The State Goes All In Against George Pino

[00:00:00] Tony DeWitt: Because apparently nobody ever explained to either the state or to the defense that brevity is the soul of wit. We have marathon closings on behalf of the state and on behalf of the defense. And they're shaping up to be quite the slugfest. So I'm going to take the state's closing first. I'm going to go through it as thoroughly as I can. I can't make a one hour and a half video. But I am going to go through most of that and offer some thoughts about things that were said and things that maybe should have been said. And then I'm going to do the closing from the defense as soon as it's done. It's currently still going on. Stick with me. Hi, Tony DeWitt here. Formerly, I was a Missouri attorney in active practice. Then I retired. Then I unretired and started a YouTube channel. And I bring you all kinds of stuff about trials and the law. So no legal advice is given, but stay tuned. This is what we're talking about today. Today, we're following the trial of Miami-area developer George Pino, who is charged with manslaughter and vessel homicide arising from a tragic Labor Day weekend boat crash in Biscayne Bay back in 2022. Prosecutors alleged that Pino was operating a 29-foot boat carrying his family and a group of teenage girls when he sped through a channel and slammed into a marked navigational aid, throwing passengers into the water. 17-year-old Lucy Fernandez later died, and another young woman suffered life-altering injuries. The defense maintains this was a terrible accident, not a crime, and disputes the state's allegations of recklessness. So Laura Adams came out swinging. She, of course, thanked the jury for being here, told them what a great bunch of people they are and how much everybody owes them a debt of gratitude, which probably feels like a left-handed compliment at this point since they've been, you know, in court for the last three weeks. And it's been an interesting three weeks, I'm sure, but I don't think any of them would have chosen to be there if, you know, a cruise to Bahamas would have come up. I thought the initial part of her closing went pretty well. Let's take a listen. [00:02:35] Laura Adams: I want to talk with you all a little bit about what I said to you at the very beginning of this trial. Now that you put all the evidence in this case, you can see that this defendant is a man who abdicated all responsibility as the captain of the ship owes to each one of his passengers. Now, done safely, of course, boating can be a lot of fun. And we know that. Look at the pictures that we have. We have so much of hoodies in this case. We have four. You all saw the photograph that Andy Fernandez took from his boat, looking across to the defendant's boat, where the teenagers are on the boat, they're in the water. What a great time. What a special day. That photograph was taken because Andy Fernandez was taken with how special it was that his teenage daughter said, Mom and Dad, come on out to the San Mar. He really didn't want to. Thank God he did. Thank God he did. When boating is done safely, what a wonderful thing to do here. But when people like this defendant do not take seriously their responsibility to their own passengers and to other boaters and passengers that might be in the area, disaster and catastrophe can happen. And though it may seem obvious, I wanted to highlight for you in this trial that boat crashes are a lot different than car crashes. When you're on a boat, you're basically like someone in the back of a pickup truck. On boats, you don't have the benefit of brakes, not even anti-lock brakes. You don't have seatbelts. You don't have a steel cage surrounding you to protect you from impacting other objects. There's no airbags. And if, God forbid, something should happen and you fall out of that boat, you jump out of that boat, you're ejected from that boat, you run the risk of drowning, even if the injuries that you sustained weren't that serious. And we know that to be true, because that's exactly what happens to Lucy Fernandez. [00:05:20] Tony DeWitt: In several of my videos, I did make reference to the fact that there are no brakes on the ocean. You basically are at the mercy of the skill of the captain in reversing engines, changing speeds, somehow doing something with the tiller to push the boat in a different direction. But it all takes longer on a boat than it does in a car. The car, you turn the wheel, the car turns. The boat, you turn the wheel, and the boat turns. It isn't instantaneous the way it is in a car. I think she did a good thing by making that point. And I think she did a good thing by making it up front, that's one of the key elements here. Because this is not a, he did one thing bad kind of case. This is a, he did lots of stuff bad kind of case. And she's making that point. [00:06:17] Laura Adams: That morning, some of the girls watched a mass on TV. We're talking still back in 2022. We're just kind of starting to come out of the pandemic. After that, pickleball tournament sponsored by the defendant. The girls, the defendant, tennis, pickleball, what a fun day. Knowing that the next thing they're going to do is go out to Billy's Point. Go out to that sandbar. So, everybody boards George Pinot's boat to go party at the sandbar. And where do you have a party that was going to be, huh? They bought food, sure. The defendant's wife said, oh yeah, and my husband packed the drinks. What drinks? Beer, alcoholic seltzer, prosecco, shambord. Not just for the pinos, for everybody. The kids, other people that they're going to meet up with. What a great time for these kids, huh? How irresponsible. Get up to the sandbar. And what happens? Well, the defendant going out to that sandbar, you heard from Paul Albert, navigational expert, GPS expert. That when he went out to the sandbar, he goes relatively at a mild pace, not really at great men's feet, and he kind of meanders in and out of the channel, which Mr. Albert told you is consistent with, you know, navigating around other boats, things of that nature, until they get to where they're going to drop anchor. But they don't stay there because one of the other boats, as Mr. Fernandez told you, was too big to drop anchor there. So they go a little bit further north, and that's where they all stop. And they're there for almost three hours. What are they doing? People are drinking. They're socializing. They're swimming. They're listening to music. They're dancing. A lot of these 17-year-old girls were drinking alcohol that the defendant provided. You heard from Kami, the first passenger who testified in this trial. She had consumed 10 alcoholic beverages. 10! I submit to you that as the fun and the drinks were flowing, the defendant kind of lost track of time. And he suddenly realizes, oh my goodness, it's getting to be close to 6.30. I'm going to get all these people back to Ocean Reef. And everybody's got him get fixed up, slammed up for the party. Now, we're here testimony that the house that they were stationed at was like a three-bedroom, three-bathroom house. Conservatively speaking, that means four girls per bathroom getting ready for the party that he had spent almost $2,000. So it makes sense that the GPS data that Mr. Albert showed us on the way back, he's making a V-line. He's not making all those track points. He's not deviating from force. He's in the mindset of like, set it and forget. Get back to Ocean Reef as quickly as you can. Literally, with a boat full of buzzed teenagers, if not drunk teenagers, this man decides to set a course heading to that channel. A channel that he has gone through time and time again. A channel he knows where those markers are. In a boat that there's a stipulation between the state of a defense and agreement. The boat is in fine working conditions. There's nothing wrong with that boat. And he knows the specifications of that boat. He had it since 2020. So, with that boat, with those 10 burls at the bow of that boat, with an extra thousand pounds on that boat, at the front of that boat, he makes a V-line. And you've heard from Mr. Albert, in order to reach the speeds that we see from the GPS with that amount of weight on the boat, he was going full throttle. Full throttle with all these teenagers on board that have been consuming alcohol as fast as he can through a narrow channel. Because if other boats want to go through that channel, if he's in the wrong way, then they've got to know where to go because if they go outside the channel, he'll run and run. With all of that going on, he decides to travel down the wrong side of the channel as fast as he can. [00:11:31] Tony DeWitt: He's doing a good job of building the facts, building the facts in a way that people understand. And then this happened and then this happened and then the next thing happened. And it's an excellent way when you are trying to make the ultimate point, which is that he was careless, reckless, negligent, whatever, whether you're talking about a civil case or a criminal case. Here she wants to make the point that he was reckless. It's a good way to do that because one act piles on top of the next act, which piles on top of the next act. And they create sort of the perfect storm. [00:12:10] Laura Adams: We know that right before him, he's flowing 47 miles per hour. Now, it's kind of a silly thing, but I think most people have seen folks, you know, driving the cars and put their hand out the windshield or out the window and kind of feel the air over your arms. We take for granted in driving that it's not that fast because we have windshields, but it didn't have that windshield. If you were on a nice paved road, if you were on a bumpy road, 47 miles an hour is lightning fast. And the reason why you saw those reenactments is because we wanted you in a safe way, but as realistic a way as possible to understand the manner in which that man decided to operate his boat. You know, I talked about the teens that were booked. Defendant for sure consumed alcohol. The defense would have you believe that it's only the two beers that the defendant told Lieutenant Thompson. I'm going to submit to you that maybe the evidence suggests that just as he wasn't exactly truthful about how the crash happened, maybe he also wasn't so truthful about how much alcohol he had consumed. [00:13:36] Tony DeWitt: That's the old, if he lied about one thing, he probably lied about a lot of other stuff. And it's a good strategy. Now, I don't necessarily think the jurors always believe that. But you have to understand, given the amount of alcohol on that boat and the pictures of all of those cans and bottles and stuff, it's certainly a reasonable inference based on the fact that he didn't exactly tell the truth about that other boat. So we'll have to see how the jury evaluates that. [00:14:12] Laura Adams: This defendant knew the channel. He knew that vessel. He knew the people on the vessel. He knew what they've been doing on that vessel. Yet he chose, before this impact happened, to put his vessel on a heading five degrees to the east. And that put him on a collision course with Channel Marker 15. And sure enough, by the time he realizes, oh no, it's too late. How did this crash happen? I told him, because he was reckless. He was criminally negligent. No one but this defendant captained that boat. No one but this defendant decided the speed that it should travel. And no one but this defendant decided the direction of travel. No one. And nothing is responsible for the death of Lucy Criandas. Except for that man sitting right there. He is the reason why he is dead. Let's talk about that jury a little bit more. [00:15:31] Tony DeWitt: So she's taken the jury step by step through the process to get to the point where there was a crash. She's done it pretty well. Now, at this point, there are a couple of things she can do. She can go back and hit the other highlights of all the other things that happened. The rescue, Cammie's testimony about sewing over and helping with Mia, all of that. Or she can start talking about the witnesses and all of the testimony that came in. And at some point, she's going to have to deal with some of the testimony that came in in the defense case. And so, at that point, we want to really pay attention because that's the stuff she has to get past if she wants to get a conviction. Because there's enough evidence in the state's case to convict, but he does gain some points in the defense case and she has to deal with that. Particularly with Dr. Barrett and her sort of bought and paid for testimony. [00:16:35] Laura Adams: Let's look at something again. You may remember that when I played these videos for you during the trial, I would stop the video just about at the point where it looks like the vessel is going to impact that channel more. And then I asked Mr. Albert, who's sitting here, okay, so if that impact is, let's say we have, you know, four seconds left, what's four plus nine? Oh, well, that would be great. Why was I asking that? Because what we know from the GPS reconstruction of this crash, that nine seconds prior to impact, the defendant chose to change the heading of his vessel slightly to the left and not the close to the left. And when he made that choice, that's when he put himself and all of those teenagers on a path toward near certain tragedy. He was the one that made that choice. And for nine seconds, they were on that path. And, you know, he said, oh, okay, nine seconds, how long? Well, we can use technology to tell us just how long nine seconds it is. I have my iPhone here set for nine seconds. Ready, set, go. That's a long, long time to not look at what you're going to be playing. [00:18:23] Tony DeWitt: You know, she showed some video and, of course, that's really powerful stuff. What I think makes a bigger difference is that little thing that she does with the iPhone. Because nine seconds is a really long time, particularly when you are headed for tragedy, as they were. So, I think she did a good thing in doing that. But it would have been a little bit better if she hadn't gotten tied up with the phone at the end. She should have been able to let that hang and make eye contact with those jurors. And that would have been much more effective. [00:19:02] Laura Adams: Because of the way he operated that boat, this is what the police had to deal with. [00:19:08] Speaker ?: And that would have been able to let that hang out with those jurors. And that would have been able to let that hang out with those jurors. And that would have been able to let that hang out with those jurors. And that would have been able to let that hang out with those jurors. And that would have been able to let that hang out with those jurors. And that would have been able to let that hang out with those jurors. And that would have been able to let that hang out with those jurors. [00:19:17] Laura Adams: And that would have been able to let that hang out with those jurors. And that would have been able to let that hang out with those jurors. [00:19:21] Speaker ?: And that would have been able to let that hang out with those jurors. And that would have been able to let that hang out with those jurors. [00:19:23] Laura Adams: And that would have been able to let that hang out with those jurors. And that would have been able to let that hang out with those jurors. And that would have been able to let that hang out with those jurors. And that would have been able to let that hang out with those jurors. That part of the clip was included in part so that you all would get a sense of when the police are responding to a life and death emergency, it makes sense for them to go as fast as they can. Not for dinner parties, for life and death emergencies. And you can see that these officers, even on a, you know, Marine Patrol officers that are trained on the police boat, it's still bumpy, even though we know that it was a clear day, with calm seas, calm winds, you can see the officers of one of the flaps on his, uh, uniforms, like waving in the breeze, because that's what it is to be on a boat. And, uh, air rescue, helping a paramedic try to get to Lucy, to try to save her life. But this is where you remember that Officer Bruto, well, he's not an officer anymore, he's retired, but he was the first police officer that testified in this case. He told you about the difficulties that air rescue was having getting the paramedic onto the boat, because the prop wash from the propellers was making the small boat start to spin. So Officer Bruto and another officer basically pinned that vessel between there so it can be stationary enough to safely drop the paramedic to try to save Lucy's life. [00:21:34] Tony DeWitt: Now that point is important to her. I don't see how it has great importance in the overall scheme of the case. We know that there was an attempt to rescue, we know that it failed. Ultimately, the young lady died. And that's a terrible tragedy, especially for Mr. and Mrs. Fernandez, who just seem like salt of the earth people to me. I really feel badly for them. But, again, there is a difference between what's important to you as the litigator, and what's important to your case and the jury. I think this was something that just adds drama that doesn't need to be there. I think she could have very safely cut that part out of her closing argument. But, again, that's a minor issue, not something I think that in any way impairs the credibility or the validity of the points she's making. [00:22:35] Laura Adams: Just the manner in which he operated that boat head-on into a channel marker that was easily visible, that he knew was there, and disregarding anything around him. Just fly into it. He's guilty of vessel homicide. But the thing is, we can't ignore all these other factors that were in play that afternoon. We can't ignore the fact that he had brought the alcohol, that those kids had unlimited access to it, that he wasn't moderating and because he's drinking. He has a boat full of vulnerable teenagers who are not going to probably be at their very best if, God forbid, something should happen. He made the choice to be consuming alcohol. He made the choice to be operating his boat through I-95 of Biscuit Bay, as fast as it could go. And so when the judge reads you the instruction for manslaughter, she's going to read you the definition of what culpable negligence is. Manslaughter can be proven in this case in one of two different ways. And just like I said, we've proven both aspects of being reckless. I'm going to submit to you, we've proven both aspects of manslaughter. And this is why. First, you can be guilty of manslaughter if you commit an intentional act. Even if you don't mean to cause death, but your intentional act causes a death, that's manslaughter. And the importance of Mr. Albert's testimony is because those track points are dropped when direction is changed. And we know the speed of the vessel based on the distance it takes or the time it takes to travel a given distance. And we know that because he was traveling, accelerating for over nine seconds, that's not one of those speed spikes that I told you all that can happen if you're talking about very short distances. But this is a long distance over a relatively long period of time. So we know that he is intentionally committing acts, not with the intention of death, not with the intention of hitting the channel marker. But the intentional acts that he is engaged in do cause of death. That's manslaughter. But the other way that could be guilty of manslaughter is if your actions, in their totality, result in death. If your actions meet the definition of culpable negligence. It's the judge's job to instruct you on the law. So I will wait for Judge Tinkler-Mendez to read to you the definition of culpable negligence. It's going to sound a lot, honestly, like the definition of recklessness, but it's a little bit more. And so he's charged, not just with the vessel homicide, because it wasn't just one person on board. It wasn't somebody who hadn't been consuming alcohol. It wasn't someone that didn't have a scenario where it's just cleaning his life. So this is a scenario where the people are at home. The level of danger that he exposed everyone to cries out for something more than just vessel homicide. And that's why he's also charged with manslaughter. And you may say to yourself, well, how can one person be charged with two different homicide charges if there's only one death? And the answer is because, yes, of course this is recklessness. So you can find him guilty of vessel homicide. But it's also, he committed an intentional act, and he acted with culpable languages. And so, to be as descriptive of what his conduct was on that September 1st, he's charged with both crimes. And that's the evidence that the evidence of this case proves both of those crimes beyond reasonable doubt. So then, we go back to this. Is the defendant's presumption of innocence of overconn? We have proven these crimes were committed, and that this defendant is the one who committed them. You will have access to all the videos, photographs. You will have access to the documents that we have. So, as you can tell, I jumped pretty much to the end. [00:27:35] Tony DeWitt: The problem that I have with, the only real problem that I have with that closing argument is that she never dealt with Dr. Barrett. Now, that's not a dig against her at this point, because she has a rebuttal close. And I'm sure the good doctor's testimony will come up in the defense closing. And how he deals with it will probably dictate how she deals with it. And I would assume that that's where Dr. Barrett will get knocked down to a peg or two. But I thought the end there was pretty good. And I thought her workmanlike way of going through the elements and explaining things certainly made a strong case for conviction. But we'll have to wait for the defense to finish up with its closing before we find out how Laura's rebuttal closing goes. That's what I have for you right now. I'll be working on the other stuff as soon as it's ready, and I'll get it out as soon as I can. Thanks for being here. Catch me next time. Thanks for watching my video. I really appreciate it. And today, as you go about your business, would you try to do just one kind thing for somebody? It doesn't have to be a big thing. You can open a door for somebody who has their arms full. You could buy somebody a Coke. You could let the manager know when somebody did a really good job for you at the grocery store or at Walmart or someplace else. There are all kinds of things we can do to make people's lives better. And a lot of times people will always remember to go to the manager and complain. They very seldom remember to go to the manager and say, hey, you know, that guy over there in produce is top notch. And I think it's really important to do that because I want to make the world a better place. I know you're here probably because you want to make the world a better place. So let's do that. And let's be respectful of one another. And thank God we live in the greatest country in the free world. I do think that the good folks at YouTube have a few things they want to show you up here that you might be interested in. And if you are, I'd appreciate you clicking. Thanks. Have a great day.