EN VIVO | Continúa el juicio contra Elvia Cabrera por asesinato de Gabriela Nicole Pratts

追加: 2026-06-03

[00:00:04]We would be requesting from the Public Ministry the photos taken by the people who should be from the house, which should be from the first ones, not by stipulation of the parties, but from the Public Ministry. One second. They're not in the last minutes the judge gave, because they're from the first ones.

[00:00:47]I have photos in Exilit 11, they are photos.

[00:00:49]Exilit 12 are also photos.

[00:00:52]Civil 13 are also photos.

[00:00:55]It's the 17th.

[00:00:59]Photo, search process. Correct.

[00:01:02]Exbir 17A to 17N.

[00:01:13]You mentioned that the reason you seized that evidence was as mentioned in the search warrant and to rule out the murder being investigated as being committed with a bladed weapon, and the knife was seized.

[00:01:45]What are they?

[00:01:57]Permission to deliver them. These aren't them, they're the ones that come later, the 18.

[00:02:05]18 knife photos.

[00:02:08]That's the one you're asking for.

[00:02:11]Okay. Quote 18. I 'm going to show you what has already been marked as agent Berríos. And if you would be so kind, please check them.

[00:02:24]Please show it to the defense first. Ma'am, thank you very much.

[00:03:03]Regarding what you have stated, how does what is shown in that Civil 18 compare with what you occupied?

[00:03:09]It's the same thing.

[00:03:10]Regarding the place where you used that knife, uh, please show me, please, if any of them exemplify that place.

[00:03:25]We're talking about exhibits, people. Look at him from behind.

[00:03:31]18D D 18D.

[00:03:37]Once you have that knife, what is the next thing you do with it? It is placed in an evidence bag and subsequently deposited in quarters of evidence supplies at the command post in relation to a second prosecutor.

[00:04:06]in an evidence bag and then yes. Later that night I placed it in the evidence room, in the temporary evidence room, to be taken to the Institute of Forensic Science for analysis.

[00:04:20]If you'll give me a second, please, I 'm writing provisional evidence.

[00:04:43]Go ahead, prosecutor.

[00:04:45]What is the purpose of taking the knife to the Institute of Forensic Sciences to perform the relevant tests?

[00:04:51]What would it be compared to if you know? that blood that was found in the area of ​​the evidence, in this case of the murder.

[00:04:59]Okay.

[00:05:01]And I ask you, later, that it was taken to the Institute of Forensic Sciences, if you know what happened to that piece of evidence after it was taken to the Institute of Forensic Sciences. Institute of Forensic Sciences. The analyses that were done are sent to our colleague Torre, who is the investigating agent of the CAS.

[00:05:24]Okay.

[00:05:25]Um, I ask you, in terms of what you used, in the totality of the evidence that you used, what action, if any, did you subsequently take in terms of the court's decision? And that search warrant, after that I hand it over to the court as if the search warrant had been executed with the property receipts that were seized at the residence. When you say you delivered, what do you mean? I have to file it with the court within 10 days.

[00:05:52]Okay. Very good.

[00:06:01]These are the documents that relate to and link cultures. I ask you if you are aware of the results of those analyses. If you know what the result of those analyses was.

[00:06:38]We will request, Your Honor, that the documents shown to the defense be marked as identification.

[00:06:46]How many are there? We're going to ask the prosecutor to staple the documents together, whether it's a single document or several pages, so the papers don't get mixed up.

[00:07:04]Very good. The first is the completion and inventory.

[00:07:09]Give me a second to see which identification number corresponds.

[00:07:15]Three.

[00:07:16]as identification number three of the town. He told me about inventory sequencing.

[00:07:22]Yes, Your Honor.

[00:07:56]Next.

[00:07:58]The inventory of seized property related to the raid on the house dated August 11 and its custody booth consists of two single-sided pages.

[00:08:19]Marques, uh as identification four of the town, inventory of occupied property and chain of custody.

[00:08:26]We would request that it be done as a group, judge, because it's all in a second, let me see it for a moment, Mr. Secretary.

[00:08:32]Thank you so much.

[00:08:42]Yes.

[00:08:50]Regarding the defense's request that it be done as a whole, they have no objection, so then we will put the previous one, Madam Secretary, as identification 3a of the town and the inventory of occupied property chain of custody as 3B of the town.

[00:09:46]Next. Evidence record PPR 636.2 provisional evidence room. One sheet of paper, printed on both sides.

[00:09:57]Evidence record. Told me.

[00:09:59]Evidence Record PPR 636.2.

[00:10:05]Provisional evidence room.

[00:10:12]Mquese with identification 13 of the town.

[00:10:15]No.

[00:10:40]And the next one would be evidence record PPR 636.2 evidence room plus the continuation sheet which are two folios.

[00:10:52]We are talking about another record of evidence.

[00:10:54]Yes.

[00:10:55]What PPR number?

[00:10:57]636.2. But from the evidence room.

[00:11:01]The previous one was a provisional evidence room.

[00:11:33]the three, the forgiveness, the 3D, yes I said. G4 the 3D identification of the people.

[00:11:42]Evidence record regarding the evidence room.

[00:11:47]Go ahead, prosecutor. The next one would be a request for forensic service, two single-sided sheets.

[00:12:09]That would be number three, the town's identification 3E.

[00:12:14]Request for forensic service.

[00:12:16]What would that be? The 3E requested forensic service.

[00:12:40]Go ahead, Prosecutor. The next step would be requesting alternative forensic services and continuation of the chain of custody, sorry, two polios on both sides. Well, it was very fast. Request for forensic service.

[00:12:54]Request for alternate forensic service and continuation of chain of custody.

[00:13:02]Two sheets of paper, printed on both sides. We would be talking about identifying three village chiefs.

[00:13:39]The next inventory of occupied property PPR 636.1 dated December 12, 2025.

[00:14:01]December 12, 2025. One folio on both sides. There's no need to mention the town's 3G identification.

[00:14:30]Next prosecutor. And the last document would be the evidence record PPR 636.2, which is a double-sided sheet. You do n't need to have 3H identification.

[00:15:04]that your phone is on silent; cell phones are not on silent, they are turned off and stored away except for members of the press. Let's repeat it. Switched off and stored away, except for members of the press, since that is their working tool. Go ahead, prosecutor, if you'll allow me. The next cell phone that rings, the losiles have orders to occupy it immediately.

[00:15:39]Go ahead, prosecutor, if you'll allow me the exbes 18 and 17 to ask one last question. 18 and 17 of the Public Ministry.

[00:15:47]Well, the photos, the photos that are 17.

[00:15:55]Exbir 17 are 15 photos from 17A to 17N.

[00:16:00]Exib 18 is from 18A to 18D.

[00:16:34]Well, permission to show the defense several photos before going ahead.

[00:17:26]with the arrival of the court respectfully. Go ahead, people, showing them, one by one, saying what the exhibit is to make that record clear.

[00:17:40]Yes. Showing him exhibit 17e from the Public Prosecutor's Office. He said elephant. The permit to project. I ask people if you can explain to me what that exvit, the 17E of the town, consists of.

[00:18:10]That's the house that was raided, Elvia's house.

[00:18:13]Okay. Regarding the location, specifically the view we are celebrating, where exactly do you place the area where you used the knife?

[00:18:24]If you look at the car's hood, you'll see a small white cement wall and a pipe; that area is there.

[00:18:30]Very good. I am going to show you another exhibit and I ask the court for permission to remove this photograph.

[00:18:45]Exhibit. I'm going to remove 17E, which was the one being projected, and I'm going to ask for permission to project 17L.

[00:18:53]L. Go ahead. I ask people Berríos if you can locate for me in that exhibit the more specific place where you used the knife.

[00:19:08]Looking at it from the front, on the left hand where the small wall is located in the bottom corner, there is a PVC pipe in that area. I'm going to ask you to go to the whiteboard and show the court where you allegedly used that.

[00:19:27]Uh, if I can put it from another one and now the ju doesn't see it.

[00:19:33]Now put yourself on the other side.

[00:19:35]Thank you, witness.

[00:19:37]Okay. Okay.

[00:19:40]No, no, remain standing if the court allows it, because if it is possible and you authorize it, then you could project the elecit 17m.

[00:19:50]Give me a second prosecutor so I can get my notes straight.

[00:20:04]Permission to project the 17m exhibit.

[00:20:07]M. Go ahead, agent, I'll ask you the same question, but with the 17m exhibit.

[00:20:18]Uh, there where you can show the house that you were going to llan. Where is the house?

[00:20:25]This one right here.

[00:20:28]The window.

[00:20:28]Okay. And the place where you saw and took the knife, where?

[00:20:35]Prove it to me. The defense already saw it.

[00:20:39]Okay.

[00:21:12]Permission to project another photograph.

[00:21:14]Which one would it be?

[00:21:15]17N.

[00:21:17]17N.

[00:21:20]It's the same question, but with that exhibit that's being shown on the screen.

[00:21:28]Let me see it.

[00:21:31]Point to the side where there is a PS P PVC pipe, sorry.

[00:21:42]What is on the left side of the PVC pipe? I will show you, if the court allows me, David's exhibit 18.

[00:22:01]D for David.

[00:22:06]Permission to project it.

[00:22:07]Forward.

[00:22:11]Regarding that photograph, which is exhibit 18D, what can you observe there in relation to the place where you occupied it and what you have written before, how does what is shown in that photograph compare?

[00:22:33]Permission to display exhibit 18.

[00:22:36]B. Go ahead.

[00:22:39]Regarding what you have said about what was done at that residence that you raided, how do you describe or compare, excuse me, how does the exbit that is being shown on the screen compare with what you previously indicated in the other exiles?

[00:23:02]Permission then to deliver the exits that are marked as 18 to 18D of the town and also have the exits 17. Yes, the Exhibit 18s are being delivered for record purposes, and the Exhibit 17s are also being delivered.

[00:23:33]They are delivering Exhibit 17s for the purposes of this hearing only; we have no other questions.

[00:23:44]Yes. Excuse me. One moment.

[00:23:51]We will request that they be admitted as exiles later.

[00:23:59]What is marked as an exit? That?

[00:24:00]The documents that have been marked as identification.

[00:24:06]Not at the place at the moment.

[00:24:08]Later, at this time, not to the place.

[00:24:17]Permission to speak with the defense.

[00:24:32]Permission to obtain the documents.

[00:24:36]Forward. Which one?

[00:24:38]All those who were marked as identification.

[00:24:44]and permission to approach the defense attorney for a moment. Forward. I'm going to show you what's there. It has been marked as 3A and subsequently up to 3H.

[00:26:27]I will start with 3A.

[00:26:29]We're one to one.

[00:26:32]Please look at that document without entering its contents, and tell me if you recognize it.

[00:26:39]Correct.

[00:26:40]Why do you recognize him? It's my signature and it's my handwriting.

[00:26:44]What date? If any, if you remember, what date, you signed that document on August 13th.

[00:26:51]And how does that document relate to the search warrant that you have been asked about regarding the residence?

[00:26:59]He was the one who took over the residence. Okay. And I ask if that document has any alteration, modification or change with the one you signed on that date of August 13.

[00:27:10]I ask if what is described there has any alteration, modification or change with what you occupied in the residence on August 11, 2025.

[00:27:19]I ask if another person signed that document.

[00:27:23]The judge.

[00:27:24]Why would a judge sign that document? Because the document regarding the search warrant, when I proceeded to the judge to process it, and the judge who signed it... What seal, if any, does that court document contain? Very good. Your Honor, we would later ask you to mark it as exile.

[00:27:43]Let's go one by one so I can have a clearer record. Voad lawyer. In this case, if not in relation to that problematic document.

[00:27:53]None of them are marked as exbe 42 of the town. However, ours does not fall within the scope of authenticity, but rather the admissibility of the document. That's why then, but once it's authenticated, it's accepted.

[00:28:09]In our opinion, the fact that evidence may be authentic does not necessarily prevent it from being admissible if there is an exclusionary rule that allows it to be excluded.

[00:28:18]What is the exclusionary rule? Well, if you'll allow me, Madam Prosecutor, give him the opportunity.

[00:28:33]Well, regarding the rules of evidence that we are requesting, that this evidence not be admitted, it is in accordance with rule 401 of evidence regarding relevance, or alternatively, rule 403.

[00:28:52]They are two different things because rule 403 deals with whether something is relevant or not.

[00:28:58]You are confusing the court.

[00:29:01]I know he doesn't do it on purpose, but one of them has to do with relevance. Yes, if you are first telling me that the 401 that what is uh the identification 3 of the town when you are bringing me the relevance I understand that you are telling me that the case is not relevant.

[00:29:17]Rule 403 excludes evidence that is relevant, but does not meet the criteria of Rule 403; the court may exclude it.

[00:29:28]That's correct.

[00:29:29]But it is relevant, or it is relevant, or it is not relevant. You have to tell me.

[00:29:33]Well, ju, arguing, right?, in alternative number one. Under rule 401, the fact that that knife was seized where it was seized and that inventory was completed with respect to this particular identification does not make the adjudicative facts of this controversy any more or less probable.

[00:29:53]If the court understands that the facts that must be adjudicated by the honorable jury and the ladies and gentlemen of the jury are more or less probable, if it is more or less probable because this weapon was seized, right? This knife in Doña Elvia's residence, in our opinion, has such minimal probative value, and that's where we would enter into section 403.

[00:30:14]But please give me a second and forgive me for interrupting, I haven't seen a knife at the moment.

[00:30:21]What we have here is an inventory document, which is what we are discussing. We're not discussing a knife yet. I haven't seen any knives. Well, I don't know if you're following me, but what's being discussed here is whether the document in the execution of the search warrant, which is identification 3a, is admissible or not.

[00:30:43]No knife has been presented to me.

[00:30:47]They are two different things. One thing is the object itself and another thing is the search warrant licensing document, which is what you are now looking at in the database. Yes, yes, if the court will allow me to make a distinction between what is actual demonstrative evidence, which we are aware of and the court is right, and documentary evidence that will prove that a search warrant was executed and that the knife was seized according to the document, we object to the admission of that document where the jury, the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, can obtain information that as a result of that execution a knife was seized. Why, judge?

[00:31:29]Because that possession of that knife does not make the adjudicative facts that the ladies and gentlemen of the jury are going to consider any more or less probable for the reason that we had anticipated on the previous occasion when exhibit 18 was admitted, which are the photographs that that knife as part of the discovery of evidence is in no way related to the cause of the epigraph or at least to the scientific evidence that is totally excluded from the cause of the epigraph. That said, if he understands that it is relevant and pertinent in the alternative, judge, under 403, the risk of causing some undue prejudice, confusion or disorientation to the jury is such that it exceeds the minimal probative value that admitting that document to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury where it is said that a knife was seized at the residence of Elvia Cabrera may have.

[00:32:21]And in our opinion, judge, we have one, if the court understands that it is relevant and number one as a threshold that it is relevant, but number two that the probative value may be more than the undue prejudice or confusion or disorientation, our last alternative would be, judge, to condition it under rule 103B subject to a fact being confirmed.

[00:32:45]103 or 107.

[00:32:46]103, honorable, if my memory serves me right, 107.

[00:32:52]109B, pardon me, 109 of evidence.

[00:32:58]Ah, relevance conditioned on certain facts, for example. Alright. But that's regarding rule 109, which is what we're celebrating.

[00:33:06]The request, judge, is that in our opinion conditional. Look if 107 109B, ju 109B when the relevance of this depends on the occurrence of one or more facts, that will relate to 107 which speaks of limited admissibility.

[00:33:38]Our argument, honorable judge, is whether the court tends to, right? And he understands that it is relevant and that it meets the criteria of more or less probable adjudicative facts, unless he conditions it on feeling like a cerologist and being able to establish the relevance. Because? Because if that fact can never be proven to Your Honor and is admitted to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the relevance as to why this case is related, well, it may confuse the jury, it may cause undue prejudice and it may disorient them.

[00:34:13]F. I believe you are increasing my concern about whether the prosecutor will present the knife to the admissibility of this document at any point.

[00:34:23]Not necessarily, right? With all due respect, judge, the jury will have, if this document has been admitted as exhibit, the jury can make an inference from that evidence that has not resulted from the facts that they have been able to resolve in the testimonies. Up to this point, the testimonies, these events do not have a logical consequence that can clarify any more or less probable fact of the adjudicative cause in relation to the knife. That is why it is important for us that it not be admitted because it is not relevant, or if you, Your Honor, understand with all due respect that it is relevant, that you condition it until the fact that could exclude confusion for the jury is satisfied. Because if the jury evaluates—and we can tell you this in advance because it was part of rule 95 and the prosecutors know it—that the serological report and the analysis is that no DNA was found on that knife, that the sample and the comparison that was made with the blood that was obtained at the scene is not compatible with the DNA analysis of the knife.

[00:35:31]Admitting all the documentation relating to the knife could confuse the jury, disorient them, and cause undue harm to Ms. Elvia Cabrera, the judge. That is why the request would at least be that its admissibility be conditional, until they explain why the facts of this case are related. The prosecutor, the prosecutors have already argued probative value, that the probative value of that evidence belongs to the jury.

[00:35:55]That's where rule 403 comes in. Yes, but how much probative value does it have, judge? Because the probative value may be much less than the confusion and undue harm that it may cause to Mrs. Cabrera and in our opinion. Judges.

[00:36:11]It is logical to think that the jury can make an inference from facts that they have not yet seen. If the jury evaluates all these limits of a knife occupied outside the residence of Mrs. Elvia Cabrera, and we reserve, right?, with the utmost respect, to ask about that moment of the occupation, but occupied outside the residence that was taken to forensic science and that was analyzed and its scientific results are negative, well, at least they should have the complete picture, right? the environment and the complete context, but not admitting it now and not thinking that it will not create confusion for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that now when it is admitted they hear from the testimony of Gerardo Berríos, the ladies of the jury, that a knife is involved, that a knife is involved and there is a procedure and there is a request for forensic service and there is a chain of custody of that object taken to forensic science, it may confuse them because logically they may think that it is the murderous soul. Honorable judge, and that is a very substantial risk compared to the small probative value that this evidence has, and in our opinion, that is why we want to condition its relevance.

[00:37:26]I ask the pathologist here, I don't know if they're going to present a knife or not, right?

[00:37:36]That's not it, but I ask, the pathologist at the time went to the, I don't know if the prosecutors or the lawyers have asked him those questions before, I do know that he has sat to testify in a preliminary hearing.

[00:37:51]Uh, can you say if he rules out that knife being the white soul that was used? He didn't do any analysis on that knife. The pathologist has nothing to do with the knife.

[00:38:10]Uh, following the rules of the court, my friend, if you'll allow me, but uh, when it's my turn, I'll say that I'll go ahead. Well, who, in truth, is the member of the Institute of Forensic Sciences who did the analysis, did not make himself declared in preliminary proceedings of these matters in honor of the truth. In fact, we were not Mrs. Elvia Cabrera's lawyers at the preliminary hearing. The pathologist did sit down, but at no point in his testimony does he make or describe comparing the wounds with this knife that was seized, especially since the serological evidence ruled out and excluded the knife. No, no, no, no scientific evidence emerges that can be compared to DNA from blood or the facts of this case or any of the buccal samples. In that sense, judge, in our opinion, under 109B it is extremely reasonable to either wait until the jury is seated and this honorable court can make the admissibility assessment, to make the concrete admissibility evaluation so that the jury is not confused, or in our opinion at this moment it is still premature.

[00:39:24]Because? Because they haven't explained the relevance of why this knife makes what the knife does more or less likely, they have n't presented it to me. He is commenting on what we have on the record, which is the identification 3A, which is the execution of a search warrant, and with all due respect, the argument you are making to me.

[00:39:48]Moreover, if the prosecutor presents the knife. He has clarified the documents very well. I must say, Your Honor, with the utmost respect, if they are admitted when the ladies and gentlemen of the jury are seated and the prosecutor makes her direct and present statement, as all this documentation will be discussed in all the documents, that a black and silver knife was seized at the residence of Mrs. Elvia Cabrera as a result of a search and seizure warrant, and that this knife was then seized by Agent Gerardo Berrío and taken to the forensic sciences, and that after being taken to the forensic sciences a chain of custody was established and then it was delivered after analysis and its results were given to Mr. Ángel Torres Romero. All the documentation, all the documentary evidence, will confuse the jury in our opinion, because logically they will think, they will establish facts that have not yet been satisfied, that are related to the case in question, that this knife is the murder weapon, and that is ruled out by the documentary evidence that we have, honorable judge, and those documents could, beyond confusing the jury, disorient them, cause undue harm to Mrs. Elvia Cabara, contrary to the probative value that it has, which is small. Because?

[00:41:09]Because if the probative value as an effect, the colleague could stipulate that the serological analysis was negative, that no one's DNA was found in that piece of evidence, then that documentation should also be conditioned on the admissibility of this other documentation, but not bring to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury soon in the afternoon, through direct testimony, a part of the story, judge, regarding the possession of that evidence. without telling him, "Wait, but the other part is that the analysis turned out to be negative, that all the scientific analyses excluded DNA from that piece and in our opinion, well, there would not be the confusion of the 403, nor the disorientation, nor the undue harm." Because? Because the ladies and gentlemen of the jury were given the film, truthfully, the complete versions of the documentation.

[00:42:07]Anything else, lawyer? No, next prosecutor.

[00:42:14]Starting from the truth? from the premise that the colleague established when he argued. He tells the court that the full film must be given to the bureaucrat.

[00:42:27]Uh, what the Supreme Court has said.

[00:42:29]And regarding the investigation and the process that is being carried out, well, that is precisely the position of the Public Prosecutor's Office regarding the admissibility of the documents that we are asking to be marked as exbir today. Because? Let's go first to this prosecutor who is identified as 3a differentiation of search warrant. This is the one we're in.

[00:42:55]Yes, we requested that this document be marked as exhibit because it is part of the entire investigation that was carried out on the same day, right?, August 11, 2025 by order of a court. We are not saying, with the possession of that knife that is stated in the official report, that it is the murder weapon. We are not confusing things, giving that impression. The sole purpose of presenting that document is to establish what was occupied there, and that is done contingencyally, through an authorization given by a judge to intervene in that house and occupy what the police officer intends or understood was pertinent to the investigation of the facts. Not presenting everything that was taken there could confuse the jury, because we are not showing the jury everything that the police officer did there. That's it. And we understand that it is relevant evidence, because relevant evidence is also that which gives credibility to a witness. And in this sense, the agent, by expressing everything that was occupied and everything that was done in that residence, corroborates his investigation at that site.

[00:44:23]And it wasn't just a knife that was seized; other things were also seized, which, well, right? They underwent the same process as the knife. Later, in the statement of a pathologist, in the testimony of some cerologists, the jury can understand and give it the probative value they deem appropriate, but that's part of the investigation process. We, with all due respect, request that it be marked as exhibit because precisely what the defense says, to bring the complete film to the judge of the facts, is what we respectfully request.

[00:45:02]Regarding the search warrant document, the procedure, as it is titled, is the execution of the search warrant. Allow me to take inventory.

[00:45:14]The 3DA inventory licensing identification that people said was the inventory from the search warrant. It is marked as exhibit 42 of the village. It only allows me to make an expression for consideration, and what we want to put on record is just one case.

[00:45:34]Forward.

[00:45:36]Suíz Pérez 123 DPR 216 216 Correct. Honorable judge says that the factors of probability of jury confusion and disorientation usually refer to the danger that the jury will infer a fact that does not logically follow from the evidence.

[00:45:54]Submitted.

[00:45:58]to the request for reconsideration regarding the inventory completion document.

[00:46:08]that is like exic 42 of the town to put it as it is completing inventory.

[00:46:49]Go ahead, prosecutor. Let's move on.

[00:46:51]Let's do it, let's talk about 3B identification of the town. That's right, Your Honor.

[00:46:58]Permission to show it to him.

[00:47:00]What document is that?

[00:47:02]It is titled inventory of occupied property and has a second folio which is the chain of custody.

[00:47:22]Go ahead, prosecutor.

[00:47:29]Permission to surrender. I ask you, witness, if you can verify the document. I ask if you recognize him.

[00:47:47]Why do you recognize him?

[00:47:53]Fiscal.

[00:48:08]Go ahead, prosecutor.

[00:48:10]Uh, I was telling you that this document has things in it without going into the content so that you can recognize it.

[00:48:17]The property that I occupied in Elvia's house. I ask you what information, if any, you have on that document so that you can recognize it.

[00:48:28]My signature has the number of wanting to ask if that document has any alteration, modification or change or what you say that it does not.

[00:48:44]How does that document relate to the search warrant that, right, we're asking about this morning at this Rule 109 hearing?

[00:48:55]The same as I occupy in the residence and this is the same as what I put in the document that is given to the court.

[00:49:00]What is the purpose of creating this document?

[00:49:03]The purpose of the property that is being occupied from Elvia's house, which is the evidence that was occupied, she signs it and signs it and a copy is also given to the court. along with the completion.

[00:49:15]Permission then, Your Honor, to mark this as exid space for the lawyer, please.

[00:49:28]effects of the recording of Mr. Rivera Ramos, because we will promptly replicate the same obedience we made previously. However, we would like to add only and exclusively the following.

[00:49:41]In reality, a fact can be proven by several feet of evidence. When the relevance of the evidence depends on more than one fact, or when fragmented evidence is presented to prove the fact, it is up to the jury to establish the probative value of each part and to interweave all the evidence to determine whether the condition was met. This is Mul Patrick in section 34. However, the judge has the responsibility to ensure that there is sufficient evidence to establish the existence of the fact on which the determination of relevance rests. The judge must ensure that the applicable standard of proof is met so that the matter reaches the jury and the jury can consider that evidence along with the rest. This is VZ Rodriguez, the legal scholar on page 19. In this case, the court may, number one, admit the evidence and then resolve a motion to have it removed from the record if the proponent does not present enough to prove that the condition was met, i.e., with the facts. The exactly honorable judgment that is given on whether the fact is satisfied, but that is the instruction, if a conditional admissibility is admitted. Number two, it will ask the proponent to specify how that fact is intended to be proven and exclude the evidence if it is not presented. Or three, admit the evidence subject to it being sufficient to establish the fact and thus fulfill the condition.

[00:51:09]Finally, and with this I conclude, judge, if sufficient evidence is presented to demonstrate that the condition was met, the judge may, at the request of the proposing party, instruct the jury, and the jury may in turn consider the evidence whose relevance was conditioned, only if it is concluded that enough was presented to establish that the condition was met. This, along with what we have already stated, will be our position regarding this document, Your Honor, and to truly advance it in a timely manner, and thus not be repetitive with each and every document that is marked as identification, we will explain the arguments of the parties and the objection also regarding the other identifications of the people who are currently in dispute under this Rule 190.

[00:51:55]Prosecutor, our position remains the same, Your Honor.

[00:51:58]We truly understand that we could further confuse the jury if we do not present them with the complete investigation process, even if there are pieces of evidence that did not test positive in a forensic analysis, but these are pieces used in a search of the residence of the accused woman on the same day as the events, and the jury will determine their probative value when other witnesses testify and establish whether or not they are relevant, or what the results of the forensic analyses that were subsequently submitted were. Judges, note that the only thing I am in dispute at this moment is the document and not the pieces.

[00:52:50]No piece has been presented to me here. What I have here is the document. Whether the inventory document of occupied property from the process is admissible or not, whether it is relevant or not.

[00:53:05]Anything more fiscal?

[00:53:06]No.

[00:53:07]Mark as ex 43 of the town, the inventory of occupied property.

[00:53:28]Permission to deliver it to you and I'm going to show you the defense, first the identification one 13.

[00:53:39]What is the title of prosecutor?

[00:53:42]Sorry.

[00:53:47]Evidence record.

[00:53:48]Evidence record.

[00:53:50]Thank you.

[00:53:52]Fourth, provisional.

[00:54:00]permission to approach the stage.

[00:54:03]Forward.

[00:55:13]Identification 3 of the town with the arrival of the court and very respectfully witness I ask you if you recognize that document.

[00:55:28]Correct.

[00:55:28]Because you recognize it. It is the property that was occupied on the day of the raid and evidence collection. I ask him if that document has any information that can identify it as his.

[00:55:43]My signature.

[00:55:44]Where is your signature?

[00:55:45]At the bottom, to my left.

[00:55:50]Okay. I ask you, how does that document relate to the raid you carried out at a residence?

[00:55:56]related to the I ask if that has any alteration, modification or change.

[00:56:02]No.

[00:56:03]What is the purpose of this document, evidence record, provisional evidence room?

[00:56:09]When I take the evidence that I used to the temporary evidence room, where my colleague receives it and she passes it to the other room.

[00:56:18]Evidence. We asked the court for permission to mark him as an exiled lawyer who was going to be if the same position, the same management, and the same argumentation. That being the case, mark yourself as civilian 44 eh 44 of the town.

[00:57:02]The document titled evidence record. I understand it is titled provisional evidence room.

[00:57:09]Below is marked evidence room.

[00:57:12]It is titled evidence record.

[00:57:26]as a provisional evidence room.

[00:57:28]Please mark yourself as ex-44 of the corps.

[00:57:49]Go ahead, prosecutor.

[00:57:51]The next document is titled, sorry, we should talk about 3D identification of the people.

[00:57:58]We have handed it over to the defense for them to verify. Once they finish, we ask for permission for him to deliver it.

[00:58:05]Forward.

[00:58:09]Mr. Witness, I ask you to please review that document and once you have done so, tell me if you recognize it.

[00:58:17]Correct.

[00:58:17]Why? If you recognize any of them. This document is prepared by Ida Hernandez's people. She's going through the same thing I wrote about before, and she's showing it to me.

[00:58:28]Officer, what's the word? It was prepared by Agent Ida Hernandez.

[00:58:32]Ida Hernández 33 6 22.

[00:58:37]Who is Agent Ida Hernández?

[00:58:39]She is the custodian of the evidence room.

[00:58:41]Okay. I ask him if that document titled evidence record, evidence room, uh, has any data or anything that you recognize as yours.

[00:58:55]My signature.

[00:58:56]Where is your signature?

[00:58:57]At the bottom, to my left.

[00:59:01]What is the title of the document?

[00:59:05]The evidence record, PPR 636.2. It also has my signature on the back. I ask if that document has any alteration or change from the one you received from the people Ida Hernandez for your signature on that date after the raid.

[00:59:31]On what date was that document prepared? It was from August 12th and on the back, what time on August 12th?

[00:59:44]At 10 in the morning. Very good.

[00:59:48]Therefore, Your Honor, we are requesting that it be marked as ex-bento. that is how it demands 45 from the people.

[01:00:35]Yes, I'm going to introduce you to this cousin.

[01:00:44]Well, let's ask for a second, prosecutor, so I can get my notes straight, please.

[01:01:47]Go ahead, prosecutor. Let's move on to 3D identification. I'm going to jump in and ask the court to allow me to show the witness ID 3F before ID E.

[01:02:03]Okay. 3F Identification.

[01:02:05]Yes, Mr. Judge of the People.

[01:02:07]Please, officer, we're talking about what document is titled.

[01:02:11]Request for alternative forensic service.

[01:02:15]If you are a kind witness, please verify the document in its entirety.

[01:02:25]And once you've finished doing that, let me know.

[01:02:29]Correct. I ask people if you recognize that document which consists of two sheets, two pages.

[01:02:36]Yes. I ask you, why do you recognize that document?

[01:02:39]I prepared it, I filled it out, it's my handwriting, and I looked at my signature.

[01:02:42]Where did you fill out that document?

[01:02:44]Institute of Forensic Sciences. What was your purpose in filling out that document? the request made to the Forensic Institute for the evidence to be analyzed. I ask him if that document has a date.

[01:02:59]Aldor, yes?

[01:03:03]What is the date of that document?

[01:03:05]August 13, 2025.

[01:03:07]And where exactly do you say you recognize your signature? On the back, I ask if that document, after you have filled it out and signed it, has any alteration, modification or change from the one you submitted to the Institute of Forensic Sciences?

[01:03:23]No, none. That being the case, Your Honor, the request is that it be marked as a defense. The same argument.

[01:03:37]Mark it as exhibit 46 of the town. We are going to request, Your Honor, that the witness exhibit 3F be delivered to you.

[01:04:27]Excuse me. ID. Correct.

[01:04:32]But I understood that 3F is the one you worked on now, which is the one you requested.

[01:04:36]Excuse me.

[01:04:37]Identification 3 Correct. 3S.

[01:04:44]What is the title of prosecutor?

[01:04:45]It is titled "Request for Forensic Service" and is two pages long.

[01:04:58]He asked the witness if you could see that identification.

[01:05:04]Correct. I ask if you recognize her.

[01:05:08]Why do you recognize her? The evidence that I gave to Mr. Melfy Rivera, he is the supervisor of evidence control and custody at the Institute of Forensic Sciences.

[01:05:19]What information, if any, does that document contain regarding you?

[01:05:24]It has my name and license plate number.

[01:05:27]Compared to the previous document that was marked as exhibit, which is the alternate forensic service request, how does what is detailed there compare with what you stated there?

[01:05:41]It's the same thing.

[01:05:42]I ask if that, if that to have is the same as where it is, fiscal related to exhibit 3F 3F.

[01:05:55]And there's the "it's not exhibit 3F" one. The exhibit, identification 3F, is exhibit 46 of the town.

[01:06:03]Excuse me. Yes. What is now Exhibit 46, which is the document that was shown to you earlier, how does it compare to the document you have in your hands in terms of what you submitted?

[01:06:13]It's the same thing.

[01:06:16]Well, it's the same request that is marked as exile.

[01:06:38]Uh, defense, the same argument as 47 people. Request for forensic service in relation to the two. Just a second, F.

[01:06:52]I'm taking notes.

[01:06:57]48 would be.

[01:07:02]Go ahead, prosecutor.

[01:07:04]Permission to approach in relation to the documents marked as identification 3G and the document marked as identification 3H.

[01:07:20]Forward.

[01:07:34]How to exit? Well, but then he says it. I ask the parties.

[01:07:41]Regarding the documents identified as 3G identification titled 3 3G G town identification titled PPR 636.1. Uh-huh. Inventory of occupied property dated December 12, 2025, fiscal inventory of occupied property dated December 12, 2025, consisting of a folio on both sides.

[01:08:26]It consists of a sheet of paper printed on both sides.

[01:08:30]with the defense and we would be requesting the court that it has been marked as exhibit by the Public Prosecutor without objection from the defense.

[01:08:39]Defense, there is an objection to it being marked as exhibit by stipulation. Is it without objection or by stipulation?

[01:08:44]Stipulation.

[01:08:45]By stipulation. Mark it as exhibit 47.

[01:08:51]Yes, 48, sorry.

[01:08:58]This is 47.

[01:09:02]Thank you. Ex 48 of the town by stipulation of the parties. I know that it is PPR 636, inventory of occupied property. Correct. Both parties.

[01:09:25]Yes, Your Honor.

[01:09:31]636.1 Inventory of occupied property.

[01:09:56]Go ahead, prosecutor. With the next document that is marked as identification 3H 3H of the town is titled PPR 636.2 636.2 evidence record dated December 12, 2025.

[01:10:29]It would be the same situation, judge.

[01:10:36]Give me a second.

[01:10:58]When you describe the same situation, we will clarify the tax record.

[01:11:02]Let's see, what is the same situation?

[01:11:04]We will request that it be marked as exhibit by stipulation between the parties. defense rather than as exhibit 49 of the people by stipulation of the parties.

[01:11:42]It is titled evidence record PPR 636.2.

[01:12:43]Yes, go ahead, Prosecutor.

[01:12:45]That's all.

[01:12:46]That's all for the end of this list.

[01:12:48]Well then, let's wait so everyone can get there, it's 12:1. We're going to give the staff an hour and a half so they can download the files, etc. We're talking about 1:45.

[01:13:06]1:45 in the afternoon. We're back. Everything is fine.