GUILTY FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen 18 July 2014 - *5 Guilty* #28

[Going Rogue]

50 years?? I didn't realize it was 50 YEARS! What's up with the DA's in that jurisdiction? I don't know anything about that case so I hesitate to comment on its merits but an aquittal in less than an hour is not encouraging.

I took Jack complainining at the conclusion of Donna's trial about how overworked and tired his prosecutors have been as an indirect way of complaining about the public's push for a Wendi arrest. What a lame comment from a DA! Just tell us where the case stands and put an end to the speculation. Wendi already thinks she won't be arrested so they're not giving anything away.

I think we may have a Charlie retrial before we get a Wendi trial.

I could be totally off, but after a quick review of that 50‑year‑old cold case, it’s hard not to wonder whether Tallahassee’s cold‑case unit pushed it forward to justify their existence. These units often need “results” to secure funding, and their job is simply to reopen a case and convince the DA to indict. I understand the jury’s verdict doesn’t affect their metrics. The one‑hour acquittal suggests the evidence was far too weak for trial, reinforcing the possibility that this was a marginal case elevated to make a number. I hate thinking this way, but I wonder?

 

[Zedzded]

I don’t see how the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that she entered into a conspiratorial agreement or that she committed an act in furtherance of the crime. They must prove at least one of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard, but it is not absolute certainty. I don't know whether WA's actions can be construed as to be part of a conspiracy. I feel the State will be able to demonstrate that WA's trip up Trescott were incriminatory. The jury will be easily persuaded that this was not some little drive to get alcohol, coincidently shortly after the ex she hated so much was shot dead. They're not in kindergarten. They will know she went there to see if Dan had been shot.

The question is whether that can be determined as conspiratorial. Was this a woman who feared her brother had actually carried out his threat to kill her beloved Danny or was this a woman, part of a conspiracy, driving to the crime scene to confirm their target was dead?

No jury member is going to sit there and think that WA had no clue Dan was going to be killed when she drove up Trescott. It's always been about her level of complicity and proof.

 

[Fromeaster]

Wendi will be left with all the family's wealth and money. I have no hope anymore, life is unfair. They could say the case is closed and move on.

 

[Going Rogue]

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard, but it is not absolute certainty. I don't know whether WA's actions can be construed as to be part of a conspiracy. I feel the State will be able to demonstrate that WA's trip up Trescott were incriminatory. The jury will be easily persuaded that this was not some little drive to get alcohol, coincidently shortly after the ex she hated so much was shot dead. They're not in kindergarten. They will know she went there to see if Dan had been shot.

The question is whether that can be determined as conspiratorial. Was this a woman who feared her brother had actually carried out his threat to kill her beloved Danny or was this a woman, part of a conspiracy, driving to the crime scene to confirm their target was dead?

No jury member is going to sit there and think that WA had no clue Dan was going to be killed when she drove up Trescott. It's always been about her level of complicity and proof.

In your analysis of the Trescott Drive evidence, you actually outlined the textbook definition of reasonable doubt. You wrote ~ “The question is whether that can be determined as conspiratorial. Was this a woman who feared her brother had actually carried out his threat... or was this a woman, part of a conspiracy?"

That specific question – is it A or is it B? – is exactly why the State has a problem. If the evidence allows for a reasonable hypothesis of innocence (that she feared Charlie had gone rogue and panicked), then a jury cannot lawfully convict her of conspiracy.

Being aware that her family was volatile, or even suspecting they might do something crazy, is not the same as entering into an agreement to commit murder. That is the legal gap the state has to bridge. You say that "no jury is going to think WA had no clue." Even if the jury believes she had a "clue" or a suspicion, that is not proof of a conspiratorial agreement.

Your reliance on phrases like "I feel," "I don’t know," and "the question is" highlights that this case relies on interpretation, not hard proof. We can’t simply say, "The jury isn't in kindergarten, they’ll figure it out." The state has to prove agreement and intent. Proving she was in the neighborhood doesn't prove she helped plan the murder.