LIVE BLOG- P.M.: Closing arguments begin in Charlie Adelson trial
Published: Nov. 6, 2023
1:48: Jury begins deliberations
The jury is now deliberating in the murder-for-hire trial of Charlie Adelson.
1:44: Jury instructions
Judge Everett is giving jurors instructions about how deliberations should be conducted.
1:43: Cappleman finishes rebuttal
“The defendant is smart. And they had over a year to plan this murder with the goal of not getting caught. And he’s had 7 years to think about his defense,” Cappleman says.
“Only one of us is putting on a magic show. It’s up to y’all to figure out which one it is.”
She finishes rebuttal at 1:43 p.m.
1:25: State’s rebuttal
Cappleman again questions why Charlie would give gifts to Magbanua if she was extorting him.
Cappleman agrees “Katherine Magbanua is a liar.” But, Cappleman says, Magbanua’s prior testimony didn’t fit with the other evidence.
“No one has stronger feelings about Katheirne Magbanua than the ones sitting on this side.”
“Would I ask you to base this defendant’s freedom on the word of Katherine Magbanua? I would never do that.”
Cappleman continues “they really need y’all to discount the testimony of Jeffrey Lacasse, right? Because of that statement Wendi made to him just before the murder.”
Lacasse testified that Wendi told him Charlie had seriously looked into hiring a hit man.
1:24: “They don’t get the last word. You do.”
“There is only one just verdict in this case,” Rashbaum says, approaching the jury. “Count 1, not guilty. Count 2, not guilty. Count 3, not guilty. End this nightmare. Send him home. Thank you, your honor.”
The defense finishes its closing argument at 1:25 p.m. Georgia Cappleman begins the state’s rebuttal immediately after.
1:19: “A case of guesses and assumptions.”
Rashbaum tells jurors they are allowed to speculate when they go back into the jury room. Cappleman objects to that and Judge Everett calls them for a sidebar conversation.
“The presumption of innocence means that we presume the best about people. We presume them to be blameless. That means when you’re listening to these wires, if there are two possible explanations, you go with the one that is favorable to Charlie.”
Rashbaum tells jurors “When you have two explanations, both of them reasonable, you go with the one that presumes his innocence. That’s how our system works.”
“If you waver at all, that is living, breathing proof of reasonable doubt. And when you find yourself doing that, you must find Charlie Adelson not guilty. Because that is reasonable doubt and shows that the state did not meet its burden.”
1:00: Dolce Vita
On why Charlie didn’t go to the police about the extortion, Rashbaum says, “He had just seen what had happened to Professor Markel. He knew the danger of these people.
“You wonder why he is talking the way he’s talking in Dolce Vita. He’s freaking out. He thinks his mom, if they don’t pay, is going to get killed.”
Rashbaum further addresses the Dolce Vita recording, saying “there is no code. But we can agree on this: they’re talking carefully.”
Rashbaum says Adelson speaks carefully with Magbanua because he needs her help and doesn’t want to spook her. When he speaks carefully with Donna Adelson, Rashbaum says it’s because he doesn’t want anyone, including police, to find out about the first extortion.
12:50:
Talking about Luis Rivera, Rashbaum says, “He’s an animal, but he was truthful.”
Rashbaum says about the fact that Charlie called his parents’ landline the day of the murder -- “It means absolutely nothing … it’s grasping at straws.”
“It’s like magic. It’s like they’re putting on a magic show. Use your common sense.”
12:30: “He didn’t flee or hide.”
Rashbaum points out that none of the Adelsons got burner phones and called the agent from the bump with their cell phones.
“We don’t disagree that the murder of Markel was horrific. They showed you those pictures today. I can’t look at them. These people who killed him were animals.”
Rashbaum argues that Adelson and his team have no idea how Katherine Magbanua and Sigfredo Garcia knew where Markel lived and when he would be out of town.
Jeffrey Lacasse was “a jilted lover who was stalking Wendi Adelson,” Rashbaum says. Rashbaum says Lacasse was angry because he thought the family was trying to frame him for Markel’s murder, and his testimony was shaped by that.
”His testimony makes no sense, is biased and should be discounted as nonsense.”
12:07: Addressing Magbanua’s testimony
Rashbaum apologizes if any jurors were offended by the tone he used when cross-examining Katherine Magbanua. “I’m passionate, and I believe in the system,” Rashbaum says. “And the one thing I hate is when someone comes in this courtroom and lies. I hate even more when a murderer comes in this courtroom and lies.”
The state “called a woman who lied under oath in her first trial, they called a woman who lied under oath in her first trial … but worse, they called a woman who just a year ago lied during her proffers.”
“The bottom line is, Charlie Adelson was conned. On the night of the 18th, he was scared. He didn’t think she was part of it. He thought she was protecting him.”
Rashbaum asks why the state didn’t ask Magbanua any questions about the wires or call her back to the stand in rebuttal after Charlie’s testimony. He says it’s because even the state can’t trust Magbanua. “The truth is, even they have doubt … that’s why it took them six years after her arrest to even charge Charlie Adelson.”
“Ask yourself, ‘Why were they so afraid to ask her any of those questions?’”
11:59: “You don’t have to like Charlie Adelson.”
Rashbaum says it doesn’t make sense for Charlie to joke about hiring a hit man repeatedly if he was actually going to do it.
“Criminals do not advertise what they are about to do,” he says. “That makes no sense.”
Rashbaum also questions why a payment wasn’t made up front if Markel’s murder was a hit.
11:52: Puzzle pieces
Rashbaum points out that at the time of both murder attempts, Markel had custody of the kids.
“Does that make any sense?” Rashbaum asks.
“There’s no chance, if these people were behind the murder, that they would take any risk that those boys would be in the cross-hairs.”
Just a couple weeks before the murder, Sigfredo Garcia tried to run Charlie off the road. Rashbaum says this doesn’t make sense, questioning why Garcia would do a hit for Charlie if he hated him so much.
11:50: “A far cry from murder.”
“Crazy ideas? Yes. An upset mother? Yes. Pushing each other’s buttons? Yes. But ladies and gentlemen, even the million dollar offer you heard lawyers were consulted to make sure it was legal. A far cry from murder,” Rashbaum says.
Rashbaum says that Wendi and her boys moving to South Florida would not have impacted Charlie’s life significantly.
Rashbaum says they spent a lot of time in cross examination trying to prove Wendi is innocent. He says Wendi made plans for her life in Tallahassee -- making play dates, buying plane tickets, hired a new divorce lawyer, and more.
“They were guessing about Wendi just like they’re guessing about Charlie,” he says.
11:45: Rashbaum begins closing arguments
Daniel Rashbaum begins closing statements at 11:45, continuing his theme in opening of “puzzle pieces.”
“What you see in this trial is a mountain of reasonable doubt,” Rashbaum says.
“Sometimes the simple answer is the wrong answer. Sometimes things aren’t so simple. And that’s what we have in this case.”
Rashbaum argues “Charlie Adelson didn’t have a motive to upend his life.”
Closing arguments begin just before 9:30 with Georgia Cappleman giving the closing for the state.
www.wctv.tv
@Niner
www.google.com
