Defense opened its case with Tallahassee Police Officer Sherry Bennett, who testified about a recorded interview she conducted with Jessica Rodriguez on September 30, 2016 — the day Rivera began cooperating. Bennett confirmed Rodriguez placed the payment bag delivery in August or September rather than July 19, and that Rodriguez said Magbanua accompanied Garcia to the house but left before Rivera arrived. On cross, Cappleman established that Rodriguez could not fix a firm date and that her statement about Magbanua not knowing the bag's contents did not extend to broader ignorance of the scheme.

Day 8 →

Proceedings

Direct Sherry Bennett - Direct Line 1

Cross Sherry Bennett - Cross Line 81

Direct Sherry Bennett Christopher DeCoste

1 36:14

JUDGE WHEELER: Good morning, everyone. Please be seated. The state has rested its case, as you saw yesterday, and so we're now ready to proceed with the defense portion of the case. And Mr. DeCoste, the defense may call its first witness.

2 36:14

MR. DECOSTE: Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning. The defense calls Sergeant Sherry Bennett.

3 36:14

JUDGE WHEELER: Sergeant Sherry Bennett, please. Somebody will need to go out and get her. Mr. DeCoste?

4 36:38

MR. DECOSTE: I can get her.

5 36:39

JUDGE WHEELER: Okay.

6 36:45

JUDGE WHEELER: Good morning.

7 36:46

JUDGE WHEELER: Before you have a seat, we're going to swear you in. Please raise your right hand, respond to the clerk.

8 36:59

COURT CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

9 37:05

SHERRY BENNETT: I do.

10 37:05

JUDGE WHEELER: Please have a seat.

11 37:16

MR. DECOSTE: Sergeant, good morning. If you could please introduce yourself to the jury.

12 37:20

SHERRY BENNETT: I'm Officer Sherry Bennett, the Tallahassee Police Department.

13 37:23

MR. DECOSTE: I apologize, I upped your rank.

14 37:25

SHERRY BENNETT: Yes.

15 37:27

MR. DECOSTE: All right. What was your involvement in this case? At one time, you were an investigator, correct?

16 37:32

SHERRY BENNETT: Correct.

17 37:32

MR. DECOSTE: And you were involved in this case. If you could explain to the jury your involvement.

18 37:37

SHERRY BENNETT: I was initially involved with assisting with some of the paperwork, typing up search warrant subpoenas, and a lot of the data that has been collected by the other investigators and put it together for orders that were needed.

19 37:50

MR. DECOSTE: At one point in time, did you do a phone interview of a witness, Jessica Rodriguez?

20 37:55

SHERRY BENNETT: Yes, I did.

21 37:57

MR. DECOSTE: All right, now, that's one of the topics that we're going to talk about. That's the second one. Let's go to the first topic, which is the arrest warrant of Ms. Magbanua. Were you involved in that?

22 38:07

SHERRY BENNETT: Yes. I presented the arrest warrant to the judge to be signed.

23 38:12

MR. DECOSTE: After an arrest warrant is presented to a judge and signed, what is done with it?

24 38:19

SHERRY BENNETT: It is usually entered into NCIC, FCSE, at the Clerk of Courts. I believe this one was signed after hours.

25 38:26

MR. DECOSTE: And once you entered into the system, would it be available — let's say the next business day — to your colleagues?

26 38:32

SHERRY BENNETT: Yes.

27 38:33

MR. DECOSTE: Does it even matter whether it's a business day?

28 38:37

SHERRY BENNETT: Yes.

29 38:40

MR. DECOSTE: All right.

30 38:44

SHERRY BENNETT: If it's entered after hours. It is temporarily entered. It is not available through the Clerk of Courts. Therefore, a copy has to be sent to someone until the Clerk of Courts opens — opens the next business hours.

31 38:54

MR. DECOSTE: Now, that's through the courthouse, but throughout TPD, Tallahassee Police Department, your colleagues at TPD would have access to those documents, right?

32 39:03

SHERRY BENNETT: No.

33 39:05

MR. DECOSTE: The other officers that you're working on the case — Investigator Craig Isom — he'd have access to the arrest warrant, correct?

34 39:11

SHERRY BENNETT: Yes. I sent it to him directly.

35 39:14

MR. DECOSTE: When did you send it to him?

36 39:15

SHERRY BENNETT: After it was signed, that same night.

37 39:19

MR. DECOSTE: Do you have any reason to believe that he didn't receive it?

38 39:21

SHERRY BENNETT: No.

39 39:22

MR. DECOSTE: How did you send it to him?

40 39:23

SHERRY BENNETT: Through email.

41 39:24

MR. DECOSTE: All right. Now let's go to Jessica Rodriguez. Who is Jessica Rodriguez in relation to this case?

42 39:32

SHERRY BENNETT: She is the girlfriend of Rivera.

43 39:36

MR. DECOSTE: Do you remember when you did a phone interview of Jessica Rodriguez? I believe it was September 30th of 20— give me a second —2016. And if you know, could you explain to the jury the relation of that date to Luis Rivera's cooperation?

44 39:55

SHERRY BENNETT: I was aware he was at the time in an interview with Detective — or Investigator Isom — and Pat Sanford.

45 40:03

MR. DECOSTE: So on September 30th, 2016, Agent Sanford and Investigator Isom meet with Luis Rivera, and they inform you that there's cooperation happening?

46 40:15

SHERRY BENNETT: Yes.

47 40:16

MR. DECOSTE: And what was the reason for your phone call to Jessica Rodriguez?

48 40:19

SHERRY BENNETT: I was summoned to the State Attorney's Office to make the call regarding her providing a statement.

49 40:25

MR. DECOSTE: Was it your understanding that Luis Rivera was allowed to speak to her before that phone interview?

50 40:30

SHERRY BENNETT: I'm unaware.

51 40:32

MR. DECOSTE: Was this phone call recorded?

52 40:34

SHERRY BENNETT: Yes, it was.

53 46:26

MR. DECOSTE: Officer Bennett, just a few questions on this, just to make sure that it's clear. Do you know who Tuto is?

54 46:34

SHERRY BENNETT: Yes.

55 46:35

MR. DECOSTE: Who is that?

56 46:36

SHERRY BENNETT: Tuto is Sigfredo Garcia.

57 46:37

MR. DECOSTE: And who is Tata?

58 46:39

SHERRY BENNETT: That is Luis Rivera.

59 46:39

MR. DECOSTE: And you would agree with me that there was interchangeable using of names and nicknames in that call?

60 46:46

SHERRY BENNETT: Yes.

61 46:47

MR. DECOSTE: Is your understanding that what Jessica Rodriguez is saying is that Garcia and Catherine come to the house, and that they leave before Rivera even gets there?

62 47:04

SHERRY BENNETT: Yes.

63 47:05

MR. DECOSTE: At one point in time, you were co-lead investigator on this case.

64 47:08

SHERRY BENNETT: Yes.

65 47:09

MR. DECOSTE: The alleged payment that Luis Rivera talks about — he says that it happens on July 19th, right?

66 47:16

SHERRY BENNETT: I am unaware of what he said.

67 47:18

MR. DECOSTE: Your understanding is that it was the day after the murder?

68 47:22

SHERRY BENNETT: I — I don't recall.

69 47:24

MR. DECOSTE: You do recall that Jessica Rodriguez, though, said that this happened in August or September?

70 47:29

SHERRY BENNETT: Yes.

71 47:30

MR. DECOSTE: And that that bag was given to her by Sigfredo Garcia?

72 47:35

SHERRY BENNETT: Yes.

73 47:35

MR. DECOSTE: And that Kathy Magbanua had no idea?

74 47:37

SHERRY BENNETT: She did not say that.

75 47:37

MR. DECOSTE: She did not say that she pressed Catherine Magbanua and that she didn't know anything?

76 47:45

SHERRY BENNETT: I don't recall about the bag.

77 47:48

MR. DECOSTE: With respect to what was going on?

78 47:52

SHERRY BENNETT: Oh, yes.

79 47:54

MR. DECOSTE: One brief moment, Your Honor.

80 48:00

MR. DECOSTE: All set, Your Honor. Nothing further.

Cross Sherry Bennett Georgia Cappleman

81 48:06

JUDGE WHEELER: Cross-examination.

82 48:08

MS. CAPPLEMAN: What she actually said about the dates was that she couldn't remember, right?

83 48:14

SHERRY BENNETT: Yes.

84 48:15

MS. CAPPLEMAN: That it was shortly after her daughter was born, which we learned in this trial was June 27th?

85 48:20

SHERRY BENNETT: Yes.

86 48:22

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what she said is her best guess is August or September, but she doesn't want to say for sure because she can't be sure. She had her daughter in June, so her daughter had to be at least two — two months, or a month?

87 48:36

SHERRY BENNETT: That is correct.

88 48:36

MS. CAPPLEMAN: So a month from July — June 27th — would be July 27th; two months would be August 27th, correct? So somewhere in that neighborhood, but she couldn't tell you the date, correct?

89 49:04

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Regarding whether or not Katie knew what was going on, was there ever a question and answer in your interview about whether or not Katie knew what was going on?

90 49:16

SHERRY BENNETT: No.

91 49:17

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. She said that — Jessica Rodriguez told you that she asked Katie what was in the bag, and Katie said she didn't know, correct?

92 49:29

SHERRY BENNETT: Correct.

93 49:29

MS. CAPPLEMAN: But she didn't say she didn't know what was going on.

94 49:29

SHERRY BENNETT: Correct.

95 49:29

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Thank you.

96 49:31

JUDGE WHEELER: Redirect?

97 49:33

MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.

98 49:33

JUDGE WHEELER: Okay. We can excuse the witness.

99 49:36

MR. DECOSTE: She's free to go?

100 49:37

JUDGE WHEELER: Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you, Officer. Have a good day.

Insights

Direct Sherry Bennett

Defense called TPD Officer Sherry Bennett as its first witness to establish how Magbanua's arrest warrant was distributed after-hours and to elicit details from a recorded phone call to Rivera's girlfriend that placed the alleged payment in August or September — directly contradicting Rivera's trial testimony of July 19.

Case Significance

Bennett's testimony provides the defense with a prior-statement anchor directly contradicting Rivera's payment date and partially reframing who was present at the payment scene, while a key leading question seeking to exculpate Magbanua was not confirmed by the witness.

Rodriguez phone interview places alleged payment in August or September, contradicting Rivera's July 19 trial testimony
Rodriguez's account places Garcia and Magbanua at house but says they left before Rivera arrived
Defense's leading question that Magbanua 'had no idea' was not confirmed by Bennett

Highlights

“I was summoned to the State Attorney's Office to make the call regarding her providing a statement.”

— Sherry BennettBennett's phrasing — 'summoned' to the SAO — establishes that the Rodriguez interview was institutionally directed rather than investigator-initiated, and was timed to coincide with Rivera's cooperation interview, inviting the inference that the two were coordinated.Testimony

Bennett confirmed Rodriguez's account that Garcia and 'Catherine' (Magbanua) came to the house and left before Rivera even arrived — a detail the defense used to suggest Magbanua was not present for the payment exchange itself.

Testimony

Bennett confirmed that in the September 30, 2016, phone interview, Rodriguez placed the payment bag from Garcia in August or September — not July 19 as Rivera testified at trial — establishing a prior-statement contradiction of Rivera's key payment timeline.

Confrontation

DeCoste asked whether Rodriguez said Magbanua 'had no idea' about what was going on; Bennett said 'She did not say that,' denying the defense a clean exculpatory inference, though Bennett subsequently confirmed Rodriguez said Magbanua didn't know 'with respect to what was going on' in a broader sense.

“She did not say that.”

— Sherry BennettBennett declined to confirm DeCoste's leading characterization that Rodriguez said Magbanua 'had no idea' about what was going on — a rare instance of a defense witness declining a defense leading question and collapsing the intended exculpatory inference from the Rodriguez call.

People Mentioned

Luis Rivera Patrick Sanford Craig Isom Jessica Rodriguez Sigfredo Garcia

Evidence Mentioned

Arrest warrant for Katherine MagbanuaRecorded phone interview of Jessica Rodriguez (September 30, 2016)

Deep Analysis

Attorney Strategy

Defense uses prosecution's own investigative record to undercut Rivera

By calling a former TPD co-lead investigator to testify about Rodriguez's prior recorded statement, the defense introduced a prior-statement contradiction of Rivera without calling Rodriguez to the stand or relying solely on cross-examination, lending institutional credibility to the impeachment point.

Case Theory Connections

Rivera credibility as the central defense battleground

Rivera was the only witness to directly link Magbanua to the murder-for-hire conspiracy. Bennett's testimony — establishing a prior-statement contradiction on the payment date and reframing Magbanua's presence at the payment scene — supports the defense's overarching theory that Rivera's account is unreliable and self-serving.

Credibility Observations

Bennett as defense witness — constrained exculpatory yield

While Bennett confirmed the payment timing contradiction and the detail about Garcia and Magbanua leaving the house before Rivera arrived, she declined to confirm the defense's strongest desired inference regarding Magbanua's ignorance, demonstrating the limits of impeachment-by-prior-statement when the witness was not present for all aspects of the call.

Evidentiary Or Procedural Notes

Recorded Rodriguez call previously ruled admissible

Per the prior proceeding (scheduling and exhibits discussion, proceeding 522), Judge Wheeler had already ruled the recorded Rodriguez call admissible as impeachment evidence. Bennett's testimony here established its provenance and key contents for the jury.

Followup Questions Or Open Threads

Whether the recorded Rodriguez call will be played for the jury

Bennett's testimony established the call's provenance and summarized its contents, but whether the defense will play the recording itself for the jury remains open and would be a significant escalation of the impeachment — the audio would speak directly rather than through Bennett's recollection.

Impeachment Or Tension Points

Rodriguez's August/September payment date versus Rivera's July 19

Bennett confirmed Rodriguez told her the payment occurred in August or September, directly contradicting Rivera's trial testimony placing it on July 19. The defense positioned this as a prior-statement impeachment of Rivera's credibility on a specific factual claim.

Defense leading question on Magbanua's knowledge went unconfirmed

DeCoste asked whether Rodriguez said Magbanua 'had no idea' about what was going on; Bennett declined to confirm that characterization, limiting the exculpatory value of the Rodriguez call for the defense.

Testimony Themes

Arrest warrant after-hours distribution

Bennett explained that warrants signed after hours are temporarily entered but not accessible through the Clerk of Courts until business hours open; she sent Magbanua's warrant directly to Isom by email the same night it was signed.

Rodriguez phone interview timed to Rivera's cooperation

Bennett confirmed she was summoned to the SAO to call Rodriguez on September 30, 2016 — the same day Rivera was cooperating with Isom and Sanford — establishing the interview as institutionally coordinated rather than independently initiated.

Payment bag timing contradiction

Rodriguez told Bennett the payment bag arrived in August or September, while Rivera testified at trial it was July 19 (the day after the murder) — a direct prior-statement contradiction on a core narrative date.

Witness Role And Importance

Witness Role And Importance

Sherry Bennett is a TPD officer and former co-lead investigator called by the defense as its first witness. Her primary value to the defense is firsthand knowledge of the September 30, 2016, recorded phone interview with Jessica Rodriguez, which the defense used to contradict Rivera's payment timeline and introduce an alternative account of who was present when the payment bag changed hands. Her administrative role on the case also gave her direct knowledge of arrest warrant procedure.

Cross Sherry Bennett

Prosecution's brief cross reclaimed two points from Bennett's direct: Rodriguez's August/September date was an uncertain estimate, not a firm contradiction of Rivera, and Rodriguez never said Magbanua was unaware of the overall scheme — only that she claimed not to know what was in the bag.

Case Significance

The cross neutralized the two key defense points from Bennett's direct by qualifying Rodriguez's date uncertainty and preserving the prosecution's knowledge-of-scheme theory.

Rodriguez's August/September estimate was explicitly hedged — she could not confirm a date, narrowing the gap with Rivera's July 19 testimony
Bennett confirmed Rodriguez never said Magbanua was unaware of the overall plan, only that Magbanua denied knowing the bag's contents
Defense declined redirect, accepting the prosecution's reframe without further challenge

Highlights

Testimony

Cappleman establishes that Rodriguez's August/September date was an uncertain estimate based on her infant daughter's age, not a firm contradiction of Rivera's July 19 testimony — the window could reach as early as late July.

Testimony

Cappleman draws the critical distinction: Rodriguez told Bennett she asked Magbanua what was in the bag and Magbanua said she didn't know — but Rodriguez never said Magbanua was unaware of the overall scheme, which Bennett confirms.

“She said that — Jessica Rodriguez told you that she asked Katie what was in the bag, and Katie said she didn't know, correct?”

— Georgia CapplemanProsecution establishes that Magbanua's own claimed ignorance was limited to the bag's contents — a narrower denial than not knowing about the scheme — preserving the state's theory that she understood the criminal plan.

“But she didn't say she didn't know what was going on.”

— Georgia CapplemanProsecution draws the dispositive line: Rodriguez's account shows Magbanua denied bag-contents knowledge but never disclaimed awareness of the murder-for-hire scheme itself, directly countering the defense's implication that the Rodriguez interview exculpated Magbanua.

People Mentioned

Jessica Rodriguez

Deep Analysis

Attorney Strategy

Cappleman targets the bag/scheme distinction

Cappleman's cross focused on a single precise distinction: denying knowledge of a bag's contents is not the same as denying knowledge of a murder plot. By having Bennett confirm this on cross, Cappleman neutralized the defense's use of the Rodriguez interview as an exculpatory statement.

Case Theory Connections

Prosecution's knowledge-of-scheme theory preserved

The cross preserved the state's core position that Magbanua understood her role in the murder-for-hire even if she claimed ignorance of the bag's contents, keeping that theory intact for closing.

Notable Admissions

Rodriguez never said Magbanua was unaware of the scheme

Bennett confirmed that in the recorded interview Rodriguez did not say Magbanua didn't know what was going on — only that Magbanua said she didn't know what was in the bag. This admission undercut the defense's implication that the interview exculpated Magbanua.

Testimony Themes

Date uncertainty reframed

Rodriguez's August/September estimate was a hedged best guess tied to her daughter's birth date, not a firm rebuttal of Rivera's July 19 testimony.

Bag-contents denial vs. scheme-knowledge denial

Rodriguez's statement showed Magbanua claimed not to know what was in the bag, but Rodriguez never said Magbanua was unaware of the broader criminal plan — a distinction Bennett confirmed under cross.

Witness Role And Importance

Witness Role And Importance

Bennett, a former TPD officer and co-investigator on the Markel case, was called by the defense to introduce impeachment material from a recorded interview with Jessica Rodriguez. On cross, prosecution successfully reframed both the date ambiguity and the knowledge-of-scheme question, limiting the impeachment value of Bennett's direct testimony.

Summary

Defense opened its case by calling TPD Officer Sherry Bennett, a former co-lead investigator on the Markel case who handled administrative duties including paperwork and coordination. Bennett addressed two subjects on direct examination by Christopher DeCoste. On a minor procedural point, she explained that Magbanua's arrest warrant was signed after hours and temporarily unavailable through the Clerk of Courts; she forwarded it directly to Investigator Craig Isom by email that night. More substantively, Bennett described the September 30, 2016, recorded phone interview she conducted with Jessica Rodriguez — Rivera's then-girlfriend — the same day Rivera began cooperating with investigators. Bennett confirmed Rodriguez said Garcia gave her the payment bag in August or September, not July 19 as Rivera testified at trial. She also confirmed Rodriguez said Garcia and "Catherine" (Magbanua) came to the house together and left before Rivera arrived. When DeCoste asked whether Rodriguez affirmatively said Magbanua had no idea what was going on, Bennett declined to adopt that characterization, saying Rodriguez "did not say that." On cross, Cappleman pressed on the date issue: Rodriguez told Bennett she could not be certain of the exact month and estimated August or September based on her infant daughter's age, leaving the window open from late July onward. That framing blunted the defense's use of the recording as a flat contradiction of Rivera's July 19 date. Cappleman then drew out the more pointed distinction: Rodriguez told Bennett she asked Magbanua what was in the bag, and Magbanua said she didn't know — but Rodriguez made no statement that Magbanua was unaware of the broader scheme. Bennett confirmed that distinction. Defense declined redirect and Bennett was excused.

← Defense Motion for Judgment of Acquittal 2 of 10 Michael Dillmore — Direct/Cross →

Sherry Bennett — Direct/Cross