GUILTY FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen #17

[amicuscurie]

I think you have to psych yourself into that headspace if your client won't cut a deal. If you're going into trial and your mental state is, "Well there's no chance," then you can't zealously advocate for your client as professional ethics require. And that obligation of zealous advocacy applies even to guilty shitbag clients like CA.

That said, it's not a crazy idea that he could have won. Defense lawyers have to convince only one of twelve that there is reasonable doubt. And in this case, if the weird incel alternate juror who seemed to be on CA and Rashbaum's collective jock had managed to make it into the actual jury there may well have been a mistrial.

He’s not going to tell Jansen he thinks he has a losing case.

 

[amicuscurie]

This is interesting.... UM law has (had?) a required class called "Elements" and one of the featured cases studied in that class had to do with "replevin of a diamond ring." This was ages ago but I think where it came out was that it's a gift given in contemplation of marriage so if the marriage isn't entered into, it goes back to the giver. If the marriage takes place, it's the property of the new wife. Not saying that what Wendi did was morally right, but she may have been falling back on her Elements training! :-o

Yep. If you get married, the ring is yours. But a lot of people do give it back. Also- why were there TWO engagement rings? Could they not even agree on that?

*Did she really say “her widow,” or is that a typo?

 

[Blue Shakehead]

I absolutely remember learning that. (Not at UM). If you get married, the ring is yours. But a lot of people do give it back. Also- why were there TWO engagement rings? How does that work? Coups they not even agree on that? Did they EACH want it to be their own family heirloom? Inquiring minds.

*Did she really say “her widow,” or is that a typo?

I suspect Dan proposed with the holocaust ring but from his lawyers questions - he calls them both engagement rings - it sounds like she got married with and traditionally wore her grandmothers ring as her wedding ring. It seems most likely to me that she was holding this holocaust ring hostage, or as Donna would put it "as a chit on their side" to either have leverage or to psychologically torture him or both.

"Her widow" = the aunt's widow = the uncle.

 

[FreddyG]

With the GJ potentially meeting Weds, I'm curious the extent to which it can be inferred that is about DA. Waaay outside my wheelhouse of knowledge, but maybe someone who has inside knowledge of the Leon County Cthouse world and/or how crim works on a very practical level can add something.

In terms of DA's culpability, the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to think her signing the checks is alone enough for reasonable doubt on an accessory after the fact theory. Here's the most relevant part of the FL statute on accessory liability:

Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact. Fla. Stat. 777.03(a)(1).

First off, accessory liability cannot apply where the aid is given to someone you're in a parent/child relationship with, which means that any evidence that DA aided CA in the commission of the crime would not be admissible. Fortunately, though, the theory would be the the "offender" to whom DA gave "aid" was KM--namely that DA wrote KM checks to compensate her for arranging the murder.

Next up, though, there are two possibly tricky additional elements. One is that the defendant has to aid the offender "knowing they committed a crime." And while I am confident DA actually did know what KM did, proving that might be a harder proposition. Here, the State could enter lots of evidence strongly suggesting that DA knew KM had arranged the murder (e.g., the call to CA after the bump where she says, "It involves both of us"). Plus the fact that KM has confessed to that publicly and it's in the public record, plus that there's no evidence KM was doing any actual work for the Adelson Institute both seem to suggest that DA had to know what was going on.

The trouble with this though is that DA could simply deny it. It would require her throwing CA under the bus, but hell he's already convicted so why not? But then again for that she'd have to take the stand and on direct tell a credible story that even though it's public record that KM arranged DM's murder and that CA arranged it, DA was totally clueless why the payments went to KM. She could say, "Charlie just told me she was doing some odd jobs to help the practice, and he often had me pay contractors, so I trusted him without asking any questions." But that's a hard story to believe, and she would then have to survive a very aggressive cross-examination. So while there is no smoking gun on knowledge, I think GC and her team could convince a jury of this element beyond a reasonable doubt.

What concerns me more is the last and final element, that the aid has to be given with the intention that the offender "escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment." I.e., the classic case of abetting after the fact would be to hide an offender or give them money to flee. That's not what DA did here. The money she paid KM was actually just compensation. Maybe it was to keep KM quiet and happy. But it doesn't appear to be designed to help her "escape detection" or anything else. So I'm concerned that the charge might be a non-starter on this element, especially because it requires a showing of intent, and that is always difficult.

I should add: I'm not a criminal lawyer, so if I'm getting any of the law or analysis wrong, corrections are most welcome. Especially if those corrections can dispel my concern that the final element of abetting doesn't apply in DA's case.

 

[amicuscurie]

I suspect Dan proposed with the holocaust ring but from his lawyers questions - he calls them both engagement rings - it sounds like she got married with and traditionally wore her grandmothers ring as her wedding ring. It seems most likely to me that she was holding this holocaust ring hostage, or as Donna would put it "as a chit on their side" to either have leverage or to psychologically torture him or both.

"Her widow" = the aunt's widow = the uncle.

The word is widower, if it’s a man.

 

[clearskies1]

Is it significant that it is Judge Everett, or are they randomly assigned?

ETA- do they meet every week, or only when the state has a case to bring before them? They must have more than one criminal case going to the grand jury at any given time, right? Does anyone know how this works?

My understanding is that grand juries are only needed/used in Florida when a prosecutor wants to charge someone with a crime that is potentially punishable by death. The grand jury only meets when there is a case that the prosecutor wants to present. I think it can be just one case, not several. I don't know how judges are assigned.

 

[LinasK]

Awful, sad, and gross. He was very open/proud about his level of religious observance and was clearly keeping kosher well before they got married, before they even met. He wasn't hiding the ball. (I'm an old friend -- these are facts.)

This was something very obvious in his life, and very important to him. Truly unclear why they decided to get married if this was going to be an issue. (In fact, he set me up with a friend of his who was very kind and accomplished, but too observant for me. It took exactly one date for me to figure out that it wasn't going to work.)

Yes, I'm a non-kosher Jew, but I'm disgusted that she tried to pull one over on him slipping him non-kosher food as though it's the same as disguising mushrooms in my 8-year-olds pizza.

 

[LinasK]

CUTIE, I really appreciated your insight on "level of religious observance." Of course the marriage could never last when something so basic to everyday life would be an area of severe conflict from the get-go...food prep and selection.
(Lots of reading and youtubing on what it means to be Kosher convinces me one could NEVER build a bridge across these two divides.)
PS...can not unbold my type, ugh. Oh yeah, just edited and got type back to normal!!

Unless you are dedicated to one type of Kosher- Meat vs. Dairy, some Jews are Vegetarian because it's an easy way to keep Dairy Kosher, then you have to have separate storage areas for food, and two separate sets of pots, pans, dishes, and utensils for Meat and Dairy.

 

[ch_13]

Yes, I'm a non-kosher Jew, but I'm disgusted that she tried to pull one over on him slipping him non-kosher food as though it's the same as disguising mushrooms in my 8-year-olds pizza.

It's infuriating. I have friends who are vegan, and when I have them over I'm extremely careful to ensure there are no animal products in anything I make.

I couldn't imagine trying to trick my friends, much less do that to one's own spouse.

 

[Seattle1]

Yes, I'm a non-kosher Jew, but I'm disgusted that she tried to pull one over on him slipping him non-kosher food as though it's the same as disguising mushrooms in my 8-year-olds pizza.

Oh no -- I'm telling your kid you put fungus on his pizza -- YUK!

 

[amicuscurie]

With the GJ potentially meeting Weds, I'm curious the extent to which it can be inferred that is about DA. Waaay outside my wheelhouse of knowledge, but maybe someone who has inside knowledge of the Leon County Cthouse world and/or how crim works on a very practical level can add something.

In terms of DA's culpability, the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to think her signing the checks is alone enough for reasonable doubt on an accessory after the fact theory. Here's the most relevant part of the FL statute on accessory liability:

Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact. Fla. Stat. 777.03(a)(1).

First off, accessory liability cannot apply where the aid is given to someone you're in a parent/child relationship with, which means that any evidence that DA aided CA in the commission of the crime would not be admissible. Fortunately, though, the theory would be the the "offender" to whom DA gave "aid" was KM--namely that DA wrote KM checks to compensate her for arranging the murder.

Next up, though, there are two possibly tricky additional elements. One is that the defendant has to aid the offender "knowing they committed a crime." And while I am confident DA actually did know what KM did, proving that might be a harder proposition. Here, the State could enter lots of evidence strongly suggesting that DA knew KM had arranged the murder (e.g., the call to CA after the bump where she says, "It involves both of us"). Plus the fact that KM has confessed to that publicly and it's in the public record, plus that there's no evidence KM was doing any actual work for the Adelson Institute both seem to suggest that DA had to know what was going on.

The trouble with this though is that DA could simply deny it. It would require her throwing CA under the bus, but hell he's already convicted so why not? But then again for that she'd have to take the stand and on direct tell a credible story that even though it's public record that KM arranged DM's murder and that CA arranged it, DA was totally clueless why the payments went to KM. She could say, "Charlie just told me she was doing some odd jobs to help the practice, and he often had me pay contractors, so I trusted him without asking any questions." But that's a hard story to believe, and she would then have to survive a very aggressive cross-examination. So while there is no smoking gun on knowledge, I think GC and her team could convince a jury of this element beyond a reasonable doubt.

What concerns me more is the last and final element, that the aid has to be given with the intention that the offender "escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment." I.e., the classic case of abetting after the fact would be to hide an offender or give them money to flee. That's not what DA did here. The money she paid KM was actually just compensation. Maybe it was to keep KM quiet and happy. But it doesn't appear to be designed to help her "escape detection" or anything else. So I'm concerned that the charge might be a non-starter on this element, especially because it requires a showing of intent, and that is always difficult.

I should add: I'm not a criminal lawyer, so if I'm getting any of the law or analysis wrong, corrections are most welcome. Especially if those corrections can dispel my concern that the final element of abetting doesn't apply in DA's case.

It could be argued that keeping Katie quiet could be a way of helping him escape detection.

I think she might try to argue she didn’t know what the money was for. But it could also be argued she didn’t just know Charlie committed the crime and helped him after. She committed the crime herself. The same emails and texts that convicted Charlie could be used against her. Hard to explain her conversations after the bump. And the TV code.

True, there doesnt seem to be evidence of solicitation for her, because Katie testified that Charlie solicited her. But conspiracy, yes. The fact that cell phone records place her outside his house the night of the murder is significant.

 

[alexwood]

Why did she seem to think that threatening to convert the kids to Christianity would make him suddenly decide to allow them to live with Wendi 700 miles away? Was the thinking that she was supposed to agree not to do that if he would let her move? Is that how she thinks conversion works? You find Jesus, but then you agree not to?

Wendi said that if they were going to continue to live in Tallahassee, then the children were going to fit in with the "Bible Belt" culture that predominated (in her view).

 

[Seattle1]

Were the defense and prosecution told which jurors were the alternates when deliberations started?

They would know if they recall the last 3 selected. Generally, the alternates are selected in the order in which they were called. In this case, there were 15 jurors selected: 12 on regular panel and 3 alternate jurors. In Florida, an alternate juror who does not replace a principal juror shall be discharged when the jury retires to consider the verdict.

Florida Rules of Procedure - The Jury Selection Blog

The following Rules of Procedure (listed in numerical order) pertain to the issues of jury selection in Florida State Courts: FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 1.431. TRIAL JURY (a) Questionnaire. (1) The circuit court may direct the authority charged by law with the selection of...

www.juryblog.com

 

[clearskies1]

It could be argued that keeping Katie quiet could be a way of helping him escape detection.

I think she might try to argue she didn’t know what the money was for. But it could also be argued she didn’t just know Charlie committed the crime and helped him after. She committed the crime herself. The same emails and texts that convicted Charlie could be used against her. Hard to explain her conversations after the bump. And the TV code.

True, there doesnt seem to be evidence of solicitation for her, because Katie testified that Charlie solicited her. But conspiracy, yes. The fact that cell phone records place her outside his house the night of the murder is significant.

In terms of a possible conspiracy charge, she is also heard on the wiretap right after the bump, telling Charlie that the situation involved Charlie and her, and saying words to the effect of the "TV will cost $5,000". JMO.

 

[amicuscurie]

Wendi said that if they were going to continue to live in Tallahassee, then the children were going to fit in with the "Bible Belt" culture that predominated (in her view).

Religion is not like joining the Rotary Club!

 

[alexwood]

Carl Steinbeck said that he heard that the grand jury meets this Wednesday.

I heard that, too!

 

[turaj]

Is it significant that it is Judge Everett, or are they randomly assigned?

ETA- do they meet every week, or only when the state has a case to bring before them? They must have more than one criminal case going to the grand jury at any given time, right? Does anyone know how this works?

I have to think that Cathy Russon or some well connected media can see what is on the docket...I assume that is public info?

 

[clearskies1]

I have to think that Cathy Russon or some well connected media can see what is on the docket...I assume that is public info?

Grand jury proceedings are not public. All we know is this: GUILTY - FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen #17

 

[amicuscurie]

I have to think that Cathy Russon or some well connected media can see what is on the docket...I assume that is public info?

I think everything about the Grand Jury is secret, including what they’re meeting about. The person under investigation doesn’t even know and can’t have a lawyer or attend the proceedings.

 

[Cryptic]

Religion is not like joining the Rotary Club!

I think it depends on who the person is. For some secularized people from any religion, religious identity can be like the rotary club. For example:

- My friend has moved from non practicing Muslim to baptized / accepted Jesus as personal savior- but not really practicing Baptist ( ex wife's family demanded a nominal conversion). And now.... back to non practicing Muslim with out any deep reflection needed.

- My, daughter's ex boyfriend has a dual identity of: A. non practicing Buddhist and B. Cross wearing, but non practicing generic Christian- who also has Buddhist prayer beads in his car. His religious identity varies on whom he is with at the time, and how he feels at the moment- with no sweat what so ever regarding the details.

But... for others, as you imply, religious identity and practice is deeply personal and not subject to easy change.