FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen #13 *1 guilty*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Weki said:
How are we supposed to wait until the trial to hear KM’s new song? Dang it! I really hope it gets released prior to the trial or there’s an indictment of more Adelsons, which will tell us indirectly. This is the juiciest development of any trial I’ve been following lately.
Click to expand...
Lol. I agree. I’m hoping for 2 more arrests by December 2 myself…
 
Weki said:
How are we supposed to wait until the trial to hear KM’s new song? Dang it! I really hope it gets released prior to the trial or there’s an indictment of more Adelsons, which will tell us indirectly. This is the juiciest development of any trial I’ve been following lately.
Click to expand...
Actually, I don't know that we will ever learn all of what KM has/had to say (during the proffer) because there's a big difference between what's said and what is ruled by the court as admissible.

While hearsay evidence is often allowed during a preliminary hearing, it is generally not allowed at trial. I expect the defense will continue to be very careful about not opening any doors here. (If I recall correctly, CA was indicted by a grand jury and not bound over for trial by prelim hearing).

Hearsay is legally defined as, "A statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Hearsay is inadmissible at trial, which means that a witness cannot quote what someone outside the courtroom said.

In other words, I expect KM's testimony will pretty much be specific to KM and CA and not the extended members of the family. MOO

More about hearsay at the link below.

www.bundylawoffice.com

How To Get Around Hearsay | Bundy Law Office

Don't let hearsay ruin your case. Learn how to get around it today!
www.bundylawoffice.com
 
If she was involved in conversations in person or on the phone with other unindicted Adelsons then that can come in I believe. I’m no lawyer so take everything I say with a grain of salt - it’s based on what I’ve seen/deduced from other trials. The hearsay rules are so convoluted. I’m not 100% sure what applies in a conspiracy case. I think whatever Charlie tells her may be allowed in even if it implicates other Adelsons. Of course if her proffer/evidence allows the state to charge the others & state moves to try all the Adelsons together, then it for sure will come in.

The most disappointing outcome would be if she only implicates Charlie. Cause we already know that pretty much!
 
Weki said:
If she was involved in conversations in person or on the phone with other unindicted Adelsons then that can come in I believe. I’m no lawyer so take everything I say with a grain of salt - it’s based on what I’ve seen/deduced from other trials. The hearsay rules are so convoluted. I’m not 100% sure what applies in a conspiracy case. I think whatever Charlie tells her may be allowed in even if it implicates other Adelsons. Of course if her proffer/evidence allows the state to charge the others & state moves to try all the Adelsons together, then it for sure will come in.

The most disappointing outcome would be if she only implicates Charlie. Cause we already know that pretty much!
Click to expand...
In her proffer she can say whatever she wants. And investigators and prosecutors will certainly want to know everything she heard from others whether its admissible or not.
At trial she could testify about conversations with others, but only about what she said, not others. that is classic hearsay. However, she could testify as to what Charlie said since he is a party to the case
 
Seattle1 said:
Actually, I don't know that we will ever learn all of what KM has/had to say (during the proffer) because there's a big difference between what's said and what is ruled by the court as admissible.

While hearsay evidence is often allowed during a preliminary hearing, it is generally not allowed at trial. I expect the defense will continue to be very careful about not opening any doors here. (If I recall correctly, CA was indicted by a grand jury and not bound over for trial by prelim hearing).

Hearsay is legally defined as, "A statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Hearsay is inadmissible at trial, which means that a witness cannot quote what someone outside the courtroom said.

In other words, I expect KM's testimony will pretty much be specific to KM and CA and not the extended members of the family. MOO

More about hearsay at the link below.

www.bundylawoffice.com

How To Get Around Hearsay | Bundy Law Office

Don't let hearsay ruin your case. Learn how to get around it today!
www.bundylawoffice.com
Click to expand...
The hearsay rule only applies to whether or not evidence is admissible at trial. The question here is whether the recorded proffer (given in the form of a deposition) will be released as a public record. As noted by an earlier poster, Mentour Lawyer believes that Florida public records law will require the release of the proffer if Charlie's attorneys request it through discovery (which they almost certainly will). If this is correct, we should see the proffer released. We have seen massive amounts of information released in this case because of Florida's open records law and much of the released material included hearsay evidence that could not be admitted at trial.

It is also worth mentioning that there are many, many exceptions to the hearsay rule, so that much hearsay evidence can be admitted under an exception to the rule. Nevertheless, whether or not KM's proffer includes hearsay evidence will not affect whether or not it is released as a public record.
 
PrairieWind said:
In her proffer she can say whatever she wants. And investigators and prosecutors will certainly want to know everything she heard from others whether its admissible or not.
At trial she could testify about conversations with others, but only about what she said, not others. that is classic hearsay. However, she could testify as to what Charlie said since he is a party to the case
Click to expand...
There is a hearsay exception in FL law for statements by a party's co-conspirators made in furtherance of the conspiracy. So, in theory, if KM was on a call with DA, KM could testify in CA's trial as to what DA said. See FL Stat. 90.803(18)(e) (hearsay exception for "A statement by a person who was a coconspirator of the party during the course, and in furtherance, of the conspiracy. Upon request of counsel, the court shall instruct the jury that the conspiracy itself and each member’s participation in it must be established by independent evidence, either before the introduction of any evidence or before evidence is admitted under this paragraph.").

 
PrairieWind said:
In her proffer she can say whatever she wants. And investigators and prosecutors will certainly want to know everything she heard from others whether its admissible or not.
At trial she could testify about conversations with others, but only about what she said, not others. that is classic hearsay. However, she could testify as to what Charlie said since he is a party to the case
Click to expand...
So if there’s a conspiracy between KM, Charlie and Wendi, you believe KM can’t testify at trial about what was said by Wendi? Idk I feel like as @vislaw noted there are so many exceptions to the hearsay rules. For one, it may come in as an impression on the witness and not for the truth of the matter or something like that.
 
BSBC said:
There is a hearsay exception in FL law for statements by a party's co-conspirators made in furtherance of the conspiracy. So, in theory, if KM was on a call with DA, KM could testify in CA's trial as to what DA said. See FL Stat. 90.803(18)(e) (hearsay exception for "A statement by a person who was a coconspirator of the party during the course, and in furtherance, of the conspiracy. Upon request of counsel, the court shall instruct the jury that the conspiracy itself and each member’s participation in it must be established by independent evidence, either before the introduction of any evidence or before evidence is admitted under this paragraph.").

Click to expand...
Yes! Thank you! This is what I was thinking. Hearsay exception in conspiracy cases.
 
vislaw said:
The hearsay rule only applies to whether or not evidence is admissible at trial. The question here is whether the recorded proffer (given in the form of a deposition) will be released as a public record. As noted by an earlier poster, Mentour Lawyer believes that Florida public records law will require the release of the proffer if Charlie's attorneys request it through discovery (which they almost certainly will). If this is correct, we should see the proffer released. We have seen massive amounts of information released in this case because of Florida's open records law and much of the released material included hearsay evidence that could not be admitted at trial.

It is also worth mentioning that there are many, many exceptions to the hearsay rule, so that much hearsay evidence can be admitted under an exception to the rule. Nevertheless, whether or not KM's proffer includes hearsay evidence will not affect whether or not it is released as a public record.
Click to expand...
Yes, thanks for the reminder about Florida's open records.

I'm recalling the Ohio Massacre of the Rhoden family where the proffer of one of the co-defendants, Jake Wagner, (requiring several days) was never released-- only his hearing where he confessed -- changed his plea to guilty was public.

Seems to me that proffers and agreements to testify "to the satisfaction" of the prosecution can be a slippery slope. For example, I further recall the defense of Jake's brother George fought to keep Jake from testifying against his brother -- alleging the agreement violated due process and made it impossible to cross-examine Jake on the stand, alleging how under the plea agreement that they struck with Jake, he has to follow the script that he gave ex parte and his proffer later in the year. (George's trial is currently in process).

In other words, it's complicated, and IMO, I think we should expect equal challenges from CA's defense.
 
katiecoolady said:
I heard an interview with him that was pretty pro-Wendi. Citing in a list all the ways he found her not implicated in the murder. Which to be honest was a turn-off for me. Is that conveyed in the book?
Click to expand...
I have not heard that interview, but I didn’t personally find the book to be biased toward WA. It’s been praised by a lot of legal bloggers (the author is a lawyer) including prawfsblawg, which was the blog where Dan Markel was a founder. The book had quite a few details I had not heard before about their divorce litigation, police interviews of friends, etc.

The author (Steven B. Epstein) also has a website which features some of the case documents including full multi page emails from DA to WA. (I would link but not sure if those kind of author website links are allowed here)

It was a worthwhile read - IMO!
 
Last edited:
vislaw said:
The hearsay rule only applies to whether or not evidence is admissible at trial. The question here is whether the recorded proffer (given in the form of a deposition) will be released as a public record. As noted by an earlier poster, Mentour Lawyer believes that Florida public records law will require the release of the proffer if Charlie's attorneys request it through discovery (which they almost certainly will). If this is correct, we should see the proffer released. We have seen massive amounts of information released in this case because of Florida's open records law and much of the released material included hearsay evidence that could not be admitted at trial.

It is also worth mentioning that there are many, many exceptions to the hearsay rule, so that much hearsay evidence can be admitted under an exception to the rule. Nevertheless, whether or not KM's proffer includes hearsay evidence will not affect whether or not it is released as a public record.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know a layperson who has ALL of the wiretap recordings. I don't know how they got them, but that they do have them, legally.
 
Mariposa said:
I have not heard that interview, but I didn’t personally find the book to be biased toward WA. It’s been praised by a lot of legal bloggers (the author is a lawyer) including prawfsblawg, which was the blog where Dan Markel was a founder. The book had quite a few details I had not heard before about their divorce litigation, police interviews of friends, etc.

The author (Steven B. Epstein) also has a website which features some of the case documents including full multi page emails from DA to WA. (I would link but not sure if those kind of author website links are allowed here)

It was a worthwhile read - IMO!
Click to expand...
Thank you for that!
 
BSBC said:
There is a hearsay exception in FL law for statements by a party's co-conspirators made in furtherance of the conspiracy. So, in theory, if KM was on a call with DA, KM could testify in CA's trial as to what DA said. See FL Stat. 90.803(18)(e) (hearsay exception for "A statement by a person who was a coconspirator of the party during the course, and in furtherance, of the conspiracy. Upon request of counsel, the court shall instruct the jury that the conspiracy itself and each member’s participation in it must be established by independent evidence, either before the introduction of any evidence or before evidence is admitted under this paragraph.").

Click to expand...
I haven't had enough coffee to comprehend this without extreme effort, so may I ask something (for anyone to answer and I appreciate you legal minds on here).

If KM is asked about her statement to Sigfredo as testified by Rivera "I know" when they reported the murder completed, how could this potential scenario come in:

Wendi cruises the crime scene and sees the tape and Whatsapps either CA or DA to let them know, then that info filters through them to KM, so her story, in that scenario (to use her favorite word) would be "I knew because Charlie told me". "Do you know how Charlie knew this?" "He told me that Wendi notified him".

Would that chain of information be allowed?
 
katiecoolady said:
I haven't had enough coffee to comprehend this without extreme effort, so may I ask something (for anyone to answer and I appreciate you legal minds on here).

If KM is asked about her statement to Sigfredo as testified by Rivera "I know" when they reported the murder completed, how could this potential scenario come in:

Wendi cruises the crime scene and sees the tape and Whatsapps either CA or DA to let them know, then that info filters through them to KM, so her story, in that scenario (to use her favorite word) would be "I knew because Charlie told me". "Do you know how Charlie knew this?" "He told me that Wendi notified him".

Would that chain of information be allowed?
Click to expand...
It could come in as not being offered to prove the “truth” that Wendi alerted them, but rather, to show the basis for KM’s understanding. In other words, the evidence could not be used to show wendy actually did this, but it would be admissible that Katie is saying Charlie told her this. The important thing is that Charlie made a statement and that statement would be against his interest. Because he is both a party and it is a statement against his interest it satisfies an exception to the hearsay rule.
 
katiecoolady said:
Yes, I know a layperson who has ALL of the wiretap recordings. I don't know how they got them, but that they do have them, legally.
Click to expand...
I first learned about the exceptionally broad Florida open records law when I contacted Matt Shaer (producer of the wonderful podcast “Over My Dead Body - Tally.” Matt explained to me that anyone has the right to obtain ALL of the public records for the case by simply providing the district attorneys office a written request and a hard drive for the materials to be copied to.

He said the biggest problem they had creating the original podcast was the massive amount of files. All of the wire taps and all of the surveillance reports among everything else collected as evidence were included.

They spent weeks just trying to sort the material in a preliminary fashion. So, if anybody wants all of the material you just need to buy a cheap terabyte drive and make a formal written request with prepaid postage for shipping to you when it is copied.

I believe I posted earlier this year that Matt informed me a feature film is being developed based on the podcast. That should certainly be a fascinating watch.
 
Mariposa said:
I have not heard that interview, but I didn’t personally find the book to be biased toward WA. It’s been praised by a lot of legal bloggers (the author is a lawyer) including prawfsblawg, which was the blog where Dan Markel was a founder. The book had quite a few details I had not heard before about their divorce litigation, police interviews of friends, etc.

The author (Steven B. Epstein) also has a website which features some of the case documents including full multi page emails from DA to WA. (I would link but not sure if those kind of author website links are allowed here)

It was a worthwhile read - IMO!
Click to expand...
When i finish reading Ruth M's book, going to look into this one too, thanks!
1669307705581.png
“EXTREME PUNISHMENT is a rich, detailed, well-researched telling of the murder of Dan Markel. But it’s not the crime that will keep you turning the pages in what will become a classic on the shelves of true crime enthusiasts. What makes this book special is the people involved in this twisted story, the wildly exciting characters you soon realize are just like you and your next-door neighbors. Maybe even your in-laws. Perhaps even your ex-spouse.”
 
vislaw said:
I first learned about the exceptionally broad Florida open records law when I contacted Matt Shaer (producer of the wonderful podcast “Over My Dead Body - Tally.” Matt explained to me that anyone has the right to obtain ALL of the public records for the case by simply providing the district attorneys office a written request and a hard drive for the materials to be copied to.

He said the biggest problem they had creating the original podcast was the massive amount of files. All of the wire taps and all of the surveillance reports among everything else collected as evidence were included.

They spent weeks just trying to sort the material in a preliminary fashion. So, if anybody wants all of the material you just need to buy a cheap terabyte drive and make a formal written request with prepaid postage for shipping to you when it is copied.

I believe I posted earlier this year that Matt informed me a feature film is being developed based on the podcast. That should certainly be a fascinating watch.
Click to expand...

Wow I knew they were doing something from the podcast but didn't realize it was a feature film. Is this the HBO deal? Pretty sure I heard they purchased the rights from Wonderly? There is so much to this story, I'd be surprised if there wasn't also a limited series made on it, with all of the upcoming developments and their resolution (which is hopefully ALL in prison who were involved).

That casting should be interesting. Personally, I would see Kieran Culkin as Charlie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 101 more.
Total: 2,368 (members: 102, guests: 2,266)

Online statistics

Members online
102
Guests online
2,266
Total visitors
2,368
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,545
Messages
18,142,287
Members
231,434
Latest member
NysesPieces
Back
Top