FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen #13 *1 guilty*

[rsc42]

They have to reveal any evidence (under Brady) that could be used in the defense of the accused.
Otherwise, the DA chooses what evidence to introduce.
The biggest fallacy among case watchers is that they have seen all the evidence- no one has- important to keep in mind when predicting, analyzing, etc.

Yes, they have an obligation to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence under Brady. But they also have a duty to disclose all relevant inculpatory evidence that they plan to use at trial in a timely fashion, as provided under the applicable discovery rules. There is no "trial by ambush," in other words, they can't just keep certain smoking gun pieces of evidence under wraps and spring it on the defense at trial or on the eve of trial.

 

[Hiller]

Something else to consider - Had Dan (like Jeff Lacasse) changed his scheduling intention, picked the boys up from school to play hookey for the day and brought them home without Wendi's knowledge, the boys may well have either witnessed his murder or been in the home when it took place. A similar timing error (Lacasse changing his mind about the time of his trip) could have occurred in relation to Dan's having the kids in his possession and in the family home between final communication by Wendi with the co-conspirators and his death.

The willingness to leave the children vulnerable to a mismanagement of time or quirk of fate is troubling. This in addition to using the children as a tool to torture Dan spiritually, morally and ethically. Clearly, this intention is made known in emails from Donna to Wendi where she offers a three-way funded bribe of a million dollars toward a literal purchase of the children from Dan through bribery. JMHO.

I don't believe that the boys were ever vulnerable. I believe that the one immutable, absolute, unbending rule among the Adelson conspirators was that under no circumstances could there be any risk of harm to the boys, including by inadvertantly being present at the execution. In turn, the only way to insure that was the case was for WA to be, as you put it, the "timekeeper" - (a) close by and able to confirm to her satisfaction the safe location of the boys at the time of execution and (b) able to give the final go/no go decision very shortly before the execution without which it was understood with KM (and through KM with SG) that it would not proceed.

 

[yazoost]

Let me rephrase my initial questions.

One of these has to be true: (1) the proffer has not been taken; or (2) the state won't use it. If (1), why? What are they waiting for. As RSC42 said, there is no trial by ambush. The closer we get to trial and the more relevant the proffer is, the more likely CA asks for and gets a continuance.

And, why has CA's lawyer not asked for an order on his motion? Without that order, the state will have to release the proffer upon a public records request. And, the longer it goes on, the longer TD, WCTV, 1A Foundation can object.

My baseless assumption for all of this is that the state and DR have agreed to delay the formalization of the proffer. But I can't figure out why.

 

[vislaw]

Let me rephrase my initial questions.

One of these has to be true: (1) the proffer has not been taken; or (2) the state won't use it. If (1), why? What are they waiting for. As RSC42 said, there is no trial by ambush. The closer we get to trial and the more relevant the proffer is, the more likely CA asks for and gets a continuance.

And, why has CA's lawyer not asked for an order on his motion? Without that order, the state will have to release the proffer upon a public records request. And, the longer it goes on, the longer TD, WCTV, 1A Foundation can object.

My baseless assumption for all of this is that the state and DR have agreed to delay the formalization of the proffer. But I can't figure out why.

My understanding is that the pending motion for a protective order puts the proffer's status as a public record on hold. Until the judge rules on the motion the matter is moot. Given that both the state and defense are in agreement I would be surprised if the judge overrules the motion anyway.

I don't think there's any question the defense has a copy of it by now since that is a primary obligation on the prosecution per Brady without regard to any other considerations. I expect the proffer will remain under seal unless the judge rules otherwise in the coming weeks. Perhaps the media will press the court to resolve the pending motion. I see no reason for CA to press the judge to rule when the status quo is working in his favor.

It would be a different matter if the defense does not have a copy of any statements made by KM. In that case they would be filing a Brady motion and the fact they haven't suggests they already have a copy IMHO.

 

[yazoost]

Vislaw, as I understand the public records law, the state would have to turn over the proffer in the absence of a court order. It's your belief that the motion is functionally the same as an order until a judge overrules it? Or that the judge may have sealed it without a public statement as to that effect?

I agree that the judge will grant it. I just wonder why he hasn't. Thanks!

 

[Elfwoman335]

Yes, they have an obligation to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence under Brady. But they also have a duty to disclose all relevant inculpatory evidence that they plan to use at trial in a timely fashion, as provided under the applicable discovery rules. There is no "trial by ambush," in other words, they can't just keep certain smoking gun pieces of evidence under wraps and spring it on the defense at trial or on the eve of trial.

Yes, of course, but that's different than "They have to turn over all evidence."

My understanding is that the pending motion for a protective order puts the proffer's status as a public record on hold. Until the judge rules on the motion the matter is moot. Given that both the state and defense are in agreement I would be surprised if the judge overrules the motion anyway.

I don't think there's any question the defense has a copy of it by now since that is a primary obligation on the prosecution per Brady without regard to any other considerations. I expect the proffer will remain under seal unless the judge rules otherwise in the coming weeks. Perhaps the media will press the court to resolve the pending motion. I see no reason for CA to press the judge to rule when the status quo is working in his favor.

It would be a different matter if the defense does not have a copy of any statements made by KM. In that case they would be filing a Brady motion and the fact they haven't suggests they already have a copy IMHO.

The judge hasn't ruled on the motion to seal the proffer- which he said he would do when the proffer was complete.

 

[Seattle1]

Earlier, I opined I didn't think the defense would not want KM's statements known to the public and no benefit for the state to show its hand in advance of the trial. IMO, this is exactly what has happened per the following. In my experience, I've never seen a Judge defy a party's request prior to ruling on a motion.

Charlie Adelson asks judge to keep Katherine Magbanua’s latest testimony under wraps

Charlie Adelson's attorneys are hoping to keep the recent statements of his ex-girlfriend and co-defendant Katherine Magbanua sealed until after his trial.

www.wctv.tv

Jan 12, 2023

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (WCTV) - Attorneys for Charlie Adelson are asking a judge to keep any statements made by his ex-girlfriend and co-defendant Katherine Magbanua under wraps until his trial is over.

[..]

Court records show that Magbanua did not return to prison promptly as initially expected. Leon County Sheriff’s Office records show she is still here in the Leon County Jail, and Adelson’s attorney contends she has “submitted to one or more interviews with law enforcement” since her sentencing.

Adelson’s attorneys are now asking for a protective order to ensure that “any notes, memoranda, recordings, or transcripts of Ms. Magbanua’s interviews” are not made public until after Adelson’s trial is over.

“The level of pretrial publicity this case has generated is extraordinary,” defense attorney Daniel Rashbaum said in his motion. “Undersigned is concerned that any additional publicity generated by the release of Ms. Magbanua’s statements to law enforcement will make it even more difficult to impanel an unbiased jury.”

The motion filed earlier this week says prosecutors are not objecting to the request for a protective order.

 

[Elfwoman335]

Vislaw, as I understand the public records law, the state would have to turn over the proffer in the absence of a court order. It's your belief that the motion is functionally the same as an order until a judge overrules it? Or that the judge may have sealed it without a public statement as to that effect?

I agree that the judge will grant it. I just wonder why he hasn't. Thanks!

As far as evidence, recall that there are experts on this thread that claimed that no new evidence would be introduced at CA's trial - it would have had to be introduced at KM's trial already.

Then we read the discovery and there's new evidence.

Beware "expert" opinion.

 

[vislaw]

Vislaw, as I understand the public records law, the state would have to turn over the proffer in the absence of a court order. It's your belief that the motion is functionally the same as an order until a judge overrules it? Or that the judge may have sealed it without a public statement as to that effect?

I agree that the judge will grant it. I just wonder why he hasn't. Thanks!

I haven't studied the statute so take what I say with that caveat. Nevertheless, I do believe that since the judge has authority to grant or deny the motion, it follows that the motion must be resolved before the proffer could be considered a public record subject to disclosure. Otherwise, it would usurp the court's authority to decide the issue. If I'm right, the remedy would be to petition the court to make that decision rather than attempting an end run by arguing the proffer is a public record. I do basically agree with you that the law contemplates the record must be turned over in the absence of a court order. However, a pending motion asking for the court to grant such an order suggests that the authority of the court has been invoked and should put disclosure on hold until the court exercises its authority.

And, of course, if the proffer is not complete yet, the court will wait until it is to make a decision.

 

[Seattle1]

And, of course, if the proffer is not complete yet, the court will wait until it is to make a decision.

^^rsbm

I agree -- especially as evidenced by KM being retained in county jail instead of returned to DOC.

 

[yazoost]

So you believe the proffer may be final and provided to CA's team, just nobody in the public has requested it? And, if someone were to request it, the SA's office would go to the judge to adjudicate the motion based on the public records request?

So, why hasn't WCTV, Justice For Dan, the Democrat or even our little friends at WTXL made a public records request? Respect for Charlie?

 

[Marvin Berry]

So you believe the proffer may be final and provided to CA's team, just nobody in the public has requested it? And, if someone were to request it, the SA's office would go to the judge to adjudicate the motion based on the public records request?

So, why hasn't WCTV, Justice For Dan, the Democrat or even our little friends at WTXL made a public records request? Respect for Charlie?

They may have made a records request. However, I agree with vislaw that it is highly unlikely that the State Attorney will provide the proffer while it is the subject of a motion to seal (a motion that they have not opposed). They also can withhold the proffer it they determine that it contains information that may imminently lead to another arrest (hoping that it does!).

The recourse that WCTV, Justice for Dan, et al. would have if they were denied on their request is to seek enforcement of the Sunshine Laws in court. Any such action would be consolidated with the pending motion to seal. I doubt that they will go this route as 1) it would almost certainly not succeed and be a waste of resources, and 2) if they did somehow succeed, it could be used as an argument by Charlie to move the trial bc the jury pool in Tally is tainted. Best for everyone to be patient and let the wheels of justice slowly grind.

 

[Snacky]

...and let the wheels of justice slowly grind.

A familiar refrain with this case

 

[katiecoolady]

I don't believe that the boys were ever vulnerable. I believe that the one immutable, absolute, unbending rule among the Adelson conspirators was that under no circumstances could there be any risk of harm to the boys, including by inadvertantly being present at the execution. In turn, the only way to insure that was the case was for WA to be, as you put it, the "timekeeper" - (a) close by and able to confirm to her satisfaction the safe location of the boys at the time of execution and (b) able to give the final go/no go decision very shortly before the execution without which it was understood with KM (and through KM with SG) that it would not proceed.

Protect the boys' safety and protect Wendi's involvement at all costs.

I hope the latter crumbles and crumbles soon. Will Charlie sacrifice his own life for his "trust fund baby" sister?

 

[katiecoolady]

Wanted to share that I ran in to a show called Taking the Stand with Dan Abrams yesterday that focuses on Katie taking the stand in the first trial. Unfortunately that's where it ends because it would have been way more interesting if it dissected her disastrous testimony in the second trial. Both Kawass and DeCoste (with super long hair) are interviewed for it. Charlie wasn't arrested yet, so it's an interesting time capsule. I saw it on Hulu but it's from A and E.

 

[TheGardener]

I don't believe that the boys were ever vulnerable. I believe that the one immutable, absolute, unbending rule among the Adelson conspirators was that under no circumstances could there be any risk of harm to the boys, including by inadvertantly being present at the execution. In turn, the only way to insure that was the case was for WA to be, as you put it, the "timekeeper" - (a) close by and able to confirm to her satisfaction the safe location of the boys at the time of execution and (b) able to give the final go/no go decision very shortly before the execution without which it was understood with KM (and through KM with SG) that it would not proceed.

Yet, her timekeeping was flawed. Jeff Lacasse proved the best laid plans, especially ones driven by narcissism, can always be eclipsed by unexpected decisions by their victims.

 

[Marvin Berry]

Hearing on Charlie's motion to seal the proffer was set for February 28. The Court notified the media (WCTV and Tallahassee Democrat) of the hearing and is permitting them to file briefs and present oral argument for consideration.

 

[Niner]

Hearing on Charlie's motion to seal the proffer was set for February 28. The Court notified the media (WCTV and Tallahassee Democrat) of the hearing and is permitting them to file briefs and present oral argument for consideration.

@clearskies1 - is this court hearing updated in the court site? Just wondering what time it will held at.
TIA!

 

[clearskies1]

@clearskies1 - is this court hearing updated in the court site? Just wondering what time it will held at.
TIA!

Yes, the court website says February 28 at 10:00am.

 

[Niner]

Yes, the court website says February 28 at 10:00am.

Thanks a bunch!