FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #24

[amicuscurie]

To Mentour Lawyer (wherever you are...you had me on edge ad in, deuce, ad out, deuce, ad in, deuce, ad out, deuce, ad in......wow. I was screaming "Get those feet moving and close the deal!" LOL! I enjoyed the video!
Back to the case. The "in camera" request doesn't surprise me at all...If RA tells how his Mother interfered in his life, it won't look good for the defense or sit well with the jury. Family members are usually called upon to say how great a person the defendant was/is etc., no?

I am a courtroom lurker (but not in a sinister way) and trying two people together is too darned confusing. For instance two sets of jurors, two sets of defense attorneys, one defendant blames the other defendant, one defendant is male and the other female, the defendants are blood relations etc....not a good situation. It is hard enough for a seated jury to listen to days of evidence and try to remember or write down what evidence goes to what defendant. Anyway...it doesn't matter anymore because the Rubicon has been crossed. DA will be the singular defendant.
Mass prosecution is not possible....no one tries multiple bank robbers in one trial. Everyone involved in the robbery will be tried on their individual participation and then the outcome of the crime as a whole. I don't have to be a legal eagle to express my opinion because I am probably just the type of person who will be called and/or seated for jury duty. Come to think of it DR could have called DA as a witness and she could have voluntarily fessed up to her participation and save tax payer dollars???? DR could have spoken less and just worked out a plea deal for CA, thereby saving tax dollars, too. Sometimes justice isn't about tax dollars ...it's about about being accountable for criminal behavior.

There are definitely arguments against trying co-Defendants together.

 

[ch_13]

Donna was eventually getting arrested whether she attempted to flee or not. The attempt to flee just expedited what was, in my opinion, an arrest that was already delayed way too long. It obvious that the attempt to flee will be used by the state to argue ‘consciousness of guilt’ but the act of attempting to flee does not hold a lot of weight from my perspective when compared to the mountain of evidence that the state has had on Donna for, literally, years. Why wasn’t Harvey arrested? He was attempting to flee as well - its all the other evidence against Donna and they have had a solid case against her for several years - attempting to flee is just a cherry on top although it will be argued by the defense that she (and her jail calls w/ Charlie back this up) feared she wouldn't get a fair trial in Tallahassee and was worried about the rumors that the state was going after her for a crime she didn't commit. It’s a shame it took this long. My biggest criticism of the state is the pace at which they are moving.

All that is fine, and you're certainly free to criticize the state for moving too slow.

But you did ask:

For one, they could have tried Donna & Charles together. What evidence are you aware of since Charlie’s arrest is ‘new’ as it relates to Donnas case?

It seems like you were trying to suggest that nothing had really changed since Charlie had been arrested, and I just wanted to point out that the attempt to flee is new. They likely could have convicted her anyways, but IMO it will be a major piece of the evidence introduced against at the trial.

 

[nodamselindistress]

CourtTV summary of court hearing this morning:

Judge tells DA that if she wishes to take a plea deal, the time is NOW. Save the taxpayers some money DA!!

Judge rules that Latin Kings cannot be mentioned in regard to LR (defense wanted to be able to connect him to this gang).

Judge rules that Wendi can be asked if she changed the boys' last names (defense wanted this out).

Trial expected to last 2 weeks.

 

[opt]

Every ruling is against the defense. Properly so. A plea deal would presumably require ratting out Wendi or convincing the state that she had no knowledge. I don’t think ratting out Harvey would matter much.

 

[Going Rogue]

All that is fine, and you're certainly free to criticize the state for moving too slow.

But you did ask:

It seems like you were trying to suggest that nothing had really changed since Charlie had been arrested, and I just wanted to point out that the attempt to flee is new. They likely could have convicted her anyways, but IMO it will be a major piece of the evidence introduced against at the trial.

Yes, you are correct attempting to flee was new – but her arrest was imminent whether she attempted to flee or not. Everyone knew that (even Donna) and my point is even if she didn’t attempt to flee she was eventually getting arrested and convicted UNLESS the jury is incompetent or that state fails miserably to prove the case. I would say the odds are very low she is acquitted. The day they uncovered the text ‘outside your house’ / ‘ten minutes’ Donna’s arrest affidavit should have been drafted – not sure when that came to light.

 

[STAGNUM]

I won't be satisfied until all of them are behind bars. There are no innocents, apart from the children.

 

[Knitpicker]

I believe Rob was present at Harvey’s birthday party. I would like it if he could at least be permitted to testify as to exactly where they were living at that time.

Yes he was there,

 

[Zedzded]

They likely could have convicted her anyways, but IMO it will be a major piece of the evidence introduced against at the trial.

For me that was confirmation she was definitely involved and is an important part of the case. It turned the case from a strong one into a slam dunk. Looking at DA's demeanour in the court videos, she knows it's a slam dunk. There was almost a modicum of empathy from me this morning, looking at how broken she is. How much she has lost....

almost

 

[Zedzded]

I don't think much is needed from Rob. It would be sufficient for him to say they were not responding in a way he anticipated in regards to questions about Dan's death, something along those lines.

 

[Zedzded]

Every ruling is against the defense. Properly so. A plea deal would presumably require ratting out Wendi or convincing the state that she had no knowledge. I don’t think ratting out Harvey would matter much.

I didn't anticipate DA would look this broken and I don't think that look is contrived. I feel like she is a very dark place. She could take an Alford plea, maintain her innocence, but accept the courts sentence. She doesn't necessarily have to rat out WA or HA, although at this stage neither CA or DA probably care. They've given up.

 

[Niner]

@PayrollNerd - So I have 9/12/24 final pretrial hearing coming up - anything else "new"?

Leon County #23CF3226A

TIA!

 

[amicuscurie]

CourtTV summary of court hearing this morning:

Judge tells DA that if she wishes to take a plea deal, the time is NOW. Save the taxpayers some money DA!!

Judge rules that Latin Kings cannot be mentioned in regard to LR (defense wanted to be able to connect him to this gang).

Judge rules that Wendi can be asked if she changed the boys' last names (defense wanted this out).

Trial expected to last 2 weeks.

The Latin Kings thing really bothers me. In my understanding, the court did not permit the defense to mention the name, but did say that the defense could use the term “gang member.” But Charlie’ s story, as I recall, is that Katie came to him and said some people she knew had killed Dan and wanted money. If I recall correctly, he did not say that she told him these people were with the Latin Kings, or any other gang. If I recall correctly, he said he only found out that Rivera was one of the killers and was in the Latin Kings when he spoke to Katie in the parking lot at Dolce Vita during the bump almost two years later, conveniently the one time when the cops were not listening.

I hope the defense is not planning to argue that Donna was terrified of the “gang members,” and that’s why she wrote the checks. To me, this cannot be true, because the checks were written before the bump, when per Charlie’s own story he didn’t even know about any gang involvement. The defense should only be allowed to bring in the idea that she feared a “gang member” to explain her conduct after the bump.

Even that, however, makes me angry, because it is my opinion that until the arrests, Charlie did not know Rivera accompanied Sig at all, and did not even know who Rivera was or that he was a Latin King, though he may have known Sig knew some bad people. I just don’t believe the Latin Kings are relevant to this case, and I believe it’s highly prejudicial to introduce them, when any support for that is based on what I believe is a lie.

 

[amicuscurie]

Every ruling is against the defense. Properly so. A plea deal would presumably require ratting out Wendi or convincing the state that she had no knowledge. I don’t think ratting out Harvey would matter much.

Didn’t I hear the court say that she had not been offered any deal?

 

[Knitpicker]

James from Mentour lawyer put up a video late last night-with great commentary on the hearing and also read more of the conversation between Harvey and Scott Radius. Great info.

It is surprising that Scott and Harvey continued to converse in 2024 , when Harvey knew it was Scott who turned Donna in. That was strange.
Harvey wanted Charlies money back, but Scott said ownership could be transferred to his son, but that Scott was in no position to buy out Charlie’s share- seems Scott and other investors (or maybe just one other?) were part of it.
Still baffling is the fact that no documentation or paperwork exists. Scott said Charlie wanted that.
Perhaps Donna knew that as she was making payments, but Harvey didn’t.
Seems Charlie would have been sure he was never going to be arrested or convicted (I;d have to check to see when he bought the villa in 2022-I think prior to his arrest?-maybe someone knows so I don't have to go back)purchasing a villa with a completion date in 2024.
Two years after his arrest.
Before the arrest, Donna could have been posing as Harvey in conversation with Scott. Discussing hotels, airlines, etc.

Does anyone remember that when Donna was arrested, I believe it was announced that Scott said he has had no contact with Donna in 10 years except one short conversation?

 

[Knitpicker]

The Latin Kings thing really bothers me. In my understanding, the court did not permit the defense to mention the name, but did say that the defense could use the term “gang member.” But Charlie’ s story, as I recall, is that Katie came to him and said some people she knew had killed Dan and wanted money. If I recall correctly, he did not say that she told him these people were with the Latin Kings, or any other gang. If I recall correctly, he said he only found out that Rivera was one of the killers and was in the Latin Kings when he spoke to Katie in the parking lot at Dolce Vita during the bump almost two years later, conveniently the one time when the cops were not listening.

I hope the defense is not planning to argue that Donna was terrified of the “gang members,” and that’s why she wrote the checks. To me, this cannot be true, because the checks were written before the bump, when per Charlie’s own story he didn’t even know about any gang involvement. The defense should only be allowed to bring in the idea that she feared a “gang member” to explain her conduct after the bump.

Even that, however, makes me angry, because it is my opinion that until the arrests, Charlie did not know Rivera accompanied Sig at all, and did not even know who Rivera was or that he was a Latin King, though he may have known Sig knew some bad people. I just don’t believe the Latin Kings are relevant to this case, and I believe it’s highly prejudicial to introduce them, when any support for that is based on what I believe is a lie.

You make some really good points here.

 

[Going Rogue]

The Latin Kings thing really bothers me. In my understanding, the court did not permit the defense to mention the name, but did say that the defense could use the term “gang member.” But Charlie’ s story, as I recall, is that Katie came to him and said some people she knew had killed Dan and wanted money. If I recall correctly, he did not say that she told him these people were with the Latin Kings, or any other gang. If I recall correctly, he said he only found out that Rivera was one of the killers and was in the Latin Kings when he spoke to Katie in the parking lot at Dolce Vita during the bump almost two years later, conveniently the one time when the cops were not listening.

I hope the defense is not planning to argue that Donna was terrified of the “gang members,” and that’s why she wrote the checks. To me, this cannot be true, because the checks were written before the bump, when per Charlie’s own story he didn’t even know about any gang involvement. The defense should only be allowed to bring in the idea that she feared a “gang member” to explain her conduct after the bump.

Even that, however, makes me angry, because it is my opinion that until the arrests, Charlie did not know Rivera accompanied Sig at all, and did not even know who Rivera was or that he was a Latin King, though he may have known Sig knew some bad people. I just don’t believe the Latin Kings are relevant to this case, and I believe it’s highly prejudicial to introduce them, when any support for that is based on what I believe is a lie.

I’m almost certain that Charlie testified that he told Donna he was being extorted very early on and well before the bump and he claims he asked her to swear to secrecy and never mention it again or to anyone.

Donna penning the checks will be part of the defense where the claim is that Donna was just doing what Charlie asked her to do and she was in constant fear after she learned Charlie was being extorted. Whether he was being extorted by the Latin Kings or just your garden variety gang doesn’t really matter. IMO, you have to give Charlie a little credit, he had the foresight to concoct a defense strategy for himself that would eventually explain a lot of Donna’s post murder incriminating actions – not sure if that’s just a coincidence or was done purposely. I’m not saying the jury buys it, but its not inconceivable someone gives that story some merit which is why, in my opinion, the money drop is very critical to the prosecution's case and from my perspective an extremely key piece. With the defense strategy that seems imminent, everything can be conveniently explained except the stop at Charlie’s house that Donna and Harvey made on the way up to Tallahassee. The text ‘outside your house’ / ’10 minutes’ puts a major wrinkle in that defense.

I predict the prosecution will firmly drill home the importance of the money drop to counter the defense’s ‘allegation’ that Donna was in the dark and not a direct conspirator and part of the plans. If any of the jurors are struggling or weighing the probability that Donna may have been potentially in the dark, the money drop should convince them she was involved. The importance of money drop to the prosecution’s case can not be overstated.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I’m almost certain that Charlie testified that he told Donna he was being extorted very early on and well before the bump and he claims he asked her to swear to secrecy and never mention it again or to anyone.

Donna penning the checks will be part of the defense where the claim is that Donna was just doing what Charlie asked her to do and she was in constant fear after she learned Charlie was being extorted. Whether he was being extorted by the Latin Kings or just your garden variety gang doesn’t really matter. IMO, you have to give Charlie a little credit, he had the foresight to concoct a defense strategy for himself that would eventually explain a lot of Donna’s post murder incriminating actions – not sure if that’s just a coincidence or was done purposely. I’m not saying the jury buys it, but its not inconceivable someone gives that story some merit which is why, in my opinion, the money drop is very critical to the prosecution's case and from my perspective an extremely key piece. With the defense strategy that seems imminent, everything can be conveniently explained except the stop at Charlie’s house that Donna and Harvey made on the way up to Tallahassee. The text ‘outside your house’ / ’10 minutes’ puts a major wrinkle in that defense.

I predict the prosecution will firmly drill home the importance of the money drop to counter the defense’s ‘allegation’ that Donna was in the dark and not a direct conspirator and part of the plans. If any of the jurors are struggling or weighing the probability that Donna may have been potentially in the dark, the money drop should convince them she was involved. The importance of money drop to the prosecution’s case can not be overstated.

Hello, trying to catch up here with this…….

Can you share a link with us for this please:

‘I’m almost certain that Charlie testified that he told Donna he was being extorted very early on and well before the bump and he claims he asked her …… ‘

Thank you!

 

[amicuscurie]

I’m almost certain that Charlie testified that he told Donna he was being extorted very early on and well before the bump and he claims he asked her to swear to secrecy and never mention it again or to anyone.

Donna penning the checks will be part of the defense where the claim is that Donna was just doing what Charlie asked her to do and she was in constant fear after she learned Charlie was being extorted. Whether he was being extorted by the Latin Kings or just your garden variety gang doesn’t really matter. IMO, you have to give Charlie a little credit, he had the foresight to concoct a defense strategy for himself that would eventually explain a lot of Donna’s post murder incriminating actions – not sure if that’s just a coincidence or was done purposely. I’m not saying the jury buys it, but its not inconceivable someone gives that story some merit which is why, in my opinion, the money drop is very critical to the prosecution's case and from my perspective an extremely key piece. With the defense strategy that seems imminent, everything can be conveniently explained except the stop at Charlie’s house that Donna and Harvey made on the way up to Tallahassee. The text ‘outside your house’ / ’10 minutes’ puts a major wrinkle in that defense.

I predict the prosecution will firmly drill home the importance of the money drop to counter the defense’s ‘allegation’ that Donna was in the dark and not a direct conspirator and part of the plans. If any of the jurors are struggling or weighing the probability that Donna may have been potentially in the dark, the money drop should convince them she was involved. The importance of money drop to the prosecution’s case can not be overstated.

I believe he said he told Donna he was being extorted, but I don’t believe he said told Donna that it was Latin Kings who were extorting him, not at the beginning when he first told her the story and involved her. I think this is an important distinction.

In my opinion, it’s possible that the defense’s intention in bringing in the “Latin Kings” (or “gang members”) might be to make the entire extortion story (not just what happened after the bump), sound scarier, and thus make Donna’s fear more credible to the jury. If so, this would be highly prejudicial and could have the potential to be misleading.

In my opinion the state should object to any testimony or claim by the defense that Charlie told Donna that “gang members” were behind the alleged “first extortion,” and permit it to be mentioned only in the context of Donna’s conversations after the bump. I am not certain the court’s ruling made that clear.

 

[Going Rogue]

Hello, trying to catch up here with this…….

Can you share a link with us for this please:

‘I’m almost certain that Charlie testified that he told Donna he was being extorted very early on and well before the bump and he claims he asked her …… ‘

Thank you!

It was during his cross-examination – sorry I don’t have a timestamp or link. On memory, he was explaining to Cappleman that he told Donna about the extortion because Donna confronted him after he told her to write the checks. Per Charlie he said Donna said this makes no sense after he told her to write the checks so he told her what ‘really’ happened (the extorsion) and asked her never to tell anyone - I think he specifically said "don't tell Dad or Wendi". I recall he also said something to the effect of he thought it was good to tell someone else incase he was killed.

 

[Going Rogue]

I believe he said he told Donna he was being extorted, but I don’t believe he said told Donna that it was Latin Kings who were extorting him, not at the beginning when he first told her the story and involved her. I think this is an important distinction.

In my opinion, it’s possible that the defense’s intention in bringing in the “Latin Kings” (or “gang members”) might be to make the entire extortion story (not just what happened after the bump), sound scarier, and thus make Donna’s fear more credible to the jury. If so, this would be highly prejudicial and could have the potential to be misleading.

In my opinion the state should object to any testimony or claim by the defense that Charlie told Donna that “gang members” were behind the alleged “first extortion,” and permit it to be mentioned only in the context of Donna’s conversations after the bump. I am not certain the court’s ruling made that clear.

Yes, I don’t recall Charlie specifically saying he told Donna he was being extorted by the Latin Kings – but I don’t think it really matters if he specifically 'named' the gang. I believe the defense will 100% be selling the story that Donna was in fear the moment she heard Charlie was being extorted. That will be one of the main pillars of their argument.