You are on page 1of 155

1

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

3
4
5
6
7

-----------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
:
v.
:
:
DARON D. WINT,
:
:
Defendant.
:
-----------------------------x

Criminal Action No.


2015-CF1-7047

Washington, D.C.

Monday, July 20, 2015

10
11
12
13
14
15

The above-entitled action came on for a Preliminary


Hearing before the Honorable RHONDA REID WINSTON, Associate
Judge, in Courtroom Number 316, commencing at 11:00 a.m.
THIS TRANSCRIPT REPRESENTS THE PRODUCT OF
AN OFFICIAL REPORTER, ENGAGED BY THE COURT,
WHO HAS PERSONALLY CERTIFIED THAT IT REPRESENTS
HER ORIGINAL NOTES AND RECORDS OF TESTIMONY AND
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE AS RECORDED.
APPEARANCES:

16

On behalf of the Government:

17
18

LAURA BACH, Esquire


EMILY MILLER, Esquire
Assistant United States Attorneys

19

On behalf of the Defendant:

20

ARTHUR AGO, Esquire


NATALIE LAWSON, Esquire
Public Defender Service
Washington, D.C.

21
22
23
24
25

MISS LORETTA E. KACZOROWSKI


Official Court Reporter

(202) 879-1058

1
2

P R O C E E D I N G S
THE DEPUTY CLERK:

This is calling on the

preliminary hearing calendar United States versus Daron Wint,

2015-CF1-7047.

5
6

MS. BACH:

Laura Bach for the United States, Your

Honor, good morning.

THE COURT:

MS. MILLER:

Good morning.
Good morning, Your Honor.

for the United States.

10

THE COURT:

11

MR. AGO:

Good morning.
Good morning, Your Honor.

12

behalf of Mr. Wint.

13

THE COURT:

14

MS. LAWSON:

15
16
17
18
19

Emily Miller

Arthur Ago on

Good morning.
Good morning.

Natalie Lawson on behalf

of Mr. Wint.
THE COURT:

All right, good morning.

The defendant

should be on his way out.


Counsel, while he's on his way out could you all
just approach really quickly?

20

(Bench conference).

21

THE COURT:

I've just been asked to remind all of

22

you to please speak slowly.

23

MS. BACH:

24

THE COURT:

25

MR. AGO:

I've already been cautioned.


Okay.
Your Honor, we've spoken to the marshals

this morning, normally we ask that the client's restraints be

removed for the purposes of the hearing.

reluctant because of the high profile in the case.

(Defendant present).

MR. AGO:

I know it's up -- I think it's up to the

Court.

THE COURT:

MR. AGO:

The marshals are

Does he need to be writing or anything?


We have some photos that we'd like him to

look through and, you know, to the extent --

10

THE COURT:

11

Marshal.

12

(Thereupon, the Court and Deputy Marshal conferred;

13

I would like to address this.

off the record).

14
15

Okay.

THE COURT:

They've been given directions not to do

it.

16

MR. AGO:

17

THE COURT:

18

MS. BACH:

19

(Close bench conference).

20

THE COURT:

21

Very well.
Okay.
Okay, thank you.

All right, sir, would you state your

name please for the record?

22

THE DEFENDANT:

23

THE COURT:

24
25

All right.

for preliminary hearing.


MS. BACH:

Daron Wint.
Counsel, this matter is here

Is the Government ready to proceed?

We are, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

MR. AGO:

THE COURT:

MS. BACH:

All right.

All right, you may call your

Your Honor, the Government's calling

Detective Jeff Owens.

7
8

Yes, Your Honor.

witness.

5
6

Is the defense ready?

THE COURT:

Sir, step up, raise your right hand

please.

(Time 11:08 a.m.)

10

Thereupon,

11

JEFFREY OWENS,

12

having been called as a witness for and on behalf of the

13

Government, and having been first duly sworn by the Deputy

14

Clerk, was examined and testified as follows:

15

DIRECT EXAMINATION

16
17
18

BY MS. BACH:
Q

Good morning, sir.

Could you please state your full

name and spell your last name for the court reporter?

19

Jeffrey Owens, last name is spelled O-W-E-N-S.

20

And where are you employed?

21

I'm employed with Metropolitan Police Department

22

assigned to the major case, cold case, homicide unit.

23

And what is your rank there?

24

Detective first grade.

25

And how long have you been a detective first grade

with the Metropolitan Police Department?

Since 2002.

And how long have you been with the major case unit?

Since 2003.

I want to ask you, sir, what if anything was your

role in the investigation into the murders of the Savopoulos

family and the murder of Veralitsa Figueroa?

I'm the lead detective assigned to the case.

And were you there from day one?

10

Yes.

11

I'm going to ask you, sir, did you prepare an

12

affidavit in support of an arrest warrant in this case?

13

Yes, I did.

14

And did you also prepare a supplement to the arrest

15

warrant affidavit?

16

Yes, I did.

17

Have you reviewed those recently?

18

Yes.

19

Are they true and accurate?

20

Yes, they are.

21

MS. BACH:

I'm going to show defense counsel --

22

okay, a copy of all the Government's exhibits have already

23

been provided to the defense.

24
25

BY MS. BACH:
Q

I'm going to show you, sir, what's been marked as

Government's exhibits one and two.

Government's exhibit one?

Can you tell me what is

affidavit.

And what is exhibit two?

Exhibit two is the addendum to the affidavit.

A supplement?

A supplement, yes.

If given the opportunity would you adopt both of

10
11
12

One is the actual arrest warrant complaint and the

those as part of your testimony here today?


A

Yes, I would.
MS. BACH:

Your Honor, with the Court's permission

13

we would seek to introduce Government's exhibits one and two

14

and we would ask the Court to permit the detective to adopt

15

those as part of his testimony here today.

16

THE COURT:

17

MR. AGO:

18

THE COURT:

19

MS. BACH:

20

Any objection, counsel?


No, Your Honor.
Very well.
And does the Court have the versions with

the numbered paragraphs that I provided previously?

21

THE COURT:

I have unnumbered paragraphs.

22

MS. BACH:

23

just might be easier for us.

24

THE COURT:

25

BY MS. BACH:

I can provide a copy to the Court, it

All right, thank you.

Sir, the affidavit in support of the arrest warrant

indicates, um, that it is for a defendant by the name of

Daron Delon Wint.

Do you see Mr. Wint here in the courtroom?

Yes, I do.

Could you please identify him by an article of

6
7
8

clothing and also by pointing to him?


A

jumpsuit on.

9
10

Seated to defense counsel's left with an orange

MS. BACH:

Your Honor, I'd ask the record to reflect

the in-court identification of defendant Daron Delon Wint.

11

THE COURT:

12

MR. AGO:

13

THE COURT:

14

No.
The record will reflect the

identification.

15
16

Any objection, counsel?

BY MS. BACH:
Q

Detective, I just want to ask you a couple of

17

follow-up questions about the affidavit in support of arrest

18

warrant.

19

discusses the causes of death for the four individuals.

20

Since this affidavit was prepared have you had the

21

opportunity to have further conversation with the medical

22

examiner who performed the autopsies in these cases?

I want to refer you to paragraph five where it

23

Yes, I have.

24

And based on that conversation did she indicate that

25

there was an additional cause of death for Veralitsa Figueroa

1
2
3
4
5

and Savvas Savopoulos?


A

Yes, the additional cause of death was

strangulation.
Q

So in addition to the blunt force and sharp force

trauma?

That's correct.

In paragraph 20 you referred to a delivery from a

Domino's Pizza.

Have you had the opportunity to confirm

whether or not Daron Wint ever worked at a Domino's Pizza?

10

Yes, I did.

11

And did he ever work at that Domino's Pizza?

12

No, he did not.

13

We take a look at paragraph 21, detective, you

14

indicate that based on your investigation at the time the

15

pizzas were ordered the decedents were being held against

16

their will.

17

that led you to that conclusion?

18
19
20

Is there something primarily you're referring to

Yes, review of the adults' phone records from the

house.
Q

And I want to ask you about one call in particular.

21

At approximately eight o'clock p.m. was a phone call made

22

from Savvas Savopoulos?

23

Yes.

24

And who was that made to?

25

It was made to the controller of AIW, American Iron

1
2
3

Works.
Q

And what was Mr. Savopoulos's position within

American Iron Works?

He was the CEO.

And during that call what was requested?

MR. AGO:

Your Honor, may I interrupt?

comptroller or controller?

THE WITNESS:

MR. AGO:

Is it

Controller.

Controller.

10

THE COURT:

Control?

11

MS. BACH:

12

BY MS. BACH:

Control.

13

And what was requested during that phone call?

14

Mr. Savvas Savopoulos requested from the controller

15

for the controller to produce a check for cash that he could

16

receive the following morning for the amount between 35

17

thousand, 50 thousand dollars.

18

And was any part of that request unusual?

19

The request for specific cash was unusual.

20

I want to also ask you, detective, in that paragraph

21

there is a reference to specific instructions that were made

22

to the Domino's delivery person.

23

the instructions that were provided to the Domino's delivery

24

person for the delivery on May 13th, 2015?

25

Can you tell us what were

The instructions were to leave the pizzas on the

front step of the house.

And to leave or to stay?

No, to leave the pizzas and then to leave.

There was a reference to ringing the doorbell.

5
6
7

Was

that an instruction that was provided that night?


A

No, that instruction was from prior deliveries to

the house, it was not for that night.

And it was just still in the system?

Yeah.

10

I want to refer you to paragraph 24.

There are

11

references in that paragraph to the fact that there was a

12

CODIS match between the pizza crust that was recovered in the

13

home and a CODIS hit in the database belonging to Mr. Wint.

14

Do you know, since the time that this affidavit was prepared,

15

has a sample been taken from Daron Wint?

16

Yeah.

17

And was that a DNA profile from that sample actually

18

confirmed with the profile from the pizza crust?

19

Yeah.

20

And is it your understanding that the result of that

21

was that there is a single source male profile on the pizza

22

crust that is consistent with the defendant Daron Wint?

23

Yes, consistent with the defendant.

24

Now, did you speak with the DNA analyst?

25

Yes, I did.

10

1
2

And when the DNA analyst the profile is consistent

with the defendant is there a layman's terms for that?

Layman's term is match.

And is that the reference in the affidavit?

Yes.

In paragraph 25 there's a discussion about a blue

Porsche that belonged to Amy Savopoulos that was discovered

missing on May 14?

Yeah.

10

Was that Porsche later recovered?

11

Yes, it was.

12

And where was that Porsche or what condition was

13

that Porsche recovered?

14

The Porsche had been set on fire and burned.

15

Were any items of clothing recovered from the

16

Porsche?

17

18

vest.

19

I'm sorry?

20

Recovered from the vehicle.

21

And was DNA testing done on that vest?

22

Yes.

23

And is -- did you speak with the analyst about that

24
25

Yes, it was a neon green construction visibility

testing?
A

Yes, I did.

11

And did she determine that there was a partial DNA

profile from that vest that consisted of a mixture of at

least three people?

Yes, three people, two major contributors, one to

decedent Savvas Savopoulos, and the other two to the

defendant Daron Wint.

So the defendant Daron Wint and Savvas Savopoulos,

their profiles are consistent with the DNA that was recovered

from the vest?

10

Yes, that's correct.

11

The 40 thousand dollars that's discussed throughout

12

the affidavit have you or did you have the opportunity to

13

learn in what denomination that 40 thousand dollars was

14

provided from the bank?

15
16
17

All one-hundred-dollar bills, four hundreds,

one-hundred-dollar bills.
Q

And over the course of this investigation can you

18

tell us approximately how much money has been recovered

19

either directly from defendant Wint or in close association

20

within?

21

In excess of 30 thousand dollars.

22

So I want to speak with you first, sir, on May 20th,

23

did you go to the home of Dennis Wint?

24

Yes.

25

And Dennis Wint is what to Daron Wint?

12

Daron Wint's father.

And were there -- were you provided with information

that two bags of Daron Wint's belongings were left at the

home?

Yes.

And within those two bags were there a number of

papers that were recovered?

Yes, that's correct.

I'm showing you what's been marked as Government's

10

exhibit three, a copy of which has been provided to the

11

defense.

12

the papers that were recovered?

Government's exhibit three a photograph of some of

13

Yes, it is.

14

Okay, and what is the main -- the large piece of

15

paper, the eight and a half by 11 piece of paper, what is

16

that?

17

It's a retainer agreement for an attorney.

18

For an immigration law firm?

19

Yes.

20

And attached to that is there a receipt?

21

Yes, there is.

22

And what is the date of the receipt?

23

The receipt's dated May 16, 2015.

24

And what is the amount for?

25

The amount is one thousand one hundred dollars.

13

1
2
3

And does the receipt indicate in what form that

money was provided by Daron Wint?


A

Provided in cash for legal fees.

MS. BACH:

Government's exhibit three.

THE COURT:

Your Honor, we would seek to introduce

Any objection?

It will be received.

(Thereupon, Government's Exhibit Number

Three was received into evidence).

MS. BACH:

10
11
12

I'll pass a copy up to the Court.

BY MS. BACH:
Q

Sir, when Mr. Wint was arrested on May 21st, how was

he traveling?

13

He was traveling in a small four-door compact car.

14

Within that small four-door compact car were any

15

money orders recovered?

16

Yes.

17

Approximately how much in money orders?

18

Approximately 10 thousand dollars in money orders.

19

Was there a second vehicle that was traveling with

20

Mr. Wint?

21

22

Yes, there was a box truck traveling in concert with

the small compact car.

23

Within that box truck was any cash recovered?

24

In excess of 10 thousand dollars was recovered in

25

cash.

14

From the box truck?

No, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

In excess of seven thousand dollars,

Okay, and of that cash primarily what denomination

was the seven thousand dollars?

Primarily all one-hundred-dollar bills.

Additionally, from the box truck was over 13

thousand dollars recovered in money orders?

Yes.

10

And, so, added up is that where you came up with the

11
12

30 thousand dollars?
A

13
14

In excess of 30, yeah.


MS. BACH:

Court's indulgence.

I have nothing

further, Your Honor.

15

THE COURT:

16

MR. AGO:

Cross-examination, counsel.
Thank you, Your Honor.

17

CROSS-EXAMINATION

18

BY MR. AGO:

19

Good morning, detective.

20

Good morning, sir.

21

Detective, besides the Government's one,

22

Government's two, and nine pictures of notes that you

23

provided to the Government either this morning or in

24

preparation for this hearing, did you take any other notes or

25

fill in any other documents related to your investigation in

15

this case?

3
4
5

All of the reports and all of the notes I took I

provided to the Government.


Q

Um, did you speak to any other police officers with

regards to this case?

Yes.

And during those conversations were those police

8
9
10

officers writing anything down or typing anything?


A

In reference to what myself and that detective or

police officer was talking about?

11

Yes.

12

No.

13

Have you been to the grand jury?

14

Have I testified before the grand jury?

15

Yes.

16

No.

17

Detective, I want to turn your attention to a person

18

identified in your affidavit as W-1.

19

directly?

20

No.

21

Did you speak to -- I take it the metropolitan

22

Did you speak to W-1

police have spoken to W-1?

23

Yes.

24

And did you speak to the police officers or

25

detectives who spoke to W-1?

16

Yes.

Okay.

And is your characterization of what W-1, um, told

in the affidavit based on those conversations with the police

or those detectives?

Yes.

And was W-1's -- was any of W-1's interviews by MPD

videotaped or recorded?

Yeah.

10

Did you view those videotapes or listen to those

11

recordings?

12

No.

13

Did W-1 make himself known to the police before he

14

spoke to the police or did the police have to go out and get

15

him?

16

In other words, how did the police come across W-1?


A

W-1 returned -- W-1 went up to the scene near 31 --

17

3201 Woodland and he made himself known to the police at that

18

point.

19

What date and time was this?

20

It was the same day, May 14.

21

And do you know the time?

22

I don't recall the exact time.

23

And did -- how did W-1 make himself known to the

24
25

police?
A

What did he say when he went up to 3201?


If I remember correctly his car was parked within

17

the police tape and he wanted his car back and he made

himself known to the police at that point.

So, just to be clear my questions are all based on

your conversations with the officers who spoke directly with

W-1?

Yes.

Okay.

8
9
10
11
12
13

And so prior to the police putting up the tape W-1


returned to the area of 3201 and parked his car; is that
correct?
A

Well, at some point the tape was put up and W-1's

car was within the tape.


Q

14

Okay.
So in other words what I'm saying is the tape wasn't

15

up and then W-1 went through the tape to park the car, the

16

car was there before the tape went up?

17

I believe so, yeah.

18

And so when W-1 identified himself to the police he

19

said that's my car, words to the effect of that's my car, I

20

want my car back?

21
22
23

I can't tell you his exact words, but in essence he

made himself known who he was and he wanted his car back.
Q

When you said he made himself known who he was did

24

he tell the police that he was connected with the Savopoulos

25

family?

18

Yeah.

At that moment?

Yeah.

And did the police speak with W-1 on the scene other

5
6

than that brief conversation that you just described?


A

Other than learning who he was and identifying him,

giving him to a detective for a more formal interview, no,

not beyond that, no.

At that moment when you gave him -- when the police

10

gave him to a detective for a more formal interview, do you

11

know who that detective was?

12

Yeah.

13

Who was it?

14

Detective Todd Williams.

15

Um, did -- did Detective Williams take W-1 from the

16
17

scene to a police station or a district at that point?


A

Well, let me correct my statement.

I know Detective

18

Todd Williams interviewed him.

19

one that actually drove W-1 to the police station for the

20

interview.

21

22
23

I can't tell you if he's the

Okay.
Is it at that moment, though, that W-1 was

transported to the police station for the interview?

24

Yeah.

25

This was at 2-D?

19

No.

This was at homicide?

Yeah, he went to the homicide office.

Okay.

5
6

And when W-1 was transported I take it also that he


was not permitted at that moment to take his car?

No, he wasn't.

His car is a green BMW with a green -- I'm sorry,

with a mat paint finish?

10

MS. BACH:

Your Honor, objection.

11

THE COURT:

12

MR. AGO:

13

THE COURT:

14

(Bench conference).

15

THE COURT:

16

MR. AGO:

Sustained.
There is evidence that's -Approach.

What is the -- what is the relevance?


The relevance is that there's evidence

17

that the police seized from the BMW -- let me back up.

18

are five or six cars, maybe even seven that are described in

19

this case.

20

are taken from several of those cars.

21

identify it as W-1's car but --

22
23

There

And so there's different pieces of evidence that

THE COURT:

Now I guess I could

Are you suggesting that evidence, other

evidence was taken from this green BMW?

24

MR. AGO:

25

THE COURT:

Yes.
You dispute that, counsel?

20

MS. BACH:

Actually I'm not really sure what

evidence he's referring to that would be relevant to this

hearing and I would just ask, but to the extent that this

individual's already been vilified in the media I would just

ask that we refer to it as W-1's car.

THE COURT:

as -- as his car?

MR. AGO:

THE COURT:

Well, you have a problem referring to it

No, Your Honor.


Okay.

That's fine.

10

(Close bench conference).

11

THE COURT:

12

MR. AGO:

13

BY MR. AGO:

14
15

Just rephrase, counsel.


Yes, Your Honor.

Detective, when I -- when I say W-1's car you know

what vehicle I'm talking about?

16

Yeah.

17

Okay.

18

Did the police secure -- I shouldn't use the word

19

secure.

Did the police make certain that W's [sic] car was

20

not touched or moved in any way after W-1 was transported to

21

homicide?

22

I don't really understand the question.

23

In other words, the police didn't allow anyone to

24

enter W-1's car after W-1 -- after W-1 identified which car

25

was his --

21

Yes.

-- the police didn't allow anyone to enter that car;

is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

And at some point on the 14th, the following day,

the police had the car towed and searched the car; is that

right?

You said on the 14th, the following day?

10

I'm sorry, the 15th, the following day.

11

The vehicle was taken in to police custody, yeah.

12

Okay.

13

And between the time that W-1 identified his car and

14

when it was taken into police custody the car wasn't entered

15

at any point; is that correct?

16

No.

17

All right.

18

I'm sorry, I'm correct?

19

If I understand your question you're correct.

20

Okay.

21
22

And, um, at some point W-1 was made aware that he


was a suspect in this case, correct?

23

I wouldn't use that word suspect.

24

W-1 was told by the police that they believed he had

25

more involvement in this case than he initially described; is

22

that correct?

2
3

W-1 was told that he had more information that he

was initially given, that's correct.

Did this occur -- did what you just say occur during

that initial interview with W-1 involving Detective Williams

at homicide?

Yeah.

How long after the interview started, after the two

9
10

of them started speaking, did Detective Williams say that to


W-1?

11

I can't give you the exact time.

12

At the time of this interview did W-1 have any deals

13

or agreements with the police or the Government?

14

No.

15

Has W-1 entered into any deals or agreements with

16

the police or the Government?

17

No.

18

When did -- is it your understanding that W-1 began

19

working with, um, Mr. Savopoulos in around March, 2015?

20

MS. BACH:

21

THE COURT:

22

25

Counsel, you wish to approach unless you

ask your next question?

23
24

Objection, relevance.

MR. AGO:

I'll -- let me -- I'll move on, Your

Honor.
THE COURT:

Thank you.

23

1
2

BY MR. AGO:
Q

Um, it's your understanding that W -- based on your

affidavit, and based on discussing W-1's statements with

other police officers, it is your understanding that W-1 was

employed by, um, Mr. Savopoulos and/or American Iron Works;

is that correct?

Yes.

Um, actually let me ask you, was he employed by

9
10
11

American Iron Works or was he employed directly by Mr.


Savopoulos?
A

It's my understanding it's a combination of the two.

12

Mr. Savopoulos was CEO, he worked for him, he worked for

13

American Iron Works.

14
15

His job, though, was to drive Mr. Savopoulos to and

from work; is that correct?

16

And run additional errands, that's correct.

17

And there was no other -- nothing else described to

18

you as far as his job was concerned, correct?

19

Other than driving and running errands, no.

20

And, so did he work with anyone directly at American

21

Iron Works or was it just Mr. Savopoulos?

22

Just Mr. Savopoulos.

23

Did W-1 have any access to 3201 Woodland Drive?

24

MS. BACH:

25

BY MR. AGO:

Your Honor, objection.

24

Keys or alarm --

THE COURT:

BY MR. AGO:

Overruled.

-- combination, anything like that?

No.

Did he have access to that garage at 3201?

MS. BACH:

THE COURT:

Your Honor, objection.


Overruled.

counsel.

10

MS. BACH:

11

THE COURT:

12

BY MR. AGO:

13

14

question?

15

16
17

Based on the affidavit,

Can we just narrow the time?


Rephrase it slightly, counsel.

Did he -- did he have independent access, that's my


In other words, was he able to enter that garage?
You mean separate from the day that's talked about

in the affidavit?
Q

Let me clarify.

Did he have a code or a key to

18

enter either the home or the garage all the way up until May

19

14th?

20

No.

21

Did W-1 tell the police when he arrived on May 14th

22

that he was able to enter the garage because the garage was

23

open?

24

Yes, that's my understanding.

25

Did the delivery person from Domino's describe the

25

garage as being open the night --

2
3

THE COURT:

Counsel, can you -- can you rephrase to

specify open at -- you mean open or unlocked?

MR. AGO:

BY MR. AGO:

6
7

Yes, thank you, Your Honor.

When I say open for the garage was the door up or

was it -- was the door up?

My understanding the garage was open, door up.

Did the delivery person describe the garage having

10

the door up from the night before when he delivered the pizza

11

at the 3201?

12

He did not.

13

Did anyone ask?

14

Not to my recollection.

15

All right.

16

Did any police officer ask?

Now, you describe in your affidavit that W-1

17

provided different versions of how he communicated with Mr.

18

Savopoulos about money and how that money was collected and

19

how that money was delivered.

20

ask you about that.

21

please correct me if this version is inaccurate, is that he

22

received a call on the morning of Thursday, May 14th, from

23

Mr. Savopoulos, that he was told to go to American Iron Works

24

to pick up a package, that he went to American Iron Works and

25

met with an employee there, and that he went with that

And I want to ask -- I want to

The first version that he gave, and

26

employee to a bank, and saw that employee receive a manila

envelope from the bank manager?

MS. BACH:

THE COURT:

MR. AGO:

Your Honor, objection.


Refer to the paragraph please, counsel.
Yes, Your Honor.

Well, it's jumbled is

the problem but I can tell you it is --

THE COURT:

You may answer the question.

BY MR. AGO:

10

I see, nine and 10, nine and 10.

And that he went with the bank manager, I'm sorry,

11

he went to a bank with that employee and received an

12

envelope, a manila envelope.

13

Strike that.

That the employee received a manila envelope from

14

the bank manager and that bank -- and that employee then gave

15

the manila envelope to W-1, was that the first version he

16

provided to police as far as getting communication from Mr.

17

Savopoulos and how he received a package?

18

Yes.

19

Okay.

20

In terms of delivering that package during that

21

first -- that first version that W-1 gave to the police, he

22

indicated that, he meaning W-1, went into the garage at 3201,

23

found a key to a red sports car, unlocked the car, placed the

24

manila envelope on a seat of the car, locked the car, and

25

closed the garage door; is that correct?

27

Yes.

Now, W-1 subsequently provided a different version

of those events to the police; is that right?

Yes.

What precipitated the change in his story about all

6
7
8
9
10

of that?
A

The continued questioning about the events that took

place.
Q

Was W-1 confronted with anything that -- that caused

him to change his story?

11

12

provided.

13

He was just confronted with the information he was

At that point, though, in Detective Williams'

14

conversation with W-1 all they had about -- all the police

15

had in terms of information about money from the bank, and

16

delivery of that money, was based on W-1; is that -- was that

17

right?

18

At that point, yeah.

19

Okay.

20
21

And, so it was just police asking him for further


details that caused him to change his story?

22

Yeah.

23

At some point he was confronted with a text message;

24
25

is that right?
A

That's true.

28

1
2
3

And did that confrontation, the text message, occur

before or after he changed his story?


A

That occurred after he changed.

He initially

changed and then he was confronted and he changed again and

some facts.

Okay.

What he changed in terms of receiving a

communication from Mr. Savopoulos was instead of the first

communication occurring in the form of a phone call on

10

Thursday morning, May 14th, it actually was a text on

11

Wednesday evening May 13th; is that correct?

12

Yeah.

13

And do you know the time of that text?

14

MS. BACH:

15

THE WITNESS:

16

THE COURT:

17

THE WITNESS:

18

Your Honor, I'm going to object.


I can't recall exactly.

Overruled.
I know it was after seven.

Seven p.m.

that is.

19

BY MR. AGO:

20

Seven p.m. on May 13th; is that right?

21

Yeah.

22

Did you view that text?

23

Yes.

24

I'm sorry?

25

Yes.

29

1
2

And you don't know, as you -- you don't know as you

sit here today whether it was after 9:14 p.m., do you?

It was before 9:14 p.m.

It was before 9:14 p.m.

And, um, the second detail that he changed, that W-1

changed concerning his version of events, was that, um, he,

instead of being told to go to American Iron Works to pick up

a package, he was told to go to American Iron Works to meet

an employee and then go pick up a package; is that right?

10

That is correct.

11

Um, and then he changed another version which was

12

that the employee didn't receive a manila envelope from the

13

bank manager but rather that the bank manager or whoever it

14

was at the bank provided the employee with cash; is that

15

right?

16

That's correct.

17

And, um, this occurred at approximately nine --

18

well, strike that.

19
20

I'll come back to that.

The employee, according to W-1, then took the money


from his pockets and put it in W-1's bag; is that right?

21

That's correct.

22

Now W-1 described his bag as a red bag; is that

23

right?

24

Yeah.

25

At some point W-1 texted a photograph of money

30

inside of a red bag to a witness numbered as W-2; is that

right?

Yeah.

W-1 and W-2 have a romantic, or at least at that

point, had a romantic relationship with one another; is that

right?

That's my understanding, yeah.

Okay.

You have seen that text; is that right?

10

Yes.

11

And that text is a picture of two bundles of what

12

appear to be stacks of one-hundred-dollar bills; is that

13

right?

14

That's correct.

15

And they are inside of a bag that is lined with red

16

cloth or something like that, right?

17

Yeah.

18

And that text was sent from W-1 to W-2 at about 9:00

19

a.m.; is that right?

20

Yes.

21

On -- on May 14?

22

That is correct.

23

Was W-1 confronted with the location -- well, strike

24
25

that, let me back up.


The employee that gave the cash to W-1 gave four

31

stacks of one-hundred-dollar bills to W-1, put that,

according to the employee, gave that to W-1; is that right?

That is correct.

Was W-1 confronted with the location of the other

two stacks of one-hundred-dollar bills?

Yes.

What was W-1's response -- was that by Detective

Williams, that confrontation?

The best of my knowledge, yeah.

10

What was W-1's response to Detective Williams when

11

Detective Williams asked him about the location of the other

12

two stacks of one-hundred-dollar bills?

13

W-1 stated it delivered all four stacks of money.

14

He didn't -- W-1 didn't tell Detective Williams

15

where the other two were that were missing from the

16

photograph at the moment he took the photograph, though; is

17

that correct?

18

Specifically not to my knowledge.

19

And there was no further conversation about that

20

between W-1 and Detective Williams?

21

Not that I recall.

22

And the only person at this stage who can speak to

23

whether or not W-1 delivered all four stacks of

24

one-hundred-dollar bills is W-1 himself?

25

MS. BACH:

Your Honor, objection.

32

THE COURT:

THE WITNESS:

BY MR. AGO:

You may answer that yes or no, sir.


Repeat the question please.

In other words, the police are relying on the

statements of W-1 for the information that W-1 delivered all

four stacks of one-hundred-dollar bills?

Yes.

And no other source?

Not at this time, no.

10

Um, what W-1 then told the police in terms of a

11

different version of events was that he placed the money from

12

the bag in the manila envelope -- into a manila envelope that

13

he had in his car, correct?

14

That was in -- repeat the question.

15

Yes.

W-1 had the money in a bag with red lining,

16

and moved that money into a manila envelope and that manila

17

envelope was something that he had taken from his own car?

18
19

That was my recollection, manila envelope was in the

red sports car.

20

Was in the red sports car?

21

Right.

22

Okay.

23
24
25

Um, detective, do you still have Government's one up


there?
A

Yeah.

33

1
2

Could you look at paragraph 15 please at the bottom

of page four?

First sentence of that paragraph.

Yes, first sentence.

Okay, do you see where at the end of that sentence

it says that, um, that W-1 essentially placed the money in a

red bag -- I'm sorry, strike that.

W-1, when it arrived at Mr. Savopoulos's garage, it

placed the money inside a manila envelope that was in its

car.

10

Yes, you're correct.

11

Okay.

12
13

So the envelope was something that W-1 had in his


own car, correct?

14

Yes.

15

And he then told the police that, um, the car was

16

unlocked?

17

That's correct.

18

Um, you have, or the police have searched W-1's car,

19

correct?

20

I'm sorry?

21

The police have searched W-1's car, correct?

22

Yes.

23

And the police never recovered any -- never found

24
25

any bag containing red lining in that car; is that correct?


A

Not to my knowledge, no.

34

No red bag at all?

No.

The only thing in terms of a bag recovered from

W-1's car was a black backpack, correct?

Yes.

Have you asked W-1 what happened to the red bag?

MS. BACH:

THE COURT:

THE WITNESS:

10
11
12

Your Honor, objection.


You can answer that yes or no.
No.

BY MR. AGO:
Q

When I say you, I mean the police, not you

personally.

So your answer the same?

13

Yeah.

14

The text that W-1 received on the night of May 13th,

15

um, did -- you viewed that text; is that right?

16

from Mr. Savopoulos on the night of May 13th is what I'm

17

talking about.

18
19

The text

No, I did not review the text myself, I was told

about the text.

20

Okay, what were you told that the text said?

21

It was instructions for W-1 to pick up a package and

22
23

bring it to the Savopoulos house.


Q

And there was a return text from W-1 that same night

24

acknowledging that he had received the initial text from Mr.

25

Savopoulos; is that right?

35

Yes.

Did you review that text or were you just told about

I was told.

Um, W-1 and the employee that W-1 was told to meet

it?

up with, those two people arrived at a Bank of America in

Hyattsville on May 14th at about 9:38 a.m.; is that right?

8
9
10
11

I know it was around nine, approximately nine

o'clock; I'm not going to say 9:30.


Q

You've reviewed the Bank of America footage from

that day and around that time, right, detective?

12

Some of it, yeah.

13

Okay.

14

And looking at that footage would refresh your

15

recollection as to when the employee and -- and W-1 arrived

16

at the bank?

17

The exact time, yeah.

18

Okay.

19

MR. AGO:

Your Honor, we have this, it is easier for

20

us to do it with the screen than it is to -- to pass up and

21

down, Government doesn't seem to have an objection.

22

THE COURT:

23

MS. BACH:

24

THE COURT:

25

that?

You have any objection, counsel?


No, that's fine.
Very well.

All right, you want to mark

For identification.

36

1
2

MR. AGO:
one.

Yes, we're going to mark this as defense

I believe that that's on but I'm not --

THE COURT:

MR. AGO:

MS. BACH:

MR. AGO:

THE COURT:

Is it on?
I'm sorry, Your Honor.
It's got to go through there, I'm sorry.
I apologize.
Counsel, would it -- would it make sense

to just take five minutes?

MR. AGO:

Yes, Your Honor.

10

THE COURT:

11

Sir, you're excused, you're not to discuss your

12

Let's take five minutes.

testimony with any other person during the recess.

13

THE WITNESS:

14

(Thereupon, the proceedings were recessed at 11:49

15

a.m.)

16
17
18
19
20
21

Yes, Your Honor.

(Thereupon, the proceedings were reconvened at 11:57


a.m.)
THE DEPUTY CLERK:

Recalling the matter of United

States versus Daron Wint, 2015-CF1-7047.


THE COURT:

All right, note the presence of all

counsel; the defendant is being brought into the courtroom.

22

(Defendant present).

23

THE COURT:

24
25

Court notes the presence of the

defendant.
All right, counsel, you may proceed.

37

MR. AGO:

BY MR. AGO:

Thank you, Your Honor.

Detective, we were discussing the fact that your

recollection would be refreshed by seeing the video of the

Bank of America as to the time of this transaction.

the bank.

Correct?

Yes, you were talking about the entrance, entering

Yes.

Well, let me -- let me put it this way, um,

you remember approximately what time, um, the employee

10

received the money; is that correct?

I mean I'm sorry, you

11

don't remember the exact time that the employee received the

12

money from the bank; is that correct?

13

It was approximately around nine o'clock.

14

Okay.

15

Let me -- but what you were able to glean from that,

16

I'm sorry, you estimated that time based on your viewing of

17

the video; is that right?

18

Well, video, the time the bank opens and --

19

Okay, so let me show you what's been marked as

20

defense one please.

So at this stage -- if you could pause

21

it, Miss Lawson -- at this stage this is the employee in the

22

short-sleeved, buttoned-down shirt, correct?

23

Yeah.

24

And that is W-1 with the light-colored sunglasses

25

over the employee's left shoulder, correct?

38

Yeah.

And the timestamp on this is 9:50 -- 9:50 a.m. and

40 seconds; is that correct?

THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

BY MR. AGO:

Is it all right if I get up?

Yes, you may step down.

On May 14th, 2015?

Yeah.

Okay.

10

And that is the approximate time that the employee

11

and Mr. Wallace -- the employee and -- the employee and W-1

12

arrived at the bank before 9:50 a.m., and received the money

13

around that time; is that correct?

14

Arrived -- arrived in the bank before that time --

15

Yes.

16

-- and it looks like received the money at that

17

time.

18

19

Okay, and they departed the bank at about, I believe

it is 9:52 or 9:53; is that correct?

20

Yeah.

21

Okay.

22

And, um, did you -- strike that.

23

Did the police confront W-1 on how it was that he

24

had taken a photo of two bundles of money and sent that to

25

W-2 at 9:00 a.m. when he didn't receive the money until 9:50

39

or 9:51 a.m.?

is wrong.

Why do you say obviously the time is wrong?

Because the bank doesn't open until nine, and see,

I don't remember specifically but obviously the time

they don't obtain the money until the footage says 9:50.

But you saw the text, right?

I saw.

And the text, and I'm talking about the text from

10

W-1 to W-2, right?

11

Yes.

12

And that that text is about 9:00 a.m.?

13

Correct.

14

Which predates when W-1 received the money, right?

15

That is an earlier timestamp, yeah.

16

And you didn't confront W-1 as to how he had taken

17

that photograph of money before he even received any money

18

from the employee?

19

I myself had never spoken to W-1.

20

The police didn't confront W-1 about that

21
22
23
24
25

discrepancy?
A

Sitting here right now I can't remember whether they

have or they haven't.


Q

Okay, and you don't -- you don't have -- that would

be a important fact to remember, right?

40

Yes, yes.

And if that discrepancy had been made aware to you

you would have explored that, correct?

detective, right?

As the lead

In reference to the timestamp, yes, of course.

Okay.

But you didn't explore that, correct?

Myself, no.

Okay, because the discrepancy wasn't made aware to

10

you, right?

11

12

that, no.

13

Sitting here right now as I stated I don't recall

Um, did, um, at some point at approximately 10:20 on

14

May 14th W-1 texted Mr. Savopoulos that he had received --

15

that W-1 had received the package; is that right?

16

Yes.

17

And did you view that text?

18

No, I was told about the text.

19

Okay.

20
21

And were there any phone calls made between W-1 and
Mr. Savopoulos other than that -- strike that.

22
23

Were there any phone calls made between W-1 and Mr.
Savopoulos on the morning of May 14th?

24

Yes.

25

And what phone call was that?

41

1
2

W-1 called when he was approximately 10 minutes away

from the Savopoulos home.

text?

Yes.

And what was the text that you were -- that you were

Okay, so that call was -- is different from the

told about?

What did that say?

That he was on the way, received the money.

Okay.

10

Received the package.

11

Received the package, and that was before the phone

12

call that --

13

Correct.

14

-- witness described?

15

Correct.

16

Were there any other phone calls between W-1 and Mr.

17

Savopoulos other than what you described on the morning of

18

May 14th?

19

No.

20

Did you review any records of -- phone records or

21

text records between Mr. Savopoulos's phone and W-1's phone?

22

Yes.

23

For May 14.

24
25

Okay.

And you only recall the one text and the one phone
call that you just described; is that right?

42

The best of my recollection, that's correct.

Okay, May 13th, were there any -- there was a

description from W-1 that he had received a text from Mr.

Savopoulos on the night of May 13th, and he responded to that

text also by text, and we discussed that earlier, do you

remember that?

Correct.

Okay.

Other than those two texts, the one from Mr.

10

Savopoulos to W-1 and the one from W-1 in return to Mr.

11

Savopoulos, any other texts from the night of May 13th that

12

you reviewed?

13

Between W-1 and Mr. Savopoulos?

14

Yes.

15

No.

16

Any phone calls, um, between W-1 and Mr. Savopoulos,

17

in either direction, on the night of May 13?

18

Not to my knowledge.

19

Did any of the texts specify a dollar amount, um, in

20

terms of the delivery of the package or picking up the

21

package, did any text specify this is how much is to be

22

delivered?

23

24
25

To best of my recollection, no, it did not specify

dollar amount.
Q

It just talked about a package?

43

That's correct.

And it didn't say -- none of the texts talked about

money; is that right?

Correct.

Okay.

Did W-1 express any sort of surprise after it

received -- after it had received the text about picking up a

package and after going to the bank with the employee, any

sort of surprise that it then received, W-1 then received 40

10

thousand dollars in cash from the employee?

11

Repeat the question.

12

In other words, W-1 was told only to pick up a

13

package, either by text or by phone; is that right?

14

Correct.

15

And when W-1 went to pick up that package, as W-1

16

described, it turned out to be four bundles of 10 thousand

17

dollars in cash, each bundle, correct?

18

Correct.

19

And at some point in the parking lot of that Bank of

20

America the American Iron Works employee gave those four

21

bundles to W-1; is that right?

22

Correct.

23

And W-1 didn't express any sort of surprise to the

24

police that that's in fact what -- in other words, he was

25

just told to pick up a package and he gets 40 thousand

44

1
2
3

dollars in cash?
A

Are you -- you're asking if W-1 was surprised when

he discovered it was money?

Yes.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, he was?

Yes.

Did he express any sort of concern?

I don't recall that.

10

Okay.

11
12

W-1 saw that it was money when he was in the bank;


is that right?

13

Yes.

14

In other words, he was standing right next to that

15

employee when the cash was actually given to him?

16

Yeah.

17

And you recall him looking over the employee's

18

shoulder and watching the bank manager or whoever it is from

19

the bank give that money to the employee?

20

I mean I recall what was in the still photos, yes.

21

Okay.

22

And he was standing that close, yes.

23

And he actually watched the transaction?

24

He could see the money, correct.

25

Okay.

45

So when W-1 -- strike that.

You interviewed the employee that appeared in that

video; is that right?

Or the police interviewed the

employee; is that right, detective?

Yes.

Did you yourself do it or did another police

officer?

I myself interviewed.

The employee describe anything that is inconsistent

10

with W-1's ultimate version of how he received the money?

11

No.

12

And, um, the employee indicated to you that he had

13

spoken to Mr. Savopoulos about the money; is that correct?

14

Yes.

15

And there was at least one phone call between Mr.

16

Savopoulos and the employee; is that right?

17

That's correct.

18

And the employee told you that Mr. Savopoulos had

19

said to the employee that the cash was for an auction for

20

equipment; is that right?

21

Yes.

22

Um, now, when -- going back to W-1, when W-1 arrived

23

at 3201 Woodland Drive, did W-1 tell the police that he saw

24

all of the Savopoulos cars either in the driveway, in the

25

garage or on the street near 3201?

46

Specifically I don't recall that.

When the police arrived at 3201 on the afternoon of

May 14th, one of the Savopoulos cars was missing; is that

correct?

The blue Porsche; is that right?

That's correct.

The other cars that belonged to the Savopoulos

family were all at the home; is that correct?

Yes.

And we're talking about a white Range Rover, gray or

10

brown Land Rover, a red Audi, and a red Mosler; is that

11

right?

12

That is correct.

13

And, um, as far as you know none of them had been

14

moved between that morning -- strike that, strike that.

15

When W arrived -- W-1 arrived at 3201, according to

16

W-1, he did not make any effort to find Mr. Savopoulos and

17

ask him if he needed a ride to work; is that correct?

18
19

THE COURT:

When he arrived which -- which time?

the 14th?

20

You may answer that question.

21

THE WITNESS:

22

BY MR. AGO:

23

On

Repeat the question please.

Yes, W-1, when he got to 3201 to deliver this money,

24

he didn't try to contact Mr. Savopoulos and ask him if he

25

needed a ride to work?

47

No.

Okay.

W-1 is Mr. Savopoulos's driver, though, right?

That's correct.

Did anybody confront W-1 as to why he didn't attempt

to contact or contact Mr. Savopoulos asking him if he, Mr.

Savopoulos, needed a ride to work?

8
9

W-1 was specific about the instructions that his

employer boss had given him, so he followed those

10

instructions.

11

instructions were to drop the package off.

12
13

And the instructions were not to pick him up,

Well, there was no specific instruction that said

don't pick me up, right?

14

That wasn't in the instructions.

15

Right.

16

As far as picking up or not picking up.

17

He was just to drop the package off?

18

Right.

19

Or words to that effect?

20

Right.

21

But he was silent as to whether or not Mr.

22

Savopoulos needed a ride, right?

23

Who are you speaking of, who was silent?

24

The instructions from Mr. Savopoulos to W-1, there

25

was no instructions one way or the other?

48

1
2
3

In reference to picking Mr. Savopoulos up?

correct, there was no instruction one way or the another.


Q

And W-1 didn't inquire, though, that's my question,

right?

delivered the package, do you need a ride to work?

your house.

W-1 didn't say, now that I'm here, now that I've

Best of my knowledge, no, he did not.

Okay.

9
10

That's

I'm at

And W-1 then went from the home, according W-1, to


Chantilly; is that right?

11

Correct.

12

Any stops along the way according to W-1?

13

Best of my recollection, no.

14

Okay, did he go to Chantilly to the American Iron

15

Works office in Chantilly or to the -- let me back up.

16

Your understanding in terms of this investigation is

17

that at some point in the -- in the weeks or so, days or so

18

after May 13th, Mr. Savopoulos had planned to open a martial

19

arts studio or gymnasium in Chantilly, Virginia, correct?

20

Correct.

21

Did W-1 go from 3201 to the American Iron Works

22

office in Chantilly or to the martial arts studio in

23

Chantilly?

24

25

To the martial arts studio, they refer to it as the

dojo, that's where he respond.

49

Okay.
Did you confirm W-1's -- did the police confirm

W-1's presence at the dojo?

MS. BACH:

Your Honor, objection, I'd ask to

approach.

THE COURT:

(Bench conference).

THE COURT:

You may approach.

So the question was whether or not the

police tried to confirm whether W-1 went to the dojo?

10

MS. BACH:

11

THE COURT:

12

MS. BACH:

Right, Your Honor.


What's the objection?
This is our point, we think this goes

13

beyond what is relevant here at the preliminary hearing.

14

There is nothing to indicate that only one person was

15

involved in this crime.

16

Now, what I intend to ask this detective on redirect

17

is have you confirmed his whereabouts?

18

think that he needs to specify for the defense exactly how we

19

have confirmed that they're Winfield defendant if that's what

20

he is is not truly a Winfield defendant.

21

Yes, but I don't

So my point is even if W-1 is completely involved in

22

this that doesn't rule out the defendant.

And so we think

23

this goes beyond the probable cause finding that this Court

24

needs to make and we think that they're just trying to learn

25

basically the steps that we've taken thus far in the

50

investigation to prove W-1's credibility.

MR. AGO:

W-1 is a crucial witness in this case,

Your Honor, and if we can -- there are statements that W-1's

made to the police, and what we are trying to do is explore

W-1's credibility.

It's not a Winfield -- we're not --

And I think we're allowed to do that.

THE COURT:

He told him he went to the dojo, and

your question is whether or not they confirmed that.

the only question you're going to have about that?

10

I'll allow that but that's it.

11

dojo to somewhere else to somewhere else.

12

allow that.
MS. BACH:

14

THE COURT:

15

MS. BACH:

16

(Close bench conference).

17

THE COURT:

18

MR. AGO:

Okay.

So I'll

Thank you.
To that question.
Thank you.

You may ask that question.


Thank you, Your Honor.

19

general question, Your Honor.

20

BY MR. AGO:
Q

Because

I mean you're not going to go

13

21

Is that

I have a more

Detective, did you confirm W-1's presence in or near

22

Chantilly, Virginia, um, after approximately 10:30 in the

23

morning on May 14th, 2015?

24

Yes.

25

And when did W-1 leave Chantilly, Virginia, that

51

day?

MS. BACH:

THE COURT:

BY MR. AGO:

Your Honor, objection.


Sustained.

Did W-1 -- let me ask this, W-1 leave that --

Chantilly, Virginia, before 1 p.m. on May 14 or 1:30 p.m. on

May 14 when the fire department received a call to report to

3201?

My understanding after.

10

Now -- and that is based on W-1 or other sources?

11

Both.

12

Let me -- let me ask this, the garage at 3201, is

13

that -- is that a secure garage, in other words, does it need

14

-- can it be locked?

Let me ask you that.

15

Best of my knowledge, yeah.

16

At some point on May 14th, according to your

17

affidavit, W-1 sent a text to Mrs. Savopoulos; is that

18

correct?

19

Yes.

20

And that text was to the effect of inquiring whether

21

she was okay, and if so that she needed to get home because

22

her house was on fire; is that right?

23

Where are you talking about in the affidavit?

24

Brief indulgence.

25

detective.

Maybe it's not in the affidavit,

I'm sorry, detective, it's not in the affidavit

52

but that was -- that's part of your investigation.

apologize for that.

Right?

MS. BACH:

THE COURT:

You may answer that question.

THE WITNESS:

BY MR. AGO:

8
9

Your Honor, objection.


Overruled to that.

Repeat the question.

Yes, W-1 sent -- I'm sorry, when did -- when did W-1

send that text to Amy Savopoulos?

10

What are you asking, when?

11

When, what time?

12

You mean the exact time?

13

Approximately or exact if you know, approximately if

14

you don't.

15

I can't approximate.

16

Um, did W-1 and -- I'm sorry, Detective Williams

17

asked W-1 about that text; is that correct?

18

Yes.

19

And W-1 explained to Detective Williams that he had

20

received a phone call from American Iron Works informing him

21

that the Savopoulos house was on fire; is that right?

22

Repeat that question.

23

Yes.

W-1 sent a text to Amy Savopoulos that her

24

house was on fire, and Detective Williams asked about how W-1

25

had gotten that information, right?

And that W-1 then said

53

that he, W-1, had gotten a call from American Iron Works

telling him that the house was on fire, that's how he knew to

text Mrs. Savopoulos about the house being on fire, right?

4
5
6

don't recall.
Q

7
8
9
10

No, I don't recall that's the way it happened, I

Okay.
How did W-1 learn that 3201 was on fire?

It's my understanding he learned from other workers

at the dojo, best of my recollection.


Q

Did you confirm that those other workers had

11

informed W-1 that the house was on fire, or the police

12

rather, not just you?

13

Yes.

14

Okay.

15
16

And -- and they said -- they confirmed that they had


told W-1 that the house was on fire?

17

MS. BACH:

18

THE COURT:

19

question.

20
21
22

25

Sustained.

He's already answered the

Ask your next question.


BY MR. AGO:

Why did -- did the police confront W-1 as to why --

strike that.

23
24

Your Honor, objection.

Did W-1 attempt to contact Mr. Savopoulos about his


house being on fire?
A

Not to my knowledge.

54

1
2

Did you confront W-1 about why he didn't do that and

he went instead to Mrs. Savopoulos?

I did not.

Or did anyone in the police department?

Not to my knowledge.

Now, um, in searching W-1's car, um, the police

recovered a black backpack from the car, correct?

Yes.

And in that backpack was W-1's passport and

10

checkbook; is that correct?

11

Best of my recollection.

12

Did any police officer ask W-1 what he was doing

13

with his passport and checkbook in the car?

14

Specifically, I don't recall.

15

Did W-1 volunteer a reason why he was carrying a

16

passport and checkbook to the police?

17

I don't recall that specific.

18

Also inside that black backpack was the registration

19

to Mr. Savopoulos's Mosler; is that right?

20

I don't recall that.

21

You've reviewed the, um, search warrants in this

22

case as the lead detective, right?

23

The affidavits?

24

Yes.

25

Yeah.

55

And the returns on those affidavits, correct?

I haven't reviewed all the returns, no.

Looking at the return on the search of -- of the --

of W-1's car would refresh your recollection as to whether or

not, um, the Mosler registration was in that backpack,

correct?

7
8
9

If it's on there, yes.


MR. AGO:

I'm going to have this marked as defense

two, Your Honor.

10

MS. BACH:

Can we just approach?

11

(Bench conference).

12

THE COURT:

13

MS. BACH:

Is it in there?

Does it refer to it?

No, it does, I just want the defense to

14

be aware and the Court that I am 99 percent positive based on

15

the photograph that I've seen is what this is is a

16

registration renewal letter from the MB not an actual

17

registration card.

18

So it doesn't -- he's got every right to ask the

19

question but I just want him to know that I'm 99 percent

20

certain that's what it is.

21

it up, but I just didn't want to feel like you're being blind

22

sided, it's a renewal.

I will print out a copy and bring

23

MR. AGO:

Thank you.

24

(Close bench conference).

25

MR. AGO:

May I approach, Your Honor?

56

THE COURT:

BY MR. AGO:

Yes.

Detective, I'm showing you what's been marked as

defense two.

If you would look at -- you recognize this,

first of all, as the return on the search of the W-1's car,

correct?

Give me a minute please.

If you want I can bring you the affidavit as well.

Yes.

10

Okay.

11

Now, do you see the entry marked G7.5?

12

Yes.

13

That lists the registration for the Mosler, right?

14

That entry.

15

Yes.

16

And that was located inside G7 above which is the

17

black backpack?

18

Correct.

19

Okay.

20
21

Now, um, detective, you didn't see that document,


right?

What's described as the registration, did you?

22

Did I see the actual registration?

No.

23

Or a photocopy of it?

24

No.

25

Are you aware of whether or not it's the actual

57

registration or a renewal letter?

other?

I can't say.

Okay.

Do you know one way or the

But regardless it's your understanding it's some

paperwork that is associated with Mr. Savopoulos's red

Mosler, right?

It says on the return registration.

Okay.

10
11

And that red Mosler, um, is valued at several


hundred thousand dollars, right?

12

Best of my understanding, yes.

13

Okay.

14

And, um, some of the models of Moslers run upwards

15

of seven hundred thousand dollars in terms of value; is that

16

right?

17
18
19

Well, what I've learned I can tell you in excess of

three hundred thousand.


Q

20

Okay.
Did anyone confront W-1 as to why he had in his

21

backpack paperwork associated with Mr. Savopoulos's red

22

Mosler?

23

I can't say that, no.

24

And just to be clear, um, detective, the red lined

25

bag in the text from W-1 to W-2, that wasn't ever recovered,

58

correct?

As I stated earlier that's correct.

Okay.

4
5

So what I'm saying is not just from W-1's car but


nowhere?

Best of my knowledge, no, it has not.

Um, and finally, um -- well, not finally.

You have

no information at all that Mr. Wint is in any way connected

to W-1's car, correct?

10
11

no, I do not.

12
13

The defendant connected to W-1's car, do I have --

No fingerprints or DNA from Mr. Wint in or on that

car?

14

MS. BACH:

15

THE COURT:

16

BY MR. AGO:

17

Your Honor, objection again.


Sustained.

Detective, your information right now is that the

18

only people that knew about the package or the money to be

19

delivered, that you know in terms of either texts or phone

20

calls or statements, are Mr. Savopoulos, W-1, W-2 because

21

that witness received a text from W-1, and the other employee

22

at American Iron Works; is that right?

23

controller.

I'm sorry, and the

Is that right?

24

Yes, yes.

25

You have no other information that anybody else knew

59

about money being transacted and delivered to Mr. Savopoulos

from either interviews or phone calls or texts; is that

correct?

Initially, no.

It was the four.

Plus the controller is five, right?

The controller

was general information, not specific information; is that

correct?

Yes.

Okay.

10

And that would make five, right?

11

Yes.

12

Okay.

13

Now, W-2, detective.

Correct?

W-2, did you speak to W-2

14

directly or did -- or, um, did other police officers speak to

15

W-2?

16

Other detectives spoke to him.

17

Was that Williams as well or other officers?

18

I can't recall what detective spoke to W-2.

19

Did you speak directly to those detectives or?

20

Indirectly.

21

So you went through several people, at least -- at

22
23

least one other person?


A

I really want to say that Detective Williams did

24

speak to W-2 but I can't remember specifically, but I did

25

speak to Detective Williams directly.

60

Okay.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is your basis of

knowledge for the information in your affidavit concerning

W-2 comes from other police officers, right?

That's correct.

And did you -- did those police officers speak to

W-2 or are we talking about multiple steps between you and

W-2?

No, it's not multiple steps, it's the -- the

10

detectives that interviewed W-2, I just can't remember which

11

ones at this point.

12

13
14

Okay.
And when did you become aware of W-2, not you, when

did the police become aware of W-2?

15

In speaking to W-1.

16

Is it the same night or the same afternoon, May 14,

17

or is it on another date?

18

The same day.

19

And did the police contact W-2 or did W-2 contact

20

the police?

21

The police contacted W-2.

22

Did the interview of W-2 occur at a police station

23

or district or over the phone or at another location?

24

In person at a police facility.

25

Was that interview -- was there more than one

61

interview or just the one?

Just the one.

Was that interview recorded or videotaped?

Best of my recollection, yes.

Did you view that?

No.

Or listen to it?

Okay.

And let me ask was W-2 under arrest during the time?

No.

10

Going back to W-1 briefly, was W-1 under arrest

11

during that interview?

12

No.

13

Were they both free to leave at any point?

14

Yes.

15

Now, W-2, um, did W-2 have any agreements -- did W-2

16

have any agreements or deals with the Government or the

17

police?

18

No.

19

Now, in terms of relationships, the relationships

20

between W-2 and any party in this case is only with W-1; is

21

that right?

22

That's correct.

23

W-2 has no relationship with the following people as

24

far as your investigation is revealed:

Any member of the

25

Savopoulos family, Veralitsa Figueroa, Mr. Wint, or any

62

1
2
3
4

family members of Mr. Wint; is that correct?


A

Correct to the best of my knowledge, yes, that's

correct, she does not.


Q

Now, as far as you know, moving forward a little

bit, when Mr. Wint was, the night that he was arrested, there

were two people in the truck that you testified to earlier?

Repeat that.

There were two people in the truck that you

9
10

testified to earlier on the night of Mr. Wint's arrest, do


you remember that truck?

11

Correct.

12

And then the car that Mr. Wint was in when he was

13

arrested there were three other people, all women, in that

14

car, correct?

15

Yes.

16

W-2 has no connection to either of the two people in

17

the truck or the three people in the car; is that correct?

18

Best of my knowledge does not.

19

All right.

20
21
22

And W-2 doesn't know any of the people

I've listed other than W-1, right?


A

You mean the first and the second time you listed

people?

23

Yes.

24

As far as I know, no.

25

Were there any other communications other than --

63

I'm going to the text now, between W-1 to W-2 and then

acknowledgement from W-2 back to W-1, of the photo of money

and then comments by W-2, other than those texts, were there

any other communications between W-2 and W-1 about the money

in this case?

Best of my knowledge, no, that was it.

Were there any other communications between W-1 and

W-2 about the facts in this case?

MS. BACH:

10

THE COURT:

11

MR. AGO:

Objection.

12

About the facts of the case?


Yes.

of the money but anything else that's happened in this case.

13

THE COURT:

14

THE WITNESS:

15

BY MR. AGO:

16

So in other words not just delivery

Overruled, you may answer that.


No, not to my knowledge.

And there's -- you've discovered no physical

17

evidence linking W-2 to 3201, correct?

18

fingerprints, correct?

No DNA or

19

Correct.

20

And no DNA or fingerprints connecting W-2 to other

21

evidence in this case, correct?

22

That's correct.

23

Now, W-3, the person that observed the blue Porsche.

24

Did you speak to W-3 directly or did other police officers

25

speak to W-3?

64

I spoke to W-3 directly.

And you didn't take any notes or write anything down

during the course of that interview; is that right?

Yes, I did take notes.

Was that having to do with what W-3 told you?

Yes.

7
8

MR. AGO:

At this point, Your Honor, I'd make that

request.

THE COURT:

Counsel, approach.

10

(Bench conference).

11

MS. BACH:

I'm not sure.

He either has it or he

12

didn't write notes about what he said but I'm just looking.

13

Court's indulgence.

14

the top.

Here we go.

It's page -- see, W-3 at

Yeah, they have it.

15

(Close bench conference).

16

BY MR. AGO:

17

I'm sorry, detective, I should have asked this,

18

other than the notes that you provided in the Jencks packet

19

to the Government, any other notes?

20

In reference to W-3, no.

21

Okay.

22
23

Now, um, um, did W-3 make itself known to the police
or did the police go out and find W-3?

24

W-3 made itself known to the police.

25

Was this in response, according to W-3, was this in

65

response to the statement that the police issued looking for

information concerning the blue Porsche?

Yes.

And W-3, um, when you interviewed W-3, was that

interview, um, recorded?

No.

Was that at a district or a homicide?

No.

Um, all right.

10
11

And it wasn't -- wasn't in a police location in


other words; is that correct?

12

That's correct.

13

And W-3 was not under arrest or detained in any way

14

during that interview, correct?

15

That is correct.

16

Um, now, um, and W-3 did not have any agreements, I

17

don't know if I asked this, but did not have any agreements

18

with the police or the Government at the time of the

19

interview; is that correct?

20

W-3 did not.

21

Okay.

22
23

Now, um, there is no connection or relationship


between W-3 and anybody in this case; is that right?

24

Best of my knowledge, yes, that's right.

25

In other words, W-3 is a stranger to everybody else

66

and nobody else in this case knows W-3 as far as you know,

right?

Best of my knowledge, yes, that's correct.

Okay.

And, um, and the way you would describe W-3 is an

independent eyewitness not connected at all to any party in

this case, correct?

Yes.

Am I correct that W-3 was driving on New York

10

Avenue, Northeast, when it made its observations of the blue

11

Porsche on the afternoon of May 14th?

12
13

When you say northeast you mean the northeast

quadrant of the city?

14

Yes.

15

Yes, that's correct.

16

And -- and what, according to W-3, drew its

17
18

attention to the Porsche?


A

W -- W-3 stated the Porsche was driving erratically

19

and was weaving in and out, that's what attracted W-3's

20

attention to the Porsche.

21
22
23
24
25

Now, um, how long did W-3 in total observe that

Porsche?
A

The time was with -- approximately within a minute.

It wasn't more than a minute.


Q

Okay.

67

1
2

Um, and what -- how -- what was the closest -- let


me -- let me ask this, W-3 was driving at the time, correct?

Correct.

And was W-3 driving in the same direction as the

Porsche was driving or in opposite direction?

Same direction.

When W-3 first noticed the Porsche was the Porsche

behind W-3, to the side or in front of W-3?

In front.

10

And how close was the Porsche at that point when W-3

11

first noticed the Porsche?

12

I can't give you exact distance.

13

Did you -- did you ask W-3 to estimate distance?

14

I know W-3 gave various locations during the

15

observation to include in the lane next to looking over into

16

the vehicle, but as far as distance I can't give you exact

17

distance.

18

19

Okay, so at some point W-3 was driving its car, and

the Porsche was in the lane next to W-3's car; is that right?

20

Yes.

21

And, um, the Porsche, according to W-3 -- the

22

Porsche is a convertible, am I correct about that?

23

Yes.

24

According to W-3 the top was down, correct?

25

No, best of my recollection the top was up.

68

It was up?

Yes.

Okay, but W-3 was able to look -- to see the driver

of the Porsche, correct?

Correct.

And W-3 described the driver as a black man,

correct?

Yeah.

Slim, correct?

10

Yes.

11

Late 20s, or early 30s in terms of age, correct?

12

Correct.

13

Wearing a dark-colored shirt and on top of it a

14

bright neon yellow construction vest, correct?

15

Correct.

16

And, um, the witness said, W-3 said that the driver

17

had a short haircut, correct?

18

Correct.

19

And, um, and said that the haircut was edged,

20

correct?

21

Yes.

22

And as far as you know -- as far as your

23

investigation has revealed, Mr. Wint -- there's no way that

24

he would have had that haircut on May 14th, correct?

25

Best of my knowledge, no.

69

You indicated that, um -- I'm sorry, detective, at

-- W-3 indicated to you that the Porsche was driving in the

direction from downtown Washington, D.C., eastbound on New

York Avenue, Northeast, in the direction of Maryland,

correct?

You're saying W-3 indicated that?

Yes.

That's correct.

Yes.

10

And, um, um, let me ask, W-3 tell you how long, for

11

how long, not in terms of time, but blocks, it was in

12

proximity to or was able to observe the Porsche?

13

Not in blocks, W-3 didn't describe in blocks.

14

Did W-3 describe a distance or can you provide

15

information so that the Court can determine a distance like

16

landmarks, anything like that?

17

W-3 stated using landmarks.

18

Okay.

19
20

And what were those?


A

Approximately after the Brentwood Road overpass all

21

the way beyond the crossing of Bladensburg Road on New York

22

Avenue.

23

Okay.

24

You, um -- besides weaving in and out of traffic did

25

W-3 talk about what else the Porsche was doing erratically or

70

was it just weaving in and out of traffic?

W-3 talked about weaving in and out of traffic and

the speed the Porsche was -- when the opportunity was

available the Porsche was using excessive speed according to

W-3.

6
7

Um, you -- W-3 described seeing the Porsche at about

5:30 p.m. on the 14th; is that right?

No, that's not correct.

Okay, what time did W-3 observe the Porsche on the

10

14th?

11

I can't remember the exact time but it was much

12

earlier than that, it was, if I remember correctly,

13

approximately 1:30 in the afternoon.

14
15
16
17
18

Do you know whether it was before or after the fire

department received a call to go to 3201?


A

It's my understanding it's after the fire department

was already on the scene at 3201 Woodland.


Q

19

Okay.
Now, the, um -- you testified earlier that in

20

searching -- that the police eventually, um, or law

21

enforcement that is, eventually discovered the Porsche; is

22

that right?

23

Yes.

24

In the vicinity of Annapolis Road in Maryland?

25

That's correct.

71

1
2

And the Porsche had been burning or was burning when

the police discovered it; is that right?

Yes.

Once the fire was put out the police were able or

law enforcement were able to recover a neon green

construction vest; is that right?

That's correct.

Have you viewed that vest?

I've viewed photographs of the vest.

10

Okay.

11
12

And, um, you testified earlier that there was DNA


that was recovered from that vest; is that right?

13

That's correct.

14

You -- you said there was a partial profile, right?

15
16

That's the testimony that you gave earlier.


A

There were three contributors.

There were one

17

partial and then there were two consistent with, that's my

18

understanding of the wording, and the consistencies were with

19

the defendant and the decedent Savvas Savopoulos.

20

So let me ask you, when you say there was three

21

contributors what the analyst -- you spoke directly to the

22

DNA analyst; is that right?

23

Yes.

24

And the DNA analyst told you that there was a

25

mixture, DNA profile with a mixture, correct?

72

Yes.

And that there were at least three people that

3
4

contributed to that mixture, correct?


A

I don't remember the examiner using the word least,

but the examiner said there were three contributors, one

partial and then two consistent.

8
9

Okay.
Did the DNA analyst use the -- use the terms major

contributors and minor contributor, right?

10

No, it was partial and major.

11

Did the DNA --

12

Best of my recollection.

13

Did the DNA analyst tell you how they were able to

Excuse me.

14

determine which profile was the partial profile and which one

15

was -- which ones were the complete profile?

16

you answer that question, taking aside the partial profile,

17

did you ask the DNA analyst whether the other profiles were

18

complete?

19

I didn't ask that specific.

20

Okay.

21
22

Actually before

You don't know -- you've been a detective for well


over 20 years now, right, detective?

23

Well over 20.

24

Hundreds of DNA cases, right?

25

I'm not going to say hundreds, but several.

73

term loci?

No.

Do you know the term allele?

Yeah.

Do you know how many alleles matched Mr. Wint?

It's my understanding from the analyst that the

8
9
10

Okay.

Are you aware how many -- do you know the

statistics weren't complete yet.


Q

And what about the statistics concerning Mr.

Savopoulos?

11

None of the statistics were complete.

12

So you have this conclusion without any of the data;

13
14
15
16
17

is that right?
A

Well, I have the conclusion from the analyst, and

the data hadn't been prepared at that point.


Q

And when you use -- you said that a layperson term

for consistent is match?

Is that right?

18

Yeah.

19

The lay person never used the term match, right?

20

When I spoke to the analyst, no.

21

Because that's not a term that DNA analysts use,

22

correct?

23

That's correct.

24

And that is your term, match?

25

Yes.

74

Um, and you can't say which alleles or any -- any of

that information about the alleles, exactly which ones or how

many match according to you, or rather are consistent with

Mr. Wint, right?

5
6
7

I cannot because that information wasn't given to

Um, and the same information -- you testified

me.

earlier about the CODIS entry that's associated with Mr.

Wint?

10

Correct.

11

The same is true for that, right?

12

All you have is

the conclusion to search that?

13

That's correct.

14

And is the same is also true -- I'm sorry, let me

15

back up.

16

present for the recovery of that swab after his arrest in

17

this case, correct?

18
19
20

The swab that was recovered from Mr. Wint you were

I know I was present for fingerprinting.

I don't

know if later I was present for the swab.


Q

My question about the swab is the same is true for

21

the -- the profile recovered from that swab, you don't have

22

information other than the conclusion that, um, that profile

23

matched the CODIS profile, correct?

24

That's correct.

25

Um, now, um, I want to turn your attention to, in

75

your affidavit, to the pizza delivery information.

Um, did you -- the -- the information in your affidavit is

based on conversations that you had with the manager or a

manager of the Domino's; is that right?

The manager and the delivery person.

Okay, so manager, delivery person.

Okay.

What about the

person who took the order, is that another person or is that

one of those two?

All three.

10

Okay.

11
12

So, and you spoke to them directly?


A

13

Yes, that's correct.


THE COURT:

Excuse me, counsel, before you ask your

14

next question about how much longer do you have?

15

going an hour since we took the break and so I want -- may

16

have to stop for the court reporter.

17
18
19
20

MR. AGO:

Yes, might be a good time to break, Your

Honor.
THE COURT:

All right, well, why don't you counsel

come to the bench.

21

(Bench conference).

22

THE COURT:

We've been going an hour since we

23

reconvened after the -- after the break.

24

have you got?

25

We've been

MR. AGO:

How much longer

I would -- I would say after this area of

76

cross going, I'll go through some of the physical evidence,

so maybe half an hour.

THE COURT:

Forty-five minutes.

Do you, based on -- yeah, I think that's

probably what we're going to do, based on what you know now

you've got some redirect.

two o'clock.

So, all right.

MR. AGO:

(Close bench conference).

THE COURT:

10

Let's come back at

Very well, Your Honor.

All right, counsel, um, we're going to

break until two o'clock.

11

You're excused until that time, detective.

You're

12

not to discuss your testimony with anyone during the lunch

13

break, thank you.

14

THE WITNESS:

15

(Thereupon, the proceedings were recessed at 12:52

16

Yes, Your Honor.

p.m.)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

77

A F T E R N O O N

2
3

S E S S I O N

(Thereupon, the proceedings were reconvened at 2:04


p.m.)

THE DEPUTY CLERK:

This is recalling the preliminary

hearing matter of United States versus Daron Wint,

2015-CF1-7047.

THE COURT:

counsel and of the defendant.

9
10

The Court notes the presence of all

You may come back to the stand, detective.


reminded that you're still under oath.

11

THE WITNESS:

12

THE COURT:

13

MR. AGO:

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. AGO:

16

BY MR. AGO:

17

You're

Yes, Your Honor.

Counsel, indulge me for one moment.


Yes, Your Honor.
You may continue.
Thank you, Your Honor.

Detective, before the break you were talking about

18

your interactions with the staff at the Domino's Pizza in

19

Tenleytown.

20

person who took the order over the phone and then the person

21

who delivered the pizza, um, on -- on the evening of May

22

13th, correct?

You spoke to the manager, um, and then the

23

Yes.

24

I'm sorry, you didn't speak to them on May 13th but

25

the people that were in those roles on the evening of May

78

13th, correct?

Yes.

And, um, you testified on direct examination that

the person who took the order on the phone, um, received

specific instructions concerning the delivery of the pizza,

correct?

Yes.

And specifically that the delivery person was to

leave the pizzas on the front step and then leave, correct?

10

Correct.

11

Um, and there was nothing about ringing the doorbell

12

as part of the instructions for the delivery that night,

13

right?

14

That night, no.

15

And what your testimony was on direct examination

16

was ringing the doorbell was an instruction from prior orders

17

of pizza to be delivered, um, unrelated to this case, to

18

3201; is that right?

19

Correct.

20

Um, why -- did you ask the Domino's staff why there

21

were instructions to ring the doorbell for prior orders?

22

Isn't that a standard thing that delivery people do, they

23

ring the doorbell when they arrive?

24
25

I mean that's the way they explained it, they said,

you know, normally the -- the delivery person would ring the

79

doorbell because they're going to have an interaction with

the party that ordered the pizza.

not the case.

doorstep and then leave.

But in this case that was

The case was to deliver pizza, leave it on the

I understand that, but the specific instruction to

ring the doorbell from prior deliveries, that was in their

system, that they looked it up and they saw that there were

specific instructions to ring the doorbell?

Yes.

10

Okay, did you see those instructions in their system

11
12
13
14

or did they just convey that to you?


A

They conveyed it and I saw it in -- in a printout

order.
Q

You, um, described in your affidavit that the

15

instructions to deliver the pizza were out of the ordinary.

16

Is that based on what you just described as far as leaving it

17

on the doorstep and leaving?

18

It was based on what the people at Domino's told me

19

because that's unusual just to leave it and not having

20

interaction with the person or persons that ordered the

21

pizza.

22

Okay.

23

It's based on what they said.

24

Based on what Domino's said?

25

Yeah.

80

Now, when you spoke to the person who took the order

that person spoke to a female over the phone; is that

correct?

Yes.

And that person you suspect to be Amy Savopoulos; is

that right?

Yes.

Was that person identified -- did that person

9
10

identify herself by name to the -- to the person who took the


order on the phone?

11

No.

12

Um, okay.

13
14

But provided the name Amy Savopoulos and a credit


card number to pay for the order; is that right?

15

Correct.

16

Now, the part of the conversation between the woman

17

on the phone and the person taking the order had to do with

18

the reason the pizza should be left on the doorstep; is that

19

right?

20

Yes.

21

In other words, that this person was dealing with a

22

sick child and couldn't come to the door; is that right?

23

Yes.

24

You have since learned that the youngest Savopoulos

25

child was in fact sick; is that right?

81

Yes.

And was at home because of an injury that he had

sustained some days earlier; is that right?

Yes.

Okay.

Um, now, that you've been to the scene, 3201, right?

Yes.

The pizza delivery person said that he couldn't see

any lights on except for the porch light; is that right?

10

The front porch, correct.

11

That -- it is a large house, right?

12

Yes.

13

And -- and you didn't -- the pizza delivery person

14

didn't say that he walked around the house, right?

15

Did not.

16

Okay, so it was just basically looking at the front

17

of the house, right?

18

Correct.

19

And had no recollection about the garage being open

20

or closed?

21

Did not talk about that, correct.

22

Okay.

23
24
25

Or any lights on -- on the sides of the house,


didn't talk about those lights?
A

Pizza delivery person said the only light it saw was

82

1
2

the front porch light.


Q

The, um, last phone interaction, um, between anybody

in that house and anybody outside of that house, was the

text, um -- well, strike that.

5
6

Was the phone call from Mr. Savopoulos to W-1; is


that right?

MS. BACH:

THE COURT:

THE WITNESS:

10
11

Objection.
You may answer that, if he knows.
Repeat the question.

BY MR. AGO:
Q

Yes.

The last interaction by phone between anybody,

12

any of the decedents, and anybody outside of the house, was a

13

phone call from Mr. Savopoulos and -- to W-1 on the morning

14

of May the 14th; is that right?

15
16
17

The last phone interaction would be from W-1 to Mr.

Savopoulos.
Q

Understood.

But was there a response to that?

Or

18

that was just the text, you're talking about the text saying

19

package delivered?

20
21
22
23

No, I'm talking about the call from W-1 to Mr.

Savopoulos saying he's 10 minutes away.


Q

Okay.
And that's the last phone interaction in terms of

24

somebody either speaking to or receiving a text from any of

25

the decedents; is that right?

83

Yes.

Okay.

3
4

And this was at -- sometime between 10:00 a.m. and


10:30 a.m. on the 14th; is that right?

Repeat the time.

Sometime between 10:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. on May

14th?

That's correct.

Now, do you know of any in-person interactions after

10

that time?

11

MS. BACH:

Your Honor, objection.

12

THE COURT:

13

(Bench conference).

14

THE COURT:

15

MS. BACH:

Approach the bench, counsel.

What's the objection?


Your Honor, the objection is this doesn't

16

go to probable cause.

He's trying to determine whether

17

there's evidence of witnesses we have in terms of narrowing

18

down the timeframe.

19

probable cause.

20

THE COURT:

21

MR. AGO:

I don't think that this is relevant to

Why is it relevant?
The relevance is, as follows, Your Honor,

22

is, um, what links Mr. Wint to this house, according to the

23

Government, is DNA on pizza, um, that is delivered the night

24

of the 13th.

25

with anybody in this house the more remote they become to

If -- the later the interactions that there are

84

that night.

In other words, there's no evidence at this

stage of Mr. Wint being present, that is from anybody else on

the 14th, and the Government is proceeding on the homicide

that occurred on the 14th.

homicides occurring after the money's delivered.

THE COURT:

along at this time.

The affidavit talks about the

You may ask that one question, then move

(Close bench conference).

THE COURT:

10
11
12

So.

The objection's overruled.

BY MR. AGO:
Q

Detective, your affidavit states that the homicides

in this case occur after the money is brought to the house?

13

Yes.

14

What is that based on?

15

That's based on theory on our part and there's no

16
17
18

more interaction from anybody in the home with any outsiders.


Q

But the last interaction occurs before the money is

delivered; is that right?

19

Yes.

20

And so you don't have any factual basis for saying

21

that the homicides occurred after the money is delivered?

22

No.

23

Detective, in terms of the physical evidence in this

24

case, detective, you know that Mr. Wint, um, is connected,

25

either staying at or living at, four different locations over

85

the course of the last few years; is that right?

The defendant?

Yes.

Yeah, I know that specific one.

His mother's house?

That's correct.

His sister's house?

That's correct.

And, um, a girlfriend in Brooklyn, New York?

10

I know he -- my information is the defendant stays

His father's house?

11

there periodically now.

12

don't know if I could say that.

13

14
15

Okay.
And do you know whether or not he stayed at his

brother's house?

He has two brothers in the area, correct?

16

MS. BACH:

17

THE COURT:

18

BY MR. AGO:

19

Whether -- to say he lives there I

Objection, Your Honor.


Sustained.

Um, the first people to arrive -- the first

20

responders in this case was -- were the D.C. Fire Department;

21

is that correct?

22

Yeah.

23

Um, and they arrived at approximately 1:30, give or

24
25

take a few minutes?


A

Correct.

86

1
2

When, in order to extinguish the fire, they had to

move evidence; is that right?

Yes.

Do you know -- how long was it until the

Metropolitan Police Department was permitted to enter the

home?

After the fire was completely extinguished.

Do you know the time?

The exact time the fire department entered and the

10

exact time the police department entered I don't have the

11

exact time.

12

Can you approximate?

13

I would approximate over an hour.

14

Do you know what if any evidence was moved by the

15
16

fire department in order to extinguish the fire?


A

The fire department didn't specifically keep a list

17

and they don't of things they move cause their objective is

18

to extinguish the fire.

19

So to answer your question, no.

So you are not able to say whether or not any of the

20

evidence that the metropolitan police observed in that house

21

when the police entered was in the location that it was

22

before the fire department entered?

23

If you're talking exact location?

24

Yes.

25

Or did they move things, carry it around and put it

87

on other floors and other rooms, is that what you're asking?

I'm asking both.

Well, the answer to moving things around to other

rooms and other floors my answer is no.

Now, moving things

around within the area that they're actually working, yes,

that's correct, they do that.

Detective, there was furniture outside of the house?

Hm-hmm.

Right?

10

I remember certain things were outside, yes.

11

So, and certain things were thrown out of the house

12
13
14

Correct?

from other floors, correct?


A

That's correct, that's correct.

From the room that

they were in.

15

And other rooms too, right?

16

From those specific rooms, yeah.

17

And one of the pieces of evidence in this case is a

18

boot print on some french doors; is that correct?

19

Yes.

20

And your testimony is that the fire department did

21

not, um -- the -- the -- um, members of the fire department

22

are not generally issued boots that match that print?

23

MS. BACH:

24

BY MR. AGO:

25

Your Honor.

That is found?

88

MS. BACH:

THE COURT:

BY MR. AGO:

Objection.
Sustained.

Well, let me ask you this, the boot print that you

testified to, in your investigation, appears to be made by

somebody forcing entry into the home?

MS. BACH:

reference in this affidavit.

THE COURT:

10
11

Your Honor, same objection, there's no

Sustained, counsel.

BY MR. AGO:
Q

There are lots of, in terms of physical evidence of

12

the home -- well, let me ask you, you never recovered any

13

boots that match any prints in the home from Mr. Wint or his

14

belongings or his homes?

15

MS. BACH:

16

BY MR. AGO:

17

Your Honor, objection.

Is that correct?

18

THE COURT:

I'm going to overrule that objection,

19

you may answer that question.

20

THE WITNESS:

21

BY MR. AGO:

22

Repeat that please.

Yes, you never recovered any boots that matched any

23

prints in or around the home from Mr. Wint, his belongings or

24

the homes that we listed earlier?

25

Correct.

89

The, um, as far as your investigation is concerned,

also, you never recovered any items missing from the home

from Mr. Wint, his belongings, or the homes that we listed

that are associated with him; is that correct?

Items from the home?

There are -- there were some matches that were found

No.

at the top of the stairs; is that right?

Yes, that's correct.

Now, there's several staircases in the house,

10

correct?

Um, and the matches that were found at the top of

11

the stairs are at the top of the main stairs?

12

Yes.

13

Of the home, right?

14

Correct.

15

Um, did the police test those matches for DNA or

16

fingerprints?

17

MS. BACH:

18

THE COURT:

19

BY MR. AGO:

20

Objection.
You may rephrase, counsel.

Let me ask you, the matches that were recovered from

21

the top of the stairs, they did not have Mr. Wint's DNA or

22

fingerprints on them?

23

MS. BACH:

Objection.

24

THE COURT:

25

(Bench conference).

Come to the bench.

90

THE COURT:

I will allow you to ask whether there's

anything linking the, um, matches with Mr. Wint, you may ask

it that way.

MR. AGO:

MS. BACH:

Okay.
It just -- may I just -- just for the

record, the answer is the testing isn't completed yet but

I'll do that on redirect, I mean the answer is it's not like

we've got somebody else.

THE COURT:

Very well.

10

(Close bench conference).

11

BY MR. AGO:

12

Detective, is -- is there anything linking Mr. Wint

13

to those matches, any physical evidence linking Mr. Wint to

14

those matches?

15

No.

16

You recovered, um, a piece of duct tape from the

17

ambulance where Amy Savopoulos was when you arrived; is that

18

right?

19

is that correct?

I'm sorry, the police recovered a piece of duct tape;

20

Yes.

21

Is there any physical evidence linking Mr. Wint to

22

that duct tape?

23

MS. BACH:

24

BY MR. AGO:

25

Same objection.

That piece?

91

THE COURT:

Overruled.

THE WITNESS:

BY MR. AGO:

No.

There was a dog door in the house, correct?

Yeah.

That leads from the kitchen area down to the

basement?

Yes.

That dog door had duct tape across it?

10

Correct.

11

Is there any evidence that links Mr. Wint, physical

12

evidence, linking Mr. Wint to that duct tape?

13

No.

14

You -- detective, um, you are aware, as the lead

15

detective, that there was a water bottle recovered from the

16

home, correct?

17

Yeah.

18

And that there was a -- at least one fingerprint

19

taken off of that water bottle?

20

Correct.

21

Is that linked to Mr. Wint?

22

No.

23

Is there any physical evidence -- let me set aside

24

the, um, the pizza that you testified to earlier or that's in

25

your affidavit, okay?

92

Yes.

Is there any physical evidence linking Mr. Wint to

3
4
5

any object in the house?


A

Other than the pizza crust, that's what you're

asking?

Yes.

No.

Is there any physical evidence, we've discussed the

Porsche, um, now I'm talking about the Savopoulos' vehicles,

10

is there any physical evidence linking Mr. Wint to any of the

11

vehicles?

12

13

The burned out Porsche, his DNA is on the neon green

burn visibility vest.

14

Right.

15

Yes.

16

The Mosler, the Land Rover, the Range Rover, the

17

So you're saying apart from that?

Audi, any physical evidence linking?

18

To the other vehicles, except the Porsche?

19

Yes.

20

No.

21

Um, the cell phones that were used in this case, the

22

Savopoulos' cell phones that were used in communications in

23

this case, those were not recovered from Mr. Wint, his

24

belongings or homes associated with him?

25

MS. BACH:

Your Honor, objection.

93

1
2

THE COURT:

The objection is noted but it's

overruled.

You may answer yes or no.

MS. BACH:

THE COURT:

(Bench conference).

MS. BACH:

THE COURT:

9
10
11

I would ask to approach.


You may approach.

I'm going to ask -No, no, you come to the bench.

No, no,

Miss Bach, be clear, you don't make speeches in my courtroom,


you say what you've got to say at the bench.
MS. BACH:

I'm going to just ask Your Honor for

12

permission to do this ex parte, if the Court believes it

13

needs to be disclosed to the defense it's fine but it has to

14

do with an open search warrant that is about to be executed.

15

THE COURT:

16

MS. BACH:

Well -And I'm afraid that he's going to end up

17

-- I don't want him to be in a position where he has to

18

testify -- I'm worried that he's going to have to -- he's

19

going to not be able to testify without revealing that search

20

warrant is what my concern is.

21

THE COURT:

22

MS. BACH:

23

THE COURT:

Have the search warrants been executed?


No, that's the problem.
Okay, so the question is whether or not

24

the cell phones have been recovered.

The cell phones that

25

were used in communications in this case, those were not

94

recovered from Mr. Wint, his belongings or -- I can't find

it.

MR. AGO:

THE COURT:

MS. BACH:

10

It goes beyond that.

And that's why I'm

asking for permission to do this.

8
9

And so, okay, I guess -- I guess you

think the answer that he might reveal that he doesn't know?

6
7

Homes associated.

THE COURT:

Well, step back for a minute, counsel,

if I think it's not a subject that's properly ex parte


I'll --

11

(Defense counsel excused from bench.

Ex parte.

12

Said bench conference is ordered sealed and is not

13

transcribed herein).

14

THE COURT:

All right, counsel, I'm going to

15

overrule the objection to the exact question that you asked.

16

Do you need it repeated by the court reporter?

17

MR. AGO:

18

THE COURT:

19

BY MR. AGO:

20

No, I think I know it.


Okay.

You may come back.

The cell phones that were used in communication in

21

this case, decedent's cell phones, they were not recovered

22

from Mr. Wint, his, um, belongings, or the homes that he

23

stayed at, correct?

24
25

Correct.
MR. AGO:

This might draw the same objection, Your

95

Honor, but I'll ask the question.

2
3

BY MR. AGO:
Q

Is the cell phones, um, that we've discussed, those

same cell phones, were any of them used on or after May 13th

to call any numbers associated with Mr. Wint?

MS. BACH:

THE COURT:

BY MR. AGO:

Your Honor, objection.


Sustained.

Um, your -- I believe the complaint in this case

10

refers to, um, an unknown object as a weapon or weapons used

11

in this case; is that correct?

12

Yes.

13

All right.

14
15

Now, in your investigation you recovered what -what is -- it's a baseball bat in this case, correct?

16

Yeah.

17

There's no physical evidence -- that's a baseball

18

bat that you suspect might have been used in this case,

19

correct?

20

Suspect, correct.

21

There's no physical evidence linking that bat to Mr.

22
23
24
25

-- Mr. Wint; is that correct?


A

No.
THE COURT:

No, it's not correct, or no, it's not

linked to him?

96

THE WITNESS:

BY MR. AGO:

3
4

Not linked.

One of the suspected weapons of this case is a sword

or swords, correct?

Yes.

Specifically there are -- Mr. Savopoulos had a

collection of Samurai swords; is that correct?

Yes.

And there were some Samurai swords recovered in the

10

home, correct?

11

Yes.

12

None of those swords had any physical evidence

13

linking Mr. Wint to those swords, correct?

14

Correct, they did not.

15

Some of those swords were missing, correct?

16

Yes.

17

In other words, there were just cases but no swords,

18

correct?

19

That is correct.

20

You did not recover any missing swords or Samurai

21

swords, from Mr. Wint, his belongings or the homes that he

22

had stayed at, correct?

23

Correct.

24

Now, in terms of the DNA on the pizza that you, um,

25

describe in the affidavit, in your affidavit, um, there --

97

you testified that it is a single source DNA profile that was

recovered from the pizza; is that correct?

Correct.

And that is from one of the pizzas; is that correct?

Yes.

No DNA profile recovered from the second pizza?

No.

And any DNA profiles recovered from any of the

boxes?

10

No, not -- not -- not to my knowledge at this time.

11

The -- the -- the evidence that you have on this is

12

based on your combination -- I'm sorry, conversation with the

13

DNA analyst who examined this pizza, correct?

14

Yes.

15

And, um, you have no indication of the number of

16

loci that matched in that DNA analysis, correct?

17
18

THE COURT:
didn't you?

19
20

Counsel, I think you went over this,

Didn't you ask that question?

MR. AGO:

No.

vest.

21

THE COURT:

22

BY MR. AGO:

23
24
25

That was the other -- that was the

Oh, I'm sorry.

You have no information concerning the number of

loci that matched, correct?


A

I don't have any information on the -- any of this,

98

1
2
3

the statistics in reference to the matches and DNA.


Q

Right, and so you don't know if it's a partial

profile, correct?

MS. BACH:

THE COURT:

BY MR. AGO:

Objection.
Um, I'm going to overrule that.

I'm sorry, from the pizza?

THE COURT:

THE WITNESS:

10

From the pizza.


Correct.

BY MR. AGO:

11

You don't have that information?

12

The information I have is major contributor, not

13
14
15
16

partial, but as far as statistics I don't have that.


Q

A major contributor, detective, means that there's a

minor contributor, right?


A

Not to my knowledge, I'm going -- using the wording

17

that was told to me.

18

DNA profile of the defendant.

19
20

Or consistent with, consistent with the

But you don't know if -- that's all you have, you

don't have anything further, right?

21

Statistical, no, I do not.

22

And not just statistical, the scientific basis?

23

in other words, not the random match probability but the

24

scientific basis, right?

25

MS. BACH:

So

Your Honor, objection.

99

1
2

THE COURT:

Well, counsel, why don't you ask him --

well, approach.

(Bench conference).

THE COURT:

He's already said that he doesn't know

anything about the statistics which would include the random

match probability.

questions but earlier when you were talking about the vest he

said he didn't know anything about loci, period.

that's what he said.

10

I mean you can ask him all these

I think

And then you started asking him about

the alleles.

11

I mean if he doesn't know he doesn't know.

12

you know, you can ask him all day long but he keeps saying he

13

doesn't know anything about the statistics.

14

And so,

So I just think you need to move along from random

15

match probabilities and the number of loci and number of

16

alleles because he doesn't know it.

17

MS. BACH:

And, Your Honor, just additionally we

18

would just object because he has said now twice that it was a

19

single source contributor on the pizza and then defense

20

counsel started bringing up other contributors with respect

21

to the pizza and that's not what his testimony has been so I

22

think we just need to be clear.

23

one.

There's more than one on

24

THE COURT:

There's three on the vest.

25

MS. BACH:

Three with only two major --

100

THE COURT:

MS. BACH:

Yes.
-- on the vest and one on the pizza, and

we're all over the place.

THE COURT:

Right.

And the other thing is I'm

unclear, maybe you all are clear, but I'm unclear, you keep

asking major contributor and he said -- well, strike that.

Just -- just don't ask anything else about the statistics.

(Close bench conference).

THE COURT:

10
11

Objection sustained.

BY MR. AGO:
Q

Just to clarify, when you said, just now when you

12

said consistent with, that's, just to close it out, that's

13

your complete information concerning the DNA on the pizza; is

14

that right?

15
16

Pizza, single source profile consistent with the

defendant, Daron Wint.

17

Okay, and that's all you have?

18

That's the information given to me by the analyst.

19

Okay.

20
21

My question is there's nothing more than that,


right?

22

That I have, no.

23

Okay.

24

Now, um, the information that you received

25

concerning the location of the pizza and the pizza boxes, was

101

that they were found in the bedroom where the adult decedents

were located by the fire department; is that right?

Yes.

And that comes from whom?

It comes from the fire department as well as our

6
7

evidence technicians.
Q

8
9
10

Okay.
Now, one of the, um, wounds, some of the wounds that

were inflicted in this case were with an unknown sharp


object; is that correct?

11

Yes.

12

And, um, you know that the police recovered a knife

13

in the trash outside of 3201, correct?

14

Yes, yes.

15

And adjacent to that knife was pizza, correct?

16

I don't specifically recall that.

17

That was not recovered?

18

The pizza in the garbage, I don't want to say yes or

19
20

no cause I don't specifically recall.


Q

21
22

Okay.
Um, you've seen crime scene photos in this case,

correct?

23

Yeah.

24

And would looking at crime scene photos refresh your

25

recollection?

102

2
3

Of course.
MS. BACH:

Your Honor, objection, we ask to

approach.

THE COURT:

(Bench conference).

THE COURT:

MS. BACH:

Your Honor, when the defense indicated that they

You may.

Does this need to be sealed?


No, it does not.

wanted to show the detective scene photos we had no problems

10

with that.

11

took photos I think two and a half weeks afterwards.

12

pizza that they're referring to was eaten by the ATF and left

13

there.

14

These aren't crime scene photos, they went in and

THE COURT:

The

I was thinking we're talking about pizza

15

that was found by the MPD, that's not what you're talking

16

about?

17

MR. AGO:

18

MS. BACH:

19

I am.
No, it's not.

They're talking about a

photograph that they took two and a half weeks later.

20

THE COURT:

21

MR. AGO:

What are you talking about?


I'm talking about -- I could be mistaken,

22

I could be talking about, um, medical examiner photos.

23

are -- there are -- there are photos --

24
25

MS. BACH:

There

I, and I was under the impression -- what

they told us these were pictures that they took, and that's

103

what my objection is based on.

MR. AGO:

THE COURT:

I can bring the hard copy.


Just so that I'm clear you all have

turned over some of the crime scene photos?

MS. BACH:

THE COURT:

MR. AGO:

No.
No?
Must be medical examiner photos, I must

have --

THE COURT:

So, what is there that you're, um --

10

what representation do you have to this Court that these are

11

not photographs taken by your investigator?

12

MR. AGO:

13

MS. BACH:

14

I can -- I can have them see these.

Well, wasn't he there --

15

MR. AGO:

16

MS. BACH:

17

MR. AGO:

18

MS. BACH:

19

MPD is in it.

No.
-- when you were there?
No.
Okay, having seen this, Your Honor, and

these photographs, I can tell you that --

20

You're sure he wasn't there?

Okay, then the fact

21

that the MPD officer -- I mean I guess we can -- if they're

22

representing that these pictures were all taken at the same

23

time --

24
25

THE COURT:

Well, what were you asking, that he, who

is that, a MPD officer?

104

1
2
3
4
5
6

MS. BACH:

Right, and the MPD officer wasn't there

when they were there.


Right, and if they're saying these were all taken at
the same time I can't dispute that.
THE COURT:

So, well, first of all, you asked him

about crime scene photographs.

MR. AGO:

THE COURT:

9
10

But --

I can correct that.


Maybe I should know the answer to this,

when were the medical examiner's, um -MR. AGO:

I'm sorry, no, I can't correct that, those

11

-- they are crime scene photos but not taken by MPD

12

potentially, they were turned over by the medical examiner's

13

to us and they were there, I believe, on May 15th.

14
15

THE COURT:

Okay, so that's the day after.

offense -- well, the fire at least was on May 14th.

16

MR. AGO:

17

THE COURT:

18

MR. AGO:

19
20

So this

Right.
Right?
They were there on the 14th but not

allowed in, they were there on the 15th and allowed in.
THE COURT:

Okay, so, the point is that between the

21

day of the fire and whenever the medical examiner was there,

22

who knows what happened.

23

You're trying to show -- well, I thought that you

24

were trying to show that when the police and fire department

25

were there, that the, um, this pizza box was out there

105

presumably having been left by somebody involved with the

offense.

But what you're saying is that these medical

examiner photographs were not taken until the day after the

fire when who knows who had been there, I'm not so sure of

the relevance, counsel.

MR. AGO:

The Government's argument is going to be

that the pizza's recovered from the bedroom inside the house,

the pizza that links Mr. Wint to this offense.

10

outside of the house.

11

of the house.

12

This pizza is

Clearly being recovered from outside

So --

THE COURT:

And the pizza that the detective was

13

talking about is the -- my understanding is that it was the

14

pizza in the bedroom.

15

MR. AGO:

16

MS. BACH:

17

THE COURT:

18

MR. AGO:

19

THE COURT:

20

MR. AGO:

Hm-hmm.
That is what he's talking about.
That is what he's talking about.
Right, but -- I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
So, my argument is this, that he, this

21

detective, has acknowledged that, unsure of who has moved

22

what around the house prior to the MPD entering, that he's

23

basing his testimony not on direct observations but on what

24

other people say, and we have evidence that there is

25

recovered from outside or at least evidence of, um, evidence

106

from outside the house, not inside the house.

MS. BACH:

THE COURT:

But we don't know that.


But the detective said that the fire

department may have moved something around in the -- in the

bedroom but nothing outside, that's my recollection of what

he said.

the point is that, you know, if -- if -- this pizza box, if

there was some -- something to establish that that pizza box

were there on the 14th that might be different, but this is

And I think I understand what you're saying, but

10

after who knows.

11

14th, and you're saying that these -- this pizza box --

12
13

The fire department came at 1:30 on the

MS. BACH:

It's not a box, it's just the crust in

the trash.

14

THE COURT:

15

MS. BACH:

16

THE COURT:

17

MR. AGO:

18

THE COURT:

Oh, okay.

I thought it was a box.

Sorry.
That wasn't -But the crust is what's operative.
Well, whether it's a box or the crust it

19

wasn't discovered till the next -- the next day after who

20

knows who had been there.

21

I'm not going to rule.

22

MR. AGO:

Very well, but just for the record, Your

23

Honor, I think that it's fair to explore the uncertainty of

24

this detective's recitation of where the evidence was found.

25

I mean it is a big deal if the pizza's outside versus inside.

107

THE COURT:

I agree, but the temporal aspect is

important as well.

there and the fire happened that might be different.

ruling would be different.

perhaps 24 hours.

MS. BACH:

If it were the day when the police were


My

But we're talking about a whole

May I just also put on the record, Your

Honor, so that the defense and the Court is aware of this, my

understanding is after everything was photographed when they

were processing things they would actually take them outside

10

underneath a canopy from inside and process them outside.

11

I guess my point is just because that's where that picture

12

was taken doesn't mean that's where it was found.

13
14
15

THE COURT:

So

You're saying even the pizza boxes that

were found -MS. BACH:

Not the pizza boxes but I'm just saying

16

as they were going debris and things like that, so I don't

17

even know that that's where that picture was taken.

18

THE COURT:

Counsel, if it were a crime scene photo

19

that -- that crime scene search or mobile crime took, my

20

ruling might be different but I just -- the answer is no.

21

MR. AGO:

22

THE COURT:

23

MS. BACH:

24

MR. AGO:

25

MS. BACH:

But that has mobile crime here.


No, but I thought you said these were -No, it 's not.
This -- this -- this is a police officer.
We don't know that's mobile crime.

108

1
2

THE COURT:

That's what I'm

trying to figure out.

3
4

How do you know that?

MR. AGO:

That's MPD.

The photos may not have been

taken by MPD but that's MPD in the photo.

THE COURT:

Were -- I guess this is my question,

this was -- these were taken by the medical examiner on the

15th.

8
9
10

MR. AGO:

I believe that the medical examiner took

them, the medical examiner told -- I gave them to us, and


said the photos were taken on the 15th.

11

MS. BACH:

12

THE COURT:

13

MR. AGO:

14

THE COURT:

Now --

Or the 16th I thought.


Yeah, I thought you said 15th or 16th.
Fifteenth or the 16th, correct.

But --

So, I mean that may be so, but

15

presumably mobile crime took whatever photos they were going

16

to take before the ME did.

17

view to suggest that this is the way it was found when it was

18

found, when the police were there.

19

MR. AGO:

I mean there's just nothing in my

Except that this is -- these are the

20

close-in photos but there are some photos where the garbage

21

cans, already taken a picture of what's in the garbage can,

22

they remove a trash bag, they opened up the trash bag and

23

there are clothes.

24

taken outside and processed outside I think is belied by --

25

is belied by.

So I mean the argument that this was

109

THE COURT:

What is this, Jif peanut butter?

I just

-- I'm sorry, I don't think -- I see where you're going with

it but I don't --

MR. AGO:

(Close bench conference).

BY MR. AGO:

Very well.

Detective, have you viewed any surveillance video

from the neighborhood that shows a person consistent with Mr.

Wint in the neighborhood of 3201 either on the 13th or 14th

10

of May?

11

MS. BACH:

12

THE COURT:

13

BY MR. AGO:

14

Your Honor, objection, beyond -Sustained.

Or let me ask you this:

There is no surveillance

15

video that shows him in that neighborhood on those days; is

16

that correct?

17

MS. BACH:

18

THE COURT:

19

Your Honor, same objection.


I'll overrule that objection, you may

answer that question if you know.

20

THE WITNESS:

21

BY MR. AGO:

22

I have not viewed any, no.

The, um -- and no witnesses describe a person that

23

is consistent with Mr. Wint in the neighborhood from those

24

days, correct?

25

MS. BACH:

Your Honor, objection, seeking discovery.

110

THE COURT:

BY MR. AGO:

Sustained, counsel.

Your, um -- in this case -- strike that.


You testified earlier about the, um, money and money

orders that were recovered in this case.

The, um, total

amount of money orders in the truck that the police stopped

on, I believe it was the late night of the 22nd or 21st,

detective?

Twenty-first.

10

Twenty-first.

Late night on the 21st, the truck

11

that the police stopped, the total amount of money orders

12

exceeded 13 thousand dollars; is that correct or am I wrong

13

about that?

14

You're correct.

15

Okay.

16

And when were those money orders purchased?

17

MS. BACH:

18

THE COURT:

19

BY MR. AGO:

Objection.
You may rephrase it.

20

Were those money orders purchased after May 14th?

21

Yeah.

22

Those money orders were in the possession of a

23

person in the truck or were they just in the truck?

24

In the truck.

25

They were located near -- one of the people in the

111

truck, the passenger in the truck, was Mr. Wint's brother?

MS. BACH:

THE COURT:

BY MR. AGO:

5
6

Objection, Judge.
Sustained.

Well, the money orders were located near the

passenger of the truck, correct?

Yes.

The -- there was also seven thousand dollars in cash

recovered from the truck?

10

Over seven thousand, yes.

11

Okay.

12
13

That seven thousand dollars in cash was recovered


from a person or recovered from inside the truck?

14

Inside the truck.

15

Adjacent to the money orders in the truck next to

16

them?

17

Yes.

18

And, therefore, next to the passenger, correct?

19

Correct.

20

The, um, total amount of money orders in the car

21

that Mr. Wint was stopped in was, correct me if I'm wrong,

22

um, about 10 thousand dollars in money orders in the car that

23

Mr. Wint was stopped in, correct?

24

Correct.

25

Locate -- Mr. Wint was in the back seat of that car?

112

Yes.

When the car was stopped, correct?

Yes.

And there were three other people in the car,

correct?

Yes.

Driver, front passenger and a rear passenger behind

the front passenger, correct?

Yes.

10

The 10 thousand dollars, approximate 10 thousand

11

dollars in money orders were located on a person or in the

12

car?

13

In the car.

14

Adjacent -- closest to which person?

15

Best of my recollection in the back of the car.

16

Closest to the back passenger, correct?

17

I can't say any closer to one person, but in the

18
19

back of the car was a small compact car.


Q

20
21

Okay.
You -- you recovered two bags that are associated

with Mr. Wint that belonged to him, correct?

22

You're referring to bags from?

23

From the car, I'm sorry, the car.

24

Yes.

25

Am I right about that or is it one bag?

113

I want to say it's one.

One bag, okay.

The money orders were not in that

bag, correct?

No.

I'm sorry, I'm correct when I say that?

Correct.

You interviewed a person in that car about those

money orders, correct?

Yes.

10

That person, was it you or another police officer?

11

That interviewed the person?

12

Yes.

13

I interviewed the person.

14

And that person -- that person was not under arrest,

15

correct?

16

No.

17

But that person was detained, correct?

18

Person was questioned.

19

All right.

20

Free to leave, though?

21

Yes.

22

Or not free to leave?

23

Free to leave.

24

And the person told you that it had -- it was

25

directed to buy those money orders in the car, right?

114

Correct.

And it was directed by the front passenger in the

truck to buy the money orders, right?

Yes.

Not Mr. Wint, correct?

Correct.

And it was given money to buy those money orders by

the front passenger in the truck, right?

Correct.

10

And not Mr. Wint, right?

11

Correct.

12

Okay.

13
14

And you spoke to the front passenger in the truck


about that money and the money orders?

15

Yes.

16

And the front passenger in that truck claimed that

17

he had gotten the money from Mr. Wint or not?

18

Yes.

19

Okay.

20

But you have that person's statement about where he

21

got the money, that evidence right there only comes from that

22

person?

23

MS. BACH:

24

THE COURT:

25

BY MR. AGO:

Objection, Your Honor.


Sustained.

115

1
2

Now, detective, you -- and when you spoke to that

person about the money that person was detained, correct?

What person are we talking about?

The front passenger of the truck.

No.

That person was taken from the truck and handcuffed

7
8
9

It was questioned.

by the police department, correct?


A

Yes, it was for the marshal's safety.

to leave during the interview.

10

And that was communicated to him?

11

Yes.

12

Was that recorded?

13

The interview?

14

Okay.

15

He was free

Yes, it was recorded.

Now, Mr. Wint, when -- when the, um, truck and the

16

car were stopped, your investigation, um, revealed that --

17

well, you were in contact with the front passenger prior to

18

the car and the truck being stopped, correct?

19

MS. BACH:

Objection, Your Honor.

20

THE COURT:

Sustained, counsel.

21

Unless you have

some specific proffer.

22

MR. AGO:

I do.

23

THE COURT:

24

(Bench conference).

25

MR. AGO:

Come to the bench.

It goes to flight.

Our belief is that the

116

front passenger was in contact with the police, and that was

-- was trying to turn Mr. Wint in at Mr. Wint's request when

the car was stopped.

MS. BACH:

In other words, flight is something -Your Honor, two things.

Um, we're not

arguing risk of flight, we think you should hold him based on

dangerous first of all, and second of all --

7
8
9

THE COURT:

I think whether or not he tried to run

may go to consciousness of guilt or lack of.


MS. BACH:

Second of all, Your Honor, just because

10

the front seat passenger indicates that he's trying to turn

11

Mr. Wint in I don't think -- that doesn't go to Mr. Wint's

12

consciousness of guilt.

13

THE COURT:

What's the proffer about Wint's

14

knowledge, because she's right, if -- if, you know, maybe the

15

person was trying to turn him in unbeknownst to him, so

16

unless you have a proffer that -- well --

17

MR. AGO:

18

THE COURT:

19

MR. AGO:

My belief is that Mr. Wint -It's investigation.


Based on investigation, Your Honor, and

20

interviews, is that Mr. Wint was having this front passenger

21

contact the police to arrange to turn him in.

22

THE COURT:

I'll allow you to ask that question.

23

Whatever the answer is it is.

24

(Close bench conference).

25

THE COURT:

Let's just take five minutes.

117

THE WITNESS:

(Thereupon, the proceedings were recessed at 2:57

p.m.)

4
5

(Thereupon, the proceedings were reconvened at 3:04


p.m.)

6
7

THE DEPUTY CLERK:

Recalling the matter of United

States versus Daron Wint, 2015-CF1-7047.

8
9

Thank you.

THE COURT:

All counsel and the defendant are

present.

10

BY MR. AGO:

11

Um, just to switch topics for a brief second,

12

detective.

13

that were in the car when Mr. Wint was stopped on the night

14

of the 21st, you have no evidence that Mr. Wint has any

15

connection, prior connection to those people in the car,

16

correct?

Concerning the people in the car, that was in --

17

Other than his brother?

18

What do you mean by that?

19

You said the car.

20

vehicles.

21

No connection to those people?

22

Correct.

23

And then a connection to the front passenger of the

24
25

I was thinking you meant both

The car, correct, no.

truck but not the driver of the truck?


MS. BACH:

Your Honor, objection.

118

THE COURT:

BY MR. AGO:

3
4

Sustained.

You have no information or no evidence that Mr. Wint

is connected to W-1 at all, correct?

MR. AGO:

THE COURT:

BY MR. AGO:

8
9

I'm sorry, did I ask that question?


I frankly don't remember, counsel.

You have no information that Mr. Wint is connected

to W-1 at all?

10

I'm pretty sure you asked it but the answer is no.

11

I'm sorry, did -- what did you say?

12

I'm pretty sure you asked that question and the

13
14

answer is no.
Q

15
16

Okay.
In your affidavit you indicated that the offense

began shortly after 6 p.m. on the night of the 13th.

17

Yes.

18

Correct?

19

What is your basis for saying that?

20

That goes back to the phone records.

21

What do you mean by that?

22

The type of phone communications after six o'clock

23

indicate that, I want to put it possibly they were being held

24

hostage at that time.

25

I mean, but there's -- you've testified to a phone

119

call concerning the delivery of pizza and you've testified as

to a text from Mr. Savopoulos to W-1.

indicates to you that this all started after 6 p.m. on the

night of the 13th?

text.

8
9

But what -- what else

There were communications to the controller, and the

Okay.
So it's the phone call to the controller, correct?

The text to W-1?

10

Correct.

11

And the pizza delivery, correct?

12

Yes.

13

And that's it?

14

MS. BACH:

15

THE COURT:

16

19
20
21

Sustained.

Ask your next question

please.

17
18

Your Honor, objection.

BY MR. AGO:
Q

Your affidavit indicates that more than one person

is involved.
A

What is the basis for that?

It's our belief more than one person is involved

because of the amount of people in the home.

22

That's your theory?

23

Theory, correct.

24

But there's no evidence to support that that you can

25

testify to right now?

120

Not at this time.

Now, concerning the night that Mr. Wint was

arrested, prior to that night Mr. Wint himself had actually

contacted the metropolitan police about turning himself in,

correct?

6
7

I know that the defendant spoke to a detective on

the phone, if that's what you're referring to.

In order to turn himself in, correct?

Well, it was more of an inquisitive thing, finding

10

out what was going on, and the detective gave the defendant

11

advice to turn himself in.

12

13
14

Okay.
And that you also have spoken to people close to Mr.

Wint, in other words, a brother and his girlfriend, correct?

15

Yes.

16

And both of those people, before Mr. Wint was

17

arrested, had contacted the metropolitan police and said Mr.

18

Wint wants to turn himself in, correct?

19

What is the timeframe you're talking about?

20

Prior to his arrest on the -- late night of the

21

21st?

22

Yes, that's correct.

23

And then when you were -- and this is -- and you

24

were on the phone with that brother immediately before he was

25

arrested on the 21st?

121

MS. BACH:

THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

BY MR. AGO:

Objection.
Myself --

Sustained.

Well, the brother was speaking to the police at that

moment saying Mr. Wint wanted to turn himself in and where --

and asking where to go, correct?

MS. BACH:

THE COURT:

Your Honor, same objection.


Overruled to that objection.

10

THE WITNESS:

11

BY MR. AGO:

12

Yes.

And before they could get to where the police were

13

directing him to go the marshal service stopped and arrested

14

him, correct?

15

16

That is correct.
(Thereupon, the Defendant and Defense Counsel

17

conferred; off the record).

18

MR. AGO:

19

THE COURT:

20

Redirect, counsel.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION

21
22

Nothing further, thank you, Your Honor.

BY MS. BACH:
Q

Detective, let's just start where we left off.

Did

23

any law enforcement officer ever speak directly with Mr. Wint

24

and Mr. Wint said he wanted to turn himself in?

25

No.

122

1
2

And after the murder of the four individuals did Mr.

Wint leave the jurisdiction and go to New York?

Yes.

And to be clear, how was Mr. Wint arrested in this

case?

He was arrested by the U.S. Marshal MPD task force

on Rhode Island Avenue in the small compact vehicle.

So he didn't turn himself in?

Correct.

10

The front passenger in the truck that Mr. Ago was

11

asking you about, did that front passenger tell you who gave

12

him the cash for the over 13 thousand dollars in money

13

orders?

14

Yes.

15

Who?

16

The defendant, Daron.

17

And did that front seat passenger indicate what

18

denomination the bills were in when he gave him the over 13

19

thousand dollars in cash for the money orders?

20

One hundred dollar bills.

21

Did the front seat passenger in the truck tell you

22

who gave him the over seven thousand dollars in cash that was

23

in the truck?

24

Yeah.

25

Who?

123

The defendant, Daron Wint.

The front seat passenger in the truck tell you who

gave him the over 10 thousand dollars or who had the over 10

thousand dollars that was used to obtain the money orders

that were in the vehicle with Mr. Wint?

Yes.

Who?

The defendant Daron Wint.

And what was the denomination of those items?

10

One hundred dollar bills.

11

Now, Mr. Ago was asking you questions about phone

12

records and your investigation.

Are the phone records the

13

only tools that you've used in this investigation?

14

No.

15

All right, let's jump back to W-1, why was W-1

16

transported down to the police station as opposed to driving

17

himself?

18
19
20
21

Because his vehicle was seized as evidence, and he

was questioned at the police station.


Q

Um, was W-1 the only car that was inside of the

yellow tape?

22

No.

23

Was anybody allowed to go inside of the yellow tape

24
25

and take their cars?


A

No.

124

Was W-1 --

Well, let me say not to my knowledge, no.

Was W-1 under arrest when he was interviewed?

No, he was not.

Was W-1 ever told that he was a suspect?

No.

Now, there were some questions by Mr. Ago about the

changes in what W-1 stated, and I want to make sure that this

is clear.

10

Initially W-1 said that he was called on the

morning of May 14th.

That what he said initially?

11

Yes.

12

But in actuality he had also received a text the

13

night before?

14

That's correct.

15

Was this confirmed when the police looked at W-1's

16

phone?

17

Yes.

18

And did W-1 freely let the police look at his phone?

19

Yes.

20

Um, at some point W-1 said that the money was

21

provided, um, to W-1 in a manila envelope; is that right?

22

Yeah.

23

And I guess did W-1 later correct it that it was

24

handed to him in one fashion, then it was put in a red bag

25

and then it was left in a manila envelope?

125

Yes, the last version, yeah.

Now, there were some questions about the text

message and the timing when W-1 sent a text message with the

photographs of the money.

indicate that that text message was sent, do you recall?

What time does your warrant

Let me refer to it to be exact.

And I believe it's paragraph 18.

It refers to it at 9:00 a.m.

Does it say approximately 9:00 a.m.?

10

Approximately 9:00 a.m.

11

Do you know the specific time sitting here today?

12

Approximately 9:00 a.m. I would say.

13

If I showed you a photograph of that text would that

14
15

help you recall the specific time the photograph was center?
A

16

Yeah.
MS. BACH:

I'm passing up to the witness

17

Government's exhibit five.

18

defense and I'm providing a copy to the Court.

19
20
21

I've provided a copy to the

BY MS. BACH:
Q

Is that a photograph of the text message photograph

that was sent by W-1 to W-2?

22

Yes.

23

And at the top where it's sort of cut off can you

24

tell approximately or can you tell what time that was sent

25

from?

126

Yes, it says today, 9:57 a.m.

And underneath the photograph --

3
4

MS. BACH:

Your Honor, we're going to seek to

introduce Government's exhibit five.

THE COURT:

MS. BACH:

THE COURT:

that's both pages?

MS. BACH:

10
11

Yes.
Any objection?

To exhibit five and

Yes.

MR. AGO:

The photograph and the time, no objection,

Your Honor.

12
13

Are you offering it now?

THE COURT:

The objection to the second page, if

there's not I'm going to admit the exhibit.

14

MR. AGO:

15

THE COURT:

There's none.
All right, it will be received.

16

(Thereupon, Government's Exhibit Number

17

Five was received into evidence).

18
19
20

BY MS. BACH:
Q

Um, and just so it's clear, detective, W-1 text with

the photograph:

My job is insane, don't show anyone.

21

That's correct.

22

And W-2 text back:

23

Yeah.

24

And W-1 text:

25

That's correct.

WTF?

That's the package I had to pick up?

127

W-2 text:

What, what is it for?

Correct?

That's correct.

W-1 text:

That's correct.

W-2, excuse my language, text:

I guess this auction?

Damn, I wonder how

much it is?

That is correct.

And then W-1 text:

10

That's correct.

11

Okay, and then it continues on for two more lines.

12
13

40?

So, that was the text that's referred to in the


affidavit; is that correct?

14

Yes.

15

So even though the affidavit indicates that the

16

photo only shows what appears to be two bundles of cash, um,

17

W-1 actually indicates that it's 40?

18

That's correct.

19

Have you learned anything in your investigation that

20

shows that generally W-1 had access to the home of the

21

Savopoulos family?

22

No.

23

Did he have keys to open the garage?

24

No.

25

How did -- what is your understanding from your

128

investigation as to how it was that W-1 was able to enter the

home on May 14th?

3
4

W-1 answered the garage on May 14th, because the

garage was open.

When W-1 was interviewed it was on May 14th?

Yes.

Did W-1 have a bunch of hundred dollar bills on him?

No.

The video that you observes of W-1 and the other

10

employee at the bank, have you seen that video before?

11

I've seen still photographs.

12

Did W-1 in any of those photographs appear to hide

13

his face from the camera that was right over his head?

14

No.

15

Now, I believe that Mr. Ago asked you, the

16

individual who was with W-1 at the bank, did you have an

17

opportunity to talk to that individual as well about what had

18

occurred, do you remember those questions?

19

Yes.

20

And you indicated there was nothing inconsistent

21

between what that individual said and what W-1 said, correct?

22

That's correct.

23

Okay, just to be clear, the other individual who was

24

with W-1 at the bank, did that individual think that W-1's

25

bag was a different color than red?

Do you remember?

129

I don't recall.

Um, when W-1 was interviewed by the police did W-1

indicate whether or not Mr. Savopoulos provided a reason as

to why W-1 should leave the money in the vehicle and then

just go on his way?

6
7
8
9

I don't recall a reason but that was the specific

instruction.
Q

Did W -- or did Mr. Savopoulos indicate whether he

was doing anything at that precise moment that you recall?

10

No, I don't recall.

11

Um, now, you were asked about what W-1 did for Mr.

12

Savopoulos.

13

kinds of errands did he do?

14

In addition to driving Mr. Savopoulos what other

He ran all kind of assorted errands.

Purchasing

15

small objects, and gas and getting gas and picking up things,

16

yeah.

17

18

Did he assist Mr. Savopoulos in getting the testing

and the inspection testing done on some of the vehicles?

19

As far as I know, yeah.

20

Um, and did W-1 always drive Mr. Savopoulos to work?

21

I can't say a hundred percent of the time but I know

22
23

the majority of the time.


Q

With respect to the red Mosler, um, there was a

24

piece of paper work that was recovered, I think Mr. Ago

25

showed you a picture relating to the registration for the

130

1
2
3

Mosler, do you remember those questions?


A

Yes, it was on the evidence inventory, I mean the

search warrant return inventory.

When -- did W-1 have the keys to the Mosler?

Not to my knowledge, no.

All right, and at the time of the fire at 3201

Woodland where was the Mosler parked?

It was parked in the garage.

Did W-1 provide law enforcement with a full

10

accounting of where he was on May 13th and 14th?

11

Yeah.

12

And has that been corroborated?

13

Yes.

14
15

MR. AGO:

prevented me from exploring this.

16
17

THE COURT:

20
21
22
23
24
25

Not completely, counsel.

Objection's

overruled.

18
19

Your Honor, I would object, the Court

BY MS. BACH:
Q

Just generally through what sources has it been

corroborated?
A

Through himself and his phone, the locations of his

phone being used.


Q

Have you found anything that is inconsistent with

his account of his whereabouts?


A

No.

131

Have you learned anything in your investigation to

show that he was at the Savopoulos home on May 13th and 14th

other than during that short timeframe when he delivered the

cash?

Repeat the question.

Sure.

Other than the short period of time on May

13th and 14th when W-1 delivered the cash did you find any

evidence indicating that he was at the home any other time on

those two days?

10
11
12

To deliver the cash on May 14th, that short period

of time, no.
Q

Now there were questions by Mr. Ago about who

13

specifically knew about the money that was being obtained,

14

and I think you indicated that the folks who knew about the

15

money were Mr. Savopoulos, W-1, W-2, the other employee and

16

the controller; is that what you indicated?

17

Yes.

18

Okay.

19

Um, in addition, the individual who directed Mr.

20

Savopoulos to get the cash knew about the money, correct?

21

MR. AGO:

22

THE COURT:

23

THE WITNESS:

24

BY MS. BACH:

25

Objection.
Overruled.
Yes.

Now, Mr. Ago asked you questions about nothing

132

recovered from Mr. Wint was taken from the Savopoulos home;

do you remember those questions?

Yeah.

Okay, the 40 thousand dollars in cash that was

inside of the Mosler, would you consider that being taken

from the Savopoulos home?

MR. AGO:

THE COURT:

Objection, Your Honor.


You want to rephrase, counsel, identify

the Mosler?

10

BY MS. BACH:

11

The Mosler was parked where?

12

In the garage.

13

And the garage was attached to?

14

The house.

15

Okay, so the 40 thousand dollars, um, that was

16

missing, um, would you consider that as coming from the home?

17

Yes.

18

Okay.

19

Yes.

20

And was approximately 30 thousand dollars recovered

21
22
23
24
25

from Mr. Wint or associated with Mr. Wint?


A

At the time of his arrest and other instance, yes,

that's correct, in excess of 30 thousand dollars.


Q

And is that consistent with what was taken from the

Mosler in the garage that was attached to the home?

133

Yes.

There were a bunch of questions about testing on

certain items of evidence.

Has the ATF completed all of the

DNA and fingerprint testing at this point?

Not at this point.

So, they haven't completed the testing on the duct

tape, have they?

MR. AGO:

THE COURT:

10
11

The questions Mr. Ago -THE COURT:

No, I'm not -- you may ask the question

just in a different form.

14
15

Counsel, rephrase your question.

BY MS. BACH:

12
13

I'd ask for just the form.

BY MS. BACH:
Q

The duct tape that you were asked about --

16

THE COURT:

17

BY MS. BACH:

18

Ask him whether he knows.

Do you know whether or not any -- do you know

19

whether or not the duct tape has been processed at this point

20

for prints and DNA?

21

I do not know completely.

22

And is it your understanding that the dog door has

23

not -- the processing is not finished?

24

25

finished.

I know all -- all of the processing has not been

134

And is it your understanding that with respect to

the water bottle that was recovered that the fingerprint

testing has not been finished?

That's correct.

And is it your understanding that the testing on the

baseball bat has not been finished?

That's correct.

And is it your understanding that the testing on the

9
10
11
12
13

swords has been finished?


A

All of the swords, correct, that's correct, has not

been -Q

So we just don't know what those test results are

going to show?

14

Not completely.

15

The lime green vest that was recovered in the

16

Porsche, were there any similar lime green vests recovered a

17

the home of the Savopoulos family?

18

Yes.

19

In the course of your investigation, you know

20

approximately how many items of evidence that have been

21

recovered?

22

23
24
25

I can't give you an exact amount but it's -- it's in

excess of a hundred items.


Q

And do you know specifically when and where all of

those items are recovered?

135

1
2
3

Yes, around the time that the authorities were

notified the house was on fire.


Q

Sure, I'm sorry, that was a bad question.

I guess

my question is can you sit here today and tell us every item

of evidence that was recovered?

No.

In the course of your investigation did you have the

opportunity to determine whether Mr. Wint was working in May

of 2015?

10

MR. AGO:

11

THE COURT:

12

Objection.
I'm going to sustain that.

Ask your

next question, counsel.

13

BY MS. BACH:

14

15

2015?

16

Not to my knowledge.

17

Now, W-2 was also interviewed; is that right?

18

Yes.

19

Who provided information leading the police to W-2?

20

W-1.

21

When -- W-3 was also interviewed about the Porsche;

22

Did Mr. Wint have any sources of income in May of

is that right?

23

Yes.

24

And W-3 -- I want to be clear, did W-3 always

25

observe the driver of the Porsche or at some point was W-3

136

1
2
3
4

only observing the Porsche?


A

W-3 observed both, the vehicle and the driver at

certain different points.


Q

Um, and I'm going to show you a copy of your Jencks

packet that we've marked as Government's exhibit six.

already been provided to the defense.

you to page nine.

8
9
10

It's

I just want to refer

The -- Mr. Ago asked you some questions about the


description that W-3 gave of the man in the Porsche.

Do you

remember those questions?

11

Yeah.

12

And here you have BM, I'm assuming that's black

13

male, right?

14

Yes.

15

And then it says dark, slim, medium to late 20s,

16

early 30s.

17

Complexion.

18

And is W-1 dark complected?

19

Yes.

20

W-1?

21

I'm sorry, W-1, no.

22

And did W-3 indicate what the driver of that Porsche

23

What does that dark refer to?

was wearing when W-3 observed the driver of the Porsche?

24

Yes.

25

And what was W -- what did W-3 say the driver was

137

1
2
3
4

wearing?
A

It was a dark-colored top with the neon green

construction and visibility vest on top of that, over.


Q

There was questions about the pizzas that were

recovered from the bedroom where the tree adult decedents

were located.

pizzas had been eaten?

Is it your understanding that only one of the

Yes.

So the other one hadn't been eaten?

10

Yes, one had not been eaten at all and the other one

11

had been eaten; I think approximately three-quarters had been

12

eaten of the pizza.

13

And then with respect to the fire department, you

14

indicated that sometimes the fire department moves evidence

15

so that they can extinguish the fire; is that right?

16

Yes.

17

Did the fire department ever indicate to you that

18

they moved any pizza boxes?

19

No.

20

Were you on the scene of that crime?

21

Yes.

22

Can you think of any reason why the fire department

23

would have had to move those pizza boxes to extinguish those

24

fires?

25

MR. AGO:

Objection, relevance.

138

THE COURT:

BY MS. BACH:

3
4

Sustained.

There were questions about a boot print on the back

of the door.

Do you remember those questions?

On the side french doors, yes.

Yes.

7
8
9
10
11

And there were questions about whether or not Mr.


Wint had a boot similar to that print; do you remember that?
A

If we had recovered any boots similar to that from

Mr. Wint, yes, I remember.


Q

Have you more recently in your investigation, um,

12

determined what you believe to be the source of that boot

13

print?

14

Yeah.

15

What was the source of that boot print?

16

It was the fire fighter on the scene that day.

17

And did that fire fighter, when some of the initial

18

paperwork was prepared in this case, was that fire fighter at

19

work or was that fire fighter on leave?

20
21
22
23

He was at work that day, but he was injured that

day, and then he was off work ever since that particular day.
Q

And so that fire fighter wasn't interviewed right

away; is that right?

24

That's correct.

25

That side french door that you were talking about,

139

in addition to that boot print, is it the kind of door that

has a lock up at the top of it that actually secures the

french doors?

Best of my recollection, yeah.

And can you tell us, um, was there any observed

damage to one of the panes of glass up near that lock?

Yes, one of the panes of glass was broken.

Um, have you also learned, detective, that there

was, um, some sort of security monitoring at the home --

10

well, not monitoring, that certain records were kept by a

11

security company with respect to that home?

12

Yes.

13

And --

14

MS. BACH:

15

BY MS. BACH:

16
17

Court's indulgence.

Have you learned that on May 13th, 2015, that a

glass break was recorded by that security system?

18

Yes, I believe it was 5:56 p.m.

19

And is that part of what went into your calculus in

20
21
22
23

determining when it was that the family was being held?


A

Yes.
MR. AGO:

Is this beyond the scope, Your Honor, so

the Court --

24

THE COURT:

Well, approach.

25

(Bench conference).

140

THE COURT:

Why isn't that beyond the scope?

He

asked about the boot print I think to see whether it was

linked to the defendant.

MS. BACH:

I think he was arguing that the boot

print, the boot print, Your Honor, well, I think he was going

to try to argue that they were somebody else's boots that was

left on the door, but regardless this was more relevant to

his questions about the phone records, we objected as beyond

the scope, and is seeking discovery, all of the questions

10

about, so the only basis that you have for concluding they

11

were being held at this time was the phone records.

12

objected, we were overruled, so that was just to show there

13

is another piece.

14

THE COURT:

We

All right, counsel, I do think because

15

you did ask the questions about what his basis for believing

16

that the series of events started at six o'clock was, and

17

then after he told you then you enumerated all the three or

18

four facts that you knew of that -- that formed the basis, so

19

to the extent that this -- these records from the monitoring

20

company go to that I think it's appropriate.

21

MS. BACH:

22

MR. AGO:

I'm not going any further, Your Honor.


My point, Your Honor, is I was asking

23

those questions and my recollection is that the Court

24

sustained the Government's objection to some of them, I

25

wasn't allowed to inquire further about the basis for the 6

141

p.m.

MS. BACH:

MR. AGO:

THE COURT:

Initially.
And so -No, I thought that there were three -- I

think there were three facts that he gave.

because the last one was the 9:14 telephone call I think

which I thought sort of went beyond six o'clock anyway, and

there were two other ones including the communication to the

controller.

10

MS. BACH:

11

THE COURT:

One was the --

And the text.


And the text.

And so -- so, no, I did

12

-- I may not have let you go as far as you wanted but I did

13

allow you to explore his basis for concluding that six

14

o'clock is when the series of -- of events began.

15

MS. BACH:

16

(Close bench conference).

17

THE COURT:

18

MS. BACH:

19

THE COURT:
excused?

22
23

Objection's overruled.
I don't have anything further, Your

Honor.

20
21

Thank you.

All right.

Then may the detective be

Counsel.
MS. BACH:

Oh, as far as I'm concerned, yes, Your

Honor.

24

THE COURT:

Very well.

25

Do you have -- and you may be excused.

Just leave

142

those on counsel's desk.

THE WITNESS:

(Thereupon, the witness was excused at 3:33 p.m.)

THE COURT:

MS. BACH:

THE COURT:

Do you have any other witnesses?


No, Your Honor.
All right.

Does the defense have any

witness or any evidence, counsel?

MR. AGO:

THE COURT:

10

Thank you, Your Honor.

No, ma'am.
Very well, then I'll hear from the

Government.

11

MS. BACH:

Your Honor, we would submit that the

12

testimony by the detective, along with the affidavit and the

13

supplement to the affidavit, more than clearly establish

14

probable cause and the fact rises to the level of substantial

15

probability.

16

What we have is forensic evidence that puts Mr. Wint

17

in the home at the time that the four individuals were being

18

held captive.

19

in the vehicle that was stolen from the scene, and we can

20

link Mr. Wint to 30 thousand dollars in cash, which is

21

significant because he had no source of income, and the money

22

was provided by the bank, it's not -- it's not as strong as

23

serial numbers but the bank said we gave four hundred

24

one-hundred-dollar bills, and that's the money that Mr. Wint

25

has.

We then have the following day Mr. Wint's DNA

He has 11 hundred of it on May 16th and then he's

143

arrested with the remaining money either in the vehicle or in

the accompanying vehicle.

Given the forensic evidence, as well as the evidence

tying him to the stolen Porsche, um, and the money, we think

that we've established by substantial probability his

presence and involvement in these crimes.

7
8

If the Court has specific questions I'm happy to


address them.

THE COURT:

10

MR. AGO:

Counsel.
Thank you, Your Honor.

We'd ask the Court

11

not to find probable cause in this case.

12

case boils down to three operative facts.

13

front passenger of the truck that was stopped simultaneously

14

with the car that Mr. Wint was in on the late night of the

15

21st of May.

16

The Government's
Number one is the

That person is the sole source of the information

17

that that person received money from Mr. Wint.

18

the Court to consider the fact that that person's motive in

19

this case stems from the fact that one of the passengers in

20

the car indicated that that person, not Mr. Wint, was

21

directing the car passenger to buy money orders, and

22

providing, um, cash, that person, not Mr. Wint, was

23

providing, um, cash to the, um, to the one in the car.

24

Honor.

25

I would ask

Your

So at the time that the police are interviewing this

144

witness in the front passenger seat of the truck, what the

police have in possession is money orders that are

constructively in the possession of that person, closest to

that person, cash that is closest to that person, a statement

from a witness in the car saying that it received cash, um,

from that person in order to buy money orders.

And so, um, I would ask the Court to consider that

and not to credit that person's testimony because that person

is in possession of what arguably is the proceeds of this

10
11

incident.
The second operative piece of evidence, Your Honor,

12

is the fact that there is DNA recovered from a construction

13

vest in the Porsche, coupled with the third operative piece

14

of evidence which is DNA from, um, leftover pizza or a pizza

15

crust inside the home.

16

This detective, um, has repeated a statement by the

17

DNA analyst that doesn't speak to the strength of that DNA

18

evidence, Your Honor.

19

And what the Government is asking the Court to do is

20

hold Mr. Wint based on that evidence alone, and it must be

21

stronger, I would submit to the Court, than a conclusory

22

statement that is secondhand in nature.

23

It is one thing for the detective to come in and

24

testify as to what it heard from witnesses that are

25

eyewitnesses or ear witnesses.

It's another thing for the

145

detective to be able to essentially offer this Court expert

testimony to, um, create a link between Mr. Wint and the

home.

other evidence linking Mr. Wint to this case.

nothing.

Because the reality is, Your Honor, that there is no


There is

No physical evidence, nothing.


His conduct in this case is that he went to New York

some days after the case, I believe is the testimony of

Detective Owens, and returned to Washington, D.C., and was in

communication, either firsthand, which is I believe what the

10

detective testified when I was questioning him, or

11

secondhand, either through the person in the car or some

12

other person, his girlfriend, that he wanted to turn himself

13

in, Your Honor.

14

That is conduct that undermines consciousness of

15

guilt, that is conduct that is consistent with innocence in

16

this case.

17

The Government has a lot of physical evidence but

18

none of it links Mr. Wint to this offense other than the

19

conclusory statements that the detective provides which don't

20

have sufficient detail for the Court to rely on, Your Honor.

21

And the burden is on the Government to establish the

22

evidence, um, um, they're asking the Court to find

23

substantial probability, at minimum probable cause.

24

burden is on them to do that before the Court imposes a 1325

25

hold or sustains a 1325 hold in this case.

The

146

Concerning the, um, um, legal argument, Your Honor,

as the Court notes the Government is, um -- the single count

before the Court is first degree felony murder.

and because this is an aspect of the proof that the Court --

that the Government is required to establish, even at this

stage, albeit at the probable cause level, the Government is

required to establish that the, um, person either, um, Mr.

Wint either killed Mr. Savopoulos or was committing a felony

that supports felony murder, um, and somebody else also

At trial,

10

committing that felony, participating in that felony, killed

11

Mr. Savopoulos, essentially that's what the Government is

12

required to establish.

13

The Government must establish, though, that a

14

person's accomplice who kills, in this case Mr. Savopoulos,

15

did not do so in a separate and distinct act to satisfy the

16

accomplice's own ends.

17

In this case the Government's only piece of evidence

18

that Mr. Wint was inside that home is the weak evidence, that

19

weak DNA evidence from the 13th but nothing from the 14th and

20

nothing to speak to whether or not Mr. Wint was even present

21

on the 14th or if there were, even if the Court were to think

22

that he is involved in the underlying felony in this case,

23

that an accomplice on the 14th didn't do this to satisfy his

24

or her own ends.

25

it's a probable cause determination, on the Government to

And that the burden is still, even though

147

1
2

establish that at this point, Your Honor.


And for those reasons I would ask the Court not to

find probable cause in terms of my argument on release as far

as the strength of the evidence.

the strength of the evidence, because even if there is

probable cause, because the evidence at this stage is weak

enough I think that the Court should exercise its discretion

and release Mr. Wint based on that as well.

9
10
11
12

Not the social factors but

Thank you, Your Honor.


THE COURT:

Counsel.

Rebuttal with regard to his

legal argument.
MS. BACH:

And, Your Honor, just with respect to the

13

legal argument, the way the complaint reads, is that Mr.

14

Savopoulos was killed during the course of the kidnaping.

15

What we know is that Mr. Wint was in the home on May 17th

16

[sic] when the pizza is ordered and then on the 14th, um, we

17

would argue the evidence shows that he was there after the

18

delivery of the money, and the Porsche is taken on the 14th.

19

So I think that clearly shows he's there throughout

20
21

the entire -- entirety of the event.


THE COURT:

Well, the Court finds that the

22

Government has established probable cause to believe that the

23

-- or to find rather that the defendant committed first

24

degree felony murder while armed.

25

Um, the testimony establishes that at or around six

148

o'clock in the evening of the 13th that, um, Mr. Savopoulos

was communicating with his controller, um, about getting this

money.

that evening.

And the pizza was delivered I believe around 9:14

The testimony about the records from the monitoring

company, um, shows that there was a glass break, um, at 5:56

on 13, together with the call from Mr. Savopoulos to his --

his controller asking about the money establishes to the

Court that there was something amiss, and that there -- these

10
11

people were being held against their will.


You have Mrs. Savopoulos or a woman from the

12

residence calling the pizza establishment saying to, um, that

13

she was nursing a child and couldn't come to the -- to the

14

door, and for the employee to ring the bell and then leave.

15
16
17

Um, the employee saw no light on, saw just the porch
light on I believe in the -- in the house.
And so those -- that evidence along with the manner

18

in which Mr. Savopoulos asked his employee W-1 to deliver

19

this money to the, um, to the residence on the morning of the

20

14th is further evidence in the Court's view that these

21

people were being held against their will.

22

person to come to the garage to leave the money on the seat

23

of the car, and then to go.

24
25

He directed the

Um, so that establishes that these people were being


detained in the Court's view.

149

The testimony from the detective, although he was

not able to testify about statistics, about random match

probabilities and the like, was that he talked with the, um,

the DNA analyst and that the pizza from -- the crust of a

piece of pizza that was found in the second floor bedroom,

um, contained a single source DNA profile.

source DNA profile, according to the detective, who talked

with the DNA analyst, was consistent with the, um, the DNA

profile of the defendant that was in CODIS.

10

That single

In addition, after the defendant was arrested

11

another DNA sample was taken from the defendant and that

12

sample as well was consistent, um, according to the

13

detective's testimony with the DNA, the single source DNA

14

profile on the crust of this pizza that was found in the

15

bedroom.

16

Um, and, um, so that establishes to the Court's

17

satisfaction that the defendant, um, was in that property

18

after 9:14 on the night of the 13th.

19

But that's not all the evidence that there is

20

because the evidence is that the decedent 's Porsche I

21

believe was seen being driven from the residence, being -- it

22

was seen being driven on New York Avenue after the fire

23

department had been called to the residence.

24

was seen being driven erratically on New York Avenue.

25

That Porsche

When the police discovered the Porsche it was in

150

another county, and recovered from that -- that Porsche was a

lime green construction-type vest.

the detective, um, had a mixture of DNA on it.

DNA consistent with the DNA of Mr. Savopoulos, with that of

another individual, and there was a partial profile of the

defendant that was consistent, um, with the DNA contained in

that mixture.

8
9

That vest, according to


There was the

Um, in addition to that, regardless of whether he


later came back to the -- to the District and had had

10

conversations with the police or others about turning himself

11

in, the evidence shows that several days after, um, or within

12

a couple of days after the, um, the bodies were discovered,

13

that the defendant did leave this jurisdiction.

14

he did, um, come back into the District of Columbia he was

15

driving in a car, albeit with other people, in which there

16

were money orders amounting to approximately 10 thousand

17

dollars.

18

Um, and when

Um, and that car was being driven together with a

19

truck in which, um, the police, law enforcement I'll say,

20

found, um, about 30 thousand dollars, about seven thousand

21

dollars in cash, and approximately 13 thousand dollars in --

22

in money orders.

23

Now I would note for the record that W-1, um,

24

indicated that this was 40 thousand dollars that he had been

25

given by Mr. Savopoulos's, um, employee to take -- to put

151

inside the car at the house.

recovered, um, a total of about 30 thousand dollars from --

between these two vehicles that the marshals stopped on the

night that Mr., um, Wint was arrested.

And so the law enforcement

And I'll also note that on the 16th of May, which

was two days after these decedents were discovered in a

burning house, the defendant paid a thousand dollars in cash,

um, to a legal establishment.

Um, the other thing that is important to the Court

10

about the funds, the cash at least that was found, um, in the

11

-- in the truck that was traveling together with this car in

12

which the defendant was, um, riding at the time of his

13

arrest, was that the -- the cash was in denominations of a

14

hundred dollar -- a hundred dollar bills, and the testimony

15

was that the -- the funds that were given to Mr. Savopoulos's

16

employee were given in denominations of a hundred dollars.

17

Um, so, um, in the Court's view the Government has

18

established probable cause to believe that, um, the

19

defendant, um, committed first degree felony murder and I

20

would also add that regardless of whether or not this

21

passenger in the truck may have had some -- some motive to

22

say that Mr. Wint gave him the money to get the money orders,

23

the fact is that he did tell law enforcement that the monies

24

that he received to get these money orders was given to him

25

by Mr. Wint, and that -- those representations by that

152

individual further corroborate the evidence that has been

established.

So I do find that the Government has established

probable cause to find that the defendant committed first

degree felony murder committed during the course of the

kidnaping.

And, so I will hold him under 1325 (a).

Counsel, shall we set a felony status conference

date?

I think we have to set a date no longer than 60 days

out since he's going to be held.

10

MS. BACH:

11

THE COURT:

12

MS. BACH:

13

THE COURT:

14

MS. BACH:

15

THE COURT:

Mid September.
September.
Late September?
What's today, the 20th?
Does the Court want a Friday?
Um, we could set it for the 18th --

16

indulge me for one moment.

17

the 25th.

18

MS. MILLER:

19

MS. BACH:

20

THE COURT:

21

We could set it for the 18th or

Twenty-fifth.
Twenty-fifth is fine.
Twenty-fifth.

Let's make it at 9:45

that day if you all are available.

22

MS. BACH:

Yes, Your Honor.

23

THE COURT:

Thank you.

24

MS. BACH:

The Court --

25

THE COURT:

Thank you.

153

1
2

MS. BACH:
the exhibits?

Does the Court want to keep that copy of

You can.

THE COURT:

You know, I don't, I -- I -- I already

have an unnumbered copy of the affidavit and the supplements

so I'm going to give you --

MS. BACH:

THE COURT:

MS. BACH:

There's no four.
Oh, you know what -We don't need them, I just wanted to

clean it up if you don't want them.

10

THE COURT:

11

MS. BACH:

12

THE COURT:

13

(Thereupon, the proceedings were adjourned at 3:52

14
15

You need this five, though?


No, I don't need any of it.
Thank you.

p.m.)
*

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

154

CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER

2
3

I, Loretta E. Kaczorowski, an Official Court

Reporter for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia,

do hereby certify that I reported, by machine shorthand, in

my official capacity, the proceedings had and testimony

adduced, upon the preliminary hearing in the case of the

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA versus DARON D. WINT, Criminal

Action Number 2015-CF1-7047, in said court, on the 20th day

10
11

of July, 2015.
I further certify that the foregoing 154 pages

12

constitute the official transcript of said proceedings, as

13

taken from my machine shorthand notes, together with the

14

backup audio of said proceedings.

15
16

In witness whereof, I have hereto subscribed my


name, this the 28th day of July, 2015.

17
18
19
20
21

__________________________________
Official Court Reporter

22
23
24
25

155