Called by the State on trial day three, Steven Lutes appeared as a regional security specialist for JPMorgan Chase Bank based in Tampa, and his role in this trial was limited to authenticating ATM surveillance imagery from a drive-up branch in Pembroke Pines, Florida.
On direct, Lutes described the branch's two-camera arrangement — a transaction camera oriented to capture facial images of ATM users and an overhead camera pointed toward vehicles — and explained that recorded footage was stored on a DVR housed in a locked, alarmed technology room inside the branch and connected to a wide-area network. He authenticated State's Exhibit 143, surveillance video recorded at approximately 6:45 p.m. on July 18, 2014, testifying that the camera was in proper working order and that the footage had not been tampered with or altered, and he authenticated State's Exhibits 38 through 44 as still images extracted from SE 143. Magbanua's counsel offered no objection; Garcia's counsel asked for a moment to re-review the exhibits, after which the court admitted all eight. The State was then permitted to publish SE 143 to the jury.
Cross-examination by Garcia's lead counsel Saam Zangeneh worked the limits of that footage rather than its authenticity. Lutes confirmed that the video shows a silver Prius at the drive-up ATM with a driver who appears to be conducting a transaction, but stated that because the camera was positioned for facial identification rather than machine capture, he could not determine from the video or the still images whether the transaction was a deposit or a withdrawal. He also confirmed he had no information about where the vehicle was immediately before or immediately after the roughly ninety-second window on the footage.
Lutes further separated his own knowledge from the bank's institutional response: JPMorgan's subpoena compliance unit, not Lutes personally, produced the footage, and he conducted no independent investigation into the transaction details. He acknowledged that the bank maintains records capable of identifying the transaction type and would produce them on request, but said he had seen no indication such records were sought. Asked about additional cameras covering the parking lot or building exterior, he said some branches have them but that he could not confirm one way or the other for that location, and that he had reviewed no footage beyond the ATM feed.
Magbanua's counsel passed without questions and the State waived redirect, so the testimony closed after cross. A courtroom projector malfunction interrupted part of the cross, and the State briefly attempted to re-publish SE 143 before the court broke for lunch. What the record leaves open from this witness is whether the ATM visit involved a deposit or a withdrawal — a question the bank's transaction records could answer but which was not resolved through Lutes.
