GUILTY Fl - Dan Markel, 41, Fsu Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 - #5 *arrests*

[FigTree]

From what I can gather, before her arrest or just afterwards, the state's attorney offered KM immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony - and KM turned it down. She is now facing first-degree murder charges and the possibility of spending the rest of her life behind bars. So I have to wonder - did someone advise her to turn it down and if so, who? Her lawyers? What was their reasoning? Did they fully disclose to KM the risk she was taking? Or did KM make this decision on her own, out of misplaced loyalty, perhaps?

Good question.
She seems to be in a bit of a situation.
Her fees maybe paid conditionally ie; that she does what her lawyers recommend.
Those recommendations though may also be conditional from the payment source.
I cant see it being any other way. Payments aren't made available for people to talk and get other convictions -
There is a huge conflict of interest in this case.
If her lawyers recommend she take her immunity deal, plead guilty and start talking - I wonder how long the fee payments would be made.
What would the consequences be for KM in the aftermath of taking that deal.


She hasn't sided with her ex husband - immunity, and a chance of release.
She has sided with the best possible chance of being convicted and sentenced.
And if that was the advise she was given from her paid Legal Team - I'd say she will also be found guilty and sentenced - and others will hope the buck stops there.

 

[GordonX]

IMO -

if KM's attorneys are truly puppets for CA's defense, all it does is buy more time for the alleged mastermind(s) and lets them kick the can down the road and hope for some kind of Hail Mary miracle (for them) that KM drops dead in jail before trial (highly unlikely) or that she ends up going to trial and wins (also highly unlikely). but that's all they can do at this point - keep kicking the can down the road and pray for a miracle. but if and when KM gets tried, convicted, and sentenced - puppet defense or not - KM sings and the alleged mastermind(s) are toast. it's only a matter of time. it must really be really awful for them to live every day with that Sword of Damocles hanging over their head(s). living hell. and if they are guilty they deserve every moment of it.

BTW - KM's attorney obnoxiously argued in the hearing that "You can't be smart and stupid at the same time." i strongly disagree. i think the alleged mastermind(s) have proven that you can be. hubris is fatal.

 

[nancydrew71]

BTW - KM's attorney obnoxiously argued in the hearing that "You can't be smart and stupid at the same time." i strongly disagree. i think the alleged mastermind(s) have proven that you can be. hubris is fatal.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that the truth!

 

[DexterMorgan]

Imo.

If Garcia says nothing while allowing KM to blame him and Rivera.

Then KM could actually walk without giving up anybody. Jmo.

Because Casey blamed George and Lee and they said nothing.

So Casey got off as well.

Jmo.

 

[GordonX]

Imo.

If Garcia says nothing while allowing KM to blame him and Rivera.

Then KM could actually walk without giving up anybody. Jmo.

Because Casey blamed George and Lee and they said nothing.

So Casey got off as well.

Jmo.

The state doesn't need SG's testimony to convict KM. One day they will both wake up and cut deals for themselves rather than take the fall for the alleged mastermind(s).

 

[86Violet]

It sounds like KM was never actually offered immunity. It seems like KM's attorneys strategically wanted the court and the public to *think* KM was offered immunity. The judge nipped it in the bud, advising that if they continued testifying they would become witnesses in the case and would have to withdraw as counsel, and they quickly backed off that line of questioning.

Some of y'all are really going off the ledge with this whole KM's attorneys are working against her thing. They are just posturing! I'm sure they are simultaneously working out a deal for her.

 

[GordonX]

Fee Payments to Criminal Defense Lawyers from Third Parties: Revisiting United States V. Hodge and Zweig
David Orentlicher
Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law
Fordham Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 3, December 2000

Abstract:
United States v. Hodge and Zweig is well-known for its analysis of the attorney-client privilege when lawyers are asked to disclose the names of their clients or the fee arrangements they have with their clients. More specifically, the Hodge and Zweig court addressed the confidential status of client identity and fee arrangements when a criminal defendant's attorneys' fees are paid by the defendant's confederate in crime. The court concluded that the attorney-client privilege does not prevent disclosure of a fee payer's name or fee arrangement when a co-conspirator pays attorneys' fees as remuneration for a defendant's participation in a criminal scheme. The court reasoned that, when drug kingpins or other crime bosses promise to pay their minions' attorneys' fees in the event the minions are arrested, the payments constitute an element of the criminal conspiracy. As such, the payments fall under the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege-defendants and fee payers cannot use their attorneys to hide information about their crimes or frauds.

While Hodge and Zweig is important for its discussion of the attorney-client privilege, it is probably more important for its other implications. I argue that the case changes the way defense lawyers may interact with drug dealers, mobsters, or other participants in organized criminal activity when the lawyer's fees are paid-or might be paid--by a person other than the defendant. Specifically, I argue that ethical norms require criminal defense lawyers to decline the payment offered and instead refer the potential client to a public defender. By accepting such payments, lawyers would violate their professional obligation not to assist a client's criminal activity. In other words, the real issue is not whether these fee arrangements are protected by the attorney-client privilege, but whether they are permissible in the first place.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=265138

 

[TacoChip]

https://cvweb.clerk.leon.fl.us/publ...p?report=full_view&caseid=0&jiscaseid=1129969

1/30/17 Look's like maybe they are requesting the presence of LR??

 

[BSBC]

I've read the transcript of KM's bond hearing. A few thoughts:

1. I've always felt that some of the strongest evidence pointing to KM's guilt is that she was being paid by the As' dental practice while apparently not doing any real work. The state has extensive surveillance evidence demonstrating that she never actually showed up at the office. And apparently there are no typical employment records (application, duties, schedules, etc.) showing that she actually performed any work. The defense's attempt to rebut this point was very weak. They never tried to suggest that she did in fact go into the office. Rather, they hinted that she may have worked from home. Cops interviewed 2 actual employees of the dental office. Neither knew KM. One said she had heard her name, and thought she worked on weekends. But surveillance and phone records showed that she did not go to the office on weekends. Seems the state has very strong evidence -- thus far unrebutted by the defense -- that KM was being paid by the As but didn't perform any legitimate work. ((Pages 46-49, 146-47)

2. There were references to Harvey A's phone being in contact with KM's and SG's. Of course it's possible that a phone registered to HA was being used by someone else. But the suggestion is left hanging that HA may have been in some way involved in the conspiracy. (Pages 28, 30-31)

3. KM's position seems to be that SG and LR did the murder -- but that KM simply wasn't involved. Relatedly (and I'm not sure why), KM's attorney suggested that LR, not SG, was the triggerman (though it's a little unclear from the transcript). (Page 215-16.) They are hanging their whole hat on the notion that LR lied about KM's involvement to get a good deal. He did get some details wrong (likely because of confusion/lack of memory/intoxication), but it seems that the state has corroborated the most important parts of his story through other evidence, most prominently phone records.

This was just a bond hearing, and the defense had no obligation to lay out their whole theory of the case. But they didn't do much to convince the judge that they have a coherent theory pointing to her innocence; he seemed to have no problem at all concluding that the state has a strong case and that KM should be held without bond. (Pages 215-17)

 

[TacoChip]

https://cvweb.clerk.leon.fl.us/publ...p?report=full_view&caseid=0&jiscaseid=1129969

1/30/17 Look's like maybe they are requesting the presence of LR??

Look's like more Discovery for both SG and KM.

https://cvweb.clerk.leon.fl.us/publ...aseid=&jiscaseid=1119072&defseq=A&chargeseq=1

 

[reallybusy]

Wonder how this appeal is working out for them if indeed filed?

"DeCoste said he planned to appeal the bond denial to the 1st District Court of Appeal."
http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2016/12/09/judge-denies-bond-katherine-magbanua-one-three-charged-fsu-law-professor-dan-markels-murder/95192196/

 

[kooshx]

I read through the transcript. Some interesting points about the Adelson's involvement:

-Looks like everyone agrees that Rivera erred when he claimed to see Wendi walking with her kids. The children would have been in daycare.

-Nonetheless, the record does state that the prosecutor presented Rivera's claim about Katie hiring Garcia and he in this manner: "to do the murder on behalf of Wendi Adelson" (second documents lines 17 and 18). I wonder if the state has additional evidence or if the prosecutor just presented Rivera's testimony without being concerned about being more precise about who was implicated.

-In one of the phone conversations, Donna Adelson informs Charlie that she doesn't want to upset Harvey. It could mean that she doesn't want to upset him because he doesn't know about the larger plot, but the context seems to indicate that he would be upset because someone is blackmailing the family (the undercover officer).

 

[BSBC]

-Nonetheless, the record does state that the prosecutor presented Rivera's claim about Katie hiring Garcia and he in this manner: "to do the murder on behalf of Wendi Adelson" (second documents lines 17 and 18). I wonder if the state has additional evidence or if the prosecutor just presented Rivera's testimony without being concerned about being more precise about who was implicated.

Seems to me that this was just imprecise language, and that what she really meant was "to do the murder for the benefit of Wendi Adelson" -- but not necessarily that WA was involved in the conspiracy, at least not before the murder. I think it's possible that WA was involved, or at least that she learned the truth afterwards, but I haven't seen the evidence to convince me yet.

 

[reallybusy]

This coupled with the fact Harvey joined Donna and Charlie for one of the meetings outside the Icon (their apartment) as mentioned in the affidavits drafted for Charlie and Donna. Unfortunately, audio was not captured for that meeting.

I read through the transcript. Some interesting points about the Adelson's involvement:

-In one of the phone conversations, Donna Adelson informs Charlie that she doesn't want to upset Harvey. It could mean that she doesn't want to upset him because he doesn't know about the larger plot, but the context seems to indicate that he would be upset because someone is blackmailing the family (the undercover officer).

 

[reallybusy]

Seems to me that this was just imprecise language, and that what she really meant was "to do the murder for the benefit of Wendi Adelson" -- but not necessarily that WA was involved in the conspiracy, at least not before the murder. I think it's possible that WA was involved, or at least that she learned the truth afterwards, but I haven't seen the evidence to convince me yet.

Would have saved me from being roasted by ATL... LOL

 

[Razz]

I read through the transcript. Some interesting points about the Adelson's involvement:

-Looks like everyone agrees that Rivera erred when he claimed to see Wendi walking with her kids. The children would have been in daycare.

-Nonetheless, the record does state that the prosecutor presented Rivera's claim about Katie hiring Garcia and he in this manner: "to do the murder on behalf of Wendi Adelson" (second documents lines 17 and 18). I wonder if the state has additional evidence or if the prosecutor just presented Rivera's testimony without being concerned about being more precise about who was implicated.

-In one of the phone conversations, Donna Adelson informs Charlie that she doesn't want to upset Harvey. It could mean that she doesn't want to upset him because he doesn't know about the larger plot, but the context seems to indicate that he would be upset because someone is blackmailing the family (the undercover officer).

I'm not sure LR erred about seeing WA walking with the kids. Maybe just when? His description was too...believable/detailed to discount it entirely.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[dotr]

What possible reason could LR have to lie about seeing WA and the kids, especially if he has already cut a deal?
Approx 1:05
Video
Luis Rivera’s statement to investigators on Markel case (1/2)


http://www.tallahassee.com/videos/news/2016/10/10/91848010/

 

[BSBC]

I'm not sure LR erred about seeing WA walking with the kids. Maybe just when? His description was too...believable/detailed to discount it entirely.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

Assume it's true that there are records indicating that the kids were in school at the time that LR says he and SG saw WA with them. Isn't the reasonable explanation LR & SG did see a woman with 2 kids, and that SG honestly (but mistakenly) thought it was WA? And LR honestly (but mistakenly) believed SG was correct? LR says in the video that SG was the one who thought it was WA, and SG called KM afterwards to ask why WA was there. According to LR in the video, KM told SG she thought WA was there to check that the plan was on track, but KM may well have just been making an assumption (which turned out to be wrong). It was the middle of the day -- isn't it most likely that the kids actually were at school?

 

[nancydrew71]

I'm not sure LR erred about seeing WA walking with the kids. Maybe just when? His description was too...believable/detailed to discount it entirely.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

I agree, but just to be sure they could contact the daycare to see if they were there that day, if they kept records from 2+ years ago.

 

[nancydrew71]

This coupled with the fact Harvey joined Donna and Charlie for one of the meetings outside the Icon (their apartment) as mentioned in the affidavits drafted for Charlie and Donna. Unfortunately, audio was not captured for that meeting.

In my opinion Harvey came in late. Remember Charlie said he told them everything. IMO I'll bet he was shocked.