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

[Zedzded]

I also think that at times DR appeals unprofessional. Perhaps this is a nuance of the US legal system, but he's very theatrical, exaggerating, embellishing, laughing sarcastically, haranguing credible witnesses. And maybe that's what he's got to do, e.g his questioning of Jeff Lacasse, but all that does is alienate the jury. If Rob Adelson takes the stand, is he going to eviscerate him? He's essentially lost his entire family, DR ripping into him will go down like a lead balloon.

 

[Knitpicker]

I believe the timing was probably really close. Still, if the SunPass records have them getting on the Turnpike anywhere north of FLL, it’s bad for the defense in my opinion. I know you don’t know the roads, but FLL is north of Miami and it comes AFTER the Turnpike entrance from Miami. If they got on the Turnpike at any entrance North of FLL, it suggests to me that they deliberately went to FLL for some reason. The only thing that could help them in my opinion is if something could show that they got on the Turnpike just north of Miami, BEFORE FLL. Then I guess if there was no evidence they ever got OFF, they could argue they didn’t stop when they sent the text. I think that’s what the defense is claiming the SunPass records would show. Again, I think both sides can argue that since nothing shows the exact time and location of them getting off or on, the jury can draw its own conclusions.

Is FLL FTL?
Right. I think the sunpass is incriminating bc it may indicate they left from the family home and went out of their way to go S to see Charlie. They probably wouldnt have used sunpass from S beach to Charlies. They would take I95. I know I keep repeating myself but this came up almost a year ago in my mind and I sent Georgia a map bc I wasnt sure they knew the routes to Charlies house from both directions.
She thanked me. Many people don’t live here,
I think it’s a big deal if they have proof of where Donna left from.
It would definitely be a money drop. An “on purpose” stop.
I have no doubt Rashbaum knows this which is why he is making such a big deal out of it.

 

[Knitpicker]

The way I look at it, regarding DR's competency (and other lawyers involved in this case is this:
Fast forward 1 year, all 7 co-conspirators, will be jailed, with 6/7 of them serving LWOP. That's pretty unusual. Most instances the majority of co-conspirators will look to make a deal, in this case probably only one ended up making a deal. How much is this attributable to the lawyers?

DA and CA idolise DR, he can do no wrong in their eyes. He is their lawyer and he has been paid handsomely for his services, so it seems reasonable to assume they would listen to him. Some have argued that if he wasn't sycophantic and overly positive about their chances, they would simply find another lawyer, but that isn't the case as they know him, respect him and pretty much have him up on a pedestal.

So the question is, did he tell CA how strong the case was against him? Has he told DA? The case against DA is a slam dunk, she's going to be convicted and she's going to die in prison. This is what DA should be telling DA, but I don't think he is, simply because they have not attempted to broker a deal with the state. Even if the State rejects it, it's worth a shot. 10 years and she admits culpability, but doesn't throw WA or HA under the bus. Gets out in her mid 80s and lives another 10 years? The worst the State can do is say no.

Same with Kawass and KM. Perhaps if there had been a different lawyer, KM would be relaxing on a Miami beach playing with her kids. And same with WA. Is her lawyer really expressing to her how strong and voluminous the inculpatory evidence is? WA can maintain her innocence to her lawyer, but his duty is to do the best for his client. If he's not telling her she's in deep trouble, he's not doing his primary duty as her lawyer.

Agree. I was just driving and thinking about how this may have been all Donna and Charlies idea, and they convinced Wendi that it was going to be the “solution” (i know that conjures up bad thoughts..), and in a strange way, they still want to protect her because this was supposed to be fool proof.
Yet she betrayed Charlie and that wasn’t supposed to happen.
What she chose to do outside of the confines of “the plan”is what put him away.
Repeatedly telling “the joke”
Driving by the crime scene bc she couldn't wait -bc Sigfredo hadn't called Katie 90 minutes after the hit…
So because of her impatience, in Charlies mind she blew it.
Donna also by all her conversations “I think this is about us”, etc.
It has to be a tough thing to want to protect someone who may not have initially been in on it, who agreed, yet who jeopardized what they thought would be an easy solution.
What a mess…

 

[amicuscurie]

The way I look at it, regarding DR's competency (and other lawyers involved in this case is this:
Fast forward 1 year, all 7 co-conspirators, will be jailed, with 6/7 of them serving LWOP. That's pretty unusual. Most instances the majority of co-conspirators will look to make a deal, in this case probably only one ended up making a deal. How much is this attributable to the lawyers?

DA and CA idolise DR, he can do no wrong in their eyes. He is their lawyer and he has been paid handsomely for his services, so it seems reasonable to assume they would listen to him. Some have argued that if he wasn't sycophantic and overly positive about their chances, they would simply find another lawyer, but that isn't the case as they know him, respect him and pretty much have him up on a pedestal.

So the question is, did he tell CA how strong the case was against him? Has he told DA? The case against DA is a slam dunk, she's going to be convicted and she's going to die in prison. This is what DA should be telling DA, but I don't think he is, simply because they have not attempted to broker a deal with the state. Even if the State rejects it, it's worth a shot. 10 years and she admits culpability, but doesn't throw WA or HA under the bus. Gets out in her mid 80s and lives another 10 years? The worst the State can do is say no.

Same with Kawass and KM. Perhaps if there had been a different lawyer, KM would be relaxing on a Miami beach playing with her kids. And same with WA. Is her lawyer really expressing to her how strong and voluminous the inculpatory evidence is? WA can maintain her innocence to her lawyer, but his duty is to do the best for his client. If he's not telling her she's in deep trouble, he's not doing his primary duty as her lawyer.

Dbm

 

[amicuscurie]

The way I look at it, regarding DR's competency (and other lawyers involved in this case is this:
Fast forward 1 year, all 7 co-conspirators, will be jailed, with 6/7 of them serving LWOP. That's pretty unusual. Most instances the majority of co-conspirators will look to make a deal, in this case probably only one ended up making a deal. How much is this attributable to the lawyers?

DA and CA idolise DR, he can do no wrong in their eyes. He is their lawyer and he has been paid handsomely for his services, so it seems reasonable to assume they would listen to him. Some have argued that if he wasn't sycophantic and overly positive about their chances, they would simply find another lawyer, but that isn't the case as they know him, respect him and pretty much have him up on a pedestal.

So the question is, did he tell CA how strong the case was against him? Has he told DA? The case against DA is a slam dunk, she's going to be convicted and she's going to die in prison. This is what DA should be telling DA, but I don't think he is, simply because they have not attempted to broker a deal with the state. Even if the State rejects it, it's worth a shot. 10 years and she admits culpability, but doesn't throw WA or HA under the bus. Gets out in her mid 80s and lives another 10 years? The worst the State can do is say no.

Same with Kawass and KM. Perhaps if there had been a different lawyer, KM would be relaxing on a Miami beach playing with her kids. And same with WA. Is her lawyer really expressing to her how strong and voluminous the inculpatory evidence is? WA can maintain her innocence to her lawyer, but his duty is to do the best for his client. If he's not telling her she's in deep trouble, he's not doing his primary duty as her lawyer.

If the defense wins some of these motions, the state’s case isn’t as much of a slam dunk against Donna, in my opinion. Donna is getting good representation, in my opinion. The question for me is why weren’t some of these arguments made before Charlie’s trial?

 

[amicuscurie]

Is FLL FTL?
Right. I think the sunpass is incriminating bc it may indicate they left from the family home and went out of their way to go S to see Charlie. They probably wouldnt have used sunpass from S beach to Charlies. They would take I95. I know I keep repeating myself but this came up almost a year ago in my mind and I sent Georgia a map bc I wasnt sure they knew the routes to Charlies house from both directions.
She thanked me. Many people don’t live here,
I think it’s a big deal if they have proof of where Donna left from.
It would definitely be a money drop. An “on purpose” stop.
I have no doubt Rashbaum knows this which is why he is making such a big deal out of it.

The text says “outside your house.” The defense is claiming it does not mean “outside your house.” In my opinion, that’s a stretch. But now, in addition, the defense is claiming that there could have been evidence to show that the text didn’t mean what it says, but it’s gone, and so what the text plainly says, should not enter into evidence. To me this is unfair. The defense seems to be claiming that they are being prejudiced by not being able to access evidence that no longer exists. But in my opinion what the defense is really seeking is to BENEFIT from the fact that the evidence no longer exists, and use the fact that it no longer exists to keep out evidence that does exist which hurts them. The court, in my opinion, should not allow this, it seems to me like a miscarriage of justice.

The defense, to me, is not prejudiced by not being able to access the SunPass records. As the state did argue, those records could be hurtful to the defense just as easily as they could be helpful.

 

[psdumas]

Donna is not on Zoom. She's in person!
Also looks very different
View attachment 527936

That look of hers says it all. She's sorta ashamed. But, she knows her life as she knows it is over. I'll take that as punishment .

 

[Going Rogue]

The way I look at it, regarding DR's competency (and other lawyers involved in this case is this:
Fast forward 1 year, all 7 co-conspirators, will be jailed, with 6/7 of them serving LWOP. That's pretty unusual. Most instances the majority of co-conspirators will look to make a deal, in this case probably only one ended up making a deal. How much is this attributable to the lawyers?

DA and CA idolise DR, he can do no wrong in their eyes. He is their lawyer and he has been paid handsomely for his services, so it seems reasonable to assume they would listen to him. Some have argued that if he wasn't sycophantic and overly positive about their chances, they would simply find another lawyer, but that isn't the case as they know him, respect him and pretty much have him up on a pedestal.

So the question is, did he tell CA how strong the case was against him? Has he told DA? The case against DA is a slam dunk, she's going to be convicted and she's going to die in prison. This is what DA should be telling DA, but I don't think he is, simply because they have not attempted to broker a deal with the state. Even if the State rejects it, it's worth a shot. 10 years and she admits culpability, but doesn't throw WA or HA under the bus. Gets out in her mid 80s and lives another 10 years? The worst the State can do is say no.

Same with Kawass and KM. Perhaps if there had been a different lawyer, KM would be relaxing on a Miami beach playing with her kids. And same with WA. Is her lawyer really expressing to her how strong and voluminous the inculpatory evidence is? WA can maintain her innocence to her lawyer, but his duty is to do the best for his client. If he's not telling her she's in deep trouble, he's not doing his primary duty as her lawyer.

In the court of YouTube Law everyone is making assumptions about how Rashbaum advised Charlie and how he is advising Donna in their attorney / client meetings.

He may have laid it out in very clear terms to both of them that their prospects do not look good. It seems to me that most think Rashbaum is not painting a realistic picture to Donna nor did he for Charlie and his primary motive is billing them for maximum gain. Obviously he in this profession because it pays handsomely, but my vibes are that Rashbaum is an ethical attorney and doing the 'right' thing. IMO. all the hate he gets by the YouTube Law crowd is unjustified - the hatred for Charlie & Donna spills over into their feelings for Rashbaum and I don't think he is judged fairly or objectively - obviously its not all, but a good majority. This my personal opinion.

I would argue Rashbaum probably did make it very clear to them both the cases against them both are very strong. Rashbaum is no dummy. As I said earlier, if somehow he wins the ‘money drop’ motion, Donna chances of an acquittal become a realistic outcome. If he gets a win on that motion, he will have earned every penny Donna has paid him up until this point.

 

[minusfour]

@amicuscurie -do you really think that both WA and HA will be arrested, tried, and sentenced in the next year, (or so)?That would be my hope, but I can't really believe it! (Hope I'm wrong!)

 

[Zedzded]

In the court of YouTube Law everyone is making assumptions about how Rashbaum advised Charlie and how he is advising Donna in their attorney / client meetings.

Yup. Ultimately I have no idea, just speculation.

 

[Zedzded]

That look of hers says it all. She's sorta ashamed. But, she knows her life as she knows it is over. I'll take that as punishment .

She looks completely broken.

 

[Knitpicker]

If the defense wins some of these motions, the state’s case isn’t as much of a slam dunk against Donna, in my opinion. Donna is getting good representation, in my opinion. The question for me is why weren’t some of these arguments made before Charlie’s trial?

She has two attorneys now. My guess is Alex Morris and what he is adding to her defense.

 

[amicuscurie]

She has two attorneys now. My guess is Alex Morris and what he is adding to her defense.

Certainly seems to me like they’ve spared no expense for Donna.

 

[Niner]

Thanks all for the info on the motions - now trying to get it all together for my notes.

So - next hearing is the final pretrial on 9/12/24? Or is there a date before that? I do not have to Leon County - that is why I am asking! TIA!

 

[jumpinjack]

In the court of YouTube Law everyone is making assumptions about how Rashbaum advised Charlie and how he is advising Donna in their attorney / client meetings.
He may have laid it out in very clear terms to both of them that their prospects do not look good.

Had Dan laid out in clear terms that Charlie's prospects did not look good I believe Charlie would have fled. On jail calls Charlie repeatedly says he should've followed his gut & never come to Talahassee, instead he listened to others who told him he'd get a fair trial. I think Dan gassed Charlie up to have unreasonable expectations, even telling him that if this was a normal case he'd sit down with the prosecutors, show them the mountain of evidence he has that exonerates Charlie & ask to them toss the case.

 

[Zedzded]

In the court of YouTube Law everyone is making assumptions about how Rashbaum advised Charlie and how he is advising Donna in their attorney / client meetings.
He may have laid it out in very clear terms to both of them that their prospects do not look good.

Had Dan laid out in clear terms that Charlie's prospects did not look good I believe Charlie would have fled. On jail calls Charlie repeatedly says he should've followed his gut & never come to Talahassee, instead he listened to others who told him he'd get a fair trial. I think Dan gassed Charlie up to have unreasonable expectations, even telling him that if this was a normal case he'd sit down with the prosecutors, show them the mountain of evidence he has that exonerates Charlie & ask to them toss the case.

Yup exactly. I really would be gobsmacked if WA's lawyer John Lauro has not started to tell her that the evidence against her is really starting to mount up. Something's wrong if after DA is convicted, WA is arrested and still of the assumption the States case against her is weak. I know the legal system is different in the US compared to Australia, but a lawyers primary duty, in both countries, is to act in their clients best interests. If I was indicted for a serious crime, I'd freaking want to know how strong the case was against me and what inculpatory evidence existed. Not have some lawyer give me a wink and a nod saying "she'll be right.".....

 

[Going Rogue]

In the court of YouTube Law everyone is making assumptions about how Rashbaum advised Charlie and how he is advising Donna in their attorney / client meetings.
He may have laid it out in very clear terms to both of them that their prospects do not look good.

Had Dan laid out in clear terms that Charlie's prospects did not look good I believe Charlie would have fled. On jail calls Charlie repeatedly says he should've followed his gut & never come to Talahassee, instead he listened to others who told him he'd get a fair trial. I think Dan gassed Charlie up to have unreasonable expectations, even telling him that if this was a normal case he'd sit down with the prosecutors, show them the mountain of evidence he has that exonerates Charlie & ask to them toss the case.

I highly doubt Rashbaum was pumping Charlie up and setting unrealistic expectations. I know that belief seems to be widespread in the YouTube echo chamber but Rashbaum is not that irresponsible. Also, Charlie retained Dan Rashbaum about a month AFTER his arrest, so there would not have been an opportunity to flee while he was represented by Rashbaum. Donna retained Rashbaum BEFORE her arrest and did try to flee. What does that tell you? Also, Charlie did get a fair trial so whoever told him he’d get a fair trial was correct.

 

[cottonweaver]

Certainly seems to me like they’ve spared no expense for Donna.

DA and CA idolise DR, he can do no wrong in their eyes. He is their lawyer and he has been paid handsomely for his services, so it seems reasonable to assume they would listen to him. Some have argued that if he wasn't sycophantic and overly positive about their chances, they would simply find another lawyer, but that isn't the case as they know him, respect him and pretty much have him up on a pedestal.

So the question is, did he tell CA how strong the case was against him? Has he told DA? The case against DA is a slam dunk, she's going to be convicted and she's going to die in prison. This is what DA should be telling DA, but I don't think he is, simply because they have not attempted to broker a deal with the state. Even if the State rejects it, it's worth a shot. 10 years and she admits culpability, but doesn't throw WA or HA under the bus. Gets out in her mid 80s and lives another 10 years? The worst the State can do is say no.

If the defense wins some of these motions, the state’s case isn’t as much of a slam dunk against Donna, in my opinion. Donna is getting good representation, in my opinion. The question for me is why weren’t some of these arguments made before Charlie’s trial?

In the court of YouTube Law everyone is making assumptions about how Rashbaum advised Charlie and how he is advising Donna in their attorney / client meetings.

I would argue Rashbaum probably did make it very clear to them both the cases against them both are very strong.

I've snipped a lot of the posts but that's just to jump off of one theme and to address a couple of points you made @Going Rogue

- We found out that Rashbaum has been representing her since 2016. (DR yesterday)
- We already knew they were so close she'd that she'd speak to his wife during prep for Charlie's case (DA on jail calls)

- Yesterday, a couple of US defense lawyers providing commentary on the hearing remarked on their closeness ( They pointed out DR & DA's exchanges during the hearing) .

-Donna's own diary-planners suggest she was closely involved in prep for Charlie's losing case ( New discovery FoIAs)

- Does Rashbaum give an honest appraisal to his clients? ( Jail calls are a trove on info on that subject. Not going to list all the CA & DA comments about DR in those recordings, would take up another half of a WS page. Anyway, CA doesn't name the person/persons who advised him to stick it out instead of leaving the country)

- Originally David Markus was meant to be repping Charlie at trial but later, Donna's lawyer Rashbaum took over Charlie's case. (Charlie raises that point again during one of the recent jail call recordings. Any claim that this withdrawal by Markus was down to trial scheduling doesn't really stack-up because no trial date was set at the point DM withdrew.)


When you look at that brief list, imo it raises questions. OFC I doubt we'll ever get to the bottom of it.
Regardless of us being unable to get to the bottom of it, going forward, it's not difficult to imagine that Charlie might have time to ruminate on it, especially if Donna is convicted.

Plenty of lawyers commenting on Court TV, L&Crime & on podcasts have mentioned similar points over the last 12months. That's not a court, they're not on a jury and are entitled to raise them. I don't think them being critical of Rashbaum means they must hate his clients as you said.( OTOH I do agree that there are some non-lawyers who've just hated DR from day one & couldn't compliment him on any aspect of his lawyering. Reminds me of the Steven Epstein 'thing' again.)

Anyways...

There's plenty of questionable behaviour re lawyers in this case which are IMO legit discussion topics and are topical right now. Some of them could be raised at DA's trial ( See new witnesses, exhibits, depos)

Whether that's the Jim Lewis/XX Adelson Lawyer ' no one's talking' call (October 2016, wiretap) or
the recent Morgan Honeycutt text to Donna ( Donna's phone search warrant Nov 2023) or
the issue of whether an Adelson lawyer reached out to Francis Magbanua re paying KM's fees ( Georgia, 2023) or
why DaCoste showed up at Sandford's interview with Francis Magbanua even though Samantha had her own lawyer or
the broader issue of conflict of interest & whether that ultimately serves the best interests of the clients( DA & CA same lawyer.)

there's more but this post is already long enough.

Worth repeating: Rashbaum yesterday said that he was Donna's lawyer from August 2016

 

[cottonweaver]

Thanks all for the info on the motions - now trying to get it all together for my notes.

So - next hearing is the final pretrial on 9/12/24? Or is there a date before that? I do not have to Leon County - that is why I am asking! TIA!

is this screenshot any use to you?
next hearing is 6 Sept, 9am

 

[cottonweaver]

Copy pasted version of the screenshot above and just to add that Motion 3 has also now been denied. ) Everett must have filed his order yesterday afternoon) CASE COMMENTS FROM COURT EVENT DEF. MTN TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FOR PRE- INDICTMENT DELAY OR, ALTERNATIVELY TO EXCIUDE EVIDENCE: RULING RESERVED ¿¿ DEF MIN TO HOLD TRIAL IN 3B: DENIED DIS - 3/ DEF. MTN TO SUPPRESS WIRE TAP INTERCEPTIONS: RULING RESERVED ¿¿ DER. MTN TO USE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE: DENIED ¿¿ DEF. MIN IN LIMINE: PRONG 1: GRANTED PRONG 2: GRANTED IN PART - DENIED IN PART PRONG 3. RULING RESERVED PRONG 4: SUBPRONGS 1 AND 2: RULING RESERVED SUBPRONGS 3 AND 4: GRANTED PRONG 5 : RULING RESERVED PRONG 6: DENIED DEF. MTN TO PRECLUDE TRAVEL AS CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT: DENIED STATE MTN IN LIMINE: PRONG 1:: GRANTED IN PART - RULING DESERVED IN PART -GRANTED AS TO PRIOR BAD ACTS -RESERVED AS TO SPECIFIC AFFILIATION WITH THE LATIN KINGS PRONG 2: GRANTED PRONG 3: GRANTED - COUNSEL DIRECTED TO ALERT COURT IF DOOR OPENS REGARDING THIS MATTER PRONG 4: GRANTED PRONG 5: GRANTED PRONG 6: GRANTED PRONG 7: GRANTED IN PART - DENIED IN PART. PRONG 8: GRANTED * WRITTEN ORDERS TO FOLLOW REGARDING ALL MOTIONS DEFENDANT SWORN IN BY COURT DEFENSE 2ND MTN IN LIMINE SCHEDULED TO BE ADDRESSED 9/6- TIME AND COURTROOM TO BE ANNOUNCED BY JA