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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

www.wctv.tv

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 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.
 
Last edited:
yazoost said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
yazoost said:
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!
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
yazoost said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Hiller said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
Hiller said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

@clearskies1 - is this court hearing updated in the court site? Just wondering what time it will held at.
TIA! :)
 
So the judge scheduled a hearing just before the state provided the proffer to the defense. It's clear that the motion itself would not stop a public records request. The proffer must have been completed very recently and there was nothing for the public to request until now. 99.99% certain he seals it.
 
yazoost said:
So the judge scheduled a hearing just before the state provided the proffer to the defense. It's clear that the motion itself would not stop a public records request. The proffer must have been completed very recently and there was nothing for the public to request until now. 99.99% certain he seals it.
Click to expand...

So - still case management hearing on 2/24 & motions hearing (re seal proffer) on 2/28/23 still a go?

TIA! :)
 

www.courttv.com

On the Docket: Law Professor Murder-for-Hire

VIDEO: Charlie Adelson is accused of hiring of men to kill his ex brother-in-law, FSU law professor Dan Markel. (2/14/23)
www.courttv.com www.courttv.com

''ON THE DOCKET: LAW PROFESSOR MURDER-FOR-HIRE​

Charlie Adelson is accused of hiring of men to kill his ex brother-in-law, FSU law professor Dan Markel. 3 people are already serving time in connection with the 2014 murder. (2/14/23) MORE''
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 188 more.
Total: 4,571 (members: 189, guests: 4,382)

Online statistics

Members online
189
Guests online
4,382
Total visitors
4,571
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,475
Messages
17,969,432
Members
228,778
Latest member
jackparsley
Back
Top