GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 *arrests* #12

[Blue Shakehead]

Attorneys for Lori Vallow attempted to play this game in that high profile and complex case. She petitioned the court to have her trial in October after her co-murdering husband's case got bumped to next year. Fortunately, the judge denied her motion and is making her go to trial joined with Chad Daybell next year. I do think they need to charge Donna in the near future to assure they CAN try them together.

Right. Generally speaking, joining cases together is an advantage for the prosecution - not only do they get to save time and money but they get to put the same case together to try multiple defendants for the same offence using the same fact pattern.

However, in the 2019 trial, I think the joinder of Magbanua and Garcia was an advantage for Magbanua's defense in that the State's attention was divided between the doers and the planner and both defendants had different and opposing Defense theories. Another advantage of course is that the Defense gets multiple opportunities to cross-examine the State's witnesses and sow a lot of confusion into the case by arguing the minutiae.

Its also very possible that I am putting too much weight into the unlikely outcome of that trial. Not only did the State's case improve significantly in the Magbanua cross in the 2022 trial, the presentation of Sgt. Corbett's cell phone evidence was a mess in 2019 and a masterful display in 2022.

In a hypothetical case against CA and DA, where both defendants are the planners but the evidence is stronger against CA - are there any disadvantages to joining? Does the prosecution's normal advantage to joinder still apply when they are up against two separate OJ-calibre defense teams? I am curious on your views....

 

[dotr]

"Barbaric" sums it all up, imo.

Florida Woman Guilty In Professor’s 'Barbaric' 2014 Murder-For-Hire Slaying | Oxygen

A Florida woman was convicted in the 2014 murder of an esteemed legal scholar who was gunned down in a murder-for-hire plot prosecutors say was orchestrated by one of his former in-laws.

www.oxygen.com

Florida Woman Guilty In Professor’s 'Barbaric' 2014 Murder-For-Hire Slaying​

 

[vislaw]

...

In a hypothetical case against CA and DA, where both defendants are the planners but the evidence is stronger against CA - are there any disadvantages to joining? Does the prosecution's normal advantage to joinder still apply when they are up against two separate OJ-calibre defense teams? I am curious on your views....

Joining Donna with Charlie would be a huge advantage for the prosecution, in my opinion. You correctly point out that doing so would double the defense legal power. Nevertheless, having the jury deliberate a case with them as joint defendants would dramatically increase the likelihood of a verdict against Donna.

 

[AlferdPacker]

How about 3 or 4 at once? Has that ever happened?

 

[Blue Shakehead]

BBM -- the sentiment contains its own answer, IMO. Amateur criminals hire amateur criminals -- I really think it's as simple as that. Or, the criminals that itinerant dentists manage to fraternize with should absolutely not be the criminals those dentists hire to carry out a complicated, apparently motiveless hit on a college professor that will certainly be rigorously investigated. So, combine CA's amateurism with his seeming arrogance and possible altered state at the time of the master-minding and you get, fortunately, this level of incompetence. The Sievers case comes to mind as a similar example.

On a separate note, I'm not sure that ethnic/religious identity has much to do with this case -- clearly the Adelsons were unreliable observers of their faith, and betrayed some of its most critical tenets by word and deed, so yeah. But I confess to some discomfort with discussions of CA's obviously "Jewish" looks and mannerisms. JMO.

Anyhoo. Great to see KM convicted and some measure of justice achieved. Roll on the main course and, hopefully, at least a partial repatriation of the Markel grandchildren.

Aside from the obvious, which is that they should never have had Dan Markel brutally murdered in the first place, the level of sophistication - particularly the parts where the Adelson's could directly control - is what separates this crime/conspiracy from any other that I am aware of.

Granted, some of that sophistication is in the cover-up: a middle-woman who'd rather face 2 separate trials facing LWOP against a mountain of evidence than accept a generous deal to turn on them.

But a lot of this sophistication is built right into plan: the selection of the actual killers and then the insulation and multiple degrees of separation between the contractors and the killers. Even if the killers were caught red handed, they could only ever testify against Katie. But they are extremely unlikely to do so because one of them is a leader with the Latin Kings who'd likely get killed by his own gang for snitching while the other is Katie's husband and the father of her children. Only Katie could testify against Charlie and only Charlie could testify against Donna.

I'd love to chalk some of that up to dumb luck, but after listening to Charlie on the Dolce Vida video, I don't think so. He was already thinking then past the cops and probable cause to what could be proven at trial. He was aware of the potential for FBI to get involved and wiretaps and bugs and was pretty cautious with secret meetings on the pier with Donna and busy restaurants with Katie, changing their location mid-way.

The fact that we needed a mafia-style FBI surveillance and wiretap investigation to even press charges in this case is astounding. This is all pretty impressive for an amateur criminal. I sincerely believe he is an amateur criminal, just an incredibly smart one.

In fact, if the FBI approached him instead of Donna, I think their investigation would have died that day. The strategy behind the bump operation is extraordinary - and was the one time that cops outsmarted Charlie Adelson. Donna was his achilles heel.

 

[Razz]

Aside from the obvious, which is that they should never have had Dan Markel brutally murdered in the first place, the level of sophistication - particularly the parts where the Adelson's could directly control - is what separates this crime/conspiracy from any other that I am aware of.

Granted, some of that sophistication is in the cover-up: a middle-woman who'd rather face 2 separate trials facing LWOP against a mountain of evidence than accept a generous deal to turn on them.

But a lot of this sophistication is built right into plan: the selection of the actual killers and then the insulation and multiple degrees of separation between the contractors and the killers. Even if the killers were caught red handed, they could only ever testify against Katie. But they are extremely unlikely to do so because one of them is a leader with the Latin Kings who'd likely get killed by his own gang for snitching while the other is Katie's husband and the father of her children. Only Katie could testify against Charlie and only Charlie could testify against Donna.

I'd love to chalk some of that up to dumb luck, but after listening to Charlie on the Dolce Vida video, I don't think so. He was already thinking then past the cops and probable cause to what could be proven at trial. He was aware of the potential for FBI to get involved and wiretaps and bugs and was pretty cautious with secret meetings on the pier with Donna and busy restaurants with Katie, changing their location mid-way.

The fact that we needed a mafia-style FBI surveillance and wiretap investigation to even press charges in this case is astounding. This is all pretty impressive for an amateur criminal. I sincerely believe he is an amateur criminal, just an incredibly smart one.

In fact, if the FBI approached him instead of Donna, I think their investigation would have died that day. The strategy behind the bump operation is extraordinary - and was the one time that cops outsmarted Charlie Adelson. Donna was his achilles heel.

Really?! CA is the dumbest SOB alive.

 

[AlferdPacker]

Right, CA sounds like he's thinking about it in legal terms. It almost sounds like someone "from the inside" has legal expertise.

 

[Ferpo]

"Barbaric" sums it all up, imo.

Florida Woman Guilty In Professor’s 'Barbaric' 2014 Murder-For-Hire Slaying | Oxygen

A Florida woman was convicted in the 2014 murder of an esteemed legal scholar who was gunned down in a murder-for-hire plot prosecutors say was orchestrated by one of his former in-laws.

www.oxygen.com

I suspect Oxygen found a different LR with a life sentence on the Florida Department of Corrections website, which led to this error in the article:

Rivera and Garcia are currently serving life sentences for their roles in the daytime murder, according to online prison records obtained by Oxygen.com.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

Joining Donna with Charlie would be a huge advantage for the prosecution, in my opinion. You correctly point out that doing so would double the defense legal power. Nevertheless, having the jury deliberate a case with them as joint defendants would dramatically increase the likelihood of a verdict against Donna.

Yes, I would agree with that. I think a jury would be incredibly motivated to convict both CA and DA. I guess one other question or concern I'd have is whether some evidence would need to be excluded in a DA trial?

In any case, she is 70+ years old. And there is more than enough evidence of conspiracy against DA, so if they don't charge her in the next month or so, when do they plan to?

 

[clearskies1]

The stringent requirements for getting court authorization for wiretaps definitely worked against LE in this case -- they apparently didn't even try to get authorization for DA and WA. JMO.

 

[BearWatcher]

The stringent requirements for getting court authorization for wiretaps definitely worked against LE in this case -- they apparently didn't even try to get authorization for DA and WA. JMO.

Why do you say that? Isn’t it possible that information was collected but save for a Grand Jury considering WA and / or DA and potential charges in this case?

 

[Gypsy Road]

Why do you say that? Isn’t it possible that information was collected but save for a Grand Jury considering WA and / or DA and potential charges in this case?

I would think that they would have not been held back if LE had them.

 

[vislaw]

Why do you say that? Isn’t it possible that information was collected but save for a Grand Jury considering WA and / or DA and potential charges in this case?

The defense would have been screaming if there were substantive recordings of WA or DA held back by the state.

 

[BearWatcher]

The defense would have been screaming if there were substantive recordings of WA or DA held back by the state.

Ah! That makes sense. Thank you for explaining.

 

[GordonX]

1. CA thinks he's OJ. he thinks he's going to skate.
2. i wonder if GC is giving KM a fixed time to respond to an offer of a deal. "you have until X date to respond or offer is rescinded."
3. i wonder if and how Kawass is presenting any deals from GC to KM. all deals from GC must go directly through Kawass. i'd love to be a fly on the wall to see how unethustiastically (or if at all) Kawass is presenting those. KM would probably be free right now on a plea deal had she had better lawyers 3 years ago. everything KM hears is through the filter of her lawyers.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

1. CA thinks he's OJ. he thinks he's going to skate.
2. i wonder if GC is giving KM a fixed time to respond to an offer of a deal. "you have until X date to respond or offer is rescinded."
3. i wonder if and how Kawass is presenting any deals from GC to KM. all deals from GC must go directly through Kawass. i'd love to be a fly on the wall to see how unethustiastically (or if at all) Kawass is presenting those. KM would probably be free right now on a plea deal had she had better lawyers 3 years ago. everything KM hears is through the filter of her lawyers.

1. Well OJ was the first time I'd ever heard of someone being called a narcissist and that shoe - or glove, if you will - fits Charlie perfectly.

There's at least some trouble in paradise for CA, however, in that: a) Minkus is no longer defending him for whatever reason and he's now being represented by the same lawyer as his parents (which seems like a conflct), but more importantly b) that his life seems to have been in a steady downward spiral since 2016 with the collapse of his work and friendships and culminating in his new residence at the Leon County jail, likely getting shaken down by gangsters every hour or two.

2. Not only would offers from the State have a relatively early expiration but more importantly, they would be contingent on Magbanua being able to offer and produce brand new evidence that can be corroborated.

Just having Magbanua admit to what the evidence already shows is not enough. In fact, having Magbanua on the stand as a State's witness against CA or DA is actually worth less than zero if shes used only for confirmation because the Defense would make the central issue in the trial whether or not Magbanua, who lied under oath to juries several times for several hours in 2 separate trials, can be trusted this 3rd time now that shes got a deal. I don't think there's even an offer for KM unless she gives them something or someone substantial.

3. Totally agree. Will be interesting to watch how it all unfolds. Kristen Kawass is an appellate attorney and if somehow we get to a point where KM makes no deal and she's filing appeals next year being represented by Kristen Kawass - we might just have ourselves a headscratcher for the ages.

 

[AlferdPacker]

1. CA thinks he's OJ. he thinks he's going to skate.
2. i wonder if GC is giving KM a fixed time to respond to an offer of a deal. "you have until X date to respond or offer is rescinded."
3. i wonder if and how Kawass is presenting any deals from GC to KM. all deals from GC must go directly through Kawass. i'd love to be a fly on the wall to see how unethustiastically (or if at all) Kawass is presenting those. KM would probably be free right now on a plea deal had she had better lawyers 3 years ago. everything KM hears is through the filter of her lawyers.

At trial it was reported there have been 3 meetings between Katie and the DA's office, one 4 hours long.
You think they didn't get a chance to mention the terms of a deal in four hours?

 

[jbc]

Could it be that Katie knew she'd be convicted, but that she never doubted she could deal her way out?
That the tears were only that the trial went as far as it did, that no deal was consummated?
I know this is opposite to the standard view.

My intuition is that she can reveal something bigger than we know.
Something that CA knows too.

If she originally was expecting the Adelsons to help, she and her lawyers would have known that ship had sailed.
It feels like there are missing pieces.

 

[clearskies1]

Could it be that Katie knew she'd be convicted, but that she never doubted she could deal her way out?
That the tears were only that the trial went as far as it did, that no deal was consummated?
I know this is opposite to the standard view.

My intuition is that she can reveal something bigger than we know.
Something that CA knows too.

If she originally was expecting the Adelsons to help, she and her lawyers would have known that ship had sailed.
It feels like there are missing pieces.

Interesting. Are you saying that KM turned down the DA's deal and then no subsequent deals were offered by the DA, and so Katie had to go to trial?

 

[GordonX]

At trial it was reported there have been 3 meetings between Katie and the DA's office, one 4 hours long.
You think they didn't get a chance to mention the terms of a deal in four hours?

IIRC - GC said at trial that the defense wasted the State's time and the meeting(s) was set up by the defense just so the they could tell the jury that they gave the State an opportunity to talk to KM.