FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen-Donna Adelson Upcoming Trial - *5 Guilty* #28

[ch_13]

It is not a crime to be aware that a murder is going to be committed and to NOT report it to LE. Just being aware does not make you a conspirator.

However, it would be a crime to lie about it on the stand. In multiple trials Wendi has said that she had no knowledge of the murder, or even the so-called "double extortion plot". Her immunity agreement doesn't protect her from perjury.

Which brings up an interesting conundrum for Wendi's defense team. Do they abandon the claim that she was totally unaware of the plot by her mom and brother? Certainly they could say, "yes, she had foreknowledge but she herself didn't do anything." Of course, then she gets convicted of perjury, but that would be what, 5 years? Better that than the rest of her life in prison. On the other hand, if the lawyers go with the "innocent as a lamb" claim, then they can't explain away the 18-minute call with Charlie, the drive down Trescott and all the other suspect things she did as the actions of a bystander. Instead they have to argue that these are all just wacky coincidences. IMO, it becomes a much more difficult defense. (Yes, I know that the defense doesn't have to present a case and the jury has to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But in practice I think a jury will look askance at a defense lawyer who tries to claim her client is totally unaware, if it becomes clear that she knew about the murder in some fashion. They will think the defense is full of it. Just look at the reaction to Rashbaum's double extortion defense.)


Edit - Google's AI tells me perjury in a capital case has a 15 years max sentence. Oof!

 

[JerseyPride]

However, it would be a crime to lie about it on the stand. In multiple trials Wendi has said that she had no knowledge of the murder, or even the so-called "double extortion plot". Her immunity agreement doesn't protect her from perjury.

Which brings up an interesting conundrum for Wendi's defense team. Do they abandon the claim that she was totally unaware of the plot by her mom and brother? Certainly they could say, "yes, she had foreknowledge but she herself didn't do anything." Of course, then she gets convicted of perjury, but that would be what, 5 years? Better that than the rest of her life in prison. On the other hand, if the lawyers go with the "innocent as a lamb" claim, then they can't explain away the 18-minute call with Charlie, the drive down Trescott and all the other suspect things she did as the actions of a bystander. Instead they have to argue that these are all just wacky coincidences. IMO, it becomes a much more difficult defense. (Yes, I know that the defense doesn't have to present a case and the jury has to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But in practice I think a jury will look askance at a defense lawyer who tries to claim her client is totally unaware, if it becomes clear that she knew about the murder in some fashion. They will think the defense is full of it. Just look at the reaction to Rashbaum's double extortion defense.)


Edit - Google's AI tells me perjury in a capital case has a 15 years max sentence. Oof!

It is simply not believable that WA knew of the plot, but did not consent to it. That defense would be dead on arrival.

 

[Knitpicker]

Her phone location data on the day of the murder is public record and has been covered in the previous trials. She left her home at within minutes of 12:30PM and we clearly know were she went and was for the remainder of the day.

I think I reached my post quota for the day

You don’t know if that was her only trip towards trescott

 

[Weki]

Motion for a new trial filed by Donna Adelson, which is routine. Of course, juror misconduct is alleged based on what the jurors said and defense seeks to interview two of the jurors. This is why it's best if jurors just keep quiet. It's a nothing burger I'm sure but still.

Donna Adelson Motion for a New Trial

 

[mdwannabejd]

Just over here waiting for the poetic justice of WAs arrest next week on Rosh Hashanah.
For a case so full of coincidences, this would be a fitting one.

 

[Knitpicker]

Just over here waiting for the poetic justice of WAs arrest next week on Rosh Hashanah.
For a case so full of coincidences, this would be a fitting one

Or Dans Bday 10/9

 

[Knitpicker]

Ruth knew WA for many years, and IIRC from her book, had a loving relationship with her. It’s entirely possible that she has witnessed through the years how DAs meddling affected WA and views her as an unwitting accomplice and Donna as the snake in the grass.
From the very beginning Donna was a controlling, lying B$tch when she lied about the kosher menu at their wedding. That cruel and sneaky move was just the beginning. That relationship didn’t have a chance.

In the book, didn’t she say one summer she was supposed to spent 2 weeks at the Markel family lake house (with Dan and his family),and she decided instead to travel to Israel ?(or go someone where else)?
It’s been a couple of yrs since I read it but I remember that. Like she didnt want to be with the family (pre kids).
I didn’t get he feeling that she liked his family,

 

[Knitpicker]

Motion for a new trial filed by Donna Adelson, which is routine. Of course, juror misconduct is alleged based on what the jurors said and defense seeks to interview two of the jurors. This is why it's best if jurors just keep quiet. It's a nothing burger I'm sure but still.

Donna Adelson Motion for a New Trial

More money for the lawyers.

 

[Knitpicker]

Until we see her phone location data I'm keeping an open mind. I think it's just as possible that she got to the liquor store and sat outside for a long while, possibly WhatsApping Charlie while it sank in that it was done. Maybe she consulted Charlie whether she should phone the police or hospitals because she had been seen, but decided not to.

She was on the phone with Jeff S from 12:31 to 1:10 (2 separate calls) with a break when she bought the bourbon. Thats why she was late getting to the lunch (and her friends were texting her prob asking where she was.

 

[Zedzded]

showing the defendant actively entered into or endorsed the criminal objective,

So that works doesn't it? I think the State can show beyond a reasonable doubt that she endorsed Dan's murder with all the phone calls to the co-conspriators. She then drives up to the murder scene, checks it's done and phones CA at 12.15pm. He then phones KM.

 

[Zedzded]

Until we see her phone location data I'm keeping an open mind. I think it's just as possible that she got to the liquor store and sat outside for a long while, possibly WhatsApping Charlie while it sank in that it was done. Maybe she consulted Charlie whether she should phone the police or hospitals because she had been seen, but decided not to.

It's possible. Although the two trip theory Knitpicker and I touted (IMO) seems to fit in perfectly with her phone calls and just makes a lot of sense. It explains a lot e.g she planned to shower to go to lunch. But she was not expecting the police to be at Trescott. Dan was supposed to be shot in his house. So when they saw her, her plans changed.

She never intended to go to ABC liquor, at least not the one she went to. That was her freaking out. I've been seen on Trescott by the police I need to create an alibi quickly, cue lots of phone calls, trip to ABC (look at my blue eyes alibi) gas station where she probably twerked for the attendant etc

 

[JerseyPride]

It's possible. Although the two trip theory Knitpicker and I touted (IMO) seems to fit in perfectly with her phone calls and just makes a lot of sense. It explains a lot e.g she planned to shower to go to lunch. But she was not expecting the police to be at Trescott. Dan was supposed to be shot in his house. So when they saw her, her plans changed.

The “shower narrative” that I always found the most persuasive is that it was all part of the preplanned alibi. That is, as the theory goes, WA knew that showering can make it more difficult to determine whether someone fired a gun based on residue transferred to the shooter. Not showering or changing her clothes would show that she was not worried about being identified as the shooter and had nothing to hide in that regard.

I think this is consistent with other obvious efforts to establish an alibi at the time of the shooting: TV repair appointment, prolonging that appointment, continuous phone calls, shopping, making sure she interacted with the liquor store clerk, getting fuel and printing a receipt, lunch with friends, etc. The irony, of course, is that all of these efforts cast more suspicion because they seem (to me) so contrived.

 

[Going Rogue]

Thanks for the details on State v. Waters. But from what I see it says the same thing as Jimenez.

"An agreement can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, but there must be evidence showing the defendant actively entered into or endorsed the criminal objective, not just knew about it or failed to stop it."
"Florida’s conspiracy statute does not require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, unlike some other jurisdictions, making the agreement and intent the critical elements"

Yes, they both confirm Florida’s conspiracy law requires only agreement and intent, not an overt act, and allows circumstantial evidence to infer these elements. However, Waters focuses on the distinction between mere knowledge or presence and active participation in a conspiracy. It clarified that a defendant must actively enter the agreement, not just be aware of it or fail to stop it. I have seen many comments where the point is being made that Wendi’s ‘knowledge’ of the crime is enough – its not.

 

[Going Rogue]

You don’t know if that was her only trip towards trescott

Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Jeff testifies that during the conversation where Wendi disclosed the details of the celebration dinner, she told him on the day of the murder she left her home but forgot her phone, turned around at the roadblock and went home to retrieve her phone - then went straight to ABC but she didn’t tell law enforcement because she thought it would seem suspicious.

 

[opt]

Yes, they both confirm Florida’s conspiracy law requires only agreement and intent, not an overt act, and allows circumstantial evidence to infer these elements. However, Waters focuses on the distinction between mere knowledge or presence and active participation in a conspiracy. It clarified that a defendant must actively enter the agreement, not just be aware of it or fail to stop it. I have seen many comments where the point is being made that Wendi’s ‘knowledge’ of the crime is enough – its not.

If I were on the jury and I were completely convinced that Wendi knew of the hit in advance, I would have a strong presumption that she provided some assistance. There are many small ways that she might have helped. Her not helping in any way at all seems almost impossible. Once she knew of the plan, almost any information or cooperation she gave Donna or Charlie would have been active participation, in my opinion. Even persuading the TV repairman to hang around for what? 40 minutes was it? to repair an obviously not repairable TV could then have constituted participation in the plan.

 

[Going Rogue]

However, it would be a crime to lie about it on the stand. In multiple trials Wendi has said that she had no knowledge of the murder, or even the so-called "double extortion plot". Her immunity agreement doesn't protect her from perjury.

Which brings up an interesting conundrum for Wendi's defense team. Do they abandon the claim that she was totally unaware of the plot by her mom and brother? Certainly they could say, "yes, she had foreknowledge but she herself didn't do anything." Of course, then she gets convicted of perjury, but that would be what, 5 years? Better that than the rest of her life in prison. On the other hand, if the lawyers go with the "innocent as a lamb" claim, then they can't explain away the 18-minute call with Charlie, the drive down Trescott and all the other suspect things she did as the actions of a bystander. Instead they have to argue that these are all just wacky coincidences. IMO, it becomes a much more difficult defense. (Yes, I know that the defense doesn't have to present a case and the jury has to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But in practice I think a jury will look askance at a defense lawyer who tries to claim her client is totally unaware, if it becomes clear that she knew about the murder in some fashion. They will think the defense is full of it. Just look at the reaction to Rashbaum's double extortion defense.)


Edit - Google's AI tells me perjury in a capital case has a 15 years max sentence. Oof!

If Wendi were to be indicted, I believe John Lauro is smart enough to and test the waters to see what type of deal he can get. That can be done while maintaining Wendi’s innocence of conspiracy to commit murder and by telling the state perhaps Wendi might have known more than she testified to re her family’s involvement. John is seasoned enough to know how to navigate this by not getting any type of confession from Wendi. If he has the framework of a deal worked out with the state he can speak to Wendi in hypotheticals. E.g. - the state is willing to give you X amount of years if you plead guilty to providing false testimony.

I firmly believe the case against Wendi for conspiracy to commit murder will not be an easy burden for the state to prove and although I personally believe she lied about what she knew re her family’s involvement, that isn’t easy to prove either. A short jail sentence may be a compromise both sides would consider? Lauro and Wendi need to measure the risk / reward after reviewing the states full discovery prior to weighing the options. They may assess all the evidence and determine the state can’t reasonably meet the burden of proof and decide to roll the dice.

 

[opt]

Lauro is smarter than the other lawyers and Wendi has acted smarter than the other defendants. She won't try to win a losing case like the others did.

 

[Going Rogue]

If I were on the jury and I were completely convinced that Wendi knew of the hit in advance, I would have a strong presumption that she provided some assistance. There are many small ways that she might have helped. Her not helping in any way at all seems almost impossible. Once she knew of the plan, almost any information or cooperation she gave Donna or Charlie would have been active participation, in my opinion. Even persuading the TV repairman to hang around for what? 40 minutes was it? to repair an obviously not repairable TV could then have constituted participation in the plan.

It all boils down to the evidence presented at her trial. It's hard to say how anyone, outside this group, would vote without hearing the evidence both sides present in a fair trial. I think most people here would agree with you, but most here are also already 100% convinced Wendi is guilty. How would 12 jurors vote who have no knowledge of all the minutiae and ongoing discussions here and on other social media forums and who bring no biases into the deliberation room? They haven't heard the "arrest Wendi" chant for the last five years and haven't been exposed to Carl's comma-inducing diatribes.

 

[Going Rogue]

It's possible. Although the two trip theory Knitpicker and I touted (IMO) seems to fit in perfectly with her phone calls and just makes a lot of sense. It explains a lot e.g she planned to shower to go to lunch. But she was not expecting the police to be at Trescott. Dan was supposed to be shot in his house. So when they saw her, her plans changed.

She never intended to go to ABC liquor, at least not the one she went to. That was her freaking out. I've been seen on Trescott by the police I need to create an alibi quickly, cue lots of phone calls, trip to ABC (look at my blue eyes alibi) gas station where she probably twerked for the attendant etc

If Dan was supposed to be shot in the house, what was the purpose of Wendi’s drive by? What exactly would she have be looking for? It’s been a minute since I watched Rivera’s 2016 proffer, but it seemed that they didn’t have a specific plan to execute Dan at any specific location rather they were looking for the right opportunity. Where are you getting it was supposed to be inside the house?

 

[Zedzded]

If Dan was supposed to be shot in the house, what was the purpose of Wendi’s drive by? What exactly would she have be looking for? It’s been a minute since I watched Rivera’s 2016 proffer, but it seemed that they didn’t have a specific plan to execute Dan at any specific location rather they were looking for the right opportunity. Where are you getting it was supposed to be inside the house?

Not inside the house, but at his front door. That's what DA stated to RA. He had been shot at his front door when the information was never released about how he was murdered. The inference being that was what was supposed to happen.