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

[Going Rogue]

Rest assured, thankfully the prosecution and Judge Everett got Charlie to sign a waiver (starting at the 1:55 mark) ‘knowingly and intelligently’ that he consented to removing Donna & Charlie from the witness list. IMO, this kills Ufferman’s argument in his latest motion!

Thank you Mentour Laywer!

 

[amicuscurie]

Rest assured, thankfully the prosecution and Judge Everett got Charlie to sign a waiver (starting at the 1:55 mark) ‘knowingly and intelligently’ that he consented to removing Donna & Charlie from the witness list. IMO, this kills Ufferman’s argument in his latest motion!

Thank you Mentour Laywer!

I’m not sure it does, because at the time he signed it, he was represented by Rashbaum, but maybe.

 

[Going Rogue]

I’m not sure it does, because at the time he signed it, he was represented by Rashbaum, but maybe.

I realize this goes a few layers deeper, but the motion requesting the appeals court relinquish jurisdiction back to the trial judge was based on the argument Rashbaum protected his former clients best interests when he agreed to remove Donna & Harvey from the witness list – it was very specific. Had the court not received Charlie’s written consent to that stipulation once the ‘deal’ to remove Donna & Harvey was made, it would be hard to counter Ufferman’s argument as laid out in the motion. IMO, Charlie’s consent to that stipulation will 100% hold up to the argument Ufferman is making. That motion was a Hail Mary. If Charlie wins an appeal, it will not be because of Ufferman argument in that motion and I’m more confident now that the appeals court will not relinquish jurisdiction back to the Leon Cty Court and an appeal is not likely.

 

[amicuscurie]

I realize this goes a few layers deeper, but the motion requesting the appeals court relinquish jurisdiction back to the trial judge was based on the argument Rashbaum protected his former clients best interests when he agreed to remove Donna & Harvey from the witness list – it was very specific. Had the court not received Charlie’s written consent to that stipulation once the ‘deal’ to remove Donna & Harvey was made, it would be hard to counter Ufferman’s argument as laid out in the motion. IMO, Charlie’s consent to that stipulation will 100% hold up to the argument Ufferman is making. That motion was a Hail Mary. If Charlie wins an appeal, it will not be because of Ufferman argument in that motion and I’m more confident now that the appeals court will not relinquish jurisdiction back to the Leon Cty Court and an appeal is not likely.

I’ve got to watch the Mentour video, he’s usually right on the law. But- I think there are other examples cited in the Motion as to the conflict which was presented by Rashbaum representing Charlie, though the removal of Donna from the witness list may have been the most egregious. I am confused as to whether Charlie signed a waiver of conflict as to Rashbaum, or whether he simply signed something saying he agreed with the decision not to call Donna. The question for me is whether he was aware of the conflict when he agreed to that, and whether he was aware of all of Rashbaum’s possible motives for wanting to do so, one of which could have been loyalty to his former client, Donna. A stipulation not to call Donna, in my understanding, is not the same as a knowing waiver of conflict with respect to the representation as a whole.

ETA- watched it. Mentour is referring to a stipulation by Charlie that Donna would not be called as a witness. In my opinion, this is very different than him having signed a knowing and informed waiver as to the conflict presented by Rashbaum representing him after previously representing his mother. There is no indication that Rashbaum explained the conflict to Charlie and that Charkie waived it. We don’t know what reason Rashbaum gave Charlie as to why he was not calling Donna. Hypothetically, he could have decided not to call Donna because of his duty to her as a former client, but told Charlie it was for a different reason.

I don’t think the stipulation does away with the conflict, and I think the decision not to call Donna could still have been a consequence of the conflict, even if Charlie stipulated to it.

 

[Going Rogue]

I’ve got to watch the Mentour video, he’s usually right on the law. But- I think there are other examples cited in the Motion as to the conflict which was presented by Rashbaum representing Charlie, though the removal of Donna from the witness list may have been the most egregious. I am confused as to whether Charlie signed a waiver of conflict as to Rashbaum, or whether he simply signed something saying he agreed with the decision not to call Donna. The question for me is whether he was aware of the conflict when he agreed to that, and whether he was aware of all of Rashbaum’s possible motives for wanting to do so, one of which could have been loyalty to his former client, Donna. A stipulation not to call Donna, in my understanding, is not the same as a knowing waiver of conflict with respect to the representation as a whole.

ETA- watched it. Mentour is referring to a stipulation by Charlie that Donna would not be called as a witness. In my opinion, this is very different than him having signed a knowing and informed waiver as to the conflict presented by Rashbaum representing him after previously representing his mother. There is no indication that Rashbaum explained the conflict to Charlie and that Charkie waived it. We don’t know what reason Rashbaum gave Charlie as to why he was not calling Donna. Hypothetically, he could have decided not to call Donna because of his duty to her as a former client, but told Charlie it was for a different reason.

I don’t think the stipulation does away with the conflict, and I think the decision not to call Donna could still have been a consequence of the conflict, even if Charlie stipulated to it.

The main argument in the motion to relinquish jurisdiction back to the Leon Cty court is based on the ‘decision’ or ‘deal’ Rashbaum made to remove Donna & Harvey from the witness list. The court got Charlie’s signed consent on that to protect the record. Yes, the ‘conflict’ of representation is weaved into the argument made by Ufferrman and I have already outlined my argument in previous posts why I don’t think the ‘conflict’ in representation will be an issue. Also, ML makes some great points in his last couple videos on this and sounds like a nice backstop is the ‘Invited Error Doctrine’ he mentioned.

 

[Missyrocks5]

I think a lot will happen. If a new trial is granted, i think the new attorney will do things much differently. They will likely move to change venue. I don't think the venue change will be granted. I remember before this trial, maybe it was TimJ who said that you don't hear anyone discussing this case anymore in Tally. It's been 10 years already. I think it would be hard to argue a new venue is needed.

A new defense that may or may not protect DA. I don't think any of them will cooperate, and I think that they are all going to try for hung juries/acquittals. They hope that eventually the State will give up. The thing that is even more irritating is how they can benefit from the conflict that THEY created. No doubt CA will argue that he did not know the intracacies and relied on Rashy. That is where he will likely argue ineffective assistance of counsel. It is disgusting that Charlie & Donna will benefit from the conflict they created. I still think it may have been DR's intention all along for the appeal. Playing the long game, which is why it did not matter that he had only done white collar defense. I think they always knew there would be convictions. It was all about appealing it IMO. We will see how it plays out.

The poor Markels.

 

[Knitpicker]

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.

Yeah that was misleading. It just would seem to postpone everything.
Would Charlies trial have to go first if they aren't tried together?

 

[amicuscurie]

The main argument in the motion to relinquish jurisdiction back to the Leon Cty court is based on the ‘decision’ or ‘deal’ Rashbaum made to remove Donna & Harvey from the witness list. The court got Charlie’s signed consent on that to protect the record. Yes, the ‘conflict’ of representation is weaved into the argument made by Ufferrman and I have already outlined my argument in previous posts why I don’t think the ‘conflict’ in representation will be an issue. Also, ML makes some great points in his last couple videos on this and sounds like a nice backstop is the ‘Invited Error Doctrine’ he mentioned.

I don’t dispute that Charlie seems to have agreed to take Donna and Harvey off the witness list. I don’t think it prevents him from arguing now that the decision to do so indicates that Rashbaum had a conflict of interest. In my understanding it is the attorney who is charged with disclosing the conflict and making sure the client understands and makes a knowing and informed waiver. Getting the client to agree to one part of a trial strategy, for me, doesn’t meet that burden.

 

[Missyrocks5]

The thing that makes me nuts with all of this is how litigious the As are, they will be suing Rashy for malpractice. They will do anything to argue ineffective assistance of counsel now after being BFFs with him for years. The whole waiver of conflict continues to be ridiculous because, even if in writing, they can rescind the waiver. And i'm willing to bet that that was part of the equation of discussions that were had between them all. It was always I believe a game to come up with grounds for an appeal.

Representing both As allowed Rashy to speak to both of them with privilege so nothing ever had to be revealed and couldn't be recorded. They thought they were too clever by half. I hope they have not been. If they get a new venue, no Georgia, etc, I think the evidence is overwhelmingly there. It does give concern regardless.

 

[Going Rogue]

I don’t dispute that Charlie seems to have agreed to take Donna and Harvey off the witness list. I don’t think it prevents him from arguing now that the decision to do so indicates that Rashbaum had a conflict of interest. In my understanding it is the attorney who is charged with disclosing the conflict and making sure the client understands and makes a knowing and informed waiver. Getting the client to agree to one part of a trial strategy, for me, doesn’t meet that burden.

The ‘conflict’ created by the ‘deal’ that Ufferman argues is null based on the waiver. The bigger picture of the ‘need’ for a waiver for Rashbaum’s representation of Charlie in Charlie trial is up for debate. I still believe a written waiver was not required because Donna had not yet been formally charged and you can also argue Charlie interests were not adverse to Donna & Harvey’s at any point throughout Rashbaum’s representation of Charlie. I know many disagree with my take on that. The loophole Ufferman argued in his motion was very clever and he made an excellent argument for the specific scenario he laid out.

 

[amicuscurie]

The ‘conflict’ created by the ‘deal’ that Ufferman argues is null based on the waiver. The bigger picture of the ‘need’ for a waiver for Rashbaum’s representation of Charlie in Charlie trial is up for debate. I still believe a written waiver was not required because Donna had not yet been formally charged and you can also argue Charlie interests were not adverse to Donna & Harvey’s at any point throughout Rashbaum’s representation of Charlie. I know many disagree with my take on that. The loophole Ufferman argued in his motion was very clever and he made an excellent argument for the specific scenario he laid out.

My understanding not that the conflict was CREATED by the deal not to call Donna. My understanding is that the deal not to call Donna is but one example of how thr conflict affected the representation.

My understanding is that the deal not to call Donna may have been because of the conflict, and that it is not possible to really know that, and that is why Rashbaum’s representation was not effective.

 

[Going Rogue]

My understanding not that the conflict was CREATED by the deal not to call Donna. My understanding is that the deal not to call Donna is but one example of how thr conflict affected the representation.

My understanding is that the deal not to call Donna may have been because of the conflict, and that it is not possible to really know that, and that is why Rashbaum’s representation was not effective.

I agree with your understanding but the ‘deal’ is not just ‘one’ example its the ‘only’ example given. More broadly Ufferman does claim a conflict existed in Rashbaum’s representation of Charlie because of Rashbaum’s prior representation of Donna & Harvey. I just disagree on broader argument by Ufferman.

 

[amicuscurie]

I

I agree with your understanding but the ‘deal’ is not just ‘one’ example it’s the ‘only’ example given. More broadly Ufferman does claim a conflict existed in Rashbaum’s representation of Charlie because of Rashbaum’s prior representation of Donna & Harvey. I just disagree on broader argument by Ufferman.in my oponuojn

In my opinion the choice to not call Donna is particularly egregious and demonstrates that Rash may have been conflicted as to which client he was loyal to, so that’s why it’s an example.

He also notes that Donna was getting advice from Rash after Charlie was convicted. But yes, the incident with Donna being interviewed is the onLy example I can recall that he uses from when Rash represented Charlie before trial.

Even if that example did not exist, I think the conflict would still be there. The Donna interview gives him some evidence he can use in the motion, so in my opinion that’s a good thing.

In my opinion Ufferman may have first become aware of the conflict when he reviewed the record and saw that. It’s possible he couldn’t figure out why Rash would not want Donna to corroborate her son’s story, and then when he looked into it, it’s possible he realized Rash had issued a statement on her behalf in 2016.

 

[apeXperience]

What happened in terms of facts?

• Charles Adelson, prompted by “expensive super lawyer” Dan Rashbaum at every step, listed his parents Donna & Harvey Adelson as witnesses on his behalf against very severe murder charges
• The State Attorneys moved to have pretrial depositions of the witnesses Donna & Harvey Adelson, as usual in similar scenarios
• Charles Adelson & Dan Rashbaum noticed that State labeled not yet indicted co-conspirator Donna Adelson has exposure and could evoke her 5th Amendment Rights. However, Harvey Adelson could not because his exposure has not been mentioned
• Spooked about Harvey Adelson might potentially spill the beans, Charles Adelson & Dan Rashbaum moved for “withdrawal of their witnesses” provided that the State does not plan to put them on the stand.

Conclusion:

• The Theory of the Crime as spelled out by Law Enforcement (3. Solicitation to commit murder → 2. Conspiracy to commit murder → 1. First degree felony murder) is that Charles Adelson hired his squeeze Magbanua to enlist the father of Magbanua’s children to kill Dan Markel.
• Charles Adelson could exonerate his parents (I did it without my parents’ knowledge) but his parents’ testimony would not help him convincingly (with their not believable reversed double extortion fabrication)
• Hence, Charles Adelson & Dan Rashbaum 1) listed and then 2) moved for “withdrawal of their witnesses” Donna & Harvey Adelson, on their own initiative.

What happened in terms of the law?

• Both the Florida First District Court of Appeal and the Circuit Court in and for Leon County, Florida are obligated to start with the determination of the legal nature of this “withdrawal of their witnesses”.
• Either one way of three mutually exclusive alternatives would determine the outcome:
  1. Forfeiture – You cannot fetch the same water under the bridge at two distinct times.
  2. Invited error – The red lights indicate your turn to stop. The red lights cannot make you stop.
  3. Waiver – You cannot waive rights if you did not know such rights existed.

Conclusion:

• If the Courts determined that the “withdrawal of their witnesses” was either forfeiture or invited error, there is no claim. Charles Adelson goes on with his appeal.
• If the Courts determined that it was a waiver, and if the Courts determined that Charles Adelson was not informed at the time of his rights, then it is a case of ineffective counsel. Charles Adelson gets more opportunities to spend more big stacks of his stapled $100 bills at a new trial. Dan Rashbaum accumulates the probability of being disciplined by the Florida Bar.
• Either way, nothing much happened in the large scheme of LWOP for Charles “maestro” Adelson. Given that the more evidence accumulate in the discovery process of Donna Adelson at every step forward, the deeper the pit of sh-t Charles Adelson is in with his sticky LWOP penalty.

What will happen to the other actors?

• In the mean time, finally indicted and jailed with no-bail co-conspirator Donna Adelson’s process will advance with the new lawyers she will hire. Besides the more Big Dollars her expensive “super lawyers” will collect from her, she is still getting closer to the LWOP wreck of her life if her son’s experience is a leading indicator of her future.
• Given that the more evidence against all the Adelsons accumulate in the discovery process of Donna Adelson as the Theory of the Crime gathers more empirical data and information, the closer the Sword of Damocles continues to lower above the chest of alleged “financier” Dr. Harvey Adelson.
• One interesting problem could spend the time of “super lawyer” John Lauro while he collect the Big Dollars from State labeled not-indicted co-conspirator Wendi Adelson, Esq. Since you know that you are going to be involved in a life changing wreck, do you want to see it in slow motion or do you prefer for it to happen unexpectedly?

 

[Zedzded]

In some ways the various twists and turns of this case hurt the Adelsons more. I guess we want justice and we want them locked up, but it's quite pleasurable to see their much coveted family fortune slowly being eaten away. And the fact that all of them must be enduring an ever increasing amount of stress. I'm sure they just want the nightmare to end, but it won't not for a long time. I wonder if any one them, especially DA is just wanting to throw in the towel, admit complicity, admit defeat. She looked exhausted and spent last time she was in court.

 

[opt]

First they kill the boys' dad then they spend the boys' future inheritance on vain attempts to evade justice. Oh, and they tag the boys with a now infamous last name.

 

[opt]

For the legal experts here: Is there any way the state could offer CA a deal that included vacating his conviction and replacing it with a plea bargain?

If so, how could the state negotiate the deal without trusting CA not to renege after the conviction was vacated?

I'd like to see a feasible scenario even though it's far-fetched.

 

[amicuscurie]

First they kill the boys' dad then they spend the boys' future inheritance on vain attempts to evade justice. Oh, and they tag the boys with a now infamous last name.

In my opinion the name will be changed soon, if it hasn’t been already.

 

[amicuscurie]

For the legal experts here: Is there any way the state could offer CA a deal that included vacating his conviction and replacing it with a plea bargain?

If so, how could the state negotiate the deal without trusting CA not to renege after the conviction was vacated?

I'd like to see a feasible scenario even though it's far-fetched.

If the appellate court sends this back to the trial court, and he prevails, the conviction will be vacated. He could then, in my understanding, negotiate a plea in order to avoid a second trial. I don’t believe the state would offer him less than the sentence he is already serving, which is the mandatory sentence for murder, unless he cooperates and offers them something.

So, in response to your question, it is my understanding that the deal could only come after the conviction was already vacated. If he were to renege, he wouldn’t get whatever they offered him.

I don’t think the state could offer him a deal prior to the conviction being vacated. Right now, the appellate court has jurisdiction, and the state attorneys cannot do anything in the case at all. If the appellate court gives up that jurisdiction, it would only be for the limited purpose of getting the trial court to have a hearing on the issue of the conflict. If the court decides the conflict didn’t give him a fair trial, the conviction will be vacated, and only then can the state court get jurisdiction back completely and potentially make a deal.

 

[Cedars]

If the appellate court sends this back to the trial court, and he prevails, the conviction will be vacated. He could then, in my understanding, negotiate a plea in order to avoid a second trial. I don’t believe the state would offer him less than the sentence he is already serving, which is the mandatory sentence for murder, unless he cooperates and offers them something.

So, in response to your question, it is my understanding that the deal could only come after the conviction was already vacated. If he were to renege, he wouldn’t get whatever they offered him.

I don’t think the state could offer him a deal prior to the conviction being vacated. Right now, the appellate court has jurisdiction, and the state attorneys cannot do anything in the case at all. If the appellate court gives up that jurisdiction, it would only be for the limited purpose of getting the trial court to have a hearing on the issue of the conflict. If the court decides the conflict didn’t give him a fair trial, the conviction will be vacated, and only then can the state court get jurisdiction back completely and potentially make a deal.

However, for someone in his situation, what possible credibility would he have to 'offer' something? They'd give him a sweet deal just to say it was all Wendy's fault? What did Wendy or his mother do to twist his arm or entice him to do it, poor innocent little Charlie, or was he like the Menendez brothers or Casey Antony, the helpless victim of lifelong sex abuse by his wicked Mom and Dad and younger sister?

JMO