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

[Gypsy Road]

Lacasse wasn't allowed to testify to that in front of the jury. The jury didn't hear it.

Dang. Thank you.

 

[Gypsy Road]

I’m back home watching the Court TV commentary. So far most speaking think JL’s testimony was effective. For whatever it’s worth.

 

[cottonweaver]

The defense lawyer is insinuating that she was making plans after July 2014 with her family in Tallahassee, and she and her family wouldn't be planning a murder. It seems to me that WA was planning an October birthday celebration for DM at the same time she was filing for divorce and planning to move to Miami. All of this scheduling he is going on about just shows me how manipulative she truly is. I hope the prosecutor rebuts this testimony.

Am just catching up with the early morning of today's hearing.

Absolutely it does - manipulative & meticulous preparation
It also reminds me of a portion of her interview with Isom where she was keen to tell him how she'd be able to prove she was at home because of the number of emails she'd sent during the time Danny was murdered


Also what strikes me about her testimony this morning is it feels as if she's taking some tips to try and restore the damage she did to her credibility yesterday. I think WA is the kind of person who'd be intensely interested on gauging opinion in how she'd come across. David Lat - lawyer who knew DM - was on STS last night, alongside 5 other lawyers & DM-case legal experts and Lat made point that so far there was a real contrast between how she answered Georgia's questions vs Rushbaum's. Lat said she couldn't recall so many things for Georgia but remembered everything when Rushbaum asked her questions. It was pretty obvious.

I think she watched STS last night & this is why, this morning, she doesn't recall so much when she's questioned by Rushbaum today.

 

[amicuscurie]

lets be honest, this has been a terrible day for the prosecution. Lacasse is there to provide context about Wendi’s emotional instability, pathalogical lying and manipulation and then the coincidences of the timing of her feelings relative to the murder trips and court filings. he’s there to tell us how he was set up as a patsy and murder suspect. And he’s there to tell the jury that Wendi told him about Charlie looking into hiring hit men the year previously and the celebration dinner. For a jury that knows none of the history, what did they learn today?

Lacasse wasn’t able to do any of this things - partly because the prosecution never let him tell his story and walk him slowly through their relationship and then also because Georgia did not predict that his impeachment testimony might be excluded - by Rashbaums tactics and their conversations at side bar. I’m sorry, but that is amateur hour.

The State also lets Rashbaum (and the judge!) mischaracterize Wendi’s statement to Lacasse as “double hearsay” because “Wendi said that Charlie said he looked into hiring a hitman last summer“. That is a total fabrication. Wendi told Lacasse that Charlie looked into all options including hiring a hit man. Wendi never said Charlie told her her. Just that he did it.

We need Lacasse back on the stand but a lot of damage has already been done.

I agree. The prosecution has seemed off their game since this started. I thought Dugan sounded nervous and hesitant in her opening, and Georgia seems disorganized at times and over confident at others. She should NOT be making little asides, at least one has been stricken. I think they’ve tried this case twice and are overconfident.

They may be unprepared for this new theory. I think they may be flummoxed by the fact that the defense tactic is to neutralize most of their most damning evidence, like the phone calls and the money, by conceding to it. This leaves them with a limited area to focus on, and it’s not an area they focused on in the last two trials. They spent most of the time in the last two trials going over phone conversations and payments. They will probably do the same thing now, but now, the jury will be thinking the whole time “yes, but the defense has already explained that. Show us that Charlie planned it.” And what do they have to show planning on his part? The only thing they have that the defense can’t explain is Dolce Vita and what LaCasse says about Charlie, and one of those has been struck.

I also think that at this point, the state hates these people, they hate that they have to do this again, they hate that Wendi and Donna were never charged and might not be. And they are emotionally invested. And it shows.

Of course, the defense theory is completely ridiculous. Why wouldn’t he have gone to the police? Why is this the first we are hearing of it? If Charlie takes the stand, he’s toast. But he might not testify. Then it will be like Katie’s second trial, where she posited a theory in opening argument that she couldn’t back up. But, in that case, the evidence was not consistent with the theory. In this case, it is (arguably). Or at least the stuff that has been allowed in is.

 

[Weki]

so she's just lied by denying that she was on the dating site ' OK Cupid' while she was dating Lacasse?
Georgia reminds her that her phone was downloaded

Objection. Improper impeachment. Sustained. struck.

A few mins later, when Georgia asks more about it, she's now not clear when she was on it. So slippery

ETA
I heard ' Harvard Lawyer Lee' say, last night, how struck she was re WA's skill at answering. Arrrgh @WA, not Lee Wallace

Right. WA is very good at answering questions. Very good at minimizing. Very good at obfuscating. That’s why I’m surprised Georgia didn’t declare her a hostile witness. I asked Tim Jansen on STS this morning (well Joel chose my question for Tim) and he said it was bc Georgia is a seasoned lawyer and she’s confident she can handle her on direct. He feels like Georgia made a deft job of it. I disagree. There were good moments but on the whole I’d say WA’s testimony was a wash for the state. There’s nothing that will stand out to the jury by the end of this trial. JMO

 

[clearskies1]

Right. WA is very good at answering questions. Very good at minimizing. Very good at obfuscating. That’s why I’m surprised Georgia didn’t declare her a hostile witness. I asked Tim Jansen on STS this morning (well Joel chose my question for Tim) and he said it was bc Georgia is a seasoned lawyer and she’s confident she can handle her on direct. He feels like Georgia made a deft job of it. I disagree. There were good moments but on the whole I’d say WA’s testimony was a wash for the state. There’s nothing that will stand out to the jury by the end of this trial. JMO

I know what you're saying, but to me she comes across as extremely disingenuous and unbelievable. JMO.

 

[amicuscurie]

Right. WA is very good at answering questions. Very good at minimizing. Very good at obfuscating. That’s why I’m surprised Georgia didn’t declare her a hostile witness. I asked Tim Jansen on STS this morning (well Joel chose my question for Tim) and he said it was bc Georgia is a seasoned lawyer and she’s confident she can handle her on direct. He feels like Georgia made a deft job of it. I disagree. There were good moments but on the whole I’d say WA’s testimony was a wash for the state. There’s nothing that will stand out to the jury by the end of this trial. JMO

The state now has to rely a lot on Wendi to show that Charlie knew about the hit. That’s not easy to do, when Wendi has immunity and they don’t want to ask her too much they can’t use later. And also, according to the judge, she’s still allowed to take the fifth? Can someone who is a better lawyer than me explain that? How can she take the fifth if she cant be prosecuted for anything she says here?

 

[Marysmith]

Ugh y’all are making me so nervous… thank you again for all the insights.

 

[Weki]

lets be honest, this has been a terrible day for the prosecution. Lacasse is there to provide context about Wendi’s emotional instability, pathological lying and manipulation and then the coincidences of the timing of her feelings relative to the murder trips and court filings. he’s there to tell us how he was set up as a patsy and murder suspect. And he’s there to tell the jury that Wendi told him about Charlie looking into hiring hit men the year previously and the celebration dinner. For a jury that knows none of the history, what did they learn today?

Lacasse wasn’t able to do any of this things - partly because the prosecution never let him tell his story and walk him slowly through their relationship and then also because Georgia did not predict that his impeachment testimony might be excluded - by Rashbaums tactics and their conversations at side bar. I’m sorry, but that is amateur hour.

The State also lets Rashbaum (and the judge!) mischaracterize Wendi’s statement to Lacasse as “double hearsay” because “Wendi said that Charlie said he looked into hiring a hitman last summer“. That is a total fabrication. Wendi told Lacasse that Charlie looked into all options including hiring a hit man. Wendi never said Charlie told her her. Just that he did it.

We need Lacasse back on the stand but a lot of damage has already been done.

Sorry for the double back to back post but I didn’t see this. Yea 100%! Yesterday was a disappointing day with Wendi and GC totally fumbled with LaCasse today! This is a very key witness! She knew she would impeach Wendi with this witness. Let Rashbaum do his best. She should’ve made that clear at side bar!

 

[cottonweaver]

minus 3:27:09 mark

Rushbaum: Do the boys have a picture of their Dad in their bedrooms?
Wendi: Each boy has a picture of their dad in their bedroom which WE say goodnight & Good morning to every day

Anybody believe that ' We ' do that every day? Wendy plus a thirteen and fourteen year old ?

 

[clearskies1]

The state now has to rely a lot on Wendi to show that Charlie knew about the hit. That’s not easy to do, when Wendi has immunity and they don’t want to ask her too much they can’t use later. And also, according to the judge, she’s still allowed to take the fifth? Can someone who is a better lawyer than me explain that? How can she take the fifth if she cant be prosecuted for anything she says here?

Under Florida law, when a person (who is not the defendant) is subpoenaed by the state they must testify and can't take the Fifth. However, their testimony and anything derived from their testimony can not be used as evidence against them if they are later charged by the State. The State must show that they are using evidence that is wholly independent of their subpoenaed testimony if the State tries to convict them later. This (no right to invoke the Fifth) only applies when the witness is called by the State and cross-examined in response to that testimony. If the defense calls the witness (Wendi), the witness can invoke the Fifth.

 

[nodamselindistress]

I am not that worried because if I was on the jury I would not believe much of what Lacasse had to say anyway, especially that WA would tell him her brother looked into hiring a hit man. Just not believable to me that she would tell him that when she was about to break up with him. Hope there are folks like me on the jury!

 

[amicuscurie]

Under Florida law, when a person (who is not the defendant) is subpoenaed by the state they must testify and can't take the Fifth. However, their testimony and anything derived from their testimony can not be used as evidence against them if they are later charged by the State. The State must show that they are using evidence that is wholly independent of their subpoenaed testimony if the State tries to convict them later. This (no right to invoke the Fifth) only applies when the witness is called by the State and cross-examined in response to that testimony. If the defense calls the witness (Wendi), the witness can invoke the Fifth.

I don’t think Rashbaum will call her again. Maybe the state should so they can get the impeachment in? But what would they ask her?

 

[nodamselindistress]

Just up, DM's attorney, Stephen Webster, just disputed everything WA said about how she and DM were getting along at that point.

 

[clearskies1]

I don’t think Rashbaum will call her again. Maybe the state should so they can get the impeachment in? But what would they ask her?

Yes, Rashbaum won't call her. I was wondering if the State would re-call her -- I thought the judge said the State could do that. I don't know what they would ask but I'm sure they could think of something, to try ultimately get the impeachment in! JMO.

 

[Weki]

I am not that worried because if I was on the jury I would not believe much of what Lacasse had to say anyway, especially that WA would tell him her brother looked into hiring a hit man. Just not believable to me that she would tell him that when she was about to break up with him. Hope there are folks like me on the jury!

Lacasse seemed way overeager this time around. He also added details that I don’t recall from his last 2 testimonies. Like the TV looking like somebody had driven a fist through it! And the detail about KM mentioning her criminal ex-common law husband at the double date dinner with Charlie. Maybe I forgot….

 

[amicuscurie]

Yes, Rashbaum won't call her. I was wondering if the State would re-call her -- I thought the judge said the State could do that. I don't know what they would ask but I'm sure they could think of something, to try ultimately get the impeachment in! JMO.

They might have to do that to correct their error. I still think it’s a pretty serious error. It might be grounds for appeal if it were a defense error. Or if the ruling had gone the other way. Also, someone above said it was just plain hearsay and not hearsay within hearsay, because Wendi said Charlie looked into hiring a hit man, not Wendi said Charlie said. If true, not raising this is also an error. Although the hearsay exception would be the same. Or would it be statement against interest? I admit I missed that week in law school. As I said, I’m not a great lawyer.

 

[amicuscurie]

Dan wanted to see the kids every night when they were with Wendi? That’s unusual, and it’s unusual that he would’ve thought it would be allowed.

 

[BeachSky]

Wendi lied so much there are going to be numerous other opportunities for impeachment.

I just got a chance to watch Wendi’s testimony.
Her innocent wide eye look with head tilt, answers followed by a smile. Reminds me of stupid Elizabeth Holmes! JMO

 

[MTW2011]

If they family is so innocent and they were victims of extortion, why did they refuse a police interview from the get go, and fight so hard to not have to sit for a deposition?

because they’re because extorted, duh!
Wait, they don’t know about the extortion.

Or they do.
I can’t recall.

(Sorry, I couldn’t resist the joke. I had higher hopes for his defense, just to see what they’d be arguing, but the whole extortion thing is…..well, I feel the same as many others who have shared already here )