
MR. DECOSTE: So no patients were spoken to? And you could have asked them, do you know Katherine Magbanua?
PATRICK SANFORD: we did ask the employees that.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. But we're talking about patients. Because we talked about how the employees may not know if somebody's doing this work for a traveling periodontist.
PATRICK SANFORD: So, our information, when they were talking on the wire, they -- Mr. Adelson said she went to the business and cleaned up on the weekends, so that's what we thought she might be doing, is traveling to the office. He never mentioned to her, that we heard about, contacting patients.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, clean up can mean many different things, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Cleaning up the office and it looks good, thanks for coming in on the weekend, sounded like she was cleaning the office.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. And the government can get up on redirect and try to clean up testimony, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Not saying that they're cleaning up yours, but we've given examples of when somebody can clean up; things look good, files look good, stuff like that. we're not saying that she was in there scrubbing floors, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: But my point was, we had no indication she was talking to patients.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Now, you've just told me that there's no evidence that she was working there, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That we could find, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You reviewed the intercepts?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You reviewed the pre-bump intercepts before people are thinking, hey, somebody is listening to us, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I reviewed some of them. I was not monitoring it, no.
MR. DECOSTE: And on April 15th there was a phone call where she says, still work for you, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe there was. I don't know the date of it. I do remember her saying that at some point.
MR. DECOSTE: You're aware of call 899-519/520?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. Not those numbers, no.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. You're aware of the call on April 15th, 2016 at 12:03 where she says, quote, still work --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection --
MR. DECOSTE: -- for you?
JUDGE WHEELER: Hold on.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: -- hearsay, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's hearsay.
MR. DECOSTE: Defense offers into evidence what's been premarked as Defense 1 as Defense 1.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any other objection?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Same objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: It's hearsay. It won't be admitted.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, the Defense is offering it to impeach the testimony that there's no evidence that she worked there.
JUDGE WHEELER: But that's not what he said, so I'm not going to allow it as impeachment evidence.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, you reviewed the iMessages, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Some of them.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, if you don't remember, Tet me know. when did her employment start at the Adelson Institute?
PATRICK SANFORD: If my memory serves correct, it was September of "14.
MR. DECOSTE: And did you review the iMessage on September 14th, 2014, where she's talking about her availability for work?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, hearsay regarding the content of any message, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: What's the question, what are you referring to?
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, I'm going to back up a question and ask it again, if that's okay.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. +BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, is there any evidence that Ms. Magbanua worked at the Adelson Institute between your investigation, the intercepts, and the iMessages?
PATRICK SANFORD: Nothing that we could verify, no.
MR. DECOSTE: And if you can qualify what you're talking about, verify. Would an iMessage between Charles Adelson and Katherine Magbanua talking about work, is that not evidence of her employment there?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, it's not direct -- it's not evidence, because we tried to go back and verify that through phone records, through other phone calls, things like that, even through subpoenas to the Adelson Institute, and we were never able to verify it.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, I'm showing you what's been premarked as Defense 3. You know what that is, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Made me wear my glasses.
MR. DECOSTE: You know what that is, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It appears to be something on a Cellebrite, text message with Katie.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, for the jury, Cellebrite is the software for downloading iCloud and sorting the information, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: If I look at my iPhone, I've got different apps and I've got different things that are in there that organize the data, but when you put it onto a computer, it doesn't have that software?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Cellebrite organizes that software?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you know that that is Charles Adelson's iCloud data because you've reviewed most of it yourself, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not most of it. I reviewed some of it.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. You know this message though, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: I have seen that message, yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: And that's a fair and accurate representation of the text message between Charles Adelson and Katherine Magbanua a few days before she began work, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: Defense offers what's been premarked as Defense 3.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, hearsay.
JUDGE WHEELER: It's hearsay.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, it's impeachment.
JUDGE WHEELER: Let me see it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: May we go sidebar, Your Honor, on this item?
(Pause in proceedings.)
(No sidebar conference held.)
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. I'm going to allow it as impeachment.
MR. DECOSTE: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
MR. DECOSTE: May I publish?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes, it will be admitted as Defense Exhibit 3.
(Defense Exhibit 3 received in evidence.)
(Defense Exhibit 3 published to the jury.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, if you could explain to the jury what's going on in this message? Not -- I'm not asking you to opine on that, but who's messaging who?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's from Katherine Magbanua to Charlie Adelson.
MR. DECOSTE: And you would agree with me that this is right before her -- the paychecks start from the Adelson Institute?
PATRICK SANFORD: where is the date at?
MR. DECOSTE: I was checking you. September 14th, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Like a few days before those checks start, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yeah. The date of the checks is around then, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you agree with me, this message, I'll let you know on my availability so you can know more or less how many hours I can dedicate, that's more consistent with employment than getting a dental procedure, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It is. It is, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you again. That's what it says at the end, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Brief moment, Your Honor.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, while they're reviewing that, would you trust in that on the pay period for the check -- I don't want to waste the jury's time -- that the first date of employment is 9/15, the following day?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's possible.
MR. DECOSTE: That the first check, the pay period is 9/15 through 9/18?
PATRICK SANFORD: That sounds right.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that this is all consistent with her working there?
PATRICK SANFORD: I agree with you that she made a statement right before she started getting paychecks.
MR. DECOSTE: So, what, your thought is that they're planting this, so that years later, when we're in front of a jury, that I can put up a text message that she worked there? Is that the thought?
PATRICK SANFORD: I think there was some insurance issues, and there was some testimony at some point about some insurance issues, and that he was possibly giving her a job for that.
MR. DECOSTE: Isn't that not looking at this objectively?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm taking --
MR. DECOSTE: Looking at this objectively, this is a text message in between two people talking at work. That's the objective view of this, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: You have to look at it objectively by looking at all the evidence together, not just separate little pieces. You have to look at everything put together.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's look at another piece.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, I'm showing you what's been premarked as Defense 5. You know what that is, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Make it bigger. Yes, it's another -- I believe it's an iCloud message from Charlie Adelson to Katherine Magbanua, I believe. I don't see her name on it though.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know what that is because of your review of the icloud data in this case?
PATRICK SANFORD: I saw it at some point. TI don't know if I saw it when I was reviewing it, but I saw it at some point.
MR. DECOSTE: And that's a fair and accurate depiction of certain messages within the iCloud data, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: If Your Honor wants to take a look first.
(Pause in proceedings.)
JUDGE WHEELER: ATI right.
MR. DECOSTE: Defense offers what's been premarked as -- if I can approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: State, they're going to offer it into evidence.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Object to hearsay, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. It will be admitted as impeachment evidence, Defense Exhibit No. 5.
(Defense Exhibit 5 received in evidence.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Agent, I'm showing you what's been entered as Defense 5. Now, November of 2014, this is now two months into the employment, you would agree with me? Do you agree with me?
PATRICK SANFORD: On the date that it was sent?
MR. DECOSTE: No. That in November, that's two months, that's roughly a month and a half into her employment at Adelson Institute?
PATRICK SANFORD: That is two months after she started getting checks, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So Charles Adelson writes Ms. Magbanua, put that you work in the office, not at home?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that that indicates, when you view it objectively, that she does her work for the Adelson Institute from home, but that her wants her to put that she works in the office?
PATRICK SANFORD: That would be an opinion, if I gave my opinion on that, on exactly what he meant by that.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Let's go to the next one, a response from Ms. Magbanua -- and my apologies to the Court -- no shit, Sherlock.
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Response, L-O-L, you understand that to be laugh out loud?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, for the jury, this is from Ms. Magbanua to Charles Adelson?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's the next message -- I don't know what this is in the body -- that that's potentially some sort of emoji that just didn't translate?
PATRICK SANFORD: Possibly.
MR. DECOSTE: And then the final one, Ms. Magbanua writing, I don't know pay period dates, can you call me, I'm driving.
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing in there about not working at the Adelson Institute, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: correct.
MR. DECOSTE: That's consistent with her working there? Can we agree on that, that if you objectively look at this, it's indication that she's working there?
PATRICK SANFORD: If you look at that and don't look at anything else, and anything else we did after the fact, then, yes, if you looked at it by itself, then, yes, I would say, yeah, she worked there, but everything else we did after that did not prove that.
MR. DECOSTE: You've got -- in 2014, you've got these messages right? Two years later, in 2016, you're telling me you heard an intercept where she's saying that I work for you.
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm sorry, what's your question?
MR. DECOSTE: So, you had said there was nothing that we saw, and I'm asking you again, isn't it true that there's messages that =you have in 2014 with the indication of what we just saw, and then in 2016, you said to this jury that there was a phone call, a recorded phone call talking about it?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So let's get into the intercepts now.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: And you'd agree with me that -- and you've listened to pretty much all of these, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not all of them, no, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: A lot of them?
PATRICK SANFORD: There's thousands of them, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Thousands of intercepts?
PATRICK SANFORD: Thousands of phone calls, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Or was there not roughly 400 of them?
PATRICK SANFORD: Over the Title ill? I guess I'm referring to text messages too probably.
MR. DECOSTE: So we're talking about phone calls.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: That there is approximately 70 phone calls between -- or, I'm sorry -- that there's approximately 400 phone calls.
PATRICK SANFORD: Between both phones?
MR. DECOSTE: Let's pull this up and make it easier.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, during the government's direct examination, I put together a summary. I've showed it to them. TI don't believe there's an objection.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Your Honor, I object.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Is this as a demonstrative?
MR. DECOSTE: It is a summary and a demonstrative, yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. I'll allow it asa demonstrative.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: So, Agent, what I'm going to show you here is -- you're going to see in the top left-hand corner the name -- so the name, has the date, the time, and the call number, then who it's from and who it's to. Okay?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So it's your understanding that these calls begin on April 8th, 2016, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe so. That sounds right.
MR. DECOSTE: Now the ones highlighted in yellow are the ones that the government chose to introduce and show to the jury, right? I know you don't know why they're highlighted, but we're going based on the number. So the first one, where Charles Adelson speaks to the Adelson Institute, you remember that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And then you go down and there's a whole bunch of phone calls in there, and then it goes to three calls between Donna and Charles?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So of all of these calls, all these recorded phone calls, you would agree it's over the month -- span of a couple of months --
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: -- right? And would you trust me in saying that it's just shy of about 400 phone calls? If you don't count the duplicates -- like you see right there on 4/11 how it says 422/110?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Correct me if I'm wrong, that's because when Charles speaks to Katie, it's being recorded from two ends?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, of all of those calls, there's about 70 of them between Katherine Magbanua and Charles Adelson, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall the number, but I'll] take your word for it.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So of those 400 phone calls -- and we're talking about calls in between Sigfredo Garcia and Katherine Magbanua, after the bump between Charles Adelson and his mother, of all of these people, of Katie and Charles -- how many did the government choose to play for the jury, roughly?
PATRICK SANFORD: Roughly however many we played today. I don't know the number.
MR. DECOSTE: A couple dozen?
PATRICK SANFORD: Probably, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that that's far shy of 70?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Even further shy of 400?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So in this case, the intercepts that you guys are doing, it’s only on Katherine Magbanua's cellphone and Charles Adelson's cellphone, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: correct.
MR. DECOSTE: In call 543, the first one with Erica Johnson and Charles Adelson, you would agree with me at the end of that he says, "landline"?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: which would indicate that he wants to switch to a landline?
PATRICK SANFORD: That was my impression, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: No landlines were tapped in this case, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So you would have no idea what communications are being had on a landline, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So your testimony, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you said that Donna Adelson was his first call. You remember that?
PATRICK SANFORD: First call after when? TI just need a reference point.
MR. DECOSTE: So right after speaking to -- well, let's go for all of it. who's the first one that Charles -- that you believe and testified to, was the first call after the whole Adelson Institute thing?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe Donna called Charlie first. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you can't say that you know that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: On her cellphone, yes, or on his -- I'm sorry. On his cellphone, it was the first call that came into his phone, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: For somebody who just said, "use a landline," you have no idea if there were any landline phone calls in between there, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't.
MR. DECOSTE: You also don't know if somebody had Face Timed somebody else, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't know if somebody had used whatsApp communication to call somebody else either, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct. I don't believe we had any indication that anybody was using whatsApp at this point until later.
MR. DECOSTE: You find out that he is somebody that uses whatsApp?
PATRICK SANFORD: I find out what?
MR. DECOSTE: That he is somebody that uses wWhatsApp.
PATRICK SANFORD: I found out he started using whatsApp after the bump, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So you don't know about his use of whatsApp over the years, right?
MR. DECOSTE: Now, literally the first call that the government played though, he's talking about switching to a landline?
PATRICK SANFORD: The first call?
MR. DECOSTE: The first call that the government played, 543 -- see, there's nothing highlighted above it -- literally the first call that this jury had, he's talking about switching to an unrecorded landline, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall that.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, with respect to knowing -- no, do you remember a moment ago you testified how Charles Adelson said to Erica Johnson at the end of the call, "landline"?
PATRICK SANFORD: I was thinking that's the one where we served the subpoena, when we served a subpoena at the end of that call, which was later on after the bump.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes.
PATRICK SANFORD: That's when he said, “landline,” yes, later on --
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. No, no --
PATRICK SANFORD: -- not before.
MR. DECOSTE: -- it's before the bump. It's 4/12. The bump is near 4/20, on 4/19?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right. And that phone call, we went to the Adelson Institute, was well after the bump, when she said -- he said to her, switch to a landline. That call that we played earlier was after the bump.
MR. DECOSTE: we're getting into a who's-on-first situation.
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I don't believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So let's back up here. This phone call, phone call 543, that's when you're serving the subpoena, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, that's incorrect.
MR. DECOSTE: The first phone call that the government played, where Erica Johnson is speaking to Charles Adelson, at the end of that phone call he says, "landline," correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct. And that is not that call there. I can look at my notes and give you the date of that --
MR. DECOSTE: No, no, no, I'll --
PATRICK SANFORD: -- phone call.
MR. DECOSTE: -- admit when I'm wrong. I'll admit when I'm wrong.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yeah, it was later on.
MR. DECOSTE: But there's a phone call where he -- there's a phone call where he's saying, “landline,” right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, and that was well after the bump. That's after Sigfredo Garcia had been arrested.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. She's telling me I'm wrong. I'm fine with ~=that.
Okay. So your testimony was, is that, you know, Donna, the first one -- the first one that Donna called was Charles, and we talked about that a second ago. Now we're going to get into the topic of call detail records.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't have call detail records for Donna Adelson around that time, do you?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't personally. I believe Sergeant Corbitt does.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So if Sergeant Corbitt doesn't have call detail records from that time, then we don't have them, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: If he doesn't have them?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct.
PATRICK SANFORD: Then I don't believe we do. If that's his testimony. I don't know what his testimony is.
MR. DECOSTE: And I can't talk to you about the testimony of another witness. But your understanding is, because of the wiretaps, the call -- the phone numbers that are actually being tapped, that when you're getting the wiretaps, it's giving you the call detail information, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Donna Adelson's phone did not have -- and we keep using tap, wiretap, intercept. I'm going to keep it to intercept. There was no intercept on Donna Adelson's phone?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, that's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So if we don't have an intercept and we don't have call detail records, we don't know who she called in between, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: But you can go back historically and get those call detail records, and that's what you're telling me we did not do, Sergeant Corbitt did not get?
MR. DECOSTE: Unfortunately, I can't say that. This jury will have to rely on their memory of that testimony. So --
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: -- let's stay on the topic now of the bump. Let's go back to the bump. You would agree with me that in the bump, the undercover named names, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: He named two names, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: well, no. He said, family, referring to himself. He was posing as a Latin King, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. And he said, you know, your family, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So this guy comes in, he's posing as -- and that got confusing, because I wasn't talking about his family. He comes in and he's posing as a Latin King and he goes, it involves your family, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: He says that, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And then he says Katie twice, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Then he says Tuto twice, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And then he refers -- this is the Latin King part -- he refers to -- he says, my brother, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct. Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you would agree with me that the Latin Kings, especially somewhere like South Florida where there is a strong Latin presence, that the Latin Kings, their name, alone, is a threat?
PATRICK SANFORD: Their name alone, is a threat? I would agree with that, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That if somebody walks up and goes, I'ma Latin King, that that right there is a threatening thing?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's intimidating, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, law enforcement, in a different way, can be threatening too, right, the threat of arrest?
PATRICK SANFORD: Only if you've done something wrong.
MR. DECOSTE: And you agree with me, and you said it yesterday in direct, that the theory -- and we're talking specifically about the Adelsons -- that you agree with me that the theory was out there. You said that, that people were talking about the theory that they were involved.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Give me one second here, Your Honor.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Now, I want to give you a disclaimer here as I'm talking about this. Like Rivera and Garcia, I'm not saying that the Adelsons were not involved. All right? If you were here for the cross-examination of wendi Adelson, you'd understand that. Charles Adelson was absolutely involved, can we agree on that?
PATRICK SANFORD: I agree.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. There was different ways that you could have done the bump, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: There's always different ways you can do anything, sure.
MR. DECOSTE: That guy could have walked up with a piece of paper, that -- the same one that we have, he could have just handed this piece of paper to Donna Adelson and said, we helped you, my brother needs help, right? And he could have done it without saying Katie and Tuto, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: we felt that it wouldn't have any legitimacy. we felt that if he did do that, she might just throw it away, might not even care about it, because she probably -- we don't know this -- but we felt like she was probably already in the limelight, and we kind of knew she was. So she might not have given it legitimacy is why we did that.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, again, we're not saying that the Adelsons weren't involved, but what we're saying is that it allowed Charles Adelson an opportunity to use Katherine Magbanua as a pawn. Do you understand that?
PATRICK SANFORD: That bump did? Is that what you're --
MR. DECOSTE: Let's unpack this. So Charles Adelson, involved in that moment. There's only one of two situations, it's either the cops or the killers, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: If charles Adelson contacts the cops -- and, again, we talked about the threat, the threat of arrest -- even contacting over -- because it only said, family. Him contacting over, just that mere communication could be evidence, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: If he contacts the cops?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct, yeah. If somebody goes up to the mother -- and now we're talking about your facts of the bump and how it gave him the opportunity to use Ms. Magbanua as a pawn. He goes up, right, gives Donna Adelson the paperwork, says the names, but only says, family, and then all of a sudden Charles Adelson's on the phone, does that not narrow down which family member?
PATRICK SANFORD: It could.
MR. DECOSTE: Potentially, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Potentially.
MR. DECOSTE: And there's a risk. Whenever you talk to law enforcement, you have the right to remain silent because anything you say can be used against you in a court of law?
PATRICK SANFORD: If you did something wrong, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So there's a risk?
PATRICK SANFORD: If you've done something wrong.
MR. DECOSTE: And he did something really wrong here. we can agree on that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, let's talk about the killers, because it's either the cops or the killers. Charles goes to the killers, and he can't go -- there's already the risk of the threat, because it could be them, and he could be going after them, right, there's a physical threat?
PATRICK SANFORD: A physical threat? I don't agree with that at that point.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. well, you just said that the Latin Kings, that they are, even by their name, threatening?
PATRICK SANFORD: They're an intimidation, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. And this was a guy walking up to a woman on the street going, give us money, and he was threatening in his appearance, in his words, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I disagree with that.
MR. DECOSTE: But you would agree with me that there is a risk, that Charles Adelson -- Charles Adelson's a smart guy, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It depends. Sometimes.
MR. DECOSTE: Made it through dental school?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Makes millions of dollars?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree that there is some level of intelligence there?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. If he goes in and he speaks to one of the killers, he doesn't know whether they have been compromised by the FBI, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: If he were to have called and picked up the phone and called Sigfredo Garcia, that, alone, would have been evidence, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: If he could have done that, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you understand that by saying Katie's name, it gave him the opportunity to use her?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I don't agree.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So let's unpack this a little bit. Said Katie's name, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So it would be no -- it wouldn't be awkward if all of a sudden Katie's involved, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Charles Adelson, being the smart guy that he is, do you honestly think that he would send Katherine Magbanua, if she were involved, to go in and speak to potentially the FBI?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't believe he was sending her in to talk to the FBI.
MR. DECOSTE: well, didn't they have the thought of, it's either the killers or the cops?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yeah.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So there was a chance that Ms. Magbanua is going in there, literally with his life in her hands, she could mess up and say the wrong the thing, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: He knew she wouldn't do that because she was part of «it.
MR. DECOSTE: She could be pressured into cooperating against him, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Pressured? Apparently she -- no, she couldn't be, apparently.
MR. DECOSTE: No, no, no. What we're talking about here is -- oh, so you agree that she's been pressured to cooperate?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, she hasn't, other than being arrested.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So we're talking about Charles Adelson sending in Katherine Magbanua to either speak to the killers or the cops. You would agree with me that -- and let's assume arguendo for a moment -- if she knows nothing, then he's protected, she can't say the wrong thing, there's no way the FBI is going to pressure her into cooperating against me because she doesn't know anything?
PATRICK SANFORD: True.
MR. DECOSTE: Having gone through that, do you still not agree with me that the smarter thing to have done would have been to have given this paperwork and then see what happened?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I disagree, because, yeah, we would have been left with nothing, and we were on a timetable with the judge on -- when we're on these Title ill calls. we're only allowed to be up on them 30 days at a time.
MR. DECOSTE: So why does that matter to the way that you did it?
PATRICK SANFORD: Because we had to -- we have a time period to make things happen, to see if something happens.
MR. DECOSTE: If you give the paperwork over, you're going to see exactly who is communicated with, but by giving the information of who you believe, you open up the opportunity for Charles to say, you know what, I can use her, and it's not going to set off any bells, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. Because everything after that did set off the bells. Everything that happened in sequence to that, did happen.
MR. DECOSTE: So you say family, Katie, Tuto, and because then somebody in the family contacts Katie, and Katie speaks to Sigfredo, because they communicated the way that you laid out, that that's somehow evidence?
PATRICK SANFORD: In the things that were said, absolutely.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go through the things that were said.
Now, I'm going to go through government's 1380, 1382, and 1386. You'd agree with me that those are all calls between Charles Adelson and his mom?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, this is where you said that the first call is to Charles Adelson, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: The first call from Donna was to Charles Adelson?
MR. DECOSTE: Donna has the bump, and then you say the first call is to Charles Adelson?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Again, there's no intercept on her phone, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you even know if she has a landline?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't remember.
MR. DECOSTE: So you don't know if she called wendi or Robert first?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't remember if there's a landline. Sergeant Corbitt would have that information.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm asking you, do you know?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know.
MR. DECOSTE: But you know that there was nothing -- no intercepts done on Donna Adelson?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you don't know of any call detail records?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't.
MR. DECOSTE: So call 1392 and 772, that's the next one there. You'd agree with me that's about 90 minutes later?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you had said that that -- that his first call after speaking to his mother was to Katherine Magbanua, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I did not.
MR. DECOSTE: Was it the first call?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, it was not.
MR. DECOSTE: Was it the second call?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't think so. I think there's a few calls in between, I believe.
MR. DECOSTE: You agree with me that there was a few phone calls that he made in between, speaking to his mother and then speaking to Katherine?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yeah, I believe there was a few work phone calls that were in between.
MR. DECOSTE: Now you're only monitoring his cellphone, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You know he's at work at that time too?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe he's in another dentist office, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: This is the same guy that made reference to speaking on a landline?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You can't say that he didn't contact whitney, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not on a landline, no. On his cellphone, he did not.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you have whitney's call detail records?
PATRICK SANFORD: I personally do not. I don't know if Sergeant Corbitt does.
MR. DECOSTE: And, again, whatsApp, Face Time, you don't know if he used that to communicate as well?
MR. DECOSTE: You'd agree with me that in this phone call -- and, again, this is the government's Exhibit 1392, 772, that Charles is somewhat unsure that it is her that has been referenced. where he says, I don't know if it's you, I'll feel kind of embarrassed, but if it's you, I'll keep you in the loop.
PATRICK SANFORD: He goes back and forth each way. At one point he says it is her. Then at one point, he says, well, maybe it's not you, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Now the big point of this was, because in these phone calls -- now, again, you don't know if Donna Adelson, after that third phone call, the 90 minutes, called the Adelson Institute, the landline. You don't know that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I personally don't know that, no.
MR. DECOSTE: But your belief is, because she doesn't say Katie here, that it would be weird that all of a sudden he's calling Katie here, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: what's the question, I don't think that'd be weird?
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Let me ask it again. It's getting late in the day.
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So you've got three phone calls to Donna Adelson?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: where she just says, ex-girlfriend, but doesn't say Katie?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And then the first phone call with Katie, you found that to be evidence for them, because Donna never said to Charles, Katie, he just said ex-girlfriend. That was an issue, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And, again, you don't know of any landline communications in that 90 minutes?
MR. DECOSTE: And then when Charles does speak with Katie, he's unsure if it involves Katie or not?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm going to go now to call 1386. And I'm not going to replay all of these. Or we'll go back to 1386. You'd agree with me that -- and, again, I'm not saying that Donna Adelson and Charles Adelson are innocent. All right? That's not what I'm saying. In the third phone call, where Charles speaks to Donna, he says, don't talk in the apartment.
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You believe that to be a caution not to speak in the apartment because it could be bugged, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Does not say anything along those lines to Katherine Magbanua?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, he doesn't.
MR. DECOSTE: In that first phone call to Katie, he doesn't say, don't talk in your car, don't talk in your house, none of that, right?
MR. DECOSTE: Now, after that there's then a meeting -- and you saw the photo of it -- between Donna Adelson and Charles Adelson at the marina, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And at that meeting Charles could have confirmed with his mother that they said Katie's name, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: He then meets with Katie?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to our next topic here. Let me go back for a second. Did you ever see Charles Adelson's call detail records for the day of April 19th, 2016?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm sure I did at some point. TI don't recall.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm going to go back on that, and then we'll go to Dolce Vida.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
JUDGE WHEELER: You may.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, I'm showing you what's been premarked as Defense 27. You know what that is, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It looks like some AT&T records.
MR. DECOSTE: You know that those are pages from Charles Adelson's call detail records?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I see his phone number there. Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Specifically for the day of April 19th, 2016?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know that because of your work in this case and the review?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And those are fair and accurate depictions of those two days, the pages?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe so. I don't recall exactly seeing the original records like this. Everything I saw was digital.
MR. DECOSTE: Defense offers what's been premarked as Defense 27.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Be admitted as Defense 27.
(Defense Exhibit 27 received in evidence.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, Defense 27 shows the calls between -- call 1386, between Charles and Donna, and then the calls between Katie and Charles, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I believe so. I haven't looked at them specifically to see what calls were what though.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Let's break down Dolce vida. You agree with me that the first segment, the government did not play?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And it's hard to hear?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And this jury doesn't know how Charles Adelson framed the issue for Katherine Magbanua?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: we don't know the ten minutes in the car, we don't know the first 30 minutes in the restaurant, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You'd agree with me that in the second segment, when it begins, what we're getting is hypotheticals, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Some of it is, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: He's talking to her, not really with her?
PATRICK SANFORD: I disagree with that. There was a lot of him talking, but she does correspond.
MR. DECOSTE: He speaks more, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: He what?
MR. DECOSTE: He speaks more, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, he does.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, would you agree with me that what you don't hear in that is, hey, it's either the cops or the killers, what do we do? You don't hear that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not in those words.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't hear Charles say to Katherine, talk to the people you hired, right, figure this out? You don't hear that?
PATRICK SANFORD: That specific words, no.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't hear Katherine say, you know what, I'm going to go talk to the killers, I'll find this out, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: To the killers? No. She said she's going to go talk to people.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you would agree with me that you would expect -- look, your federal work, you've dealt with a lot of conspiracies over the years, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you listen to a lot of -- I'm going to withdraw that question. So you agree with me that you don't hear that? Nobody gets right to the point. It's Charles Adelson sort of beating around the bush, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I would agree with that, yeah.
MR. DECOSTE: You'd agree with me that it'd be more effective if two people are involved in a conspiracy together, to go right at the point? It's either the people you hired or it's the cops. What do we do? wouldn't that be the normal thing to do here?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I disagree with that, because neither one of them knew if the other one was actually cooperating. I think that could have been the point for beating around the bush and talking the way you're talking, and doing what they did.
MR. DECOSTE: But this is sort of like walking into a movie halfway through and trying to figure out who's the hero, who's the villan, stuff like that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know what you're talking about.
MR. DECOSTE: The fact that we can't hear the first 40 minutes of the conversation.
PATRICK SANFORD: Some of the beginning of the conversation is slightly audible. Don't know the first ten minutes of the conversation in the car, no.
MR. DECOSTE: You'd agree with me if it were audible, they would have played it, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Some of it's audible.
MR. DECOSTE: So you said, look, you know, it's people feeling each other out. It could also be consistent with -- and that's a term that's been used a lot in this trial -- it's also consistent with Charles Adelson loading up Ms. Magbanua to be a pawn?
PATRICK SANFORD: I totally disagree.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, on direct you talked about how there was no mention of murder?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: There was no mention of Professor Markel?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And what you were trying to convey there is, she must have known what he was talking about, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I was answering your question.
MR. DECOSTE: But is that your belief, the relevance of that testimony, is that your belief?
PATRICK SANFORD: Possibly.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection to his belief, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled.
PATRICK SANFORD: Possibly.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Now, again, you don't know the first 40 minutes, we don't know that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: First 40 minutes?
MR. DECOSTE: Ten minutes in the car, 30 minutes in the restaurant. Give or take 40 minutes.
PATRICK SANFORD: I'd say we don't know the first ten minutes, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The first 30 minutes -- and just to make sure that it's clear -- the first segment, the first 30 minutes that they're in Dolce Vida, that wasn't played and it's hard to hear, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It is hard to hear.
MR. DECOSTE: You were also asked Ms. Magbanua's prior statements, right? You remember that?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: In 2019, she made a statement that -- murder wasn't mentioned and Professor Markel wasn't mentioned, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Possibly. I don't recall exactly, but possibly.
MR. DECOSTE: would it refresh your recollection to take a look at it?
PATRICK SANFORD: Probably, yeah, if you need me to verify it.
MR. DECOSTE: So again, Agent -- because we had a minute there -- there was no paper that was shown on it, right, no paper shown that you saw on the video, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No paper shown on the video?
MR. DECOSTE: Correct.
PATRICK SANFORD: On the Dolce vida video?
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah.
PATRICK SANFORD: There's a piece of paper pulled out by Mr. Adelson.
MR. DECOSTE: And he held it in his lap, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: He held it about table high.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. No mention of murder, and no mention of Professor Markel, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, not that we could hear.
MR. DECOSTE: So I'm going to approach to refresh. Take a look at this.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I may approach?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: And let me know if that helps.
PATRICK SANFORD: (witness reviewing document.) Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: Did that help?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That's what Ms. Magbanua said, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And then two years later, we get this enhancement where you can start hearing things, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And her testimony's consistent with the enhancement that came three years later?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know if I agree with that. That piece of testimony right there was.
MR. DECOSTE: what you just read, the highlighted portion, is consistent with what was developed three years later?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go back to the intercepts. Call 825. Now, for pointers and reference, call 825, the government played it, this is the one where there is a statement, soothe you and the less you know. You remember that one, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, your understanding in that call, Sigfredo Garcia is mad, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That Katie has spoken to Charles?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. That's not what I took from it, no.
MR. DECOSTE: And I don't want you to interpret it. So that phone call, that's Sigfredo Garcia and Katherine Magbanua speaking potentially about something, right? You think it's inculpatory. we believe that it's exculpatory. You'd agree with me on that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know what you think about it, but, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But the phone call was minimized. You heard that, right, in the middle of it where (making sound), and it minimizes. That means that the recording shut off for how long?
PATRICK SANFORD: I have no idea.
MR. DECOSTE: It's not a short period of time. They've got to shut it off, and then they've got to come back and turn it back on, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's just a button they hit.
MR. DECOSTE: So some law enforcement decided when Sigfredo Garcia is saying, the less you know, that would indicate that he knows more, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall that call being minimized. I thought it was a different call that was minimized. I don't think it was that call.
MR. DECOSTE: It was. You hear the -- when you hear that zip sound, that's the minimization, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right, it is.
MR. DECOSTE: And the jury can go back and listen to call 825 if they choose to later. But you'd agree with me that phone calls where Charles Adelson is talking about June Umchinda trying out for the Dolphin's cheerleaders, that's not minimized?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: Or the fact that they may have lobster for dinner?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: But the phone call where Sigfredo Garcia says, the less you know, that's potentially minimized?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know about that part being minimized.
MR. DECOSTE: And if Sigfredo Garcia is involved in a conspiracy with Charles Adelson without Ms. Magbanua, she would obviously know less than Mr. Garcia, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: If that was the case, then possibly, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Call 842. Now, we talked before about charles Adelson potentially using Katherine Magbanua -- I know you disagree -- using her as a pawn. You'd agree with me that in call 842, that he's trying to get her to come pick up marijuana?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's what it sounded like.
MR. DECOSTE: And he's also trying to give a gift that would go to Sigfredo Garcia, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe so. That sounds familiar.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you realize what he was trying to do?
PATRICK SANFORD: Keep her happy.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, in multiple calls after that -- that call happens mid April -- then on 4/21, 4/22, 4/25, he's again calling and saying, hey, I got this package for you, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: You'd agree with me that if Katherine Magbanua were to go to his house and pick up marijuana, and then drive away and get stopped by the police, that he would be able to confirm that his phone is getting tapped?
PATRICK SANFORD: what's the question?
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that if Katherine Magbanua went to the house and picked up illegal drugs and then left his house, she's arrested and then calls and goes, I got arrested leaving your house, that Charles Adelson would know that the calls are being listened to?
PATRICK SANFORD: The police department or FBI investigating a murder would not stop somebody for picking up marijuana.
MR. DECOSTE: But you don't know if he knows that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I would assume that he would have used common sense and know that.
MR. DECOSTE: well, you said that he's sort of spotty with his knowledge, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: You also said he was intelligent too.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you'd agree with me that somebody in his position, he's done a bad thing?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you said that he's trying to figure out, you know, who's doing what, stuff like that, you would agree that he's suspect if he's being recorded, because he says landline?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: He's concerned about whether he's being recorded?
PATRICK SANFORD: Later on in the -- after everything, that's when he said, landline.
MR. DECOSTE: You have no reason to believe at the beginning when the bump happens, when he's saying, it's either the cops or the killers, that he's not thinking about the fact that he may be getting tapped?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not yet, because he's saying things over the phone for the most part.
MR. DECOSTE: This would be a way that he could confirm it, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't think so, no.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, if Sigfredo Garcia -- and, again, we're talking about Katherine Magbanua being used as a pawn -- Sigfredo Garcia, if he's cooperating, he can't accept a gift from Charles Adelson, can he?
PATRICK SANFORD: If he's cooperating with us?
MR. DECOSTE: Now, again, in call 842, he's trying to push Katherine Magbanua to come and pick up marijuana, and he's also trying to push a gift on to Katherine Magbanua for her and Ssigfredo Garcia, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I think he just offered it to her. I don't know about pushing her. But go ahead.
MR. DECOSTE: A cooperating witness with the FBI could not accept a gift from a target, could they?
PATRICK SANFORD: A gift? They could go pick it up and turn it over as evidence, absolutely.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, let's go to knowledge of law enforcement. There was call 1371 at 2281. You remember this one, where Charles is telling Katie --
MR. DECOSTE: And I apologize, Your Honor, I'm quoting here.
MR. DECOSTE: -- find out who the fuck it is?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that there's separate phone calls, where Charles Adelson is telling Donna, I'm a hundred percent sure, I'm a thousand percent sure, I'm 10,000 percent sure?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And those would be respective dates of 4/22, 5/11, and 5/12?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'd have to take your word for it on the dates.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. So on call 1695 on April 22nd, tells his mother, I'm a hundred percent sure it's law enforcement, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: He never says the word, “law enforcement,” no.
MR. DECOSTE: But he's a hundred percent sure he knows who it is?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's what he says.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, on May 11th, I'm a thousand percent sure?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't remember if it was in the same reference or not, but it was never with law enforcement.
MR. DECOSTE: May 12th, I'm 10,000 percent sure?
PATRICK SANFORD: And, again, he never said the word, “law enforcement." He also said, "investigators" sometimes.
MR. DECOSTE: Have you, in your investigation, taken a look, it's called a ZRT report, for Sigfredo Garcia's phone?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't believe so.
MR. DECOSTE: Are you aware of the communications between Garcia and Rivera on May 11th?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not off the top of my head, I'm not.
MR. DECOSTE: A day before he's 10,000 percent sure?
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you would agree with me that later on, on May 13th, days after he's told his mother, that Charles tells Katie that it's law enforcement, that he tells her last that it's law enforcement?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, he never says anybody is law enforcement.
MR. DECOSTE: You're telling me that on May 13th, he does not tell Katie that it's law -- that he's sure that it's law enforcement?
PATRICK SANFORD: Used those words, "law enforcement"?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes.
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't remember him saying those words, "law enforcement."
MR. DECOSTE: Now, I give you all this to ask the question, right: Charles is saying, find out who it is, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But he's telling his mother, I know it's law enforcement. Is that not him using Katherine Magbanua as that pawn that we talked about? Mom, I know it's law enforcement. Katie, get in there and figure it out. So that she can go in there and get him information so that he can deal with the situation?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I disagree. I believe he was just pandering to his mother to calm her down, because he knows how upset she gets. He even said that she had diarrhea all night and everything else. So I think he was trying to calm her down just by telling her whatever would do that.
MR. DECOSTE: If Katherine Magbanua is the alleged middle of all of this, why is Charles Adelson telling her it's law enforcement, and not Katherine Magbanua giving him the information of who it is, if she's in the middle?
PATRICK SANFORD: Repeat the question. Just say it again.
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah. If Katherine -- I went hard on that one. If Katherine Magbanua is in the middle, as you believe that she is, then why is Charles Adelson the one giving her the information about it being law enforcement, instead of her giving the information to him?
PATRICK SANFORD: Because she's in the middle and he doesn't know the other end of it, and she's walled him off.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, during this time -- and understanding you're not aware of the May 11th and subsequent conversations between Luis Rivera, while he's in custody, and Sigfredo Garcia -- Sigfredo Garcia's phone does not have a tap on it at that time, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sigfredo Garcia's phone? No.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the capabilities were already set up for an intercept on his phone, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: what do you mean, the capabilities? we did not have a court order for his phone, no.
MR. DECOSTE: One brief moment, Your Honor.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, do you not -- and if you don't remember, you don't remember, and these questions aren't for you. Do you remember if the intercept was set up on Sigfredo Garcia's phone?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I don't.
MR. DECOSTE: would it refresh your recollection to take a look at some of the TIII documents?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, because I didn't do TIII documents, but I don't believe we would ever -- we did not have a court order for his phone, as far as I knew.
MR. DECOSTE: So you'd agree with me that all the phone calls that sigfredo Garcia is making, the guy who's believed to have pulled the trigger and murdered Professor Markel, his phone is not being recorded?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So we don't know who he's communicating with?
PATRICK SANFORD: we know who he's communicating with because we have his CER toll records -- I think we had a pin register on his phone -- to see who he's talking to and who's calling him. we just didn't have the actual voice recordings.
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, iS your testimony that you have call detail records for Sigfredo Garcia?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe we did.
MR. DECOSTE: Because you don't.
PATRICK SANFORD: we don't?
MR. DECOSTE: would that be a question to ask Sergeant Corbitt?
PATRICK SANFORD: It would be, yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me, though, that we have no recordings of any of the calls?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So you can't say that it's not a matter of -- and, again, the dates between Donna and Charles, hundred percent sure, thousand percent sure, 10,000 percent sure. 10,000 percent sure on 5/12, and the day before, Garcia and Rivera are talking while Rivera is in custody. Can you say that it wasn't a situation of Garcia informing Charles Adelson, it's not the Kings; it's the cops?
PATRICK SANFORD: I have no evidence of that whatsoever.
MR. DECOSTE: Because, again, these intercepts and these call detail records, they're limited because there's so many other different ways that people can communicate, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's possible.
MR. DECOSTE: First, the intercepts are only on two phones, Katherine Magbanua and Charles Adelson, not anybody else involved, especially Sigfredo Garcia. There's no recording, so we don't know what he's saying to anybody, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And then call detail records are only limited to the cellphones that they're on, but it doesn't cover whatsApp and Face Time?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And obviously not landlines?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So you can't rule out that that's not what happened, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Can't rule it out, but Mr. Rivera was in the prison at the time, and his phones were monitored at the prison.
MR. DECOSTE: You've obviously -- and understanding that you don't know about the ZRT reports, so I won't ask you about that. You are aware that federal inmates can get cellphones, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: They can, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you are aware that sometimes these cellphones are illegally held by inmates?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you would agree with me that -- so communication, for the jury, if somebody's in federal custody, they use CorrLinks to email, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: They don't have the capability to send a text message from a cellphone, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MR. DECOSTE: So if there's text messages from Luis Rivera to Sigfredo Garcia, that would most likely be an unmonitored, illegal device?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Do you know about Coleman Prison?
PATRICK SANFORD: I know somewhat about Coleman Prison, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Coleman's a little bit different than some of the other locations, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's a large prison, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And some things make it in there, like drugs and cellphones, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sometimes, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, let's go to call 2281. And, again, the jury heard it. I'm not going to replay these. But you would agree with me that Katherine makes a statement to Charles Adelson, I am trying to get whoever is threatening your family and helping you guys out?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Threatening your family?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, that's what --
MR. DECOSTE: Not us.
PATRICK SANFORD: -- she said.
MR. DECOSTE: Not us, not us, the killers, threatening your family and I'm helping you guys out, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's what she said.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, along those same lines, you believe that Ms. Magbanua somehow, if she were innocent, would have called law enforcement, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Possibly, instead of getting involved in it, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But it's not her family getting threatened?
PATRICK SANFORD: But she's in the middle of it, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: well, I understand you believe that. I very much disagree with you. Donna Adelson is approached, that's Charles Adelson's mother's, right, she's approached on the street?
PATRICK SANFORD: But her name is being put in it.
MR. DECOSTE: Donna Adelson is approached on the street, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: A guy walks up to her, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: She should be calling the cops if she's innocent, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Charles Adelson, that's his mother that was approached. His father is then approached at his dental office. If he were innocent, he should be calling the police, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: His father wasn't approached, but, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: wasn't Charles Adelson's statement, that somebody came by -- in that same phone call -- that dropped off paperwork last week to my father? Didn't he say that to Katie in that same phone call?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall that. That didn't happen.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's stay on Charles here, and we won't fall down that rabbit hole.
PATRICK SANFORD: Thank you.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that it is Charles Adelson's family that they have approached?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: So Katie is trying to help him out because it's his family who's being impacted, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: And her name is brought into it, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Her name is brought into it, but she hasn't been approached by anybody, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, that's correct, she has not been.
MR. DECOSTE: The people that should be going to the police are the Adelsons, not Ms. Magbanua?
PATRICK SANFORD: True.
MR. DECOSTE: Someone -- in her statement, in that call, someone is harassing you, and they said my name?
PATRICK SANFORD: True.
MR. DECOSTE: But even then, when it wasn't about her, she still says in that phone call, right, she says, I'm about to go to the FBI? Now of course she didn't.
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: But she's the only one that's saying, look, I've had enough of this. Even though they just said my name, I'm calling the FBI.
PATRICK SANFORD: No, that's incorrect. Charlie said the same thing.
MR. DECOSTE: Charles' response to her in that call wasn't, no? when she said, I'm going to call the FBI, his response wasn't an attempt to calm and also to stop her by saying, no?
PATRICK SANFORD: But he made other statements in other calls about calling the police and calling the FBI too.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Now, we're going to go off into an aside here, a short one. The government asked you about the disposable phones, and you testified that Ms. Magbanua purchased a burner phone?
PATRICK SANFORD: She didn't purchase it.
MR. DECOSTE: There you go. So call 3460 on May 24th, right -- if you remember this one, if you don't, you don't -- that Sigfredo Garcia says that he's hearing --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, hearsay.
MR. DECOSTE: Not introduced for the truth of the matter.
JUDGE WHEELER: Go ahead and ask the question.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Sigfredo Garcia says that he's hearing noises on the phone.
JUDGE WHEELER: You can answer.
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall that.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: And that he believes that the conversations are being monitored on May 24th?
PATRICK SANFORD: On May 24th? I don't recall that. It's possible.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree that it's the following day that Sigfredo Garcia, not Ms. Magbanua, walks into a walmart and purchased two Straight Talk wireless phones, legally purchased -- and I'm not saying he's innocent -- but he walks in and he purchases to two Straight Talk wireless phones from walmart?
PATRICK SANFORD: I know that he walked in and bought those two wireless phones from walmart the night that we tried to interview them.
MR. DECOSTE: And he gave one of those to Ms. Magbanua?
PATRICK SANFORD: correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And she used that to communicate with him?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now, Ms. Magbanua did not dispose or get rid of her 1312 number, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: She kept that up until the day she was arrested in October of 2016?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So any testimony that she ditched that phone would be incorrect, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not ditched the phone, no.
MR. DECOSTE: She kept it, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: She kept the phone, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The antithesis of kept is ditched, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: She didn't utilize it the way she utilized it before.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, I'm going to go back to the summary here. Along those lines, you said that right after that she left and never came back. Remember that?
PATRICK SANFORD: To that condo, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: She moved down the street, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I disagree with moving down the street. I'm not sure where she went, but I think it might have been Broward County, a whole different county away.
MR. DECOSTE: You understand that by saying that she left and never came back is indicative of somebody who, like, fled the country, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. It's indicative of somebody who is trying to avoid the police who are looking for them and trying to talk to them.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Now let's look at it objectively. Okay?
PATRICK SANFORD: I am.
MR. DECOSTE: It's also consistent with somebody who is the father of her children, who she relies on for financial support, is no longer there for financial support because he's just been arrested, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's incorrect. She fled before he was arrested.
MR. DECOSTE: when did -- I'm sorry. when was he arrested?
PATRICK SANFORD: I have to refer to my notes to find the exact date. You want me to refer to it?
MR. DECOSTE: Please, yes.
PATRICK SANFORD: He was arrested on May 25th of ‘16, the evening of May 25th.
MR. DECOSTE: So, Agent, you've seen this summary here, June 4th, that Ms. Magbanua is calling a U-Haul, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I see it there now, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: U-Haul, they rent moving trucks, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: what evidence do you have as to when she moved?
PATRICK SANFORD: She left the house after we tried to interview her, when she refused to answer the door. She never came back to that residence.
MR. DECOSTE: we're going to get to that right after this.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: But with respect to moving, what evidence do you have that she moved before Sigfredo Garcia was arrested?
PATRICK SANFORD: She never came back. She didn't move. She never moved herself. Somebody else came and took her belongings out of the apartment.
MR. DECOSTE: The father of her children has just been arrested and being held no bond, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's the next day.
MR. DECOSTE: So, let's unpack this, because it's getting a little bit confused. Let's go in chronological order.
PATRICK SANFORD: few days before Sigfredo Garcia is arrested, you go to Ms. Magbanua's house to talk to her, right? A. Incorrect. It was the very night before.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So the night before?
PATRICK SANFORD: On the 24th.
MR. DECOSTE: You go to the house and you go to talk to her, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, prior to that, there were attempts to speak to Sigfredo Garcia, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Incorrect.
MR. DECOSTE: well, give me the timeline of how this happens.
PATRICK SANFORD: It happened at the exact same time. I went to Mr. Garcia's work and talked to him so my partner could go talk to Ms. Magbanua, so he couldn't intercept her from cooperating and talking to us. I wanted to distract him while my partner was talking to her so he could not call her up and say, don't talk to the police.
MR. DECOSTE: So for the jury --
PATRICK SANFORD: we did it simultaneously, exact same time.
MR. DECOSTE: I know, but let's explain it for the jury. who was at Rapid Capital Funding trying to speak to Sigfredo Garcia?
PATRICK SANFORD: Myself.
MR. DECOSTE: And who else?
PATRICK SANFORD: I had a female agent with me from Miami.
MR. DECOSTE: Kelly, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: sorry?
MR. DECOSTE: Kelly, Agent Kelly?
MR. DECOSTE: Blond hair?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not Kelly, no.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So you're there with a female agent and you're at Rapid Capital Funding?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator Isom, right, and a Miami Beach Police Department detective are out at the house, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You know from the intercepts that Ms. Magbanua knows that the FBI has just tried to speak to Sigfredo Garcia, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, that was all simultaneously. She didn't know until -- she tried to call Sigfredo as they're knocking on the door. She tries to call Sigfredo, Sigfredo's friend picks up the phone and tells her, he's outside talking to the FBI.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that Ms. Magbanua, inside of the house, has no idea who is at the door?
PATRICK SANFORD: I disagree. She said on the phone it was police at her door.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. For who? Did she say, the police are here for me?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, she --
MR. DECOSTE: Or --
PATRICK SANFORD: -- says, there's police knocking on my door.
MR. DECOSTE: Or are the police here -- she has the right to remain silent, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: She does.
MR. DECOSTE: Are the police here to bother me about something that Sigfredo Garcia has done? Because he's always doing something, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: why would she assume that?
MR. DECOSTE: why would you assume -- why would you assume that she's not talking to you and that's somehow an indication of guilt?
PATRICK SANFORD: Because she already said in one of the phone calls, I'm tired of the fucking FBI messing with us.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So at that point, when you're at the door, it's a matter of a knock on the door, law enforcement, that's it, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm sorry, repeat the question.
MR. DECOSTE: what did you say when you were at the door? No, you weren't at the door. what did Isom say at the door, if you know?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know. I wasn't there.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So we should ask Investigator Isom?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Fair enough. Now, we talked about this before in a different piece of evidence, but we'll talk about it more. This circumstantial evidence, it's good for your theory, right, or for their theory?
PATRICK SANFORD: which evidence?
MR. DECOSTE: The circumstantial evidence.
PATRICK SANFORD: It's part of the case, it's evidence, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But you've intentionally, all law enforcement has intentionally not looked further into the Instagram photos, into the nightclubs, into the car, into the paychecks, into the work, because the risk of uncovering legitimacy of any of it, right?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, argumentative.
JUDGE WHEELER: You can answer.
PATRICK SANFORD: That is totally incorrect.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: And that's the same reason why you didn't record Rivera's first interview?
PATRICK SANFORD: That is totally incorrect.
MR. DECOSTE: Because he could have said something that would have impeached himself?
PATRICK SANFORD: Totally incorrect.
MR. DECOSTE: And this evidence, this evidence that was being used to potentially get her to cooperate against Charles Adelson so that you could build the case against your target, it could fall apart, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's incorrect. We were just trying to get the truth.
MR. DECOSTE: You agree with me though, and you said it before, you're trying to get everybody to cooperate, but the goal was to get her to cooperate against an Adelson?
PATRICK SANFORD: Is try to get -- is try to solve the case is the goal, is try to get the truth of what happened, who did what, and hold those responsible that were responsible for the murder.
MR. DECOSTE: Have you not said that that's what you would like to see happen, both professionally and personally?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, relevance.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled. He can answer.
PATRICK SANFORD: I've not said that I personally want that to happen. I want people to cooperate, and I want people to tell the truth.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, I'm going to impeach the witness, but I'd like to show the clip to the government first. It's very short.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I object, Your Honor.
MR. DECOSTE: If Your Honor wants to see it?
JUDGE WHEELER: I'm going to have to.
MR. DECOSTE: I can bring it up to you. However Your Honor wants me to bring it up to you.
(Pause in proceedings.)
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. What was the -- now let's restate the question.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent Sanford, did you ever say, I want her to --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, hearsay.
JUDGE WHEELER: Hold on. I know. I've got to hear the question first and then I'm going to make a ruling.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I know, Your Honor, but the hearsay is in the question, so that's --
JUDGE WHEELER: Well, that's not --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'd rather it be handled at sidebar.
JUDGE WHEELER: Go ahead and ask the question.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, did you ever say that what you would personally like to see happen is her cooperate?
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. So now you can answer that question.
PATRICK SANFORD: In the original interview I did with Rivera, when I was trying to get him to cooperate, that's a tactic that I said to let him know that I did not need him to cooperate against his childhood friend, Sigfredo Garcia. I told him that I want the people that caused this to happen. I don't need your cooperation against Sigfredo. I don't want you to roll over on him, because, quite frankly, gang members have a loyalty to each other. They're not going to roll over on each other. But he doesn't know the people that might have caused this to happen, and that's who I was telling him I want him to cooperate against, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, I'd now like to impeach the witness.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. You can go ahead and play it.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, do you remember speaking to Ms. Magbanua's brother?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I do.
MR. DECOSTE: That's not Luis Rivera, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, it's not.
(An audio recording was published in open court. This transcript should not be considered a verbatim record of those proceedings due to inaudibles and inability to distinguish between speakers. It should be noted that the best evidence of the actual content of the digital recording is the digital recording itself.)
(Audio begins:)
PATRICK SANFORD: I want her to cooperate. (Inaudible). That's what I would like to see happen personally.
(Audio concluded. )
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, you would agree with me that you can't force someone to cooperate if the evidence shows they're innocent, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, I would agree.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'd agree that you can't force somebody to cooperate, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: No, no. My question to you was, if the evidence shows that somebody's innocent, you can't force them to agree with evidence of innocence, can you?
MR. DECOSTE: You need to build a case against them to force them to cooperate?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't try to build a case against somebody to force them to do anything.
MR. DECOSTE: To let Your Honor know, I'm close.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right.
MR. DECOSTE: It shouldn't be too much longer. I'm down to the final pages here.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: So let's go back to Luis Rivera --
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: -- and your knowledge of him. You know he's a dangerous guy, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: He's a Latin King?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: You have professional experience with the Latin Kings?
PATRICK SANFORD: some.
MR. DECOSTE: You know that they're a criminal organization?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: They're well organized?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: They make money through crime?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Including murder?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: It's a Latin-based gang?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Strong presence in Miami?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: He was the boss?
PATRICK SANFORD: He was the boss of just the North Miami tribe, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Should we rely on his testimony as to what he was the boss of, whether it was Miami or just North Miami?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm sorry, say that again.
MR. DECOSTE: who would know better of what he was the boss over, you or him?
PATRICK SANFORD: Oh, he would.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that somebody in his position, he's already serving a sentence, he's charged with first-degree murder, there's strong evidence against him that he was potentially in a desperate situation?
PATRICK SANFORD: would I agree with you on that?
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah.
PATRICK SANFORD: Sure.
MR. DECOSTE: Charged with first-degree murder?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And Sigfredo Garcia could flip against him?
PATRICK SANFORD: He could.
MR. DECOSTE: You've read the discovery in this case, some of it, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Some of it, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The arrest warrants -- now, for the jury, an arrest warrant, you've got a document that's signed by a judge, but then there's also a long story that explains the case to get that warrant signed, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you would agree with me that the theory, the government's theory, that this was through Ms. Magbanua, was in that narrative for those arrest warrants for Luis Rivera and Sigfredo Garcia?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't recall exactly what was in those arrest warrants off the top of my head.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, the FBI reports, you talked about, it explains the cell activity, right, the cell communication activity, your reports explain that?
PATRICK SANFORD: Some of it, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you're getting that data from your close communication-- not close communications, but your regular communications with Sergeant Corbitt?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct, he gave me access to a database that I could look at, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you did reports, and I have them here if you need refreshing. First you did a report, and the investigation date -- that's what I go by -- is June 8th, 2016, and it talks about the June trip, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: June 8th of 2016 is the date of the report?
MR. DECOSTE: Yeah.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: You want to take a look?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'll take your word for it.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. And it talks about the June trip?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree there's also a report that was dated January 28th, 2016, that talks about the July trip?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't remember the dates, but, yes there was a report about the July trip too.
MR. DECOSTE: And each of these reports, the later is seven pages, the other one is eight pages?
PATRICK SANFORD: Sounds about right.
MR. DECOSTE: And that talks about details in the case, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And you would have provided those to the prosecution?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And that's why I have them here today, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: But Luis Rivera, he would have gotten those too, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know what he would have gotten.
MR. DECOSTE: It's your belief, based on your experience, that your reports, especially on this case, would go over to the Defense, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes. It should be provided over in discovery, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you know before Luis Rivera took a plea, that's actually one of the questions they ask is, have you reviewed all your discovery with your attorney?
PATRICK SANFORD: Usually, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you would agree with me that these reports are authored well before he starts cooperating?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes. I agree with that, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you talked about Investigator Isom, that he wrote a whole bunch of reports too, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And you would agree that those -- and you have reviewed those reports, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Some of them.
MR. DECOSTE: And they discuss the theory that the connection was through Ms. Magbanua, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to the next topic. Still on Luis Rivera, the murder weapon. You know the route, I10 to 175, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You said that, you know, maybe 30 to 40 hours, you tried to do the search?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: But ultimately he couldn't give you the location?
PATRICK SANFORD: He tried to give a location, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, that's consistent with, he doesn't remember the =location, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Somewhat. He thought he gave us the right location.
MR. DECOSTE: Or he doesn't want you to find the gun. It's consistent with that, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't think so.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, you, as a federal agent, you've been involved in a lot of federal prosecutions, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The one thing that could take a case like this to federal court would be interstate commerce, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That gun and the ammunition could establish interstate commerce, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: It could.
MR. DECOSTE: Basically what we're saying is, that the feds, federal prosecution, you get jurisdiction if you have something that ties to out of state?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's possible, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And -- and you're aware that Mr. Rivera -- or anybody -- you could be prosecuted for the same crime, the Same events in both state court and federal court at the same time?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's true.
MR. DECOSTE: Double jeopardy doesn't apply?
PATRICK SANFORD: Very true.
MR. DECOSTE: And the legal language is that they're separate sovereigns?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So he could be prosecuted for murder in federal court as well too?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, not based on that weapon, he could not be.
MR. DECOSTE: You couldn't establish interstate commerce on a .38 revolver manufactured out of state?
PATRICK SANFORD: If we found that weapon because he led us to it, it was under a proffer, where he could -- where he had immunity. we couldn't use that weapon against him.
MR. DECOSTE: You couldn't use his statement against him, but you could use the weapon against him?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not if he led us to that weapon.
MR. DECOSTE: But you don't know what his knowledge is about whether he could be prosecuted federally or not, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know that.
MR. DECOSTE: And the fact is, he just came out of a federal prosecution, right, for RICO?
PATRICK SANFORD: His attorneys would tell him that though.
MR. DECOSTE: If there's other bodies on that gun, that could also cause a problem for him as well too, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not if we found the gun per his instructions out of that proffer.
MR. DECOSTE: There isn't a disclaimer in the proffer, if you talk about any violent crimes, that that's not covered by the proffer?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know what was in that proffer though.
MR. DECOSTE: So you wouldn't know then what applies to Mr. Rivera and what doesn't, as to exposure to federal liability, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't. It's general immunity, but I don't know the specifics of this one.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, Agent, conclusion here, you'd agree with me that this is a dangerous criminal in a desperate situation who knows what you want to hear?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't know if I agree with that, no.
MR. DECOSTE: You think that -- and you talked about this on direct -- you think that his facts fit the story, right, or that the facts fit his story, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: The facts fit his story? For the most part.
MR. DECOSTE: The bullet hole, stuff like that?
PATRICK SANFORD: The most part, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Have you ever considered that he's fitting his story to the facts that you gave him?
PATRICK SANFORD: I considered that, and if he was able to remember all those facts that I can't even remember sitting up here, he's a much smarter man than I am.
MR. DECOSTE: He got a bullet hole right, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: He got a lot of things right.
MR. DECOSTE: He got a bullet hole right --
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: -- and a few other things? Now, again, you deny directly telling him what to say?
PATRICK SANFORD: Absolutely.
MR. DECOSTE: And what he says to you is -- and we saw it at the beginning of this cross-examination -- that Katie is the one in the middle doing everything?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, he did say that.
MR. DECOSTE: And in the first meeting that you ever had with him on May 27th, 2016, that's the exact same thing that you said to him, isn't it?
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't believe so, no.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, one moment.
(Pause in proceedings.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, again, 5/27, 2016, that's the first time that you have ever spoken to Luis Rivera, correct?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
JUDGE WHEELER: Is there an objection, Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, Your Honor.
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Investigator Isom was there?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: And it was recorded?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, sir.
(An audio recording was published in open court. This transcript should not be considered a verbatim record of those proceedings due to inaudibles and inability to distinguish between speakers. It should be noted that the best evidence of the actual content of the digital recording is the digital recording itself.)
(Audio begins:)
(Inaudible.)
(Audio concluded. )
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, I'm going to restart it because of the reverberation.
JUDGE WHEELER: ATI right.
MR. DECOSTE: I'm going to turn down the volume a little bit.
(An audio recording was published in open court. This transcript should not be considered a verbatim record of those proceedings due to inaudibles and inability to distinguish between speakers. It should be noted that the best evidence of the actual content of the digital recording is the digital recording itself.)
(Audio begins:)
AUDIO RECORDING: Think about it. Settle down and think about it. Is that person in the middle, if that person was in the middle and that's the person you helped, that's the person that (inaudible). Think about it. Settle down, think about it. That person in the middle --
(Audio concluded.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Agent, do you remember what it was that Mr. Rivera said months later after he gets his discovery?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: And this is what he says, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
(An audio recording was published in open court. This transcript should not be considered a verbatim record of those proceedings due to inaudibles and inability to distinguish between speakers. It should be noted that the best evidence of the actual content of the digital recording is the digital recording itself.)
(Audio begins:)
AUDIO RECORDING: So you say Katie is the person between the woman that wants this done --
LUIS RIVERA: Katie's the one in the middle of everything.
AUDIO RECORDING: (Inaudible). So you say Katie --
(Audio concluded.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: That's the exact same thing, isn't it?
PATRICK SANFORD: Not the exact --
MR. DECOSTE: In May of 2016, the first time you ever meet with him, you tell him, the person in the middle, you know who it is, and that's what you can get to get a reduction from a life sentence or the needle going into your arm?
PATRICK SANFORD: That is not what I said.
MR. DECOSTE: You just heard it, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: And I didn't say anything, that's what you need to do to get a reduction or any of that stuff. You're adding to it.
MR. DECOSTE: And I'm not saying that you did that. I'm not saying that you walked in there with the intent of forcing him like that. what I'm talking about is that this man is intelligent, he saw an opportunity and he took it. He knew that what he needed to say is that she's the one in the middle, that she's the one doing everything, and based on your words, that that's what he could do to get time off. You would agree with me that that's a reasonable understanding based on what you just said to him in May?
PATRICK SANFORD: No. If you back that recording up and hear the whole thing in context, it puts it in better context about what we were talking about at that time.
MR. DECOSTE: You would agree with me that in an earlier portion of it, what is said to him is, you can't give us Garcia because we already have him. Investigator Isom says, you can't give us Garcia, we've got him --
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: -- right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, again, I'm not saying this was your intent, Agent, I'm not, but you'd agree with me that what you said was, the person in the middle, that can get you a reduction; that was said, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: I did not say that can get you a reduction, no, I did not. I said that you could -- I said, you can give us the person --
MR. DECOSTE: Do you want to hear it again?
PATRICK SANFORD: -- in the middle --
MR. DECOSTE: Do you want to hear it again?
PATRICK SANFORD: That I said he could get a reduction?
MR. DECOSTE: That could get --
PATRICK SANFORD: I don't remember saying that.
MR. DECOSTE: That could get you some time off. Did you say that?
PATRICK SANFORD: I didn't say reduction, but maybe time off is possible.
(An audio recording was published in open court. This transcript should not be considered a verbatim record of those proceedings due to inaudibles and inability to distinguish between speakers. It should be noted that the best evidence of the actual content of the digital recording is the digital recording itself.)
(Audio begins:)
AUDIO RECORDING: Think about this. Settle down. Think about this. That person in the middle, if you give me good information about that person in the middle Cinaudible) and that's the person you know, that's enough to get you some --
AUDIO RECORDING: So you say Katie's the person -- the one that wants this done?
LUIS RIVERA: Katie is the one in the middle of everything, and that's what --
(Audio concluded.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: Can get you something, that's what you said, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay. Maybe I said that, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if I could have one brief moment, I'm going to talk to counsel. I think we have one final topic.
JUDGE WHEELER: Briefly.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. DECOSTE: Nothing further. Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Redirect, Ms. Cappleman?
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. DECOSTE: Your Honor, if we can reopen cross for one final matter?
JUDGE WHEELER: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: The Defense moves in the recording that was just played of the 5/27 interview.
JUDGE WHEELER: Defense 28?
COURT CLERK: Yes, sir, Defense 28.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. It will be admitted.
(Defense Exhibit 28 received in evidence.)
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. DECOSTE: Sorry, Your Honor, to crosstalk.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. But wait, there's more.
All right. You were asked about, can you force somebody to cooperate, can you force somebody to cooperate if they're innocent of a crime? Can you force somebody to cooperate if they're guilty of a crime?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, you cannot.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You were asked about your personal opinion, what you want to see happen in this case. You want to see all the guilty parties held accountable, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you want Garcia to cooperate, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: But he didn't cooperate, did he?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And does that mean he's innocent of the crimes that he's charged with?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Everyone here seems to agree that he's guilty?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Charlie's guilty, everybody's guilty, except Ms. Magbanua, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: (Nodding head affirmatively.)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Can't force anybody to cooperate?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: They have a constitutional right to a trial by jury?
PATRICK SANFORD: Absolutely.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The right to have the State prove the case against them in a court?
PATRICK SANFORD: Absolutely.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: A defense, they have a right to that too, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And is there anything nefarious about the fact that Mr. Rivera's attorneys were provided with his discovery in his case?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, that's their right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That's how it works right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That is how it works.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: In fact, it's required, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Defense in this case was provided with the discovery, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And, in fact, they've had, what, seven additional years for Mr. Rivera to study the discovery and conform a defense however they see fit?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, denigration of counsel.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You were shown exhibit -- Defense Exhibit 3, about, I'll let you know my availability. Do you remember that text message?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm going to show you an additional exhibit that I have marked as State's 135. All right. If you'll -- you have to start at the back and work forward. Take a minute to study on that, and also Defense 3, and let me know when you're done.
PATRICK SANFORD: (witness reading document). Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So I'm looking at the content surrounding the text message that the defense introduced as Defense 3. Does it appear there could be some other explanation for what they're talking about there, other than her coming to work at the Adelson Institute?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, there does.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what is that?
PATRICK SANFORD: Apparently Mr. Adelson was taking out Ms. Magbanua's wisdom teeth, I believe.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And, Judge, at this time, I'd ask to move into evidence State's 135.
JUDGE WHEELER: Any objection?
MR. DECOSTE: No.
JUDGE WHEELER: Will be admitted as State's 135.
(State's Exhibit 135 received in evidence.)
BY MR. DECOSTE:
MR. DECOSTE: You were asked about either the cops or the killers, it's got to be one or two things -- and I'm jumping around a lot here, I'm sorry, but we're going to the wire -- and what the bump could mean and the discussions about that. Was there a third possibility that was discussed on the wire, where it's just somebody who's read about this case and doesn't know anything about it, isn't really on the inside?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So that was an option that was considered as well, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And when you were asked about the bump and the opportunity for Donna to make calls on some other line before calling Charlie in that call A that we heard, was she being surveilled during that time between the bump and call A?
PATRICK SANFORD: Being surveilled? Yes. She went back to her condo, yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. But right when the bump happens, doesn't she go to get the children?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: So the bump occurs at, do you know exactly what time?
PATRICK SANFORD: I'd have to refer to my notes again on the times.
MR. DECOSTE: Okay. Go ahead.
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe it was 1:47.
MR. DECOSTE: 1:47 p.m.?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: And then she walks and gets the children. Do we have an idea of what time she enters The Icon with the = children?
PATRICK SANFORD: It was a -- good, I'm guessing right now -- but about ten minutes.
MR. DECOSTE: So about 1:57, she's reentering the building?
PATRICK SANFORD: Somewhere around there.
MR. DECOSTE: And what time does the call -- is the call placed to Charlie that we heard, that call A?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe it's 2:09.
MR. DECOSTE: And during the time that she was walking to get the kids and walking back to The Icon, was she on the cellphone during that time?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, she was not.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. The list of calls that you were showed that were not played, do you know whether that list includes calls that were not answered, meaning missed calls?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: All right. And we had some missed calls between Katherine Magbanua and Charlie Adelson in this case during the wire, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Did we hear that -- call D on State's Exhibit 99, that first call that we heard between Magbanua and Charlie Adelson, was that the first time they talked on the wire after the bump?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, it was.
MR. DECOSTE: You were asked about the -- I guess there was a couple work calls that Charlie Adelson makes between the time of him talking to Donna and learning about the bump, and him talking to the Defendant?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, hearsay, as to contents of unadmitted calls.
JUDGE WHEELER: Well, she hasn't asked about any content at this point.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: were those calls intercepted?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And was there any mention on those calls of this operation, the police operation?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, none whatsoever.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You previously testified that this Defendant gave testimony that she had no idea there was a murder at all until Sigfredo Garcia was arrested?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is that consistent or inconsistent with what has now been revealed by the Dolce Vida audio clarification?
JUDGE WHEELER: Hold on.
MR. DECOSTE: Improper opinion.
JUDGE WHEELER: Overruled. You can answer.
PATRICK SANFORD: I'm sorry, ask again.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So you were -- you previously testified that you have reviewed the prior testimony of the Defendant in this case?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And that her testimony back in 2019 was that she never knew there was a murder at all until Garcia was arrested?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And is that position consistent or inconsistent with what has now been revealed through the Dolce Vida conversation that we can now hear?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's inconsistent.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You mentioned -- I guess you were asked on cross-examination about Katherine Magbanua, why she did or didn't act a certain way on the wire, and you said she was walling off, you believe she was walling off Charlie Adelson. what does that mean?
PATRICK SANFORD: It's where you protect yourself by not sharing all the information that you have with other people, and that way those people can't use things against you or whatever. But it's a term we use in law enforcement a lot, of walling someone off.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So is that something we commonly see in a conspiracy, where the conspirators deliberately don't know who's down the line?
PATRICK SANFORD: Absolutely.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And Katherine Magbanua does not say the name Tuto, Tato, Garcia, Rivera, any of that on the wire to Charlie, does she?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, she doesn't.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: But she does know that information?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, that's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That that's who the undercover was referencing?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And in the opposite direction, when she's speaking to Sigfredo Garcia, is she walling off Charlie?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, appears to be that that's what she's doing.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So when he's a hundred percent sure, a thousand, million, zillion percent sure that it's law enforcement, as he's saying that, as far as we know, he doesn't know anything about the fact that that information was true, Tato and Tuto are someone that's known in the case?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct. I don't believe he knew who Tato was and that he was actually in jail.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: In Broward County?
PATRICK SANFORD: In Broward County.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And so at the same timeframe that he's saying I'm 10,000 percent sure it's the cops, she's saying, it's getting too detailed, it's coming from the inside, she's saying that to Garcia?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Because Garcia does know who Tato is?
PATRICK SANFORD: Exactly.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You were asked about the money drop and the locations of phones at the time of the money drop. would you defer to Sergeant Corbitt on exactly where or what phones were at the time of the money drop?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, I would.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Same with Instagram record retention policies?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is that a little bit outside your area of expertise?
PATRICK SANFORD: It is. I didn't deal with that at all.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you were asked about, isn't King Anthony something new that Rivera's adding. Did Rivera mention -- did Rivera call King Anthony by another name in this case?
PATRICK SANFORD: I believe he called him Ortiz.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. But there's another name. Do you remember it? would it refresh your recollection to review either Isom's 9/30 report or the 10/4 statement of Rivera?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, probably.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Let me show you one of those.
MR. DECOSTE: I don't object to you just saying it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. I'm just going to say it.
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did Rivera refer to King Anthony as Jibaro?
PATRICK SANFORD: Jibaro, yes. I'm sorry.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And Jibaro was mentioned in the 9/30 non-recorded proffer, wasn't he?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And he was also mentioned on that 10/4 statement?
PATRICK SANFORD: That sounds --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Specifically that he sent Jibaro to go get Garcia from Shrimp's on the day of the money drop?
PATRICK SANFORD: That is correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You were asked about the clubs and the money and how much of an investigation you did into trying to figure out how much cash she made at these clubs. One of the exhibits that you were shown by the Defense -- and I'm not sure, did this get a number, the club? It doesn't have one on it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: What's the next Defense number, Madam Clerk?
COURT CLERK: It will be 29.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: We're going to call it Defense 29 for identification.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You remember seeing that one?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And why was she quitting the clubs, according to that text?
PATRICK SANFORD: "They were behind on paying me. It's a lot of work." And they had to clean up after that. That's what she tips out the busboys for.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: They're making her clean up at the end of the shift?
PATRICK SANFORD: Apparently.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And she's not making any money?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, mischaracterization of what's not in evidence.
JUDGE WHEELER: Well, it hasn't been admitted into evidence, but it's a Defense exhibit, so we're in an odd position here. Are you asking for it to be admitted into evidence?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir. I just think that the door has been opened since he was shown this and asked about it and --
MR. DECOSTE: May the Defense move to enter it in, and then Ms. Cappleman can ask her questions?
JUDGE WHEELER: Do you have any objection?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE WHEELER: So it's moved in as Defense Exhibit 29.
(Defense Exhibit 29 received in evidence.)
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Regarding Hollywood Live and Club Fate, you did get some information about Hollywood Live way back in 2016, didn't you, from Yindra?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yindra also worked at Hollywood Live?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: At the same time as this Defendant?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And that evidence suggested that she wasn't making a lot of money at Hollywood Live, didn't it?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And Club Fate, we got a bounced check, that's it, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Doesn't suggest it's a highly successful business, does it?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: But in any event, if she was making a ton of money at the club -- publishing State's Exhibit 18 -- sorry, 81M -- if she was killing it at the club, she especially killed it around the time of this murder, didn't she?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, speculation. Improper question as to, killed it.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's overruled.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: She did real good around the murder, didn't she?
PATRICK SANFORD: She sure did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And not so good any other time, comparatively speaking?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I want to ask you about the -- at the time that the Dolce recording -- we listened to that today, I know it's been a long time ago -- but you remember hearing that this morning?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you've heard it before?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you heard the discussion on there about the vehicle, if your DNA is in the vehicle, if they can put you in the vehicle, that can't prove anything, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: was the photo of the Prius -- I know there was a photo of the Prius, the suspect vehicle, that was blasted out to the media. was that done before or after the Dolce?
PATRICK SANFORD: That was done before the Dolce. That was on the one-year anniversary, I believe, of the murder.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So that had been out for some time, that information that there was a suspect vehicle and this was it?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. while we're on the topic of vehicles, let's switch over to the Lexus. You were asked about the value of the Lexus, and I think you started to say you did know it. What was the value of the Lexus?
PATRICK SANFORD: My partner reported -- did research on it and found that it was -- I believe it was 6,000.
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, hearsay. Move to strike.
JUDGE WHEELER: That's hearsay. That's sustained.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So if she paid $1,700 -- let's assume she did pay $1,700 for a Lexus, and that evidence we have was it was in mint condition, she got a good deal, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, very good deal.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It's not like she's driving a Bentley, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: Right.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You were asked about the pattern of the calls, and is the pattern of the calls and communication between the parties in this case consistent with guilt, does it prove guilt. And the point that the Defense was making, I believe, is that, you know, these people had relationships outside of doing a murder together, right?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So the fact that they were communicating with each other does not, in and of itself, prove that they did a murder together?
PATRICK SANFORD: That's correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. when you see the flurry of activity right before important events in this case, is that something that raises your suspicion about those particular calls?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, it does.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And you're not able to -- I mean, some people think law enforcement can just go into the Cloud, you know, I don't know, and listen to any of our calls retroactively. Is that something that can be done?
PATRICK SANFORD: Absolutely not.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So you can't go back to before the June trip, when everybody was calling everybody, and listen to those calls and hear what they were saying?
PATRICK SANFORD: No, you can't.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Same thing with the July trip, can't do that, can you?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So we can't be sure from that activity if that pattern really does relate to the flow of information passing from one conspirator to the other as we suspect?
PATRICK SANFORD: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Is there a way that we could plant some information and listen to what these folks are saying to demonstrate that fact or ferret out that suspicion?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes. That's why we did the bump.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That's why we did the wire, and they do talk about it, don't they?
PATRICK SANFORD: Yes, they do.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No further questions.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. You want the witness subject to recall?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. DECOSTE: Yes.
JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. You're subject to recall, and so they'll let you know if you need to reappear. Okay?
PATRICK SANFORD: Okay.
JUDGE WHEELER: All right. Thank you.
PATRICK SANFORD: Thank you, Judge.