Boat Crash Manslaughter Trial - Full Opening Statements

[00:00:00] Laura Adams: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for being here. Just by way of introduction, again, my name is Laura Adams. Along with me is Mr. Jonathan Borst. And also we are going to be assisted from time to time through this trial by a law intern, a law student who's interning at the State Attorney's Office, and his name is Juan Ramirez. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a case about responsibility and accountability. Or I should say, the lack of both on the part of the defendant in this case, George Pinot. The evidence is going to show that on September the 4th of 2022, this defendant took his wife, his 17-year-old daughter, and 11 of her teenage friends out on his boat, and he wound up plowing right into a huge channel marker that ironically was placed in Biscayne Bay to keep voters safe. As a result of his complete abandonment of good judgment and responsibility, 17-year-old Lucy Fernandez, her given name is Luciana Cristina Fernandez, is dead. In the aftermath of causing Lucy's death, this defendant avoided accountability by telling the police a fabrication of how this boating crash occurred, and he maintained that falsehood long after the day of this tragedy. The evidence in this case, ladies and gentlemen, I'll show you, this was not a mere accident or a momentary lapse in judgment. The evidence is that Lucy is dead because the defendant failed to do the most basic things that the rules of the water require. Things like maintaining a proper lookout. Things like operating your vessel at a safe speed for the conditions. Avoiding situations that can cause a collision, or as you may hear from time to time in this case, an elision. Collision technically means two boats striking each other. Elision is a boat striking a stationary object. Whatever term you want to use. Don't crash into things. Moreover, you are to travel when you're in a narrow channel on the right-hand side of the channel. We're not in England. We don't drive our cars on the left side, and we don't operate our boats on the left side of the channel. This defendant drove his boat after consuming alcoholic drinks that was full of teenagers who also had been drinking alcohol right into that big steel channel marker in Biscayne Bay in broad daylight. A channel marker that had a day-glow green square above it with the number 15. A channel marker that he had passed by a multitude of times because this was his water playground going to and from a location, which I'll talk to you about in a moment, up to a sandbar. He hit that channel marker, ladies and gentlemen, as he was accelerating through the channel, going from speeds of 43 miles an hour to 47 miles per hour. He struck that steel channel marker at just under 50 miles per hour. The witness who will tell you how this crash happened has no bias, no prejudice, and no sympathy. This witness has a perfect memory. And this witness is not swayed by money or privilege or power. That witness is global positioning system data, better known as GPS. The GPS from the defendant's boat is how we know the way that this crash occurred because the GPS told the truth about what happened. George Pino did not. But before I get into the details of the GPS analysis that was done in this case, I'd like to give you a little bit of an idea of what was happening on September 4, 2022. The defendant, George Pino, and his wife, Cecilia, had planned a wonderful weekend celebration over the Labor Day weekend. Their younger daughter, who was also named Cecilia Pino, but went by little Ceci, named after her mom, she was going to turn 18 later that week. And so the family invited a bunch of little Ceci's friends to come to a location called Ocean Reef Resort to have a weekend of fun, hanging out together, going out on the boat, having a celebration dinner. At around 2.52 that Sunday afternoon, they got into George Pino's boat. Twelve kids, the defendant, and his wife. Before leaving the resort, however, that boat was stocked with some food and drinks. And the drinks that were stocked on that boat were not just water, were not just sodas. There was alcohol. Lots of it stocked on that boat. Now the plan was to go from here, which is where the location of Ocean Reef is, where I'm circling this blue dot, and to traverse across this little, narrow waterway, and then head up toward this location, which is called the Cutter Bank Channel. Now for those that might not be boaters, what you'll learn in this case is that a channel is an area of the bay that's dredged out to be deep, because a lot of Biscayne Bay is relatively shallow. And if a large boat that has a keel under it has a draft that's, you know, too far, that boat's going to run aground, and that will cause a danger to everyone. So in areas where the bay is shallow, there will be dredged out locations. And to keep people safe, and to let boaters know where they can maneuver their maybe larger vessels, there are what's called channel markers on either side. They're big steel poles, and on one side of the channel, there will be odd-numbered markers in day-glow green, and on the other side, there will be even-numbered markers in red. The plan for that day was Mr. Peanut went up through this channel, and he and other boats were going to rendezvous at this location here, which is called Billy's Point. It's a popular location where people will come to, you know, dock their boats, tie their boats up to other boats, and people will socialize, have fun, sometimes drink alcohol, have food, listen to music, things of that nature. However, when they get to this area where I have the orange dot, Billy's Point, one of the boats that's kind of part of this group, it's too big to dock there. You can see where the water along here is, or the, this is like a lighter blue that shows shallower water. So what they do instead is they head up further north here to where I have this red dot. It's slightly deeper water, and that's where the defendant and several other boats basically stay for a few hours. So once they get to that part of the sandbar where the water is a little deeper, the plan was at the end of their time there, they were going to return back down to Ocean Reef because the defendant had planned a surprise party for his daughter, and it was going to be a catered dinner from like 9 p.m. to 11. To give you a little bit better of an idea of how the channel works, I have this exhibit also. And this gives you a little bit more of a close view of where the defendant was going to travel. So here we have our Ocean Reef is, here is the area where he would traverse, and then this area here that I'm circling, that is called Cutter Bank, and there are channel markers, 15, 14, 13A, there's channel markers all along this channel so that boats can safely travel through it. Okay, and I have one more that's just a little bit closer so you can really get an idea of where those markers are through here. And all of this evidence you'll see during the trial. This isn't your only chance. When the defendant was traveling north to get up to where the sandbar was, he was traveling at a pretty moderate speed, maybe like in the 30s or so. Also, he was navigating the boat in a way that's consistent with seeing other vessels because, again, this is Labor Day weekend, and the waters are a little busier during holiday weekends than they are, you know, during the business day. The defendant and the kids and his wife, all on his boat, get up to the area of the sandbar at about 3.23 that Sunday afternoon. Now let's talk a little bit about what was going on at the sandbar. There, Mr. Pino dropped his anchor, and the girls that were on his boat would, you know, hang out with each other. There was another boat that was, the owner was friendly with Mr. Pino. He had some boys on his boat. So the girls and the boys were swimming back and forth with the boats, listening to music, having a great time. They would hang on to floating devices, interact with each other, and, yeah, they were drinking. The teens on Mr. Pino's boat helped themselves to alcoholic drinks that the Pinos provided. The adults kind of knew what was going on, and, you know, the thought was, look, if kids are going to drink, it's better if they're drinking in the company of hopefully responsible adults rather than do something on their own. But the teenagers weren't the only ones that had consumed alcohol that afternoon. So did Mr. Pino. This was really one big happy party. Here's a picture of most of the girls that were there that afternoon. Many of these girls knew each other from elementary school. What a great day this would have been. Oh. This girl here in the white bathing suit with the cute little flowers. That's Lucy. At one point that afternoon, Lucy's mom and dad, who were also at Ocean Reef, had been asked by their daughter, Mom, Dad, come on out to the boat. We're going out with the Pinos. Come meet us out at the sandbar. Now, Lucy's dad, who you'll meet during this trial, he was kind of tired. He had golfed earlier in the day. But he and his wife figured, you know, if your teenage kid is saying that she wants to see you, even when she's with a lot of her friends, let's suck it up. Let's go. We're going to go see our daughter. And so Mr. and Mrs. Fernandez took their own boat out and wound up rendezvousing with where the Pino boat was and a couple of the other boats that were there. What you'll learn is that Mr. Fernandez didn't really want to stay a very long time because he had plans later that day to watch the game between FSU and LSU with his dad, who lived at Ocean Reef. So his plan was to go out there, see his daughter, engage with the people that they all knew, and then try to leave by around 5.30 or so so that he could be back in time to clean off the boat, get cleaned up, and then go over to his dad's condo on Ocean Reef. While Mr. Fernandez is there, he too consumes some alcohol. He winds up toward the end of the day getting ready to leave. And as he and his wife are getting ready to leave, they kind of thought about what a great afternoon it had been. They were glad that they'd gone out to see their daughter. At one point, their daughter swims over to the boat, and she asks her dad for some sunscreen and a hair tie, you know, to make a ponytail with her hair. She hugged her dad before jumping back off the boat, and that was the last time Andy Fernandez ever got to hug his child. Before leaving, Andy took this picture with his phone. You can see this is the defendant's boat. You see people floating around. You see people on the boat. What could have been more fun than being lucky enough to be out on the waters, to have a weekend at Ocean Reef with friends that you've known practically your whole life? What a magical day this could have been. Now, they were there at that sandbar for almost three hours. And the evidence is going to suggest that perhaps Mr. Pinot overstayed the time that he wanted to be there. Why? Because when he starts getting the girls to rendezvous back onto his boat, 12, 17-year-olds, plus his wife and him, he leaves the area here where they have been and begins to traverse back down south, where he's going to traverse through Cutterbank Channel to get back to Ocean Reef. Why? I told you about him having a party planned. This was the invoice for that party. It was to go from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. It was going to be a custom buffet with salads, mini burgers, chicken, all of this kind of stuff. It was an outdoor venue that was going to be catered, and it was supposed to be a great time. But, my goodness, yes, 12 teenage girls that are going to need to get a shower, get their hair dried, get ready to go out for this event. Now, these girls were staying in a home that the Pinots had rented for that weekend. [00:17:03] Speaker 2: It wasn't like some gigantic mansion. What winds up happening is, as he's heading back toward Ocean Reef, [00:17:32] Laura Adams: he is going faster than when he was going up there. And when he was going up to the sandbar, we know from the GPS that he was kind of circumnavigating things like this. What we know from the GPS is that when he was coming back, he was doing a lot more straight-through traveling. Now, the waterways, of course, are different from the roadways. We don't have speed limit signs in the same way on the water that we have on land. But, there are rules that are to be followed. Even if there is no speed limit, one of the rules is that you must operate your vessel at a safe speed for the conditions. I already talked with you about the fact that there's a rule you are to operate your vessel on the starboard or right-hand side of the channel. George Pinot operated his boat on a plane, which means that it's basically just skimming the surface of the water. He's operating it on the port side, meaning the left side of the channel, not the right. And as he was going through that channel, heading back to Ocean Reef, just as he had his GPS on on the way up, his GPS was on on the way back. The GPS on his boat tracked his every move, his direction, when he changed direction, and it tracked his speed. The GPS on his boat was like a silent witness, watching and recording his every move. So, you'll learn in this trial a little bit about how GPS works. [00:19:33] Speaker 2: For now, I will just leave you with this. [00:19:36] Speaker ?: I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. I will just leave you with this. [00:20:06] Laura Adams: Properly interpreting it can tell you moment by moment where the boat is going, how fast it's going, and how long goes by from one time when you change direction to the next time you change direction. on the way to, yes, this is the GPS data that we have from the defendant heading before he leaves, heading up this way to where Elliot Key is. And then you see these little track mark, track mark, track mark, these little blue dots. Those are track marks. Those show every time the boat is being changed in direction. This is where he originally gets to at Billy's point, but it's too shallow for one of his friend's boats to be there. So he heads up, up, up, further north until they get right here. Then, and he gets there at about 3:47. From there the GPS is turned off because the boat's anchored. What do you need your GPS for? At 6:18, the GPS is fired back up again. And we know track mark, track mark, track mark. He's navigating his way through here. And now look at what we see here. Straight lines. Track mark, track mark. Straight line. Track mark, track mark. Straight line. There's a very different driving pattern to get back than to get up there. So what do we know happens once he starts entering into cutter banks? We know that he is going straight down this way, right? There's a channel marker here, channel marker 14. Here is channel marker 15. This would be the channel. And he's hugging the left side of that channel. And what we know is that before he gets to channel marker 15, right? At 6:37 and 28 seconds, he has his last track mark. That's the last time he changed direction. And what did he do? He tried to avoid channel marker 15 right here. But it was too late. Let me back up a bit. So here, we see the defendant's track lines heading up. And here he is coming back on the return track. And we see one track point here and one track point here, which is less than 30 feet away from where that channel marker is. And what we know is that when he leaves this track mark, he was going 43 miles per hour. This last track mark, right before he hits the channel marker, he's going 47 miles an hour. He's literally accelerating through that channel. What is this? All these little track marks here? This is after his boat crashes into the channel marker. Because he was not wearing a thing called a kill switch, which you attach to your waistline or something so that if you get ejected from the boat, it kills the engines so that nobody will get chopped up by a propeller. Thankfully, even though he was not wearing a kill switch, which is why we see the boat is still moving because the engines are still running. Thank goodness nobody got chopped up in this case. To give you an idea of what it looks like for a 29-foot center console vessel to smash into a steel pole as fast as George Pinot did. What you'll learn in this case is that we'll have to talk like sailors a little bit in this case. So starboard and port, right and left. So this is the starboard side of his boat. And what happened is he initially hits with the front of the vessel right here called the bow. [00:25:13] Speaker ?: Boats. [00:25:13] Laura Adams: Boats, unlike cars, are not made of metal. They're made of fiberglass, which is plastic. And unlike metal that crunches and crashes, plastic flexes. So when he first hits that, the boat flexes. And what winds up happening is the boat rides up on the channel marker and literally is gouged open by the board that's at the top of that channel marker that says 15. It rips, rips the boat right open. When it comes to the other side of the channel marker, it's taking on water like crazy through this gigantic, you know, gash mark in the boat. And as the boat is in the water and taking on all this water, it flips upside down. So this is a picture of the vessel at final rest. You can see that huge leaving hole in the boat. Now, in the aftermath of this crash, it was chaos. The only person who was keeping a lookout for this vessel was the defendant. His wife, who was seated next to him in the center console, she was on her phone. The kids were all thinking that George Pino is going to get them home safely. They're not keeping lookout for danger. This all came as a shock to them. It should not have been a shock to the defendant because the evidence will show that nine seconds prior to impact, George Pino changed direction just five degrees to port. Just a little nudge to the left side of that channel. And when he did that, he was on a complete collision course. An absolute collision course with where channel marker 15 is for nine seconds from this moment when you're out on the water, as you'll learn in this case, you can see that channel marker ahead of you. If you're looking for nine seconds, he never changes direction. He smashes right into it and to give you an idea of how long that is. That's how long he was on a collision course with that gigantic steel pole that day. After the boat hits the channel marker, some girls are ejected from it, some girls jump off the boat, but there are now 14 people in that water. One by one, the girls who are not too badly injured try to seek out and find their friends. The defendant's wife saying, the defendant though, he just kind of holds on to the front of his boat, which is now upside down. And the anchor of his boat has become the canopy because the canopy of his boat is now on the bottom of this cane bay. One by one, they're trying to account for all the girls. Where's Ceci? Where's Cati? Where's Mia? Where's Haro? All these girls. And eventually, through all that chaos, there are some that are not conscious. There are some that are borderline conscious. Everybody is accounted for but one. They're looking and looking. Where's Lucy? Where's Lucy? Somebody yells to the defendant, still holding on to his boat. Look under the boat. Maybe she's trapped under there. She was. The injuries she sustained were not great injuries, but she didn't die from those injuries. She died because she drowned. She was underwater, unconscious. There she goes. When Lucy's body is found, she's brought up onto a Good Samaritan boat. Because this was Labor Day weekend, there was a fair amount of vessel traffic out there. And without too much time going by, one by one, Good Samaritans came and tried to help get all these people out of the water. When Lucy was brought on board, there were people on that little boat who started performing CPR on her. People start calling the police for fire rescue for fire rescue for help. Now it's tricky to give your exact location when you're on the water if you don't know how to give your coordinates. Because it's not like you can look up and say, "Oh, I'm at the intersection of 12th Avenue and 14th Street." So sometimes it takes a little bit longer for the first responders to get to the scene of a boat crash. Well, when the first responders get there, they know that Lucy is in dire shape. You'll hear that one officer, when he approaches, he's seeing a helicopter from above which is trying to lower a paramedic onto the boat that Lucy's on. But the problem is the boat Lucy's on isn't very large. And the wash from the propellers is starting to make that boat spin. So he has to nudge his police boat up against the boat Lucy's on. And another officer has to do the same to keep the boat steady enough that it will be safe for the paramedic to come onto the boat. Once the paramedic is on the boat, they load Lucy up onto a backboard and they transfer her to another boat. And then that boat takes off for this location here, Elliott Key, which is a long, really narrow island. And right about in the middle of it, there's a ranger station. And that's a place where it would be safe for a helicopter to land to then take Lucy to a hospital as fast as possible. Well, all along the way that they are trying to get her to Elliott Key, the officers are taking turns doing CPR on Lucy. The fire rescue guy is trying to intubate her. They're trying to get her heart pumping so that blood and oxygen will get to her brain. As you can imagine, a scene like this is pretty chaotic. The man who was tasked with the responsibility of managing this chaos is named William Thompson. He was at the time an investigator with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, better known as FWC. Since the time of this crash, he's been promoted and he is now a lieutenant. Lieutenant Thompson was responsible for coordinating with all the different responders that came to this scene. Officers from the Miami-Dade Sheriff's Marine Patrol Unit. There were Coast Guard officials that came to the scene. There was other fire rescue units that came to the scene. There's the management of finding out who's injured, what's the level of injuries, conducting that kind of triage, figuring out what hospitals different people are going to go to. And beyond that, he also needed to find out what happened. How did this happen? The girls really couldn't give him any information. They're not paying attention because what you'll learn is that on the bow of the defendant's bow, up in this area here, there was a girl sitting on every seat available. The defendant and his wife were sitting at the center console and there were two girls that were seated in the back. These girls up front, their backs are to what's coming up ahead of them and they're hanging out with each other. So they can't really tell what happened. And the defendant's wife was playing on her cell phone. So the only person that Lieutenant Thompson could try to find out how did this crash happen from was the defendant. Now, the defendant himself for sure got banged up. He had a cut to his head, cut to his elbow. I think some of his teeth were, you know, knocked around a bit. But overall, he was okay. He'd been checked out by police officers, fire rescue. He was ultimately transported to Elliott Key, which is where they brought all the other girls that were not tremendously injured. And there, Lieutenant Thompson winds up trying to find out from the defendant what happened. He could find out what happened from the defendant and from the GPS. And like I told you, the GPS told the truth, but he did not. When Lieutenant Thompson is interacting with the defendant, he's wearing what's known as a BWC, a body-worn camera. It's right on his chest. And while he's talking with the defendant at a picnic table that's there, the defendant is seated across from him. Now, you can't really see his face because it's like from chest to chest level, right? But you can hear what's being said. You'll hear the way that Lieutenant Thompson was speaking to the defendant in a calm way, just trying to find out what happened. Because at that point in time, there's no indication that this is a criminal case. They just need to figure out what the heck happened. So, as they start talking, the defendant starts explaining himself. But the way he does it was an abdication of his responsibility and accountability, because the evidence in this case is going to show that what he said happened did not happen. What he did to avoid responsibility and accountability is he told this story to Lieutenant Thompson that there was this other vessel that had thrown a big wake in his way, and to keep his passengers safe, he had to try to attack through the wake, like taking evasive action. But we know from the GPS, which Lieutenant Thompson didn't have at that moment, he was on a straight course. I showed you. It was for nine seconds straight ahead. There was no other boat. He made this up because he didn't want to be blamed for what was clearly his fault. So, when Lieutenant Thompson asked how did the crash happen, the defendant tells this story about what the evidence is going to suggest is a phantom boat. Now, clearly, nobody's going to be fully in charge of their rational faculties after a horrific event like this, whether it's your fault or not. This is a really stressful thing for anybody to go through. And he was injured. But he was alert. He was able to walk around. He was able to be responsive to questions. When the defendant told this story of the phantom vessel, he then was asked, "Would you give a written statement about what happened?" This is what he wrote. Going back to ORC, Ocean Reef Club, through a channel. Pass boat on left side of my boat. Veer to the right to avoid big waves. Coming back into the wave, I lost control of steering wheel as boat was going through the big waves. I was ejected from the boat. That's what he said happened. He said it in more detail orally to Lieutenant Thompson, but that's what he wrote. And even when the GPS proved that he was wrong, he doubled down on the things he said to Lieutenant Thompson. Because in the aftermath of this crash, there was a lawsuit against the defendant. And you'll learn that in civil lawsuits. One of the things that happens is a civil attorney may say to the person that they're suing, "Tell us about how this crash happened." And that kind of a document is called an interrogatory. And when you answer an interrogatory, your answer has to be under oath. Through the penalties of perjury, even. And when he was asked in this interrogatory, "How did this crash happen?" You know what he said? "What I said to Lieutenant Thompson, that's how the crash happened." How did the police wind up getting this GPS data? Well, in an effort to appear cooperative with the police, the defendant signs a form giving them consent to go on his boat and take from it the SIMRA, that's the brand name of the chart plotter devices or the multi-functioning displays that he has. It's not completely unlike CarPlay if anybody uses their Apple phone with their car, where you can scroll through different maps, charts, things like that. The defendant gives permission for that. And those SIMRAD navigational devices are then brought to a man who is, number one, a former FWC officer. Number two is currently a lieutenant with the town of Palm Beach Police Department as an internal affairs supervisor. But also, number three, is a maritime expert who testifies regularly in the field of safe navigation, safe boating requirements, and also in how to download and interpret GPS data. His name is Paul Albert, and you will hear from him about how GPS works, how he was able to extract GPS data from the defendant's boat, even after it had been upside down and underwater until they could salvage it and bring it back to shore. He will tell you unequivocally, the defendant's boat took no evasive action to avoid striking that channel marker. There was no other boat in that vicinity. The defendant said that there was another boat, which is clearly disproven. He also told Lieutenant Thompson that he had two beers while he was out at that sandbar. Now, it would not be practical for you all as jurors to go out to the scene of this vessel crash and feel for yourself what it's like to go 47 miles an hour through that narrow channel on the wrong side of it. So, Lieutenant Thompson and Mr. Albert did the best that they could to try to recreate it for any jurors that might be on this panel, whether you have experience boating or not. What they did was, using buoys and GPS points, they dropped one buoy in the cutter bank channel where the second to last track point is, and one right before the last track mark, which is less than 30 feet away from where that channel marker is. So, they then had Lieutenant Thompson take his police vessel, which, like the defendant's, is 29 feet, has a center console, and has two 300 horsepower engines. And what he did was, he then began coming through the channel, and by the time he got to where that second to last track mark is, he was going 43 miles an hour. He then continues to accelerate his vessel until he's at 47 miles an hour, and at the last second, swerves to avoid hitting the channel marker. So, to give you an idea of what that's like, we had a veteran crime scene, a detective with the sheriff's office, come out on a marine patrol boat and launch a drone that then could film the boat as Lieutenant Thompson piloted it through the channel. In addition, a GoPro camera was affixed to the front of Lieutenant Thompson's boat so that jurors could get an eye view of what you could see if you're looking and when you can see that channel marker up ahead. In addition, a GoPro camera was attached to the actual channel marker so that you could see that same approach as Lieutenant Thompson comes right up to it and avoids hitting it at the last second. Now, lest you think that the police did all of this without concerns for safety, you will learn that during this exercise, there were marked police boats on the north and south end of the channel to make sure no vessels were going to be in that area. Plus, we had the Marine patrol boat that the detective had launched the drone from, plus as Lieutenant Thompson was going through this channel, he had his police lights activated. In addition to that, everyone that was on board, his vessel for this exercise, was wearing a life jacket, or what's called a PFD, a personal flotation device. When you see this footage, you will realize that traveling 45 miles an hour through waters, even when they're calm, is nothing like going 45 miles an hour in a car. Boats are not encased in steel like cars are. They're not equipped with anti-lock brakes. They don't have seat belts or airbags. One mistake on the water, it can cause absolute catastrophe. Oh, and also, before this exercise, Lieutenant Thompson did not consume two beers. Now, although we can't take you to the scene of where this horrible crash happened, for safety reasons, because you can't predict what the weather's going to be like during a trial, you will be taken on a field trip to the Florida Fish and Wildlife office, where they have a yard that they can store vessels that have been involved in crashes. And you will see, with your own eyes, this very boat. You will see the horrific damage, and you will be able to see for yourselves that anyone at the helm of that vessel, looking straight ahead, would easily be able to see a huge steel channel marker with a day-glo green board at the top of it. There's no evidence to conclusively prove that George Pino was drunk. He's not charged with boating under the influence causing a death. There is no evidence that he deliberately crashed his boat into that channel marker. If the evidence supported that, he wouldn't be charged with manslaughter and vessel homicide. He'd be charged with murder. But the evidence does support a finding that traveling through that narrow channel, at the speeds that he was, with as many people on his boat as he had, people who had been consuming alcohol, people who were 17 years old, and not looking where the heck he was going for nine seconds. People won't even drive blindfolded for nine seconds. They sure as heck should not be operating a boat with a blind eye. The evidence in this case will show conclusively this was not just an accident. This was a bunch of factors that, when they all come together, form the inescapable conclusion that George Pino was reckless and he was culpably negligent. And as a result, Lucy's gone. And that's why, at the end of this trial, I will ask you to return a verdict of guilty. [00:48:36] Speaker 3: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Can everybody hear me okay? Is the microphone working, Your Honor? [00:48:42] Speaker 4: I think we all agree that we're here today because there was a tragedy. Lucy died. And it's painful. It's painful for everybody to think about it, hear about it, talk about it. And over the course of the trial, we'll have to relive those moments. And George Pino is going to have to relive those moments. He loved Lucy. He'd known Lucy since she was a little girl. He loved Lucy like a daughter, like his own daughter. The state admits this was not George's intention for this to happen. He did not intend to crash into a marker. He did not intend for anybody to be hurt. His own daughter, his own wife, his own body was on that boat. He had traveled on that boat safely through that channel many, many times. Many times. And he was celebrating his daughter's 18th birthday with some of the best friends his daughter had since childhood. These were generational friendships. George's parents' generation. George's generation. And then the next generation. George would never think to put any of these girls' lives in jeopardy. And when he was traveling at 47 miles per hour, with everybody seated on that boat, with George at the helm, a perfectly clear day. The seas were calm. A boat like that could have been powered, not with just 600 horsepower engines, but 700 horsepower engines, although George didn't put the maximum horsepower engines on that boat. That boat can travel at upwards of 50-plus miles an hour, fully loaded. There was no weight restriction or personal restriction that George was violating when he had all of his passengers on the boat. There was a life preserver for each and every one of them on board, although the law doesn't require that passengers on a boat wear the life preserver. When you come back to port, you might see a sign that says, "no wake," wake, W-A-K-E. Boats have to travel slowly when coming back into port sometimes. There might be a marker that says, "minimum wake," and there are markers that have speed limits throughout the Intracoastal Waterway. But Cutter Bank Channel in 2022 had no posted speed limits. We are now in 2026. There are still no posted speed limits at Cutter Bank Channel. Even after this tragedy happened, our legislature has not imposed- [00:52:14] Laura Adams: Confession arguments is stated. [00:52:16] Speaker 4: There is no, there was none then, there is none now, because under ordinary circumstances, traveling at 47 miles per hour, which George Pino had done many times, is not a violation of the law, it is not unsafe seamanship. Still, still, still, George crashed. The state's theory, as you've heard it today, is a bit of a mish-mash. On the one hand, they say to you, "two beers," trying to suggest to you this is about alcohol impairment. The state knows better than that. [00:53:10] Speaker 5: Objection, argument. [00:53:12] Speaker 4: The evidence will show. The evidence will show. The evidence will show. [00:53:15] Speaker 5: Thank you, sir. [00:53:15] Speaker 4: I apologize. [00:53:16] Speaker ?: Mm-hmm. [00:53:16] Speaker 4: Multiple eyewitnesses, at least eight, I expect, will testify at this trial, eight, who observed George Pino at the sandbar, just after the elision, the crash, and law enforcement officers themselves who observed George Pino eye-to-eye examining him purposely to determine was George Pino impaired. Each of those witnesses who examined and observed George Pino were satisfied that George Pino was not impaired. That included the adults that were at the sandbar, that included Lucy's dad, who was at the sandbar, himself enjoying the festivities with his daughter, with the Pinos, and with the other families that were there. The adults that were at the sandbar were also consuming some alcohol, they, too, operated their motor vessels after consuming some alcohol, including Lucy's dad. Lucy's dad would never have allowed his daughter to ride back with George Pino if Lucy's dad thought that George Pino was impaired. And Lucy's dad saw that George Pino had had a beer and was satisfied that George Pino was not impaired. But this was not the first time George Pino had had a beer in his life. So you'll hear testimony from the adults at the sandbar, including George Pino's wife. George Pino's wife was on that boat. She would not have allowed her husband to operate a boat with her own life, her daughter's life, and the lives of the girls that Mrs. Pino had helped raise. Some of these girls grew up in the Pino home all the time, spending time together. Mrs. Pino will testify. George, her husband, was not impaired. She wouldn't have risked her own lives. [00:55:39] Speaker ?: Excuse me. I'm sorry. It doesn't come side by. Thank you, Your Honors. Good morning. [00:55:48] Speaker 5: Good morning. Good morning. Can everyone hear me okay? It's too low. Good morning again. I want to begin the morning with the morning of September 4, 2022, when all of the people who [00:56:09] Speaker 4: were at Ocean Reef gathered to celebrate the birthday of Mr. Pino's daughter. There were several families there, and they'd been there. Some of them had been there that weekend. And it was going to be a glorious day. Mr. Pino, he was sort of known as the camp counselor. That's what he's been with these families for many years. He was organizing events, and that day he had organized a gathering. The day would start off with a virtual mass for the kids that woke up. And then Mr. Pino had organized a little pickleball gathering, a tournament. After the pickleball tournament, they were going to all convoy by boat to Elliot Key. Call it Billy's Point or Coon's Point. And they were going to spend several hours enjoying the beautiful weather. And it just happened to be an ideal day for boating. The seas were calm, no wind, no rain. And so after the pickleball tournament finished and all the kids gathered up, Mr. Pino was going to operate the vessel. He was going to captain the Raballo from Ocean Reef and travel the distance to Elliot Key, a voyage he had made many times before. The 29-foot Raballo, a well-built boat, has been in fabrication for decades. It was equipped with twin 300 horsepower engines. The boat actually is rated to handle even larger engines. Mr. Pino had navigated that course many times. The GPS data that you heard the prosecutor tell you about will show that he had navigated that area many times. There were 14 people on board, Mr. Pino, his wife, his daughter, and the daughter's girlfriends. And they navigated from Ocean Reef the distance to Elliot Key and then anchored in that area. Other boats joined the festivities. And you heard that as part of that afternoon the adults and some of the children were consuming alcohol. And as I alluded to yesterday, there were adults there who had observed Mr. Pino that day as they had many other times. And the testimony, the evidence in the case will be that Mr. Pino was observed with a beer. He admitted later on he had two beers. And it's not two beers in quotes as the prosecutor did in her opening statement. That is the evidence. The evidence will show there's not one more beer than two. Not one more. It was two beers. Over the course of several hours, two or two and a half hours. This was not the first time Mr. Pino and these adults had engaged in these kinds of gatherings in the past. The other adults there, Mr. Suarez, Mr. Pardo, they knew Mr. Pino. They too had enjoyed the afternoon with Mr. Pino. They observed Mr. Pino. All the adults that were there that day were satisfied that Mr. Pino was not impaired. Sometime late that afternoon, Mr. Pino pulls up the anchor of the Ribello. And now it is time to head back to Ocean Reef because that night they were going to celebrate the birthday I think at 9 p.m. Contrary to the statement by the prosecutor, Mr. Pino was not nervous or anxious about making sure the girls were IG Instagram ready. As if Mr. Pino was anxious to get the girls back home so they could have enough time to shower. There was plenty of time. Mr. Pino was navigating back to Ocean Reef as he had done many times before. He was not thrill-seeking. He was not speeding. He was not doing donuts. He was not racing any other boat. He was simply going back. He was essentially an internal autopilot as he had done many times before. On this one occasion, on this one time, something went wrong. Mr. Pino, according to the state's expert who you will hear testify, somehow lost situational awareness. Meaning, he must have lost track of the markers along the way and he alighted or crashed into marker number 15. He wasn't intending to do it. He wasn't intending to do it. He wasn't trying to come as close as possible and see if he could just skim across that channel. This was, pure and simple, an accident. Objection of argument. The evidence will show, the evidence will show that Mr. Pino had no intention of putting anyone's life in danger. He wasn't intending to try to come as close to the marker as he possibly could. But on that day, there was no other boat coming at him. It was a clear day. And his destination, Ocean Reef, once that boat would have cleared marker 15, it was a wide open bay until Angelfish Creek. That's the next passage that the vessel would need to travel to go back to Ocean Reef. When Mr. Pino alighted with that marker, when he crashed into that marker, the boat eventually capsized. The testimony will show that Mr. Pino himself was not unconscious. The testimony will be from those that were there. They thought Mr. Pino was dead. He was on the surface of the boat, bleeding from his head. He had injured his arm. He only came to once the boat eventually capsized completely. He falls into the water. Minutes later, he comes to. Testimony will show that he had suffered a concussion. A traumatic brain injury. And still, he was able with presence of mind to hold on to that boat. And with a traumatic brain injury, as the testimony will show, he was disoriented. He obviously did not have all of his senses, but he's trying to make sense of what has happened. You will see, if you haven't already, with some of the pictures shown, that the girls and Mrs. Pino are in the water. Soon, another boat came up. David Rodriguez, a good Samaritan, doesn't know the Pino family, happened to be coming northbound. A few minutes later, he arrives. And he observes the scene. And he sees Mr. Pino hanging onto that boat. As you heard, and will hear, Lucy was unaccounted for. And Mr. Pino makes an effort to go under the boat and retrieve and locate and find Lucy Fernandez. As she had been trapped under that boat. And it was Mr. Pino who reached under and brought Lucy Fernandez to the surface. So that efforts could be made to save her life. Even in the condition he was in, with a brain injury, he made every effort he could. Once he was directed, once he was able to get his senses back, to try to save Lucy's life. And so, you can imagine the emotional toll that that takes on a human being. Because we all know that eventually, Lucy died. And it was George Pino who tried to save her life. By retrieving her from under the boat, his efforts failed. David Rodriguez, the good Samaritan I was telling you about, called for Mr. Pino to get onto Mr. Rodriguez's boat. And David Rodriguez will testify that he was observing Mr. Pino closely, purposely. Because David Rodriguez was wondering how could this happen. Perhaps David Rodriguez thought this was someone who was impaired. And so David Rodriguez, a man who has nothing to do with the Pino family. A man whose only interest was to help and save lives. Looked at Mr. Pino purposely, with intent. And was convinced, after dealing with Mr. Pino, Mr. Pino was not impaired. And you will hear his testimony. And this was minutes after the elision. But Mr. Pino, in David Rodriguez's view, and what you'll hear him say, was disoriented. He was in shock. A natural reaction to a crash and a brain injury. Law enforcement, fire rescue came to the scene. Everyone who could be rescued from the water was. And at that time, Mr. Pino was in the custody of two fish and wildlife commission officers. Who were checking him out to make sure he was okay and to find out what happened. You will hear from Lieutenant Thompson. Who has training, experience, expertise on the issue of impairment. And he was with Mr. Pino for the next several hours. And he, too, looked at Mr. Pino purposely and saw that Mr. Pino was not impaired. Officer Hernandez was with Mr. Pino all of that time. He, too, observed Mr. Pino purposely, smelled him, looked at his eyes. All of these individuals were looking to make sure that Mr. Pino was not impaired. And they, they concluded he was not impaired. I recognize I'm spending an awful amount of time talking about this issue of impairment. Mr. Pino is not charged with voting under the influence. But when I saw the prosecutor put the two beers in quotes, I thought it was important that I spent. I think it's the evidence will show conclusively. I believe there will be eight witnesses that will tell you that Mr. Pino was not impaired. And so, Mr. Pino is questioned about what happened. Lieutenant Thompson, who's wearing one of those body cams, is trying to figure out what happened. Of course, make sure that everybody receives medical attention right away. And you will see Mr. Pino on video. So you'll be able to look at Mr. Pino in real time. With your own eyes, you will be able to look at Mr. Pino purposely with the scrutiny that you should give it to see that Mr. Pino was not impaired. And he was questioned about what had happened. And even though he was not alcohol impaired, he was still suffering from a traumatic brain injury. At some point that night, he had to receive medical attention. And you will see that his head was bandaged up. He was eventually taken to a hospital to be treated. But even with his head bandaged up, he was being questioned and he was trying to recall what had happened. How did this accident happen? And he explained as best as he could under those circumstances what he recalled. And you will find out that Mr. Pino's recollection of that event was affected by the concussion he sustained. That he was relaying details that could not be accurate. For example, what kind of engines do you have on your boat, Mr. Pino? And he told the officer, twin 225s. Actually, Mr. Pino has twin 300s. He did have a boat that had twin 225s. His prior boat had twin 225 horsepower engines. But he reported that this boat had twin 225s. Obviously, his memory or his brain was not functioning in a way that it would ordinarily function had he not sustained a concussion. He reported that he had gone under the boat to rescue Nati, a different girl. We know it was Lucy. And we know that Mr. Pino has known Lucy all of his life. And yet, when he was reporting who he had rescued under the boat, he reported that it was Nati, another girl on the boat. He had innocently but mistakenly confused who it was he had retrieved from under the vessel. He was asked to prepare, as best he could, a seating chart of where the various passengers were seated. And when he prepared that seating chart, he had the passengers in locations different than what it turns out to be. He also was recalling that there was a big wave that had come from another boat in the distance. And that the wave had caused him to lose control of the steering wheel. We know that some photographs and other testimony suggest that there was no other boat that day. And that Mr. Pino's memory may not have been accurate. We cannot prove, we don't know if there in fact was another boat out there that may have thrown a wave from a distance, a wake, a wave. But we can't establish it for certain. And so it appears that Mr. Pino's memory of how that accident happened cannot be relied upon given his traumatic brain injury. And we will present testimony from doctor who has examined the records who will confirm that in fact Mr. Pino, given the circumstances, did suffer from a traumatic brain injury that would result in what the professionals call false memories. The memories that the person believed to be true but are not accurate. When you get clocked and you get hit over the head and you lose your memory, the memories that come back of the event, sort of like an amnesia in your brain trying to make sense of things, puts together old memories with new memories. And that memory they call confabulation, you'll hear testimony about that. And I share that with you because when Mr. Pino was trying to make sense of what happened, when the officer was interviewing him to try to figure out how did the crash happen. Mr. Pino was reporting what his memory, faulty as it was, of that few minutes and few seconds before the elision. They do have the benefit of the global position satellite machine that was on Mr. Pino's boat, there were actually two of them. And what they showed, Mr. Pino driving very much on a steady course that day and during that return trip from Billy's Point back to Ocean Reef. There's no evidence he was zig-zagging or hot-dogging or thrill-seeking. What the evidence will show is that as he was going through the channel, when there were markers left for him to clear before it was wide open bay to Angel Fish Creek, at some point Mr. Pino's boat starts making a turn or a veer in the direction of Angel Fish Creek. And you'll see there was a red marker on his right, and then there's the green marker 15 in the distance. Nine seconds later, Mr. Pino's rovalo crashes into that boat, into that post or into that pilot boat. The stage theory that I believe the expert will advance is that Mr. Pino lost situational awareness. He should have seen it. It was right there in front of him, and he didn't see it. Because we know he wasn't trying to hit it. So I think what the evidence will show, even by the state's own theory, is that Mr. Pino did not intend to hit the marker. He lost situational awareness. That's their theory. That for those nine seconds, he didn't look ahead to see that there was a marker in front of him. Now, the GPS, interestingly, you heard the prosecutor say the GPS is not biased. It is not subject to money, privilege, or power. I think was the words that the prosecutor used. [01:15:35] Laura Adams: There's no objection to argument. [01:15:37] Speaker 3: You're on hearing the council of what the evidence is. [01:15:42] Speaker 4: Interestingly enough, though, the GPS is not perfect either. You'll see that the GPS records data. What it does is it simply records points in time as the boat is moving, and then it does computations. This GPS, as their own expert will show, sometimes makes what I'll just describe as errors, computational errors. In one instance, it registers at some point in time the boat is traveling at 77 miles an hour, but the expert knows that that's not possible. The boat can't achieve that. The GPS is making an error. The GPS will show a boat traveling over land when we know the boat is not traveling over land. It's fallible. And to the point of this case, the GPS on Mr. Pino's boat, which tracks where the boat went according to the Global Position Satellite, the track on the GPS data that you will see actually shows that the marker 15, the one where the accident happened, is not exactly where it is in the real world. On the GPS device in Mr. Pino's boat, the marker is many feet away, up to 15 feet away from where it really is on the planet Earth. And so the track that you will see, if you look at the track, it would appear that Mr. Pino's boat, the Rubalo, never actually alighted with the marker. But we know it did. And that's not the product of some intentional mistake by anybody, but the marker on the GPS, Mr. Pino's Rubalo, is not exactly where it is on the planet Earth. Now the GPS is not a witness to anything. You will hear from the people that were actually on the scene. And so I've described for you what you will hear from the people at the sandbox. The people who came to the aid of the passengers, Mr. Rodriguez. Law enforcement who came to aid. And you'll hear from them. The GPS will tell us some very important things, but it won't answer the question that you will have to answer. Was Mr. Pino reckless? And I submit to you what the evidence will show. Is that Mr. Pino was human. [01:18:29] Speaker ?: He was human. [01:18:31] Speaker 4: And that something happened that we may never know. No one will be able to say why he was distracted in those last few seconds, where nine seconds or however many seconds it was, and did not appreciate that the boat was going to align with the marker. Had he seen it, we know he would have turned, nobody suggesting he wanted to hit it. The state's suggestion that it was speed, that's not a factor. And you'll hear that there was nine full seconds. Two football fields. Two football fields between the time the boat started veering towards Ocean Reef, towards Angel Fish Creek with that marker in the middle. Nine full seconds. At any point in time if Mr. Pino realized hoops were headed towards the marker, all it would have taken was a slight turn of the wheel. And none of us would be here. And the state's theory is his failure to turn the wheel should bring him into a criminal courtroom. Now you heard the prosecutor talk about interrogatories and a civil, a civil lawsuit that was filed against Mr. Pino. That is not what we are here for. You heard the talk, the prosecutor talk about accountability. This is not a case of- Judge, objection to argument, this is a closing. [01:20:02] Speaker 5: Okay. Okay. [01:20:05] Speaker 4: So you've heard, in terms of accountability, that compensation is dealt with separate from here. That was what the prosecutor brought to your attention. That's not what we're here for. That's resolved totally separately. What we're here to resolve is whether the state proves that Mr. Pino, that day, that time, those nine seconds, as they would say, was acting recklessly, because he was traveling on his boat, surrounded by his loved ones, wanting to go back to where they started the day to celebrate his daughter's birthday. The state will feature photographs of visuals of that day. For example, I expect they're going to show you that Mr. Pino's boat was carrying all the empty glassware and cans from the beverages, including the alcohol beverages that were consumed that day. Mr. Pino's boat, his wife will tell you, she took the responsibility of gathering all the empty bottles, all the empty cans, all the trash, to make sure it was disposed of properly and not left out at Elliott Key. And so when you see those bottles and cans, you'll understand that Mrs. Pino and Mr. Pino were acting in a way that you would expect people to act, where they've gathered together for a day of recreating at Elliott Key. Don't leave your trash behind. You may see very difficult pictures of the events, and of course they're going to be difficult to watch. It's going to spark emotion among all of us. But that evidence will not answer the question of whether the state is proving that Mr. Pino acted recklessly. Whether he acted with culpable negligence. Intentionally, knowingly, purposely, consciously, indifferent to the consequences. That when he was traveling at 47 miles per hour in the wide open bay with one marker to go and plenty of space. Whether, if he looked at his speedometer and saw it was going 47 miles an hour, he should have said to himself, "Wow, this is really a dangerous speed." When the Ravalo boat is built to handle even much more speed than that, all of the passengers were seated. There were the right number of life preservers on the boat. He didn't have a pill switch on. It's not required by law. And so to the extent that you'll hear evidence of other features of a boat or other safety features that can be employed. We're not here to decide policy of whether we should require safety switches. Kill switches. And given that you know that in that channel there is no posted speed restrictions at all. Not then, not now. The evidence will show that the speed at which Mr. Pino was traveling was perfectly appropriate given the conditions of that day. Calm waters. No wind. No rain. No lightning. No busy boat trapping. No traffic. But even so, somebody died. [01:24:12] Speaker ?: Even so, somebody died. Even so, somebody died. Mr. Pino will have to live with that. So to objection to argument, no work in the defense, okay. [01:24:12] Speaker 4: Is there an agenda? This is opening statement. Where is it? [01:24:15] Speaker ?: Why is it? [01:24:16] Speaker 4: What we're going to do? Mr. Pino will have to live with that. [01:24:18] Speaker 5: Let me say, he wasn't texting, he wasn't on the cell phone, but he was the operator of that boat. [01:24:40] Speaker 4: At the end of the day, it was on him. It was on him to get those girls back to Ocean Reef safely. That was on him. He accepted that responsibility and it was on him. But the law, as it will be instructed, I submit to you, tells you that even when we fail as humans, even though Mr. Pino may have failed as a human to avoid this tragedy, the evidence will show that this tragedy was not caused by reckless and culpably negligent people. At worst, he was human and he committed human error. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. [01:25:34] Speaker 5: Thank you so much.