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

[amicuscurie]

Would any lawyers here be willing to discuss the possibility of Wendi tried on perjury charges vs murder charges?
And also explain what the chances are on perjury due to the circumstances of her immunity? Thanks.
Could it be with Donnas delay the state would bring up perjury?

It’s my understanding that Florida rarely prosecutes people for perjury, I believe the legal standard is a bit higher than in other jurisdictions which require only a false statement made under oath. I believe in Florida the standard requires that the state show not only that the statement was false, but that it was about a material fact. It is my understanding that this extra step makes these cases more difficult to prosecute, and so my understanding is that this is rarely done, because of the resources and time it would take for what I understand is generally a crime carrying a relatively small sentence.

My understanding of the terms of her derivative and use immunity is that anything she says cannot be used against her, (use immunity), nor can any evidence that the state might get from following up on what she said (derivative use), so long as she is telling the truth. To the extent she is not, then it would appear to me that some of testimony, or evidence derived from that testimony, could be used against her, although I am not sure what the process would be, or whether that would make all of her testimony admissible or just the parts which were determined to be false.

 

[amicuscurie]

Question!! Just to keep my notes straight - is Adam J. Komisar part of DA's defense team now?? TIA!

I don’t believe the judge addressed that in the courtroom, although I do believe he
spoke with the parties about that behind closed doors.

 

[Wishbone]

Question!! Just to keep my notes straight - is Adam J. Komisar part of DA's defense team now?? TIA!

All I could find is that he was going to cross examine CA if it progressed to that and DR was still representing her.

Donna Adelson consults with 'conflict free'Tallahassee attorney​

During the court adjournment, Donna Adelson consulted with Adam Komisar of Tallahassee.
When court resumed, Komisar updated Judge Stephen Everett on Donna Adelson's wishes.
"She has had a chance to speak with me," Komisar said."She is in a position where she would not like to lose Mr.Rashbaum and is willing to give any waivers."
Under such an arrangement, Komisar would likely cross-examine Charlie Adelson if he was called as a state's witness. That could be a legal sticking point if it was determined that Komisar's cross-examination was "ineffective counsel," which could theoretically be grounds for an appeal.
Komisar acknowledged that he could not be as effective as an attorney, who has been involved in the case and strategized with the defendant for months, but he said Donna Adelson still wanted to proceed rather than risk a lengthy delay in the trial.
The judge then asked Donna Adelson directly if she would "waive any conflicts," including future objections for a potential appeal.
She responded in the affirmative, and Judge Everett said he would continue researching the matter to make sure her waiver is "legally sufficient."
Court is in recess until 1:15 p.m., and prospective jurors will be called in for jury selection at 2 p.m.

RECAP: Jury selection hits major snag in trial of Donna Adelson; attorney withdraws

The Tallahassee Democrat will livestream each day of the trial of Donna Adelson from the county courthouse in Florida's capital city.

www.yahoo.com

 

[amicuscurie]

All I could find is that he was going to cross examine CA if it progressed to that and DR was still representing her.

Donna Adelson consults with 'conflict free'Tallahassee attorney​

During the court adjournment, Donna Adelson consulted with Adam Komisar of Tallahassee.
When court resumed, Komisar updated Judge Stephen Everett on Donna Adelson's wishes.
"She has had a chance to speak with me," Komisar said."She is in a position where she would not like to lose Mr.Rashbaum and is willing to give any waivers."
Under such an arrangement, Komisar would likely cross-examine Charlie Adelson if he was called as a state's witness. That could be a legal sticking point if it was determined that Komisar's cross-examination was "ineffective counsel," which could theoretically be grounds for an appeal.
Komisar acknowledged that he could not be as effective as an attorney, who has been involved in the case and strategized with the defendant for months, but he said Donna Adelson still wanted to proceed rather than risk a lengthy delay in the trial.
The judge then asked Donna Adelson directly if she would "waive any conflicts," including future objections for a potential appeal.
She responded in the affirmative, and Judge Everett said he would continue researching the matter to make sure her waiver is "legally sufficient."
Court is in recess until 1:15 p.m., and prospective jurors will be called in for jury selection at 2 p.m.

RECAP: Jury selection hits major snag in trial of Donna Adelson; attorney withdraws

The Tallahassee Democrat will livestream each day of the trial of Donna Adelson from the county courthouse in Florida's capital city.

www.yahoo.com

I believe the judge held a hearing on this issue with the parties behind closed doors, but when he came back, I did not hear him announce any decision he might have reached as to whether Komisar would be allowed to cross-examine Charlie, or whether he would be part of the defense team at all.

 

[Wishbone]

I believe the judge held a hearing on this issue with the parties behind closed doors, but when he came back, I did not hear him announce any decision he might have reached as to whether Komisar would be allowed to cross-examine Charlie, or whether he would be part of the defense team at all.

All I got from the article is that Komisar would have a limited role if CA were to testify. As it stands now CA will not even agree to testify afaik.

 

[Niner]

Thank you @Wishbone & @amicuscurie - I shall leave him off for now!

 

[IQuestion]

Question!! Just to keep my notes straight - is Adam J. Komisar part of DA's defense team now?? TIA!

Hi Niner Am only answering because I had recently brought this up with a pal. AK was just "too involved/eager" to physically move up so close to a woman he had only met for 30 minutes.(creepy) Then jumping up to get a box of tissue was just awkward, IMO. DR didn't have a handkerchief in his suit pocket in anticipation of the devastating news he is about to give his client on nationally televised courtroom event? Morris is in need of a defense team and AK desperately wants to be a part of it, IMO. (I'm suited up and ready to go coach!)
DR managed to get the job. Go figure.
Apparently rich old ladies facing prosecution can attract a lot of sychophants.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sycophant

A sycophant is a person who tries to win favor from wealthy or influential people by flattering them. Also known as brown-nosers, teacher's pets or suck-ups.

 

[IQuestion]

The mere existence of the word "conflict" or "conflicted" in anyone's mouth at the beginning of trial proceedings, should override the right to a choice of lawyer, and automatically result in the attorney being booted from the case if they don't remove themselves. Waivers, as we've discovered, mean nothing, signed or not. It is an automatic appeal issue akin to incompetence, because the attorney is incompetent if they can't represent your best interests. IMO

Tortoise, brilliantly stated!!

 

[Knitpicker]

It’s my understanding that Florida rarely prosecutes people for perjury, I believe the legal standard is a bit higher than in other jurisdictions which require only a false statement made under oath. I believe in Florida the standard requires that the state show not only that the statement was false, but that it was about a material fact. It is my understanding that this extra step makes these cases more difficult to prosecute, and so my understanding is that this is rarely done, because of the resources and time it would take for what I understand is generally a crime carrying a relatively small sentence.

My understanding of the terms of her derivative and use immunity is that anything she says cannot be used against her, (use immunity), nor can any evidence that the state might get from following up on what she said (derivative use), so long as she is telling the truth. To the extent she is not, then it would appear to me that some of testimony, or evidence derived from that testimony, could be used against her, although I am not sure what the process would be, or whether that would make all of her testimony admissible or just the parts which were determined to be false.

Ok thanks! I remember going back it was agreed she wouldn’t be tried for perjury. I wondered how her going to that Kastigar attorney fit in. I thought there may now be additional evidence that may make tried perjury possible. Thx for the comment.
PS I do remember Georgia on STS very early on (In fact I think I helped him with lots of views directing people there ) stating that her immunity is gone if she lies.

 

[PayrollNerd]

37 2023 CF 003226 A
ADELSON, DONNA SUE
MURDER - FIRST DEGREE

Leon County Clerk Of Courts Public Web Site

 

[apeXperience]

Morris (foolishly) shared with the press that he is contemplating other defense ideas including entering into negotiation with the prosecutors!

Donna does not have much bargaining chips besides Harvey and Wendi given the large amount of evidence against them all Adelsons. Perhaps, Harvey and Wendi should not like Morris’ idea of bargaining with the prosecutors on behalf of Donna. Therefore, Morris could be fired by Harvey, the “money man” paying for Donna’s lawyers.

Rashbaum and Neiman of MNR were Donna and Harvey’s retainers since their infamous “fanciful fiction” collective letter of 2016.

If past preference indicates future choice, Donna Adelson could hire Neiman, or any one of the other 8 lawyers of MNR besides Meyers, Rashbaum and Neiman. Donna could also hire another Miami lawyer among the many former State prosecutors who moved to private practice and/or as recommended by their many Adelson allies such as Florida Judges.

Charles Adelson could flip-flop and reverse course by signing a waiver of his Sixth on behalf of Rashbaum.

This will put the Judge back in the same dilemma. The Judge should support the defendant Donna’s right to a competent lawyer. As the primarily concerned person, the defendant should know (at least theoretically) who is the best and “competent” lawyer for them. Besides, any interference from State Attorneys about defendant's lawyer choice would harbinger future successful appeal if Donna dislikes the outcome of the trial giving that “the opposite team (State) selected their coach (lawyer).”

 

[Ferpo]

Morris (foolishly) shared with the press that he is contemplating other defense ideas including entering into negotiation with the prosecutors!

Donna does not have much bargaining chips besides Harvey and Wendi given the large amount of evidence against them all Adelsons. Perhaps, Harvey and Wendi should not like Morris’ idea of bargaining with the prosecutors on behalf of Donna. Therefore, Morris could be fired by Harvey, the “money man” paying for Donna’s lawyers.

An alternate opinion: Morris has a reputation for being deliberate and very careful. He would not have gone public with any statements that were not already discussed with and approved by DA.

 

[opt]

An alternate opinion: Morris has a reputation for being deliberate and very careful. He would not have gone public with any statements that were not already discussed with and approved by DA.

Morris could have asked GC: "What would DA need to offer to get a deal, and what would that deal look like?" Any response other than "No deals" would be consistent with his press statement.

 

[BearWatcher]

If I recall correctly Judge Everett asked if there was a ‘final’ offer to the defense and then asked if there was a counter offer of the prosecution. Did others catch that? In the past, hasn’t he been less explicit in that query? Like is there ‘a’ offer under consideration?

 

[opt]

Hypothetically, if you were GC and DA made a proffer asserting that Harvey was in on it but that Wendi has no knowledge before or after, would you (a) believe it and (b) accept it? Or would you (c) accept it because you were confident you could later prove it was a lie, voiding the deal while being able to use what you learned?

 

[BearWatcher]

Hypothetically, if you were GC and DA made a proffer asserting that Harvey was in on it but that Wendi has no knowledge before or after, would you (a) believe it and (b) accept it? Or would you (c) accept it because you were confident you could later prove it was a lie, voiding the deal while being able to use what you learned?

If you did not believe it, because it was not supported by other evidence the prosecution has, then it would not be acceptable to the prosecution.

 

[Zedzded]

Hypothetically, if you were GC and DA made a proffer asserting that Harvey was in on it but that Wendi has no knowledge before or after, would you (a) believe it and (b) accept it? Or would you (c) accept it because you were confident you could later prove it was a lie, voiding the deal while being able to use what you learned?

Well DA asserting that WA had no knowledge is irrelevant to the State. If DA states that HA was in on it and can demonstrate that, then great, they can arrest HA. But DA saying WA is innocent means nothing. She is a murderer and a pathological liar.

 

[vislaw]

Hypothetically, if you were GC and DA made a proffer asserting that Harvey was in on it but that Wendi has no knowledge before or after, would you (a) believe it and (b) accept it? Or would you (c) accept it because you were confident you could later prove it was a lie, voiding the deal while being able to use what you learned?

A proffer is simply what a party represents he/she will be willing to testify to. Accepting a proffer doesn't mean the state concedes anything. It simply means that the state is willing to move forward with plea negotiations under a mutual understanding that the defendant is committed to whatever he/she outlines in the proffer. My old law school professor referred to proffer sessions as simply "opening the door to negotiate." You'll recall that KM sat down for a proffer session and basically continued to evade and prevaricate for quite some time before partially admitting a few significant matters. I'm not sure whether she ever got anything at all in return for her cooperation. Since she did testify and helped convict Charlie, I assume she may be gaining some minor perks.

I'm not sure that the state could give DA much of a plea under any circumstances since there is so much evidence against her. Certainly, implicating WA or HA would be a big deal, but DA is in so deep the state isn't going to be able to give her much of a pass.

 

[Zedzded]

A proffer is simply what a party represents he/she will be willing to testify to. Accepting a proffer doesn't mean the state concedes anything. It simply means that the state is willing to move forward with plea negotiations under a mutual understanding that the defendant is committed to whatever he/she outlines in the proffer. My old law school professor referred to proffer sessions as simply "opening the door to negotiate." You'll recall that KM sat down for a proffer session and basically continued to evade and prevaricate for quite some time before partially admitting a few significant matters. I'm not sure whether she ever got anything at all in return for her cooperation. Since she did testify and helped convict Charlie, I assume she may be gaining some minor perks.

I'm not sure that the state could give DA much of a plea under any circumstances since there is so much evidence against her. Certainly, implicating WA or HA would be a big deal, but DA is in so deep the state isn't going to be able to give her much of a pass.

LR got 19 years and was one of the hitmen, so I reckon they could do something with a plea for DA that would see her accept it.
Her issues at the moment (speculatively):
1. She does not want the stress of having to wait and prepare for another trial.
2. She wants out of her hellhole jail and into a more liveable prison.
3. She does not want to fork out another $1 million in legal fees.

And I think now she finally is cognisant of the fact that the case against her is a slam dunk. So she knows she either makes a deal or does LWOP. There is no not guilty scenario. What we what and what the State want is for DA to die in prison and primarily to have Wendi's head on a platter, with an orange in mouth. That can be done. 10 years for DA and she will die in prison.

 

[Tortoise]

She might try an Alford plea. IMO