2.Exhibit-Objection Hearing

MR. JAY: Yes, sir.

Mr. Owens, Mr. Cacciatore, myself, and Dr. Werner all sat together within five feet of Sarah Boone the first week of October and heard her final version. It's not very dissimilar from the version of Dr. Harper, but Dr. Werner's deposition was provided to the Court previously for our motion in limine.

I don't understand the position they're taking, that they were forced to show their cards when David -- Dave Cacciatore and myself and Mr. Owens and Dr. Werner were all there together to hear her version. And her version is: It was all fun and games. It was Sunday Funday. He gets into the suitcase. We're all laughing. I zip it shut. We're still laughing. There comes a point in time when he says, I can't breathe. This triggers her based on her past abuse, no overt act that day, and she begins violently doing the things to the suitcase that she says she did; whacking him with the baseball bat on his fingers.

And now after being the initial aggressor, now after having committed a forcible felony or two, now after having put Mr. Torres in a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, she says, Well, she realizes now if he gets out after these things that I've done to him, I'm in big trouble.

And it's my understanding that we have had this discussion, and that if that is the proffered testimony, that that is not going to amount to an overt act which will allow for reputation evidence, past incidence of violence, or the battered spouse syndrome evidence.

They weren't forced to show their hand. I was there. The rules of criminal procedure allowed me and Mr. Cacciatore to be there and to witness this evaluation. So that being said, we're not abusing the system, we're not doing anything that we're not allowed to do, and we're making every effort to make sure that we understand how this trial is going to go down and how they and Ms. Boone understands how the trial is going to go down.

Because my understanding of how it's going to go down is she's going to have to testify to the specific events of that day. And right up when she comes to the point to saying, And when he said I can't breathe, the state attorney, Mr. Jay, is going to object. He's going to ask to approach. He's going to say, Judge, there's been no change in her testimony. Unless there is, then that's a whole different bag of worms, but if there's been no change in her testimony, Judge, we got a ruling prior to this that there's been no overt act testified to, now we're going to object to her answer of "because of the past violence" and we're going to object to any further attempt to bring in prior violence, reputation evidence, or battered spouse evidence. I just want everybody to be clear and on the same page about that.

Now, in regards to their request, a renewed request for a statement of particulars, they've had the discovery for several years. This is the State's case, a video that starts at 11:12:45 p.m. on 2/23/2020: Sarah. For everything you've done to me. Sarah. For everything you've done to me. Sarah. F you, (laughter). Sarah. F you, (laughter). Sarah. Stupid. Sarah. That's my name, don't wear it out. Sarah, I can't F'ing breathe, baby, seriously. Yeah, that's what you do when you choke me. Sarah, Sarah, Sarah. (Laughter.) Sarah, I can't breathe, babe. (Laughter), that's on you. Sarah, I can't breathe. (Laughter), that's on you. Sarah.

MR. JAY: Sarah, Sarah. Sarah, I can't breathe, baby. That's what I feel like when you cheat on me. Sarah. F you. I can't F'ing breathe, Sarah. You should probably shut the F up. Sarah. Shh.

That's our case. That is an evinced, depraved mind, conscious disregard for whether he lives or dies. Whether she put him in there or not, she let him remain for two minutes during that video. And then at 11:23:03 p.m., there's another 22-second video and it just zooms in on the suitcase; Sarah.

So that is a second degree murder case when the medical examiner comes in and says, Jorge Torres -- Jorge Torres died from positional asphyxiation and the asphyxiation from being in a confined space. And eventually, after Lord knows how many breaths, he expired in that suitcase when she went upstairs and went to bed.

But in addition to those statements, we now have her new statements, which are she intentionally violently shook the suitcase, threw it upside down, hit it with a bat, hit him with a bat, and committed independent forcible felonies, and that's going to be corroborated by the medical examiner's testimony to all the blunt force trauma to both sides of his face and his mouth. That is a second degree murder case. That is what we're going to be presenting. This is a portion of what I will be telling the jury this afternoon.

MR. JAY: Yes, sir.

I'm just making sure I'm clear. On 60, our request was that, prior to the testimony of any of the listed witnesses, which I listed only by initials, that we have the opportunity to depose them and we address the costs of expedited transcripts, and I just want to make sure that you meant to overrule that request.

MR. JAY: Meredith McCaskill is an FDLE analyst that is substituting for an analyst that is unavailable during the trial period. So in an effort to not continue the case, we got a substitute analyst, so that's our reason for the late disclosure on her.

And who were the other two?

MR. JAY: In regards to the property document, that was something that I believe both parties have been looking for and was eventually found. It's not an exhibit in trial, it's just discovery that we have an obligation to turn over to the defense. We turned it over as soon as it was found because apparently the parties were looking for it.

In regards to the --

MR. JAY: Your Honor, in September of this year, 48 plus 7, 55 months after the defendant was arrested for the crime of second degree murder, the defendant chose to assert that she would be relying on battered spouse syndrome evidence. She then filed an amended notice, I believe, on September 15th. She listed two expert witnesses, Dr. Michael Brannon and Dr. Julie Harper. The State then had to investigate and conduct discovery on the defendant's witnesses, who had not been previously listed, even though Dr. Harper had been working with the defendant for four years. We did so. We did our absolute best to get those depositions done. We did the week of -- the last week of September going into the first week of October, we conducted those depositions, I believe it's the lst and the 2nd. We had to come in and do motions to suppress the same afternoon after rushing from the jail after my expert, Dr. Werner, evaluated the defendant.

So after conducting investigation into this affirmative defense by talking to the witnesses they planned to call, and talking to these expert witnesses to learn what materials they had relied upon -- because I'll remind the Court, these witnesses did not produce written reports to even assist the State in any way, which they didn't have to, but given the time crunch we had, the trial date in October, that was not done.

We conducted those depositions. We learned what materials they were relying upon, that included these previous incidents that involved the Orange County Sheriff's Office, the decedent, and the defendant, some of those cases ended up being submitted to the state attorney's office.

Based upon all of that, mind you, now we're just turning around to October 3rd, which I believe was a Thursday after the Wednesday that our expert evaluated the defendant, after the Tuesday I believe I deposed their expert, we quickly turned around on October 3rd, and began listing rebuttal witnesses that we were planning to potentially call to rebut the defendant's assertions that have been made through the experts. Those people that were listed are members of the Orange County Sheriff's Office that responded out to the defendant's home and the 911 dispatchers who took her calls.

So I don't know how much quicker we can turn around after being presented this new affirmative quasi defense because it's not a defense itself, it's just evidence to supplement a self-defense. We did that pretty quickly, while still litigating and trying to get an answer as to whether or not this evidence would even be admissible, and we didn't get that answer until yesterday.

So we have done our absolute best. Those witnesses were listed very, very quickly after the depositions of the experts, I believe, either prior to or concurrently with Dr. Brannon's deposition, which I think that happened on that Thursday, October 3rd, the Jewish holiday, did that in the afternoon while court was closed at 3:00 p.m.

So I would submit, we did our finest to get those rebuttal witnesses listed to this affirmative defense, Judge.

MR. JAY: Judge, going to the prejudice prong, the body-worn cameras that were activated during every second that these deputies interacted with the defendant and the decedent on these call-outs is something they apparently already had and were planning to use and listed on their discovery exhibits, starting from the original one through amendment one, two, three, four, and five.

Again, we are rebutting an affirmative defense that was thrust upon us. Yes, I did advise Mr. Cacciatore this summer that perhaps you should consider getting somebody retained so that there are no additional continuances about this in case it happens, but the State of Florida doesn't have an affirmative obligation to go out and anticipatorily list witnesses that may not need to be called, and sending subpoenas to people to put two weeks of their lives on hold prior to their actually being noticed that this is what is going to occur, and then prior to conducting the depositions of the experts to see what it is they relied upon in reaching his or her conclusions.