In September 2024, a Detective noticed foot traffic consistent with drug sales surrounding a duplex in a high narcotics area. He conducted a “buy-walk” operation using his confidential informant (CI), “Ms. P,” to determine who was responsible. The Detective outfitted Ms. P with a hidden camera disguised as a backpack, and after confirming that she had nothing in her pockets or on her person, the Detective sent Ms. P to the duplex with $60. She returned with a blue bag mixed with fentanyl and heroin and a video of Ms. P handing money to the Defendant. This “buy-walk” operation provided probable cause for a search warrant for the property, in which the Detective found the Defendant with fifty baggies of bath salts in his front, right, pants pocket. After disclosing the name of the CI to defense counsel in discovery so she could testify, the State faced a different challenge. Ms. P was a homeless woman with whom the Detective did not have consistent contact. Unfortunately for the state, the CI was missing at the time of trial.

However, the State was ultimately able to introduce the hidden camera footage she recorded through the pictorial method and prove circumstantially that the Defendant sold Ms. P the blue baggie. The defense tried to argue that the drugs had been planted, but the State overcame that argument using the video. It showed her passing money to the Defendant, and that he passed her a blue baggie. Additionally, the State was able to prevent the defense from arguing that the State should have called Ms. P to the stand under the Haliburton rule, as the Court found that Ms. P was equally unavailable to both sides. The jury found the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The ASAs would like to thank ASA Isabella DelPino for providing crucial case law that helped to get this case off the ground and ASA Kelsey Shelton for her invaluable guidance. Additionally, they would also like to thank Victim/Witness Coordinator Carla Rosiles for her assistance in coordinating the appearance of witnesses for trial and Legal Assistant Isaac Cortes for helping to collect the necessary evidence.

In the summer of 2021, the Victim, a tourist from out of state, came to Miami to celebrate her 21st birthday with friends. The group went out partying at various clubs, where the Victim first met the Defendant’s friend, a famous soccer player. The Victim and the soccer player hit it off, and they went back to his Airbnb for what the Victim believed was an after-party. Upon arriving at the Airbnb, the Victim realized it was not in fact an after party, but a simple get-together with the soccer player and his friends. The Victim went upstairs with the soccer player, had consensual sex, and fell asleep.

The Victim was then left alone in the bedroom. Moments later, the Defendant entered the bedroom and asked the Victim if she was okay. She responded with “mhm” and went back to sleep. The Defendant exited the bedroom and waited for her to fall asleep
before reentering the bedroom. This time, the Victim woke up to the Defendant on top of her as he sexually assaulted her. Confused, frozen in shock, and still waking up from her sleep, the Victim had no idea who was having non-consensual sex with her at the time
this was happening. She initially thought it might have been the original soccer player, but after realizing this was a different person, the Victim immediately pushed the Defendant off her and quickly left the Airbnb in tears. Minutes later, she was found alone and crying by an Uber driver who became an unexpected hero. She disclosed the rape to the Uber driver, who took her to nearby police. Officers then transported her to the Rape Treatment Center.

The same day the Victim reported the rape, detectives questioned the Defendant as to whether he knew the Victim. He lied and said he had never seen her before and that he didn’t know who she was. Months later, there is a match with his DNA to the rape kit and
the Victim’s underwear.

This case was challenging mainly because the Victim did not wish to proceed with the investigation, as she wanted to return to her home state. The investigation was closed and then reopened months later when the Victim spoke to family members who urged her to change her mind. The defense argued the Victim had consensual sex with the Defendant. The defense also claimed she had lied about the encounter to avoid upsetting the soccer player.

Additionally, the State also had to overcome conflicts in the two statements given by the Victim, one from the date of the incident and one after the case was reopened. Nevertheless, the ASAs were able to overcome these challenges, and a jury found the Defendant guilty as charged.

The ASAs would like to thank ASAs William Gonzalez, Stephanie Cruz, John Smerznak, Taylor Rich, Maritza Clop Liriano, Jared Lorenz, Carolina Sanchez, and Sexual Battery Unit Division Chief Natalie Snyder for their advice and assistance. The ASAs would also
like to thank our wonderful Litigation Support team, as always, for their help with blowing up exhibits and making sure the ASAs had an ELMO for trial. Finally, the ASAs are extremely thankful for their amazing Victim/Witness Counselor, Kasey McPherson, for helping the ASAs fly the Victim in and for providing her with emotional support throughout the trial.

On the night of August 1st, 1993, A.G., a high school student, was waiting at a shuttle stop to take the Victim to her father’s home. While waiting at the stop, the Defendant, who was 29 at the time, pulled up in a car and offered the Victim a ride. After the Victim
initially declined his offer, the Defendant lulled the Victim into a false sense of security and ultimately coaxed her into the car when the Victim realized that the shuttle was running late.

Initially, the Defendant began driving the Victim on the correct route, but then took a turn that alarmed the Victim. The Defendant informed the Victim that he intended to make a stop at his cousin’s house and once again reassured the Victim that he would
take her to her final destination. The Victim relaxed after hearing this explanation, and the Defendant did, in fact, make a stop at a home in a residential neighborhood. While at the residence, the Victim remained in the Defendant’s car while the Defendant went inside the residence. After a few minutes, the Defendant returned to the vehicle and began driving again. However, this time, the Defendant drove the Victim into an empty field. The Defendant then told the Victim that he had picked up a firearm at his cousin’s residence. He then forced the Victim to comply with sexual intercourse while holding her at gunpoint.

After the sexual battery, the Defendant drove the Victim close to where he initially picked her up, but before releasing the Victim from his car, he demanded all the Victim’s jewelry at gunpoint. He then threatened her to not say anything about what occurred because he knew where she lived. After exiting the vehicle, the Victim walked back to her grandmother’s home and shortly after she entered the residence, she alerted a family member as to what occurred to her. The police were called, and the Victim was taken to the Rape Treatment Center, where a vaginal and cervical examination were conducted. A serologist at the time confirmed that there was seminal fluid from a male contributor on the swabs, and the Victim provided a statement to a detective that night as well. However, due to the Victim not knowing her attacker, and due to the lack of advancement in DNA technology at the time, the case went cold.

In 2019, a federal grant allowed for the Miami-Dade Crime Lab to test a backlog of rape kits. A CODIS match was found on the Victim’s rape kit, stating that the semen on the swabs was the Defendant’s. A new cold case detective then went to reinterview the
Victim. The detective showed the Victim a driver’s license photograph of the Defendant, and the Victim immediately identified the Defendant as her rapist. The detective then went to speak to the Defendant who denied knowing the Victim at all. He had no
explanation for why his semen was found on her rape kit from 1993. The detective then took a confirmatory buccal swab of the Defendant, and that swab once again matched with the DNA evidence found on the rape kit in 1993.

The trial was extremely difficult. There was no physical evidence of any kind recovered besides the rape kit. The Victim, due to her age and her lack of familiarity with the area, was also never able to provide law enforcement with any description as to where the crimes occurred, specifically the sexual battery.

The State put on several witnesses from the initial investigation in 1993, including the original lead detective, John Gaborik, the original serologist, Victor Alpizar, and retired Dr. Karen Simmons, who served as a business records custodian for the Rape Treatment Center. The State additionally called DNA Analyst Ness Sufrin, who works at BODE Laboratories, which handled all outside DNA testing in this case. The State also called the current cold case lead detective, Tabares, and finally, the Victim. The Victim took the stand and emotionally recounted the horrors inflicted upon her by the Defendant that night in August 1993. It was her bravery and ultimately her testimony that helped render the verdict of guilty in this case.

The ASAs would like to thank ASA Ana Romes, whose assistance was invaluable in preparing the jury instructions to match the law from 1993, as well as Senior Trial Counsel Laura Adams, Felony Domestic Violence Division Chief Mari Jimenez, and ASA Ayana Duncan, who greatly contributed to the strategy of the Victim’s direct examination and Detective Tabares’s direct examination. Finally, the ASAs would like to thank Secretary Melody Thomas, Victim Witness Coordinator Lateafia Grinan, and DART Counselor April McClellan, who assisted with helping the ASAs prepare for trial, coordinating all trial logistics, and comforting the Victim. This verdict would not have been possible without them.