1.Discovery Review and Requested Conflict Inquiry
146 lines(The following proceedings were resumed October 22, 2024, at 9:05 a.m., with appearances as previously noted; stenographically reported by Rebecca Ruiz.)
COURT STAFF: Still missing two.
THE COURT: Okay.
COURT STAFF: They are all here.
COURT CLERK: Case No. 2020-CF-2603, the State of Florida versus Sarah Boone.
Announce your names for the record beginning with the State.
MR. OWENS: Dave Cacciatore on behalf of the State.
COURT CLERK: Defense?
MR. OWENS: James Owens for Sarah Boone.
MR. HENDERSON: Tony Henderson for Sarah Boone.
COURT CLERK: Ms. Boone, raise your right hand to be sworn, please.
(Defendant sworn.)
THE COURT: Ma'am, good morning. Can you state your full name and date of birth for the record for us.
SARAH BOONE: Sarah Boone, 10/10/77.
THE COURT: Ms. Boone is seated at counsel's table wearing a black blazer and a dark blue blouse. She is in custody, however, she's not in any restraints, so we will continue to stand while the jury panel enters and exits. My understanding is that our panel is here this morning.
State, do we have any housekeeping matters we need to address before we bring back in our panel?
MR. JAY: Yes, sir. Three discovery issues, and then I filed a motion late last night requesting an in-camera inquiry into a potential conflict of interest.
THE COURT: I did review the motion.
MR. JAY: The three discovery issues are these. One, on October 5th or October 4th, I believe the defense was provided with the body-worn camera of the 911 calls from the prior incidents, and there was a request made to tell us what, if anything, should be redacted from their point of view so we could either reach an agreement or use the Court's resources to decide any conflicts in those issues.
Yesterday morning was the first actual response I got from the defense team, and it was incomplete. It was about three of the five incidents. I do agree with two of the redactions, and we are getting those taken care of, but obviously, just like connecting to the Court's screen, it takes time, and I am not the person that's going to be doing it, somebody else in the office has to do it.
The third incident, I think we're still not on the same page as to what the State is planning to introduce, so I re-sent the email with the screenshots of what files the State plans on introducing to the defense team again this morning.
I have not heard anything yet from the defense team about the fourth and fifth incident. I was told that Attorney Beck was going to handle it. It is now Tuesday, day seven of the trial, and he has not handled it.
The second discovery issue is Friday I was given a hard copy of the 119 pages of the second copy of the Winter Park Advent Health records.
THE COURT: On 10/18, October 18?
THE COURT: That would have been the preceding Friday.
MR. JAY: I was given the hard copy after court, about 5:30, 5:45. I emailed a PDF of those records back to the defense. I put Bates numbers on them as they requested. I understand from the Court what pages they indicated that they want to use and what pages the Court indicated should be included at the State's request. It was pages 26 and 48 out of the 111. I would just appreciate it if I could get a copy of the intended exhibit as it shall be introduced into court so I can confirm those things ahead of time and not in court.
And then the third thing is, I believe we had a discussion about the plethora of pages regarding the victim's hospital records and that there was some sort of discussion we had that they were to narrow it down, and I have not been given any narrowed-down version of that so we can confirm we're on the same page or use the Court's time if there's a conflict. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Responses to the first discovery issue regarding body-worn camera, 911 calls as to the -- my understanding, five prior incidents.
Defense?
MR. HENDERSON: Judge, I can speak to three of them. There were three of them that I reviewed, and I believe I reviewed them on Sunday. I had made the -- I had made the decision for what I thought needed to be redacted. I think the first two, if I remember correctly, I said that was fine, we didn't even have any redactions to it. I think it's one that I said redactions to and I think the State agreed with that.
The specific one that I didn't quite know, and I think that has to do with a body cam where it comes to -- and I believe it is Mr. Torres' mother, I can't quite be for sure, but she's being asked some questions and all, and I think it's about -- if I can recall correctly, about Mr. Torres' whereabouts at that time. I didn't know the relevance of that at that time, but that was the only part of that -- to let the State know. I just don't know really know the relevance. It could come in at a different point and become relevant, but as to the other two, I think we were on page with. I had been out to the jail that day. It was late, then I asked Mr. Beck to do the other two redactions, but I hadn't had the opportunity to talk to him about that Since, so that's where we are today.
THE COURT: So is the third incident that the State has identified, for which there's seemingly no responses as to redaction, is that the body-worn camera purportedly between law enforcement and Mr. Torres' mother?
MR. HENDERSON: That's what I believe it to be.
THE COURT: Mr. Jay?
MR. JAY: We're just not on the same page. On that third incident, which I believe was June 15th of 2019, the State only indicated to them that we were intended to introduce one video file. It is not of the victim's mother. It is of them at Sarah Boone's house. And the objection to the files that they were objecting to, which we don't seek to introduce, just said ID. And I don't know that is a legally recognized objection.
So I'm confused. I'm not sure. I'm just trying to make sure we're all on the same page, we understand which file the State wants to use regarding that third incident, because he's describing files the State does not intend to use. The first couple of incidents we agree there's a 911 call that seemingly cuts off into an OPD call at three minutes one second, we're cutting that to the end.
The second one, Ms. Boone, at like three minutes 43 seconds, indicates that she had been arrested prior, so we cut that out and we're going to cut that out at their request, even though that cat is out of the bag.
So what we're looking for now is just making sure we're all on the same page about the third incident. I sent screenshots. There's a tool called Snipping tool in Windows. I literally create a rectangle around the files that I'm intending to use. They are file size, and the folder that includes the OCSO agency case number incidents so we could be as crystal clear as possible and I'm still getting objections about things we don't want to introduce on that incident, and I have gotten no response with the fourth and fifth incidents.
THE COURT: All right. Addressing the third incident, is the specific portions of the June 15th, 2019 incident, seemingly the body-worn camera that you are making reference to, Mr. Henderson, the State has no intention of utilizing.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. And, Judge, just it's a lot, so if I could have one moment to isolate which incident --
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. HENDERSON: My understanding is that the State is talking about the third incident? That would be June 18th.
MR. JAY: Here's the problem. I sent these -- I sent these pictures over with the OCSO case number, then I get a response based on incident dates. So we have to kind of cross-reference --
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. JAY: -- so we can just make the record entirely clear. OCSO incident 18-067501, there was no 911 calls and apparently no objection. So they have no redactions requested for that 2018 case. Then the next response was the 6/15/2019 case. And that, for the record, is OCSO 19-054917. Their request on that one was the 911 call that we just discussed indicating that at 3:51 -- well, I had to find it -- 3:51 it turns into another case and to redact that to the end. We agreed.
Video three in that file, again, no file name, indicates at 9:40 to 9:43 there's a redact request with, paren, previous arrest. The State agrees to that. We heard her quickly say at 9:43 and we will get that taken care of.
Then their next response was the 6/18/2019 case which I had to cross-reference back to show that it is OCSO 19-05572. And in that particular case what I sent them was a screenshot that includes the OCSO Case No. 19-055572, and it indicates there's an intent by the State to introduce two 911 calls, and one video file labeled, axon underscore flex, underscore two, underscore video, underscore 2019-06-18 underscore 1330. My response that I received from them was video three in file, two minutes seven seconds to two minutes 18 seconds, paren ID.
And then video four in file, two minutes and four seconds to two minutes and 16 seconds paren ID. So my confusion lies in I did not indicate three or four files which is one file. And then again with the other two --
THE COURT: I don't want to address four and five yet. My understanding is there is no response yet. We'll address that momentarily. Responses to the clarifications to what it is the State seeks for incident three.
MR. HENDERSON: No redaction.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. With regard to incidents four and five, Mr. Jay, could you place on the record what is specifically as to those incidents the State may be seeking to introduce?
MR. JAY: Yes, sir. So we're calling incident number four should be OCSO 19-078009, August 28, 2019. We indicated the desire to use axon underscore flex underscore two, underscore video, underscore 2019-08-28 underscore 2024.
And then at their request, they had desired to get photos of Mr. Boone's injuries from that case. There is a 19-page PDF file which has pictures taken by law enforcement of her injuries. I don't see anything else in there, one picture of Mr. Torres, a couple pictures of Mr. Torres, but nothing that the State was objecting to. So that was at their request that they wanted photographs in. So that is incident four, which is labled OCSO-19-078009.
THE COURT: With regard to seemingly the body-worn camera that the State seeks to enter into evidence from August 28, 2019, what say the defense?
MR. BECK: Your Honor, I don't know about the State's position on this. There was a portion of this video at very end that's very personal to an investigating officer that they may want to redact. We're not asking anything be redacted.
THE COURT: Is the State seeking any redaction?
MR. JAY: I'm just clarifying what their redaction requests are in that particular file. If they don't have any, then --
THE COURT: So are there any redaction requests with regard to that particular file?
THE COURT: I'm just keeping notes. Give me a moment.
As to the fifth incident, Mr. Jay?
MR. BECK: No redaction or redaction requests, Your Honor. I do want to point out that we were apparently advised yesterday that the State was only gonna use the third video, possibly, and so we haven't really spent a whole lot of time of time worrying about it since then.
THE COURT: Let me clarify to what the fifth incident is just so that we're all on the same playing field.
MR. JAY: Judge, the fifth incident is OCSO 19-079759, and that is on September 4th of 2019. Within that screenshot that I sent to them, both Friday and then recently this morning, was photographs of the defendant taken at that time at their request. It shows a cut in her ear. It's three photographs.
Then there is also one body-worn camera labeled 19-2475 -- strike that.
1924 73549 underscore G-E-N, underscore I-N-V, and then the 911 call from that incident.
THE COURT: Any reactions sought by the defense with regard to that specific body-worn camera or 911 call?
MR. BECK: We're not necessarily seeking redactions, however, there are two separate videos. One seems to focus on Jorge Torres. One seems to focus on Ms. Boone. And there is clearly some redundancy. They are both body cams. One went upstairs where Mr. Torres was found hiding in the shower for -- or bathroom -- master bathroom. I don't know. So some of that is redundant, but there are actually two separate videos pursuant to the 5th.
THE COURT: Mr. Jay, are there one or two videos that the State is seeking?
THE COURT: Do you know if that's a ---- is that the video from the perspective of -- as identified from Mr. Beck, one more geared towards Ms. Boone or one more geared towards Mr. Torres?
MR. JAY: My interpretation of both of them is that there's interactions with Ms. Boone and then is there's interactions with Mr. Torres upstairs after he's located.
THE COURT: Mr. Beck, the specific file number was identified. So just to confirm, no redactions?
THE COURT: So just as a recap, with regard to the first incident, the 911 call, the parties have agreed to the redaction of the time stamp of 3:51 towards the end.
With regard to the second incident, body-worn camera, a reaction from time stamp 9:40 to 9:43 has been agreed to. With regard to the June 15, 2019 incident, there are two 911 calls and one body-worn camera sought by the State to which the defense has no redactions.
The August 28, 2019 incident for which there is no redactions to the body-worn camera, but there's a 19-page PDF with photos that the defense intends to be included with that submittal to which the State has no objection.
As to the fifth event, three photos of the defendant, a body-worn camera and a 911 call for which there are no redactions.
Does that clarify everything for the State?
THE COURT: Is there anything that I stated incorrectly, Mr. Beck, Mr. Henderson or Mr. Owens?
MR. HENDERSON: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much.
Moving to the next tissue with regard to the 119 pages from Winter Park.
Defense, are you in a position to provide -- I believe we discussed it either Friday or I think it was last week we discussed it as to how it was culled down -- yes, because we had the Richardson hearing on Friday -- how that list was culled down and the additional pages the State was seeking, and then if they are able to find, I believe it was page 68, we would readdress that. Have you provided that finalized exhibit to the defense [sic] as to those specific Winter Park Health records from 119 pages that the defense may be seeking to enter into evidence.
MR. BECK: I believe they received everything from us, Your Honor. We identified those documents that were not specifically addressed by the defense that the State wanted essentially out of the rule of completeness. I believe we're --
THE COURT: But my understanding from Mr. Jay is they were looking for a tangible copy of what it was you were actually looking to it move in, those 12, 14, 15 pages.
THE COURT: If you could provide that to them by noon, I would appreciate it.
THE COURT: If it's going to be moved into evidence. Is it going to be moved in in paper form or digital form, or by virtue of a CD?
MR. OWENS: We can get it, Judge. We'll work on it.
THE COURT: Perfect. Get it to the State. It doesn't have to be tangible. If it's an electronic form, that is fine. The State should be entitled to know what it is that you are all intending to move in out of those pages just to confirm it.
Lastly, with regard to hospital records of the victim, I know there were conversations and discussions about that list being narrowed down. The State has advised that details as to those narrowed-down records has not yet been provided. What say the defense?
MR. OWENS: The hospital records for the victim, Jorge Torres?
THE COURT: That's my understanding.
MR. OWENS: We need to do that, Judge. We have yet to do that.
THE COURT: Okay. My understanding is that the experts are potentially T'd up to testify tomorrow. I don't recall if those records are a basis of the expert's opinions.
MR. BECK: The second expert is not likely to testify until Thursday. She's testifying in Bay County tomorrow and will be here Thursday. I spoke with Dr. Brandon last night, he will be present tomorrow morning as soon as he gets here from Coral Gables.
THE COURT: Did either doctors Brandon or Harper rely on those medical records.
MR. OWENS: Dr. Harper did. It's in her deposition that was taken a couple of weeks ago. I think the question was posed.
THE COURT: You may continue.
MR. OWENS: Dr. Julie Harper, I know she considered the records of Jorge Torres. And we took Dr. Harper's deposition I believe a couple weeks ago, and she was asked by the State about everything that she relied upon and she -- she did indicate that. Are we gonna use or attempt to use those records? We'll pair it down if we are.
THE COURT: You have got until 5:00 p.m. today to advise the State as to what of those culled-down records you're gonna be utilizing so they have the opportunity to review those in advance of Dr. Harper testifying.
MR. BECK: And I apologize to Madam Court Reporter for speaking on top of each other. Dr. Brandon is testifying as a subject matter expert. He has specific familiarity with this case, so there are no medical records or any other records that he has relied upon other than his knowledge and expertise as to --
THE COURT: All right.
State, any other issues we need to address with regard to the discovery issues you brought to the Court's attention this morning?
THE COURT: All right. Moving now to the motion. T have reviewed that motion.
MR. OWENS: Judge, we were not aware of the motion until he made mention of it. So we need some time for the lawyers to review it, for us to discuss it, and see whether or not it has merit or not.
THE COURT: Okay. It was E-filed last night, looks like 9:37, and then sent courtesy copy to myself through Ms. Bariros and you, Mr. Owens, at 9:38 last night. I'll give you the opportunity to review what. We can address it at the lunch hour, and that will give the Court the opportunity to do any research as well.
MR. OWENS: I looked at it briefly. I'm not for sure exactly what the allegation is. I don't know if we need to talk about that.
THE COURT: I'm not --
MR. OWENS: Can we approach the bench?
THE COURT: Sure. Come on up.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: My takeaway, Mr. Owens, is you did not have the opportunity to review it yet so I was tabling it for the moment.
MR. OWENS: This is not in-camera right here?
THE COURT: We're at sidebar. I don't know if it's in-camera none the unless if you're in a position to address it now, I'm fine with that. My takeaway is you were not.
MR. BECK: I briefly looked at it. They haven't even looked at it. I just was trying to understand where he was coming from. Is he saying that we're gonna request costs for post-conviction -- travel costs?
MR. OWENS: Yes.
MR. JAY: Okay. Here's my concern. The defense team is comprised of four attorneys, a trial jury consultant and I don't know what their backup support staff is, but beyond that -- but the only thing that I noticed is getting paid for by JAC is bill I lane.
THE COURT: And the experts.
MR. JAY: And the experts. But beyond that, this is a tremendous expense to come down here, shut down -- I believe he described it as shutting down his practice for a month and coming down here. And speaking to one of the other members of the team, it seems like other members of the team are getting paid by Mr. Owens, and at the end of the day I'm just wondering where this money is coming from.
Is this just a charitable gift? Which is fine, if Mr. Owens wants to provide a charitable service and get his pro bono hours for doing this case with Ms. Boone, that's fine, but if there's some sort of deal with Ms. Boone about story rights, anything like that, then there becomes a potential conflict of interest.
I don't want her to make allegations ina 3.850. If she gets convicted, we all know there will be appeal. There will be a 3.850 if the appeal fails, and I don't want anything about a conflict of interest saying, well, I would have pled, but my attorney didn't do what he should have done in getting me to plead, for example, because of the contractual arrangement we made for how he's going to get paid for all this.
So the State doesn't even need to be a part of it, we would just prefer if there is an in-camera hearing so that this can all be put on the record, see if there is an actual conflict, and if there is an actual conflict whether Ms. Boone, under the case law, knowingly, intelligently waives any conflict for purposes of 3.850. After that in-camera proceeding it can be sealed and unsealed if there's a 3.850 some day.
MR. OWENS: I think we need to address it later. There is no deal. There is no conflict.
THE COURT: I'm gonna give them the opportunity to review it --
MR. OWENS: We're gonna address it on the record.
THE COURT: -- and discuss it themselves. I'm not gonna address it right now, because by your own admission, Mr. Owens, two or three of the members of your team have not reviewed it.
And, Mr. Jay, I do have a slight correction. My understanding is Mr. Henderson's daughter was recently barred, so there are four attorneys working over there.
THE COURT: JI thought you said three. I apologize.
MR. OWENS: She hasn't filed a notice of appearance --
THE COURT: I understand.
MR. OWENS: -- as attorney of record.
THE COURT: I get it. So let's table it, I'll look at it during the lunch hour and we'll re-address it, if necessary, this afternoon.
Anything else we need to address, Mr. Jay?
THE COURT: Anything else we need to address from a housekeeping prospective from your-all's side of the ledger?
MR. HENDERSON: No, sir.
MR. OWENS: I don't think so.
THE COURT: Let's go ahead and bring in our jury. I'll short colloquy your client and then we'll bring in our panel. Thank you.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: Thank you-all very much. With regard to that motion, we're going to table it for now and address it potentially this afternoon.
State has advised they're ready to proceed. Mr. Jay shook his head yes.
Defense, are you ready to proceed?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Owens, you ready to proceed, sir?
MR. OWENS: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Ms. Boone, are you still satisfied with your lawyer's representation of you in this matter?
SARAH BOONE: Absolutely.
THE COURT: Are you still onboard with the strategy that they have employed in the use of your defense?
SARAH BOONE: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Let's go ahead and stand and bring in our panel.
(Jury entered.)
THE COURT: State, do you recognize our jury?
THE COURT: Defense, do you recognize our jury?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes.
THE COURT: We'll be seated. Thank you.
Members of our jury, good morning. Welcome back to 12 alpha of the Orange County courthouse. Thank you again for your time, attention, and your sacrifice in this matter. Just by a show of hands, if you could, confirm that you complied with the Court's instructions last night. Record will reflect all jurors have raised their hands.
State, if you can please re-call Detective Koepsell.
MR. CACCIATORE: The State would call Detective Koepsell.
CHELSEY KOEPSELL
being called as a witness, and having first been duly sworn,
testified as follows:
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: Good morning, again. Can you state and spell your name for the record?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Good morning. Yes, my name is Chelsey Koepsell. C-h-e-l1-s-e-y K-o-e-p-s-e-l-l.
THE COURT: Mr. Cacciatore, you may proceed.
MR. CACCIATORE: Your Honor, we had tendered the witness to the defense.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Mr. Henderson, you may proceed with any