Detective Recalls Meeting Woman Who Accused Man Who Faked Death of Assault

all righty welcome everybody we got our attorneys here Mr Knight is here good afternoon Mr Knight um Council you ready to proceed state is ready you're okay who's your first witness first the state would move to admit uh what's been marked for identification as States exhibit one it is an 1102 statement from victim Ms any objection Mr d i yes or no um I mean I think the rule requires some Foundation to be laid before the 1102 is admitted to the court so I'd ask that they laid the foundation through agent codes just sort of procedurally I do have some objections to certain um content in the 1102 but it's really more on the basis of relevance and the hope that the court is not considering certain components of the 1102 statement and making a decision all right Simons I disagree about the necessary Foundation but it's also no problem to uh lay some foundation and then make the request again let hear from your witness State calls detective Derek coats step forward stand in front Myer and ra your right hand we canister the do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give the case now before the court will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth subject to the pains and penalties of perjury all right have a seat watch your step and would you state your name and spell your last name for the rec my name is Derek coats c a TS all right you ready to councel okay uh is it okay if I call you detective coats yes uh where do you work now I currently work for the Utah Department of Correction where did you work from 2018 to 2023 I work for the Utah Department of Public Safety and what was your assignment with the Utah Department of Public Safety I was assigned to specifically the sexual assault kit initiative that was a Federal grant funding um any of work around investigating cases that had not been previously investigated or tested under the sexual Soul kit program so were those generally older cases correct um what was your um first involvement uh in the cases involving suspect Nicholas Rossi so as a part of my job I was reviewing cotus hits as they came through the State Crime Lab can can I stop you there and ask you what a cotus hit is yeah it's through the combined DNA index system it's a federal program where um DNA profiles are stored for law enforcement to compare DNA from forensic samples in criminal cases okay and and what is a so what is a codus hit what does it mean when there's a codus hit a codus hit me indicates it's a letter returned back to the law enforcement agency that submitted a DNA sample for testing or that had been tested and then sought to be identified and in this case um and remind me of the question I was trying to get out of what what a hit is what that indicates so the hit once there is a potential match within the system and there's a verification process that happens in between that then it's submitted back to the agency and it's treated as an investigative lead for law enforcement to follow up on okay so in effect is would would a hit be would another way to say that be that a that a hit is when um a sample that we have for example in Utah matches a DNA sample somewhere else and I realize I'm using the word match very generally yeah I understand you're getting it um yes so in this case this Cod hit that we observed was a match to the an offender out of Ohio and the the where was the Utah DNA sample from what part of Utah uh that was from Utah County okay and did you um did you get involved in the investigation after uh notifying Utah County of that codus hit I did um when did you get um did there come a point when you um effectively started to lead the investigation yes uh approximately when was that Hest say it was around uh I had I had started working it between the summer of 2019 and the um winter of 2020 and and then requested around 2020 to I take lead on the case Okay uh so the the what kind of um case was the Utah so so I'm asking for the just very general because we're not here for the Utah County case today just asking what kind of allegation was made in the Utah County case and when did that allegation come from okay so the the case in Utah County was reported uh again sexual assault and so the DNA from that sexual assault kit was submitted for testing under the saki program as I described earlier um and so that case required an investigation and followup which then led to other information okay when and where was the uh sexual assault in Utah County alleged to have happened uh best recollection I'm sorry it's been a minute since I've looked at it it was 2008 I remember that uh it was around the summer the late or like spring summer of 2008 okay and was that in uh what city was it in or was the reporting agency okay um so so and I'm sorry I've just forgotten your answer when did you approximately when did you say you uh kind of took the lead in the in the investigation in that uh Orum case I don't remember the specific but it was in 2020 it was like U right on the cusp of December January okay did you hear um so I'm jumping forward in time now uh did there start to be uh media attention about uh that investigation and the subsequent investigation later on yes um as a result of that uh media attention did you hear from anyone in Salt Lake County I did who did you hear from so in this case are we using initials or name would you prefer States preference would be initials okay so Ms reached out and had indicated that she had had a relationship with the individual on the news media named Rosy or Nicholas Al she as Nicholas Rosy okay uh did you interview her I did do you remember when you interviewed her uh it was around uh 2021 I want to say um forgive me I don't remember the exact date um I noticed that you have a what looks like a report next to you with looking at that report refresher memory about when you interviewed her yeah that would actually if you would sorry I don't have that particular report at the top so I don't want to I apologize have you seen a copy of States exhibit one which is the 1102 1102 statement of Ms I have would looking at that refresh a recollection that may I approach the witness thank okay did that refresh her memory yeah do do you remember approximately when you interviewed her I want to say it was January 14th uh 22 2022 did um did she take you to see anything soon thereafter yes what did she take you to see so um based on the description that she had given we attempted to locate a house uh in the area of Salt Lake City where she believed that U the individual Nicholas Rossy was living at that time um and was she um able to take you to a to a particular Street to a particular house she was do do you remember the address of that house um 853 Blair Street I call okay and is that is that house in Sol County correct okay uh did she provide you with any uh documents that she still had from or sorry let me ask you this do you remember approximately when back up even one more step and to just ask you uh just looking for a very narrow answer here what's the general category of the crime that she alleged Nicholas Rousy had committed the sexual assault and when did approximately when did she tell you that that the Nicholas Rossy had sexually assaulted her that was in December of 2008 did she um give you any uh documents from the from from around that time from around December of 2008 that were related to her uh to her report correct yes she did what did she what did she give you she gave I'd be objecting on the basis of she provided me a copy of a application for wedding rings to a Utah jewelry store at a local mall and she also provided me cell phone records around that time um so you've looked at um States exhibit one an 1102 statement from Ms um is is that exhibit um generally consistent with the report that she made to you yes would move to admit uh States exhibit one objection for the record I don't have objection foundationally I do have objections that I think would be better will take in that argument so can we just sort of table the admission of the 11 I will allow I will allow for the admission of exhibit one uh conditionally subject to whatever argument you may want to raise later and obviously this is only for purposes of today's hearing but will be admitted okay um May I approach and your honor the uh I would ask the court to uh review the 1102 statement at this time it's going to provide a lot of context for subsequent testimony all right it's a little long give me a minute for for for all right Council they ready go ahead okay um as part um well let me ask you this did you um did you do any investigation to connect the [Music] two addresses indicated by Ms uh to Nicholas Rossi all and what did you maybe just summarize for us uh what what sorts of Records you reviewed and and uh whether or not they showed whether or not they tended to corroborate that Nicholas Rousy had resided at those two addresses so I looked in court exchange for any activity that had occurred involving the name of Nicholas Rosy and I also looked in local police reports for any activity that had involved his that same name okay and did you find uh any evidence connecting Nicholas Rossi to the um to the 1362 South 46 West Orum address I and did you find records connecting him to that address I did and what about the 853 uh Blair Street address I had also located within Salt Lake City's record system and as the court um and exchange that address okay so that was so Ms had reported something that happened back in in December of 2008 as part of your investigation for the orm case had you researched the uh the subsequent the history the location and the the identity of Nicholas Rossi after December for where he went after December of 2008 Yes um so you mentioned um you mentioned DNA evidence uh that that that connected with the orm case was uh where did you say that case was from the Orum case so so sorry the the the DNA that the Cod is hit that that so the Cod is hit from the orm case where where other than orm where was the Cod is hit to it connected out of Ohio and and were able to locate a case for Mr rosi in Ohio I have and approximately when was uh when was that case from that was um late winter uh seem to recall around February but it is 2008 as well okay out of Montgomery County earlier that same year correct okay um and was Nicholas Rossi um convicted in that case in Ohio that is my understanding yes um as a result of that conviction was he required to register as a sex offender he was and have you seen uh records of his Sex Offender Registration connected to that case I have okay now I want to ask you about um as you were investigating Mr Rossi um what did you determine to be his I mean did you did you find a birth certificate for him yes what was his uh name at Birth before we go further SES to ID I'm sorry defense stipulates to Identity defense is stipulating to Identity in this case yes for the purposes of preliminary hearing for the purposes of this def toti okay um so the just to be clear the defense is stipulating that the person identified U by the Vic just for purposes of this hearing is the defendant defense relates to Identity yes okay um if I could up just a moment yeah approach e your honor with the uh defense having stipulated to the identity in this CA the the identity of the of the defendant the state rests any questions just very briefly h um so agent cods I just have like two to three questions for you um you no longer work for the Utah Department of Public Safety correct I do not you work through the department of corrections I do okay um and I just want to clarify sort of how you became involved in this case um so there was a codus hit out of a Utah County case correct there is no DNA in the Salt Lake County case to your understanding correct correct okay and then are you involved in sort of both investigating both of these cases or just the Salt Lake County case both okay that's the only questions I have for this witness all right all right any other evidence for the state the state rests all right any evidence for the defense no your honor I have previously advised my client about his right to testify today um it is my advice with Mr RI as it is with all of my clients not testify a preliminary hearing given the standard that is a preliminary hearing I do believe he intends to take my advice is that still the case just to be clear then Mr Ry you're going to follow your attorney's advice and not testify today is that correct okay any other evidence no all right Council any argument I just have brief argument as it relates to the 1102 statement um really just for the purposes of the record candidly um so I'm I've sort of separated this into different paragraphs because there's not page numbers and there's not like numbers of paragraphs so just to be abundantly clear I don't really have an objection to paragraph one um I do have an objection to paragraph I would ask that the court not consider it for purposes of preliminary hearing just on the basis of relevance um paragraph three I would object to everything after sentence three for the court to consider for purposes of preliminary hearing I don't see the relevance in any of that about whether or not Mr Ross's actually assaulted Ms in this particular case um as it relates to paragraph four I would ask that the court not consider that and strike that in its entirety again has really to do with whether or not Mr Rossy sexually assaulted Ms um paragraph five I would object to sentences one and two being considered by the court um because again not really relevant to the purposes of what we're here for today and then the remaining paragraphs 6 seven8 and N I don't have OB all right any other argument Council no Mr St okay you're in a paragraph um to most of so all but the last sentence um are relevant to Identity for reasons that we didn't reach today uh because the defendant stipulated to a to a finding of identity the um the final sentence um does go to um non-consent because it's part of a pattern of of uh because it's part of it's part it's part of a pattern of manipulation and control described by the victim uh and and the fact that the defendant is stipulated to Identity for purposes of today's hearing isn't grounds to um to strike uh the to strike even any of paragraph 2 it simply um because they're still relevant to Identity uh they um you know it corroborates different documents and different uh things that do tend to show identity um as far as the second half of paragraph three um that again goes to U manipulation and control which again are are significant to the Court's determination of non-consent in this case and the defendant's uh knowledge of non-consent paragraph four those items so the the the contents of paragraph 4 again I mean that one goes a little bit toward the the pattern of manipulation but primarily that is that contains um there's evidence in there that that confirms identity again we shouldn't strike those paragraphs simply because identity is stipulated it is it is evidence in this case so it is relevant whether whether it's something that the court has to closely consider or not and then uh the the final sentence of that is relevant to jurisdiction and then let's see the first two par sentences of paragraph five are highly relevant to the Court's determination of non-consent because they don't go directly to the uh pattern of manipulation and control that then uh culminates in the uh the charge conduct in this case so I would object to striking any of those sentences or paragraphs all right um the objection is based on relevance relevance is a low standard um evidence is relevant if it has a tendency to make any fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence I think that all of the portions that have been raise um are relevant U to the background of the case the relationship between these parties and so under a relevant standard I think that they are relevant will stay and the objection is overruled any other arguments to be made Council all right no well this is a preliminary hearing at which the court needs to determine uh from the evidence whether there is a probable cause to believe that the crime charged in the information was committed by this defendant in making this probable cause determination the prosecution is required to produce evidence sufficient to support a reasonable belief that the defendant committed the crime the the charged crime in doing so the court views all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution applying that standard here I find and conclude that the state has met its burden and has presented evidence sufficient to establish probable cause believe that the crime charged in the information was committed and it was committed by this defendant accordingly this matter is bound over um M uh Dugan when would you like to come back for an arraignment um if we could start this for October 18th that would be my preference um your honor candidly at some point we are seeking to have a bail hearing for Mr Rossy um I'm not necessarily prepared to do that for a couple of reasons I need a little bit more information about his medical status in the jail um so if we could set it for October 18th with the understanding maybe we will need a special set bail hearing and I can just let the courts know about that why don't we do this um what if we put it on Thursday October 17th uh and perhaps i' have have a little bit more time in the event you want to explore that that's great is that okay with you Mr s uh should ju so just a question the state should the state be prepared to to potentially argue bail on October 17th for now yes but I will let you know okay um that's fine all right so M Mr Rossy Mr KN okay Mr KN so I will see you on Thursday October 1th uh we will put that at 10 10:00 uh that will be uh I would ask that it be in we will have Mr uh Knight transported uh so October 17 Thursday October 17th at 10:00 for a pre-trial for we'll set it for an arrangment slil hearing okay anything further not at the no all right thank you have a good day everybody take care