Zapata Trial: The Prosecution Rests

SAN ANGELO, TX – The first week of Ray Zapata’s trial concluded just after lunch Friday when the state rested their case with the final testimony of Stephen Thompson, a research specialist with the State's Office of the Attorney General’s office, in charge of following the very complicated money trail. Thompson presented a flow chart that detailed how the money made its way from account to account and into the hands of defendant Ray Zapata.

The transactions began when John Young was given control over the entire Sullivan estate in probate, including several bank accounts with a substantial amounts of money. He proceeded to transfer $1 million dollars to a Sterne Agee capital fund account from which he immediately withdrew $235,000 and deposited to his personal account.

Thereafter, numerous transactions began as Sullivan's money trickled to other individuals. Of that first $235,000 withdrawn, a check for $167,000 was written to probate attorney Chris Hartman.  According to financial records, Hartman wrote a check for $65,312.50 to Dallas attorney Juan Marquez, an individual he had never allegedly met before.

In yesterday’s testimony, Marquez told the court that he gave Zapata control over the money in his Interest on Trust Account (IOTA)  because he trusted his friend and wanted to help.  He said he did not realize at the time that the check was made out to him initially. Once Zapata had access to the account, he began to write a series of checks, according to the prosecution, spending a total of $60,097.12.

After a few weeks, Zapata wrote a check for that same amount to Juan Marquez and, according to the investigation, he used funds from a brokerage account to finance the refund check.  Records indicate that the Juan Marquez IOTA account then issued a cashier’s check back to Chris Hartman for the $65,312.50. The money made a full circle back to Hartman after news of the criminal investigation reached Zapata.

After Thompson’s testimony, the prosecution rested and presented into evidence the infamous missal, a Catholic prayer book, that contained John Sullivan’s hand-written will. In earlier testimony, the clerk who checked-in the will for Judge Ben Nolen's probate court said the will was written on bound pages inside the prayer book that were cut out by a razor blade to be submitted to the court.

The defense began their case with the lead investigator of the case, Texas Ranger Nick Hanna.

The questioning started with asking about Hanna's description of Joe Hernandez's discussion with John Young, where Hernandez told Young that John Sullivan had heirs that lived out-of-state. Click here to read the testimony of Hernandez from this week.

“Wouldn’t that be important to have in the report,” Zapata's defense council Mark Snodgrass asked Hanna.

Hanna’s report, totaling 100 pages, was detailed, and he believed it already had prior information on Young and his connection to Hernandez. He didn’t state the discussion in the report for that reason.

“I want to know the facts for both sides,” Hanna said, adding that he doesn’t advocate for either the state or defense.

After the defense passed the witness, the state also inquired about the discussion between Hernandez and Young.  Hernandez had asked Young about the funeral for Sullivan, which he later found out had already happened and that Sullivan's body was cremated. Young told Hernandez he was the sole beneficiary for the estate, to which Hernandez responded saying that there are heirs of Sullivan that live in Massachusetts.

One quote from the discussion was, “I need to buy some of your time,” which Young said to Hernandez in response to hearing the new information on the heirs. By hiring Hernandez as his attorney, that information about probable heirs to Sullivan's estate could be suppressed in attorney-client privilege, the prosecution suggested through testimony. 

Hanna recalled the interview. Hernandez told Hanna he would never take that deal.

“I didn’t hear that, I didn’t see that,” Hanna quoted what Hernandez said in his investigation.

After Hanna was dismissed, the defense called Jean Budrent to testify. She’s a retired case worker for the State's Attorney General’s office.  She, along with Sullivan, attended daily senior citizen lunches at the senior citizens' center at 618 S Chadbourne St. Sullivan was cheap, and the meals were free there.

Snodgrass asked if she ever had an opportunity to speak with Sullivan about the proceeds of the estate, which the state attorney objected to this being hearsay. After several attempts of rephrasing the question to get around the sustained objections, the state and defense approached the bench to discuss the matter.

After a few minutes of discussion, the objection was sustained but the defense still had the floor. Snodgrass stood up and began to the read the large printout of the will on a poster board located near the jury box to Budrent, as she had a difficult time reading the handwriting.

The will declared that Sullivan would turn over his assets and property to Young as he knew his wishes.

Snodgrass then asked, “Would that be consistent with [Sullivan’s] mindset for the disposition [of his estate]?”

The state objected again, saying it was still hearsay for Budrent to answer that question. The judge overruled this objection. The will was admitted evidence, and allowed Budrent to answer.  

“Absolutely,” she replied to Snodgrass.

After the passing the witness for cross-examination, the judge called for a recess until 9 a.m. on Monday. 

Sonia Ramirez contributed to this article.