FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen-Donna Adelson Upcoming Trial - *4 Guilty* #26

[BUF]

Per CoutTV mystery hearing today at 1:30

 

[BearWatcher]

Let’s not forget her behavior at Dans funeral. She promised his parents a visit with their grandchildren the following day and then left the next without even saying goodbye. Pretty heartless, selfish and petty. She had an agenda — and mourning the father of her kids, spending quality time with his parents who traveled in from Canada and allowing them to find comfort in their grandchildren was not on it.

Wow, that would be an important fact to bring up in both WA’s and DA’s testimony, if they get on the stand.

 

[Knitpicker]

Wow, that would be an important fact to bring up in both WA’s and DA’s testimony, if they get on the stand.

It’s been brought up by Georgia. Hinting also about them leaving when they said they would meet with Isom

 

[Knitpicker]

LOL I just saw someone posted about the texting I mentioned on Reddit (I am not on there).
Well at least now people will wonder about that.
I had a feeling so I checked there.

 

[geevee]

 

[BUF]

State Attorney Jack Campbell called Monday’s proceedings an “emergency” hearing, clarifying that it not related to any plea deals.

Judge Stephen Everett ruled Monday in favor of a request from Wendi Adelson, who is the ex-wife of Markel, to quash a defense subpoena for her mother’s trial.

Judge quashes defense subpoena for Wendi Adelson during ‘emergency’ hearing on eve of Donna Adelson’s murder trial

Officials are expected in court Monday afternoon to discuss Donna Adelson’s upcoming trial.

www.wctv.tv

More on hearing at link

 

[IQuestion]

Wow...so if I have enough money to pay an atty like JL...I can get out of testifying or pleading the 5th in public at Donna's trial....Wow!! Imagine that....sending a piece of paper claiming you (WA) will just assert their 5th amendment right against self-incrimination...so don't bother trying to make my client come to court?
Surprise in nature. Baby barracudas grow into unexpectedly large barracudas.

Editing to add JL seems to have legally gotten his way. He's one sharp atty! DA looked a little teary eyed as she realized the direction of the argument.

 

[Knitpicker]

Wow...so if I have enough money to pay an atty like JL...I can get out of testifying or pleading the 5th in public at Donna's trial....Wow!! Imagine that....sending a piece of paper claiming you (WA) will just assert their 5th amendment right against self-incrimination...so don't bother trying to make my client come to court?
Surprise in nature. Baby barracudas grow unexpectedly large.

It lets you know what she feels about her mother. Actually covering her own arse. Would the jury know this or someone on the jury would catch it?

 

[Wishbone]

After the rumor of a plea deal started by Tim Jansen I wasn't surprised to hear he recently represented new Donna Adelson potential defense witness Mickey Easterwood. Several podcasts have shared the documents proving this.

 

[Luna20]

Wow...so if I have enough money to pay an atty like JL...I can get out of testifying or pleading the 5th in public at Donna's trial....Wow!! Imagine that....sending a piece of paper claiming you (WA) will just assert their 5th amendment right against self-incrimination...so don't bother trying to make my client come to court?
Surprise in nature. Baby barracudas grow into unexpectedly large barracudas.

Editing to add JL seems to have legally gotten his way. He's one sharp atty! DA looked a little teary eyed as she realized the direction of the argument.

Can anything be done here or does the judge have final say?

 

[IQuestion]

LUNA20 You are asking the same question I had in my head...go figure.
WA & CA's actions, maybe better stated as "inaction" to come to their Mother's defense, or even assist in her defense has boiled down to the legal equivalent of senicide. It's called different things in other cultures, but basically obasute seems to be appropriate:
In Japan, it is known as obasute and literally translates to mean ‘abandoning an old woman’, usually by carrying her up a desolate mountain and leaving her there.
(Ice floes in Florida....in the middle of August?)
If JF & JZ wanted WA to testify, it must have been critical to DA's defense. Any sleuths have hunches on what critical info they were seeking?

 

[ch_13]

Wow...so if I have enough money to pay an atty like JL...I can get out of testifying or pleading the 5th in public at Donna's trial....Wow!! Imagine that....sending a piece of paper claiming you (WA) will just assert their 5th amendment right against self-incrimination...so don't bother trying to make my client come to court?
Surprise in nature. Baby barracudas grow into unexpectedly large barracudas.

Editing to add JL seems to have legally gotten his way. He's one sharp atty! DA looked a little teary eyed as she realized the direction of the argument.

I just listened to the hearing.

If I understood correctly, Wendi didn't get out of testifying. She will likely still be called by the prosecution and cross-examined by the defense. However, during cross-examination, she will only be asked rebuttal questions about things that were brought up during the prosecution's questioning.

What the judge said was that she cannot be called as a defense witness and questioned about anything the defense wants to ask. That's because only the prosecution can give her use immunity for her testimony. In theory, Donna's lawyers could ask a question that would incriminate Wendi, so her lawyer said she would immediately take the Fifth in response to any defense question.

These are apparently the same rules that were in effect during Charlie's trial, so it's not really anything unexpected.

 

[IQuestion]

I just listened to the hearing.

If I understood correctly, Wendi didn't get out of testifying. She will likely still be called by the prosecution and cross-examined by the defense. However, during cross-examination, she will only be asked rebuttal questions about things that were brought up during the prosecution's questioning.

What the judge said was that she cannot be called as a defense witness and questioned about anything the defense wants to ask. That's because only the prosecution can give her use immunity for her testimony. In theory, Donna's lawyers could ask a question that would incriminate Wendi, so her lawyer said she would immediately take the Fifth in response to any defense question.

These are apparently the same rules that were in effect during Charlie's trial, so it's not really anything unexpected.

Thank you CH13....I am lost with all this cross-exam/immunity stuff. If this is "old stuff" everyone is supposed to know, why was an "Emergency Hearing" necessary?
Guess I should keep my head down and thoughts to myself....cause I just don't get the legal motions.

 

[ch_13]

Thank you CH13....I am lost with all this cross-exam/immunity stuff. If this is "old stuff" everyone is supposed to know, why was an "Emergency Hearing" necessary?
Guess I should keep my head down and thoughts to myself....cause I just don't get the legal motions.

Well, it was only an "emergency" in the sense that Wendi's lawyers waited until late last week to file their motion, so the judge needed to rule on it before Wendi was called as a witness.

I don't know why they waited until the last minute, but I assume there's some strategy behind it. Maybe so Donna's attorneys wouldn't have time to appeal the ruling? In fact in Charlie's trial they also waited until right before the start to file their motion.

 

[apeXperience]

If JF & JZ wanted WA to testify, it must have been critical to DA's defense. Any sleuths have hunches on what critical info they were seeking?

After John Lauro spoke toward the end of the hearing, right before the Judge said they take a brief recess before going in camera, Joshua Zelman said “Factually, we are in a vastly different circumstance. Our client (Donne Adelson) certainly has information … knows information ... about her daughter (Wendi Adelson) that Ms. Magbanua would not have … ever been able to know”

• Quidnunc, it is true of everybody that mothers know about their daughters more than anyone else, so what? But given the circumstance, such statement could be a vehicle for a message
• During Magbanua’s second trial, defense attorney Christopher DeCoste asked Wendi Adelson on cross examination “This is about you, isn’ it? All of this is about you, right?” (paraphrase)
• Christopher DeCoste’s implication seemed to be 1) the murder is about Wendi Adelson’s affairs and not Magbanua’s, 2) Wendi Adelson is free and Magbanua is incarcerated, thus 3) the Jurors should be lenient toward Magbanua
• Hypothetically, Fulford or Zelman could imitate Christopher DeCoste and ask to the effect of “This is about you, isn’ it? Your parents would do anything for you, isnt’ it? Your mother is just the zealot family manager who would go by your directions, isn’t she? Etc.”
• Rather, they could use other methods related to “Our client (Donne Adelson) … knows information ... about her daughter (Wendi Adelson)”
• Zelman seemed to imply “Given varied circumstances, similar subpoenas may aim at different objectives”

It could be speculated that the defense attorneys will not seek defining information. Rather, defense attorneys almost always want to plant doubts in the mind of Jurors. Let the people be prepared for surprises from both sides!

 

[Knitpicker]

Hypothetically, Fulford or Zelman could imitate Christopher DeCoste and ask to the effect of “This is about you, isn’ it? Your parents would do anything for you, isnt’ it? Your mother is just the zealot family manager who would go by your directions, isn’t she? Etc.”

So Donna would turn against Wendi?

 

[BUF]

I have no idea what Donna’s defense wants to ask Wendi about, but by Donna’s tearful reaction, it makes me think that she is so upset that Wendi wouldn’t do anything to help her mother especially what she has done for her. All of the As should realize at this point that Wendi will do everything she can to try to protect herself.

 

[Luna20]

Wow...so if I have enough money to pay an atty like JL...I can get out of testifying or pleading the 5th in public at Donna's trial....Wow!! Imagine that....sending a piece of paper claiming you (WA) will just assert their 5th amendment right against self-incrimination...so don't bother trying to make my client come to court?
Surprise in nature. Baby barracudas grow into unexpectedly large barracudas.

Editing to add JL seems to have legally gotten his way. He's one sharp atty! DA looked a little teary eyed as she realized the direction of the argument.

Did she look upset and surprised?

 

[Luna20]

LOL I just saw someone posted about the texting I mentioned on Reddit (I am not on there).
Well at least now people will wonder about that.
I had a feeling so I checked there.

There are a few recent photos of WA and her BF over there.

 

[Zedzded]

I have no idea what Donna’s defense wants to ask Wendi about, but by Donna’s tearful reaction, it makes me think that she is so upset that Wendi wouldn’t do anything to help her mother especially what she has done for her. All of the As should realize at this point that Wendi will do everything she can to try to protect herself.

That would be naive of DA to think WA would testify on behalf of the defence. It would only incriminate WA and DA's lawyer would have told her that. Hence the reason since that LE interview in WA, WA has ignored LE and pled the 5th at every opportunity other than when compelled to testify, covered by immunity.

DA's lawyer would be cognisant of how strong the case is against her client and WA attempting to defend or support someone so guilty would only go against her. You would hope if DA was not aware of this, her lawyer would convey this to her. But then one thing that this case has shown is the insidious lack of transparency (and lack of ethics) between defence lawyers and their clients.