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

[GordonX]

IMO - i think Kawass cried from guilt. if KM took the original plea deal she would probably be out walking free today. but Kawass and DeCoste convinced her to go to trial - twice - and now KM is looking at LWOP. YOU CAN'T SERVE TWO MASTERS. who is the master paying these attorneys?

 

[Sherubbian]

I do not know who is paying these "strange" criminal defense attorneys. IMO, these crocodile like Kawass are not of the type to be able to cry from "guilt"! Amen.

 

[missunshine]

I’m curious. If Katherine were to make a deal I’d think she’d have to fire her attorneys first. Would we ever learn of something like that before a deal was announced?

 

[opt]

Katie should consider requesting protective custody before offering to make any deal. People who paid for one murder might do it again. Although if they were inclined to do so they would have already done it. It would have been much cheaper than 6 years of attorneys' fees.

 

[GordonX]

a free Public Defender would have served KM far better with a far better result for her and everyone involved save for the alleged masterminds!

 

[Florida_marlin]

That’s what I heard as well.

I went back and watched again. I think that’s exactly what she said, as she was looking at TK. She shook her head no and said, “I didn’t want this”.
Such a strange thing for a person who swore her innocence to say. Something like, “ I was framed”, “I didn‘t do it”, ok. But, “I didn’t want this”? possibly she was realizing she had gotten some really bad advice?

 

[Sherubbian]

It is my speculation that June Umchinda (JU) knows much much more than what she has said under examinations. I have two compelling reasons for such speculation.

Firstly, back in 2019, when JU testified that she saw $100 bills with staples in them at the home of Charles Adelson, she was characterized as Charles Adelson's ex-girlfriend. In her 2019 video examination, JU revealed that she chatted with CA over the phone the very night preceding her court date! In her 2022 video examination, JU clarified the timeline of their on-going relationship:

1. They met at CA’s home in 2014 but she was dating another doctor who was CA’s roommate at that time,
2. They dated steady for 2 years in 2015-2017 when she lived in his house and interacted with his family as if they were a married couple (“but not officially” is her characterization), and
3. They are dating on-and-off for over 8 years. That is why I speculate about “their on-going relationship”.

While saying the “dating on-and-off for over 8 years” part, JU has this pornographic facial expression to the effect of “we are friends-with-benefits.” They were still dating in 2022, I take it!

Secondly, JU clarifies the following 2022 events:

1. On 4/19/2022, JU received a text message from CA. She did not respond immediately, saying to the effect of “with all of this (DM’s murder) and Charlie being Charlie (many other women), I want to distance myself from too much baggage …” (my summarizing paraphrase)
2. Then, on 4/21/2022, JU decided to respond to CA’s text message but “ … by then, he was already gone …”.
We now know what happened on 4/20/2022: “Charles Adelson, 45, was being held Thursday without bond at the Broward County jail on charges of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and solicitation to commit murder after being arrested at his home by U.S. marshals.” (CBSNEWS)
3. Why did JU decided to return the text/call on 4/21/2022 despite the “too much baggage”?

The simplest reason would be that CA is someone who makes a booty call to JU regularly.
I speculate for another reason: JU was hoping to be invited to WA’s birthday party in one of the following near days, given that WA’s dob is 4/22/1979.

In sum, these reasons show JU’s loyalty for the Adelsons. Most importantly, given the nature of women such as KM and JU as displayed by the court proceedings thus far, such loyalty must cost the Adelsons dearly.
In passing, does JU carry a lot of stapled $100 bills in her large tote bag?

It is my speculation that June knows more than what she has disclosed thus far. The FBI should devise some individualized tickling or another “bump” or rewards etc. to motivate vanitous JU to provide relevant information. May be this month of June is the auspicious month for someone to give June a large birthday gift in exchange for information of interest to the State of Florida.

 

[AlferdPacker]

Only a defendant can make the decision regarding whether they take a plea deal (just like testifying).
The lawyers can't make them take a plea deal, even if they know their client will lose at trial.
If you know an attorney, ask them about the conspiracy theories on here.
They will laugh and explain it to you.

 

[GordonX]

Only a defendant can make the decision regarding whether they take a plea deal (just like testifying).
The lawyers can't make them take a plea deal, even if they know their client will lose at trial.
If you know an attorney, ask them about the conspiracy theories on here.
They will laugh and explain it to you.

IMO -

1. i believe it's possible that attorneys with a wealthy culpable third party paymaster can have a conflict of interest and can over-influence and manipulate the decisions of a poor naive defendant and convince them to decline plea deals and go to trial.
2. i believe that unethical attorneys exist.

 

[Florida_marlin]

IMO -

1. i believe it's possible that attorneys with a wealthy culpable third party paymaster can have a conflict of interest and can over-influence and manipulate the decisions of a poor naive defendant and convince them to decline plea deals and go to trial.
2. i believe that unethical attorneys exist.

Politicians never lie.
lawyers never cheat
dentists never murder their ex brother-in-laws

 

[Blue Shakehead]

Only a defendant can make the decision regarding whether they take a plea deal (just like testifying).
The lawyers can't make them take a plea deal, even if they know their client will lose at trial.
If you know an attorney, ask them about the conspiracy theories on here.
They will laugh and explain it to you.

Let's see if we can break this down to figure out whether the Adelson's might have been indirectly funding Magbanua's defense:

1. Magbanua was having trouble scraping together $300 for Sigfredo Garcia's lawyer the day before he was arrested; but
2. When she was arrested, she used Det. Isom's phone to call Tara Kawass on the scene and Kawass' very first act after receiving this troubling news was to call Charlie Adelson's attorney to inform him of Magbanua's arrest and to provide him with Det. Isom's cell number; so
3. Charlie Adelson's attorney calls Det. Isom 20 minutes later, while he's still in the process of booking Magbanua, to ask whether Adelson was also getting arrested.

Ok, that seems a little fishy but it might just be one of those "jet-fuel can't melt steel beams" slogans for the conspiracy theorists to write on their signs and yell about. Lets move on...

4. In the time between not having $300 to her name and her arrest a few months later, Magbanua retains not just one but two private attorneys, and
5. this new attorney just happens to share a mailing address on the same floor of the same penthouse suite as Charlie Adelson's attorney which must just be another coincidence; and
6. Fantastically and just in the nick of time, all of her money troubles seem to be resolved while she's behind bars earning zero dollars and zero cents an hour because someone has entered into private funding agreement for her attorney fees.
7. The State then makes several offers to Magbanua while she's in jail. We don't know the terms of those offers, except that they involve her pleading guilty to something and flipping on the Adelsons. Rivera only got 6.5 years so we can assume her plea would be for even less than that which we later learned was the case when Kawass said she could have been free when her trial started in 2019.
8. Magbanua rejects all offers. Cappleman is extremely puzzled by this event, so much so that she tells the media that Magbanua holds the key to her own freedom. The reason why she goes to the media is because she is not confident that Magbanua's attorneys are even communicating the State's offers to Magbanua.
9. The State then files a pre-trial motion to have the courts compel the Defense to reveal who is funding her defense, alleging that they were being funded by the Adelsons.
10. Judge Harkinson has a 15 minute private hearing in his chambers and was "comfortable that the payments for the attorney fees are being paid by a third party unrelated to the Adelson family." The court declined to disclose to prosecutors who this third party was.
11. Christopher Decoste suggested that the Magbanua's family was funding her Defense. Thats very generous of the family of limited means who were so invested in her defense that they never made a single trip to support Magbanua in either of the two trials. I guess after coming up with $1M+, they couldn't afford the extra gas/hotels? Surely, there must be some records of Magbanua's remortgaging their houses that Decoste can refer us to? If that were true and the poor immigrant family were truly facing extreme financial hardship under the weight of the State who were yet to charge a single rich Adelson, surely the Defense would put this out to the world?
12. Magbanua takes it to a first trial where she is almost convicted of 1st degree murder which carries a sentence of LWOP, with 10 of 12 jurors voting to convict her.
13. One of the jurors who voted against conviction is interviewed and discloses the reasons why she wouldn't convict - which is namely that she believed Magbanua's bottle service lies and how much she could make in tips. Juror also noted that if Jessica Rodriguez testified that Katie was there for the money drop, she mightve voted differently.

14. Okay, surely...its time to stop the madness if you're Magbanua. The State is 100% going to come guns blazing in the 2nd trial. They know where they missed and they now have Magbanua's testimony to use against her to secure a conviction. A "not guilty verdict" is basically impossible; but
15. Nope. She doubles-down and refuses any and all offers from the State again.
16. The only thing that has changed between trials 1 and 2 in terms of financing the Defense is that she has been declared indigent for costs only. Which means that her wealthy benefactor is still paying 100% of her attorney fees but that taxpayers would foot the bill for expert testimony, and court costs (i.e. providing transcripts, paperwork, etc.). Whoever is paying for attorney fees actually increases their commitment in the 2nd trial, as they officially add Kristen Kawass to her Defense team. So that's three private attorney's fees that this third party is funding.
17. The other big change between trials 1 and 2 is the Defense theory. They plan to call Garcia to testify that he and Charlie Adelson planned this whole thing behind Katie's back. This plan is foiled when the jail intercepts and records all the conversations between Kawass, Magbanua and Garcia and turns them over through Discovery after opening arguments have already been made. So the Defense theory is dead in the water, half-way through trial. Time to make a deal!!!?
18. No deal. Magabanua is completely annihilated in Court and is found guilty on all 3 charges which is more than the actual shooter, Sigfredo Garcia was found guilty of.
19. Magbanua will now spend her natural life in prison. She was arrested at 32 years old, so thats about a 60 year sentence...or 57 more years that she would have received if she just retained a public defender with about three hours of litigation experience.

Now.....you can say that only a defendant can make a decision or accept a plea. That is certainly correct. But what you can't say is that the idea that the Adelsons were likely funding her Defense is a conspiracy theory and that if you just ask any attorney they will laugh and explain it all to us plebes. There are several attorneys already on the record who have made that very allegation, not the least of which is the States Attorney's office, David Lat and all of the attorney's at Above the Law who have covered this case, and then our own in-house counsel here at websleuths on this case Mentour Lawyer. In fact, the only qualified attorney saying that the Adelson's weren't funding Magbanua's defense are Magabanua's attorneys....who, we have come to learn, have been known to bend the truth.

 

[AlferdPacker]

Garcia was arrested with $5,000 on his person to hire a lawyer.
KM's sister in law was convicted of embezzling almost 1 million dollars in 2019 and prosecutors said it would be almost impossible to prove where the Money went.
KM's mother died in 2017 with a big life insurance policy.

In the Mark Sievers case, one of the hitmen was obviously guilty but wouldn't take a deal.
There are thousands of such cases.

 

[Sherubbian]

Yes, “Only a defendant can make the decision regarding whether they take a plea deal (just like testifying).” However, a skillful but dishonest (disposed to deceive) lawyer could incurvate the “legal situation” with swirling “white noises” to the point that the defendant thinks that it is detrimental to take a plea deal, in any criminal case.

I do not know what happened behind doors but DeCoste’s questions in court make me feel dizzy! Listening to DeCoste’s examination with his “You would agree …” statements makes me think of Asmodeus lusting on unnecessary busy work to look useful and continue milking someone else cow for free! To the point that one of the FBI agents stopped answering question until DeCoste unpacked his “You would agree …” statement into a question accessible to a 5th grader.

Defense lawyers are important elements of our Judiciary System. However, the Kawass sisters do not inspire trust, IMO. The defense strategy of Tara Kawass from Trial #1 (SG and CA are enemies, thus SG would not help CA in anything) to her “work products” for the Trial #2 (SG and CA are best friends who conspired to kill DM unbeknownst to KM) are analogies of how a “pretty plea deal” could be twisted 180 degrees into an “ugly plea deal” by a skillful demon or goddess, your choice in which side you are.

When Kristen Kawass, self described as “an experienced appellate attorney who focuses on post-trial litigation”, appeared in the ante-trial proceedings, I knew that KM is doomed. KM was almost convicted in the Trial #1. Then, a “post-trial litigation” artist is recruited to … prepare ex ante? I was not there while they devise their “work products” but I suspect Kristen Kawass’ presence multiplied KM’s legal fees by 1.5, for a negative result! Importantly, we will see in 4 to 5 weeks, but it is my "educated speculation" that some dramatic changes will occur!

Obviously, “Only a defendant can make the decision regarding whether they take a plea deal (just like testifying).” The two trials have shown that the Kawass and DeCoste are full of ideas. Unfortunately for KM, the negative result demonstrates that their ideas are bad.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

Garcia was arrested with $5,000 on his person to hire a lawyer.
KM's sister in law was convicted of embezzling almost 1 million dollars in 2019 and prosecutors said it would be almost impossible to prove where the Money went.
KM's mother died in 2017 with a big life insurance policy.

In the Mark Sievers case, one of the hitmen was obviously guilty but wouldn't take a deal.
There are thousands of such cases.

I know Garcia was arrested with cocaine and luggage but wasn't aware of this $5,000 in cash in his possession. Do you have a source for that? The source for Magbanua and Garcia trying to scrape together $300 the day before is in Charlie Adelsons probable cause affidavit:

KM Call #3411, 5/24/16 @ 11:30am. "Garcia called Magbanua and asked if the Agents are still outside and Magbanua says 'yes'. Garcia told Magbanua that he spoke with an attorney who could not help, but would have a friend contact them. They talk about it being embarrassing for them to go to Garcia's work to talk to him. Magbanua asks if they (the FBI) were allowed to sit outside her residence. Garcia asks Magbanua if they have $300 for the attorney fees."

If it is true that Garcia came into a cool 5 gs he wasn't aware that he had the day before, I have some guesses as to where he might've acquired it:

"On May 26, 2016, electronic surveillance suggests that Charles Adelson and Katherine Magbanua were in close proximity to each other and may have met in the over-night or early morning hours."

--
I'm not going to opine on the Samantha Chez-Magbanua's embezzlement scheme to fund KM's defense except to say that 1) the scheme was uncovered in September 2017 when the owners of the firm became suspicious that she had been stealing money from them when they noticed their general business account had been nearly depleted of funds over several years So she started stealing money to build a war chest for Katies future defense before Katie even knew she was under suspicion? Add that to the fact that 2) Chez-Magbanua was eventually represented by a public defender and 3) TPD fully investigated whether some of these stolen monies ended up paying for KM's defense, and then 4) Decoste's public statement denying any linkage between the stolen money and their attorney fees.
--
Agreed that guilty clients goto trial everyday. But how many guilty clients refuse plea offers that would have them free to care for their children with time served when they're faced with the extremely high likelihood that they'd be in jail forever by going to trial. Lets just agree that its much less.
--
Finally, I am not saying that Kawass and Decoste would risk their law licenses to become the proxy defense counsel for the Adelson family. I am quite confident that the source of funds was not as idiotic as post-dated checks from Donna Adelson's checking account. If the Adelson's designed a scheme to fund them indirectly and Kawass/Decoste have plausible deniability of the scheme - that is all they need.

 

[DeDee]

BBM:

Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.181

Rule 3.181 - NOTICE TO SEEK DEATH PENALTY
In a prosecution for a capital offense, if the prosecutor intends to seek the death penalty, the prosecutor must give notice to the defendant of the state's intent to seek the death penalty. The notice must be filed with the court within 45 days of arraignment. The notice must contain a list of the aggravating factors the state intends to prove and has reason to believe it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The court may allow the prosecutor to amend the notice upon a showing of good cause.

FL. R. Crim. P. 3.181

Amended by 200 So.3d 758, effective 9/15/2016; adpted effective 9/15/2016.
Committee Note.

2016 Amendment. This is a new rule, in response to legislation, and intended to complement Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.202 (Expert Testimony of Mental Mitigation During Penalty Phase of Capital Trial; Notice and Examination by State Expert) and 3.780 (Sentencing Hearing for Capital Cases).

I find contradictory FL law on DP cases (under Gov Rick Scott, 2016) that I happen to have handy:

1) ... the new law, HB 7101, specifies that the jury must unanimously agree in writing regarding which aggravating factors the prosecution has proved before a death sentence may be handed down. The old statute required a simple majority of jurors to recommend death. The new one requires 10 of 12 jurors to agree that the death penalty is warranted.

The new statute also orders a prosecutor who intends to seek the death penalty to give notice thereof to the defendant within 45 days after the arraignment.

A list of strict aggravating factors must be presented, at this time, that the State intends to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Ex:
* The defendant’s crime was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel

Source: An alum of FSU, Jose Baez's website - who won a NG verdict for Dr Husel recently

Florida’s New Death Penalty Law | Orlando Criminal Defense Lawyer

2) Also see:

"If the prosecutor intends to seek the death penalty, the prosecutor must give notice to the defendant and file the notice with the court within 45 days after arraignment. The notice must contain a list of the aggravating factors the state intends to prove and has reason to believe it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt."

Source: CHAPTER 2016-13 House Bill No. 7101, pg 3, http://laws.flrules.org/2016/13

 

[jbc]

Katie's brother works for a Miami law firm. IT, I believe.
I think I read speculation that he funded the defense. Very generous.

 

[DeDee]

Thank you, VisLaw!
Still, it is my hope someone could review the YouTube video and read Kristen Kawass' lips.
The Judge said "Juror number 5, is this your true verdict?"
Then, Kristen Kawass moved her lips.
It is possible she just said some swear words such as "F ... you!"
I am suspicious of something else, though.

Video should be cued to the 3:42 mark when the Judge said Juror # 5.
KM turns her head towards her lawyer and away from looking straight ahead.
Her attorney does say something but there's no way I can read her lips as they barely open; however, it appears that her sister turns her head in order to listen.

 

[KidonGadol]

Let's see if we can break this down to figure out whether the Adelson's might have been indirectly funding Magbanua's defense:

1. Magbanua was having trouble scraping together $300 for Sigfredo Garcia's lawyer the day before he was arrested; but
2. When she was arrested, she used Det. Isom's phone to call Tara Kawass on the scene and Kawass' very first act after receiving this troubling news was to call Charlie Adelson's attorney to inform him of Magbanua's arrest and to provide him with Det. Isom's cell number; so
3. Charlie Adelson's attorney calls Det. Isom 20 minutes later, while he's still in the process of booking Magbanua, to ask whether Adelson was also getting arrested.

Ok, that seems a little fishy but it might just be one of those "jet-fuel can't melt steel beams" slogans for the conspiracy theorists to write on their signs and yell about. Lets move on...

4. In the time between not having $300 to her name and her arrest a few months later, Magbanua retains not just one but two private attorneys, and
5. this new attorney just happens to share a mailing address on the same floor of the same penthouse suite as Charlie Adelson's attorney which must just be another coincidence; and
6. Fantastically and just in the nick of time, all of her money troubles seem to be resolved while she's behind bars earning zero dollars and zero cents an hour because someone has entered into private funding agreement for her attorney fees.
7. The State then makes several offers to Magbanua while she's in jail. We don't know the terms of those offers, except that they involve her pleading guilty to something and flipping on the Adelsons. Rivera only got 6.5 years so we can assume her plea would be for even less than that which we later learned was the case when Kawass said she could have been free when her trial started in 2019.
8. Magbanua rejects all offers. Cappleman is extremely puzzled by this event, so much so that she tells the media that Magbanua holds the key to her own freedom. The reason why she goes to the media is because she is not confident that Magbanua's attorneys are even communicating the State's offers to Magbanua.
9. The State then files a pre-trial motion to have the courts compel the Defense to reveal who is funding her defense, alleging that they were being funded by the Adelsons.
10. Judge Harkinson has a 15 minute private hearing in his chambers and was "comfortable that the payments for the attorney fees are being paid by a third party unrelated to the Adelson family." The court declined to disclose to prosecutors who this third party was.
11. Christopher Decoste suggested that the Magbanua's family was funding her Defense. Thats very generous of the family of limited means who were so invested in her defense that they never made a single trip to support Magbanua in either of the two trials. I guess after coming up with $1M+, they couldn't afford the extra gas/hotels? Surely, there must be some records of Magbanua's remortgaging their houses that Decoste can refer us to? If that were true and the poor immigrant family were truly facing extreme financial hardship under the weight of the State who were yet to charge a single rich Adelson, surely the Defense would put this out to the world?
12. Magbanua takes it to a first trial where she is almost convicted of 1st degree murder which carries a sentence of LWOP, with 10 of 12 jurors voting to convict her.
13. One of the jurors who voted against conviction is interviewed and discloses the reasons why she wouldn't convict - which is namely that she believed Magbanua's bottle service lies and how much she could make in tips. Juror also noted that if Jessica Rodriguez testified that Katie was there for the money drop, she mightve voted differently.

14. Okay, surely...its time to stop the madness if you're Magbanua. The State is 100% going to come guns blazing in the 2nd trial. They know where they missed and they now have Magbanua's testimony to use against her to secure a conviction. A "not guilty verdict" is basically impossible; but
15. Nope. She doubles-down and refuses any and all offers from the State again.
16. The only thing that has changed between trials 1 and 2 in terms of financing the Defense is that she has been declared indigent for costs only. Which means that her wealthy benefactor is still paying 100% of her attorney fees but that taxpayers would foot the bill for expert testimony, and court costs (i.e. providing transcripts, paperwork, etc.). Whoever is paying for attorney fees actually increases their commitment in the 2nd trial, as they officially add Kristen Kawass to her Defense team. So that's three private attorney's fees that this third party is funding.
17. The other big change between trials 1 and 2 is the Defense theory. They plan to call Garcia to testify that he and Charlie Adelson planned this whole thing behind Katie's back. This plan is foiled when the jail intercepts and records all the conversations between Kawass, Magbanua and Garcia and turns them over through Discovery after opening arguments have already been made. So the Defense theory is dead in the water, half-way through trial. Time to make a deal!!!?
18. No deal. Magabanua is completely annihilated in Court and is found guilty on all 3 charges which is more than the actual shooter, Sigfredo Garcia was found guilty of.
19. Magbanua will now spend her natural life in prison. She was arrested at 32 years old, so thats about a 60 year sentence...or 57 more years that she would have received if she just retained a public defender with about three hours of litigation experience.

Now.....you can say that only a defendant can make a decision or accept a plea. That is certainly correct. But what you can't say is that the idea that the Adelsons were likely funding her Defense is a conspiracy theory and that if you just ask any attorney they will laugh and explain it all to us plebes. There are several attorneys already on the record who have made that very allegation, not the least of which is the States Attorney's office, David Lat and all of the attorney's at Above the Law who have covered this case, and then our own in-house counsel here at websleuths on this case Mentour Lawyer. In fact, the only qualified attorney saying that the Adelson's weren't funding Magbanua's defense are Magabanua's attorneys....who, we have come to learn, have been known to bend the truth.

sorry - done in Wordpad - you get the extra lines for free. (yes, wordwrap was on).

2. "When she was arrested, she used Det. Isom's phone to call Tara

Kawass on the scene and Kawass' very first act after receiving this

troubling news was to call Charlie Adelson's attorney to inform him

of Magbanua's arrest and to provide him with Det. Isom's cell

number; so.."

COMMENT
No I don't think she used Isom's phone . Police had seized KM's

phone. She asked for it back to make that call (I seem to recall

seeing a video of this happening) . What is very interesting and

very significant is that she had Kawass's number already in the

phone. Either she had already had some preliminary discussions (who

paid?) or CJA gave her that number as a lawyer's number to ring if

she was picked up. If she used her own phone then Kawass has to have

been given Markus's number in whatever meeting was used to set up

Kawass as KM's attorney.


How do you know TK gave out that number ? If KM rang on her own

phone she would not have the number of ISom. Therefore it's far more

likley that CJA would have given Isom's number to D O Marcus

because Wendi was given a police contact card for Isom after her

police interview. (have a look at end of the infamous Wendi

interview - I'm sure Isom hands over his contact details).
This is the more likely scenario. The family was planning for the
worst. The family engaged Gerstein & Baret in 2016 just after SG was
arrested and then refused to pay G and B and this went to a civil
trial because Amex reversed a payment. Amex got sued and lost too in
the same trial. So getting lawyers in position before police come
knocking is Adelson style.

5. this new attorney just happens to share a mailing address on the

same floor of the same penthouse suite as Charlie Adelson's attorney

which must just be another coincidence;


COMMENT - it's been like that for about 18months at this stage. It

enables deCoste to be paid in kind (Markus can bill CJA for

"professional services ") - free rent and he may get access to

secretarial assistance too. The question then is - how are the

ADelsons balancing up this largesse for T Kawass ?


"than that which we later learned was the case when Kawass said she

could have been free when her trial started in 2019."

COMMENT:
I would not believe anything that Kawass says in this area. She

said an indemnity had been offered to KM. The SA's office denies

this and I believe them. THey could prove her guilty via testimny

from Rodriguez . They are not going to offer an indemnity.


RIvera did not get 6.5 years. He got sentenced to 19years. He just

happened to be servicing a Rico sentence for 12.5 years and he was

lucky enought to get concurrent sentencing . That's amazing because

the crimes were completely independent and with different victims.

He should take out tickets in the state lottery. If KM has no other

crime she's serving then the sentence is what it is.


Apart from that I agree with your general argument.

It does intrigue me though - why is deCoste getting the sweetheart

law office deal whereas TK does not get something similar ? Perhaps

she does and it is in Jamacian dollars paid you know where or

perhaps she feels that this case is good for her profile. Or

perhaps TK and CdC were signed up at different rates and this office

bizzo just brings them up to parity because deCoste has been

bitching to DO. Marcus. There's no way that either of them can

safely have direct contact with the Adelsons. It will be interesting

to see if deCoste gets ongoing work helping Kristen Kawass with the

post sentencing pleas for KM (attempts at retrial or trying to get

sentence reduction).

 

[Niner]

Okay - it's been a while (I think! ) that I last asked - any news on court dates? KM's sentencing? CA's next hearing date?

TIA!

 

[DeDee]

Okay - it's been a while (I think! ) that I last asked - any news on court dates? KM's sentencing? CA's next hearing date?

TIA!

Niner, nothing is on the docket for CA. I literally checked 3 minutes ago.

Trial Judge stated it'd be 30 days, maybe a little longer, after her conviction on May 31, 2022 for KM's sentencing date.

HTH