The 10th day of Larry Millete’s murder trial got technical. Jurors were given an education into how cell phone towers work and how devices connect to them, delivering packages of information that record timing and general device location info. MIllete is on trial, accused of murdering his wife, Maya. She disappeared in 2021 and her body has never been found. Larry has maintained that he’s innocent. Peter Villaver with the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office returned to the stand Wednesday, continuing his testimony from the previous day to delve further into the Millete family’s cell phone usage. Villaver explained how cell towers and cell sites work to connect to phones. While investigators can’t pinpoint exactly where a cell phone user is located, they do know which sites were used to connect to phones. Using analysis of the data, he laid out a timeline of where Maya’s phone was roughly located on Jan. 7, 2021, the last day she was seen alive. That included revealing that the connection to her phone terminated the next morning at 1:25 a.m.  Villaver said there’s no way to know why it terminated – whether it was turned off, lost battery power, was put into airplane mode or was destroyed. All he could say is that it never connected to another cell site after that time. Villaver said he ran his own test to determine roughly where the phone was located and when it disappeared from the network. He purchased the same phone model, activated service with the same carrier, and used the phone in multiple communities in and around the Millete home. “There was a distinct profile of cell site connections when the phone is used in the San Miguel Ranch community, versus if the device is used in the Rolling Hills Ranch community,” Villaver testified. “I determined the sites that connect when the phone is located in the San Miguel Ranch community are consistent with the sites that last connected to the device when it terminated on Jan. 8, 2021 at 1:25 a.m.” Similarly, Villaver testified about the activity from Larry’s cell phone. He said that device terminated its access to surrounding cell towers starting at 6:33 a.m. that same morning and didn’t go back online until 6:35 p.m. that evening. Larry told investigators he took his son to the beach during that 12-hour stretch, although investigators said they could never confirm that alibi. During cross-examination, one of Larry’s defense attorneys, Colby Ryan, asked questions designed to pick apart the accuracy of the cell phone data analysis and also tried to poke holes into how Villaver conducted his experiment. Ryan pointed out that Villaver didn’t know what operating system Maya’s phone used, if his test phone had a different antenna than hers, if cell tower sites were modified during the seven months between her disappearance and his test, or if changes to topography or nearby buildings were factored into Villaver’s report. Villaver acknowledged that those factors could possibly change cell tower connectivity data but said he stood by his report that Maya’s phone was most likely at the family’s home in Chula Vista’s San Miguel Ranch neighborhood when it lost service. Maya’s sister-in-law testifies about her texts with Larry Late in the day, Genesis Tabalanza took the stand and began testifying at length about text message conversations she had with Larry in 2020. Tabalanza is married to Maya’s brother Jay R. Tabalanza told the jury that Larry would often reach out more than a dozen times a day, desperate to find some way to fix his marriage. She said Larry would often ask about Maya’s whereabouts, if she was wearing her wedding ring and that he often expressed anxiety and depression over their failing marriage. The prosecution wasn’t done questioning Tabalanza, who will return to the stand Thursday morning to continue testimony. If that’s anything like her testimony from the 2023 preliminary hearing, it could help the prosecution paint a clearer picture of key events in the case. That includes when Maya moved out of the house in May 2020, when Larry reportedly caught Maya cheating with Jamey Laird, and what both the Milletes told Tabalanza at two big family gatherings not long before Maya vanished. Questions about Laird’s alibi are off limits One thing was determined before the day’s testimony even began: Before the jury was brought in, Judge Enrique Camarena spoke with the prosecution and defense about one of the most hotly-contested issues – whether the defense was allowed to ask investigators about what they did or didn’t do in relation to Maya’s alleged lover, Laird. Previously, the judge had ruled the defense couldn’t use third-party culpability. Essentially, defense attorneys wouldn’t be allowed to even suggest that another person was responsible for Maya’s disappearance or death. Larry’s other defense attorney, Liann Sabatini, has said that’s not the goal of the defense. She has stated they only want the ability to impeach the investigation – to poke holes in how detectives pursued the case.  Their argument is that detectives had tunnel vision in their pursuit of Larry as the prime suspect, saying they didn’t properly vet the information that was being provided by Laird or other individuals. Sabatini said that included lies Laird told investigators and whether investigators confirmed his alibi was accurate. On Wednesday morning, arguments got heated as the judge cited several California Supreme Court cases where criminal defendants attempted to point to other suspects in the case but were denied because there wasn’t evidence linking them to the crime. The high court ruled that questioning that implied individuals were alternative suspects wasn’t relevant and was a clear attempt at third-party culpability. Sabatini strongly argued against that, and said, “The difference in our case is that we have articulable facts we can point to that a police officer should have investigated … someone who communicated with a person up to the day they disappeared, a person who has a habit of lying to law enforcement … and a person who has a seemingly perfect alibi…. All we have is circumstantial evidence when we talk about [Jamey] Laird … just like the prosecution has about Larry Millete.” Deputy District Attorney Christy Bowles sided with the judge’s assessment of why those Supreme Court cases highlight why specific questions about Laird shouldn’t be allowed. “To discredit Laird to impeach the investigation … that he is a person they should have investigated more fully … that they were biased in his favor, is exactly what [the high court’s ruling] said it is not allowed,” Bowles said. As the 40-minute argument wrapped up, the exchanges got testy between Sabatini and the judge. At points, both interrupted the other. Sabatini: “Sitting here and saying there is no evidence and connection i s…” Camarena: “I think you’ve made your record …” Sabatini: “I cannot be stopped by this court to make a record on behalf of my client. Mr. Laird is not like any other witness.” Camarena: “I think you’ve made that abundantly clear now that we’ve talked about this issue on the record for two hours.” The defense and prosecution also traded barbs, specifically about how Bowles had stated something on the record. “Luckily we have a court reporter, because I did not say that,” Bowles said. Moments before the jury was brought back in, Sabatini was heard saying, “Yeah, luckily we have a court reporter.” A prominent face in the courtroom gallery On Monday, the highest-ranking city official in Chula Vista, Mayor John McCann, spent an entire afternoon sitting in the front row. Wearing a suit with a City of Chula Vista lapel pin, he sat with Maya’s family and watched proceedings. It’s not a common sight to see a public official sitting in on a high-profile murder trial such as this, so NBC 7 reached out for an interview. On Wednesday morning, McCann told us he’s just like millions of other people following this case: He wants to see the evidence firsthand.  “It’s a significant issue that normally doesn’t happen in the city of Chula Vista,” McCann said. “For years, the city of Chula Vista had zero murders. And for suddenly something to happen where we had a murder, or potential murder, and then ultimately have it in the way it happened is very, very shocking to people and ultimately tragic for the family and the children.” McCann also said this case is not political, it’s personal – telling us his parents were neighbors of the Milletes and that he personally volunteered, hiking nearby trails, in search of Maya’s body. NBC 7 asked McCann whether his presence might influence the jury. “I don’t think I was sending a message at all,” McCann said. “I think the jurors are going to make sure that they understand that they need to be fair, look at the evidence, and I’m not there to influence them in any way. I am there to support the family because their family member vanished and potentially is dead.” Criminal defense attorney Marc Carlos had a different take. “Clearly, the presence of the mayor in a small community like this, they would know who the mayor is,” Carlos said. “I would bring that up to the court. I would request that the mayor not be allowed to be present during the proceedings because it’s unfair to the defendant, and it goes on the record and it becomes an issue for appeal.” NBC 7 spoke with the prosecution and defense about McCann’s presence. Both sides declined to comment and have yet to talk about it on the record in court. ...read more read less