GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 - #9 *arrests*

Status
Not open for further replies.
It sounds like this juror wholly discounted Rivera and Nobles because of their criminal history. It's obvious Nobles was a dealer but didn't want to admit that in open court and it sounds like she held that against him. It sounds like if she doesn't believe one thing a witness says, she's not going to believe anything else.

what does Nobles have to do with KM’s guilt in any case?

the most scary thing is how certain the juror is that she is right. she said she watched videos and learned more about the case. so she knows that CA was talking to KM about killing FBI agent. id be embarrassed or at least thinking “geez she’s guilty we missed it.” shes giggling on a podcast like it’s a game.
 
I just heard part 3 of the juror's interview - how the heck did you all find that?? It has less than 30 views on YouTube. And it's some random guy/lawyer?

Anyway, this juror is exactly the kind of juror I figured would've caused a deadlock. She said she didn't believe anything Rivera said. She didn't believe anything Nobles said. And she believed everything KM said. Wow. She felt like GC was too locked in to her theory of the case - "prosecutorial desperation" - and that it turned her off. I can't even listen to anymore of this woman talking. She only looked at the evidence superficially. She doesn't have the critical thinking skills to be able to connect the dots. SMH. She needed "hard evidence" she said to believe anything Rivera said. She doesn't understand that circumstantial evidence and direct evidence carry the same weight. It's in the jury instructions. How TF can she believe everything KM said????? She said the main issue GC faced was the credibility of her witnesses. It sounds like this juror wholly discounted Rivera and Nobles because of their criminal history. It's obvious Nobles was a dealer but didn't want to admit that in open court and it sounds like she held that against him. It sounds like if she doesn't believe one thing a witness says, she's not going to believe anything else. Ugh. I haven't listened to the whole interview but did she say what the vote was?? I hope she's 1 of 2 because otherwise I'm not going to be hopeful in the retrial.


Vote was 9G 3NG
 
IMO DeCose and Kawass will do the same thing that Saamy did with SG. Have their client declared indigent but not request legal fees reimbursement from the government (except for expert witnesses) with the agreement from CA that the defense will be paid in full later. This strategy sounds like something that would be cooked up in PH1 to get around the Judge and the law and avoid further scrutiny on the topic. I don't think this is good lawyering, I think it's dirty lawyering.
Where I come from...We call dirty lawyers, along with crooked law enforcement officers. "Snakes"
 
what does Nobles have to do with KM’s guilt in any case?

the most scary thing is how certain the juror is that she is right. she said she watched videos and learned more about the case. so she knows that CA was talking to KM about killing FBI agent. id be embarrassed or at least thinking “geez she’s guilty we missed it.” shes giggling on a podcast like it’s a game.

Well Nobles is important because he lends credibility to Rivera's story. But even if she didn't believe that it was a coincidence that Nobles ran into them twice, it's not clear if she believed the rest. Is she saying Nobles just made the whole thing up? And so did Rivera?

She also expected GC to bring someone from Instagram to validate the owl story.

She's incredibly irritating to listen to. She doesn't seem like much of a critical thinker. She seems to have little life experience. She made sure to tell us she's college educated and a mother. So I'm guessing she's never worked outside the home. Most lay people understand the "no snitching" code that gang members have but apparently she's never heard of that. She finds it hard to believe that Rivera is under threat because he snitched. The areas she's focusing on are so trivial. She doesn't seem to be able to communicate coherently about her perspective of the evidence. Just superficial commentary. Ugggghhhh.
 
She just didn't want to convict poor little Katie.

That's my take as well. She related to Katie - perhaps as a mother and didn't want to convict. She said she only believed Rivera's testimony if it was backed up by "hard evidence." Ultimately, she said it didn't matter if Rivera was the shooter under the principal theory they're both guilty, which is true. So she had no problems convicting Garcia based on that I suppose. But she's inconsistent. And I think she didn't consider the testimony carefully.

eta: She was uncritical of KM's testimony which leads me to believe she's full of crap!
 
...
The police issued a probable cause affidavit for CA. Use it. Heck, subpoena him for KM's trial and let him sit up there and take the Fifth all afternoon [EDIT: probably a bad idea as he would get immunity for info learned from his testimony]. Nothing is going to change unless KM is convicted, and there's a good chance she won't be with all Adelsons running free.

CA's attorney would almost certainly advise the court that he intends to take the 5th if called and the court almost certainly will not allow the prosecutor to call a witness who knowingly will invoke the 5th given the obvious prejudicial effect upon the jury. The prosecution would not be willing to grant any immunity to him as the primary target defendant.
 
I get it. But juries aren't purely logical. They are human and are susceptible to emotional response. They also don't have all the information--only what is spoon fed to them during trial. You are armed with the knowledge that the State is "chopping off legs." The jury will not be told that and are left to infer it from circumstances. What they were told is that none of the Adelsons have been arrested, and the reason why could not be explained.

The police issued a probable cause affidavit for CA. Use it. Heck, subpoena him for KM's trial and let him sit up there and take the Fifth all afternoon [EDIT: probably a bad idea as he would get immunity for info learned from his testimony]. Nothing is going to change unless KM is convicted, and there's a good chance she won't be with all Adelsons running free.
IMO. WA/CA are on the verge of pulling off the perfect crime if someone who knows their involvement doesn't come forward and point the finger directly at them. If they are arrested without probable cause, according to District Attorney Meggs, the State of Florida could be susceptible to major lawsuits by CA. This is the reason why no arrests have been made and no immunity deals negotiated with CA. They know he is guilty and now they have to prove it without anything from him other than a full confession.
 
Last edited:
IMO. WA/CA are on the verge of pulling off the perfect crime if someone who knows their involvement doesn't come forward and point the finger directly at them. If they are arrested without probable cause, according to District Attorney Meggs, the State of Florida could be susceptible to major lawsuits by CA. That's why no arrests have been made and no immunity deals negotiated with CA.
This will be so disappointing IMO
 
I get it. But juries aren't purely logical. They are human and are susceptible to emotional response. They also don't have all the information--only what is spoon fed to them during trial. You are armed with the knowledge that the State is "chopping off legs." The jury will not be told that and are left to infer it from circumstances. What they were told is that none of the Adelsons have been arrested, and the reason why could not be explained.

The police issued a probable cause affidavit for CA. Use it. Heck, subpoena him for KM's trial and let him sit up there and take the Fifth all afternoon [EDIT: probably a bad idea as he would get immunity for info learned from his testimony]. Nothing is going to change unless KM is convicted, and there's a good chance she won't be with all Adelsons running free.
I think it's a risky, unusual and weak strategy to try to prosecute a middleman without also prosecuting the kingpin. Especially when the middIeman is a woman like KM, where's there's no evidence she had personal ambitions to rise up in the criminal world, and run an assassination service, etc. I think it's human nature that some people will object to that.

For example, what if the FBI had taken Bernie Madoff's quite lowly office staff to trial before arresting Madoff himself? Or, more pertinently, trying Jimmy Rodgers before they've arrested Mark Sievers.

I get that the prosecution's case is weak, but possibly they've discovered the approach they're taking is too strategic for the jury system.
 
Last edited:
IMO. WA/CA are on the verge of pulling off the perfect crime if someone who knows their involvement doesn't come forward and point the finger directly at them. If they are arrested without probable cause, according to District Attorney Meggs, the State of Florida could be susceptible to major lawsuits by CA. This is the reason why no arrests have been made and no immunity deals negotiated with CA. They know he is guilty and now they have to prove it without anything from him other than a full confession.

There is almost no chance that David Markus allows CA to sue for arrest without probable cause. For one, the probable cause affidavit submitted by TPD is fairly substantial and probable cause is a relatively low bar. But more importantly, CA can't realistically sue without sitting for a deposition. No way Markus allows that. If CA is arrested, he'll post bail, waive speedy trial, and the State can reassess after KM's trial. The point of no return is empaneling a jury for CA.
 
I don't think there's a rule that only wise people can be on juries. The prosecution has to present the case in a way that will convince a jury consisting of the defendent's peers.
Thanks for bringing that section to my attention. Perhaps, I should have worded that section better to read..."any jury with good judgment."

Anyway this is why we have mistrials and retrials...
 
The juror who spoke out said she was in the last group of jurors that were questioned by the attorneys and it sounds like she didn't get grilled like the other jurors did. I think that may be partly why she slipped through the cracks. GC needs to weed these wishy washy people out for the retrial.

I also think GC appearing so calm and confident played against her with these types of jurors. Perhaps there was some bias against GC for all the obvious reasons. This juror claimed that GC was overly confident in her theory of the case but then said that KM's attorneys seemed emotionally invested and like they really believed KM was innocent. And my sense was that this juror clearly had a problem with GC but not with DaCoste and Kawass. So this juror was moved by emotionality and theatrics but not by cold, calm reason. smh.

eta: remind me again to never underestimate all the underhanded tactics that defense lawyers use. It's because it WORKS on the idiots!! It causes mistrials which gives defense some leverage.
 
There is almost no chance that David Markus allows CA to sue for arrest without probable cause. For one, the probable cause affidavit submitted by TPD is fairly substantial and probable cause is a relatively low bar. But more importantly, CA can't realistically sue without sitting for a deposition. No way Markus allows that. If CA is arrested, he'll post bail, waive speedy trial, and the State can reassess after KM's trial. The point of no return is empaneling a jury for CA.
I'm quoting William Meggs. State Attorney from 1985-2016. He must know what he is talking about in reference to a case being there or not. IMO.
 
I'm quoting William Meggs. State Attorney from 1985-2016. He must know what he is talking about in reference to a case being there or not. IMO.

I've already argued this and I know it frustrates people to hear this but I'm pretty sure that the Adelsons are going to get away with this unless KM comes forward or the Adelsons turn against each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
119
Guests online
2,579
Total visitors
2,698

Forum statistics

Threads
590,018
Messages
17,929,049
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top