FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #24

[amicuscurie]

I find it strange that Harvey did not appear to me to be there the other day.

 

[cottonweaver]

WATCH LIVE: State Attorney Jack Campbell hosts press conference to discuss the status of Donna Adelson’s trial

The 74-year-old was set to be tried for the 2014 murder of FSU law professor Dan Markel, but her trial was abruptly canceled the same day it was supposed to begin.

www.wctv.tv

 

[Wishbone]

I find it strange that Harvey did not appear to me to be there the other day.

I can only hope that the entire adelson family has shattered and split apart. But, he could also be scared to show his murderous money bag self to all those that know what this filthy family did.JMO

 

[Going Rogue]

In Jack Campbell’s press conference today, he had indicated that had Judge Everett removed Rashbaum, even with the conflict, it would have been a violation of Donna’s 6th amendment right of counsel of her choice and a potential appellate issue. He made it sound like this was a consideration that they had contemplated. I have already criticized the prosecution and the judge for not removing Rashbaum and that criticism may have been a naive rush to judgement (that doesn’t happen in true crime ). Not sure where I stand on this issue at the moment other than Rashbaum is a fool for not getting a signed waiver from Charlie and I still think the state should have asked for the signed waiver for the record. I wish Alan Dershowitz was following this case, would love to hear his take on what unfolded this week.

 

[amicuscurie]

I can only hope that the entire adelson family has shattered and split apart. But, he could also be scared to show his murderous money bag self to all those that know what this filthy family did.JMO

dbm

 

[Knitpicker]

I find it strange that Harvey did not appear to me to be there the other day.

By Saturday everyone knew what was coming down when CA’s attorney told him hes not taking the stand.

 

[Knitpicker]

In Jack Campbell’s press conference today, he had indicated that had Judge Everett removed Rashbaum, even with the conflict, it would have been a violation of Donna’s 6th amendment right of counsel of her choice and a potential appellate issue. He made it sound like this was a consideration that they had contemplated. I have already criticized the prosecution and the judge for not removing Rashbaum and that criticism may have been a naive rush to judgement (that doesn’t happen in true crime ). Not sure where I stand on this issue at the moment other than Rashbaum is a fool for not getting a signed waiver from Charlie and I still think the state should have asked for the signed waiver for the record. I wish Alan Dershowitz was following this case, would love to hear his take on what unfolded this week.

New laws need to be made

 

[clearskies1]

I'm curious what will happen with Rashbaum's attorney's fees. Did the retainer agreement explicitly cover the possibility that CA would revoke his alleged waiver?

 

[Going Rogue]

I'm curious what will happen with Rashbaum's attorney's fees. Did the retainer agreement explicitly cover the possibility that CA would revoke his alleged waiver?

Being that Rashbaum never got a signed waiver from Charlie, I wonder how strong the terms and conditions are in his contract with Donna. Rashbaun withdrew, he wasn’t fired by his client, he was forced to withdraw based on the curveball thrown at him by Ufferman / Charlie. His forced withdrawal from the case was not caused by his current client and a VERY strong case could be made that he is responsible / negligent. This can get real ugly UNLESS he specifically identified in his contract with Donna that this (or similar) potential issue may arise based on his ‘conflict’ in representation and specified how it would be handled financially ‘IF’ he was forced to withdraw. The legal contract between Donna and Rashbaum is probably just as big a cluster as the continuance and I have a feeling his T&C’s are vague.

 

[Zedzded]

Appar

Apparently, all new lawyers would have to go through all the evidence etc. It took1.5 years for Charlie and a year for Donna (Rashbaum already knew the case. An attorney mentioned that yesterday. Not my opinion.

I can envisage DA looking to make a deal, pleading guilty, perhaps an Alford plea. I just don't think DR was being brutally honest with his client about her prospects in this trial. Perhaps that was borne out of sympathy, not wanting to see his client become any more distraught, perhaps it was his style or just to ensure the money kept rolling in.... but I can imagine a new lawyer will look at all the evidence and tell DA flat out "you're gonski."

She looks broken. I just don't think she has it in her to wait another 1 year plus for a new trial. She wants this over with yesterday, guilty or not guilty, she just wants it done. It's almost like Danny is haunting her from his grave...

 

[clearskies1]

Being that Rashbaum never got a signed waiver from Charlie, I wonder how strong the terms and conditions are in his contract with Donna. Rashbaun withdrew, he wasn’t fired by his client, he was forced to withdraw based on the curveball thrown at him by Ufferman / Charlie. His forced withdrawal from the case was not caused by his current client and a VERY strong case could be made that he is responsible / negligent. This can get real ugly UNLESS he specifically identified in his contract with Donna that this (or similar) potential issue may arise based on his ‘conflict’ in representation and specified how it would be handled financially ‘IF’ he was forced to withdraw. The legal contract between Donna and Rashbaum is probably just as big a cluster as the continuance and I have a feeling his T&C’s are vague.

Regardless of what Donna said she wanted or said she understood, I can understand the argument that Rashbaum should not have taken the case because he, as the lawyer, can objectively understand the huge risk to the client (Donna). I'm not an expert on it, but it's just my feeling. JMO.

 

[opt]

If Donna is not going to give up Wendi she won't get much of a deal and therefore she doesnt have a lot to lose by going to trial.

 

[Knitpicker]

I can envisage DA looking to make a deal, pleading guilty, perhaps an Alford plea. I just don't think DR was being brutally honest with his client about her prospects in this trial. Perhaps that was borne out of sympathy, not wanting to see his client become any more distraught, perhaps it was his style or just to ensure the money kept rolling in.... but I can imagine a new lawyer will look at all the evidence and tell DA flat out "you're gonski."

She looks broken. I just don't think she has it in her to wait another 1 year plus for a new trial. She wants this over with yesterday, guilty or not guilty, she just wants it done. It's almost like Danny is haunting her from his grave...

Yes, a real let down. Do you think they will arrest Wendi before they try Donna?

 

[Knitpicker]

I can envisage DA looking to make a deal, pleading guilty, perhaps an Alford plea. I just don't think DR was being brutally honest with his client about her prospects in this trial. Perhaps that was borne out of sympathy, not wanting to see his client become any more distraught, perhaps it was his style or just to ensure the money kept rolling in.... but I can imagine a new lawyer will look at all the evidence and tell DA flat out "you're gonski."

She looks broken. I just don't think she has it in her to wait another 1 year plus for a new trial. She wants this over with yesterday, guilty or not guilty, she just wants it done. It's almost like Danny is haunting her from his grave...

Yes, a real let down. Do you think they will arrest Wendi before they try Donna?

 

[amicuscurie]

Yes, a real let down. Do you think they will arrest Wendi before they try Donna?

I was under the impression they needed Wendi to testify against Donna, and so they couldn’t arrest her until after she does.

 

[Knitpicker]

We will probably never know if anything was discussed. They are both on record saying the ethical wall between Morris & Charlie existed SO if Rashbaum shared anything with Morris, neither of them will admit it at this stage. The issue here is not whether anything was discussed, the issue is if Morris remains on the defense team, will that raise an appellate issue down the road? According to Carl Steinbeck that is a concern and Morris should be removed – why take this risk if you are the prosecution? The right to counsel of your choice is not absolute. Per Carl, the judge had the authority to remove Rashbaum, and in hindsight its a move he should have made based on the clear conflict of interest. Hindsight is 20/20, but just look where we stand now and what just unfolded and that’s all the justification you need to make the argument that Rashbaum should have been removed.

I need to praise Carl Steinbeck again for raising this concern MANY times in the past and now is seems so obvious why Rashbaum should have been removed. How did the prosecution and the judge allow this to happen? I’m not defending Rashbaum because the simple fact that he never got a signed waiver is shocking BUT when you peel back the layers, had Charlie even signed a waiver, he could have changed his mind at any point so a signed waiver didn’t removed any of the risk. It just shows some incompetence on Rashbaum’s part – that is clear to me he missed a 101 step. Carl phrased it best - the conflict of interest was a ticking time bomb that could have gone off at anytime. It’s easy to take shots at Rashbaum, but honestly, I’m more disappointed in the Leon County District Attorneys Office and the Leon County Judicial Circuit. They should have never let it get to this point and they failed us in my opinion. I know that sounds harsh, but unless I’m missing something they are more responsible for this mess than Rashbaum. I would love to hear someone tell me why I’m wrong.

Theres so much politics going on in the case. I wonder if the Adelsons have some dirt on some people in high places.
What did you think of jack Campbell not wanting to disclose Jimenez’s (the UC) whereabouts (his press conference today),and Katiecoolady is talking about having dinner with him and Tim and Joel?

 

[Knitpicker]

Short and sweet from Jared Ross at Justice For Dan and again a consensus is building among the attorneys who follow the case. ( STS will doubtless interview some more attorneys in the next few days. Be interested to hear Dave Aronberg & Mutz's take too)

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

Did he ever say why he doesn’t practice law?

 

[Knitpicker]

He was bang on the money. I watched his dissection of the conflict of waiver he did many months ago and he very accurately foresaw this being an issue. One of the pertinent things he said was that DA can waive her rights and CA can waive his rights, but it might still not be accepted because it breaches the 6th amendment right of a person's right to conflict free counsel. That's something that can't always be waived.

But it seems, there is nothing the state can do about it as she has the right to choose her lawyer…

 

[Zedzded]

Yes, a real let down. Do you think they will arrest Wendi before they try Donna?

I feel that there have been a number of reasons why WA has not been arrested yet. Initially it was lack of evidence, but then with the State adopting this strategy of arresting each co-conspirator one at a time, her logical position in the queue was after DA. Whenever there was a flurry of phone calls it all followed the same sequence SG to KM to CA to DA and then back up the chain again and that was the order of the arrests. I believe WA's arrest was imminent and she would have been arrested after DA's trial, but now the State have time and they don't need to be using resources for DA's trial, so I believe they will go after WA. If they don't arrest her in the next 6 weeks, I don't believe it will ever happen. If the case against her is so tenuous that they need her Mum's conviction to secure an indictment, then it's not going to happen. So really I'm hoping the fact she hasn't been arrested is a timing issue not an evidence issue.

 

[amicuscurie]

Did he ever say why he doesn’t practice law?

Jared, I think, is a lobbyist, it’s the state capital.