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

[Sustained]

We will have to see, but I don't see Donna giving up Wendi. I do think it was the strategy the whole time to make the prosecution do all the preparation, and wait until the day before trial to spring this so that they might be more willing to make a deal.

Maybe ... but unless I'm remembering incorrectly, Morris said they were looking at a November trial date. I'm not sure why the State would propose any kind of deal knowing they have DA dead to rights and could easily wait the two or so months.

 

[ch_13]

This is what I want to know as well. I don't understand how Morris is not tainted either. He said he's going to go on his lead counsel. He said it opens up different avenues for defenses for her. He also said that you never know that there may be some plea deal.

As was said in the other post relating to this clip, I did not hear that Charlie was objecting to DR continuing as Donna's attorney. I just heard that he wouldn't waive. That is huge. To me, that really ups the ante in terms of thinking, this was all premeditated IMO. I also think part of the endgame is to make the state so upset about how long this is taking and going to take to get to Wendy, etc., that they agreed to some sort of deal for Donna. The question is, what kind of deal can you make with someone who is 74 years old on 1sr degree murder?

Alex Morris was never Charlie's attorney. And there was a hearing in chambers this afternoon where the judge was satisfied that Morris wasn't passed any privileged information by Rashbaum. So Charlie doesn't really have any grounds to object, nor does Morris need a waiver from him.

I don't think this was some kind of grand scheme, but I do believe that Charlie is in his cell tonight, laughing his butt off because he threw a spanner into the works. The fact that he apparently verbally agreed to waive the conflict yet didn't sign the document does suggest some premeditation on his part. Was he was always planning to cause havoc? It completely fits in with his personality and he's got nothing to lose.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I think that not waiving a conflict of interest is tantamount to objecting to that lawyer representing another individual. Under Florida Bar Rule 4-1.9(a) (which was cited by CA's attorney today) an attorney must get informed consent (i.e., a waiver) to represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client. Rule 4-1.9 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST; FORMER CLIENT, R. Regul. Fl. Bar 4-1.9 | Casetext Search + Citator. So because CA would not tell DR that he was waiving a conflict of interest, DR said he need to withdraw. JMO.

Thanks @clearskies1 ….. for the citations and summary!

And what ‘smokes my grits’ on this IIUC is the representation made by DR in court this morning. From post # 759 by @arielilane in the thread above (see link below):

“Rashbaum, who also represented Donna's son and convicted murderer Charlie Adelson, said he initially had a conflict waiver from Charlie, but he was unable to get an updated signed waiver.

"I have asked for my prior client's waiver again, and with the change of circumstances he refused to give it." Rashbaum said before withdrawing. "So we had a waiver, we thought we had a waiver, we didn't think there was an issue, but I given the events of the last two days, I approached appellate counsel to get a new waiver ... and I'm not able to obtain that waiver at this point, so at this point. So as a result I need to withdraw from the case."

IMO it is not clear which statement above is correct or accurate? But IIUC it can be inferred or possibly understood IMO that there was no signed notarized or authorized waiver? If so….. does the FL courts and / state bar and / or FL Office of Disciplinary Council need to examine this? Wouldn’t it seem that a licensed attorney would have a copy in their records of the signed waiver? Was a possible misrepresentation made in the earlier statements? MOO

Post in thread 'FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #24'
FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #24

 

[Missyrocks5]

Maybe ... but unless I'm remembering incorrectly, Morris said they were looking at a November trial date. I'm not sure why the State would propose any kind of deal knowing they have DA dead to rights and could easily wait the two or so months.

I see your point. He did say Nov-Feb. I hope the Judge boots Morris off the case if he wants to stay. He will be a basis for an appeal, which I think was the goal all along. If not, then it will be like 2 years for a whole new team to be ready.

I just say, she's 74. How do you give less than like 20 years for a 1st degree murder she seems to have orchestrated. How do you even give her 10? Seems like she's taken good care of herself, she may well live to be 90 or older, but how likely is it. I just don't see any kind of a deal that they could make even if they wanted to. She's too old. Six years & she's 80. What can they offer. Nothing it seems even if they wanted to plead her out and then go for Wendi.

 

[Missyrocks5]

Alex Morris was never Charlie's attorney. And there was a hearing in chambers this afternoon where the judge was satisfied that Morris wasn't passed any privileged information by Rashbaum. So Charlie doesn't really have any grounds to object, nor does Morris need a waiver from him.

I don't think this was some kind of grand scheme, but I do believe that Charlie is in his cell tonight, laughing his butt off because he threw a spanner into the works. The fact that he apparently verbally agreed to waive the conflict yet didn't sign the document does suggest some premeditation on his part. Was he was always planning to cause havoc? It completely fits in with his personality and he's got nothing to lose.

Interesting. But I think that, given that it is a first-degree murder case, an appeal may well be successful. I just don't see how he could've been part of the team and not be tainted. I think the Judge would be wrong. I mean for Donna's appeal when I presume she will be convicted.

Totally agree that Charlie is in his cell laughing that he got a free trip out of prison for a while, maybe he got to see his mom, and I think it was part of the strategy all along. I may be giving them all too much credit, but the whole thing seemed sus from the start.

 

[clearskies1]

Today left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I think Donna has been pushing for a prompt trial. She seemed genuinely upset when Rashbaum withdrew. This whole thing should not have happened. JMO.

 

[minusfour]

I simply can't believe that the defence team would have been involved in planning this. It makes them look incompetent and stupid. Their reputations must matter to them. I know it's commonly seen as a benefit to a criminal defence to delay trial as long as possible,but the actual benefits of this delay seem slim.CA has nothing to lose. He has been stripped of personal power, and there are no signs of any remorse. I can believe he had been planning this, probably as much to amuse himself as anything else. The lawyers have much to lose

 

[minusfour]

If the judge or prosecution has objected early to DR staying on as lead defence, could they have forced his removal, even over DA's objections?

 

[clearskies1]

If the judge or prosecution has objected early to DR staying on as lead defence, could they have forced his removal, even over DA's objections?

I think this morning the defense team said that DA was entitled to an attorney of her own choosing and the judge replied something to the effect of "that is not without limits". (That's what I remember). I don't know how this was addressed earlier in DA's case. JMO.

 

[Wishbone]

How can he continue as her lead counsel?

Haha, beats me. Time will tell if he continues to represent DA aside from what he said today....JMO

 

[IQuestion]

Been thinking about this for last 7 hours and trying to figure this out. And I see huge C-O-N-F-L-I-C-T-S not yet addressed. DR was representing Charlie, right. He was Charlie's attorney all through his trial, the jury returning the verdict(Nov. 6, 2023) including the time up to his sentencing (Dec. 12. 2023). On Nov. 13, 2024 Donna A
was arrested attempting to board a plane to Viet Nam via Dubai (both non extradition countries.****) DA's hot mic wtte, "So after speaking to Dan this morning and knowing what they are thinking up there. I don't know if we will make it out in time, I really don't. But Dan said, "You might or you might get stopped at the airport. That could happen, but I don't know. It's worth a try."" B-O-M-B-S-H-E-L-L!!!
One of the major issues in DA's arrest/case was “consciousness of guilt.” DR was Charlie's attorney at this time, not DA's! And if he is claiming he was representing both, he knew a conflict existed then, too. (Remem: NO signatures, NO waivers. huh?) Now that Atty Rashbaum has left town (skid marks 15 feet long headed south) and no longer a part of the case. Why can't he be subpeonaed as a witness by the defense in an effort to disprove the consciousness of guilt? She was an "old frightened lady" who just did what her son's attorney told her she should/could do after he scared her to death with the threat of imminent arrest? Theoretically, because he was son's attorney, not hers, DR can not claim attorney client priviledge. Man-o-man...talk about painting yourself into a corner.
You can hear it here: starts at 22 seconds of video...just click on link, it will work.

 

[IQuestion]

Breaking up long post. Above I inserted via Dubai**** for an interesting reason and might suggest she had the advice of a pro before booking her flight. Dubai is in the United Arab Emerites and does not have extradition. (Please see link of map to world of non-extradition countries.)
Countries without Extradition 2024
So, if HA&DA made it out of Florida, they would still have a lay-over/stop-over in a foreign country. US citizens can be arrested at/in international airports that have extradition.
Were HA & DA cautioned (by whom?) by someone familiar with international airport arrest laws? I remembered this from reading about · Aurea Vazquez Rijos and how she was able to avoid being arrested for years...until she made the mistake of a "short landing/stop-over" in a country that honored her arrest warrant.
I know, I know...I read too many crime stories and always questioning actions. I'll just add it to my list of amazing coincidences on this case.

 

[apeXperience]

Per Alex Morris, Charlie’s objection ‘expanded’ from an objection of Rashbaum conducting the cross examination of Charlie to Rashbaum’s continued representation of his mother. Not sure where the second part came in? I didn’t hear anything today re Charlie reversing his decision on Rashbaum representing Donna. I never heard that brought up at any point today - did anyone else hear this being brought up?

Now, Charles Adelson could have a ready made basis for appeal: incompetent / inadequate counsel.

The obvious conflict of interests potentially detrimental to him could justify Charles Adelson’s objection against Rashbaum conducting his cross examination in Donna Adelson’s trial for the same murder crime. What justify Charles Adelson’s objection against Rashbaum continuing representation of his mother? Under what circumstance does one defendant have the “rights” to object for another defendant’s representation?

One justifying circumstance for objecting against Rashbaum's continuing representation of his mother Donna Adelson would be the potential argument by Charles Adelson that the representation of Rashbaum in his case was incompetent.

Proof? Charles Adelson could make the argument as his lawyer Ms. Laurel Cornell Niles has made a representation in court on 9/17/2024 to the effect that there is not a written waiver of Charles Adelson’s 6th Amendment Rights because such waiver has not crossed his mind. And yet, Rashbaum evoked a verbal agreement that is not adequate to fulfill the need for proving 6th Amendment Rights waiver. Thereby, that is an example of Rashbaum not meeting the requirement of competent counsel.

Charles Adelson’s time for serving the Initial Brief of Appellant is due today 9/18/2024 at the District Court Of Appeal First Appellate District Of Florida.

Soon enough, we will see if poker player, expensive watch lover, money maker Daniel Rashbaum will be cited in Charles Adelson’s Initial Brief of Appellant!
Ps: Rashbaum does not wear the pictured Patek Phillippe but there is another picture of him wearing an expensive watch.

 

[Tortoise]

Now, Charles Adelson could have a ready made basis for appeal: incompetent / inadequate counsel.

The obvious conflict of interests potentially detrimental to him could justify Charles Adelson’s objection against Rashbaum conducting his cross examination in Donna Adelson’s trial for the same murder crime. What justify Charles Adelson’s objection against Rashbaum continuing representation of his mother? Under what circumstance does one defendant have the “rights” to object for another defendant’s representation?

One justifying circumstance for objecting against Rashbaum's continuing representation of his mother Donna Adelson would be the potential argument by Charles Adelson that the representation of Rashbaum in his case was incompetent.

Proof? Charles Adelson could make the argument as his lawyer Ms. Laurel Cornell Niles has made a representation in court on 9/17/2024 to the effect that there is not a written waiver of Charles Adelson’s 6th Amendment Rights because such waiver has not crossed his mind. And yet, Rashbaum evoked a verbal agreement that is not adequate to fulfill the need for proving 6th Amendment Rights waiver. Thereby, that is an example of Rashbaum not meeting the requirement of competent counsel.

Charles Adelson’s time for serving the Initial Brief of Appellant is due today 9/18/2024 at the District Court Of Appeal First Appellate District Of Florida.

Soon enough, we will see if poker player, expensive watch lover, money maker Daniel Rashbaum will be cited in Charles Adelson’s Initial Brief of Appellant!
Ps: Rashbaum does not wear the pictured Patek Phillippe but there is another picture of him wearing an expensive watch.

View attachment 532027

Wouldn't the claim of incompetence have had to exist during his representation of CA during his trial?