GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 *arrests* #11

[DeDee]

Although it has been years since KM's testimony, I always felt she may have a personality disorder that allowed her to be capable of testifying. She never lost her cool, even though she didn't give the responses prosecuting attorneys were seeking. That to me, means she's good at being sneaky. Sneaky like a snake.

I seem to recall KM told the jury that she did "odd jobs" for CA in return for income. Hogwash! Didn't she ask CA for an Escalade?

The past 7 or 8 years have not been good to CA when considering his mugshot. He's lost that cute boy face. Such a long fall from grace after being on the Dean's List and President's Honor Roll while in college.

I hope the prosecutors have zeroed in on KM's financials, as Vislaw wrote above, because it seems plausible that her SIL may have financed at least some of KM's legal fees with the funds she embezzled.

KM's has been denied a bond for all of these years, failing on three separate requests. Who could have predicted that C19 would have prolonged her stay in prison for an extra two years or so?

Editd to add: I've tried listening to the enhanced version of the Dolce meeting to no avail. It would not impress the jurors to be put through the entirety of that as applicable evidence.

 

[jbc]

I thought that Katy had a medical problem with her fake breasts, and possibly had them removed. Doesn't seem so.
Also, what a physical transformation that woman has made in prison. Is that the same person documented in the initial mugshots? Jeeze.

 

[Niner]

Does anyone know if there will be someone tweeting for this trial? I can't seem to find anything.

TIA if you find someone!

 

[vislaw]

P- x

Does anyone know if there will be someone tweeting for this trial? I can't seem to find anything.

TIA if you find someone!

I'm not sure if there will be a tweet stream during the trial, but Karl Etters, the reporter for the Tallahassee Democrat who has been covering the case closely will be periodically tweeting significant developments.

 

[Niner]

P- x

I'm not sure if there will be a tweet stream during the trial, but Karl Etters, the reporter for the Tallahassee Democrat who has been covering the case closely will be periodically tweeting significant developments.

Okay - thanks! I thought I'd post some tweets while the trial was going on. My speakers have been "off & on" - and wanted to know what was going on & for other people that can't watch live.

 

[vislaw]

... I've tried listening to the enhanced version of the Dolce meeting to no avail. It would not impress the jurors to be put through the entirety of that as applicable evidence.

I agree. If I were prosecuting the case I wouldn't attempt to play the full recording and, instead, I would select excerpts and play those for the FBI agent and ask him about those excerpts:

Q: (after playing first excerpt) Sir, could you hear that clearly?
A: Yes.
Q: Who is that speaking?
A: That was Charles Adelson.
Q: What did you hear him say?
A: I heard him say, "If they had any evidence, we would have already gone to the airport."

The prosecution is not permitted to use their transcript, but they can ask the witness about what he hears. Then, on closing argument it is completely permissible for Ms. Cappleman to play those excerpts with the captions based on what the witness said from the stand. The jury cannot take those captions back with them for deliberation, but the point will be made clearly if handled properly during closing argument.

 

[GordonX]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[clearskies1]

I agree. If I were prosecuting the case I wouldn't attempt to play the full recording and, instead, I would select excerpts and play those for the FBI agent and ask him about those excerpts:

Q: (after playing first excerpt) Sir, could you hear that clearly?
A: Yes.
Q: Who is that speaking?
A: That was Charles Adelson.
Q: What did you hear him say?
A: I heard him say, "If they had any evidence, we would have already gone to the airport."

The prosecution is not permitted to use their transcript, but they can ask the witness about what he hears. Then, on closing argument it is completely permissible for Ms. Cappleman to play those excerpts with the captions based on what the witness said from the stand. The jury cannot take those captions back with them for deliberation, but the point will be made clearly if handled properly during closing argument.

KM’s attorney will almost certainly object to that and I think the judge would sustain that objection. I think it’s for the jury to decide what they hear and what the agent or any other witness thinks they hear doesn’t seem relevant. Whatever relevancy there is in that is outweighed by the prejudice. Just seems like it’s no different than the demonstrative aid that wasn’t allowed. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s what I think. JMO.

 

[Marysmith]

Okay - thanks! I thought I'd post some tweets while the trial was going on. My speakers have been "off & on" - and wanted to know what was going on & for other people that can't watch live.

That would be great Niner!

 

[Niner]

That would be great Niner!

I sent this guy a message to see if he will be tweeting during the trial - have not heard back yet. I'll let you all know if he is.

 

[Marysmith]

Niner, I’m sure there will be local reporters covering this trial. It’s big news in Tally.

 

[Niner]

Niner, I’m sure there will be local reporters covering this trial. It’s big news in Tally.

Do you mean Tallahassee? Hopefully it will be tweeted - I don't mind copy/pasting them. Guess we shall find out, eh?

 

[Marysmith]

Do you mean Tallahassee? Hopefully it will be tweeted - I don't mind copy/pasting them. Guess we shall find out, eh?

Yes, sorry that’s the local slang for Tallahassee!

 

[Niner]

Yes, sorry that’s the local slang for Tallahassee!

Did you know "what" Tallahassee means?

The name "Tallahassee" is a Muskogean Indian word often translated as "old fields", or "old town." This may stem from the Creek (later called Seminole) Indians that migrated into this region in the 18th century.

Tallahassee, named for the "old fields" that it once encompassed, earned the title early in the 16th century from the Apalachee Indians who inhabited the area. Legend says that the final spelling was chosen by Octavia Walton, daughter of the territorial governor of Florida.

sorry O/T...

 

[Marysmith]

Did you know "what" Tallahassee means?

The name "Tallahassee" is a Muskogean Indian word often translated as "old fields", or "old town." This may stem from the Creek (later called Seminole) Indians that migrated into this region in the 18th century.

Tallahassee, named for the "old fields" that it once encompassed, earned the title early in the 16th century from the Apalachee Indians who inhabited the area. Legend says that the final spelling was chosen by Octavia Walton, daughter of the territorial governor of Florida.

sorry O/T...

Don’t be sorry. <3

 

[vislaw]

KM’s attorney will almost certainly object to that and I think the judge would sustain that objection. I think it’s for the jury to decide what they hear and what the agent or any other witness thinks they hear doesn’t seem relevant. Whatever relevancy there is in that is outweighed by the prejudice. Just seems like it’s no different than the demonstrative aid that wasn’t allowed. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s what I think. JMO.

I understand your point. However, I'm referring to the segments that are now clearly audible and intelligible (such as the airport comment). Courts generally allow counsel to ask a witness to comment on portions of a recording that are deemed to be audible and intelligible. In this case there are sections of the audio that remain difficult to understand and you can't ask a witness to interpret those sections for the jury. However, where segments are clearly audible and intelligible, the prosecutor is entitled to play those excerpts and ask the witness about them. If the defense disagrees whether an excerpt is clearly audible and intelligible, the court must make a ruling. As you might expect, this issue came up a lot in the RICO cases against the mafia in New York where wiretaps were often a major part of the evidence.

On closing argument the attorneys are given wide latitude to interpret the evidence (the jury is instructed that what the lawyers say in closing is not evidence). The prosecution is entitled to argue to the jury what it believes the audible and intelligible segments of the recording say. Of course, the defense is entitled to stand up and argue that what the prosecution says is all wrong.

 

[Gypsy Road]

The Tallahassee Democrat is going to live stream the trial. Katherine Magbanua trial in Dan Markel murder a go for next week I think The Law and Crime Network (youtube) will also stream it.

Thank you so much for your reply!

 

[Gypsy Road]

Yes, sorry that’s the local slang for Tallahassee!

I am an FSU grad and we called it “Tally Town” when I lived there.

 

[clearskies1]

I understand your point. However, I'm referring to the segments that are now clearly audible and intelligible (such as the airport comment). Courts generally allow counsel to ask a witness to comment on portions of a recording that are deemed to be audible and intelligible. In this case there are sections of the audio that remain difficult to understand and you can't ask a witness to interpret those sections for the jury. However, where segments are clearly audible and intelligible, the prosecutor is entitled to play those excerpts and ask the witness about them. If the defense disagrees whether an excerpt is clearly audible and intelligible, the court must make a ruling. As you might expect, this issue came up a lot in the RICO cases against the mafia in New York where wiretaps were often a major part of the evidence.

On closing argument the attorneys are given wide latitude to interpret the evidence (the jury is instructed that what the lawyers say in closing is not evidence). The prosecution is entitled to argue to the jury what it believes the audible and intelligible segments of the recording say. Of course, the defense is entitled to stand up and argue that what the prosecution says is all wrong.

Ok, but if it's clearly audible, I don't see the relevancy of an FBI agent testifying about what he heard. The recording "speaks for itself". Then again, I'm not familiar with the history of what courts allow on this so maybe it will be allowed. Certainly I can see the arguments being allowed in closing.

 

[minusfour]

I tested positive for covid yesterday, feel lousy, and have had to pretty much close my dental practice for the entire week, but at least I'll be able to watch this trial in real time.