GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 - #8 *arrests*

[Gardenista]

Defense rests

 

[YESorNO]

Jada E. Williams‏ @JadaEWilliams 17s18 seconds ago
Magbanua's defense has rested their case. State will begin rebuttals in about 15 minutes. #MarkelMurderTrialWTXL @abc27

 

[Gardenista]

Hoping the State has a strong rebuttal case.

 

[clearskies1]

I'm confused... she was going to liquor stores to promote? On behalf of whom? And who paid her for that?

 

[jennyjenny]

Hoping the State has a strong rebuttal case.

Yes, me too ...

 

[MsArk]

I have Roto Rooter here! Ugh!! Going to have rely on you guys to keep me updated!

Roto Rooter is never a good sign! Hope it is resolved quickly!

 

[justice1960]

David Lat is not a good commentator IMO - he was the one perpetuating the Wendi is innocent BS.

uggghhh on kawass she's an awful attorney. she is a liar herself one can tell - in real life too...

Isn't she an officer of the court? Isn't it an exemplary position? Licensed to practice in the State of Florida.

 

[FreddyG]

Only one question from the jury??? That doesn't bode well for a conviction! Wow.

Could mean a lot of things: the jury is clear on their view of her testimony, whether convinced of her truthfulness or otherwise; or (unfortunately) the jury is getting tired of the trial and wants it over. If anyone is skeptical of how powerful this motivation can be, check out Kim Goldman's interview with an OJ juror who basically said they deliberated for only a few hours because they all wanted to get out of the courthouse. Bottom line, though, I don't think lack of questions alone says much about whether the jury is leaning guilt/innocence.

 

[Weki]

Can you imagine if we didn't have this judge with all these sleazy defense attys? Ohhhh boy! Thank goodness he's keeping them all in line. Cause I've seen trials run so poorly with passive judges. Judges that allow attys to argue ad nauseum when the law isn't on their side. Judges that just sit there and allow defense attys to waste everyone's time. Those are the worst trials to watch. They are so tedious.

 

[Weki]

Could mean a lot of things: the jury is clear on their view of her testimony, whether convinced of her truthfulness or otherwise; or (unfortunately) the jury is getting tired of the trial and wants it over. If anyone is skeptical of how powerful this motivation can be, check out Kim Goldman's interview with an OJ juror who basically said they deliberated for only a few hours because they all wanted to get out of the courthouse. Bottom line, though, I don't think lack of questions alone says much about whether the jury is leaning guilt/innocence.

Also, questions could only be coming from 1 or 2 jurors. It doesn't reflect the mindset of the whole jury.

I guess I thought they would clamor to ask questions and there'd be more. But I probably wouldn't if I were on that jury bc it would be clear to me that she's FOS!

 

[dixiegirl1035]

if she isnt found guilty then i've had it with the jury system! the judge certainly knows she's guilty and would have no prob convictin

Yeah, HHJP was astonished when he looked at Casey Anthony jury verdict form... he flipped through it twice because he couldn't believe it.

 

[FreddyG]

David Lat is not a good commentator IMO - he was the one perpetuating the Wendi is innocent BS.

He is on Team Wendi, as is Jason Solomon. I am very skeptical of their arguments, but they are no dummies generally. Lat's Twitter today is very complimentary of KM's testimony in terms of her demeanor, deference, etc. He seems to think that the play (ploy?) here is to gin up sympathy with the jury by making her seem like a demure Filipina who could never have done something this terrible. And to be clear about Lat's POV, he is Filipino-American and a former federal prosecutor, so he has a reasonable amount of insight on such things. Again, I'm not convinced of his view and I'd have to see the testimony in person to have a strong opinion about it.

As for KM's testimony, I do think that having her take the stand and firmly state her innocence may have a positive effect on the jury. Her problem is all the other evidence to the contrary. In their rebuttal case and closing statements, the state will need to very very carefully lay out for the jury how her gauzy story of innocence is contradicted by the factual record. In fact, that might be a good roadmap for the summation. State could say, "KM said X, but here's facts 1, 2, and 3 contradicting that. KM also said Y, but here's facts 4, 5, and 6 contradicting that...." To make sure the jury is not swayed by KM's professions of innocence.

 

[Gardenista]

Anybody think we may have someone on the jury who is very familiar with tax accounting or HR? If so, I think that is a good thing.

 

[clearskies1]

Also, questions could only be coming from 1 or 2 jurors. It doesn't reflect the mindset of the whole jury.

I guess I thought they would clamor to ask questions and there'd be more. But I probably wouldn't if I were on that jury bc it would be clear to me that she's FOS!

I interpreted the questions as being skeptical of KM's claims about the promotions she did. JMO.

 

[friendlyobserver]

how does working in liquor change anything?

 

[dixiegirl1035]

State Rebuttal now.....

Here comes Officer Corbitt again!

 

[Weki]

David Lat says that all the "ma'am'ing" was "polite pinay" and probably "quite effective".....oookay! Rivera 'sir'd' and 'ma'am'd' in response to every question. That must be polite gang banger move - hopefully it's also as effective. And Lat also thinks Kawass putting KM on the stand was a tactical move - highly doubt that! It's clear Kawass doesn't want KM to testify. She has to know how poorly KM came across and had to have predicted that outcome.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

Entering 4 texts from Ca I cloud...

 

[fred&edna]

I agree. I'm worried.

As for KM's testimony, I do think that having her take the stand and firmly state her innocence may have a positive effect on the jury. Her problem is all the other evidence to the contrary. In their rebuttal case and closing statements, the state will need to very very carefully lay out for the jury how her gauzy story of innocence is contradicted by the factual record. In fact, that might be a good roadmap for the summation. State could say, "KM said X, but here's facts 1, 2, and 3 contradicting that. KM also said Y, but here's facts 4, 5, and 6 contradicting that...." To make sure the jury is not swayed by KM's professions of innocence.

 

[computantis]

What about the “innocent until proven guilty” assumption? Most comments seem to assume that Katherine Magbanua were already convicted!

I am sorry for the victim and the Markel family and friends but Katherine Magbanua is a courageous woman. She makes mistake asking GC questions. However, her being in the witness stand draws a totally different picture! She has some “acknowledgement” of her lack of education; and, combined with her gentle attitude, it may spruce up her stake with the Tallahassee people.

Albeit remote, there is a possibility for Katherine Magbanua walking free because she is “innocent until proven guilty”! If the assumed conduit between the commanditaires and the executors walks free, the entire case might fall apart. As bad as it may seem, armchair lawyers and prosecutor wannabes, be thou ware that Katherine Magbanua may come free. That is my take thus far into her testimony.