FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *3 guilty* #14

[clearskies1]

Apologies as I’m still trying to catch up on these recent filings but if they are compelled to testify, could they still take the 5th AND then be held in contempt?

Do we think they may do that… as the consequences for that are much less than if they start implicating themselves or others / the Judge rules that their immunity is limited more than they’re alleging through their attorney currently? Very curious

I'm not an expert but yes, if they are compelled under section 914.04 and then take the 5th, it seems like they could be held in contempt. Also, I think the type of immunity that attaches is pretty well established in Florida, but we shall see what the court rules.

Also want to mention that Wendi Adelson testified at the earlier trials in response to a State subpoena. If you google you will see articles about that. JMO.

 

[Marvin Berry]

The Defense witness list was filed with the court on September 22 and is publicly available on on the court website. In her October 2 email (which was included in State's petition for an order to show cause), HA/DA's lawyer said that she had not seen the Defense witness list.

The law seems to explicitly state that immunity attaches to investigative subpoenas issued by the State, so I see no way that the judge will rule against the State.

BBM.

"914.04 Witnesses; person not excused from testifying or producing evidence in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him or her; use of testimony given or evidence produced.—No person who has been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court having felony trial jurisdiction, grand jury, or state attorney upon investigation, proceeding, or trial for a violation of any of the criminal statutes of this state upon the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of the person may tend to convict him or her of a crime or to subject him or her to a penalty or forfeiture, but no testimony so given or evidence so produced shall be received against the person upon any criminal investigation or proceeding. Such testimony or evidence, however, may be received against the person upon any criminal investigation or proceeding for perjury committed while giving such testimony or producing such evidence or for any perjury subsequently committed."

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Agree that 914.04 applies to state attorney interview subpoenas. I suspect HA/DA's attorney will argue that, given the high stakes, they wanted an order from the court confirming immunity before providing testimony. Which isn't entirely unreasonable. But a much better way of handling would have been to seek clarification from the judge themselves rather than potentially being sanctioned. As for the witness lists being public, HA/DA aren't under an obligation to check the docket on somebody else's criminal prosecution. I think we all know that they have in fact done that (and probably knew through other channels as well), but they can claim ignorance as there has not been any official notification.

 

[clearskies1]

Agree that 914.04 applies to state attorney interview subpoenas. I suspect HA/DA's attorney will argue that, given the high stakes, they wanted an order from the court confirming immunity before providing testimony. Which isn't entirely unreasonable. But a much better way of handling would have been to seek clarification from the judge themselves rather than potentially being sanctioned. As for the witness lists being public, HA/DA aren't under an obligation to check the docket on somebody else's criminal prosecution. I think we all know that they have in fact done that (and probably knew through other channels as well), but they can claim ignorance as there has not been any official notification.

Don't disagree with what your saying. Was just pointing out that the statute covers investigative subpoenas and that there was a defense witness list at the time that had meaning. I don't think that whether a trial subpoena had been issued would matter. JMO.

 

[clearskies1]

Update: Looks like the order to show cause hearing won't happen until October 12. HA and DA's attorney filed a motion asking that the hearing be held remotely on October 12 due to her schedule. She said that Cappelman doesn't oppose her request. She also said that they have tenatively rescheduled the Adelsons' interviews for Oct. 17 in the event the court compels them to testify.

 

[Seattle1]

I'm recalling from the previous trials for Dan Markel's Murder that WA testified during the trials for the co-defendants after she was given immunity from the State.

However, I believe the senior Adelson's can be compelled to answer questions under an investigation subpoena (i.e., deposition) but can take the 5th if called as witnesses during the trial. MOO

Adelson was granted immunity for her testimony as her family members have long been implicated in Markel's murder. The two were involved in a custody fight at the time of his death.

Magbanua Trial Day 2: Wendi Adelson talks about relationship between brother Charlie and Dan Markel

Katherine Magbanua’s retrial resumed Thursday with testimony from Dan Markel’s ex-wife, Wendi Adelson. Magbanua is accused of being the go-between for the Adelson family and the hitmen who killed the FSU law professor.

news.wfsu.org

Use and derivative use immunity

The person may have to answer questions and provide information that would be incriminating, but the information cannot be used against the person in a criminal case. A person who is subpoenaed to testify will be given what is called use and derivative use immunity. This means that the state cannot use the statements provided by the witness or any information derived by those statements against the witness in a criminal case.

 

[clearskies1]

I'm recalling from the previous trials for Dan Markel's Murder that WA testified during the trials for the co-defendants after she was given immunity from the State.

However, I believe the senior Adelson's can be compelled to answer questions under an investigation subpoena (i.e., deposition) but can take the 5th if called as witnesses during the trial. MOO

Adelson was granted immunity for her testimony as her family members have long been implicated in Markel's murder. The two were involved in a custody fight at the time of his death.

Magbanua Trial Day 2: Wendi Adelson talks about relationship between brother Charlie and Dan Markel

Katherine Magbanua’s retrial resumed Thursday with testimony from Dan Markel’s ex-wife, Wendi Adelson. Magbanua is accused of being the go-between for the Adelson family and the hitmen who killed the FSU law professor.

news.wfsu.org

Use and derivative use immunity

The person may have to answer questions and provide information that would be incriminating, but the information cannot be used against the person in a criminal case. A person who is subpoenaed to testify will be given what is called use and derivative use immunity. This means that the state cannot use the statements provided by the witness or any information derived by those statements against the witness in a criminal case.

I'm fairly certain that Wendi was subpoenaed to testify at the previous trials by the State under Sec. 914.04 and so had use and limited use immunity for that testimony. I'm pretty sure the same would apply if HA and DA receive trial subpoenas from the State -- i.e., they would be compelled to testify (can't take the 5th) and would have given use/ limited use immunity. (However, they could be prosecuted if they commit perjury.) I'm copying a December 2022 post from @BSBC about this topic:

"Immunity statutes like Florida's Sec. 914.04 don't "override" the Fifth Amendment; they are consistent with it. The Florida courts have held that a witness can be compelled to testify under Sec. 914.04, notwithstanding the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, because that testimony cannot be used against the witness. See, e.g., State v. Mitrani, 19 So. 3d 1065 (5th Dist. Ct. of App. 2009). Likewise, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that immunity statutes may, consistent with the Fifth Amendment, compel witnesses to testify, provided that testimony is not used against them. See, e.g., United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 US 115, 125 (1980):

And this Court has repeatedly recognized the validity of immunity statutes. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S., at 449, acknowledged that Congress included immunity statutes in many of the regulatory measures adopted in the first half of this century, and that at the time of the enactment of 18 U. S. C. § 6002, the statute under which this prosecution was brought, there were in force over 50 federal immunity statutes as well as similar laws in every State of the Union. 406 U. S., at 447. This Court in Ullmann v. United States, supra, stated that such statutes have "become part of our constitutional fabric." 350 U. S., at 438. And the validity of such statutes may be traced in our decisions at least as far back as Brown v. Walker, supra.

As the Apfelbaum opinion notes, the Supreme Court upheld such a statute in 1896 in Brown v. Walker.

The bottom line is that if the state believes it will help its case, it may subpoena DA, WA, or HA to testify in CA's trial pursuant to Sec. 914.04, and if they refuse, they will be jailed for contempt. Whether that would be a wise strategy is a different question."

 

[Seattle1]

I'm fairly certain that Wendi was subpoenaed to testify at the trials by the State under Sec. 914.04 and so had use and limited use immunity for that testimony. I'm pretty sure the same would apply if HA and DA receive trial subpoenas from the State -- i.e., they would be compelled to testify (can't take the 5th) and would have given use limited/use immunity. (However, they could be prosecuted if they commit perjury.) I'm copying a December 2022 post from @BSBC about this topic:

"Immunity statutes like Florida's Sec. 914.04 don't "override" the Fifth Amendment; they are consistent with it. The Florida courts have held that a witness can be compelled to testify under Sec. 914.04, notwithstanding the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, because that testimony cannot be used against the witness. See, e.g., State v. Mitrani, 19 So. 3d 1065 (5th Dist. Ct. of App. 2009). Likewise, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that immunity statutes may, consistent with the Fifth Amendment, compel witnesses to testify, provided that testimony is not used against them. See, e.g., United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 US 115, 125 (1980):

And this Court has repeatedly recognized the validity of immunity statutes. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S., at 449, acknowledged that Congress included immunity statutes in many of the regulatory measures adopted in the first half of this century, and that at the time of the enactment of 18 U. S. C. § 6002, the statute under which this prosecution was brought, there were in force over 50 federal immunity statutes as well as similar laws in every State of the Union. 406 U. S., at 447. This Court in Ullmann v. United States, supra, stated that such statutes have "become part of our constitutional fabric." 350 U. S., at 438. And the validity of such statutes may be traced in our decisions at least as far back as Brown v. Walker, supra.

As the Apfelbaum opinion notes, the Supreme Court upheld such a statute in 1896 in Brown v. Walker.

The bottom line is that if the state believes it will help its case, it may subpoena DA, WA, or HA to testify in CA's trial pursuant to Sec. 914.04, and if they refuse, they will be jailed for contempt. Whether that would be a wise strategy is a different question."

@clearskies1 -- big thanks for providing the citations. Now I'm curious why the senior Adelson's were not called to testify in the previous trials for the co-defendants.

 

[clearskies1]

@clearskies1 -- big thanks for providing the citations. Now I'm curious why the senior Adelson's were not called to testify in the previous trials for the co-defendants.

I know, right? I think the issue with Sec. 914.04 may be that witnesses can challenge subsequent convictions, claiming that the evidence used against them was an off shoot of their protected testimony. JMO.

 

[clearskies1]

Latest: CA's attorney filed a motion to preclude enforcement of the investigative subpoenas served on HA and DA on the grounds that they fall outside the September 22 discovery deadline.

 

[Seattle1]

Latest: CA's attorney filed a motion to preclude enforcement of the investigative subpoenas served on HA and DA on the grounds that they fall outside the September 22 discovery deadline.

More recently, seems to me more defense attorneys are taking to pulling the "Discovery" card as if it's sport-- which I find not only annoying but also disrespectful to the purpose behind the rule of discovery!

A trial by ambush is what happens when one side or another in a trial is caught by surprise by some unexpected or unknown factor. Usually, it is a piece of evidence or a witness that has been concealed from the opposing side in a court case, so as to ensure that there is little to no chance of coming up with an adequate defense.

Can CA's defense truly claim the defense will be injured if the motion is denied? I dunno.. perhaps by allowing the adoption of court-imposed deadlines versus deadlines long written in the Statute has become an invitation for abuse to benefit one party over another. It makes me tired and don't like it!

For example, I prefer the clear language of Colorado's Statute for Discovery and Procedure before Trial, Colo. R. Crim. P. 16, and as my late father would say "Why borrow trouble?"

In no case shall such disclosure be less than 35 days before trial for a felony trial, or 7 days before trial for a non-felony trial, except for good cause.

IMO, manipulating this very clear Statute was the demise of the Morphew prosecution.

 

[Costcoluvr]

More recently, seems to me more defense attorneys are taking to pulling the "Discovery" card as if it's sport-- which I find not only annoying but also disrespectful to the purpose behind the rule of discovery!

A trial by ambush is what happens when one side or another in a trial is caught by surprise by some unexpected or unknown factor. Usually, it is a piece of evidence or a witness that has been concealed from the opposing side in a court case, so as to ensure that there is little to no chance of coming up with an adequate defense.

Can CA's defense truly claim the defense will be injured if the motion is denied? I dunno.. perhaps by allowing the adoption of court-imposed deadlines versus deadlines long written in the Statute has become an invitation for abuse to benefit one party over another. It makes me tired and don't like it!

For example, I prefer the clear language of Colorado's Statute for Discovery and Procedure before Trial, Colo. R. Crim. P. 16, and as my late father would say "Why borrow trouble?"

In no case shall such disclosure be less than 35 days before trial for a felony trial, or 7 days before trial for a non-felony trial, except for good cause.

IMO, manipulating this very clear Statute was the demise of the Morphew

please help me understand your point. Are you saying that Rashbaum surprised the state by including the Adelsons on their witness list when it was filed on September 21? Is this what you mean by “trial by ambush”? Rashbaum says that the state sent an email on August 23 advising that it intended to subpoena Donna and Harvey. The state wrote that the reason to subpoena them is that it has the right to know what they intend to say at trial when they are called as witnesses for the defence. How did the State know in August that Donna and Harvey would be called to testify by Rashbaum?

 

[clearskies1]

The State filed the attached response to the Defense's attempt to block the HA and DA investigatory subpoenas on the ground that the discovery deadline has passed. The State also filed a notice today saying they are going to depose Gary Cohen on Oct. 10 in West Palm Beach. I don't know who Gary Cohen is -- maybe someone can enlighten me.

Here are the upcoming court dates:
Oct. 9 at 1:30pm -- motions hearing
Oct. 12 at 11:30am -- order to show cause hearing (parties may appear by zoom)
Oct. 20 at 9:00am -- pre-trial hearing.

 

[Seattle1]

Quoting @Costcoluvr : please help me understand your point. Are you saying that Rashbaum surprised the state by including the Adelsons on their witness list when it was filed on September 21? Is this what you mean by “trial by ambush”? Rashbaum says that the state sent an email on August 23 advising that it intended to subpoena Donna and Harvey. The state wrote that the reason to subpoena them is that it has the right to know what they intend to say at trial when they are called as witnesses for the defence. How did the State know in August that Donna and Harvey would be called to testify by Rashbaum? End @Costcoluvr quote.

I'm not sure I understand OP's response in the broken quote but I'll attempt to respond per my understanding:

No, I'm not saying that Rashbaum surprised the state by including Adelsons on their witness list and not what I mean by "trial by ambush."

In CA's Defense Motion of Oct 5, 2023, to ENFORCE COURT'S DISCOVERY DEADLINE, the defense seeks to prevent the Prosecution from enforcing its investigative subpoenas to Donna and Harvey Adelson, issued on Sept 28, 2023. The defense cites the reason the subpoenas should not be enforced is that they were issued by the Prosecution past the Discovery deadline.

In my post, I discussed that there's generally a State Statute governing Discovery and Procedure before Trial for both criminal and civil cases where the deadline is defined by State law for each type of proceeding -- criminal and civil.

I also discussed that parties to a case often Motion for the Court to Order a Discovery deadline other than what is defined in the State Statute. Here, the defense Motion states that the Court previously imposed a series of pretrial deadlines for this case including the Discovery deadline of Sept 22, 2023. At this time, there's insufficient information to determine whether or not the Prosecution even agrees that Sept 22, cited by the defense, is the correct Discovery deadline date.

To reflect on the purpose of Discovery rules and deadlines adopted by State legislators and written in the State Statutes, I provided that the intent of setting a Discovery deadline before trial is to prevent either side of the case from being caught by surprise by some unexpected or unknown factor that gives one side an advantage over the other. In other words, to prevent a trial by ambush.

IMO, the defense Motion is misrepresenting the facts by implying that allowing the Prosecution to enforce the subpoenas beyond the Discovery deadline would somehow injure the defense because of the alleged tardy request when in fact the Prosecution previously issued the subpoenas to Donna and Harvey Adelson via email in care of their attorney on August 23, 2023 (proposed interview on Oct 3, 2023).

And as if expecting the Court would reject the defenses's tardy allegation insufficient to prevent enforcing the subpoenas, the defense also warns that the Adelsons, through counsel, would invoke their Fifth Amendment right if interviewed.

It's also my understanding that Donna and Harvey Adelson appear on both the defense and prosecution witness lists for the trial set for Oct 23, 2023.

I expect the Prosecution's response to this Motion by the defense will follow shortly.

 

[Seattle1]

The State filed the attached response to the Defense's attempt to block the HA and DA investigatory subpoenas on the ground that the discovery deadline has passed. The State also filed a notice today saying they are going to depose Gary Cohen on Oct. 10 in West Palm Beach. I don't know who Gary Cohen is -- maybe someone can enlighten me.

Here are the upcoming court dates:
Oct. 9 at 1:30pm -- motions hearing
Oct. 12 at 11:30am -- order to show cause hearing (parties may appear by zoom)
Oct. 20 at 9:00am -- pre-trial hearing.

I expect the Prosecution's response to this Motion by the defense will follow shortly.

Thanks -- asked and OP delivered!

IMO, the Prosecution nailed it:

 

[Seattle1]

10/04/2023

According to our records, someone with this email address is registered to receive status updates from the Florida VINE Service about offender KATHERINE MAGBANUA. This email is to inform you of additional information we have received about the person from Leon County Sheriff's Office.

We have automatically registered you for updates concerning this additional information. You may begin receiving these update notifications in addition to the status updates you already receive.

This offender is currently in custody.

For more information, contact Leon County Sheriff's Office. The telephone number is (850) 606-3300. VINE information is also available at www.vinelink.com.

Thank you,

The Florida VINE Service

 

[hazel324]

Obviously first and foremost my heart feels for Dan's family and friends who have lost a treasured person...

But I can hardly wait to see the Adelsons up there...they need to pay for thinking it's okay to conspire, hire and murder the father of their grandchildren/children/nephews

Wonder if Wendi will wear the same dress again

 

[Missyrocks5]

To me, it also speaks to how well planned and calculated she is in all things. I keep thinking there will be evidence to show the planning for the move to S. Florida long before Dan was killed. That can't just happen in two days and in Ruth M's book she spoke about how the house was clearly half packed up after the funeral. There has to be evidence somewhere (Donna?) of research about moving companies, purchase of packing supplies, contacting utilities--all the things that have to be done on both ends for a move that big. She also planned way in advance her "Pearl Harbor" divorce on Dan. She is a very calculating person. I'd also throw her relationship with Jeff LaCasse in to that mix too.

Agree. Haven’t been on here in a long time. Agree with what you said about Tim Jansen, the attorney. He absolutely is making arguments for CA- that putting in KM is the worst thing, she didn’t bring anything in her proffer. It may be, but if she independently corroborates things she will say, like with what’s app messages and texts, maybe she will e valuable.

Also agree on WA being so calculating, including with a Jeff L. I think the reason he always thought she was seeing another man is that she was. I think the ither man was her real boyfriend, and Jeff L was always a mark. Like in the movie Body Heat. She despised Dan. She still can’t stop making snide comments in her testimony. Why would she pick a man who looked so much like him after the divorce, a man who didn’t have the wealth or power she seemed to favor. And who wasn’t her religion. To me, it was because she always thought she could bewitch him and serve him as a suspect, which she almost did. The greatest miracle was he left early. The rented Prius color was no accident.

‘’’And how could the hit men know Dan’s schedule but through Wendi? Why would she ask Lacasse all those questions about taking the trip on Friday after they just broke up. As close as her family was, to me, there was no way they’d independently decide to take out her sons’ father without her ok. NO WAY. Whether they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt remains to be seen. CA has plenty of evidence against him and Donna does as well. Hope she’s charged soon. Almost a decade later, she’s still free living her life.

 

[Niner]

Monday, Oct. 9th:
*Motions Hearing (@ 1:30pm ET) - FL – Daniel Eric Markel (41) (shot to death July 18, 2014, Tallahassee) - *Charles Jay Adelson (37 @ time of crime/45/now 46) was indicted (4/20/22), arrested & charged (4/21/22) & booked (in Leon County 4/25/22) with 1st degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder & solicitation to commit murder. No bond (denied bond 4/26/22). Bond release denied (9/9/22).
Jury selection set to begin on 10/23/23. (3 to 5 days for jury sel to 10/25)
Trial set to begin on 10/26/23. (thru 11/9/23).
Judge Stephen Everett presiding.
Court info from 4/21/22 thru 3/15/23 reference post #38 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...-murdered-by-hitmen-1-guilty-14.675427/page-2
4/21/23 Update: Case management hearing was vacated. Next case management hearing on 8/25/23 @ 9am.
8/25/23 Update: In today’s case management hearing, Rashbaum told Judge Robert Wheeler that his team anticipates a more extended trial than the scheduled two weeks. “Our case could be lengthy and could go a week, five to six days of testimony,” Rashbaum said, noting that this would bring the trial out several days from its current Nov. 9 closing. Jury selection will begin on Monday, Oct. 23, with opening statements & testimony could begin as early as Thursday, 10/26/23. The trial is expected to wrap up by November 9th, but Adelson’s attorney told the judge the length of his case would depend on the witnesses & evidence presented by the state. Any pretrial motions & lists of experts, exhibits & witnesses are due to the court by 9/22/23. Also, an additional CMC may be scheduled between now & the 10/20 hearing if necessary. Next pretrial conference hearing on 10/20/23 @ 9am. Judge Robert Wheeler granted the defense’s request to keep interviews & recordings of Katherine Magbanua sealed. Some media groups wanted access to those materials, but the judge said that would interfere with Adelson’s right to a fair trial.
9/15/23 Update: There is an order from the former judge (Judge Wheeler) setting a 9/22/23 deadline for the parties to file any pretrial motions, witness & exhibit lists. Order: Honorable Stephen Everett new judge from office of the Chief Judge Frances I. Allman. 9/21/23: Notice of filing: Evidence list by State.
9/22/23 Update: The state has just filed its list of evidence against Adelson in advance of his murder trial. Witness lists, evidence lists & pretrial motions are all due Friday, September 22, as both the state & defense team get ready for Adelson’s upcoming trial. Prosecutors’ evidence list filed Thursday includes: more than 50 photos from the crime scene, autopsy & surveillance cameras. More than 30 documents including call logs & financial statements. Nearly 40 computer discs & thumb drives with videos ranging from a secret FBI recording of Adelson at a Miami restaurant to surveillance video of Dan Markel leaving the gym the morning of his murder. A new judge, Circuit Judge Stephen Everett, was assigned to preside over the case last week, just five weeks before jury selection is scheduled to begin. The Second Circuit Court Administrator says Circuit Judge Robert Wheeler, who has been presiding over the case since 2020, is now handling family law cases. Judge Everett has already signed off on orders to transport Magbanua from a state prison in Ocala back to Tallahassee in time for Adelson’s trial. This follows a previous order from Judge Wheeler ordering the return of co-defendant Luis Rivera from a federal prison in Arizona. Both have been ordered to be in custody at the Leon County Jail no later than October 9.
9/22/23 Update: Defendant Adelson's witness & exhibit lists filed. State's witness list filed. 9/22/23 Update: Adelson's attorneys have filed motions to suppress evidence taken from wiretaps & to exclude the Dolce recordings/enhancements, hearsay from Lacasse, the divorce filings, testimony concerning CA's attorney's call to police following KM's arrest, and June Umchinda's testimony concerning the "bump." They've also submitted a proposed jury questionnaire. A motions hearing has been set for 10/9/23 at 1:30pm. State's Motion in Limine. Requests Court to consider the following issues pretrial. 1) Rivera's gang affiliation & prior bad acts; 2) .22 caliber bullets found at Premier Health & Fitness Center; 3) Rivera's mental health; 4) Investigator Jason Newlin's sequestration. 5) Domestic violence between Rivera & Jessica Rodrigues; 6) Use of headphones for the publication of audio evidence in the courtroom & jury room; 7) Wiretap calls; 8) Allow the use of demonstrative aids filed by State attorney Jack Campbell.
10/2/23 Update: State's Motion to Compel. Asks Court to compel defense counsel to produce "Impeachment & Rebuttal documents" as listed in the defense's Reciprocal Discovery filed 9/22/23 that could be used in the upcoming trial, or in the alternative, exclude their use in trial filed by State attorney Jcak Campbell. 10/3/23 Update: Defendant Adelson's Response to Motion to Compel filed by Daniel I. Rashbaum.
10/3/23 Update: State's Petition for Order to Show Cause. The State issued subpoenas to Harvey & Donna Adelson for them to be interviewed on October 3, but their attorney said that they would plead the 5th. The attorney claimed that the immunity that attaches to a trial subpoena does not apply to an investigative subpoena. The State has now filed a petition with the court, arguing that Harvey & Donna should be held in contempt of court & should be required to answer questions under future State investigative subpoenas.
10/4/23 Update: Judge Steven Everett's Order to Show Cause. Ordered that Harvey & Donna Adelson (or their attorney) be cited to appear at the Leon County Courthouse in person or by zoom on 10/9/23 & then & there show cause why they should not be adjudged guilty of contempt of this Court & punished accordingly for failing to comply with the State's investigative subpoenas.
10/5/23 Update: order to show cause hearing won't happen until 10/12/23 @ 11:30am. HA & DA's attorney filed a motion asking that the hearing be held remotely on October 12 due to her schedule. She said that Cappelman doesn't oppose her request. She also said that they have tenatively rescheduled the Adelsons' interviews for Oct. 17 in the event the court compels them to testify.
10/5/23 Update: Defendant Adelson's Motion to enforce Court's Discovery deadline. Motion to preclude enforcement of the investigative subpoenas served on HA & DA on the grounds that they fall outside the September 22 discovery deadline filed by Daniel L. Rashbaum.
10/6/23 Update: State's Response to Defendant's Motion to Enforce Discovery Deadline. The State filed the attached response to the Defense's attempt to block the HA & DA investigatory subpoenas on the ground that the discovery deadline has passed. The State also filed a notice today saying they are going to depose Gary Cohen on Oct. 10 in West Palm Beach.
*Katharine Diana Magbanua (32/now 38) – 5/27/22: Found guilty on ALL charges Sentenced on 7/29/22 for murder LWOP & for conspiracy & solicitation two 30 consecutive years in prison. 8/4/22: Magbanua has transitioned to the FL Department of Corrections Women's Reception Center in Ocala, thus ending a very lengthy six-year stay in the Leon County Jail.
*Sigfredo Garcia (34/now 40) – 10/10/19: Found guilty of 1st degree murder. Guilty of conspiracy. Not guilty of solicitation. Sentenced to LWOP for murder plus 30 years for conspiracy charge. 11/4/19: Motion to Withdraw as Counsel: Mauricio Padilla; Motion to Withdraw as Counsel: Saam Zangeneh. His appeal was denied.
*Luis Rivera (33/now 39) charged with 1st degree murder. Took a plea deal (Oct. 2016) & plead guilty to 2nd degree murder. Testified against Garcia & Magbanua. Will receive 19-year sentence to run concurrently with his 12 year Federal time, which he is already serving.
POIs: Wendi Adelson (ex-wife of Markel), her mom Donna Sue Adelson (68) & father Harvey Adelson. Investigators have not charged any of these people in the Adelson family in connection with Markel’s death, except Charlie; but say Adelson’s mother & brother – Donna & Charlie Adelson – paid $100K to have Markel killed following the couple’s contentious divorce so their two young sons could move to South Florida.

 

[GordonX]

will today's hearing be streamed? where? thanks!

 

[sunix]

will today's hearing be streamed? where? thanks!

I believe Mentour Lawyer will be airing it on his Deep Dive True Crime you tube channel.