GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 - #8 *arrests*

[YESorNO]

Karl Etters‏Verified account @KarlEtters 2m2 minutes ago
Both questions have to do with what principal means and how it would apply. Judge said principal theory does not apply to conspiracy


Jada E. Williams‏ @JadaEWilliams 3m3 minutes ago
Judge Hankinson says principal doesn't apply to conspiracy. #MarkelMurderTrialWTXL @abc27


Julie Montanaro WCTV‏Verified account @JulieMontanaroW 18m18 minutes ago
Both questions deal with being a principle to murder and whether it applies in a conspiracy. Judge sent answers back on piece of paper, deliberations continue @WCTV

 

[fred&edna]

I am now thinking back to the jury questions after KM was on the stand. I'm back to worrying about this jury.

 

[Weki]

Both these questions are nonsensical. It’s probably that one juror who likes to ask dumb questions.

There’s no evidence that either Garcia or Rivera went to rob someone and then decided oh let’s kill DM for some random reason. As for conspiracy and principal, another nonsensical question imo. Conspiracy is conspiracy. Either the defendants were in on it or not.

 

[FreddyG]

Q was something along these lines: if person a and person b commit a robbery, but person b didn't know murder was intended, is person b considered a principal; does principal apply to conspiracy.

Anyone else who is more dialed-in to the live feed than I was remember it?

ETA: Honestly the conspiracy angle is something I thought we'd hear more of during the trial. It's not that vague here; KM is accused of arranging a murder. That pretty clearly makes her a co-conspirator in the plot, and she's more than just a hanger-on, she's committed the kind of "overt act" that I seem to recall is required for conspiracy.

As to whether she may have been unaware of murder as the aim of the plot, I don't really get that question. Her theory is she just didn't conspire. I don't think there's a way to read the evidence that she did conspire but did not know murder was on the table. What else would the plot have been about?

 

[YESorNO]

FSU Law Professor Murder Trial Magbanua Defense Closing Argument Part 2 101019

Oct 10, 2019

---

FSU Law Professor Murder Trial Prosecution Rebuttal Closing Argument

Oct 10, 2019

---

FSU Law Professor Murder TrialJury Sent to Deliberate

Oct 10, 2019

 

[Weki]

Yes the first question seems to ask what if someone was an unwitting participant in a murder, does that make them a principal to murder? What basis could they possibly have to ask this question? None IMO.

Smh.

 

[Gardenista]

Basic transcript of questions

If B accompanies A with a shared intent to commit a robbery, & A commits premeditated murder during the robbery, but B did not know a murder was intended, is B a principal to premeditated murder?

Does principal apply to conspiracy?

 

[Marysmith]

Yes the first question seems to ask what if someone was an unwitting participant in a murder, does that make them a principal to murder? What basis could they possibly have to ask this question? None IMO.

Smh.

So weird that that was the question... LR is the only one I think that would pertain too... but maybe they are thinking it applies to SG?

 

[Weki]

The answer to their first question is yes. But it’s felony murder not premeditated murder. But there’s nothing to suggest anything remotely like that was the case here.

 

[GordonX]

Under criminal law, a principal is any actor who is primarily responsible for a criminal offense. Such an actor is distinguished from others who may also be subject to criminal liability as accomplices, accessories or conspirators.

maybe SG is the principal and KM is the conspirator in the juror's question?

 

[Gardenista]

The answer to their first question is yes. But it’s felony murder not premeditated murder. But there’s nothing to suggest anything remotely like that was the case here.

But it seems like that would apply to Rivera based on their question.

 

[Gardenista]

maybe they are trying to make SG the principal?

 

[Weki]

The difference in this case is that they all premeditated the murder. That’s where the conspiracy comes in. Which makes them all principals. They planned and executed together. Doesn’t matter who the trigger man is. They’re all guilty of 1st degree murder. JMO

 

[GordonX]

maybe the jurors are trying to assess KM's level of guilt? at this point, i just want 2 convictions. i'd be ok if SG got LIFE and KM got 30 years. i want the alleged masterminds to face justice soon.

 

[Gardenista]

Maybe they were trying to be crafty so people wouldn't know what they were thinking and just switched the A's and B's around. LOL, this is driving me crazy.

 

[fred&edna]

The difference in this case is that they all premeditated the murder. That’s where the conspiracy comes in. Which makes them all principals. They planned and executed together. Doesn’t matter who the trigger man is. They’re all guilty of 1st degree murder. JMO

I agree, and thought that was part of jury instructions. Maybe I still have mush in my ears?!

 

[clearskies1]

Really don't understand the question in the context of these facts. A bit scary. JMO.

 

[Weki]

Listen, I can tell you from my experience as a juror there’s always that one or two!!! Lol. Always! And the rest have to bring them into the fold. It took us several days to convince 2 ppl who were stubborn just cause. One for personal reasons and the other was just controlling. It was so aggravating.

Ppl had to review evidence over and over. And things had to be explained by other jurors over and over.

 

[pattisbox]

Under criminal law, a principal is any actor who is primarily responsible for a criminal offense. Such an actor is distinguished from others who may also be subject to criminal liability as accomplices, accessories or conspirators.

maybe SG is the principal and KM is the conspirator in the juror's question?

that is what i am thinking.

 

[MayBell]

Maybe they were trying to be crafty so people wouldn't know what they were thinking and just switched the A's and B's around. LOL, this is driving me crazy.

I have been on several jury's. Sometimes you have that "one" juror that is so hung up on something that no one else finds an issue with. Maybe in order to get this juror to understand and move on, they make the decision to ask the judge knowing his explanation will be the only thing the juror accept. The majority of the jury know this is a dump question, but necessary to move on. Just my 2 cents.