GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 *arrests* #11

Status
Not open for further replies.
for Friday, May 27th - Day 8 - Closing arguments


Jada E. Williams
@JadaEWilliams
Are you all ready for closings in the #KatherineMagbanuaRetrial today? They’re happening in just minutes.

Judge Wheeler is reading jury instructions right now. The jurors have a huge job on their hands today. @abc27

“Dan Markel is the only victim in this case.” The state opens their closing with.

“The motive is clear. It’s undisputed that the divorce between Wendi Adelson and Dan Markel was a nasty one.”

The state says their evidence shows every step of the way, Katherine Magbanua was involved in this murder-for-hire plot. Pointing to her relationships with Charlie Adelson and Sigfredo Garcia.

Cappleman urges the jurors to compare Luis Rivera’s composure, response, knowledge while testifying to Katherine Magbanua’s.

We hear about code a lot throughout the case. Cappleman says the first code word is tv. That stands for the murder.

This closing is a summation of every piece of evidence presented in trial and how it fits into their theory. Bank statement, phone pings, the wire tap.

“We are no closer to proving the defenses theory than we were in opening statements.” Cappleman says in her closing argument.

“You have to love Sgt. Corbitt. Because he is an unbiased witness.” Corbitt had one of the longest testimonies in this trial. Most focusing on cell tower pings and tracing phone records.

The jury is returning from break. Now the defense has roughly 90 minutes to present closing arguments.

Defense attorney Tara Kawass starts by thanking the jury. I’ve covered a decent amount of trials. This is probably the most attentive group of jurors I’ve seen.

“This is where I need you to apply your common sense. They want you to believe Charlie Adelson, a master manipulator to get someone he was dating for a few months to kill someone.”

“He’s brilliant. He would never use his phone to orchestrate a murder.” Kawass speaks on testimony of Charlie Adelson’s friend.


link: https://twitter.com/JadaEWilliams



Karl Etters
@KarlEtters
·
4h
Here is our live link for today.
Closing arguments will commence later this morning and jurors will likely begin their deliberations around lunch

Magbanua could also be convicted as a principal to first-degree murder. She does not have to be present when the crime is committed

Jurors must decide on a unanimous verdict

Cappleman: "The defendant didn’t just ask Sigfredo Garcia to do this and paid him for it. She didn’t just take care of Charlie Adelson’s family problem and turn it into action. She got the thing done. Dan Markel is dead."

Cappleman keeps coming back to the fact that what lawyers say is not evidence.

Points to Magbanua's testimony in which she couldn't recount what her job was for Charlie Adelson

"It's like trying to nail Jello to a wall. You’re not going to get answers."

Cappleman wraps up with about 10 minutes left on her clock. Defense will present their argument next and state will have a chance for rebuttal

Kawass: "This is anatomy of a wrongful prosecution. Their initial investigation led them to Luis Rivera and Sigfredo Garcia and had the rain suspects but how are they going to connect these two groups of people...

..."The easiest answer they could find and went with was Katherine Magabanua"

"Wendi Adelson, they actually brought her in here and gave her immunity. You saw that horrible performance she gave on the stand. She played herself like she was the victim, she disparaging Dan Markel and then has the audacity to defend her family...

..."There's more evidence against Wendi Adelson than there is against Katherine Magbanua and they gave her immunity."

Kawass contends its what the state didn't provide to jurors, all the calls, all the evidence gathered, that points to innocence.

"All you are going to hear are excuses upon excuses, upon excuse for why things are missing and you don’t get to hear them."

Kawass contends it is "impossible" for Magbanua to have known Markel was shot when Rivera says he overheard her telling Garcia "I know," at about 12:30 that day....

I went back and looked, the first mention we made of the shooting, arguably one of the first, was in a story posted @TDOnline
at 12:55 the day Markel was killed.

Our first social media post was at 1:54 p.m.

Neither mentioned Markel

Kawass wraps up: "Justice for Dan Markel is not convicting an innocent person of this crime... She’s innocent."

Cappleman: "How many coincidence does it take for it to no longer be a coincidence?"

"No amount of explanations and excuses for the evidence can change it."

"This is what this case is about. Find her guilty," Cappleman says, holding up a photo of Markel. That's it for closing arguments, Jurors will begin deliberations now
7:46 PM · May 27, 2022·
[me: that 7:46pm is MY time (EET) - so ET time would be - 12:46pm.


link: https://twitter.com/KarlEtters
 
This is one time I think the defense drew blood today -- it does look bad that Wendi got immunity.
I think it's misleading to suggest that WA got some special immunity deal from the prosecution. Florida has a statute that says that a witness may not refuse to testify on the grounds that the testimony may incriminate her; however, that testimony may not later be used against the witness (except in a perjury prosecution regarding that testimony). That limitation on later use of the testimony is known as "use immunity," i.e., it limits the subsequent use of the compelled testimony. As a Florida appellate court explained, this statutory immunity is "self-executing and automatically grants use immunity to one who testifies under the circumstances it delineates." In other words, the immunity is automatic; it doesn't require some special deal. Also, as the court stated, "[t]he purpose of creating an immunity statute in Florida was to aid the state in its prosecution of crimes," and thus the ability to compel testimony of a witness who would otherwise refuse on Fifth Amendment grounds applies only to the prosecution and "cannot be invoked by the defendant to immunize a witness."
 
I think it's misleading to suggest that WA got some special immunity deal from the prosecution. Florida has a statute that says that a witness may not refuse to testify on the grounds that the testimony may incriminate her; however, that testimony may not later be used against the witness (except in a perjury prosecution regarding that testimony). That limitation on later use of the testimony is known as "use immunity," i.e., it limits the subsequent use of the compelled testimony. As a Florida appellate court explained, this statutory immunity is "self-executing and automatically grants use immunity to one who testifies under the circumstances it delineates." In other words, the immunity is automatic; it doesn't require some special deal. Also, as the court stated, "[t]he purpose of creating an immunity statute in Florida was to aid the state in its prosecution of crimes," and thus the ability to compel testimony of a witness who would otherwise refuse on Fifth Amendment grounds applies only to the prosecution and "cannot be invoked by the defendant to immunize a witness."
I understand this, but the jury may not have grasped the details. I can see why the defense raised the issue (in an effort to make it seem that the wealthy woman received favorable treatment, no doubt -- something of a desperation move, but it might have created some sympathy for KM).
 
I hope she’s convicted this time! Thanks to the commenter who laid out perfectly why this second trial has been more damaging to KM! Why admit that Charlie ordered the hit —- did they do that in opening thinking Garcia was going to testify? Then jail house calls came into the pic and they had to back off Garcia?
 
I hope she’s convicted this time! Thanks to the commenter who laid out perfectly why this second trial has been more damaging to KM! Why admit that Charlie ordered the hit —- did they do that in opening thinking Garcia was going to testify? Then jail house calls came into the pic and they had to back off Garcia?
I think so!
 
She is one of the real killers if she orchestrated Dan Markel’s murder. IMO
It could be argued that without her-Dan Markel might still be alive. I suppose CA could’ve found someone else but that someone else could’ve gone to the cops, could’ve ripped him off instead etc. She was the perfect middle woman.
 
My husband thinks the question for an inventory list of communication evidence isn’t good. That the jurors have bought into Kawasss argument. Maybe he’s being too quick to judge?
 
My husband thinks the question for an inventory list of communication evidence isn’t good. That the jurors have bought into Kawasss argument. Maybe he’s being too quick to judge?
Maybe… ugh. Maybe they’re just being super thorough. Jada Williams’ tweets said a couple of times that the jury has been very engaged and paying attention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
189
Guests online
3,613
Total visitors
3,802

Forum statistics

Threads
595,474
Messages
18,025,141
Members
229,659
Latest member
erinicole93
Back
Top