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

[amicuscurie]

30 minutes he said!
It is ridiculous. Especially because Komissar said he is going to be crossing Charlie but Donna is paying Komissar's fees


Agree. The defense team need to be booted, continue the trial and let Donna and Charlie stew in their own juices for another year ( or however long it takes )

This new layer, as I understand it, says he was brought in YESTERDAY. How could he have been brought in YESTERDAY when the judge only ordered that Donna be allowed to speak to independent counsel TODAY? Obviously, it appears that this is the lawyer the defense was speaking about when they said they were bringing someone in for the cross examination.

I do not believe he can truly be “independent” when advising Donna as to whether she should waive her privilege. As I understand it, one of the conflicts she’s waiving has to do with the defense bringing in a brand new counsel to cross -examine Charlie at this late date (because Charlie has a conflict), and whether that might hurt her.

 

[opt]

Charlie has already changed his mind once about waiving conflict. The court would be foolish to put any weight on any waiver from him. As others have said, he could renounce it at any future time to create an appeal issue or mistrial.

 

[cottonweaver]

A new twist!

New theory on the background for this ClusterF - rumour only ( Tim J said the source tends to be ' fairly accurate')

In that last link I posted, Tim Jansen was getting texts and calls. Tim said he was told the following but stressed that he can't corroborate it:

' allegedly, Dan signed his own waiver for Charlie' and the source ' believes that Dan is getting removed'

Tim J gave an example of what this might have looked like
eg Dan called Charlie. Dan explained the conflict issues and Charlie agreed to waive. Next, Dan then memorialised that conversation in notes and signed and dated it himself'
So Charlie hadn't countersigned that

( If you go back to the first links to the hearing livestream, Morris was asked about it and imo sounded embarrassed when questioned about this by Everett and Morris answered ' No , it was verbal' )

 

[opt]

On the bright side, it's good that this issue came out now rather than during the trial.

 

[Going Rogue]

Kudos to Carl Steinbeck. He has been raising the issue of the Rashbaum conflict for a LONG time. Watching his live and respect that fact he made it clear that he wont respond to comments that address Dan Rashbaum by anything other than his proper name. Always respected his integrity.

I know most want to blame Rashbaum and it looks like he used poor judgement talking Donna case without a signed waiver from Charlie BUT we also need to question why BOTH the prosecution AND the Judge let the ball get this far down the field without addressing this potential issue. Hindsight is 20 / 20, but all parties seem accountable for this cluster. IMO, this is not squarely on Rashbaum and Morris. The prosecution and judge are responsible too.

 

[opt]

Let me be the first to say that Donna's choice of counsel was rash.

Before I duck out of sight I will add that another silver lining is that the family will have to spend a lot more on legal fees after DR is shown the door.

 

[amicuscurie]

A new twist!

New theory on the background for this ClusterF - rumour only ( Tim J said the source tends to be ' fairly accurate')

In that last link I posted, Tim Jansen was getting texts and calls. Tim said he was told the following but stressed that he can't corroborate it:

' allegedly, Dan signed his own waiver for Charlie' and the source ' believes that Dan is getting removed'

Tim J gave an example of what this might have looked like
eg Dan called Charlie. Dan explained the conflict issues and Charlie agreed to waive. Next, Dan then memorialised that conversation in notes and signed and dated it himself'
So Charlie hadn't countersigned that

( If you go back to the first links to the hearing livestream, Morris was asked about it and imo sounded embarrassed when questioned about this by Everett and Morris answered ' No , it was verbal' )

Didn’t Morris try to argue that a verbal waiver is sufficient?

 

[cottonweaver]

Let me be the first to say that Donna's choice of counsel was rash.

Before I duck out of sight I will add that another silver lining is that the family will have to spend a lot more on legal fees after DR is shown the door.

Plus I wonder if the payment method arranged with Dan was the same as the one Charlie arranged with Dan for his trial?

During the discovery on the new evidence for Donna, Youtubers like Mentour & STS applied for sight of some of the new items, including Donna's 2023 diaries/planners & notes.

In those detailed calendars there were regular payments of $75K being paid to Dan prior to CA's trial began. ( I'd need to go back to see if those entries were monthly or less frequent. Other Tally attorneys have previously suggested Dan's overall payments - For CA's case - may have been in the hundreds of thousands. )

 

[cottonweaver]

Didn’t Morris try to argue that a verbal waiver is sufficient?

Tim's source alleges it was not later countersigned by CA.

(Hufferman is supposed to be a reputable, competent lawyer so I'm just guessing that he spotted a loophole there?)

 

[cottonweaver]

hot mic moment from the start of this morning's hearing

try using Closed captions

 

[vislaw]

Kudos to Carl Steinbeck. He has been raising the issue of the Rashbaum conflict for a LONG time. Watching his live and respect that fact he made it clear that he wont respond to comments that address Dan Rashbaum by anything other than his proper name. Always respected his integrity.

I know most want to blame Rashbaum and it looks like he used poor judgement talking Donna case without a signed waiver from Charlie BUT we also need to question why BOTH the prosecution AND the Judge let the ball get this far down the field without addressing this potential issue. Hindsight is 20 / 20, but all parties seem accountable for this cluster. IMO, this is not squarely on Rashbaum and Morris. The prosecution and judge are responsible too.

I agree this is a cluster-f and also that blame should be shared to some extent. I also believe a continuance would be the most proper outcome, but I also am very aware how much pressure there is to not lose a specially set trial date.

 

[amicuscurie]

hot mic moment from the start of this morning's hearing

try using Closed captions

Wow.

 

[Snacky]

If Judge E had not allowed Rashy to represent Donna due to the conflict of interest that we all clearly saw coming could that later have been used by Donna on appeal as she would have been forced to accept counsel she was not satisfied with? Trying to wrap my head around the Judge's permission here.

 

[IQuestion]

Why is anyone surprised? I want my spork, I want a more comfortable chair and I want Dan Rashbaum!!
Recurring theme, mischief-maker??

 

[Going Rogue]

I agree this is a cluster-f and also that blame should be shared to some extent. I also believe a continuance would be the most proper outcome, but I also am very aware how much pressure there is to not lose a specially set trial date.

Yes, a continuance looks very likely at this stage. You were correct yesterday raising caution and questioning my oversimplification of the circumstance – good call. What a shame we got to this point at this stage, moving forward with a waiver by either Donna or Charlie and keeping Rashabum & Morris on as Donna’s counsel would be too risky. I realize now how this creates an potential appellate issue and that can never be taken lightly. I still think the judge and prosecution should be equally accountable – this is not all on Rashbaum and Morris.

 

[MTW2011]

This will be an unpopular opinion considering the love for Cappleman in this case, but it really is baffling to me that the State didn’t do much of anything and I agree with Steinbeck that they seemed to have “done nothing” over this issue.

GC went so far as to say today on the record that she knew of appellate cases where the State was seeking defense counsel to be removed in conflicts like this and that they were NOT requesting that (if I understood what she said correctly). She wanted to proceed as is.

I’ve always liked GC but I am having difficulty assigning all this blame towards just DR - especially when it was Charles’ new attorneys who filed this first (despite it being so “last minute”).

Eagerly awaiting to see what will happen. JMOO.

 

[cottonweaver]

Rash is up, Court in session

DR has asked CA for another waiver via Hufermann. CA has refused

DR claims he had a waiver in the past, says it dates from Dec 12 and Dec 13 but had no signature
( So he's known that since December? Did he tell Donna or anybody else ?)

DR says he's withdrawing ( Basically he knew he was going to be booted?)
Morris wants to 'regroup '


Everett :
case continued
The costs to be charged to defendant
In camera meeting Everett & Morris is now going to happen - to see if Morris has been sufficiently walled off

Case management to be scheduled. Oct 15th
Jurors will be released

 

[MTW2011]

Rashbaum moves to withdraw from the case citing unable to obtain a new waiver from Charles’ appellate counsel.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

IANAL. Can the counsel now asking to withdraw from this case be cited for this conduct? And for the likely delay to result from it? How is this only a matter indicated at this point by this action in the court record today? Maybe it should be referred to FL Office of Disciplinary Council (or the FL state equivalent).

There seems to be some similar questionable conduct by another defendant Sarah Boone in a different Florida courtroom. Are there some judicial shortcomings there in Florida that need to be assessed? MOO

 

[vislaw]

Yes, a continuance looks very likely at this stage. You were correct yesterday raising caution and questioning my oversimplification of the circumstance – good call. What a shame we got to this point at this stage, moving forward with a waiver by either Donna or Charlie and keeping Rashabum & Morris on as Donna’s counsel would be too risky. I realize now how this creates an potential appellate issue and that can never be taken lightly. I still think the judge and prosecution should be equally accountable – this is not all on Rashbaum and Morris.

I've enjoyed your contributions to the discussion and will look forward to your posts during the trial. This is a great community, and I look forward to the trial whenever it occurs.