Accused Killer Divorce Attorney Evidentiary Hearing — Opening Statements

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: We're here for the court to deal with three specific motions as it relates to this case now that the Darbert's been discussed. There's a motion to suppress, which is really eight motions to suppress within one on various angles. The state has responded to each of the eight branches of the motion. What I'm going to discuss today in this opening statement refers to one of them, specifically the motions of press dealing with the Stafford Law Office, the search that occurred on April 22nd of 2014. The defense has alleged that when law enforcement entered the office, law enforcement searched the office prior to obtaining a warrant to then search the office. They have not challenged the warrant. They have not challenged the search after the obtaining of a warrant. They've challenged the actions of law enforcement before the warrant was obtained. And so that's what the state will focus on today. The state's going to call special agent, retired special agent, Gregory Curtis of the FBI, who was assisting with the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Office investigating the bomb threats that were made to the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court on July 10th of 2012. That investigation was still happening, and what you're going to hear is testimony from Special Agent Curtis, where law enforcement had an individual who was working at Stafford Law, who was informing with them, and told them that day on April 22nd, 2014, that the place was going crazy. They were shredding documents, and they took Greg Moore out to lunch, and people were searching, and people were shredding. And the place was crazy. This person told law enforcement. Law enforcement felt there were exigent circumstances, so they went in to Stafford Law and informed everyone to stop doing what they were doing until they could get a warrant. And you'll hear Special Agent Curtis, he was there. He's the one who told them. Everyone stop. He did not search anything. He ensured the destruction of evidence ceased. And then when the warrant came, which did come, an actual search then occurred. You'll hear that from Special Agent Curtis himself. And we'll talk about a couple of things that were seized at that time. That will be the testimony with regard to that branch of the suppression motion, and there will be no reason to suppress anything from that search. And you've got the warrant. The warrant is actually state certificate five, which has been submitted to the court already. The warrant itself describes the exigent circumstances in the affidavit and the warrant itself. So the judge who signed that understood the exigency of the matter, which clearly occurred before they got the warrant. Nothing in that warrant, nothing in the affidavit, comes from any type of search that occurred at the office prior to getting the warrant. It just didn't happen. It did not happen in the way the defense says so. So that's going to be our testimony. We're going to proffer with the first witness. The second witness judge will be Special Agent Heather Carl with BCI. Her testimony will relate to the other motions, speedy trial and pre-indictment delay. And what you'll hear from Special Agent Carl is what BCI did when they got this case. You are aware of the long procedural history with regard to this defendant. He was originally indicted in 2015 with regard to bomb threats. That expanded in subsequent indictments to cover some crimes related to his interactions with his client, his legal client, Beliza Sherman, on March 24th of 2013, the day she was murdered. He was never charged with any violent offense towards Alicia Sherman. After those cases were resolved, the murder investigation continued. And then BCI officially picked it up in 2021. They were brought in to consult in 2018. They picked it up in 2021 and then began investigating again. You'll hear that from Special Agent Carl. How they began, what they did, the fact that they executed 120 search warrants of their own. The evidence that they gathered, new evidence that they found, and it gave a new understanding of the case. Specifically, the evidence they found pointed and proved matters of consciousness of guilt that did not exist. The evidence that were not known to law enforcement in 2013, 14, 15, 16, until they obtained a specific document in 2023. And that document was the Verizon customer notes related to the Stafford Law Office Verizon phone account. You'll hear a testimony, Judge. A lot of times, cold cases are broken through DNA testing that, you know, you find some DNA on an item that was never tested, or you have advancements in DNA and that sort of thing. That is not what happened here. What happened here was the obtaining of certain documents, one of which was these customer notes, which had not been obtained by any law enforcement until 2023. And they gave an understanding as to timing of when things were happening and what actually was happening behind the scenes that nobody knew until 2023. You'll hear that testimony from Special Agent Carl. Specifically, what they discovered was a pattern of the hiding of and destruction of evidence. By Greg Moore and by others helping him, allowing him to do this. What you'll hear, Judge, is that, and this actually relates to Special Agent Curtis's testimony. He's going to testify about the search of the Stafford Law Office. So, one of the things that was found in the office that day was on Vince Stafford's desk. A motion for in-camera inspection of Greg Moore's cell phone records filed with the court on December 27, 2012. Why is this important? This motion was sent to Greg Moore, who was the target of that investigation. And it's actually on the document itself. There's a certificate of service saying that the prosecutor's office, in a document entitled, State of Ohio v. Gregory Moore, sent it to him. When they searched the office on April 22, 2014, that document was sitting on Vince Stafford's desk. It was collected, scanned in, and kept as evidence. Fast forward to when BCI picks up this case. And they are obtaining more information. One of the things they obtained is an email that was sent from one of the Stafford employees to Greg Moore and Ann Fantelli, the other lawyer who worked there, while Joe Stafford was suspended. Dated January 2, 2013, 11.45 a.m. And this employee emailed Greg Moore and Ann Fantelli, saying, We just received a motion for in-camera inspection of cell phone records. And described the content of this motion in this email to Greg Moore and Ann Fantelli. January 2. One of the other things Special Agent Carl was able to do was to take a device that was recovered in that search of the Stafford Law Office in 2014. Joe Stafford's iPhone. You'll hear Special Agent Curtis testify. Mr. Stafford refused to give his code and to allow law enforcement to open his phone and download the contents that day, which was his right. He exercised his right, and the phone was not downloaded that day. And it sat in evidence for over a decade. Until BCI took it and obtained the services of Cellbrite, an outside company, sent the phone to them, paid a fee for them to open the phone. And that happened in 2025. The phone is sent back to BCI. And on this phone, there were a batch of emails. The content of those emails is not on the phone, but the date, time, to and from, and subject line of the emails are on the phone. So, back to what Special Agent Carl's going to testify to. On January 2nd, after that motion comes in and the employee sends an email to Greg and Ann saying, we just got this motion. Well, another email is sent to Joe Stafford. And then other emails are sent. The next day, January 3rd, the Verizon customer notes, which BCI recovered in 2023, show that at 7.20 p.m. on January 3rd, Greg Moore was authorized to get a new phone on that Verizon account. The bomb threat phone, the phone he used to make bomb threats, was never recovered by law enforcement. So, he, law enforcement's coming for information, he gets a new phone. The next day, January 4th, those same Verizon records obtained in 2023 show that Joe Stafford authorized Greg Moore to take over the assumption of liability, the use of a mobile broadband device that Stafford Law had had since 2025 and had never been in his name, in Greg Moore's name, until January 4th, 2013. That's what those records show. Then, back to evidence we already knew, which was Elisa Sherman's phone. It was a recovery on the day of the murder. It was downloaded by Cleveland police back in 2013. And the text messages between her and Greg Moore were all there on her phone. The next day, January 25th. I'm sorry, March 25th, Monday. New information, again, from Stafford, the Verizon customer, showed that on that day, March 25th, the day after Elisa Sherman's been murdered, the Monday of that week, the day this law firm is now learning on and dealing with their client's murder outside their office, someone from Stafford Law called Verizon and tried to cancel that mobile broadband device. Day after the murder. Another item BCI recovered in their investigation were all of the Verizon bills from Verizon that were sent to the Stafford Law office for that account that whole time. And those bills show certain usage of devices. It showed the monthly billed usage of the mobile broadband devices that Stafford Law had. They had two. The one in Greg Moore's name had been used for one gigabyte worth of data transfer that month, March of 2013. Those records also showed that device was then never used again until it was officially canceled in August of 2013. But those records showed that the day after the murder, someone from the office called to cancel this device. Now let's go back to the search of the law office, another item that was recovered, the value of which was not known at the time, was something recovered from Greg Moore's desk on April 22nd of 2014, a receipt for a Verizon broadband device. July of 2010, that's the device that was put in his name in January of 2013. With that was a note. A note that said, Marge, cancel this if Joe Urbans don't need it from their laptops. Marge is the one who the Verizon customer notes show called in to try to cancel that device the morning after Aliza's murder. This is all new information. Additionally, a pattern was developed and discovered. Because another thing that was known at the time, April 1st, a supervisor with the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office sent Greg Moore and Joe Stafford a letter and a grand jury subpoena for communications with Aliza Sherman evidence. The subpoena was dated March 28th of 2013. The letter was dated April 1st, 2013. That was received at Stafford Law, and Joe Stafford's phone, which was not cracked into until last year, showed him getting an email on April 2nd regarding a Cleveland police request for records. Later that day, April 2nd, Joe Stafford's Verizon bill, which was recovered by BCI in their investigation after 2023, showed some calls coming in to him on April 2nd. One was from Greg Moore's wife's phone number. Another was from a Verizon customer rep's number, which coincided with that day, April 2nd, Joe Stafford authorizing Greg Moore to get another new phone. So now the phone he had when Aliza Sherman was murdered is now gone. Never recovered by law enforcement. And no one ever knew that, and when he got rid of it, until these customer notes were found by BCI in 2023. So, that's some of the testimony you'll hear from Special Agent Paul, as to the development of new evidence, a new understanding of efforts to hide evidence, get rid of evidence. When police come looking for it, they get rid of it. And now we know that, which goes to consciousness of guilt is something that police, law enforcement never knew. When all of the grand jury proceedings were happening in 2013, 14, and 15, and 16. And he was never charged with murder at that time. So, all of that is going to go to speedy trial. It's going to go to pre-indictment delay. And there's one other thing I'd like to discuss with regard to speedy trial and pre-indictment delay. This effort to hide evidence and control the narrative. Greg Moore's house was searched after his arrest in Texas last year. One of the items recovered was a computer, laptop computer. On that computer, police, BCI, recovered old BlackBerry recovery files. With a date of May 22, 2014. And this was, these were backup files of Greg Moore's, the phone he had when Lisa Sherman was murdered. His call logs for the month of March and up to April 2, when they stopped. SMS messages during that time frame. And contacts. But there are some items on there that are reflected in his Verizon records. A few cross-circuits and some items that are not. But this was found on his laptop computer. Something he saved for over a decade. And within the text messages to and from Lisa Sherman, there's one missing. A message she sent at 5.16 p.m. The day she's murdered. And she is murdered at precisely 5.20. She is stabbed at precisely 5.23, 5.24. She sent a message at 5.16 to Greg Moore, which is reflected in her phone extraction, saying she's at the door. Why won't you let me in? It is not on his backup. And it was not in text messages he sent to himself and printed up and were found in the office when it was searched in April of 2014. So these are some of the things we want the court to consider as new evidence, a new understanding of the case that occurred when BCI picked up the file in 2021. And finally, I'd like to add, when it comes to pre-indictment delay, one of the major factors that must be considered is whether there is actual prejudice to the defense. We all know kidnapping has a 20-year statute of limitations. Murder has no statute of limitations. So this indictment, last year, indicting him with kidnapping and murder from 2013, is not time-barring. So there's nothing wrong with this as far as statutory law. They're saying they're prejudiced. They will not show this. There's no witness who's not available to them now that would be necessary. There's no prejudice to them. Because one of the things we are going to offer into evidence, we're not going to play it here. I've described it in the motion, and we'll put it on a flash drive for the court, is a press conference that Defense Counsel did the day of the arraignment in this case, last year. After the defendant was arraigned, counsel went outside and spoke with the media for five minutes and six seconds. It was recorded, put online, you can find it today. And we've recorded it for you, and we're going to give it to you in evidence. In that little press conference, Defense Counsel said multiple times, there will be a trial. There will be a trial in this case. They're not saying, this case has taken too long, we can't possibly go to trial, we have actual prejudice. No, they're not saying that. There will be a trial. And the day of the arraignment, they said, we have evidence today that can prove what they're saying is not true. So I ask you, Judge, when you watch this press conference, ask yourself, what changed between the day of arraignment and now, such that they cannot go to trial? They promised a trial then, how is it possible they can't go to trial now? And you will find they won't prove that to you. And with that being said, we look forward to bringing the evidence. [00:22:21] Speaker 2: Thank you. The entirety of the state's case is based on inferences. Inferences that are not based on reality or facts. I'll start with the last piece that the prosecutor wanted to mention. Because I did speak at the arraignment. Because I knew that the state's theory of the case was wrong at that time, just by looking at the indictment. And we didn't have all the discovery that reinforces my belief. But on the day of the indictment, we knew they were wrong. Prosecutors told you today, and I've informed them of this, so it's no surprise to the state. They want to make a big point of this cell phone somehow going missing in January. I tried to explain to them what happened, as would happen with anybody in the United States who's put on notice that they're being investigated for a crime. They would meet with their lawyer. They would meet with their lawyer, and the lawyer, if the lawyer is doing their job, would ask for any evidence that might help the lawyer put the case together. In this case, on that day in January of 2013, a lawyer took the phone of Greg Moore so they could analyze it. The state never asked for the phone. The state, up until 2025, hadn't even done a search warrant for Greg's house. They never did a search warrant for his phone. They never took some of the basic steps that you would take in law enforcement if you're trying to build your case. The most basic of things is that you would go to the defendant's house and see if there's any evidence that would be relevant to the case. You'll hear from witnesses today that they didn't even apply. They didn't even ask for that to happen. And in fact, when this case first started, they never even asked for Greg Moore to sit down and go through a lengthy statement. There was a five-minute phone call they had with him while he was driving to court somewhere. Tell us what happened. We're working. And that was the extent of it. So when he becomes aware that there's charges that might be coming as it relates to this other issue, of course he's going to go talk to the lawyer. Who wouldn't? And of course he's going to follow his lawyer's advice. He wasn't hiding evidence. He wasn't trying to somehow treat a scheme of deception, as the state wants to say. He was doing what any of us in this room would do on that day. That's just an example that I knew was false, that was contained in the affidavit or in the complaint, in the indictment, as far as what the allegation was, as part of the scheme to defraud, that I knew was false. And I have evidence from between here and Daytonville, I would be able to prove that that's the case. So all of these inferential things that they're trying to say, oh, this points to Greg, or this points to this, and somehow it shows some nefarious thinking, it's just somebody acting the way they're supposed to act on that day, and the state doesn't do anything to back it up. That's just one of the examples. The other thing is they try to say that, okay, they go to his house 13 years later and seize a computer, and that computer has backup from his Blackberry from that day. Is that someone trying to hide evidence? This is the first time they ever asked for it. They never went to his house, hey, do you have this? Do you want to look at anything you have here? They didn't ask his permission. They didn't do it by warrant. They didn't do it by demand from the court, order of the court. Here's a man, if obviously you're trying to hide something, you're not going to keep something from 13 years ago that might be related to the case. The pattern's the opposite. So when we look at delay, we have to say, what did the state do or not do that would be normal in the process to be done? The government's conceding today that in 2014, they had knowledge of this device, this Wi-Fi device that they're talking about that was booked into a computer. They had knowledge on that day that it existed. They had knowledge on that day about that device. They didn't get the billing records on that day, which would have been very helpful to them or to us or to somebody because it would have shown that there is no data used on the data in question. So they keep talking about things that just aren't true and want us to imagine that somehow this Wi-Fi device was utilized on what? On a cell phone? They keep talking about all these theories that don't, that can't exist. And there's no proof that it was. And in fact, the evidence would show the contrary. This device had limited or no use that one. But there is a detailed billing record that does exist for other months that would have been quite helpful in this case for the defense because that detailed record would have just debunked everything that they're saying about on a Sunday that this device was used when there's absolutely zero evidence that it was. The state told you today that there's the defense, not prejudice. Well, let's start with the most simple thing. Well, this homicide happened on Palm Sunday. We know that Greg went to church that day. We know that he didn't set up the time for meeting with Eliza. We know that she was the one that needed to come back on that day because there were documents that were necessary. And we know from the records that Greg talked to his dad multiple times. Talked to him shortly before all this and then later that night was talking to his dad. His dad was going to go to live. What did you guys talk about? What was his demeanor? How was he? I can't ask him. Because instead of, as in the normal course of events, somebody's charged with a crime and they arrest them at their house when they're in town, Greg went away for a weekend just to go see his dad who was on his deathbed in hospice. And they arrested him as his dad has died. And we know that there were conversations on both sides of this incident that would have been quite helpful to get through him. We can't put him on the stand now. The case is fundamentally different. We can't put the phone records from this 3291 Wi-Fi device to this court or to the jury. Because we don't have it. More important, we obviously have the death of Sanford Sherman. Sanford Sherman, up until 2025 and really up until the time of his death, the state, as the court's aware through the search warrants that's reviewed, the state was still asking the courts for search warrants to search devices related and information related to Sanford Sherman, indicating to the court that it had had probable cause to believe that there'd be evidence in Sanford Sherman's possession that would point to his guilt in this matter. Probable cause of evidence of a crime that Sanford Sherman was involved in this matter. So, for the state to say there's no prejudice of us being able to cross-examine Sanford Sherman is just ridiculous. On top of that, we have the testimony, sworn testimony, of Larry Shanker. Larry Shanker will testify today. He's been subpoenaed to testify today. And we know from his past testimony, he has stated that on multiple occasions, probably more than four, maybe less than ten, walking on the beach, that Sanford Sherman would ask, how can I, how can a perfect murder be committed? He kept asking that question, how to do it? He kept saying, Elisa Sherman will never get a pin from this case. He told him that, told multiple people this. We know from police records that he was, that the police had been called out to the house many times. We know from emails that Elisa was scared of him, terrified. That Elisa's friends were terrified of Sanford. And we know that he kept asking, how can I commit, how can a perfect murder be committed? Larry, having some knowledge of this given his profession, gave the answer that's completely consistent with this case. You don't use a gun, so make too much noise. You cover your face, so you can't be seen. You wear puffy clothes, so you can't be identified. You don't utilize a vehicle, so you can't be trapped. That was the advice given to Sanford. It seems to be the perfect mentor that was used in this case, schooled by an expert. We would want to ask Sanford those questions, but we can't. We can't because he passed away before they bring this indictment. They know that he died in July of 24, and they wait until May of 25 to bring these charges. That's prejudice. It's a fundamentally different trial when you can't put a man on the stand and see how to deal with that question. So as it relates to delay, the only new evidence that the state has are these Verizon records that simply show that Greg got a new phone after he's put on notice that there was a problem and that he was going to be investigated. And there's a simple answer to that. He went and talked to his lawyer, who then did what the lawyer's supposed to do, is investigate the case. That isn't a new piece of evidence that blows the case open. For 13 years, it wasn't just law enforcement. You had BCI. You had BCI back then, BCI now. Mike DeWine's office when he was in charge of AG's office was involved. I'll show you how long back it was. Then Yost was involved. FBI was involved. None of these people ever, ever, asked for a search warrant to go to Greg's house to see if they could do something. They never asked him to come in and talk about it, except for a phone call in the beginning. Now, in the original indictment that came out back in 2016, the telecommunication fraud count in that indictment and the grand jury testimony, which the court has, count four, specifically deals with everything related to this case. The Greg Moore devised this scheme to annoyingly disseminate and transmit by wire in a scheme to defraud. And as we found out for the bill of particulars, what they're talking about is these text messages between him and Ms. Sherman to have her brought from her house down to the office. that somehow there was some scheme to defraud by Greg Moore wanting to meet with his client to get ready for trial. But the grand jury testimony laid out all the cell tower stuff they could figure out, all the text messages, all the stuff. The scheme to defraud wouldn't be to get her down so I could talk about the case. Obviously, the scheme to defraud was connected to the homicide back in 2016, as the grand jury testimony shows and as the bill of particulars shows in this case. So time starts when they sort of, they want to say, well, we didn't charge him with a homicide. Well, they charged him with everything but, and this was a predicate offense, and this is part of the scheme, the deception. The kidnapping count now, what is it? It's not force. It's not threat. It's by deception. It's stated. It's very clear that the kidnapping count related now is that the deception was to have her lured down, and this is the state's theory. So, the 2016 case is completely related to this. And time does start at that time. There's no reason why time wouldn't start then. Any time that he was under indictment or complaint, that time counts against him. Now, we signed a time waiver in this case, and we were very clear in it that we needed time to prepare for this case. There's over a quarter million pages to discover. When we continue the trial date by joint motion, I'm not arguing anything after that date. When we ask for the continuance and we file a motion, I think that tolls time. So, I'm not arguing that those dates count for the speedy trial part of this. Because those were our, we needed that time to get ready and prepared for this case. And so, that's not the issue. But prior to that request for the joint continuance, all time before that, is fair game for this analysis. And in that, the statutes are clear and the case law is clear that if a significant period of time has passed, then prejudice can be presumed. In which case then, as the case law, as the court knows, if prejudice is presumed, then the state has to provide a reasonable reason for a 13-year delay in the case. So, not only could it arguably be presumed, and it's been argued and so the court can go through the records, its prejudice could be presumed. But even if it's not presumed, we have it here. The state has clearly maintained for the last 12 years that Sanford Sherman was a viable second candidate. When they hired Cybercheck to assist with the investigation, they indicated to them that Sanford Sherman was a viable suspect in this case and to investigate him. And when they found the malware on his, on devices that were connected to Sanford that were at the scene on the time and asked the state to further investigate based on that, that was because Sanford Sherman was still a viable suspect. And but for his death, I submit, he's still a beating. The grand jury heard testimony as to the activities of both these individuals. Clearly, having him on the stand and asking him, did you ask Larry Schenker how to commit a perfect murder? What's his answer? If he says no, he's lying. If he says yes, that's relevant to the jury. His facial expressions, his demeanor, all the things that go along with credibility, we can't ask him anymore. So just putting Larry Schenker on and saying, did you ask me this? Yes, that's great. But that's just part of the story. We also have the death of a secretary. Now she had retired before the homicide happened, but she had worked on the case. So her insights in the case and the matter, we could probably get in through other witnesses. But I don't have that witness that I could otherwise call. That means the case is different. It's augmented. It's just the little ways in which the case is augmented because of this long delay. So you're going to see that you had this issue happen in 2016. This indictment comes out. An agreement's worked out to keep Greg from going to prison and he made the decisions he made maybe for those reasons, maybe otherwise. But then from 16 into the 21, 22, 23, not a lot happens. So at least for five years, there's just sort of this law. Nothing. Cold case gets requested. The BCI gets involved again. I don't know why there's this law and why they decided to act on it at that time. They do. But again, even then, they don't ask to talk to Greg. They don't go to his house with a search warrant. So prejudice is clearly present in this case. Now, as it relates to the cell towers, the court has been well-briefed on all these issues. But we have in this case, there was originally, we have the entry where the court found under the 2703, 18 U.S.C. 2703, that a request was made so that they could search cell tower information. And then we have an affidavit in support of a search warrant that came out in March of 14, which is just a bare-bones affidavit. It just simply says that Mrs. Sherman was murdered, that she was supposed to meet with her lawyer. And then the affidavit, there's 14 or a series of phone numbers, and that's it. It doesn't say that Greg somehow did something. It doesn't even say that Greg's number is in the list of phone numbers to be searched. It's just, Eliza Sherman was murdered, she was supposed to meet with Greg at his office, and they were texting. And so therefore, we want to warn them. And then they list a series of numbers, Sanford numbers included, Greg's number, and then 14 or 15 other numbers, I don't even know where they're from. But there's nothing that indicates that it's anything but a bare-bones affidavit. And that sort of plays out a couple of times, both in March 21st and then at other times as well. The information that they gain as a result of that is then known and shared with every single detective that's involved in this case. And the information is utilized as they try to develop and they go deeper and they look into different things in this case. So we didn't know until very recently, just a few months ago, under Chachri, that any search of self-hour data is in fact a search. The third-party doctrine no longer exists. We started to see it in Carpenter, we started to see it in Jones before that. We knew that as soon as you got into electronic data and it was tracking people that were showing the whereabouts of some of them, it was getting to the point where somehow that this would be protected information. But we now know that it is protected. And Chachri has made it very clear that it is. So the court then should go back and look at the affidavits at the time to make determination whether or not it is a bare bones affidavit. Is there enough information there to justify the intrusion into this man's privacy? Yes or no? The answer is the affidavit doesn't give enough for that conclusion we made. And if it is a bare bones affidavit, the good faith exception does not apply. Because no officer would think that just saying this basic information would be sufficient. Likewise in the search of Greg's house finally when they arrest him in 2025 May they finally go and search his house. Now there is no new information as to Greg's house that somehow that would make something important or not important in this case. In fact the evidence if you believe the state goes the opposite direction. They are saying that Greg is using these 13 years in his schemes to get rid of information. That he is making sure that he is hiding things he is getting rid of things he is not doing things. If that is the case then that would make it less likely that anything would be at his house. There has to be a nexus and the case law is completely clear on this. It is black letter law. There has to be a nexus with time and place for a search. There is no nexus for place except that Greg lives there. and there absolutely is no nexus to time as it relates to the search in his house. No. Zero. How you can get a search warrant 13 years later to search something on the speculation well people keep old devices well people keep old devices people keep old clothes people keep old luggage if that's the standard for a search warrant I would submit you if it's so watered down then there really is not a search warrant requirement anymore. If it's that if it's speculation will people keep computer devices at their house if that's enough to get a search warrant 13 years later then there is no nexus requirement anymore under the law. So your honor after the court hears the testimony we believe Mr. Shanker has been subpoenaed we hope he appears pursuant to that subpoena but he's been notified and personally served to testify today. in addition to that a week before the homicide so on March 17 2013 Mary Alice Rigdon who was a co-worker of Mrs. Sherman heard so she heard it that following Monday or Tuesday but on that Sunday a week before the homicide somebody left a message on Mrs. Sherman's answer machine at work and it came from an internal number so somebody actually drove to her place of work was able to get on the inter-office line call her and say we're going to find you in a medicine way scared scared her enough that she actually recorded at least a portion of that on her phone but not the entirety we don't have that recording we don't have the recording that I don't think was collected we don't have that recording now to present to the jury clearly that recording would show that within a week prior to the homicide a menacing person was stalking her and making threats so this isn't just somebody just making up stuff this is actual evidence that the jury would hear you'd have to say that they would strongly consider it when looking at the totality of this case and if they were to strongly consider it it would augment their decision one way to the other wanting to look at Sanford in the eye and see if he's telling the truth or if he's sweating on the stand wanting to hear this take and whose voice it is in its entirety wanting to hear from his dad to see what was his demeanor on that day wanting to hear from his secretary to see how much work was done and when Joe was involved how much were they really prepared in wanting to see the cell data from this magical Wi-Fi device the state keeps talking about to show what it shows if it shows that no data was utilized on that day then everything the state is saying is pure imaginable speculation and how can we have a trial where Americans spend life in prison when we have to deal with the fact that information they're trying to argue to a jury may not have any base at all in fact and that's why it's fundamentally unfair to have a trial in this case because the evidence now is not what the evidence was or could have been at that time and because of that we ask the court to dismiss this matter because of this unreasonable delay thank you