GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU law professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 - #2 *Arrests*

[Daun1234]

In all fairness, men who've been the cheaters/abusers can also act like they are the ones scorned.

that is looked down upon. my sister is a dentist... and my cousin married a dentist who she met when she was in his chair, and my sister says that is unethical and distasteful in the profession. and she is not a stuffy or conservative person.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with the murder of Daniel Markel.

 

[Daun1234]

My comment was re: KN meeting CA in the chair.

None of these comments have anything to do with the Daniel Markel case.

 

[0101ABA]

Some of the recent comments are bordering on off-topic. Let's focus on the facts, and limit the personal stories as well as limit the analysis of relationships between people who may or may not be directly involved in this case. Thanks!

 

[dotr]

Revisiting this article from last year and wondered if this highly regarded father and lawyer, unwittingly left no room for another bright light to shine?
Who would have been most infuriated and frustrated by that, the star, the stage mother, or an unknown, standing in the wings?
imo, speculation.


http://www.people.com/article/one-y...ins-who-shot-florida-law-professor-dan-markel

Indeed, Markel loved the Crayon drawings by his young sons, Ben, born in 2009, and Lincoln, born in 2010, that filled his office and home, to which the devoted dad invited small groups of students for home-cooked salmon dinners followed by academic debate. "His living room was like a playpen," says Wechsler.

He also was devout in his Jewish faith. His boys called him "Abba," the Hebrew word for father.

"He was a shamelessly proud and involved Abba," his longtime friend and former Harvard classmate Tamara Demko shared in a written tribute she posted online. "From before birth, through bris, learning Hebrew, swimming, bike riding, preschool, taking them to shul and celebrating holidays, and every single moment in between, Danny glowed with love and pride in his boys."

"As a professor, I would say he was one of our best," says Francisco Zornosa, who worked with Markel in Zornosa's role as editor in chief of the Florida State University Law Review. "Pound for pound, I don't know if there's a better law professor out there than Dan Markel. He was just at the top of his game, which is one of the reasons why this was so shocking to everyone."

"He was such a great person, a great influence on his kids, a smart person, a great role model, someone who really, really tried to lead by example, and his kids are so young," he says. "That really is the biggest shame of this whole thing."

 

[86Violet]

Wonder what the conflict is. Is it safe to assume that the public defender's office is representing someone else who's a person of interest or suspect in the case? Katherine Magbanua? The mystery Tallahassee witness? Someone else? Can the pd's office represent someone who hasn't yet been formally charged? Also, who's paying Garcia's lawyer?

I'm curious about the conflict too. I guess it could be a personal conflict based upon WA/Markel's personal relationship with people in the public defender's office, but generally in that situation they'd say that those that knew them would have no involvement in the case. Maybe WA did some work with the PD's office, I'm not sure... otherwise, I think they may be representing someone else involved. In certain situations, you could be appointed a public defender before charges.

 

[tallyeng]

None of these comments have anything to do with the Daniel Markel case.

Agreed

 

[Daun1234]

I'm curious about the conflict too. I guess it could be a personal conflict based upon WA/Markel's personal relationship with people in the public defender's office, but generally in that situation they'd say that those that knew them would have no involvement in the case. Maybe WA did some work with the PD's office, I'm not sure... otherwise, I think they may be representing someone else involved. In certain situations, you could be appointed a public defender before charges.

Seems to me if it could be a conflict if you're asked to defend a client who might turn state's evidence against a friend or colleague.
It's not a witness in the case- I posted the explanation before, and here's the actual form.

 

[TTF14]

None of these comments have anything to do with the Daniel Markel case.

While we're waiting for anything new maybe it's ok to pontificate. .

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[cvaldez1975]

Maybe trapping him in case he tried to pull out?

An interesting point that baffles me is on the day of the murder
why the driver of the Prius would pull into the driveway? Would it not be a faster get away to be parked on the street and be able to hit the gas to drive straight away from the curb or the bottom of the drive way? Also, it would seem less conspicuous to the neighbors IMO.

"A neighbor reportedly heard a gunshot, saw a Prius back out of the driveway and called the police. The ambulance brought Markel to the hospital, where he later died."

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article82210137.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Daun1234]

long time lurker. Ive been reading the cell phone evidence. interesting how it is worded at some times, especially the 2ND trip. i think the cops know more than they are saying.

I noticed that they seem to be at the Budget Inn for almost 24 hours on June 4-5. Hard to imagine they just sat in there for 24 hours. Is that what you mean? I bet there's a lot more evidence on where they went on both trips.
They left suddenly on June 5 @3pm, while stalking Daniel, due to the car rental company calling. I wonder if the murder was supposed to happen on June 5 or June 6. Was June 5 a real attempt or a stalking/preparation day?
June 6 like July 18 (date of murder) are both Fridays.

 

[miamiheat]

Seems to me if it could be a conflict if you're asked to defend a client who might turn state's evidence against a friend or colleague.
It's not a witness in the case- I posted the explanation before, and here's the actual form.

If that's the case, it could potentially point to WA. If she was working as an immigration lawyer for indigent clients in the area she probably had plenty of occasions to work closely with the PD's office. Immigration lawyers handling deportation/removal cases often have to work closely with criminal lawyers, because the exact way that a plea deal is structured can have significant immigration consequences. Not sure if she handled those types of cases but it seems likely given what she's said about her practice. I should note that I'm speculating and we don't have any direct evidence that WA had a relationship with the office, at least as far as I'm aware.

What's unclear but maybe more consequential is *how* the PD's office determined that they had a conflict of interest, assuming they believed that the office's professional relationship with WA (or someone else) might result in a conflict. Did Rivera tell the PD in his initial consultation(s) that he wanted to flip on the A's (or someone else close to the office)? I don't know how plausible this scenario seems given Rivera's record and behavior so far but I guess it's possible....

Alternatively, did the PD's office just surmise based on media accounts and publicly available information that this case *might* give rise to a conflict due to the apparent involvement of the A's and attendant likelihood that Rivera might therefore want to flip on them? If this is the case, the PD's request for conflict counsel probably doesn't mean much, because we are all privy to the same information suggesting that the A's may have been involved in this. So anyone, even without inside information, could reasonably assume that a conflict could potentially result in the future if the PD's office represented Rivera, assuming the PD's office had a relationship with WA.

Then the question becomes, is it a conflict of interest for a lawyer to work with a client whom the lawyer believes *might* potentially flip on someone with whom the lawyer shares a professional relationship or friendship, based simply on the lawyer's knowledge of publicly available information indicating that that friend or colleague *might* be involved in the case? Or for a conflict to arise, does the lawyer need to have actual knowledge (e.g., based on communications from the client or potential client) that the client plans or intends to flip on the person with whom the lawyer shares a relationship? Because if actual knowledge of an imminent conflict is required, it could very well mean that the PD's office was told by Rivera that he had reason or intent to flip on someone who shared a relationship with the office. Whereas if a "conflict" arises solely because an attorney believes that there is a mere possibility that a defendant might some day flip on someone close to the office, then that doesn't reveal much.

imho.

ETA: for what it's worth, the wording of the motion for appointment of conflict counsel makes it sound like the PD's office actually reached out to the Florida Bar and asked for an advisory opinion regarding a potential conflict. The Bar has a hotline where attorneys can ask for ethical advice. So in other words, it doesn't look like a situation where the PD's office just read the ethics rules and conservatively determined that there could be a conflict, and sought conflict counsel out of abundance of caution. It looks like someone with expertise looked at the situation and determined that there was an actual conflict. Though of course this could also possibly include a situation where the Bar determined that there was a conflict even if there was a remote possibility that the defendants would flip on a friend of the PD's office (I don't know what the actual rule is here about how to determine whether there's a conflict). Again imho, and speculating/assuming that this conflict pertained to a witness potentially flipping on a friend of the PD's office, which we don't know for sure.

 

[miamiheat]

Here is the Florida rule on Conflicts of Interest:
RULE 4-1.7 CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CURRENT CLIENTS(a) Representing Adverse Interests. Except as provided in subdivision (b), a lawyer mustnot represent a client if1) the representation of 1 client will be directly adverse to another client; or(2) there is a substantial risk that the representation of 1 or more clients will bematerially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

On the other hand there's this carve-out for imputation of conflicts of interest:
RULE 4-1.10 IMPUTATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; GENERAL RULE(a) Imputed Disqualification of All Lawyers in Firm. While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them may knowingly represent a client when any 1 of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by rule 4-1.7 or 4-1.9 except as provided elsewhere in this rule, or unless the prohibition is based on a personal interest of the prohibited lawyer and does not present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in the firm.

It's unclear whether PD's office would be treated as a "firm." But in theory the office could just have an attorney who didn't know the *interested parties* work on the case, unless the office could not effectively wall off the attorneys handling the case from other lawyers with a "personal interest" in the case. This is assuming that a "personal interest" is the issue we are dealing with that gave rise to the conflict.

 

[dotr]

Would it be considered a conflict of interest if any of the lawyers or other players in this case, owe their sparkling smiles to the Smile Makers?
imo, speculation.
:biggrin:

 

[Daun1234]

Here is the Florida rule on Conflicts of Interest:
RULE 4-1.7 CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CURRENT CLIENTS(a) Representing Adverse Interests. Except as provided in subdivision (b), a lawyer mustnot represent a client if1) the representation of 1 client will be directly adverse to another client; or(2) there is a substantial risk that the representation of 1 or more clients will bematerially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

On the other hand there's this carve-out for imputation of conflicts of interest:
RULE 4-1.10 IMPUTATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; GENERAL RULE(a) Imputed Disqualification of All Lawyers in Firm. While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them may knowingly represent a client when any 1 of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by rule 4-1.7 or 4-1.9 except as provided elsewhere in this rule, or unless the prohibition is based on a personal interest of the prohibited lawyer and does not present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in the firm.

It's unclear whether PD's office would be treated as a "firm." But in theory the office could just have an attorney who didn't know the *interested parties* work on the case, unless the office could not effectively wall off the attorneys handling the case from other lawyers with a "personal interest" in the case. This is assuming that a "personal interest" is the issue we are dealing with that gave rise to the conflict.

According to Google, the PD, WA, and Daniel Markel were all employed at the law school at the same time. The bar could believe the relationship between the PD and WA is a conflict since WA's brother, CA, will be arrested soon - "Personal interest" seems open to interpretation. Best guess, it just looks like it could (or would) be a huge mess, so it's a conflict.

As far as flipping, Garcia just filed for legal discovery. I don't understand putting the Bond Hearing aside but then going to legal discovery. Why skip the bond hearing, that makes the state outline their case publicly?
What about the solitary confinement issue- Lewis said it was inhumane 3 weeks ago, no court filings made on that either...? Any ideas?

 

[Daun1234]

Garcia's new attorney is this guy. He's very "Miami" and has appeared on Fox. He defended the "Facebook killer" and lost.
Who is paying for this guy???? I bet he's expensive.

 

[dotr]

Garcia's new attorney is this guy.

Is the ad showing cars, wine, fine hotels and city sights par for the course for defence lawyers?

His firm has represented a wide range of individuals including local, national, and international business owners, doctors, lawyers, professional athletes, bankers, real estate professionals, artists, musicians, actors, police officers, firemen, corrections officers, school teachers, and countless others from all walks of life.

How about gangstas?

 

[Razz]

Well, if I am Rivera, I'd be a little ticked that my partner in crime is getting a "high powered" attorney
while I'm getting nothing.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[nancydrew71]

Garcia's new attorney is this guy. He's very "Miami" and has appeared on Fox. He defended the "Facebook killer" and lost.
Who is paying for this guy????

Guess.

 

[Razz]

Guess.

So....why are the "Guess ' s" 😊 paying for Mr. Garcia and not Mr. Rivera? Are they getting ready to throw Luis under the bus?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[DexterMorgan]

So....why are the "Guess ' s" 😊 paying for Mr. Garcia and not Mr. Rivera? Are they getting ready to throw Luis under the bus?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Idk. Luis is already doing 12 years FEDERAL. Lol.

So maybe they will protect Garcia for now in hopes that K.M doesn't flip on them. Especially since she would be implicated with the father of her children soon enough; While being linked to C.A.

So protecting Garcia is basically protecting C.A for the most part. Jmo