The Defendant, his girlfriend, and two of the Defendant’s friends planned to steal drugs from the Victim. When the group entered the vehicle, the Defendant directed the driver to the Victim’s house. Since the Defendant was not on good terms with the Victim, he sent the crew to rob the Victim while he stayed behind in the car. The Defendant sent his provocatively dressed girlfriend to the Victim’s door to ensure that he would open it. Once the Defendant’s girlfriend and friend entered the residence, the situation turned deadly within a minute.

One of the crew members pulled out his gun and shot the Victim. In response, the Victim charged at two crew members, catching them off guard and sending them running out of the house. Although unarmed, the Victim ran after them. As the crew ran from the Victim, the Defendant pulled a gun and shot from the vehicle towards the Victim multiple times. The Defendant’s cover fire allowed the crew to retreat to the vehicle. While under fire, the Victim ran back into his house. The Defendant then jumped into the driver's seat and drove the car away while the Victim suffered from the fatal gunshot wound in his living room.

At trial, the Defendant claimed he did not know that it was supposed to be a robbery, stating he thought the crew wanted to purchase drugs from the Victim. The Defendant claimed that he heard gunshots inside the house and a noise of his tire being shot. The Defendant claimed he shot back to defend himself. He also claimed that he shot at the Victim because he thought he had a gun.
The State successfully proved to the jury that the Defendant knew of the plan, intended for it to be a burglary, assisted in the burglary, and shot at the Victim unjustifiably. Various pieces evidence painted the picture that the Defendant was a principal to the murder, including surveillance video footage inside and around the Victim’s home, a text message between the Defendant’s girlfriend and one of the crew members, a Co-Defendant’s testimony admitting that the Defendant knew it was going to be a burglary, the Defendant’s statement where he denied any knowledge of the plan but then admits knowledge of the robbery, the Defendant’s testimony where he contradicted himself on cross and admitted that he shot the tire, and two statements by the Defendant to his girlfriend at the police station saying, “I’m sorry I set it up” and “We would have been good if they didn’t know it was a robbery.”

The State began the trial on the fifth anniversary of the death of the Victim. Two weeks later, the trial resulted in a guilty verdict and justice for the Victim and his next of kin.

The ASAs would like to give a special thanks to Felony Division Chief Ashley Ramkishun for her hard work preparing this case and for her support throughout this trial while she was at home on maternity leave. The ASAs would also like to thank Paralegals Maria Rodriguez and Evika Jones for their help in preparing subpoenas and handling necessary scheduling, as well as the Victim Witness Counselors Andrea Marquez and Kelly Usher-Villazan. Thanks also to the Litigation Support team for their amazing photo boards and video compilation. Lastly, the ASAs would like to thank Intern Alex Montano for assisting with all the evidence and the crucial, last-minute tasks throughout the 2-week trial.

In February 2022, the Victims, a mother and her son, went to Spris Pizza on Lincoln Road in Miami Beach with a few friends. The son and his friend were playing in the plaza while the parents finished their meal. The Defendant, a local vagrant in the South Beach area, became angry that the children were playing in the street. He approached the son and pushed him. When the mother ran up to get her child, he punched her twice in the face before fleeing the scene. The mother sustained a laceration to her bottom lip and a deep laceration to her eyebrow that required stitches. The police searched for but were unable to locate the Defendant. Nearly a month later, the Victim spotted the Defendant in Lummus Park and called the police. He was arrested.

While the facts of this case were simple, the State faced several challenges. Before this case could be resolved, the Defendant was extradited to the State of Georgia, convicted on another charge, and served a sentence before being returned to this jurisdiction. During that time, three essential officer witnesses retired. Upon the Defendant’s return, he fired his attorney, filed a demand for speedy trial, and moved for the recusal of his original judge. Upon transfer to another division, the State had just 10 days to become ready for trial. During this time, the ASAs were able to locate and add to their witness list another civilian who observed him punch the Victim twice. The reluctant Victim had to deal with testifying in a trial, where the Defendant represented himself. The jury was convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The ASAs would like to give special thanks to Felony Division Chief Wally Hernandez for providing trial strategy and helping to secure the testimony of the state’s witnesses, and to ASA Natalie Mendez for helping to locate one of the retired detectives and to prepare the State’s pre-trial motions. Thanks also go to Trial Coordinator Valeria Beattie and Secretary Chandra Taylor for obtaining rush copies of the Defendant’s prior out-of-county felony convictions, and to Victim Witness Counselor Daniella Jimenez for staying with the civilian witness in the courthouse on both days she testified.

On February 14, 2023, the Defendant, a security guard at Doral Downtown Upper Charter, approached two students who were once romantically involved. He told them he could take them to a room where they could do whatever they wanted. The Defendant then led the two Victims to a media production room, which had an inner room with a two-way mirror. CCTV video footage captured the Defendant looking at the school security camera that was inside the inner room. The Defendant can be seen on video telling the two students to go into the other room and “do it.” The security camera recorded the Defendant as he sat next to the two-way mirror and used his phone several times to either record or take pictures of the Victims while they engaged in sexual activity. Days later, the Defendant approached one of the Victims and stated he liked what he saw and wanted her to do to him what she had done to her boyfriend days before. The Defendant then blackmailed the Victim, stating that if the Victim refused, he would either release the video or convince the other Victim that they had sex.

The Defendant had already deleted the pictures and videos he took and the app he used when he was arrested. At trial, the defense tried to claim that the Defendant was only recording the students to make sure they were not doing anything “untoward” and that he did it for his protection. However, the jury was convinced of the Defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The ASAs would like to thank Sexual Battery Unit (SBU) Division Chief Natalie Snyder for her invaluable advice, SBU ASA Jared Lorenz, SBU Legal Interns Diego Ortega, and Christina Prado for their support during the trial. The ASAs would like to thank the Litigation Support Team for their help during the trial with exhibits, audio extractions, and the technology in the courtroom. The ASAs would also like to thank SBU Victim/Witness Coordinator Nancy Germeille for supporting the Victim before and during her lengthy testimony, and for her assistance in coordinating our witnesses. A special thank you to SBU secretaries Charlotte Haslem and Valerie Ford for assisting with trial preparations.

On December 29, 2023, a car driven by the Defendant’s friend sideswiped the Victim who was driving down 8th Street. Realizing that a car accident had just occurred, the Victim exited his car to speak to the Defendant, who was in the front passenger seat, and her friend. Upon seeing the Victim outside of his car, the Defendant and her friend fled the scene of the car accident. The Victim followed them until he was able to stop near them and attempt again to speak to them about the accident. Once again, the Defendant and her friend attempted to flee the area. To keep them at the scene until the police arrived, the Victim stood in front of their car. The Defendant exited the vehicle, switched into the driver's seat, and drove the car into the Victim until he fell to the ground.

At trial, the State was able to elicit testimony and introduce evidence that firmly established that the Defendant used the car to strike the Victim, consistent with a deadly weapon. The State elicited testimony from the Defendant herself on cross-examination that she intentionally drove into the Victim. Additionally, the Defendant acknowledged that a car could cause serious injury or death to a pedestrian even when driven at a slow speed. Prosecutors were able to establish a clear motive as to why the Defendant committed the crime. The jury found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The ASAs would like to thank Felony Division Chief Rachel Morales-Gellis and ASAs Vianca Picart and Alanis Alvarez for their invaluable advice and assistance with legal research and trial strategy. They would also like to thank Victim/Witness Coordinator Jazmin Mohammed for her assistance in coordinating the appearance of witnesses for trial preparation and trial.

The Defendant, a world champion power lifter from Guyana, struck up a relationship with the Victim after they met at a bodybuilding competition. Ultimately, the Defendant moved in with the Victim, and she began to support his weight-lifting career. She envisioned marrying him and starting a life together, though she was almost 20 years his senior.

One Sunday, as they were meal prepping, the couple began to bicker. At first, it was innocuous - she wanted him to turn the TV down and was upset that he hadn’t purchased her a wrestling uniform through one of his sponsors. But as the evening progressed, and the Defendant consumed more Guinness, things became hostile.

From their bedroom, the Victim began to text the Defendant’s sister, which enraged him. He grabbed her by the arm and snatched her phone out of her hands before throwing it on the bed. One of the two firearms she owned was on the dresser. Feeling scared and worried that Defendant may grab it, the Victim picked up the firearm and tried to leave. A physical struggle ensued where the Defendant ultimately took the firearm and fired two shots at the Victim’s feet, before momentarily pointing the gun at his head, then tossing it onto the bed.

The ASAs were able to overcome several issues with the case, including the Defendant’s statement to the police, where he claimed the Victim pointed the gun at him before the struggle happened. There was also an independent witness, the Victim’s roommate, who was present during the initial encounter but left the house when the Victim told him not to call the police. The case came down to whether the jury believed the Victim’s story or the Defendant’s.

Ultimately the State was able to disprove the Defendant’s self-defense with 911 calls from both the Victim and the independent witness, testimony from Dr. Emma Lew about the Victim’s injuries, a jail call where the Defendant contacted the Victim in violation of the stay away order asking her to sign a non-prosecution affidavit, the Victim’s testimony, and pointing out obvious contradictions in the Defendant’s statement.

The ASAs would like to thank Victim Witness Advocate Katherine Fondeur and Felony Unit 3 Marc Duque for their invaluable help in securing evidence and witnesses.