GUILTY FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen #20

[Sustained]

I live in Florida. I think he’s delusional.

Death Row in Raiford is all PM - maybe CA can request a transfer

 

[cottonweaver]

Rashbaum told CA his testimony was 95% favorable to him!??? OK I’m sorry but Rashbaum is not only a terrible litigator but he is seriously unethical imo. He has a duty to manage his clients expectations. He is Charlie’s advocate - in what world does that involve just blatantly lying to his client? Telling your client he’s gonna go home seems to me to be an unconscionable choice. This is along the lines of Kawass/DeCoste not forcing KM if they had to to take that deal! JMO

There is tons of this, in almost every call.



here's a new example, from Gigi's latest uploads. 11th Nov. 2 days before Donna flees

at 12m. Dan’s view just before the Defense rested: ‘ Ecstatic’

DR had previously told him that over last 6 months that he was worried about getting ONE juror for guilty ( 11x NGs which would still create a hung jury problem for them. )



BTW, Donna's tone is very different. Apparently, she has only just been warned that jail may be ' live listening' to their calls. At 7- 10m mark.
She also tells him to tough it out. ( Ironic. Presumably she's packing)

 

[amicuscurie]

Rashbaum told CA his testimony was 95% favorable to him!??? OK I’m sorry but Rashbaum is not only a terrible litigator but he is seriously unethical imo. He has a duty to manage his clients expectations. He is Charlie’s advocate - in what world does that involve just blatantly lying to his client? Telling your client he’s gonna go home seems to me to be an unconscionable choice. This is along the lines of Kawass/DeCoste not forcing KM if they had to to take that deal! JMO

I do not believe Rash told him that.

 

[Knitpicker]

In case this is helpful -- starting at 8:33:05 is Sgt Corbitt's testimony re the KM/SG 12:30pm call and Wendi's whereabouts around mid-day.

He said the KM/SG 12:30 call was 20 seconds long and that WA started a lengthy phone call in the general vicinity of her home at 12:31 pm.

I think LR misheard or there was a miscommunication on the 12:30 call -- based on the records and testimony, it does not seem possible that WA could have communicated anything to anyone about Trescott before the 12:30 SG/KM call because she apparently was not at Trescott until after that call took place. JMO.

I have been looking for him at the second trial and can’t find it. I believe it’s here he states she left the house 12:15. But I’d need to confirm it.

 

[Weki]

There is tons of this, in almost every call.



here's a new example, from Gigi's latest uploads. 11th Nov. 2 days before Donna flees

at 12m. Dan’s view just before the Defense rested: ‘ Ecstatic’

DR had previously told him that over last 6 months that he was worried about getting ONE juror for guilty ( 11x NGs which would still create a hung jury problem for them. )



BTW, Donna's tone is very different. Apparently, she has only just been warned that jail may be ' live listening' to their calls. At 7- 10m mark.
She also tells him to tough it out. ( Ironic. Presumably she's packing)

I had been taking these Rashbaum comments from Charlie with a grain of salt. Just like some, I thought he may have just heard what he wanted. But now he’s quoting specific things that Rashbaum said to him. I can’t imagine he’s just fabricated these statements from Rashbaum. I’m baffled as to why Rashbaum would employ this strategy. Charlie is not dumb. His instincts told him a long time ago that he was toast and he wanted to flee. But it seems he was vociferously talked out of that and then got lied to throughout his trial and slow walked into a life sentence! And here Donna seems impatient with him. She’s like ‘ ugh just deal’ <——- those are my words to describe her demeanor. JMO

 

[BUF]

There is tons of this, in almost every call.



here's a new example, from Gigi's latest uploads. 11th Nov. 2 days before Donna flees

at 12m. Dan’s view just before the Defense rested: ‘ Ecstatic’

DR had previously told him that over last 6 months that he was worried about getting ONE juror for guilty ( 11x NGs which would still create a hung jury problem for them. )



BTW, Donna's tone is very different. Apparently, she has only just been warned that jail may be ' live listening' to their calls. At 7- 10m mark.
She also tells him to tough it out. ( Ironic. Presumably she's packing)

You are correct, DA’s tone sure changed. Someone had a stern talk with her. I guess she never listened to the beginning of the phone calls where the recording says this call is recorded. CA’s reaction to her telling him that everyone was watching/listening to him, etc. was unbelievable. He mentioned over and over in the other calls that he was in this box and they were continually watching him….didn’t he think that those endless phone calls were be listened to??

Now that DA finally realized her phone was being taped, no more phone calls for her…although by then I’m sure the authorities had gotten an earful.

Not like the old days where you could pile up your change and go to a pay phone…those are all gone now.


(btw, this call is labeled Nov 9….you must be in Europe where the day is written before the month)

 

[ch_13]

I had been taking these Rashbaum comments from Charlie with a grain of salt. Just like some, I thought he may have just heard what he wanted. But now he’s quoting specific things that Rashbaum said to him. I can’t imagine he’s just fabricated these statements from Rashbaum. I’m baffled as to why Rashbaum would employ this strategy. Charlie is not dumb. His instincts told him a long time ago that he was toast and he wanted to flee. But it seems he was vociferously talked out of that and then got lied to throughout his trial and slow walked into a life sentence! And here Donna seems impatient with him. She’s like ‘ ugh just deal’ <——- those are my words to describe her demeanor. JMO

I don't know what to think. It's hard to believe an experienced trial attorney would be naive enough to think his client would get off when his story was such obvious balderdash. But it occurs to me that Rashbaum focuses on white collar crimes and maybe he was just out of his depth.

 

[amicuscurie]

I don't know what to think. It's hard to believe an experienced trial attorney would be naive enough to think his client would get off when his story was such obvious balderdash. But it occurs to me that Rashbaum focuses on white collar crimes and maybe he was just out of his depth.

I can imagine that he fabricated these statements. In my opinion, he’s no stranger to making things up.

 

[Zedzded]

The Adelson's think the sun shines out of Rashbaum's arse and he wants them to continue to think that. Part of that would have been to make CA think the State's case was weak and CA was going to walk. I think if he'd been realistic and told CA he had little to no chance, their opinions of him would have changed. As it stands (in their eyes) he did an amazing job and the only reason they lost was because of an inept jury and Georgia Cappelman's southern charm.

 

[amicuscurie]

The Adelson's think the sun shines out of Rashbaum's arse and he wants them to continue to think that. Part of that would have been to make CA think the State's case was weak and CA was going to walk. I think if he'd been realistic and told CA he had little to no chance, their opinions of him would have changed. As it stands (in their eyes) he did an amazing job and the only reason they lost was because of an inept jury and Georgia Cappelman's southern charm.

They went through a few lawyers before they got to Rash. Isn’t it possible the others DID tell him that he had little to no chance? Couldn’t that be why those lawyers didn’t end up representing him, because either he didn’t want to hear that, or they didn’t want to take the case? If you go through enough lawyers, hypothetically, you might eventually end up with one who will tell you something closer to what you want to hear.

 

[IQuestion]

The Adelson's think the sun shines out of Rashbaum's arse and he wants them to continue to think that. Part of that would have been to make CA think the State's case was weak and CA was going to walk. I think if he'd been realistic and told CA he had little to no chance, their opinions of him would have changed. As it stands (in their eyes) he did an amazing job and the only reason they lost was because of an inept jury and Georgia Cappelman's southern charm.

Yeah, I don't get the sainthood bestowed on DR by the A's either. They think he did a fabulous job. Or maybe it is because he does what they want him to do. I will say it was awfully nice of him to drop in on DA while in town and provide MD with updates on her client. And we all know how that turned out. When in Rome? Or Tally? Like any fine gentleman barrister, shakes the hand of the opposition when he loses. IMO, he should have at least looked sad. IDK, maybe that is his sad face. (...... humming as I walk out of the room, "ya gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, know when to run....")

 

[clearskies1]

They went through a few lawyers before they got to Rash. Isn’t it possible the others DID tell him that he had little to no chance? Couldn’t that be why those lawyers didn’t end up representing him, because either he didn’t want to hear that, or they didn’t want to take the case? If you go through enough lawyers, hypothetically, you might eventually end up with one who will tell you something closer to what you want to hear.

Also, why are they represented by white collar defense lawyers? Makes no sense to me. JMO.

 

[Weki]

Yeah, I don't get the sainthood bestowed on DR by the A's either. They think he did a fabulous job. Or maybe it is because he does what they want him to do. I will say it was awfully nice of him to drop in on DA while in town and provide MD with updates on her client. And we all know how that turned out. When in Rome? Or Tally? Like any fine gentleman barrister, shakes the hand of the opposition when he loses. IMO, he should have at least looked sad. IDK, maybe that is his sad face. (...... humming as I walk out of the room, "ya gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, know when to run....")
View attachment 468689

Lol, listeeeeen, Rashbaum is a clown. I have watched many trials and I can count in one hand where the defense atty was so deferential to the state. He acted like this was his first time in a courtroom and he was just happy to be included and wanted to make sure he was invited back. There are several factors here: he’s not a criminal defense atty as in defending murders etc (any lawyer can’t just do it as we clearly witnessed), he’s all about the money as a white collar crime defense atty, and he’s just gonna go along with whatever you want to hear. It’s scary to contemplate that you could be facing life in prison and your atty would not advise you in a realistic and grounded manner. Charlie deserves Lwop, no doubt. But the lawyering in this case has been atrocious. For Katie, Sigfredo, and now Charlie. JMO

 

[Zedzded]

Yeah, I don't get the sainthood bestowed on DR by the A's either. They think he did a fabulous job. Or maybe it is because he does what they want him to do. I will say it was awfully nice of him to drop in on DA while in town and provide MD with updates on her client. And we all know how that turned out. When in Rome? Or Tally? Like any fine gentleman barrister, shakes the hand of the opposition when he loses. IMO, he should have at least looked sad. IDK, maybe that is his sad face. (...... humming as I walk out of the room, "ya gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, know when to run....")
View attachment 468689

Hard to look sad, when you just received your fee from the Adelson's lol

 

[cottonweaver]

You are correct, DA’s tone sure changed. Someone had a stern talk with her. I guess she never listened to the beginning of the phone calls where the recording says this call is recorded. CA’s reaction to her telling him that everyone was watching/listening to him, etc. was unbelievable. He mentioned over and over in the other calls that he was in this box and they were continually watching him….didn’t he think that those endless phone calls were be listened to??

Now that DA finally realized her phone was being taped, no more phone calls for her…although by then I’m sure the authorities had gotten an earful.

Not like the old days where you could pile up your change and go to a pay phone…those are all gone now.


(btw, this call is labeled Nov 9….you must be in Europe where the day is written before the month)

I guess she may have also just been warned that the contents could be released to the public at any time.
I wouldn't be surprised if the subsequent calls in the November batch show her talking to her son in a more controlled manner. Better for her image, less revealing for WS-ers.

I do have some sympathy when he's complaining wtte of - are you serious? Am I not allowed to cry after a LWOP sentence, because if I do, somebody might deem this to be a sign of increased suicidal tendencies? Can I pace to offset the cell conditions? That advice on shedding tears sounded bogus to me.
I also doubt the correctional officers were listening to every call live. I doubt they have the staffing to cover 8 hrs per day of Charlie chatter.

 

[stamplewie]

Lol, listeeeeen, Rashbaum is a clown. I have watched many trials and I can count in one hand where the defense atty was so deferential to the state. He acted like this was his first time in a courtroom and he was just happy to be included and wanted to make sure he was invited back. There are several factors here: he’s not a criminal defense atty as in defending murders etc (any lawyer can’t just do it as we clearly witnessed), he’s all about the money as a white collar crime defense atty, and he’s just gonna go along with whatever you want to hear. It’s scary to contemplate that you could be facing life in prison and your atty would not advise you in a realistic and grounded manner. Charlie deserves Lwop, no doubt. But the lawyering in this case has been atrocious. For Katie, Sigfredo, and now Charlie. JMO

You are spot on. Rash is not a criminal defense attorney. I still am totally bewildered as to why he did not put up defense that CA paid to rough Markel up, but never intended that they would kill him. Rash's inexperience led him to peddle an unbelievable theory and entirely miscalculate DA's chances for an acquittal. First and foremost, a defendant has to understand what his chances of success are in order to correctly evaluate his options -- including a plea deal. Unlike others on this forum, I do think Rash misled CA into believing he had a real chance of walking out of Leon County a free man. None of this changes the fact that CA is guilty.

 

[cottonweaver]

I don't know what to think. It's hard to believe an experienced trial attorney would be naive enough to think his client would get off when his story was such obvious balderdash. But it occurs to me that Rashbaum focuses on white collar crimes and maybe he was just out of his depth.

Dunno but in one of the calls Charlie mentions that Dan is the ' King of the Closing'
That Dan has told him that closing statements is one of his areas of strength.
( In another recording CA also admits that he's never followed a criminal trial before)

Thinking back to trial coverage that day, I can't recall anybody saying that Dan's closing was strong. The reverse. It wasn't just the jurors getting bored iirc. Distinctly recall us mocking his amateurish demonstratives too. That puzzle piece graphic.

Anyway, at no point has Charlie thrown Dan under the bus in the jailcalls I heard. He still thinks he's brilliant

At some point however, I do think he will question the wisdom of a shared family attorney. Also think it's hard for him to ever face the notion that his parents might have been self serving. ( Not Wendi, he's no trouble being suspicious about extent of her loyalty imo)

 

[clearskies1]

You are spot on. Rash is not a criminal defense attorney. I still am totally bewildered as to why he did not put up defense that CA paid to rough Markel up, but never intended that they would kill him. Rash's inexperience led him to peddle an unbelievable theory and entirely miscalculate DA's chances for an acquittal. First and foremost, a defendant has to understand what his chances of success are in order to correctly evaluate his options -- including a plea deal. Unlike others on this forum, I do think Rash misled CA into believing he had a real chance of walking out of Leon County a free man. None of this changes the fact that CA is guilty.

I don't think a "rough him up" defense was really viable. If they had just roughed him up, Dan would know who was behind it and would have pursued that big time I'm sure, and there was evidence about the hitman jokes, the "serious" statement to Lacasse about looking into hiring a hitman... and why would the hitmen shoot him in the head if they were supposed to rough him up? I don't see that playing out very well. JMO.

 

[Zedzded]

You are spot on. Rash is not a criminal defense attorney. I still am totally bewildered as to why he did not put up defense that CA paid to rough Markel up, but never intended that they would kill him. Rash's inexperience led him to peddle an unbelievable theory and entirely miscalculate DA's chances for an acquittal. First and foremost, a defendant has to understand what his chances of success are in order to correctly evaluate his options -- including a plea deal. Unlike others on this forum, I do think Rash misled CA into believing he had a real chance of walking out of Leon County a free man. None of this changes the fact that CA is guilty.

I'm in Australia and our legal system is quite different, so correct me if I'm wrong, but if CA enlists someone to "rough up" DM (which is a crime) and DM dies in the process, it's felony murder isn't it? So still LWOP.

 

[stamplewie]

I'm in Australia and our legal system is quite different, so correct me if I'm wrong, but if CA enlists someone to "rough up" DM (which is a crime) and DM dies in the process, it's felony murder isn't it? So still LWOP.

Felony murder is different in each state, but only specific felonies can qualify for felony murder.

"The felony murder rule is a law in most states and under federal law that allows anyone who is accused of committing a violent felony to be charged with murder if the commission of that felony results in the death of someone. The people involved in the felony may be charged for murder under the rule even if they had no intention of killing someone . . . Violent felonies typically includes burglary, robbery, arson, rape, and kidnapping. . . . [T]he merger doctrine prevents the rule from applying when the felony may constitute the elements of murder. This means that if someone commits acts like assault that could have been murder, the felony murder rule cannot apply because the crime “merges” into the charge. For example, a 2009 California State case, People v. Sarun Chun, 203 P.3d 425 (2009), disallowed the felony murder doctrine because the underlying felony, a drive-by shooting, was assaultive in nature."

felony murder rule

www.law.cornell.edu