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

[cottonweaver]

Having now listened to that Alex Morris interview, I don't know what to think. The final comment about a plea - Is it simply a case of Morris being a better lawyer so he never wants to rule out pleas even when he knows that's highly unlikely? As @Missyrocks5 posted, Donna is almost 80yo and the charges are grave. Strange ( Unless this is more about Charlie?)

On top of that I watched MentourLawyer's latest and there's certain questions which leave him baffled. ( Has to be said that ML didn't call the risk right after the weekend motions but that doesn't make me discount the questions he's asking now)

While every lawyer following this case warned of conflict issues from the outset nobody predicted that this would occur on the eve of trial, hence the ' bombshell' and ' grenade' phrases bandied around

Charlie's appeal extension expires today. Maybe as his appeal progresses we'll get a better sense of what's happening behind the scenes?

 

[cottonweaver]

I believe Tim said that the “independent counsel” who appeared yesterday used to work for him. It will be interesting to me if he stays on the case with Morris. I don’t think the judge made it clear whether he would be allowed to do that, although I believe that was discussed in the meeting in-camera that we didn’t see.

and Komisar has also worked with Morris in the past. Komisar is a former prosecutor too. Small world?

I also agree on the Donna reactions. For me, that was genuine anguish from Donna. Anguish for herself sure & I have no sympathy for her predicament. I don't think she anticipated losing Dan when she got up in the morning whereas it was clear to Rashbaum ( As proven by the hotmic at 8.30am when he's caught mentioning to Georgia that he's concerned about a Bar sanction. Neiman /his other partner surely would have expressed their concern too. Reputational damage. With respect to @minusfour 's post I also can't imagine that the Defense wanted this debacle. )

and @IQuestion re your post 831 on this page. DR going to end up as witness re the hot mic but also in more trouble re riding the two horses? If that happened would Donna try to explain it away because she still has this strange loyalty to Dan?

 

[Missyrocks5]

I believe Tim said that the “independent counsel” who appeared yesterday used to work for him. It will be interesting to me if he stays on the case with Morris. I don’t think the judge made it clear whether he would be allowed to do that, although I believe that was discussed in the meeting in-camera that we didn’t see.

That Attorney, with all due respect, looks like he graduated law school yesterday. How was that dude going to do a first-degree murder case? I mean, maybe he is a Doogie Howser of lawyers but...

 

[Sustained]

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.

Actually he does have something to lose - there is nothing preventing the FDC requesting Charlie to be moved permanently back from South Dakota to a Florida prison.

 

[Knitpicker]

Maybe not. He might have not told his mother things he told Dan.

i believe she was really upset, because this was something which she did not want, and which directly affected HER.

Why wasn’t Harvey there? I think they knew what was going to happen. Imo.

 

[Knitpicker]

Having now listened to that Alex Morris interview, I don't know what to think. The final comment about a plea - Is it simply a case of Morris being a better lawyer so he never wants to rule out pleas even when he knows that's highly unlikely? As @Missyrocks5 posted, Donna is almost 80yo and the charges are grave. Strange ( Unless this is more about Charlie?)

On top of that I watched MentourLawyer's latest and there's certain questions which leave him baffled. ( Has to be said that ML didn't call the risk right after the weekend motions but that doesn't make me discount the questions he's asking now)

While every lawyer following this case warned of conflict issues from the outset nobody predicted that this would occur on the eve of trial, hence the ' bombshell' and ' grenade' phrases bandied around

Charlie's appeal extension expires today. Maybe as his appeal progresses we'll get a better sense of what's happening behind the scenes?

“Stay tuned” by GC was never about pleas. Where did he get that from? Totally misrepresented her comment. Glad they called him on it.

 

[cottonweaver]

Tragos' mind is boggled, he says
and that the responsibility for this IHO is 99% on the Defense

 

[Wishbone]

Disappointed in the delay but glad to try to eliminate possible real appeal issues for DA and CA (I know he is appealing his conviction but most every guilty party does that and few are successful). This has dragged on long enough already, a few more months won't matter much.

Not to be a naysayer since the delay could possibly be only a few months as you say, BUT what if DA ends up with an entire new crew to represent her? That could easily make it a year or more before a trial starts. This thing has dragged on too long. Way past time for the state to put things in motion for WA and HA and give the Markels some belated justice. They have waited long enough. The state needs to finish this thing or get someone in charge that will. JMO

 

[amicuscurie]

As long as Everett was satisfied an ethical wall exists between Morris & Charlie he can stay on - I believe that was squared away today. Whether Donna wants him as lead counsel is another story.

I think it’s entirely possible that Rash may have told Morris something that Charlie had told him, or let it slip. I believe the whole thing is tainted and Morris should withdraw.

 

[amicuscurie]

Yes! Hearing that today ( did he was able to rescind the waiver at any time) made it all the more apparent how insane the whole plan was. I don't understand how the judge allowed it, I don't know why the state went with it, none of it makes any sense to me. I understand from the state's perspective that all of this was still fresh in their mind, and it was easier to try the case only 10 months later; however, given all the inherent appealable issues due to the conflict, I just don't understand how they proceeded with any of this.

I don’t understand why the state didn’t make a motion as soon as Donna retained Rashbaum to get him off the case, for the reasons you cite. If, as is my understanding, Charlie could withdraw the waiver at any time, then in my opinion there would always be a serious risk of mistrial.

 

[amicuscurie]

Yes! Hearing that today ( did he was able to rescind the waiver at any time) made it all the more apparent how insane the whole plan was. I don't understand how the judge allowed it, I don't know why the state went with it, none of it makes any sense to me. I understand from the state's perspective that all of this was still fresh in their mind, and it was easier to try the case only 10 months later; however, given all the inherent appealable issues due to the conflict, I just don't understand how they proceeded with any of this.

Dbm

 

[amicuscurie]

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.

Did the judge actually SAY he was satisfied that Rash had not passed privileged info to Morris, or did he just say Morris would continue as the attorney? I’m not clear on that.

 

[BearWatcher]

I think the judge was satisfied with Morris Chinese wall that he took the initiative to set up. Certainly he likely has trust built up as a local lawyer with this judge that it is imperative to maintain. I do think Going Rogue is correct to think it is Donna’s call as to whether she will want Morris as a lead lawyer. If Donna is a narcissist, then her interactions with her lead lawyer is critical. Will he allow her to be in control or appear to be in control. Or will Donna have a ‘come to Jesus’ moment ( I am sure there is an alternative way to say this for someone of the Jewish faith) where she sheds that persona and is willing to rely on advice of counsel. Just my thoughts.

 

[Missyrocks5]

I don’t understand why the state didn’t make a motion as soon as Donna retained Rashbaum to get him off the case, for the reasons you cite. If, as is my understanding, Charlie could withdraw the waiver at any time, then in my opinion there would always be a seris

Totally agree. I did watch, because Cottonweaver mentioned it, a video from the lawyer you know because he is based in FL. He made it sound as though these conflicts happen frequently and that you need a written waiver with the caveat to the client that at some point, you may not be able to continue representation. I just cannot understand that at all.

I don't understand how at any point a defendant can rescind their waiver in writing and blow up the whole case. Everything that has been done to date goes out the window because then they have to retain new counsel. I just don't even understand how that can possibly be allowed. The State here could've been halfway through the trial and Charlie, let's assume he signed the waiver, then could put in writing that he's rescinding the waiver and so everyone would have to go home after a mistrial was declared. I just don't understand how that is even allowed.

As much as I am anxious to see Donna's trial fairly soon with Morris, I don't understand how he continues on without the tape. They have to do this all over again by bringing in another attorney, establishing the wall, and allowing that attorney to cross examine Charlie on the stand. I still think that is grounds for an appeal for Donna. If I am misunderstanding, something, I hope a FL criminal law attorney can correct me.

 

[Sustained]

Disappointed in the delay but glad to try to eliminate possible real appeal issues for DA and CA (I know he is appealing his conviction but most every guilty party does that and few are successful). This has dragged on long enough already, a few more months won't matter much.

Or a few years - DA must know the odds of an acquittal are slim to none. Why not just delay the trial as long as possible and stay in the Leon County Jail instead of being moved to Lowell Correctional ?

 

[clearskies1]

Wondering if Morris is going to seek a waiver from Charlie (why? because he was part of a defense team that had a seemingly conflicted lawyer -- Rashbaum) and if he doesn't get it, maybe he will withdraw? Just wondering. Maybe this was discussed at the in camera hearing. This is all I heard the judge say about the in camera hearing: "The court has concluded its in camera hearing with former counsel and remaining counsel, Mr Morris. Mrs. Adelson, depending if you choose to hire additional counsel or just re-set the trial date you'll certainly be able to work with Mr. Morris, your attorney, in making that decision, but the trial is certainly going to be continued from today, the jurors will be released this afternoon..." That's not an exact quote. JMO.

 

[Knitpicker]

I don’t understand why the state didn’t make a motion as soon as Donna retained Rashbaum to get him off the case, for the reasons you cite. If, as is my understanding, Charlie could withdraw the waiver at any time, then in my opinion there would always be a serious risk of mistrial.

Why did the state /Judge not know this? This makes no sense. Its as if Rashbaum was given a free pass to do whatever..

 

[Knitpicker]

Wondering if Morris is going to seek a waiver from Charlie (why? because he was part of a defense team that had a seemingly conflicted lawyer -- Rashbaum) and if he doesn't get it, maybe he will withdraw? Just wondering. Maybe this was discussed at the in camera hearing. This is all I heard the judge say about the in camera hearing: "The court has concluded its in camera hearing with former counsel and remaining counsel, Mr Morris. Mrs. Adelson, depending if you choose to hire additional counsel or just re-set the trial date you'll certainly be able to work with Mr. Morris, your attorney, in making that decision, but the trial is certainly going to be continued from today, the jurors will be released this afternoon..." That's not an exact quote. JMO.

Maybe it would have made him look bad to also drop Donna yesterday. After all, he does need to appoint new attorneys. Can all of a defendants attorneys just leave the defendant without counsel? That’s a question for an attorney. What are the responsibilities?

 

[Going Rogue]

I think it’s entirely possible that Rash may have told Morris something that Charlie had told him, or let it slip. I believe the whole thing is tainted and Morris should withdraw.

We will probably never know if anything was discussed. They are both on record saying the ethical wall between Morris & Charlie existed SO if Rashbaum shared anything with Morris, neither of them will admit it at this stage. The issue here is not whether anything was discussed, the issue is if Morris remains on the defense team, will that raise an appellate issue down the road? According to Carl Steinbeck that is a concern and Morris should be removed – why take this risk if you are the prosecution? The right to counsel of your choice is not absolute. Per Carl, the judge had the authority to remove Rashbaum, and in hindsight its a move he should have made based on the clear conflict of interest. Hindsight is 20/20, but just look where we stand now and what just unfolded and that’s all the justification you need to make the argument that Rashbaum should have been removed.

I need to praise Carl Steinbeck again for raising this concern MANY times in the past and now is seems so obvious why Rashbaum should have been removed. How did the prosecution and the judge allow this to happen? I’m not defending Rashbaum because the simple fact that he never got a signed waiver is shocking BUT when you peel back the layers, had Charlie even signed a waiver, he could have changed his mind at any point so a signed waiver didn’t removed any of the risk. It just shows some incompetence on Rashbaum’s part – that is clear to me he missed a 101 step. Carl phrased it best - the conflict of interest was a ticking time bomb that could have gone off at anytime. It’s easy to take shots at Rashbaum, but honestly, I’m more disappointed in the Leon County District Attorneys Office and the Leon County Judicial Circuit. They should have never let it get to this point and they failed us in my opinion. I know that sounds harsh, but unless I’m missing something they are more responsible for this mess than Rashbaum. I would love to hear someone tell me why I’m wrong.

 

[clearskies1]

I'm not sure what the case law is on getting a person like Rashbaum kicked off in a motion by the state. Maybe the case law isn't in their favor? I don't know. I think the judge said he questioned Donna twice before about the potential conflict. But the judge has no ability to question Charlie. JMO.