MURDER AT THE U Episode 5: Open and Active

Summary

---

30 for 30 Podcasts – Murder at the U

Episode 5: Open and Active
Hosted by Paula Levine; Aired February 24, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this penultimate episode, host Paula Levine and producer Dan Arruda investigate the evolving status of the Brian Pata murder case, exposing contradictions and shortcomings in the Miami-Dade Police Department’s investigation. The episode pivots from searching for Pata’s killer to examining how and why law enforcement failed the case—delving into informants, overlooked evidence, a mysterious jailhouse confession, and the legal wrangling over police transparency. It culminates in ESPN suing the Miami-Dade Police for access to case files, revealing critical truths about the suspect and investigative delays.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Informant, the Suspect, and Police Secrecy

• The Pata family was informed early on by a confidential police source that teammate Rashawn Jones was the suspected killer—an opinion echoed by police internally but denied externally.
  • “He always used to tell me… Rashawn Jones. He said he did it.” – Edwin Pata (00:53)
• For over a decade, the police kept Jones in their sights but made no arrest, withholding their suspicion from the public and media while maintaining to the family and informant that Jones was a focus.

2. Police Evasion and Flawed Investigation

• Reporters Paula and Dan repeatedly confronted lead Detective Miguel Dominguez about Jones’s status. Dominguez continually downplayed suspicion, stating Jones was no more a suspect than anyone else, contradicting the family’s and informant’s claims.
  • “At the time, everybody was a person of interest, but he was no more or less than anyone else at the time. No.” – Detective Miguel Dominguez (04:08)
• Investigation gaps surfaced: police failed to seize Brian Pata’s computer, underestimated the importance of social media in 2006, and did not pursue detailed phone or text records initially.
  • “We did not seize any computers.” – Det. Dominguez (06:34)
  • “I don't think social media back then... I don't think email was that rampant either.” – Det. Dominguez (07:03)
  • Levine counters: “Social media did exist in 2006, and Brian was on it.” (07:09)

3. Discrepancy Exposed by Case Files

• Upon receiving a heavily redacted police report via a public records request, the reporters found evidence of a separate lead: a jailhouse confession from Emmanuel Jones. But the police mistakenly ruled Emmanuel out based on his supposed incarceration at the time—then the reporting team discovered he was not in jail during the murder, countering the police’s alibi defense.
  • “Did you get taken into custody right at the time?” ... “No, no, no. I did. I was arrested later on.” – Emmanuel Jones (16:07)
• Further errors: Dominguez misremembered crime scene details (Pata’s car was actually parked nose-in, not backed in) and underrepresented the number of suspect interviews conducted.

4. Cold Case Foundation’s Review: What Should Have Been Done?

• Greg Cooper (ex-FBI, Cold Case Foundation) reviewed the case and found the investigation insufficient, noting that many potential witnesses and suspects hadn’t been fully vetted. He rated the original case as highly solvable—until time and poor police work complicated chances.
  • “I don't have the sense that it's excessive. It's excellent, that it's exhaustive and thorough.” – Greg Cooper (20:37)
  • “At the time, I think the possibilities of solvability were high, above average. Now it’s much more difficult because of… the passage of time.” – Cooper (21:25)

5. The ESPN Lawsuit: Chasing Police Accountability

• ESPN sued Miami-Dade PD to force the release of full records, initiating a virtual court case during the pandemic. Under oath, police admitted for the first time they’d had “a strong belief” about who killed Pata since 2007—directly contradicting their public and previous statements.
  • “MDPD know who killed Brian Potter?”
    “Yeah, we have a strong belief as to who’s responsible for his death.” – Lt. Joseph Zanconado (27:36)
• In court, evidence surfaced—due to a redaction error—that officially named Rashawn Jones as a suspect. Police attorneys attempted to withhold confirmation, but the judge confirmed its existence.
  • “This document identifies Rashawn Jones as a suspect, does it not, Lieutenant?”
    “It says suspect. Yes.” (31:12)
• Despite this, police insisted the investigation remained “active and open,” using this status to continue withholding files under Florida law, even though very little investigative work had been done for years.

6. Aftermath and Institutional Fallout

• After the case and testimonies, key detectives and supervisors either retired or were reassigned, just days or weeks after vowing under oath to continue the investigation.
  • “All these people who swore to actively pursue an arrest had just hightailed it off the case.” – Paula Levine (35:20)
• In November 2020, ESPN published a story revealing, for the first time to the public, that Rashawn Jones was the police’s longstanding suspect.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Pata family’s frustration:
  “It’s frustrating, yeah, because… you look at this guy’s page, you see he’s living his life.” – Edwin/Edric Pata (01:47)

• On police-media tension:
  “You guys are gonna have a lot more flexibility than us… you can go to anybody in that roster and talk to them however you want… Where the detective will bring them in… as soon as you tell them, can I get that formal statement from you? …They go, ‘nope, I don’t want to deal with this.’” – Alvaro Zabaleta, Miami-Dade press officer (10:46)

• On discovering police misinformation:
  “I think we would have been putting forward a story that was disingenuous and frankly not true. …Just for the fact that the police department clearly lied to us.” – Dan Arruda (33:00)

---

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

| Timestamp | Segment/Topic | |------------|--------------| | 00:53 | Family’s informant and revelation regarding Rashawn Jones as a suspect | | 04:08 | Detective Dominguez’s public denial of Jones as prime suspect | | 06:34–07:09| Police failings: not seizing computer, misunderstanding digital evidence | | 14:36–16:39| Interview with Emmanuel Jones, jailhouse confession, police error on alibi | | 17:23–18:09| Police getting basic crime scene facts wrong | | 20:37–21:25| Cold Case Foundation's critique of investigation | | 27:36 | Under oath, police confirm to judge having main suspect since 2007 | | 31:12 | Court evidence reveals Rashawn Jones officially as “suspect” | | 33:00 | Reporters realize police lied to them | | 35:13 | Key detectives retire or are reassigned immediately after testimony | | 36:42 | Tease for upcoming episode regarding potential impending arrest |

---

Tone and Takeaways

The episode is relentless in its pursuit of truth, exposing institutional evasiveness overshadowed by the determination of journalists and outside experts. There’s a palpable frustration in Paula Levine and Dan Arruda’s voices as they recount misleading police statements, neglected evidence, and the legal barriers set by vague “open and active” definitions. Yet, the episode ends with a rising sense of anticipation: after years of stagnation and secrecy, the possibility of an arrest now seems imminent.

---

Summary by 30 for 30 Podcast Summarizer. This episode is essential listening for true crime and investigative journalism fans—revealing not just the who and why, but probing deeper into the how and what-if of one of college football’s most troubling unsolved cases.

Transcript

[Paula Levine]

Previously on Murder at the U.

[Dan Arruda]

Man, y' all need to look at the goddamn school. Patter had a lot of enemies. Rashawn, like, kind of rubbed some people the wrong way. Everybody was looking for him. Where's Rashawn? If you ask me point blank, do I think that he did it? The answer is no.

[Paula Levine]

The Pata family had a lot of reasons to believe Rashawn Jones killed Brian. One of the reasons, it turns out, was that in those early years, the Patas had an informant who was working the case. He'd tell them what the police knew in confidence. As Bryan's brother Edwin Pata told producer Dan Arruda, Just a few months after Brian's death, this informant told him that the police thought they knew who killed Brian.

[Dan Arruda]

He always used to tell me, listen, this is what happened. Or Sean Jones, are you sure? He was like, listen. He would say the words, Rashawn Jones. He said he did it. And there are certain protocols and rules you got to follow, and you got to obviously prove beyond, you know, you got to have all this evidence and witness and all that stuff. He was like, listen. What would he tell you why he thought it was Rashawn? Did he give you any specific reasons? He's a guy that has a motive, and after Brian died, he was the only player that was not there, so. And why would he tell you that? They couldn't arrest circumstantial evidence. No gun, no witness.

[Paula Levine]

For about a decade, the family held onto that information. They believed the police would eventually uncover more evidence. Edric Pata said the family would visit Rashawn's Facebook and Instagram, looking through his photos.

[Dan Arruda]

Is it worse that you guys believe you know who did it, and still that person hasn't been brought to justice? It's frustrating, yeah, because when they say that, you know, person really don't get rest until, you know, the case is solved. That's true. We experience it. This stuff is in the back of your head every damn day. You think about this stuff every day. It's just, God damn you look. You look at this guy's page, you see he's living his life.

[Paula Levine]

If the Patas informant was telling the truth, it meant the police had kept Rashawn in their sights for more than a decade. But somehow they never made an arrest. It also meant the police had been keeping the truth from us this whole time. They'd had a prime suspect all along. But the truth would eventually come out, and it would require us to confront the police in a way none of us could have seen coming. Paula I'm Paula Levine from 30 for 30 podcasts. This is Murder at the U. Episode 5 open and active.

[Dan Arruda]

Firestone Complete Auto Care's epic savings event is the sign you need to stop putting off your car's maintenance, and you can save up to $100 on tires and services. While you're at it, don't wait. Call Firestone Complete Autocare for an appointment.

[Paula Levine]

The world moves fast. Your workday even faster.

[Dan Arruda]

Pitching products, drafting reports, analyzing data.

[Paula Levine]

Microsoft 365 Copilot is your AI assistant for work built into Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and other Microsoft 365 apps you use,

[Dan Arruda]

helping you quickly write, analyze, create and summarize so you can cut through clutter

[Paula Levine]

and and clear a path to your best work.

[Dan Arruda]

Learn [e-mail] M365 copilot

[Paula Levine]

Once we learned of this tip about a potential suspect, we had to bring it up with the police.

[Dan Arruda]

Who is Rashawn Jones? Another teammate of his.

[Paula Levine]

This is an interview from 2018 with Miami Detective Miguel Dominguez, the lead investigator on Brian's case, the one who sported a horseshoe mustache.

[Dan Arruda]

And was he interviewed by my bpd? Yes. Was he ever a person of interest? At the time, everybody was a person of interest, but he was no more or less than anyone else at the time. No.

[Paula Levine]

This answer from Detective Dominguez directly contradicted what we had heard from the Patas and their source, which was confusing to us since their source was coming from inside the police department. So Dan tried to push Dominguez for answers.

[Dan Arruda]

Why do you feel the family has such a strong sense that someone on the team may have been involved? I don't know. That's a question you're going to have to direct to them.

[Paula Levine]

Over the next two years, we would continue to wonder exactly what the police knew about Reshawn Jones and Dominguez, and the other detectives would continue to deflect when we asked whether Jones was a suspect.

[Dan Arruda]

Honestly, everybody was a suspect at that time.

[Paula Levine]

In fact, they insisted over and over and over that they didn't have a prime suspect or even anyone they would call a suspect. They were looking at everyone.

[Dan Arruda]

The bottom line is, at the end of the day, we don't know who killed Brian Pata.

[Paula Levine]

We even offered to talk off the record in case they wanted us to know something but didn't want it to get back to them publicly, something reporters and cops do often. But they said no. We were going around in circles. The suspect or no suspect thing was just one of many questions that we had for the police. We were also looking into other motives and theories that may or may not have had anything to do with Rashawn, like the nightclub fight with supposed gang members, the threats from Jada's family, and the locker room call overheard by teammate Chris Zellner. We knew that Brian's computer, phone calls and text messages could provide clues to move this investigation forward, but it hadn't been clear to us exactly how the detectives had approached this part of the case. So in early 2019, Dan and I sat down with Detective Dominguez and the supervisor on the case, Rudy Gonzalez, to see what they could tell us. The perpetual question in our mind, aside from who killed Brian Pata, was what did the police know? And it was this interview that revealed a few things. What computers did you seize that had belonged to Brian, and what can you

[Dan Arruda]

tell us about that? We did not seize any computers.

[Paula Levine]

Why not?

[Dan Arruda]

We deemed it wasn't necessary for the investigation.

[Paula Levine]

Why did you feel that that wasn't necessary?

[Dan Arruda]

There was nothing that would indicate that the computer, you know, had any trace or involvement and, you know, Brian's murder.

[Paula Levine]

Apparently, the police didn't know what was on Brian's computer because they never collected it. And they didn't seem to think the online activity of a college student in his 20s would lead them anywhere.

[Dan Arruda]

I don't think there was social media back then. Right. I don't think email was that rampant either.

[Paula Levine]

So social media did exist in 2006, and Brian was on it. He had Facebook and MySpace pages. Someone even posted a tip there about a potential murder suspect shortly after he was killed. And I found this pretty odd because even in much lower profile cases I've reported on, computer forensics and online activity were typically put under the microscope.

[Dan Arruda]

We did have his phones, though, and we did announce telephone, so that.

[Paula Levine]

Yeah, so that leads me to the next question. Then. I asked about phone records. If someone was on the other end of a heated phone conversation with Brian just an hour before he was murdered, phone records could reveal who it was. What can you tell us about how in depth you went on pulling the phone records, looking at the phones, and what, if anything, came of that?

[Dan Arruda]

We pulled about three months worth of phone records. The phone records basically just show connectivity between cellular telephones Back and forth and coming and outgoing.

[Paula Levine]

So there wasn't content from text messages?

[Dan Arruda]

No, no. Those are things that you have to have probable cause and get warrants for. And there was no, like I said, there was no indication. I mean, I don't believe that in 2006. There was even text messages were even

[Paula Levine]

in use, like social media. Text messages were definitely a thing in 2006. And Brian's friends and family members told us they remembered texting with him at the time. I was genuinely surprised by what the detectives were telling us. It felt like a significant oversight in this investigation. Later we found out they did pursue records from MySpace and got at least some of Brian's text messages. But it's not clear what information they received or what they did with it. And we're not sure why. Detectives didn't seem to know about all the evidence they had in the case by this time. We'd been reporting on this story for more than two years. We'd interviewed over 50 people and had several conversations with police and other investigators. None of those conversations led us to believe Dominguez, Gonzalez and the Miami PD were making progress. So we eventually asked Gonzalez what they had done more recently.

[Dan Arruda]

One of the things that we did, starting about two or three years ago on the 10 year anniversary, was that we started kind of looking through the case file. So just a fresh set of eyes on the case file to go over and look at it. Okay, what's been done? Is there anything glaring that should be done? Did we miss something? Is there something that we should. That they didn't do that needs to be followed up on? And that process continues today. How has a fresh pair of eyes helped in this case? As of right now, I would tell you it hasn't helped much. They did a very, very thorough job. From what I've seen so far, and looking through the reports and the people that they interviewed and the. It seems like they did a very thorough job.

[Paula Levine]

So just before the Miami police had reached out to us for help, they said they'd applied, quote, a fresh set of eyes on the case. And what they'd found was that their work, which involved never looking at Brian's email, not seizing his computer, was up to their standards. On that day. We talked to the police for about two hours. And at the end of our interview, I asked them if there were any threads of this story that we had missed. Detective Dominguez said no. And just then, a press officer named Alvaro Zabaleta piped up. He said something that explained a lot about how the police saw us in this situation.

[Dan Arruda]

You guys are gonna have a lot more flexibility than us. A. You don't have the guidelines.

[Paula Levine]

We have guidelines.

[Dan Arruda]

No, no, no, you do, you do and you don't, in the sense of you're not gonna go talk to a child child unless they get parent permission and all that type of stuff. But as far as the legal guidelines, you guys can go to anybody in that roster and talk to them however you want, and they may speak to you. And it's, hey, cool espn, let me tell you what I know. Oh, and they just let it all out where the detective will bring them in. Now, as soon as you tell them, can I get that formal statement from you? And you hear the word formal and statement together in one sentence, they go, nope, I don't want to deal with this. Call my attorney. And then of course, the attorney's going to say, you're not talking to him because he has nothing to do with this. And then there goes that door, and it gets shut down.

[Paula Levine]

In this moment, it seemed like the Miami police were implying that we'd have an easier time uncovering Brian's killer than they would, or at least talking to people central to his case. But even if some people are more inclined to talk to us, there's one big difference. Courts can force people to tell the truth under oath. We don't have that power. People can lie to us. People like the police.

[Dan Arruda]

As you know, managing maintenance, repair and operations is never easy. But for the ones who always rise to the challenge, Grainger has your back. From professional grade products you can count on to fast, dependable delivery, they're there to help you keep things running smoothly. Plus, their technical product specialists are here to help answer your toughest questions. And because Grainger knows safety is always a priority, they're they're committed to being your partner in protecting both your people and your facilities. Call 1-800-granger. Click granger.com or just stop by. This week, the PGA Tour's Best Players Go Primetime with TGL, presented by SoFi. In doubleheader action, Atlanta Drive takes on both Boston Common Golf and Los Angeles Golf Club.

[Paula Levine]

Plus two primetime matchups on Tuesday.

[Dan Arruda]

Keep up it's golf. Tune in Monday and Tuesday at 5pm and 9pm Eastern only on ESPN, ESPN2 and the ESPN app.

[Paula Levine]

We started this story trying to figure out who killed Brian Pata. But now we'd found ourselves on a different trajectory. When Miami Dade reached out to us in 2017, it probably wasn't to invite a team of reporters to check their work. For two years. We asked the police to share a copy of the police report for the case, but they refused. So we decided to submit a request for the documents under the state's open records law. In November 2019, the police finally released a copy of the report Remember, it was nearly 200 pages and heavily redacted, blacking out any information that the police considered pertinent to an active investigation. But it did reveal something the police never told us in interviews. A lead involving an entirely different suspect and a jailhouse confession. Here's what the report told us. Less than a year after Brian's murder, the police received a tip. A man named Emmanuel Jones had allegedly confessed to Brian's murder while in a Florida state prison. He told his cellmate he'd killed Brian in a murder for hire. So I wrote a letter to Emanuel Jones and asked if he would speak with me. A couple months later, I got a phone call. Okay. Is that better?

[Dan Arruda]

It's better for me. Okay.

[Paula Levine]

Hey. So this is kind of an out of the blue contact, I'm sure, but you're still in Broward county there in the jail, right?

[Dan Arruda]

Yeah.

[Paula Levine]

Then I asked Jones about the night Brian was killed. Brian Pata was shot November 7th of 2006. Do you remember?

[Dan Arruda]

Okay.

[Paula Levine]

That where you were November 7th of 2000? I know it's a long time ago, but, I mean, obviously this came up at some point. So do you remember where you were?

[Dan Arruda]

None of that has anything to do with me. I'm just. Action. Is you a detective? Do I need a lawyer present while you asking me these questions or, like, what's going on? You told me to reach out to you, and it's like you interrogate me. Right.

[Paula Levine]

Well, I told you in the letter I sent that I work for ESPN and we're looking into Brian Pata and what happened to him and. Right. If someone were to say, hey, you confessed to this murder, do you remember where you were in November?

[Dan Arruda]

I was nowhere around. No murder. That's not even my. That's not. That's not my M.O. like, that's not me. I was nowhere around. No murder. I don't know anything about no murder.

[Paula Levine]

Obviously, I didn't expect Jones to confess to a murder on a recorded phone line, but I was also asking that question for another reason entirely. Back in 2007, police had quickly ruled Emmanuel Jones out as a suspect. They wrote he had an alibi. He was in jail for stealing a dirt bike in an armed robbery. But we discovered the police had the timeline of his arrest all wrong. Did you get taken into custody right. At the time the guy reported you guys stealing the bike from him? Did you get taken into custody at that time?

[Dan Arruda]

No, no, no. I did. I was arrested later on. I didn't get arrested that day.

[Paula Levine]

That robbery took place in August 2006. But Jones wasn't actually arrested until December, a month after Brian's murder. And we found no record, local, state, or federal, showing he was incarcerated in November when Brian was killed. You were not arrested in August of 2006, correct?

[Dan Arruda]

I was arrested. I was arrested later. Later on down the line.

[Paula Levine]

The police had definitely made a mistake, and Jones had just confirmed it. The funny thing is, we'd figured out all of this from the detective's own case file. But when we asked police about this discrepancy, they declined to comment. In fact, Dominguez would later testify that he couldn't rule out Emanuel Jones as a suspect. The more familiar we became with the police report and Miami Dade's investigation as a whole, the more mistakes we encountered. Not only that, we discovered discrepancies between what police said to us in our interviews and what they actually had documented. Remember that first trip to the crime scene, Detective Dominguez told Dan that Brian had backed into his parking spot.

[Dan Arruda]

Brian's vehicle was parked backwards into the parking space. He backed into a spot? Yes. So his driver door was facing the road, the roadway? Yes, sir.

[Paula Levine]

Dominguez sounds confident here, but he's wrong. Crime scene photos clearly depict Brian's infinity parked nose in. In fact, Dominguez admitted in Dan's first interview that he hadn't studied the case file before speaking to us about Brian's killing. That made us wonder what other details Dominguez just plain got wrong. There was a question we asked Dominguez about whether Rashawn had been interviewed more than once.

[Dan Arruda]

He hasn't been interviewed a second time, but neither have any of the former players either.

[Paula Levine]

But in fact, they did interview Rashaun at least twice and other former players more than once as well. Out of all of this, what shocked us the most, though, was what we realized almost immediately after getting the police report. There were no substantive entries in the case file after 2009. There were no entries noting interviews, tips, or newly gathered evidence for 10 years. What had the police been doing all of this time? And how could they, given all of this, claim this investigation was still active? We had tried to get the unredacted police report. Tried and failed because Florida public records law allows police to withhold investigative details of a case if it is still active. But nothing about this case seemed active. In fact, it seemed very cold testing.

[Dan Arruda]

1, 2, 3.

[Paula Levine]

Greg Cooper is a former FBI profiler. If you're familiar with the show Criminal Minds, that's a dramatization of the role.

[Dan Arruda]

Much of that Is very accurate in terms of the substance of the types of cases that are worked by profilers. Usually it takes longer than an hour, however, to solve a case.

[Paula Levine]

In 2014, Cooper Co founded an organization called the Cold case foundation.

[Dan Arruda]

What exactly is a cold case and when do you believe active investigations end and cold cases begin? There is no generic definition for a cold case. It depends on the department. It really becomes cold if they're no longer working it. So you may say, well, it's any unsolved case that's no longer being worked that's cold. But most police departments don't like to categorize any case as so cold that it's no longer being worked. In fact, you'll probably find it difficult to find a police department that's going to tell you we're not working that case.

[Paula Levine]

We gave the cold case foundation transcripts from all of our interviews up to that point and the files we had received from the police, including the redacted police report. They reviewed all the documents as if it were a case they were working on, and they came to some conclusions about Miami Dade's investigation.

[Dan Arruda]

I don't have the sense that it's excessive. It's excellent, that it's exhaustive and thorough. I wouldn't go that far with it.

[Paula Levine]

What are the major shortcomings?

[Dan Arruda]

Well, I think there's more people that need to be interviewed. There's a list of people that we identify that need to be interviewed or re interviewed as a result of reviewing the case. The key to the case is the relationship between the victim and the offender. This individual wanted Brian dead. The key is trying to identify the

[Paula Levine]

motive for it, Taking into account what Miami Dade police have done, but then also taking into account some of the shortcomings you guys have identified back when this happened. How solvable should this have been?

[Dan Arruda]

At the time, I think the possibilities of solvability were high, above average. Now it's much more difficult because of the passage of time.

[Paula Levine]

Obviously, Cooper and his team went through all the different suspects who might have killed Brian. He wasn't satisfied with Miami Dade's efforts to cross those people off the list.

[Dan Arruda]

I don't think that any of them have been adequately vetted to eliminate them completely.

[Paula Levine]

Who do you think killed Brian Pota?

[Dan Arruda]

There's some persons of interest and they need to be eliminated. But I think Rashawn is probably at the top of that person of interest. Listen, what puts him so firmly at the top of your list? His relationship with Brian. And Jada. She's in the middle There they, at one time, I think that they had had a relationship with one another. You've got the pre offense behavior and the post offense behavior that is questionable. The fight that he was involved in. Rashawn gets kicked off the team that day. We know that Rashaun did not go to practice that day, doesn't show up to practice. But now, did he get kicked off the team before practice? So he would not naturally have gone to practice then, obviously. Right, right. So that now doesn't become significant, the fact it doesn't show up. But when everybody was called in after Brian's death that night, he's the only one that doesn't show up. That's correct. So he could have the legitimate excuse while I was kicked off the team. That is correct. On the other hand, I was kicked off the team. But hey, this guy's a former teammate. Why wouldn't he show up?

[Paula Levine]

At this point, one of our producers, Scott Frankel, read back a summary of the detective's first interview with Rashawn.

[Dan Arruda]

Mr. Jones. Rashawn told Detective Pat Diaz that when he learned of the victim's demise, he responded to the University of Miami HEC center, and he never did. So we know that he lied. Yes.

[Paula Levine]

So right there in that moment that evening, what would his motive be for killing Brian?

[Dan Arruda]

Some perceived or actual conflict between he and Bryan has developed over a period of time, and it could be proximate. My sense in a crime like this is not that there is a long period of time between the decision to kill Brian and the killing itself. It's a short period of time.

[Paula Levine]

Cooper and his team at the Cold Case foundation had reached two clear conclusions. One, Miami Dade's investigation had fallen short. They'd missed opportunities to interview people who might have known important information. So what could have been a more solvable case in 2006 had dragged out into a 15 year ordeal? Two, based on all of the evidence we'd provided, the cold case guys thought Rashawn Jones looked like the strongest suspect. But we were still left with questions, questions we hoped to answer before we published anything related to the case. Questions only the Miami Dade Police could answer. Like why hadn't they interviewed Rashaun since 2007? Why had they seemingly not interviewed anybody since 2009? And maybe most of all, why had so many years gone by without an arrest? The Miami Dade Police said this case was open and active, and so the details of the investigation, protected by Florida state law, had stayed hidden to us. But we had come to believe this wasn't True. And so in March 2020, ESPN sued the Miami Dade Police.

[Dan Arruda]

Just to let you know what's going on, we may run into some problems today.

[Paula Levine]

ESPN v. Miami Dade county kicked off in July 2020, right at the height of the pandemic lockdowns. Judge Oscar Rodriguez Fonts presided over the case.

[Dan Arruda]

I've lost my Internet already a couple of times. I've had to reboot, so I'm having

[Paula Levine]

problems working in the pandemic. We all just kind of roll.

[Dan Arruda]

I apologize in advance for any interruption.

[Paula Levine]

Everyone on our team logged onto Zoom to follow along. And Dan recorded the trial from his home. We had filed a lawsuit against the Miami Dade Police, alleging unlawful withholding of open records. So to start, I, a lawyer for the police department, laid out the case for why those redacted portions should remain confidential. The record and testimonial evidence presented to the court today will demonstrate that there are key details of the crime that the mind of the court orders that these key points of information be produced and no doubt broadcast all over the world by ESPN or other media outlets. The Brian Potta's killer may never be brought to justice. In order to justify their redacted reports, the police had to prove that the case was still active. To do that, they needed to show that they were making progress toward an arrest. So they called a witness, a lieutenant overseeing the Homicide Bureau named Joseph Zanconado. Can you explain briefly what the 10 year anniversary of Brian Potta's death meant for your investigation?

[Dan Arruda]

Well, that was an opportunity for us to kind of, you know, like, renew the investigation. It gave us an opportunity to review all the reports the case filed. And, you know, we were trying to develop, come up with ideas as to how we could put this case back in the limelight in order to try and develop leads.

[Paula Levine]

Then the county's attorney switched gears. I'd like to now turn to the investigation the MDPD is conducting and talk a little bit about that. Does MDPD know who killed Brian Potter?

[Dan Arruda]

Yeah, we have a strong belief as to who's responsible for his death.

[Paula Levine]

All of us watching this Zoom were shocked. We had been asking the police this question for three years, and for three years they had said it could be anyone. Is there a main person of interest?

[Dan Arruda]

Yes.

[Paula Levine]

Now, under oath, Zanconado had made a statement that directly contradicted what police had been saying to us. Going back to the years closer to the date of Brian Pota's death.

[Dan Arruda]

This would be 2006, 2007.

[Paula Levine]

Was MDPD close to making an arrest in this case?

[Dan Arruda]

Yes, we were. Why?

[Paula Levine]

You can hear Dan's reaction to this on his recording from home. The police not only had a main suspect, but they had been close to making an arrest way back in 2007. Then the lawyer asked Zan Canado to make a prediction. Will you make an arrest in the foreseeable future?

[Dan Arruda]

Yes.

[Paula Levine]

The phrase foreseeable future is really important. It comes from the Florida Open Records Law, which says a case is active if there is a reasonable good faith anticipation of securing an arrest or prosecution in the foreseeable future. But it doesn't offer a definition of what foreseeable future means. The police had a main suspect since 2007, but they still hadn't made an arrest. So why did they expect that an arrest was going to happen anytime soon? What, if anything, had changed? That's what Dana McElroy, the lawyer representing ESPN, asked Zanconado on cross examination. How was it that an arrest wasn't made in the last 12 years as

[Dan Arruda]

we were still missing a piece of the puzzle?

[Paula Levine]

And is that piece of the puzzle still missing?

[Dan Arruda]

Yes. However, based on the fact that we are actively working in this case, we believe that an arrest will be the foreseeable future.

[Paula Levine]

There's the foreseeable Future again. But ESPN's lawyer had another card to play. In a recent document dump, the Miami Dade Police Department had given us background files on people named in the police report. Each file had a handwritten cover letter with the person's name on it. And on one of those documents, the police left in one key word they probably meant to redact suspect. So McElroy started by asking Zanconado about the names of a few potential suspects. And I'd like to bring up plaintiffs composite exhibit 21. Do you know who Jerome Brody is?

[Dan Arruda]

Per the name, yes.

[Paula Levine]

You where he's Jada Brody's brother?

[Dan Arruda]

Yes.

[Paula Levine]

Are you familiar with the name Emmanuel Jones?

[Dan Arruda]

I've heard that name, yes.

[Paula Levine]

Okay. And is he a person of interest? Objection. Confidential information. How about Rashawn Jones? Confidential information. She's essentially asking.

[Dan Arruda]

Sustain. Sustain.

[Paula Levine]

Okay, if we could please pull up plaintiffs composite exhibit 2. Scroll down to the bottom. This document identifies Rashawn Jones as a suspect, does it not, Lieutenant?

[Dan Arruda]

It says suspect. Yes.

[Paula Levine]

Out of more than 100 cover letters, the one with the name Rashawn Trayvon Jones was the only one with the word suspect on it. Okay. Is he a suspect or not? Objection. Confidential information. The lawyer for the police objected again, but this time the judge overruled.

[Dan Arruda]

You guys turned it over and it's in evidence. I don't know how it's confidential anymore. So without going into any further detail, I guess he can answer the question. There were a lot of individuals who were interviewed and who were looked at, like, regarding this case. There's a lot of. Of paper that were written on that piece of paper. Right. There is not necessarily evidence to our. To our case.

[Paula Levine]

I'm not sure you answered the question. I asked if he was a suspect. The police's attorney again objected, but the judge allowed our lawyer to press on. Was he a suspect?

[Dan Arruda]

Rashawn Jones is one of a number of people who we've looked at in this investigation.

[Paula Levine]

Is he a current suspect?

[Dan Arruda]

I'm not going to answer that question based on confidentiality for the exemption. Rather,

[Paula Levine]

after the day's hearing, the reporting team got on a call to debrief. At the end of the day, regardless

[Dan Arruda]

of what happens, I am glad that

[Paula Levine]

we brought this because it revealed a

[Dan Arruda]

couple things, the biggest of which is that they were lying to us. And I'm glad we went through this

[Paula Levine]

process because had we gone with what we had, I think we would have been putting forward a story that was disingenuous and frankly not true. Not for any fault of ours, but

[Dan Arruda]

just for the fact that the police

[Paula Levine]

department clearly lied to us.

[Dan Arruda]

And I'm assuming that they were telling the truth to the judge. That meant they had to be lying to us.

[Paula Levine]

And to be clear, you think they're lying?

[Dan Arruda]

Was that the fact that Rashaun has been their number one suspect this entire time and it hasn't been a. Oh, we have lots of leads and lots of things to look into.

[Paula Levine]

Well, when they talk about the prime suspect and they talk about the evidence, the material that we know based on

[Dan Arruda]

the context pertains to Rashaun. Yeah.

[Paula Levine]

And the fact that his is the

[Dan Arruda]

only cover letter that had suspect on it. Yeah, that was a big gaffe. Yeah.

[Paula Levine]

That they talked about some of the

[Dan Arruda]

slip ups that they made and the

[Paula Levine]

stuff that they should have redacted.

[Dan Arruda]

That was. That was a big one.

[Paula Levine]

Two months later, the judge handed down his decision. He took police at their word that they were continuing to work this case and that there would be an arrest in the foreseeable future. It felt like a gut punch. But the judge's ruling came with a condition. In it, he wrote, a time will come when it will no longer be proper for the MDPD to keep the redactions at issue confidential. However, this court finds that now is not that time. In other words, that undefinable clock of foreseeable future. It was ticking. We knew it. Miami Dade knew it, too, which is why what happened next felt unbelievable. In the weeks after the judge's ruling, major changes hit Miami Dade's homicide team commander, Rudy Gonzalez.

[Dan Arruda]

Man, I don't believe that in 2006 there was even text messages even in use.

[Paula Levine]

Two months after he testified, we learned that Gonzalez was no longer working Brian's case. Lieutenant Joseph Zancanato.

[Dan Arruda]

We believe that and arrest will be the foreseeable future.

[Paula Levine]

Three days after this testimony, police records show that Zanconado was reassigned out of homicide. And as for Miguel Dominguez, the lead detective on this case since day one.

[Dan Arruda]

We have a multitude of leads that we're following, and we are most definitely working this actively.

[Paula Levine]

One week after the judge's ruling, we learned that Dominguez had retired. I found all of this terribly disingenuous. All these people who swore to actively pursue an arrest had just hightailed it off the case. We asked Miami Dade about these departures, whether investigators had lied to the judge. A police department spokesperson told us Zancanato had not known ahead of time that he would be reassigned. And Dominguez's retirement was last minute. After the lawsuit ended, we decided to run a story with the information we had. It included everything we knew about the case, Details of Brian's last day, the Zellner call, the various theories, Miami Dade's misstep with Emanuel Jones, our lawsuit and its aftermath. The story was also the first time that the public learned police suspected Brian Patta may have been killed by his teammate Rashawn Jones. It ran in November 2020. Our team had no idea how long Miami Dade would stretch out the limits of a foreseeable future. We were expecting years at least. But it turned out to be much sooner than we thought. Less than a year after our story ran, we got a phone call.

[Dan Arruda]

Hey, Dan. Good morning. Just trying to go on my phone. It's heating up really good. I think they're about to make an arrest soon. I'm not quite sure when. They didn't say anything.

[Paula Levine]

That's next time on Murder at the U. Murder at the U is based on reporting by me, Paula Levine and Dan Aruda, with support from Scott Frankel, Elizabeth Merrill, and ESPN's investigative unit. Our senior producer is Matt Fraseka. Our senior editorial producer is Preeti Varathan. Our associate producers are Megan Coyle and Gus Navarro. Story editing by Adeza Egan. Additional editing by Ben Weber and Mike Drago. Our archival producer is Matthew Fisher. Our line producer is Kath Senke. Production managers are Jason Schwartz and Sheena Williams. Fact checking by David Sabino. Original music and sound design by Ryan Ross Smith. Chris Buckle is vice president of ESPN investigative enterprise and digital journalism. Marcia Cook, Brian Lockhart, Heather Anderson and Burke Magnus are executive producers for 30 for 30.