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

[Zedzded]

I think Kawass and Decoste took on the case more for the exposure it got them and they ‘settled’ for a greatly discounted rate for that exposure. I can’t take credit for that theory, it was mentioned by Tim Jansen who seemed to have some ‘inside’ information on the arrangement. Sounds likely to me.

I 100% believe part of that theory - them both seeking greater exposure. You can see from TK's social media posts on the great injustice served upon her poor client, KM. She created this narrative of a poor, working class Mum, sitting in a jail cell, accused of a crime she didn't commit. Like some bad Z grade straight to DVD movie... Sure she has to defend KM, but she had a hidden agenda, whether there was her 15 minutes of fame or $$ or both, who knows. But I feel it interfered with her duty of putting her clients interests first.

 

[Going Rogue]

I 100% believe part of that theory - them both seeking greater exposure. You can see from TK's social media posts on the great injustice served upon her poor client, KM. She created this narrative of a poor, working class Mum, sitting in a jail cell, accused of a crime she didn't commit. Like some bad Z grade straight to DVD movie... Sure she has to defend KM, but she had a hidden agenda, whether there was her 15 minutes of fame or $$ or both, who knows. But I feel it interfered with her duty of putting her clients interests first.

Agreeing to take on high-profile case for a discount for the exposure is not something I hold against either attorney – it’s basically a marketing strategy and how things work in a free enterprise. If they didn’t act in their client’s best interest, that’s a completely different story. I never read any of her social media posts, but the type of statements you are outlining are consistent with what you’d expect from an attorney representing a client on trial for murder – its par for the course.

 

[apeXperience]

This is a long post (sorry), but it addresses in one go 4 specific topics, previously discussed.

Anything to the effect of “Daniel Rashbaum was the Adelsons’ collective attorney (in the sense of white collar home office attorney) since 2016” is inaccurate.

As related to the murder of Dan Markel, already since August 2016:
1. Wendi Adelson was represented by John Lauro, Principal at “Lauro & Singer”
2. Charles Adelson was represented by two separate law offices, (a) Michael D. Weinstein, PA and (b)
David Oscar Markus of “Markus/Moss, PLLC”
3. Harvey and Donna Adelson were represented by Daniel Rashbaum and Jeff Neiman, both lawyers of the firm “MNR Law Firm (Marcus, Neiman, Rashbaum & Pineiro, LLP)”.

This assortment of lawyers was characterized by the 2016 legal commentators as “some of the top legal talents in all of Florida, and the USA.”

Any speculation to the effect of “Daniel Rashbaum might have slapped Charles Adelson with some dose of guilt reality” is doubtful.

Most lawyers and other professionals (investigators, psychologists etc.) working in the area of criminal justice would share the opinion that “most criminal defense lawyers work for alleged criminals regardless of the criminals’ guilt potential.” In fact, criminal defense lawyers will always say to the effect of “my client is innocent” and/or “my client maintains his innocence.”

In August 2016, John Lauro, Michael D. Weinstein, David Oscar Markus, Daniel Rashbaum, and Jeff Neiman wrote a lengthy collective letter preaching the saintly innocence of the Four Adelsons thus:
“[…] There has been a lot of unsupported speculation that the Adelsons had something to do with the murder. That speculation is categorically false. To be clear, none of the Adelsons – Wendi, her brother Charlie, or their parents Donna and Harvey – had anything to do with Dan’s murder.
We respect the process and the enormous amount of work that the Tallahassee police department has done in this case. They have spent the past two years reviewing every shred of evidence out there — every phone record, financial record, text message, email, internet search, everything. We understand why the government has put the Adelson family through this type of severe scrutiny. But nothing has turned up that supports this fanciful fiction that the Adelsons were involved. The investigation has gone so deep that it employed FBI agents, undercover agents, and a tip line. There is a reason that the police have not arrested any of the Adelsons – they weren’t involved in Dan’s death. […].”
(Example of URL sources of this collective letter: The Dan Markel Murder Case: The Adelson Family Speaks - Above the Law)

Please note that it is rather a rarity for this type of “super lawyers” with big egos as large as a USA zip code to write a collective letter of this type, or of any type of collective letter!

All criminal defense lawyers work for fame and fortune, one takes it. The speculation that full time criminal defense lawyers could work for fame only in the USA is … misguided.

Most criminal defense lawyers start out “slaving” for pro bono or as public defenders to learn the rope and make a name for themselves. However, established criminal defense lawyers never work for fame only. There are a plethora of YT videos about the topic “why many JD graduates end up doing other jobs instead of lawyering in the USA?”

The State Attorneys, the criminal defense professionals, and the news media at large were all interested about “how could Katherine Magbanua afford her team of expensive (exorbitant by the standard of most) criminal defense lawyers?.” A motion seeking such information (and alluding to a conflict of interests) went to her docket if one cares to check.

What is a verifiable fact, from prior the August 2016 collective letter to date, is that Christopher DeCoste (one member of Magbanua’s team of 3 lawyers) and David Oscar Markus (the long time lawyer of Charles Adelson) work from the same office:
Christopher DeCoste 40 NW 3rd St PH 1 Miami, FL 33128
David Oscar Markus 40 NW Third Street, Penthouse One Miami, FL 33128

The wordings of their addresses are rather cleverly and deceptively differentiated. However, these “star criminal defense lawyers with big egos” must work at the same place … for some specifically lucrative reasons.

David Oscar Markus has been Charles Adelson’s attorney at least from August 2016 until May 13, 2022. The docket shows that when Charles Adelson was apprehended on 4/20/2022, his lawyers of record were David Oscar Markus and A. Margot Moss. Dear Daniel Rashbaum appeared for the first time in Charles Adelson’s case as a third lawyer on 5/9/2022. David Oscar Markus and A. Margot Moss formally requested to be dropped on 5/13/2022.

Donna Adelson is exposed to a real legal risk resulting from Mr. Daniel Rashbaum’s potentially (one would say obviously) a “conflict of interests” choice of representing two defendants in the same First Degree Murder case.

One the one hand, there are “good Magbanua reasons” for both Christopher DeCoste and Tara Kawass to be listed as Cat. A witnesses by the State. On the other hand, there are “other good Charles Adelson reasons” for both Christopher DeCoste and David Oscar Markus to be listed as Cat. A witnesses by the State.

Noticing that Christopher DeCoste has the appearance of intersecting the interests of two convicted murderers of Dan Markel is rather subtle. The fact that Daniel Rashbaum intersects the interests of one convicted murderer and another alleged "domestic planner" of the Dan Markel's murder is rather obvious. There will be negative consequences either way. Wait and see.

 

[Knitpicker]

This is a long post (sorry), but it addresses in one go 4 specific topics, previously discussed.

Anything to the effect of “Daniel Rashbaum was the Adelsons’ collective attorney (in the sense of white collar home office attorney) since 2016” is inaccurate.

As related to the murder of Dan Markel, already since August 2016:
1. Wendi Adelson was represented by John Lauro, Principal at “Lauro & Singer”
2. Charles Adelson was represented by two separate law offices, (a) Michael D. Weinstein, PA and (b)
David Oscar Markus of “Markus/Moss, PLLC”
3. Harvey and Donna Adelson were represented by Daniel Rashbaum and Jeff Neiman, both lawyers of the firm “MNR Law Firm (Marcus, Neiman, Rashbaum & Pineiro, LLP)”.

This assortment of lawyers was characterized by the 2016 legal commentators as “some of the top legal talents in all of Florida, and the USA.”

Any speculation to the effect of “Daniel Rashbaum might have slapped Charles Adelson with some dose of guilt reality” is doubtful.

Most lawyers and other professionals (investigators, psychologists etc.) working in the area of criminal justice would share the opinion that “most criminal defense lawyers work for alleged criminals regardless of the criminals’ guilt potential.” In fact, criminal defense lawyers will always say to the effect of “my client is innocent” and/or “my client maintains his innocence.”

In August 2016, John Lauro, Michael D. Weinstein, David Oscar Markus, Daniel Rashbaum, and Jeff Neiman wrote a lengthy collective letter preaching the saintly innocence of the Four Adelsons thus:
“[…] There has been a lot of unsupported speculation that the Adelsons had something to do with the murder. That speculation is categorically false. To be clear, none of the Adelsons – Wendi, her brother Charlie, or their parents Donna and Harvey – had anything to do with Dan’s murder.
We respect the process and the enormous amount of work that the Tallahassee police department has done in this case. They have spent the past two years reviewing every shred of evidence out there — every phone record, financial record, text message, email, internet search, everything. We understand why the government has put the Adelson family through this type of severe scrutiny. But nothing has turned up that supports this fanciful fiction that the Adelsons were involved. The investigation has gone so deep that it employed FBI agents, undercover agents, and a tip line. There is a reason that the police have not arrested any of the Adelsons – they weren’t involved in Dan’s death. […].”
(Example of URL sources of this collective letter: The Dan Markel Murder Case: The Adelson Family Speaks - Above the Law)

Please note that it is rather a rarity for this type of “super lawyers” with big egos as large as a USA zip code to write a collective letter of this type, or of any type of collective letter!

All criminal defense lawyers work for fame and fortune, one takes it. The speculation that full time criminal defense lawyers could work for fame only in the USA is … misguided.

Most criminal defense lawyers start out “slaving” for pro bono or as public defenders to learn the rope and make a name for themselves. However, established criminal defense lawyers never work for fame only. There are a plethora of YT videos about the topic

I was in error saying Rashabaum was their attorney prior to 2016. It was his law firm, wasn’t it?

 

[jumpinjack]

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.

Who needs YouTube when Charile spills it all in his jail calls?

Charlie knew Rashbaum long before he was arrested, in 2016 Donna & Harvey hired him as their lawyer. Rashbaum had plenty of time to advise Charlie, especially after the 2019 trial when Charlie was panicked that he'd be arrested next.

Does Rashbaum think Charlie got a fair trial? On jail calls Donna said Dan told her that he's never, ever seen a bigger bunch of liars than when he was trying to seat the jury.

 

[Going Rogue]

Who needs YouTube when Charile spills it all in his jail calls?

Charlie knew Rashbaum long before he was arrested, in 2016 Donna & Harvey hired him as their lawyer. Rashbaum had plenty of time to advise Charlie, especially after the 2019 trial when Charlie was panicked that he'd be arrested next.

Does Rashbaum think Charlie got a fair trial? On jail calls Donna said Dan told her that he's never, ever seen a bigger bunch of liars than when he was trying to seat the jury.

Yes, I believe Rashbaum thinks Charlie got a fair trial. I doubt Rashbaum was giving Charlie any in-depth legal guidance prior to Charlie officially retaining him. Yes it’s possible they knew each other through his representation of his parents, but I’m sure it stops there.

In 2016 after Charlie’s initial arrest affidavit was drafted, Charlie didn’t need an attorney to tell him he was screwed. Even though Charlie carried out this unspeakable act, and takes a lot of very justifiable criticism for his actions and poor decisions, he is of more than of average intelligence. Anyone with half a brain would have realized they were in deep ‘stuff’ after reading the 2016 arrest affidavit

Rashbaum or any attorney did not have to tell Charlie his prospects didn’t look good at any point after the initial arrest affidavit went public - Charlie knew. Anyone that thinks Charlie didn’t understand how screwed he was is very naive. IMO, Charlie assessed his situation and realized the only way out was to flee or roll the dice at trial. It seems obvious he regrets not fleeing if you listen to what he said in the jailhouse calls.

I completely disagree with the perspective and all the speculation that Rashbaum was giving Charlie false hope for his own financial gain and is doing the same for Donna. There is no basis to believe that narrative that is based on speculation and (IMO) a very rudimentary or poor understanding of the structure of our legal system and more specifically the attorney/ client relationship.

 

[amicuscurie]

A hypothetical: It is my understanding that Donna and Harvey have been represented by Rash since 2016. Charlie, in my understanding, was represented by Markus, et al. from the beginning until just subsequent to his arrest. Then, it is my understanding that after Charlie’s arrest and before his trial, Markus withdrew and Rashbaum, until only recently his mother’s counsel, became Charlie’s new counsel and represented Charlie through trial.

What if, hypothetically , Markus was not comfortable with the double extortion story or possibly did not see it as a winner and hypothetically proposed something different? Hypothetically, is it possible that this could explain Markus withdrawing and Rashbaum, Donna’s attorney from the beginning, representing Charlie for his trial?

If Rashbaum had been representing Donna up until that point, is it possible that he hypothetically may have been familiar with and comfortable with the double extortion theory (and is it hypothetically possible that this is what his former client, Donna, told him she was told happened)?

In my opinion the substitution of someone who had only recently been his mother’s counsel for his own creates an enormous conflict for Charlie and possibly calls into question who decided on his “double extortion” defense and whose interests are best served by it. I understand from what I have read that Charlie waived that conflict.

In my opinion, and despite the stern lecture from Everett on the conflict Rashbaum’s prior representation of Charlie may present in Donna’s trial, I believe there is little to no conflict for Donna presented by Rashbaum representing her after representing Charlie, because hypothetically it is possible that her own defense will rely on her having been told Charlie’s double extortion story.

 

[amicuscurie]

Agreeing to take on high-profile case for a discount for the exposure is not something I hold against either attorney – it’s basically a marketing strategy and how things work in a free enterprise. If they didn’t act in their client’s best interest, that’s a completely different story. I never read any of her social media posts, but the type of statements you are outlining are consistent with what you’d expect from an attorney representing a client on trial for murder – its par for the course.

I’ve seen correspondence from Sig’s attorney which in my opinion reads as practically begging him to cooperate in order to save himself and Katie, and some correspondence which indicates that the state told Sig’s attorney that they were willing to entertain a deal for BOTH of them. Sig appears to me not to have taken this advice.

My question is, was this not conveyed to Katie, because now she seems to be saying she did not cooperate earlier because it would have required her to give up Sig. Again, I have seen correspondence in this case in which Sig’s attorney says the state is willing to cooperate with BOTH of them, so in my opinion Katie’s concern about turning on Sig are unfounded. It seems to me that they both could have cooperated and gotten a much better deal than they got. Did Katie not understand that cooperating could have resulted in her being able to HELP Sig?

 

[Going Rogue]

I’ve seen correspondence from Sig’s attorney which in my opinion reads as practically begging him to cooperate in order to save himself and Katie, and some correspondence which indicates that the state told Sig’s attorney that they were willing to entertain a deal for BOTH of them. Sig appears to me not to have taken this advice.

My question is, was this not conveyed to Katie, because now she seems to be saying she did not cooperate earlier because it would have required her to give up Sig. Again, I have seen correspondence in this case in which Sig’s attorney says the state is willing to cooperate with BOTH of them, so in my opinion Katie’s concern about turning on Sig are unfounded. It seems to me that they both could have cooperated and gotten a much better deal than they got. Did Katie not understand that cooperating could have resulted in her being able to HELP Sig?

Sigfredo was the triggerman he wasn’t going to get a ‘good’ deal. Taking a deal would have meant he would need to tell all – including Katie’s role. I’m sure he weighted his options and realized taking a deal wasn’t necessarily worth the return for multiple reasons. Obviously not taking the deal didn’t work out, but hindsight is 20/20. I’m not sure how the state would have handled ‘both’ Katie & Sigfredo agreeing to take a deal ‘IF’ one was offered to Sigfredo. Katie was offered full immunity to come clean, but that would surely have meant a sure conviction for Sigfredo – no way Sigfredo as the triggerman would get anything remotely close to the deal offered to Katie. It is a complex predicament, but I guess they both thought the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze.

 

[Going Rogue]

A hypothetical: It is my understanding that Donna and Harvey have been represented by Rash since 2016. Charlie, in my understanding, was represented by Markus, et al. from the beginning until just subsequent to his arrest. Then, it is my understanding that after Charlie’s arrest and before his trial, Markus withdrew and Rashbaum, until only recently his mother’s counsel, became Charlie’s new counsel and represented Charlie through trial.

What if, hypothetically , Markus was not comfortable with the double extortion story or possibly did not see it as a winner and hypothetically proposed something different? Hypothetically, is it possible that this could explain Markus withdrawing and Rashbaum, Donna’s attorney from the beginning, representing Charlie for his trial?

If Rashbaum had been representing Donna up until that point, is it possible that he hypothetically may have been familiar with and comfortable with the double extortion theory (and is it hypothetically possible that this is what his former client, Donna, told him she was told happened)?

In my opinion the substitution of someone who had only recently been his mother’s counsel for his own creates an enormous conflict for Charlie and possibly calls into question who decided on his “double extortion” defense and whose interests are best served by it. I understand from what I have read that Charlie waived that conflict.

In my opinion, and despite the stern lecture from Everett on the conflict Rashbaum’s prior representation of Charlie may present in Donna’s trial, I believe there is little to no conflict for Donna presented by Rashbaum representing her after representing Charlie, because hypothetically it is possible that her own defense will rely on her having been told Charlie’s double extortion story.

David Markus specializes in federal white-collar crimes. I think it’s a simple case of a capital murder case not being in their wheelhouse. I know many criticize Rashbaum for his inexperience in this arena as well and it’s a valid critique. I wouldn’t read too much into David Markus withdrawing after Charlie’s arrest. I think is a simple matter of a capital murder case not being an area of focus for his law firm.

100% agree with your last paragraph. Judge Everett can’t assume he knows what the defense strategy will be – and as as long as Rashbaum doesn’t pull a180 there is nothing to be concerned about as far as a conflict. Regardless Judge Everett needs to cover the bases and make sure his disclosure and concerns are on the record. The reality is certain defenses would pose a major conflict of interest – in my opinion, there will be no conflict of interest with the defense's strategy.

 

[amicuscurie]

It’s tru

Sigfredo was the triggerman he wasn’t going to get a ‘good’ deal. Taking a deal would have meant he would need to tell all – including Katie’s role. I’m sure he weighted his options and realized taking a deal wasn’t necessarily worth the return for multiple reasons. Obviously not taking the deal didn’t work out, but hindsight is 20/20. I’m not sure how the state would have handled ‘both’ Katie & Sigfredo agreeing to take a deal ‘IF’ one was offered to Sigfredo. Katie was offered full immunity to come clean, but that would surely have meant a sure conviction for Sigfredo – no way Sigfredo as the triggerman would get anything remotely close to the deal offered to Katie. It is a complex predicament, but I guess they both thought the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze.

True, but in hindsight I think Sig is worse off than if he had listened to his attorney. And theoretically he could have saved Katie, in my opinion, and perhaps he could have made Katie understand that he was ok with her taking a deal. But perhaps he wanted to take his chances.

 

[amicuscurie]

David Markus specializes in federal white-collar crimes. I think it’s a simple case of a capital murder case not being in their wheelhouse. I know many criticize Rashbaum for his inexperience in this arena as well and it’s a valid critique. I wouldn’t read too much into David Markus withdrawing after Charlie’s arrest. I think is a simple matter of a capital murder case not being an area of focus for his law firm.

100% agree with your last paragraph. Judge Everett can’t assume he knows what the defense strategy will be – and as as long as Rashbaum doesn’t pull a180 there is nothing to be concerned about as far as a conflict. Regardless Judge Everett needs to cover the bases and make sure his disclosure and concerns are on the record. The reality is certain defenses would pose a major conflict of interest – in my opinion, there will be no conflict of interest with the defense's strategy.

Rashbaum is also a white collar criminal lawyer, I believe. And in my opinion it is not in a party’s interest to have a lawyer who is also representing another party to the conspiracy, or has ever done so and may do so again. No lawyer would advise that, I don’t think.

 

[Knitpicker]

It’s tru

True, but in hindsight I think Sig is worse off than if he had listened to his attorney. And theoretically he could have saved Katie, in my opinion, and perhaps he could have made Katie understand that he was ok with her taking a deal. But perhaps he wanted to take his chances.

Didn’t she say that she would have to give up Charlie to give up Sigfredo?

 

[amicuscurie]

Didn’t she say that she would have to give up Charlie to give up Sigfredo?

No, she said the reverse, as I recall. As I recall, she said that in order to give up Charlie, she’d have to give up Sigfredo, and she didn’t want to do that. And yet, it seems like his lawyer was trying to get him to help her AND himself, and he refused.

 

[Knitpicker]

No, she said the reverse, as I recall. As I recall, she said that in order to give up Charlie, she’d have to give up Sigfredo, and she didn’t want to do that. And yet, it seems like his lawyer was trying to get him to help her AND himself, and he refused.

Right-I just figured it was a packaged deal. Not one without the other. Charlie would have to be included.