FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #25

[Sustained]

Looks like Charlie has finally been moved back to South Dakota

 

[Ferpo]

Looks like Charlie has finally been moved back to South Dakota

As of Tuesday, October 15 at 4:13 PM Eastern Time, I still see him listed in Leon County jail.

 

[Sustained]

As of Tuesday, October 15 at 4:13 PM Eastern Time, I still see him listed in Leon County jail.

Apologies my mistake - I see that I typed his name in lower case when I first searched. Thanks.

 

[Going Rogue]

I heard Carl Steinbeck say in a recent livestream that he is giving Charlie a 90% chance of winning his appeal - wow! I have said many times I respect his opinion on anything related to legal ‘process’, but I have to disagree on his take here. Yes Rashbaum represented Donna & Harvey previously in civil matters BEFORE representing Charlie, BUT throughout his entire representation of Charlie, Donna had not yet been formally charged. All the legal definitions of conflict of interests in representation clearly specify that the ‘clients’ have to be involved in “the same or a substantially related matter”. If Donna was not yet charged until AFTER Charlie's verdict, this does not fall under a conflict of interest in my opinion. It would be very different had Donna been charged BEFORE or PRIOR to the conclusion of Charles trial. I agree 100% that his representation of Donna AFTER Charlie was charged is a clear conflict of interest, but that has nothing to do with a conflict in his representation of Charlie during Charlie's trial.

I’d post this on Carl’s channel it I wasn’t blocked . I figured I’d post it here for comments. Love to hear thoughts from those with knowledge on the subject.

 

[Zedzded]

I heard Carl Steinbeck say in a recent livestream that he is giving Charlie a 90% chance of winning his appeal - wow! I have said many times I respect his opinion on anything related to legal ‘process’, but I have to disagree on his take here. Yes Rashbaum represented Donna & Harvey previously in civil matters BEFORE representing Charlie, BUT throughout his entire representation of Charlie, Donna had not yet been formally charged. All the legal definitions of conflict of interests in representation clearly specify that the ‘clients’ have to be involved in “the same or a substantially related matter”. If Donna was not yet charged until AFTER Charlie's verdict, this does not fall under a conflict of interest in my opinion. It would be very different had Donna been charged BEFORE or PRIOR to the conclusion of Charles trial. I agree 100% that his representation of Donna AFTER Charlie was charged is a clear conflict of interest, but that has nothing to do with a conflict in his representation of Charlie during Charlie's trial.

Yeah that was exactly my take on it too. I don't get it. DA might have a case for conflict of interest, but not CA.

 

[opt]

DR was quite effective, given the pathetic murder on spec story that his client professed. No lawyer in the world could have sold that crock.

 

[amicuscurie]

I heard Carl Steinbeck say in a recent livestream that he is giving Charlie a 90% chance of winning his appeal - wow! I have said many times I respect his opinion on anything related to legal ‘process’, but I have to disagree on his take here. Yes Rashbaum represented Donna & Harvey previously in civil matters BEFORE representing Charlie, BUT throughout his entire representation of Charlie, Donna had not yet been formally charged. All the legal definitions of conflict of interests in representation clearly specify that the ‘clients’ have to be involved in “the same or a substantially related matter”. If Donna was not yet charged until AFTER Charlie's verdict, this does not fall under a conflict of interest in my opinion. It would be very different had Donna been charged BEFORE or PRIOR to the conclusion of Charles trial. I agree 100% that his representation of Donna AFTER Charlie was charged is a clear conflict of interest, but that has nothing to do with a conflict in his representation of Charlie during Charlie's trial.

I’d post this on Carl’s channel it I wasn’t blocked . I figured I’d post it here for comments. Love to hear thoughts from those with knowledge on the subject.

The conflict of interest, in my opinion, arose when Rash took over Charlie’s representation after previously representing Donna. Charlie can now argue, hypothetically, that rash’s prior representation of Donna made any assistance from Rash ineffective as to Charlie.

Arguably, it was known or anticipated that Donna had a strong possibility of being charged in the future, as she was named as an unindicted coconspirator in the probable cause affidavit. (I believe for Sig, but definitely for Charlie). That presents a conflict in my opinion, for Rashbaum in taking Charlie’s case, because it’s possible he may have known or suspected she might wish for him to represent her later, precisely because he had represented her before.

Even without that possibility, there is still the possibility that Donna disclosed information to him which was damaging to her which he could use in Charlie’s trial, but his ethical obligations to Donna would not allow him to absent a waiver. Or, she could have disclosed information as to a possible defense for her. He might have felt his ethical obligations prevented him from offering any defense for Charlie which was inconsistent with that, in case she might be tried at some point.

I do not know whether this potential for conflict was ever explained to either of them. We do know, I believe, that neither signed a written waiver as to any past OR FUTURE representation.

If this is obvious to me, a mere Holiday Inn Express guest, it should have at least come up in 2022 when Rash took over Charlie’s case, in my opinion. I do remember being aware of all of the conflict issues it presented at that time, and I believe Carl was, too. I have no idea why the court did not seek clarification or proof of a waiver, or why the state didn’t raise the issue.

 

[Ferpo]

Apologies my mistake - I see that I typed his name in lower case when I first searched. Thanks.

You were close, CA was transferred out of Leon County jail today. Destination unknown so far, let's see where Department of Corrections puts him.

 

[Going Rogue]

The conflict of interest, in my opinion, arose when Rash took over Charlie’s representation after previously representing Donna. Charlie can now argue, hypothetically, that rash’s prior representation of Donna made any assistance from Rash ineffective as to Charlie.

Arguably, it was known or anticipated that Donna had a strong possibility of being charged in the future, as she was named as an unindicted coconspirator in the probable cause affidavit. (I believe for Sig, but definitely for Charlie). That presents a conflict in my opinion, for Rashbaum in taking Charlie’s case, because it’s possible he may have known or suspected she might wish for him to represent her later, precisely because he had represented her before.

Even without that possibility, there is still the possibility that Donna disclosed information to him which was damaging to her which he could use in Charlie’s trial, but his ethical obligations to Donna would not allow him to absent a waiver. Or, she could have disclosed information as to a possible defense for her. He might have felt his ethical obligations prevented him from offering any defense for Charlie which was inconsistent with that, in case she might be tried at some point.

I do not know whether this potential for conflict was ever explained to either of them. We do know, I believe, that neither signed a written waiver as to any past OR FUTURE representation.

If this is obvious to me, a mere Holiday Inn Express guest, it should have at least come up in 2022 when Rash took over Charlie’s case, in my opinion. I do remember being aware of all of the conflict issues it presented at that time, and I believe Carl was, too. I have no idea why the court did not seek clarification or proof of a waiver, or why the state didn’t raise the issue.

Yes, Charlie and his appellate attorney can argue whatever they want in his appeal. The bottom line is even though Donna was named as a co-conspirator prior to Charlie’s trial, she was not formally charged until after his trial. Had Donna been charged before Charlie's trial it would have been a clear conflict of interest. I completely understand your argument, but the question here from a ‘conflict of interest’ perspective is the following: does Donna who was not ‘yet’ charged but named as an unindicted co-conspirator while Rashbaum represented Charlie, conflict Rashbaum because he formally represented Donna even if his representation of Donna was in unrelated matters? Giving this more thought, I can see it being argued either way, and I am no expert, but I lean more towards it doesn't not conflict Rashbaum and an appeal will not be granted for this reason. Not sure if Ufferman has something else up his sleeves?

Rashbaum’s representation of Donna AFTER Charlie’s conviction is a completely different matter and a clear conflict of interest. Attorney conflicts of interest are based on the circumstances and set of facts at the time of representation, not based on hypothetical scenarios (some that you outlined) or circumstances that followed after representation.

 

[Going Rogue]

Tim Jansen just broke it down on STS. Ufferman has requested an evidentiary hearing requesting Everett review the case to determine if Charlie got a fair trial. Here is the issue as explained by Jansen, when the state scheduled the deposition of Donna and Harvey prior to the start of Charlie’s trial, Rashbaum made a deal with the state to remove Donna & Harvey from the defenses witness list if they agreed to cancel the deposition. The argument is that if Charlie didn’t agree (written waiver) not to call Donna & Harvey as witnesses, it compromised his defense and the allegation would be Rashbaum made the deal to protect his former client at the detriment of Charlie’s defense.

I completely follow the above and agree that would be a conflict. This is ugly!

 

[Missyrocks5]

Tim Jansen just broke it down on STS. Ufferman has requested an evidentiary hearing requesting Everett review the case to determine if Charlie got a fair trial. Here is the issue as explained by Jansen, when the state scheduled the deposition of Donna and Harvey prior to the start of Charlie’s trial, Rashbaum made a deal with the state to remove Donna & Harvey from the defenses witness list if they agreed to cancel the deposition. The argument is that if Charlie didn’t agree (written waiver) not to call Donna & Harvey as witnesses, it compromised his defense and the allegation would be Rashbaum made the deal to protect his former client at the detriment of Charlie’s defense.

I completely follow the above and agree that would be a conflict. This is ugly!

Yup. I think on purpose. I think Rashbaum gets the last laugh. I think he gamed it all out. Again, Charlie's smirk in the mugshot. They all knew. IMO.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Tim Jansen just broke it down on STS. Ufferman has requested an evidentiary hearing requesting Everett review the case to determine if Charlie got a fair trial. Here is the issue as explained by Jansen, when the state scheduled the deposition of Donna and Harvey prior to the start of Charlie’s trial, Rashbaum made a deal with the state to remove Donna & Harvey from the defenses witness list if they agreed to cancel the deposition. The argument is that if Charlie didn’t agree (written waiver) not to call Donna & Harvey as witnesses, it compromised his defense and the allegation would be Rashbaum made the deal to protect his former client at the detriment of Charlie’s defense.

I completely follow the above and agree that would be a conflict. This is ugly!

Interesting….. and IANAL…… something in the above caught my eye:

“Rashbaum made a deal with the state to remove Donna & Harvey from the defenses witness list if they agreed to cancel the deposition.”

Wonder if there is speculation that deal was made in an effort to shield someone from being deposed or involved in making incriminating statements perhaps?

IMO if the tree is shaken hard enough, all the apples might hit the ground. MOO

 

[Going Rogue]

Yup. I think on purpose. I think Rashbaum gets the last laugh. I think he gamed it all out. Again, Charlie's smirk in the mugshot. They all knew. IMO.

I don’t think Rashbaum is laughing and don’t think this was done in any strategic or calculated way to game the system. This could potentially be very bad for Rashbaum personally and bad for his firm. If Charlie wins the appeal based on Rashbaum’s mistake, Charlie has a good case against Rashbaum for legal fees. Rashbaum would never risk his reputation and livelihood by doing this on purpose. Also need to point out that the prosecutors office and Judge didn’t anticipate this issue either so in hindsight it’s just a BIG error that no one caught – no one except Ufferman after the fact.

 

[Going Rogue]

Interesting….. and IANAL…… something in the above caught my eye:

“Rashbaum made a deal with the state to remove Donna & Harvey from the defenses witness list if they agreed to cancel the deposition.”

Wonder if there is speculation that deal was made in an effort to shield someone from being deposed or involved in making incriminating statements perhaps?

IMO if the tree is shaken hard enough, all the apples might hit the ground. MOO

I’m sure there is speculation it was done to shield / protect Donna & Harvey and therein lies the issue. As long as Charlie didn’t sign a waiver after Rashbaum made a deal to remove Donna & Harvey, it a very valid argument that it potentially compromised his defense and was a conflict - as long as Charlie says he wanted to call them as witnesses to corroborate his story. Had Rashbaum not previously represented Donna & Harvey, this would fall flat. What a sh_t show.

 

[Missyrocks5]

I don’t think Rashbaum is laughing and don’t think this was done in any strategic or calculated way to game the system. This could potentially be very bad for Rashbaum personally and bad for his firm. If Charlie wins the appeal based on Rashbaum’s mistake, Charlie has a good case against Rashbaum for legal fees. Rashbaum would never risk his reputation and livelihood by doing this on purpose. Also need to point out that the prosecutors office and Judge didn’t anticipate this issue either so in hindsight it’s just a BIG error that no one caught – no one except Ufferman after the fact.

I may be giving him more credit than he deserves, but I don't think he cared one bit what his reputation was up there. He practices in South Florida, not northern Florida. At the end Of the day, he likely got his obviously guilty client a new trial. Like a Baez move. One move on the board to trying to jam up the State.

Let's see. I think he will always have plausible deniability that will allow him to skate past any real ramifications of any kind, whether from the Bar, his reputation, any of it. IMO. However, i see he can end up with 2 malpractice claims and having to refund $ to the As. I acknowledge it may go south. Time will tell.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I’m sure there is speculation it was done to shield / protect Donna & Harvey and therein lies the issue. As long as Charlie didn’t sign a waiver after Rashbaum made a deal to remove Donna & Harvey, it a very valid argument that it potentially compromised his defense and was a conflict - as long as Charlie says he wanted to call them as witnesses to corroborate his story. Had Rashbaum not previously represented Donna & Harvey, this would fall flat. What a sh_t show.

Interesting thoughts @Going Rogue ….. and so hard to tell.

IANAL. With that said, it is difficult to tell as far as prior representation of DA. She wasn’t charge earlier and whether or how that might affect the subsequent representation of CA at trial I don’t know. And I won’t profess to understand why the A family chose to primarily utilize one attorney. I have some suspicions though.

I do concur that any subsequent representation of DA by the same attorney for that trial would seem to be of concern.

And your final statement is on the mark. MOO

 

[Missyrocks5]

Even if the As signed written waivers, they could always rescind them. At the last minute. That was always part of the problem.

 

[Snoods]

Another Florida case was Theresa Sievers, her husband hired his down-on-his-luck childhood friend, promising to pay him $100K. I'm pretty sure he didn't mention the $4.5 million in life insurance the husband was expecting to get out of it. Anyway, it was definitely 'send in the clowns', what a waste of her life.

JMO

I have never been more obsessed with a case. There were thousands of pages of documents released and I read every one of them. It was complex and sordid, really unbelievable. Yeah, the $4.5 million life insurance policy the husband was salivating over, while starting a Gofund me asking for a cool million.

 

[Wishbone]

Interesting thoughts @Going Rogue ….. and so hard to tell.

IANAL. With that said, it is difficult to tell as far as prior representation of DA. She wasn’t charge earlier and whether or how that might affect the subsequent representation of CA at trial I don’t know. And I won’t profess to understand why the A family chose to primarily utilize one attorney. I have some suspicions though.

I do concur that any subsequent representation of DA by the same attorney for that trial would seem to be of concern.

And your final statement is on the mark. MOO

If I understand this correctly, this conflict issue is going back to the trial judge to rule on. After the fiasco he just presided over my guess is a new trial for CA. What that means to me is that justice for DM will be delayed for years again. If it ends up that way, I would hope WA and HA are indicted soon and set to go to trial with the rest of A's whenever that happens. I just wonder if this thing will ever end with that entire family behind bars where they all belong. JMO

 

[TTF14]

So, if Charlie "wins his appeal," that just means he gets a new trial, right? Not that he's exonerated and gets out of prison for life?