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

[Sustained]

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?

IMO, the State would likely retry Charlie and he would likely return to Leon County jail until the new trial started.

 

[amicuscurie]

Wow, I missed a lot!

From what I understand, Charlie’s appellate counsel has filed a motion asking the appellate court to send the matter back to the trial court for a ruling on whether Rashbaum’s prior representation of Donna created a conflict which deprived him of a fair trial.

Should the court find that it DID, then it is my understanding his conviction will be vacated.

This does NOT mean he will get out of jail, as far as I understand the law.

It DOES mean he would get a new trial. And, since the court will have determined that Rashbaum had a conflict which deprived Charlie of a fair trial, I think it is safe to say that Rashbaum will not be permitted to represent him at the new trial.

So- now, in my understanding, both Donna and Charlie are in a position of needing a new lawyer for a new trial.

It is my opinion that the new lawyer Charlie selects will be aware that it is possible the state does not want to go through the time and expense of trying him again and might be open to a deal. In my opinion it’s possible Charlie’s new lawyer would advise him to cooperate with the state in exchange for a lesser sentence than the one he’s already serving.

In my opinion, it is possible the new lawyer Donna will retain is also likely aware that the state may wish to avoid the time and expense of trying her again. In my opinion it is possible he would give her similar advice, to cooperate with the state to get a lesser sentence than she would if convicted at trial.

So, in my opinion, it’s possible we may be looking at a race to see who turns on the other first.

Stay tuned.

 

[amicuscurie]

IMO, the State would likely retry Charlie and he would likely return to Leon County jail until the new trial started.

Yes, that’s what would happen, as far as I understand.

 

[opt]

Am I the only one a little excited at the prospect of Charlie's being offered a deal to testify against the rest of the family? That we would finally get to the bottom of it?

 

[amicuscurie]

Am I the only one a little excited at the prospect of Charlie's being offered a deal to testify against the rest of the family? That we would finally get to the bottom of it?

I don’t think you are the only one.

 

[TTF14]

Am I the only one a little excited at the prospect of Charlie's being offered a deal to testify against the rest of the family? That we would finally get to the bottom of it?

Oh wow, I hadn't thought of that! Good theory!

 

[clearskies1]

This was obviously going to be the next move by CA's attorney. Possible that DA and CA will be tried together?!

 

[Wishbone]

Charlie Adelson pushing for new trial, citing same conflict that halted his mother’s trial​

“Mr. Rashbaum’s conflict of interest also infected Appellant Adelson’s trial,” the appeals attorneys wrote. “During the course of their representation of Appellant Adelson, undersigned counsel learned that Mr. Rashbaum represented Donna Adelson prior to the arrest of Appellant Adelson. Stated another way, Mr. Rashbaum previously represented a co-conspirator – in the same or substantially related matter – and he had an actual conflict of interest during the course of his representation of Appellant Adelson.”
They cited Rashbaum’s decision to take Donna Adelson off the defense witness list at Charlie’s trial.

“Undersigned counsel assert that Donna Adelson’s removal from the witness list was done in order to protect Donna Adelson’s interests (i.e., in not being interviewed by the State) – and against Appellant Adelson’s interests,” his attorneys argued.

Charlie Adelson pushing for new trial, citing same conflict that halted his mother’s trial

Charlie Adelson’s attorneys are now pushing for his conviction and life sentence to be thrown out, citing the same conflict of interest that derailed his mother Donna Adelson’s trial just last month.

www.wctv.tv

 

[minusfour]

Now that Charlie had had a good taste of life without parole, the introduction of hope into his situation would be difficult for him to resist. The apparent change in Donna between her arrest and recent court appearance was startling. Clearly she understands her position. Wendi does have a lot to think about.

 

[Zedzded]

Am I the only one a little excited at the prospect of Charlie's being offered a deal to testify against the rest of the family? That we would finally get to the bottom of it?

Yup. A new trial is a good thing.

CA knows the double extortion story is dead in the water. Reinforced by the message exchange between CA and DA, where CA tries to suggest drug dealers may have killed DM...

He had one chance to try and conjure up a story in order to plead his innocence. That failed and that ship has sailed. He is a proven liar and has zero credibility. Even if he managed to come up with a new semi-plausible story, no jury in the US is going to buy it because of his credibility issues. He knows that, his lawyer knows that, it will be a waste of time and money. Even DR wouldn't try and persuade CA to try his luck with a new version of the truth...

His only option is to co-operate. But then for what? He can't get a reduced sentence or possibility of parole in Florida. It's LWOP or the death penalty. End of. I guess he could hope for a better prison?

 

[Knitpicker]

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.

i thought he said there would be no appeal, but a new trial. Did I miss something?

 

[Going Rogue]

i thought he said there would be no appeal, but a new trial. Did I miss something?

In Carl’s video I referend, he had said the chances of winning the appeal are 90%, but that was before we / he had the news that Ufferman filed a motion requesting the appeals court relinquish jurisdiction back to the trial court. He predicted after that motion that Everett will grant that motion which essentially means it never makes it to the appeals court. Either way, if Everett rules in favor of the motion OR he wins an appeal we get the same result – a retrial.

 

[amicuscurie]

In Carl’s video I referend, he had said the chances of winning the appeal are 90%, but that was before we / he had the news that Ufferman filed a motion requesting the appeals court relinquish jurisdiction back to the trial court. He predicted after that motion that Everett will grant that motion which essentially means it never makes it to the appeals court. Either way, if Everett rules in favor of the motion OR he wins an appeal we get the same result – a retrial.

The appellate attorney has asked the appellate court to temporarily give up its jurisdiction and send the matter back to the trial court to address the conflict issue. One of the arguments in the motion is that if trial court were to vacate the conviction and order a new trial because of the conflict, then the appeal (from the conviction) would be moot. Thus, the motion asserts that it would be a waste of the appellate court’s resources to proceed with the appeal (writing a brief) at this point, before the conflict issue can be addressed.

It is my understanding that if the appellate court denies the motion, and the appeal is allowed to proceed, the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised in the first, direct appeal. It is my understanding that this issue is properly the subject of a request for “post-conviction relief” AFTER the direct appeal is exhausted. Often, in my understanding, when defendants try to make ineffective assistance arguments in the initial direct appeal, they are told that this is more properly a matter for post-conviction relief and they have to wait.

That’s another reason, in my opinion, for the appellate court to send it to the trial court now. Otherwise, there is the risk of the parties having to expend a lot of effort exhausting all appeals before the post-conviction argument of ineffective assistance can be made.

In my understanding, that’s usually what happens. Quite often, defendants lose all their appeals and then, when they have no further avenue, they file an ineffective assistance claim and try to argue their lawyer did something wrong during the trial.

But here, where the conflict is a newly discovered and pressing issue which arguably was present before the trial even started (as opposed to something the attorney did wrong during the trial), it might make sense, in my opinion, not to waste time exhausting all avenues for direct appeal before raising the issue.

 

[dotr]

Oct 17, 2024
"Plot twist": Charlie Adelson's attorney takes first step toward having case retried

Oct 18, 2024
Charlie Adelson’s attorneys are pushing for his conviction and life sentence to be thrown out, citing the same conflict of interest that derailed his mother.

"Plot twist": Charlie Adelson's attorney takes first step toward having case retried

Jurors convicted Charles Adelson in 2023 for the murder FSU Law Professor Dan Markel. Now, his new attorney says there were problems with his representation.

www.wtxl.com

 

[amicuscurie]

Oct 17, 2024
"Plot twist": Charlie Adelson's attorney takes first step toward having case retried

Oct 18, 2024
Charlie Adelson’s attorneys are pushing for his conviction and life sentence to be thrown out, citing the same conflict of interest that derailed his mother.

"Plot twist": Charlie Adelson's attorney takes first step toward having case retried

Jurors convicted Charles Adelson in 2023 for the murder FSU Law Professor Dan Markel. Now, his new attorney says there were problems with his representation.

www.wtxl.com

All of these stories to me seem to want to make it like he’s getting out of jail. He isn’t, I don’t think. He may get a new trial, but in my opinion he stands little chance of getting a different result. But these crazy headlines, “conviction overturned!” I don’t think that means what some YouTubers think it means. Even if the conviction is “thrown out,” it just means he has to start over with a new lawyer, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Zedzded]

All of these stories to me seem to want to make it like he’s getting out of jail. He isn’t, I don’t think. He may get a new trial, but in my opinion he stands little chance of getting a different result. But these crazy headlines, “conviction overturned!” I don’t think that means what some YouTubers think it means. Even if the conviction is “thrown out,” it just means he has to start over with a new lawyer, to the best of my knowledge.

Yup.
I guess people are recalling how in past cases appellants have been freed with a new trial. But typically those new trials will uncover evidence that will exculpate them. The reverse is true in CA's case. There is even more evidence that incriminates him. It was a slam dunk case before, it's a reverse slam dunk case now.

He admitted to giving money to two hitmen that killed a man he hated plus he had a motive to kill him. That can never be disputed. The reason he gave for giving them the money has been proven to be a lie. Thus there is no plausible, rational reason why he would give two hitmen $100k+.

He had one opportunity to come up with a story of why he gave them $$. He doesn't get multiple shots at this. This version didn't work, so I'll try this one next until I come up with something the jury will believe.

There are no new stories. He may well get a new trial, but it will end the same as the last. In fact the jury will probably take less time to come to a verdict. He's not even going to get a mistrial.

 

[opt]

He may well get a new trial, but it will end the same as the last. In fact the jury will probably take less time to come to a verdict. He's not even going to get a mistrial.

But he would have the possibility of a plea deal in exchange for full disclosure of the family plot. That would be so sweet after more than 10 years. If I were GC, I'd even give Wendi a plea deal if she transferred custody of the boys immediately, assuming the Markels agreed.

 

[amicuscurie]

But he would have the possibility of a plea deal in exchange for full disclosure of the family plot. That would be so sweet after more than 10 years. If I were GC, I'd even give Wendi a plea deal if she transferred custody of the boys immediately, assuming the Markels agreed.

Yes. It’s my opinion that if he had had his own non-conflicted lawyer in the first place, that’s what the lawyer would have recommended, doing a deal. I believe the extortion story was helpful to Donna, and that’s why it was used.

 

[FrankieT]

So Charlie chose the one lawyer who could not give him fair representation, and then Donna did the same thing? How have they avoided jail this long? Hopefully Harvey and Wendy will choose someone different.

 

[Zedzded]

But he would have the possibility of a plea deal in exchange for full disclosure of the family plot.

Man I wish I could get inside their heads and understand what makes them tick. I know CA is probably spending every waking moment trying to formulate some kind of strategy that means he won't die in prison. Which is logical.

But then there are the family dynamics which really confuse me. DA and HA seemingly devastated when CA was convicted, yet they played a large part in him committing the crime in the first place. Loving parents that opened up their son to this risk of being imprisoned for the rest of his life.

And CA's desperate need to please his parents and secure their admiration. So desperate he was willing to kill an innocent man. If he's willing to do that, surely he would never flip on them and also WA. DA and HA seem obsessed with protecting WA, CA flipping on her would draw their ire. Plus DA and HA's relationship with the boys. Again seemingly loving and devoted grandparents who did one of the worst things they could do to a child, took away their father.

This case is awash with contradictions and paradoxes. It's impossible to develop any kind of clarity, especially when it comes to predicting the Adelsons behaviour and responses to the various legal developments.

If I was a betting man, I'd just go with none of them flipping, none of them co-operating. I feel that although they are clearly dysfunctional people and are lacking in some basic human characteristics such as empathy, they find the idea of admitting complicity so abhorrent, they would prefer to die in prison than admit guilt. Why? Shame perhaps. They have some kind of warped love or attachment with the Markel boys. It would kill them to admit to the boys they did what they did. Especially WA. Which again is so paradoxical that I couldn't begin to speculate why. They care so much about these boys, yet did what they did?

So who knows what CA's strategy is.