FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #23

[Niner]

Wednesday, August 21st:
*Deposition Hearing (@ 7am ET) - FL - Daniel Eric Markel (41) (shot to death July 18, 2014, Tallahassee) - *Donna Sue Adelson (73/now 74) arrested by FBI @ Miami Intl. Airport (11/13/23) on out-of-County warrant from Leon County arrest Warrant #FW231o2353 & indicted (11/15/23), charged (11/21/23) & arraigned (12/11/23) with 1st degree murder, conspiracy to commit 1st degree murder & solicitation to commit 1st degree murder. No bond. Held at Miami-Dade County Jail (Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center. Leon County has 15 days to extradite from Miami-Dade County). Transferred from Miami-Dade to Leon County on 11/20/23. Held without bond (murder), $25K (conspiracy) & $25K (solicitation) on 11/21/23. Plead not guilty. Leon County
Jury selection set to begin on 9/17/24. (3-4 days)
Trial set to begin on 9/23/24.
Leon County Circuit Judge Stephen S. Everett. Prosecutor Georgia Cappelman & Assistant State attorney Sarah Dugan. Defense attorney Robert Alexander Morris & Daniel Rashbaum.
Case & Court info from 11/13/23 thru 7/15/24 reference post #41 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...-murdered-by-hitmen-4-guilty-23.715216/page-2
7/16/24 Docket update: Order to transport. emailed to bailiff, etc. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testify-Candum.
7/22/24 Update: Case management hearing. Adelson appeared via Zoom. Judge Everett granted deadline for exhibits for 9/4/24. All others i.e. discovery, motions, witness deadline is 8/12/24. Next final pretrial hearing on 9/12/24 @ 9am. Jury selection will start on 9/17/24 & will run about 3-4 days & trial set to begin on 9/23/24.
7/23/24 Update: The Sheriff of Leon County is ordered today 7/23/24 by the court to receive Charles Adelson from the DOC of the State of South Dakota over the period 9/17-10/4/24 as a witness.
7/29/24 Docket update: Defendant's Ex Parte Motion for Order to Issue Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by Robert A. Morris & Daniel L. Rashbaum. The undersigned desires to issue a subpoena duces tecum to: AT&T 954-396-0997 & AT&T 954-743-0536. No third party considerations. Numbers belong to Ms. Adelson. 7/31/24 Docket update: Order on Defendant's Ex Parte Motion to Issue Subpoena Duces Tecum-granted by Judge Stephen Everett. 7/30/24 Docket update: Ex Parte Motion #2 for Order to Issue Subpoena Duces Tecum [re Sunpass]. See post #210, page 11, thread #23. A deadline of 8/12/24 was set for witness & exhibit lists.
8/8/24 Docket update: Notice of taking Deposition. Notice that on 8/21/24 @ 7am the deposition of the following will be taken via Zoom upon oral examination before an Official Court reporter for Scott Radius from the Philippines.
8/8/24 Docket update: Amended: Answer to Demand for Discovery. Additional witness: James Stewart Lewis, Jr. filed by Jack Campbell, State attorney.
8/12/24 Docket update: Motion to Suppress defendant Adelson's Motion to Suppress evidence derived from wiretap interceptions. Motion to Dismiss defendant Adelson's Motion to Dismiss indictment for pre-indictment delay or, alternatively, to exclude evidence. Motion to defendant Adelson's Motion to Preclude Evidence of Adelson's travel as consciousness of guilt. State's Motion in Limine [provides that both LR & JR, his romantic partner around the time of the murder, are expected to testify at trial]. See post #546, page 28, thread 23 for more info.
8/20/24 Update: Adelson's attorney files Motion to dismiss-says 9 year delay fundamentally unfair & her case should be dismissed.

 

[Izzylizzy]

I plan to listen to LYK but I thought there is no statute of limitation on murder. Period.

Sounds like something DA cooked up with all her time to sit around and strategize. Or why didn’t Rash try to play the “nine years later is unfair” card for Charlie?

You're correct.

https://www.findlaw.com/state/florida-law/florida-criminal-statute-of-limitations-laws.html#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20there%20is%20no,Florida%20criminal%20statute%20of%20limitations.

 

[IQuestion]

I plan to listen to LYK but I thought there is no statute of limitation on murder. Period.

Sounds like something DA cooked up with all her time to sit around and strategize. Or why didn’t Rash try to play the “nine years later is unfair” card for Charlie?

Oh well, the defense has to file paperwork for every possible loophole they can for a wealthy client. (In a perfect world everyone should have vigorous representation regardless of financial status.) However, claiming delays? Many things were "delayed" for as long as 3 years or more because of Covid. Justice delayed is still justice, of a sort. The hardship it causes the victim's survivors is the real injustice.
(Just another DA issue/complaint from from facing feigned suicide to whether or not she can keep a spoon/spork.) I've never heard of someone avoiding a murder trial because of long delays in an arrest. If this is the best the defense can do for DA, then the evidence against her must be very strong.

 

[amicuscurie]

Oh well, the defense has to file paperwork for every possible loophoe they can for a wealthy client. (In a perfect world everyone should have vigorous representation regardless of financial status.) However, claiming delays? Many things were "delayed" for as long as 3 years or more because of Covid. Justice delayed is still justice, of a sort. The hardship it causes the victim's survivors is the real injustice.
(Just another DA issue/complaint from from facing feigned suicide to whether or not she can keep a spoon/spork.) I've never heard of someone avoiding a murder trial because of long delays in an arrest. If this is the best the defense can do for DA, then the evidence her must be very strong.

If you are planning to appeal, you have to raise every possible issue or it is waived.

 

[cottonweaver]

Is that not part of a strategy to try to get Everett to limit the state's evidence on ' Outside your house' and ' ten minutes' exchanges? ( To exclude that very damaging evidence about a money drop off)

I was also surprised to hear Peter Tragos give the opinion that this is what he'd decide as a compromise if he were the Judge! He'd exclude it if it was his choice.
'Lawyer Lee ' might have a take which I'd prefer.

 

[amicuscurie]

Is that not part of a strategy to try to get Everett to limit the state's evidence on ' Outside your house' and ' ten minutes' exchanges? ( To exclude that very damaging evidence about a money drop off)

I was also surprised to hear Peter Tragos give the opinion that this is what he'd decide as a compromise if he were the Judge! He'd exclude it if it was his choice.
'Lawyer Lee ' might have a take which I'd prefer.

I disagree with Tragos.

In my opinion without that exchange, the case against Donna is much weaker, and that is why they are moving to exclude it. There still are the checks and the wiretaps, though, but she could possibly try to explain those away as her doing what her son told her, and then being fearful of a second extortion attempt.

I have never heard of a judge excluding evidence on the basis that the state waited too long to charge someone. There is no statue of limitations on murder. I have heard arguments regarding spoliation of evidence, but those cases involve evidence which definitely does exist but has gone bad with the passage of time (such as degradation of blood samples, etc.).

From my reading of the motion, the defense is not arguing that evidence exists but has spoiled with the passage of time. They are arguing only that it MAY exist, but the possibility of discovering whether it does has been foreclosed.

It is my understanding from various things I have read that Donna has been an unnamed co-conspirator in this matter since 2016, if this is correct, then in my opinion it could be argued that she could have had the reasonable expectation of being charged.

The same text evidence was used in Charlie’s trial, and I am not aware that any such motion was made to exclude it, even though there was a similar delay in indicting him.

 

[BobbieJ]

I disagree with Tragos.

In my opinion without that exchange, the case against Donna is much weaker, and that is why they are moving to exclude it. There still are the checks and the wiretaps, though, but she could possibly try to explain those away as her doing what her son told her, and then being fearful of a second extortion attempt.

I agree. That evidence is important and is very incriminating.

 

[cottonweaver]

I disagree with Tragos.

In my opinion without that exchange, the case against Donna is much weaker, and that is why they are moving to exclude it.

snipped by me for focus

Is that not part of a strategy to try to get Everett to limit the state's evidence on ' Outside your house' and ' ten minutes' exchanges? ( To exclude that very damaging evidence about a money drop off)

I was also surprised to hear Peter Tragos give the opinion that this is what he'd decide as a compromise if he were the Judge! He'd exclude it if it was his choice.
'Lawyer Lee ' might have a take which I'd prefer.

Exactly

I don't think the Def motion is just for the record and for appeal and it's why I added the post above - to raise this issue and why I was hoping Tragos is dead wrong on exclusion being reasonable. ( I didn't want to expand on my thoughts on Tragos' opinions over the years I've followed him and limited it to a ' ! ')

Anyway fingers crossed on that. ( If ' that' is the Defense's main motive via this motion)

 

[cottonweaver]

<modsnip - quoted post & response were removed/off topic>
I just think, like all lawyers, he has his own individual opinion and often they are at variance to each other. ( Also Tragos is always clear in all his cases that it's his opinion not a prediction and when he gets it wrong he's the first to admit)

Anyway, I hope this doesn't happen and the State prevails. Hopefully another Florida-based lawyer will provide commentary

I haven't followed the DM case since 2016 but I if DA does succeed in that specific matter I can imagine those that have - such as those on Thread 1 on WS 2016 - would legitimately feel Pee'd Off.

Again just tbc the specific matter is not about getting whole case dismissed because ' stale', it is as previously posted:

Is that not part of a strategy to try to get Everett to limit the state's evidence on ' Outside your house' and ' ten minutes' exchanges? ( To exclude that very damaging evidence about a money drop off)

 

[amicuscurie]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed/off topic>
In my experience it is impossible to judge the sufficiency of a motion until you have read and analyzed it thoroughly, including all cases it cites to. Lawyers can offer opinions, but that’s all they are. Even the lawyers involved in the actual case, in my experience, cannot predict what the judge will do, although they probably have some opinion as to the strength of their arguments and the likelihood of success. Judges don’t like to be reversed in appeal, in my opinion, and so with their rulings they generally try to adhere to established law and precedent, as well as to take into account general considerations of fairness to the parties, relevance, and prejudice or likelihood of harm.

 

[JerseyPride]

And in my experience it is impossible to judge the sufficiency of a motion until you have read and analyzed it thoroughly, including all cases it cites to. Lawyers can offer opinions, but that’s all they are. Even the lawyers involved in the actual case, in my experience, cannot predict what the judge will do, although they probably have some opinion as to the strength of their arguments and the likelihood of success. Judges don’t like to be reversed in appeal, in my opinion, and so with their rulings they generally try to adhere to established law and precedent, as well as to take into account general considerations of fairness to the parties, relevance, and prejudice or likelihood of harm.

Of course, the irony is that Rashbaum and Donna are thanking their lucky stars that the Sun Pass and AT&T data is no longer available because it would further sink the defense. While I understand why Rashbaum is making the argument, it’s utter disingenuousness will be plain for the Court to see.

 

[amicuscurie]

Of course, the irony is that Rashbaum and Donna are thanking their lucky stars that the Sun Pass and AT&T data is no longer available because it would further sink the defense. While I understand why Rashbaum is making the argument, it’s utter disingenuousness will be plain for the Court to see.

Yes, and for me, that first sentence of yours is the biggest reason the motion should be denied. Thanks for putting it so clearly! I wonder how the state could work something like that into their argument

 

[JerseyPride]

Yes, and for me, that first sentence of yours is the biggest reason the motion should be denied. Thanks for putting it so clearly! I wonder how the state could work something like that into their argument

To me, this echoes the similar (shameless) tactic empoyed by Katie's counsel in faulting the prosecution for not obtaining more records from the club where Katie worked as a bottle girl. As if those records would have explained the ridiculous spikes in her bank account at the time of the murder (as opposed to bolstering the State's case because they most certainly would NOT have explained the cash she was clearly getting from the Adelsons).

 

[Going Rogue]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

Although portions of the case made by Donna’s attorneys are factually correct, specifically the SunPass Data is no longer available because of the passage of time. IMO there is NO WAY the state purposely delayed Donna’s arrest knowing that the SunPass data would not be available at a future date and thus delaying her arrest because that data MIGHT or COULD prove Donna did not make a stop at Charles house. If the defense can reasonable prove the state delayed her arrest for that purpose, then the motion WOULD (and SHOULD) be approved by any ‘fair’ judge. I disagree with Peter that the judge should exclude the evidence on the text ‘outside your house’ and the state’s theory on the money drop. I also disagree with his ‘opinion’ that they don’t really need that to win the case. Its a critical piece of evidence in my opinion. I'm not saying they can't win without it, but its VERY important to prove Donnas involvement.

<modsnip>

 

[amicuscurie]

<modsnip> Although portions of the case made by Donna’s attorneys are factually correct, specifically the SunPass Data is no longer available because of the passage of time. IMO there is NO WAY the state purposely delayed Donna’s arrest knowing that the SunPass data would not be available at a future date and thus delaying her arrest because that data MIGHT or COULD prove Donna did not make a stop at Charles house. If the defense can reasonable prove the state delayed her arrest for that purpose, then the motion WOULD (and SHOULD) be approved by any ‘fair’ judge. I disagree with Peter that the judge should exclude the evidence on the text ‘outside your house’ and the state’s theory on the money drop. I also disagree with his ‘opinion’ that they don’t really need that to win the case. Its a critical piece of evidence in my opinion. I'm not saying they can't win without it, but its VERY important to prove Donnas involvement.

<modsnip>

Are they arguing that the state deliberately delayed indicting Donna so that the SunPass data would no longer be available to refute the “outside your house” text? That’s pretty interesting, since they presumably only found out about the “outside your house” text when they seized her phone in 2023.

 

[JerseyPride]

Are they arguing that the state deliberately delayed indicting Donna so that the SunPass data would no longer be available to refute the “outside your house” text? That’s pretty interesting, since they presumably only found out about the “outside your house” text when they seized her phone in 2023.

Whether or not they've made that argument, my understanding is that is the standard they need to meet in order to be entitled to the requested relief (i.e., prejudice AND an intentional delay for the purpose of causing that prejudice).

 

[Going Rogue]

Are they arguing that the state deliberately delayed indicting Donna so that the SunPass data would no longer be available to refute the “outside your house” text? That’s pretty interesting, since they presumably only found out about the “outside your house” text when they seized her phone in 2023.

No they aren’t arguing it was delayed ‘purposely’ for that reason – perhaps it’s inferred, but not directly stated. My point is that the only reason a ‘fair’ judge would grant that motion is ‘IF’ there was proof that the prosecution delayed the arrest in ‘bad faith’. IF they purposely waited to arrest Donna UNTIL after the SunPass data / records were no longer available it would fit the criteria of in ‘bad faith’. The defense’s argument is the SunPass data WOULD have proven she did not stop at Charlie’s house and the ‘money drop’ is no longer inculpatory evidence. If the judge rules the way Peter suggests he should, that would be a MAJOR win for the defense. I think Peter is grossly underestimating the importance of this evidence. Regardless, it’s a clever argument / motion by the defense - proof being someone as level headed as ‘LYK’ is giving some credence to parts of the motion.

 

[amicuscurie]

No they aren’t arguing it was delayed ‘purposely’ for that reason – perhaps it’s inferred, but not directly stated. My point is that the only reason a ‘fair’ judge would grant that motion is ‘IF’ there was proof that the prosecution delayed the arrest in ‘bad faith’. IF they purposely waited to arrest Donna UNTIL after the SunPass data / records were no longer available it would fit the criteria of in ‘bad faith’. The defense’s argument is the SunPass data WOULD have proven she did not stop at Charlie’s house and the ‘money drop’ is no longer inculpatory evidence. If the judge rules the way Peter suggests he should, that would be a MAJOR win for the defense. I think Peter is grossly underestimating the importance of this evidence. Regardless, it’s a clever argument / motion by the defense - proof being someone as level headed as ‘LYK’ is giving some credence to parts of the motion.

In my opinion it will be difficult to show bad faith. And I think I was wrong about when the state got the evidence of that text, it could have been when they arrested Charlie and seized his phone, or they could have been monitoring his phone earlier, right? Do we know when they got notice of that text and how long they’ve had it? Either way, they had it at Charlie’s trial, and they didn’t make this same argument. And if it’s the case that they were looking at Charlie’s phone records since as far back as the time of the bump, the defense would have known about that, no?

 

[Going Rogue]

In my opinion it will be difficult to show bad faith. And I think I was wrong about when the state got the evidence of that text, it could have been when they arrested Charlie and seized his phone, or they could have been monitoring his phone earlier, right? Do we know when they got notice of that text and how long they’ve had it? Either way, they had it at Charlie’s trial, and they didn’t make this same argument. And if it’s the case that they were looking at Charlie’s phone records since as far back as the time of the bump, the defense would have known about that, no?

My assumption is they got the text exchange ‘outside your house’ from Donna’s phone, but it could have been Charlie’s - not sure. Regardless, the way the motion is written and the examples given in the motion, it does not prove the delay in Donna’s arrest was with any substantial prejudice or in bad faith. That is key to the defense’s argument. While I agree they are factually correct in stating the SunPass data would have been available had they arrested Donna without ‘delay’, there is zero proof the arrest was purposely delayed for a tactical reason like waiting for that SunPass data to expire from highway department’s records. I predict this motion will fall flat on its face.

 

[amicuscurie]

My assumption is they got the text exchange ‘outside your house’ from Donna’s phone, but it could have been Charlie’s - not sure. Regardless, the way the motion is written and the examples given in the motion, it does not prove the delay in Donna’s arrest was with any substantial prejudice or in bad faith. That is key to the defense’s argument. While I agree they are factually correct in stating the SunPass data would have been available had they arrested Donna without ‘delay’, there is zero proof the arrest was purposely delayed for a tactical reason like waiting for that SunPass data to expire from highway department’s records. I predict this motion will fall flat on its face.

I don’t think they could have gotten it from Donna’s phone, because they didn’t seize it until after her arrest, which was after Charlie’s conviction. But- they were monitoring both phones since the bump, and they did have other texts between them going pretty far back, about Harvey’s birthday, etc. Maybe they got them from Charlie’s phone, since they were between them it’s hard to tell. But maybe that’s why we didn’t see them until Charlie’s trial.