
Mr. Remington is the one who entered – made those entries on March 18th. All it would take is an individual to know – or March 19th, excuse me. All it would take someone to have access to the account and a – and a password.
There were other people that were in the house that day. So we object to a bind over, your Honor
PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Volume I of II BEFORE THE HONORABLE TRAVIS REEDS
Witness Sergeant Jennings: Direct Examination 133 Cross - Examination 154 - Excused 157
Friday, September 27, 2019, Novi, Michigan
MS. HAND: Your Honor, People call Sergeant Jennings.
THE COURT: Okay. All right, thank you, sir. You’ve been called as a witness. Please make your way up to the witness chair. Watch your step on that little ramp. Please get yourself settled in the chair and raise your right hand for an oath. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to provide shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: I do.
THE COURT: Thank you very much. Please have a seat and start off by stating your full name and spelling your last name for the benefit of the court recorder.
SEAN JENNINGS: Sean Jennings, J-E-N-N-I-N-G-S.
THE COURT: Thank you, your witness.
MS. HAND: Thank you.
SERGEANT SEAN JENNINGS Called by the People at 3:41 p.m. and sworn by the Court, testified:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. HAND:
MS. HAND: How are you employed, sir?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: With the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office.
MS. HAND: And where are you currently assigned?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: To the narcotics enforcement team.
MS. HAND: All right and how long have you been a police officer?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Twenty-eight years.
MS. HAND: And how long have you been a member of the narcotics enforcement team?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Approximately 14 of those years.
MS. HAND: Okay. And have you previously been qualified as an expert in the area of narcotics trafficking?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: And as part of that expertise are you familiar with language that is commonly used during drug transactions?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: Or by the drug trade?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: Do I have a stipulation as to his qualifications or would you like me to go through them?
MR. ROCKIND: Judge, as long as we can get a – I mean, I know Sergeant Jennings, so we’ll for exam purposes stipulate that he is an expert in – what’s the field that you’re qualifying him in?
MS. HAND: Narcotics trafficking.
MR. ROCKIND: In narcotics trafficking.
THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Go ahead.
MS. HAND: Thank you.
BY MS. HAND:
MS. HAND: Sir, in preparation for your testimony did you have an opportunity to review some printed documents of Snapchat text chats?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: Okay. So are you familiar with the term plug?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: And what does a plug mean to you in the narcotics trafficking world?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: A plug means a supplier of drugs, a person who sells to customers.
MS. HAND: Okay. In your experience do people trade – or do people pay for drugs in things other than cash?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: Okay, can you explain some of the things in your experience that you know people would use as currency for drugs?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Traffickers will also – they will take drugs for drugs, also usually it’s - other items they will take instead of cash would be like personal items.
MS. HAND: Bridge cards?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Radios, stereo equipment, things of that nature.
MS. HAND: Okay, bridge cards?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Sure, any personal property,
MS. HAND: Okay. Are you familiar with the – the street drug Molly?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: Okay. Are you familiar with its chemical name?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: The – MDMA, yes.
MS. HAND: Okay. All right. And –
SERGEANT JENNINGS: It’s a long name. I can’t pronounce the –
MS. HAND: Okay, if I said it would you recognize it?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: There you go.
MS. HAND: Okay. All right, so Molly, is that – usually sold in pill or a powder form?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Molly is usually in powder form.
MS. HAND: Okay and then the term ecstasy that we talk about, is Molly a powder form of ecstasy?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: Okay and ecstasy is normally found – is sold in what form?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: In a pill form.
MS. HAND: Okay. Are you familiar with the term Addys?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: Okay and what is that slang for?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: For the Adderall, prescription pill Adderall.
MS. HAND: Okay, is Adderall also an amphetamine?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: Okay. What about shrooms?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: What the term shrooms – that’s be for psilocybin mushrooms.
MS. HAND: Okay. And what the – the term meth?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Meth would be methamphetamine.
MS. HAND: Okay. All right. I’m going to draw your attention to – I’m not going to go through all these. You – you have the Snapchats. Are your divided up by user and sender?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: Okay. All right.
MR. ROCKIND: Could I – could I stand near someone and see what they’re looking at? I don’t –
THE COURT: Sure.
MS. HAND: Sure.
MR. ROCKIND: Maybe over there? I can –
THE COURT: You can go wherever you want.
MR. ROCKIND: I just wanted to stand over – I’m not going to –
SERGEANT JENNINGS: No.
MR. ROCKIND: Stand over here and take a look at what you’re looking at?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Sure.
MR. ROCKIND: Thank you.
MS. HAND: Or I’m happy to stand on the edge and we can look at the podium together. That might make –
MR. ROCKIND: Whatever you want. I just want to know what he’s looking at, so I can –
MS. HAND: Okay.
THE COURT: Sure.
BY MS. HAND:
MS. HAND: So, I think these are in alphabetical order, is that right?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: I believe so.
MS. HAND: Okay, I’m going to just skip to a couple of them. There is one that is C Zeug – Z – Z-E-U-G – did you find yours?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: Okay. And what is the first date on – I think it starts – it goes backwards, right?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yeah, I believe the first date on the one that I’m showing is March 18th.
MS. HAND: Okay. And what is the approximate time?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: The time that shows on here would be 1540 hours.
MS. HAND: And is that UTC time?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: That’s correct.
MS. HAND: Your Honor, I’d ask the Court to take judicial notice that UT – UTC time in Michigan ends the third and fourth week of March, isn’t that four hours later than it actually is, so for example, midnight on the 19th would be 8:00 p.m. on the 17th. So for –
THE COURT: Any response, Mr. Rockind?
MR. ROCKIND: About what UTC is?
THE COURT: About taking judicial notice of that time calculation?
MR. ROCKIND: No, I don’t have any –
THE COURT: I will so make that ruling.
MS. HAND: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: You're welcome.
BY MS. HAND:
MS. HAND: All right and –
MR. ROCKIND: That’s fine.
MS. HAND: Okay, so it’s on the disk. All right.
BY MS. HAND:
MS. HAND: So can you go ahead and – is there any indication on that particular chat thread regarding drug trafficking?
MR. ROCKIND: Can I - can I look over his? She doesn’t have hers.
THE COURT: Sure.
MS. HAND: I tried to find it.
BY MS. HAND:
MS. HAND: While Mr. Rockind’s looking, is there any evidence – is there any conversation on that chat thread that indicates drug trafficking?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: Specifically any drug trafficking as it relates to Molly or Mol?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: Okay. Can you go ahead and read the text thread from – from the earliest time to the – so starting on the back – starting with the March 18th and going – I think you need to be on the second page.
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Well, there is one on the – the first page. I believe it nwas dated March 19th. It is –
MR. ROCKIND: What’s the time?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: 17:41 UTC.
MR. ROCKIND: I believe that’s correct, right?
MS. HAND: I’m going to approach to make sure –
THE COURT: Sure. Why don’t you all just stand together so we can just make sure the record is very clear on what he is looking at and referencing.
MS. HAND: Okay.
THE COURT: Be as specific as possible.
BY MS. HAND:
MS. HAND: Okay, so I’m going to start down here.
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Okay.
MS. HAND: And go earliest –
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: Okay. All right, so starting with March 18th at 15:40:53 UTC, which would be what time? If this is military time –
SERGEANT JENNINGS: You want the – in military time that would be 3:40 in the afternoon.
MS. HAND: Okay, so which would actually be one –
SERGEANT JENNINGS: There’s three hours, right? So it would be 12 –
MS. HAND: Four.
SERGEANT JENNINGS: If there’s four hours that would be 11:40.
MS. HAND: a.m.?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: a.m.
MS. HAND: Okay. On the 18th?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: On the 18th.
MS. HAND: Okay and the – from is on the second – or the –
SERGEANT JENNINGS: That’s the first column.
MS. HAND: First –
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Or the – yeah, with the names.
MS. HAND: Okay.
SERGEANT JENNINGS: The screen names.
MS. HAND: All right, so can you go ahead and indicate what it – what it reads and from –
SERGEANT JENNINGS: From the bottom up?
MS. HAND: Let’s just call this person C, okay? Can we agree to call him C?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Call him C?
MS. HAND: C?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Okay.
MS. HAND: All right.
SERGEANT JENNINGS: And are we just referring to Molly or do you want me to go through the whole –
MS. HAND: Just go through this whole drug trafficking.
SERGEANT JENNINGS: The whole drug trafficking. Okay, on the very bottom one at 1540 UTC, C is inquiring to Hulkolas, “What kind of drugs you got?”
MS. HAND: Okay.
SERGEANT JENNINGS: And then at –
MS. HAND: Twenty-one.
SERGEANT JENNINGS: What’s that?
MS. HAND: I was just – the next time frame.
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Oh, well the next time the drug trafficking Hulkolas responds on 21:53 UTC, “No.” But then it follows up at 21:54 with – but – with Hulkolas to C, “Bud, shroom, tab, Mol and edibles.”
MR. ROCKIND: Judge, so – so these – these statements are not – have not been proven to be attributed to Mr. Remington. No indication of how many people have – had access to that account, who sent it, whether he sent it. They’re not admissions attributed to Mr. Remington.
THE COURT: Well, the detective testified that that – that the account was associated with him.
MR. ROCKIND: I – I understand, but the specific statement - the People, in order to utilize it, have to utilize - to be able to argue, to articulate that it is – prove that it is an admission by a party opponent. And have they – to your satisfaction have they proved that the account belongs to – arguable is registered to him, that he’s the one that sent that message? Even though the account belongs to him, have they articulated to your satisfaction that he’s the one that sent that message? Because otherwise it’s irrelevant.
THE COURT: So far, yes.
MR. ROCKIND: They have?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. ROCKIND: Okay.
MS. HAND: Okay –
THE COURT: Is this part of the group that was -part of the printed version of exhibit three that was admitted?
MS. HAND: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. ROCKIND: Is it the Court’s position that – just so – just so we don’t have to go through every single one of these, that every entry made by Hulkolas because the account is registered to Mr. Remington, that those are Mr. Remington’s statements –
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. ROCKIND: -- without any additional proof?
THE COURT: At this point, yes.
MR. ROCKIND: So I just – as opposed to me standing here and objecting to every one, let’s just make a continued objection so I don’t have to do that.
THE COURT: Then that would be noted.
MR. ROCKIND: Okay.
MS. HAND: Can I provide this to the Court so that we can move along?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. ROCKIND: No, I think that makes sense. I mean, this – this is –
THE COURT: It’s already been admitted.
MR. ROCKIND: This is an exhibit. It has been admitted, so –
MS. HAND: It is.
BY MS. HAND:
MS. HAND: So could you go ahead –
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Do you want me to continue?
MS. HAND: Yes, so the judge has a copy. You don’t need to –
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Right, do you want me to just go up with the conversation or go with the times, too?
MS. HAND: With the – no, he has the times in front of him.
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Okay.
MS. HAND: If you could just go up with the conversation.
SERGEANT JENNINGS: On who’s saying what?
MS. HAND: And more importantly indicate what it means to you as an expert in narcotics trafficking.
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Okay, in the one I just stated from – from Hulkolas to C, he said, “Bud, shrooms, tab, Mol and edibles,” where were – in the drug trafficking world we’re talking marijuana, mushrooms, tabs would be referred to generally acid or LSD, Mol would be Molly and the edibles would be like marijuana edibles.
MS. HAND: Okay.
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Then in the next – the next one that was sent it says, “KK, a 60, a gram.” That’s from Hulkolas to C. And he then inquires with RN, which typically means right now, and then again he states, puts in there, “We low on this quarter.” And then C responds, “Bet” which means okay and then C –
THE COURT: Well, no, that one says Hulkolas says, “Bet.”
SERGEANT JENNINGS: No, it was from – that was from. From C to Hulkolas would be bet, I think. The C is from –
THE COURT: Oh, I see. Gotcha. I’m sorry, yes. I had – I see.
MS. HAND: The first column, your Honor, is – combines both –
THE COURT: I see, yep.
MS. HAND: Okay.
SERGEANT JENNINGS: And then C responds, “Mols” to Hulkolas.
BY MS. HAND:
MS. HAND: Meaning –
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Meaning Molly.
MS. HAND: Okay.
SERGEANT JENNINGS: And then Hulkolas responds, “Sure, WYA”, where you at? And Hulkolas responds, “Okay, CJ. He might get there before me.” He’s saying maybe to a partner or somebody else, try him. Further up the thread Hulkolas – to see – “He’s got my stuff for you” meaning he’s got the – the Molly they were talking about – “for you.” And then C inquires to Hulkolas, “I – I picked up a gram of Mol today.” “And then he’s got a rave” – both Mols, which is Molly. “And he’s got a rave on Friday and he’s fittin to get lit.” And Hulkolas – then C responds to Hulkolas, who – again the Fuego guy says he ran out. Hulkolas responds to C, he says, “Cool. I got you. Cheaper than him”, meaning he’s got product that’s cheaper than this other guy. And that return customers to him get the best deals. And then Hulkolas responds to C again, says, “I got you. He’s 70 a gram right now and it’s the last of this quarter” meaning $70 a gram for the Molly. And then Hulkolas responds again right after that to C, “Pure AF” –
MS. HAND: Meaning?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Which the AF is slang for – it would be pure as fuck. And then Hulkolas gives C a – an address, I believe, to go to. And I think that’s it for the drug trafficking on that thread.
MS. HAND: Okay, it continues on the next page, right?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: Okay.
SERGEANT JENNINGS: And Hulkolas is still sending messages to C stating that he’s got no scale, weight – he – he directs him to come to the Panda Express side of where they’re at. Hulkolas also responds to C and says, “You better be alone,” which is common in the drug trafficking – when they make transactions they like people to be alone, by themselves. C responds to him, “True, no problem, boss.” And Hulkolas responds to C, “You know, I know a trap. Could supply you, brother. I’m from Northville.” And Hulkolas is responding to C again, to “Hit up a CJ at him. He’s got you my stuff.” More about weed, “My grower won the cannabis cup.” Talking – also talking about an indoor grow operation, marijuana grow operation. He continues to talk to C about, you know, “$10 a gram but it sells for $20 easy for your custos,” talking about the prices of marijuana generally. And then he goes in to talk with Hulkolas again, “I got better carts with no pesticides.” Again, carts is a common term for marijuana. Then Hulkolas further up the thread inquires again that he is the plug, says, “I am the plug.” And Hulkolas also tells C that they get a kilo of Mol, which is Molly, at a time. And –
MR. ROCKIND: What’s the date of this?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: The date of that – of that text I just said was March 28th.
MR. ROCKIND: Object to the relevance of March 28th, Judge.
MS. HAND: Your Honor, under People versus Hartwick, which is a Michigan Court of Appeals case, Judge, any indication regarding drug trafficking by the defendant that is, in fact, relevant to show the defendant’s motive, desire or intent doesn’t have to be the day of. In Hartwick the circuit court judge – this is an Oakland County case, allowed like 3,000 text messages into evidence, some of them dating back years and as well as discuss different drugs than the drugs for which the defendant was on trial. And the Court of Appeals indicated that in fact it was relevant.
MR. ROCKIND: It was found on the person’s phone at this – that was seized during the search warrant.
MS. HAND: Judge, this is –
MR. ROCKIND: This is – this is – this is totally different.
MS. HAND: You don’t stand any more for the judge?
THE COURT: It’s relevant –
MR. ROCKIND: She’s trying to –
THE COURT: - to whether or not he’s a drug dealer or not. It’s not – it doesn’t necessarily tell me anything about whether on the 18th of March or the 19th he delivered drugs to the decedent, but it is relevant so the objection is overruled.
MR. ROCKIND: I’m sorry I didn’t stand, Judge.
THE COURT: That’s okay. I understand, Mr. Rockind.
MR. ROCKIND: I’m getting old.
SERGEANT JENNINGS: And then C inquired to Hulkolas on April fifth, the date at the very top – I think it’s the last message on this thread that, “You got Mols?” meaning Molly.
BY MS. HAND:
MS. HAND: Okay. And I’m going to show you know, could you go to M. Harrington?
THE COURT: Is that on a different piece of paper?
MS. HAND: It is. May I approach, Judge?
THE COURT: Sure. Do you want me to give you that one back?
MR. ROCKIND: Judge, can I – I have to make – if I were to give the prosecutor and your Honor our disk that has these chats that we got as part of discovery, there is no M. Harrington message. I – I have an idea of what I want but there is no M. Harrington message on our disk.
MS. HAND: Judge, if Counsel wishes to adjourn and we have another date of October second, if he wants to come sit down at my office and if there was something that for some reason didn’t transfer to his – he’s looking at paper, which I agree with – that those pages aren’t every single message, but they are on the –
MR. ROCKIND: No, actually I – I’m looking at a – that was part of discovery and we compared that to what was on our disk. It’s an M. Harrington message that was not on our – was not on the disk. Specific – I know the specific message that they’re talking about, and that was not on the disk.
THE COURT: Okay, so –
MS. HAND: But he has it. He’s saying he –
THE COURT: Okay, but hold on a second. I – because it’s already three minutes after 4:00, and I can tell we’re definitely not going to get the exam done anyway today, I don’t think. Is that agreed by everyone?
MS. HAND: This is my last witness, Judge.
MR. ROCKIND: I don’t know how much more she has to go. Can I just see the message we’re talking about?
THE COURT: Sure. Please come up and get it. Why don’t you both come up and look at it together. It sounds like this – we might be getting to the most important message of all.
MS. HAND: It – it is.
THE COURT: Because is this literally just a couple of messages that are just the most important ones that we’re talking about?
MS. HAND: These are –
THE COURT: Then why don’t I just take a 10-minute break and you can look at it right here?
MR. ROCKIND: Let me see it on the computer.
THE COURT: If you would open it up from your version –
MS. HAND: I will have to try to find it, yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. HAND: They are not in alphabetical order on there, which is a problem. I can –
THE COURT: Okay. Can we – can we try it for five or 10 minutes and if it doesn’t work I’ll adjourn it?
MS. HAND: Sure.
THE COURT: So everyone has their opportunity to do whatever they need to do.
MS. HAND: Absolutely, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay, so I’m going to take a brief recess, 10 minutes. (At 4:04 p.m off the record - At 4:11 p.m back on the record)
THE COURT: 19-4619, I’ll note all the attorneys’ appearances and the – and the defendant’s presence. Where do we stand, Ms. Hand?
MS. HAND: Your Honor, I was able to show it to Mr. Rockind on my thumb drive and apparently there must be – I trust him that I will recopy the thumb drive for him, but he did view that it was on the original information received.
THE COURT: So what would – what would be your pleasure, Mr. Rockind? Would you like me to adjourn this exam for more time –
MR. ROCKIND: No. No, no. The messages are what they are and so our – all I wanted to do for purposes of this discussion was to make sure that we – because I know the disk that we have is – doesn’t match what the State has, but –
THE COURT: The discovery, okay. It sounds like that’s going to be correct.
MS. HAND: Yes.
MR. ROCKIND: To – to come back to present this stuff again, I mean we made our – our relevance objection and our attribution objection.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. ROCKIND: So – and the Court has overruled us.
THE COURT: Go ahead, then, Ms. Hand. Continue.
MS. HAND: All right.
BY MS. HAND:
MS. HAND: So there is a – a – a message from M. Harrington, correct?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: And what’s the date and time on that one?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: It is – it began Tuesday, March 19th at 13:17 UTC, so that would be 10:17, I believe.
MS. HAND: So 13 is –
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Four hours is 13 – no, I’m sorry, it would be 9:17.
MS. HAND: a.m. on the –
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: - 19th?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: That’s correct.
MS. HAND: Okay and what is the –
SERGEANT JENNINGS: It’s from – the first message on this thread is from M. Harrington to Hulkolas and it says, “You give that dude meth?” which is short for methamphetamine. And at – on the same date at 15:03 UTC, which would be 1:00 in the afternoon, approximately – I’m sorry, 11:00 a.m. approximately, Hulkolas responds to M. Harrington saying, “Methylone, some Mol,” which is Molly.
MS. HAND: Did you go through all of the chats?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: Okay, are there more than – more than one thread that indicates that the Hulkolas is, in fact, a seller of the controlled substance Molly?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: Okay.
MS. HAND: Judge, I don’t know if we need to have the officer sit here and read all of these thread –
BY MS. HAND:
MS. HAND: Are there any other thread messages where people are asking what the - what’s – what that guy’s on or what – what did that guy do? Do you recall those things?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MS. HAND: All right, and what is the defendant’s response?
MR. ROCKIND: I – I object to that.
BY MS. HAND:
MS. HAND: What is Hulkolas’ response?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: It’s the same response, “Methylone, some Mol.”
MS. HAND: Okay and I don’t know if the Court wants me to go through each of these or if – I – I trust that the Court is very astute in interpreting –
THE COURT: Okay, can I see them? Could I see the written –
MS. HAND: Sure.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. HAND: And, Judge, I – I didn’t mark those formally, but those would be People’s five.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Cross-examine – did you already cross-examine, Mr. Rockind? I don’t think you did yet.
MR. ROCKIND: I didn’t.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROCKIND:
MR. ROCKIND: Sergeant Jennings, the – is it Sergeant? Detective Sergeant?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes, sir.
MR. ROCKIND: Let me see if I just – you never – you personally have never met Nicholas Remington, is that right?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: That’s correct.
MR. ROCKIND: And I understand that you talk – you're testifying about the terms and – terms and things that are commonly used in drug trafficking, right?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: That’s correct.
MR. ROCKIND: Okay. As opposed to things that you have personally heard or observed Mr. Remington say, right?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Correct.
MR. ROCKIND: Let me ask this about the – the – you have – you're looking at what purports to be – there’s a – it’s a Excel spreadsheet, right?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: I believe it’s Excel.
MR. ROCKIND: It’s a table, right? And the table contains what purport to be chat messages between the account named Hulkolas and other Snapchat accounts, right?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MR. ROCKIND: Do you have a Snapchat account?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: I do not.
MR. ROCKIND: And in the course of your investigations have you ever come across a – an individual that utilized Snapchat?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MR. ROCKIND: What – fair to say you – you're at lease familiar enough that you know that Snapchat is a social media application, right?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MR. ROCKIND: And all – an individual can sign up for an account, correct?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MR. ROCKIND: And you would have a username and a password, right?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: That’s correct.
MR. ROCKIND: Are you aware of anything that stops anybody from having the same – from using that same name and password? In other words, are you aware of anything that stops two –
MS. HAND: I’m going to object to the foundation.
MR. ROCKIND: Well, I’m gonna – what do you mean, he’s testifying about records and I’m asking him a question based on –
MS. HAND: He’s testifying to what he sees on the records, Judge. He’s not – he’s not –
MR. ROCKIND: Well, I’m not –
THE COURT: Overruled at this point.
BY MR. ROCKIND:
MR. ROCKIND: So – let me back up a second, just so I can lay a foundation very simply. I presume you have an email address, right?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MR. ROCKIND: And I presume you have just a - a password. I don’t want to know it and I’m not trying to pry, you have a password, right?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MR. ROCKIND: And if you were to give me your email address and your password I could access your email and post as the same name or send a message under the same name, right?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Yes.
MR. ROCKIND: Okay. And these messages all come from the account Hulkolas or to the account Hulkolas, correct?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: That’s correct.
MR. ROCKIND: Yeah, and you don’t know at the – each individual message, who had access to the Hulkolas account, correct?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: I do not.
MR. ROCKIND: And you don’t know who sent the messages or who received them, right?
SERGEANT JENNINGS: No.
MR. ROCKIND: Nothing else, your Honor, thank you.
THE COURT: Redirect?
MS. HAND: None, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay, thank you. You're free to leave and go about your business. Is there any reason why this witness needs to remain?
MS. HAND: No, your Honor.
MR. ROCKIND: No, your Honor, thank you.
SERGEANT JENNINGS: Okay.
(At 4:17 p.m., witness excused)
THE COURT: You said –
MS. HAND: People rest.
THE COURT: Okay, People rest. Okay, Defense – any witnesses from the defense? Do you need a moment?
MR. ROCKIND: No, I would – I – I don’t have any witnesses present, your Honor, but I would – I would appreciate – you know what, I don’t have any witnesses for preliminary examination. I’ll just leave it at that.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. HAND: Your Honor, People move to bind the defendant over as charged on the one count contained in the complaint and warrant, that being delivery of a controlled substance causing death. As the Court is aware the cause of death was stipulated to and unfortunately Denis Preka did, in fact, consume methylenedioxymethamphetamine which did, in fact, result in his death. The question then for this Court is did the defendant deliver that substance to him? Judge, in – in this particular case, as the Court is perusing, and I have no objection to coming back for a ruling if the Court wishes more time. I know it’s a lot of material. And – as well as there’s many more videos that are contained in People’s exhibit three that clearly show that the defendant – this was not the only incident where the defendant videotaped individuals reacting to the consumption of drugs. And the laughter and the reaction of the defendant is very similar in a lot of the other videos. He’s – he’s run – I mean, his wording and his demeanor as he’s videotaping, if there’s any doubt Mr. Rockind indicates that, you know, to the officer that – can – can you show that the – that in fact the defendant is the user. On that same day, if the Court takes the time to go through the information received in Snapchat, the defendant is doing selfies in a mirror and posting those stories lives. So, there is no doubt, if the Court looks at the Snapchat information, that the defendant is, in fact, the person using this account on March 18th, on March 19th, and thereafter. And if the Court looks at the Snapchat text messages that we’re going through, there are numerous messages where people are asking, “What’s that kid on?” in response to – and again, it’s hard for the Court, I understand, because I can't put the videos into the time frame of the Snapchat. The Court would have to look at the actual tape. But the – these responses of – of what’s this kid on are coming on the heels of the timing of the posting of these very disturbing videos of the defendant – I’m sorry, the victim, near his death. There is also, if the Court looks through the printed messages, there is text messages from Paul Wiedmaier, who was the individual identified at the scene. And shortly before 911 was called in the morning he is Snapchatting the defendant and the defendant is telling him to wake him up, pour water on him and then after April fifth there – there is – I’m sorry, right after – when I asked Detective Balog approximately how – how long he was at the house, I believe he indicated an hour and a half to two hours. Shortly thereafter there is a Snapchat log from Paul Wiedmaier to the defendant to meet us at the part across the street from Northville High School. And then later on, several days later, Paul Wiedmaier indicates to the defendant that, “You weren’t drinking at my house.” The defendant in this case is clearly the holder of this account and when asked not what is he on but what did you give him and he responds, “Methylone and some Mol.” Clearly that is a admission that he gave the substance, which he references numerous times throughout the Snapchat, to the decedent in this particular case. And this creates a question for the Trier of fact, your Honor, and I’m asking you to bind over as charged.
MR. ROCKIND: We object to a bind over. I’m not going to go too far down the – the rabbit hole, but we have contemporaneous – well, we’ve got videos that appear to be relatively contemporaneous with events which there is no drugs observed in which Mr. – the – Mr. Remington is in the videos or is commenting or they’re all joking, there’s in the background – no referencing, no admission that he has given him the drug or saying, “This is what the drug is” or anything else and then the People want to introduce, I guess, the tie-in for them is the Snapchat log and try to share with the Court that this is not how Snapchat looks. This is a – I don’t even know what the best way to describe it. This is – any word that I use to describe the comparison of these logs to the – to actual Snapchat communications is – is potentially offensive. These are – these are an abomination. These are not – these have – bear almost no relationship in look, feel or appearance to Snapchat communications. The one thing that I can assure the Court is what Detective Jennings happened to testify to, that is that there is neither he nor the prosecutor, with all due respect, nor the Court can say even to a probable cause standard that Mr. Remington is the one who entered – made those entries on March 18th. All it would take is an individual to know – or March 19th, excuse me. All it would take someone to have access to the account and a – and a password. The fact of the matter is - is that there is no evidence that Mr. Remington sent those other than the claim that it just had to be him because it – it’s his account. And the fact of the matter is that there – nothing ties him to those specific messages on that specific day. There were other people that were in the house that day. So we object to a bind over, your Honor. And I – and I’ll reserve any – I don’t want to waive any of the objections that we raise. Obviously, we raised substantial objections, excuse me, to the admission of the Snapchat records and I don’t want to waive that for purposes of – of argument later on, your Honor.
THE COURT: Just so that I’m clear and make sure that I didn’t miss something during the testimony, was there any evidence proffered that – of the Snapchat username of the decedent?
MS. HAND: No, there was not. And may I just briefly respond?
THE COURT: Yes, please.
MS. HAND: Judge, for – for Counsel to say that there’s no – nothing in evidence to suggest that the defendant was the person using this account, Snapchat is a – an application that’s on your cell phone. And that you send and receive these – these chats and these videos via cell phone and the defendant even in one of the – like I indicated earlier, in one of the Snap videos – the – the Court I’m sure is aware of selfies. He’s actually photographing himself in a mirror holding his cell phone and then sending – sending the - the story. So to say it’s not him and that somebody else got ahold of his account and made these admissions, you know, flies in the face of – of logic and it flies in the face of the evidence that’s presented. Also in those messages, your Honor, there is people asking – I – I can't remember if they’re asking for his name or his user and it – he – he responds, Nicholas Remington. So there is no doubt that this account holder and the user of this account was, in fact, the defendant when you look at the totality of the circumstances.
THE COURT: Okay. So, I’m going to need to go through these a little bit more closely.
MS. HAND: Please.
THE COURT: So, I just want to make sure, because they’re voluminous, so far what I – I’m concerned with, and I want to look and see if the – I’m assuming that the argument about admissibility is because since you both have gone through this voluminous messaging back and forth, that there is a question of fact assuming that the messages are from the defendant and that the messages from other people to and from the defendant are – are talking to him and he’s talking back. Assuming that’s true it’s a question of fact for the Trier of fact, that he actually handed or delivered in some fashion the drugs to Mr. Preka. Are – is that true?
MR. ROCKIND: Are you asking me if – if– if you conclude that Mr. Remington is the individual that sent that message on that date –
THE COURT: Engaged in these conversations –
MR. ROCKIND: I mean, you’re going to conclude that there is a question of fact, even if I –
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. ROCKIND: But you’re going to conclude –
THE COURT: In other words, there is enough in there to raise a question of fact that he actually provided the drugs to the decedent?
MS. HAND: Are you asking me?
THE COURT: Well, I –
MS. HAND: Yeah, I –
THE COURT: - know your position. Right.
MS. HAND: I think you just answered it –
MR. ROCKIND: Right. I mean, we – the reason why we put up such a fight about the Snapchat and these records is that this is not the way that these messages look in – in reality. And the reason – I – I know maybe we could have maybe just put it all in and then argued this at this point about why we were raising challenges, but there are – I can point to the Court, there are – there is not a lot of grammar in these. But there are odd sort of hieroglyphics and symbols and other oddities like question marks and things that appear in the middle of some statements or – or comments in some of these messages, which clearly are not what an individual messaged. Nobody types out the message with a couple of – it says, you know, “Hi” and then all of a sudden it has these odd symbols and I suspect that that’s attributed to how Snapchat, which retrieves the data in anticipation of litigation and it populates a – an Excel spreadsheet. I’m not – I don’t use Excel, but I've been told that – if your Honor knows Excel that when you cut and paste into Excel, a lot of times the Excel spreadsheet will not actually read the same - the language the same as the input. That causes me great concern, because the punctuation and grammar on some of these is absent and I think that can change the context. There are some additional messages that I think your Honor will see that are blank, that are just absent which means that they’re missing data, which is why I was so concerned about – see, if I were to – and this is why I started to argue earlier and the prosecutor is standing up and wants me to probably sit down, but if I were – if I were to engage in Snapchat conversations right now we can screenshot each one of those Snapchats. And I can – we could look at the way that the – the communication unfolded and I – we could then take that – those communications and we could see how we each typed those messages out and then we can compare that to a – where someone could populate a Excel spreadsheet and we can compare what’s in there to what is in – in our phones or what the screenshots are and we could verify the accuracy and reliability of it. And we – we don’t have that here. What I have is I have claim that one message that somebody at Snapchat, this company, somehow took data in response to a search warrant, put it into an Excel spreadsheet, we don’t know how they retrieved it. I don’t know whether it’s a program or an algorithm or they pay these – some clerks to sit there and do it by hand, I don’t know. But populated into an Excel spreadsheet without – without comparing it to the actual screenshots and then – and then tell you that that’s – this is – this is what this Hulkolas sent and Hulkolas received and I don’t know – you know, I simply don’t know if that’s accurate. That’s – and literally the bind over, if you ask me, the decision whether you bind over or not is entirely dependent on your review of the Snapchat records. The prosecution wants to use those as admissions.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. ROCKIND: And that’s why I put up such a – I tried to be as technically challenging about them, because I felt like I knew that that’s the crux of their case at this point. And because of that we are left with –
THE COURT: I’m going to have to give you – would you like a decision date?
MS. HAND: Yes, Judge, can I just add one thing?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. HAND: This is no different than – and I’m – I don’t know if the Court has seen it, but I’m assuming it has, a cell phone dump. When a cell phone dump was done by computer crimes, when they take the information out of the phone if there is an emoji the emoji is replaced by a symbol. So, that goes to whatever weight the jury wants to give these little things that show up. But it has nothing to do with the admissibility of it or the fact that it was prepared, you know, in the course of litigation. That simply isn’t the case. But I just wanted to add that for the Court’s –
MR. ROCKIND: Can – can I raise the issue? This is the issue I have. Okay, and I – I’m glad you're going to take the time to look at it, your Honor. I appreciate that. Ms. Hand and I, we’ve had a lot of battles over the years and she – she’s a very tough opponent, very tough, capable litigant.
MS. HAND: But the –
MR. ROCKIND: No, no, no. There’s no – but what’s happening is she’s offering her – she’s offering - she’s offering an explanation that is not under oath and was not borne out by any technical knowledge.
MS. HAND: Isn’t that what he’s been doing this whole time?
MR. ROCKIND: No, no, no – but – wait a minute. But I’m doing it a different way. I’m doing it a different way. It thought – I’m going to tell you this, your Honor, I’m going to say this. I never in court – I’m gonna do my job. I’m never going to be disrespectful to Mr. Preka’s family. Ever. Okay? I know they probably don’t appreciate the job that I have to do, but I’m never going to disrespect those people, okay? And I hope they understand that. Any argument I’m making, it’s not to belittle them or him or in any way. It’s doing my job.
THE COURT: I understand.
MR. ROCKIND: So, I’m making arguments not to advance why you should – how you should interpret this evidence, I’m making my arguments to point out that the evidence itself is not reliable enough why there’s a level of discomfort and why expert testimony should be required by the people in order to offer an explanation about what this – what – why there are hieroglyphics and – and symbols that happen to be interspersed or why there are gaps or absences. I’m not trying to testify to that or to say that you should rely on that, I’m pointing them out to say that those are inexplicable and that you should have a – a doubt about the reliability of the records. A cell phone dump and a cell phone extraction using Cellebrite, which I think I am familiar with, is entirely different. Because when you do a cell phone extraction you’re literally taking a mirror image. There’s a program designed to actually extract the data, is has a – it is a program. We would have an expert, a police officer that would come in to court here to explain the Cellebrite program, to explain the different levels of – whether it’s a physical extraction or a logical extraction, the difference between those things, how the Cellebrite program works, what their training is, what filters they use and then they’d be able to tell us that if there’s any doubt about it, which has happened to me in court, they would bring the phone in and hook it up and say you can compare it. That’s different than what we have here. We just have an Excel spreadsheet and we’re being told to extract from that, to deduce from that that the Excel spreadsheet means that these messages appeared on phones somewhere and that the messages that were on phones were in the exact same format and were actually entered by the two people that – on both ends and one of which they’re claiming was the most important one, is that every time there is a message sent by someone named Hulkolas that that person was Nicholas Remington and that’s not – that’s just not borne out by the evidence and that’s why we – I – when you asked me do I want to call any witnesses, the answer is I don’t have any witnesses to call today. But, boy, I sure hope if it’s not your Honor, I sure hope that whoever our circuit court judge is, if you bind over, or if you choose not to bind over or if you want to delay, I sure hope that you order somebody from Snapchat to appear and come and offer expert testimony and explain the process by which these – this information is populated into this Excel spreadsheet. Because right now we have no explanation for them other than the prosecutors saying that it’s as reliable as if we looked at a phone, and there’s no evidence of that.
THE COURT: All right, so let’s do this.
MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, can I just ask one thing? The – the bond, you’ll – you’ll address that the next time we’re here, if we want to make a bond motion?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. LEWIS: You don’t want to do that today?
THE COURT: You can do it today if you’d like. I don’t – it doesn’t matter to me. But I want – before we get to that part I’d like to finalize what we’re going to do moving forward.
MR. LEWIS: Okay.
THE COURT: So, would you like to come back in a week or two? Let me preface that by saying what I’d really like to see, if possible. Can you have delivered to the court here a copy for me of what you’re now going to give again to Mr. Rockind?
MS. HAND: Yes.
THE COURT: Along with a protective order?
MS. HAND: Yes.
THE COURT: Can that happen fairly soon? Maybe within a week?
MS. HAND: Yes.
THE COURT: And then come back a week after that perhaps, give you a chance to look everything – I’ll look very carefully. This is a serious case, it’s very important.
MS. HAND: Yes.
THE COURT: I’ll make sure I give it –
MS. HAND: You’re missing a page, Judge. If I could approach with that?
THE COURT: Please.
MS. HAND: From five. And, Judge, I just want to let you know and I’m sure Mr. Rockind figured it out, so on the People’s exhibit three, which I’m going to bring you a copy of the thumb drive, the Excel spreadsheet is done chronologically. I did a search engine so that the Court and myself and – we could read her sender and receiver, so they’re not in the same order as you’re going to view them.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. HAND: Okay, can I approach with the remaining number five?
THE COURT: Sure.
MS. HAND: And did you want four? The video? Or no?
THE COURT: Why not.
MS. HAND: Or you just want the thumb drive?
THE COURT: Sure.
MS. HAND: Okay.
THE COURT: I think I – I’ll take a look at it again.
MR. ROCKIND: Do you need us to prepare a separate written protective order regarding the – the decedent – Mr. Preka’s cell phone?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. ROCKIND: Okay. All right.
THE COURT: All right. Now, this – you have another copy of this as well, yes?
MS. HAND: You have a copy?
THE COURT: I’m not super tech savvy, so I think I hate to have your only one, because if I mess it up – if you want to copy this and bring it back with the flash drive –
MS. HAND: I’ll give you – okay.
THE COURT: Okay, so lastly, housekeeping mattes. So, the exhibit is three-quarters of a ream of paper. Do you want me to count these pages so that the record is very clear exactly how many pages of documents you’ve given me?
MR. LEWIS: No, that’s no necessary.
THE COURT: All right, so now do you have your calendars to pick a return date?
MR. ROCKIND: Are you take – Judge, are you taking argument or just going to rule that day?
THE COURT: I give you – I’ll give you brief argument –
MR. ROCKIND: No, I don’t know that – because I’m just trying to –
THE COURT: I’m just trying to rule, is what I’m really trying to do, but I won’t rule until I’ve taken the time to really look at it all –
MR. ROCKIND: No, because I was going to say, because if that’s the case I don’t know if both Mr. Lewis and I are required that day.
THE COURT: You don’t – you don’t both need to be here.
MR. ROCKIND: Okay. Let’s just figure out which one of us –
THE COURT: That will make the calendar easier. So as long as one of the two of you can be present that should be satisfactory just to hear bind over or no bind over, right?
MR. ROCKIND: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. So, can either of you be here the afternoon of – and Ms. Hand and someone from the defense – be here the afternoon of October 30th? October 16th?
MR. ROCKIND: I do – I’m wondering – I’m just looking to –
MS. HAND: Judge, I could do the information you want by Tuesday, October first, which I should be able to –
MR. ROCKIND: I’m here on the 16th anyway, your Honor, for an exam in the afternoon.
THE COURT: Why don’t we do it then?
MR. ROCKIND: I’m here – I have an exam in front of you on the 16th, I guess, unless you want to do a different day.
THE COURT: Let’s do it the 16th.
MS. HAND: That’s fine.
MR. ROCKIND: Doesn’t mean I have to deal with Ms. Hand on that other exam, does it?
THE COURT: Only if you’re lucky. So that’s the 16th at 1:30. Okay. Any other housekeeping matters that I may have overlooked? I think that covered everything. Protective order, copies of the exhibits, nothing else? Go ahead and make your bond motion if you want to.
MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, the last time that Mr. Rockind argued the bond there was an exchange between him and Ms. Hand. There was certain representations that were made to you that you were going to see videos that showed the commission of this offense. I believe that was represented to you two court appearances ago. Mr. Rockind, the last time we were here he made representations to the Court that you are not going to hear from any live witness that comes in there that Mr. Remington admitted to somebody that he delivered drugs to the decedent in this case and I think that that’s what was borne out here today to a certain extent. I’m not going to get back into all of the legal issues that were raised today between Mr. Rockind, Ms. Hand, what was admitted as business records, what’s disputed, whether they’re actually business records or not. That would be the subject of litigation at a later time, if the Court chooses to bind over here. The bottom line here is that he’s – Mr. Remington, he – you know, you did see a video here today, but on that video what you see is – is kids horsing around. You see kids laughing, multiple participants in these. I – I would assert to the Court that if not for the unfortunate death of the decedent in this case nobody would even be looking at these videos and talking about how – that they show evidence, that he delivered and that they show any type of commission of an offense. They could just as easily be interpreted as kids horsing around. He’s in jail on a million-dollar bond in this case
and as we represented to this Court before, you know, on the previous occasions, he can be on – on home tether. He still is on probation to Judge Jarbou, who continued his HYTA status in another matter. His mom is always present at all the court hearings in this case. He has substantial community support. There is no reason to believe that he’s not going to appear back here. He has no prior failures to appear in court. He was a student at the University of Michigan. I’m asking the Court to consider a bond that we’d assert to the Court is more commensurate with what the Court has seen so far in this case. I’m asking the Court to consider $100,000 10 percent bond. I believe that that is a bond with conditions that your Honor could impose, would assure his reappearance in court. You could issue no contact with any potential witnesses in this case. You can put any conditions on that the Court feels comfortable with. But I assert to the Court that that’s a bond where he is going to appear back here. He’s – has nowhere to go. He’s only a citizen of the United states. He doesn’t have dual citizenship and I – I would assert to the Court that a million-dollar bond is excessive in this case. Thank you.
THE COURT: Response?
MS. HAND: Your Honor, once the Court has the opportunity to go through People’s exhibits three and five you will see that the defendant was dealing drugs the day after the death of Denis Preka. There is absolutely no remorse for the fact that the drugs he delivered to him, and I submit to the Court that when you read the text messages and it – if in fact you find, as I hope that you do, that he is in fact the holder of this account. When he indicates to Matt Harrington that he was the person that gave him the meth and the Mol the next day, he’s selling drugs again. And he continues to sell drugs. He’s selling drugs on a regular basis. He is a danger to the society and to say that that is kids horsing around, I – I have a completely different take on the videos that the Court saw. This is an individual who was laughing, and I don’t – I have other words for it, but I’ll just say a disturbing laugh at the suffering that this individual was going through. Pouring water on him, covering his mouth with a – a cup when it’s clear from the video that he’s having difficulty breathing. His eyes are black and
sunken in. His breathing is shallow. So the way they’re cleaning him up when he says clean as a whistle by pouring water on him, this is not kids horsing around. This is a defendant videotaping the end of the life of another human being, which does in fact happen. The life does end. Whether or not the video shows him standing there watching it end or not the life has ended. He knows it and the next day other people are calling him for drugs and he’s supplying them. This is a individual with no remorse, no conscience, no sanctity for the – for the human life and – and telling people that his product his pure AF after another person just died. I don’t know that there is somebody that – well, I’m sure there are people equally as dangerous, but this is a dangerous person, a person who doesn’t deserve to be a lower bond so that he can potentially go out and harm other people when he’s already under court order. And when Judge Jarbou continued him on probation he wasn’t charged with this offense, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. I want to take a look at all of these. I did skim through some of them and I did see what appears to be conversations about continuing drug sales after the fact. I remember very clearly all of Mr. Rockind’s arguments and your responses. I understand that the modern trend nationally is for bail reform and bond modification. I understand our Constitutional prohibitions, our court rule that talks about bond very well. But, at this point, until I see you next I’m going to continue his bond. It is of concern that he’s on probation for a drug felony. It is of concern that it is – it appears at least, on some – on cursory review that he’s continuing the narcotics trade. The protection of the community is one of the factors I am to consider under the current case law. So, for right now, I am going to continue his bond. We’ll see you on the 16th.
MS. HAND: Thank you, Judge. And thank you for the use of your court rules.
THE COURT: No problem.
(September 27, 2019 4:46 p.m proceeding concluded)
Comentarios