GUILTY FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen #13

dotr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
44,272
Reaction score
109,095
Re post. rbbm.
By Julie Montanaro
Oct. 5, 2020
''Dan Markel’s family joined prosecutors Friday in asking a judge to deny Magbanua’s pre-trial release request.
“The upcoming retrial of Ms. Magbanua is an important step on the path to justice for Dan, his family, countless friends, colleagues, and loved ones who continue to mourn him,” the family’s attorney wrote in a letter to Circuit Judge Robert Wheeler.

Wheeler took over the case after Judge James Hankinson’s retirement this summer.

Markel’s family laid out their concerns in a four-page letter and asked for the opportunity to be heard if the judge schedules a hearing on the issue.

“There is a significant risk that she would flee, attempt to influence witness testimony or otherwise tamper with trial evidence, and/or conspire with or be influenced by members of the Adelson family,” family attorneys Orin Snyder and Matthew Benjamin wrote.''
 

katiecoolady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
9,095
Reaction score
1,765
Website
www.twoinnocents.wordpress.com
When I hear that Podcast recording of her reading her clever little short story and calling him her "latex husband" (late-ex-husband - get it? hee hee) it just makes my blood boil. I am also in the camp that thought she did not know about it at first. But, after the trials and hearing she went by Trescott and also drove out of her way to the ABC store... I really do think she was in on it. AND she was setting Jeffrey Lacasse up to be implicated. I think she actually hated Dan that much. I do not think she ever really loved him... she was looking for something huge and it turned out to be Tallahasee and huge was not coming any time soon. I think if he had lived he would have become incredibly prominent. I was a faithful reader of his law blog, so I knew of him and was shocked when he was murdered. I just think she wanted more sooner and she wanted it in the Miami area.

And when you realize this was a mere ten months since he was murdered and no resolution to the case whatsoever, this is even more (to quote Jeffrey LaCasse) chilling. The fact that she could be so openly glib about this that early on, well it almost comes off like she's celebrating (without the vomiting part).

I put out a request to one of the podcasts that has had colleagues of Markel on as guests. Since his entire scholarly work seemed focused on crime and punishment and he called himself a retributivist (new word to me), I would love to hear from people familiar with his work how it would translate to the consequences of these crimes. It's been mentioned that he wrote a paper--that is apparently above the heads of most of us laypeople--that focused on family dynamics with crime or something, it seems like he had some clear ideas about retribution for exactly the type of crimes he was the victim of.

Just putting it out there again if anyone reading has anything to weigh in on this. I think it would be one way to understand him better and it is a rare thing to be able to understand pretty clearly what a crime victim would want in sentencing for their own perpetrators.
 

katiecoolady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
9,095
Reaction score
1,765
Website
www.twoinnocents.wordpress.com
The entire trial she kept professing on social media how KM was innocent. She’s completely changed her tune on that.
Plus her militant demeanor about how her client was wrongfully charged, turned in to thanking the jury for their hard work convicting her client. Very weird. It felt like she was almost relieved with the conclusion of this trial. Was her pre-verdict behavior all performative? Weird.
 

katiecoolady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
9,095
Reaction score
1,765
Website
www.twoinnocents.wordpress.com
Yup... and now actively trying to pawn KM off on a public defender for the appeal. Perhaps that was the basis for the impromptu media gathering. JMO.
And why was her "appellate expert" sister with her in court every day, then disappeared once KM needs....an appeal? It's all very sketchy to me.
 

Dorothy Jane

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
159
Reaction score
1,719
And when you realize this was a mere ten months since he was murdered and no resolution to the case whatsoever, this is even more (to quote Jeffrey LaCasse) chilling. The fact that she could be so openly glib about this that early on, well it almost comes off like she's celebrating (without the vomiting part).

I put out a request to one of the podcasts that has had colleagues of Markel on as guests. Since his entire scholarly work seemed focused on crime and punishment and he called himself a retributivist (new word to me), I would love to hear from people familiar with his work how it would translate to the consequences of these crimes. It's been mentioned that he wrote a paper--that is apparently above the heads of most of us laypeople--that focused on family dynamics with crime or something, it seems like he had some clear ideas about retribution for exactly the type of crimes he was the victim of.

Just putting it out there again if anyone reading has anything to weigh in on this. I think it would be one way to understand him better and it is a rare thing to be able to understand pretty clearly what a crime victim would want in sentencing for their own perpetrators.
I think if you Google Dan Markel Law Prof Blog the first hit will be a link to his archived blog. Scroll down to his posts in 2012/13. His posts were in the context of the crimes and issues of the day, so bear that in mind. He had an easy writing style and was very interesting to read. I found him through links from Instapundit blog. (Glenn Reynolds - Law Prof at Tennessee)
 

katiecoolady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
9,095
Reaction score
1,765
Website
www.twoinnocents.wordpress.com
I think if you Google Dan Markel Law Prof Blog the first hit will be a link to his archived blog. Scroll down to his posts in 2012/13. His posts were in the context of the crimes and issues of the day, so bear that in mind. He had an easy writing style and was very interesting to read. I found him through links from Instapundit blog. (Glenn Reynolds - Law Prof at Tennessee)
Thank you for this! I will surely go look all of this up. Sigh....it's just so sad.
 

Marvin Berry

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
96
Reaction score
288
I've been reviewing CA's Motion for Pretrial Release and it reminded me of Willie Meggs' misguided statements regarding Tallahassee PD's probable cause affidavit for CA. For example, calling the evidence laid out in the affidavit "speculation" and explicitly stating that it didn't rise to the level of establishing probable cause. In the Motion, CA's attorney makes the argument that the only "new" evidence presented by the State is the enhanced Dolce Vita recording. CA's attorney goes on to argue that the affidavit already contained transcripts from the Dolce Vita recording and that there is nothing materially new in the enhanced versions. Essentially, that the 2016 Affidavit laid out all the material evidence, and the State Attorney called it mere speculation.

I think we can expect that CA's attorneys will do their best to get Meggs' on the stand, or to otherwise get his boneheaded statements into evidence. I don't believe this argument moves the needle much for a judge on an Arthur Motion. However, I can easily see a juror being influenced by the State Attorney publicly saying that they don't have a case.
 

Attachments

  • CA Arthur Motion.pdf
    721.4 KB · Views: 9

Gardenista

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
16,001
Reaction score
122,907
I've been reviewing CA's Motion for Pretrial Release and it reminded me of Willie Meggs' misguided statements regarding Tallahassee PD's probable cause affidavit for CA. For example, calling the evidence laid out in the affidavit "speculation" and explicitly stating that it didn't rise to the level of establishing probable cause. In the Motion, CA's attorney makes the argument that the only "new" evidence presented by the State is the enhanced Dolce Vita recording. CA's attorney goes on to argue that the affidavit already contained transcripts from the Dolce Vita recording and that there is nothing materially new in the enhanced versions. Essentially, that the 2016 Affidavit laid out all the material evidence, and the State Attorney called it mere speculation.

I think we can expect that CA's attorneys will do their best to get Meggs' on the stand, or to otherwise get his boneheaded statements into evidence. I don't believe this argument moves the needle much for a judge on an Arthur Motion. However, I can easily see a juror being influenced by the State Attorney publicly saying that they don't have a case.

I don't think Meggs will get on the stand. As much as I didn't like his statement, he was right. Otherwise, Georgia would have had him arrested way before she did. Now, not only do they have the Dolce Vita recording, they also have the convictions of 3 accomplices.
 

Marvin Berry

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
96
Reaction score
288
I don't think Meggs will get on the stand. As much as I didn't like his statement, he was right. Otherwise, Georgia would have had him arrested way before she did. Now, not only do they have the Dolce Vita recording, they also have the convictions of 3 accomplices.

I guarantee that one of the first motions in limine filed by CA's attorney will be to exclude evidence concerning the conviction of non-testifying co-conspirators. There's a decent chance that doesn't come in at trial unless KM or SG testify.
 

dotr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
44,272
Reaction score
109,095
Thank you for this! I will surely go look all of this up. Sigh....it's just so sad.
You may find this interesting.. lengthy.rbbm.
''2012 Politics and Punishment: Reactions to Markel's Political Retributivism''

''Virginia Journal of Criminal Law [Vol. 1:167 POLITICS AND PUNISHMENT: REACTIONS TO MARKEL'S POLITICAL RETRIBUTIVISM Michael T Cahill" I commend the editors and advisors of this journal for making such an excellent selection for its inaugural featured author. Dan Markel is not only one of the most thoughtful and prolific of the emerging generation of criminal-law scholars, but also a diligent and supportive colleague to the other members of that cohort, including myself. Through both his own work and his thorough and insightful comments on and reactions to the work of others, he is sure to be one of the most significant and influential thinkers in this area for years to come. Moreover, the kind of work he is pursuing is in the vanguard of contemporary trends in punishment theory. He belongs to a group of current theorists who are bringing to bear not only moral theory (as has long been done), but also political theory, to help address important fundamental questions about the proper scope and attributes of criminal law. That is a significant intellectual project, and he is among those at the forefront of it. In response to the article that forms this symposium's centerpiece, I would like to discuss two general sets of issues-less concerns than questions about aspects or implications of Markel's views that might not yet be entirely resolved. The first relates to his views of the justification of punishment. The second, which I will discuss more briefly, relates to his understanding of the political institutions that are tasked with imposing punishment. First, the general question of punishment. It bears noting that the confrontational conception of retributivism ("CCR") theory presented in the article offers a bold and provocative answer to the fundamental question of how punishment is to be justified and when it is to be applied.
 

katiecoolady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
9,095
Reaction score
1,765
Website
www.twoinnocents.wordpress.com
You may find this interesting.. lengthy.rbbm.
''2012 Politics and Punishment: Reactions to Markel's Political Retributivism''

''Virginia Journal of Criminal Law [Vol. 1:167 POLITICS AND PUNISHMENT: REACTIONS TO MARKEL'S POLITICAL RETRIBUTIVISM Michael T Cahill" I commend the editors and advisors of this journal for making such an excellent selection for its inaugural featured author. Dan Markel is not only one of the most thoughtful and prolific of the emerging generation of criminal-law scholars, but also a diligent and supportive colleague to the other members of that cohort, including myself. Through both his own work and his thorough and insightful comments on and reactions to the work of others, he is sure to be one of the most significant and influential thinkers in this area for years to come. Moreover, the kind of work he is pursuing is in the vanguard of contemporary trends in punishment theory. He belongs to a group of current theorists who are bringing to bear not only moral theory (as has long been done), but also political theory, to help address important fundamental questions about the proper scope and attributes of criminal law. That is a significant intellectual project, and he is among those at the forefront of it. In response to the article that forms this symposium's centerpiece, I would like to discuss two general sets of issues-less concerns than questions about aspects or implications of Markel's views that might not yet be entirely resolved. The first relates to his views of the justification of punishment. The second, which I will discuss more briefly, relates to his understanding of the political institutions that are tasked with imposing punishment. First, the general question of punishment. It bears noting that the confrontational conception of retributivism ("CCR") theory presented in the article offers a bold and provocative answer to the fundamental question of how punishment is to be justified and when it is to be applied.
Thank you for this! He sure was making his presence known in this arena wasn't he? And how ironic that SIX people's punishments for the crime of his murder are being weighed in on. If only he could speak from the grave...
 

katiecoolady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
9,095
Reaction score
1,765
Website
www.twoinnocents.wordpress.com
I've been reviewing CA's Motion for Pretrial Release and it reminded me of Willie Meggs' misguided statements regarding Tallahassee PD's probable cause affidavit for CA. For example, calling the evidence laid out in the affidavit "speculation" and explicitly stating that it didn't rise to the level of establishing probable cause. In the Motion, CA's attorney makes the argument that the only "new" evidence presented by the State is the enhanced Dolce Vita recording. CA's attorney goes on to argue that the affidavit already contained transcripts from the Dolce Vita recording and that there is nothing materially new in the enhanced versions. Essentially, that the 2016 Affidavit laid out all the material evidence, and the State Attorney called it mere speculation.

I think we can expect that CA's attorneys will do their best to get Meggs' on the stand, or to otherwise get his boneheaded statements into evidence. I don't believe this argument moves the needle much for a judge on an Arthur Motion. However, I can easily see a juror being influenced by the State Attorney publicly saying that they don't have a case.
Meggs' odd assessment of this strong circumstantial case against Charlie (at least) and KM's refusal to squeal on the Adelsons will remain head scratchers, unless or until someone talks and gives some kind of explanation. Or some investigative journalist does some kind of deep dive and discovers something so far unseen.
 

stamplewie

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2022
Messages
9
Reaction score
50
I guarantee that one of the first motions in limine filed by CA's attorney will be to exclude evidence concerning the conviction of non-testifying co-conspirators. There's a decent chance that doesn't come in at trial unless KM or SG testify.
evidence of the co-conspirators convictions came into KM's trial, as did CA's arrest, why do you think it would be excluded in CA's trial?
 

Marvin Berry

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
96
Reaction score
288
evidence of the co-conspirators convictions came into KM's trial, as did CA's arrest, why do you think it would be excluded in CA's trial?

KM's attorneys didn't move to exclude that evidence. Her defense was essentially "We admit that SG killed DM. He did it because CA, DA, and WA asked him to. I had nothing to do with it!"

With respect to CA's defense, I believe they will move to exclude evidence of co-conspirator convictions and would give them at least even odds of winning that motion. But that's just speculation (unlike the probable cause affidavit which lays out a very good case against CA despite Meggs' statements).
 

KidonGadol

Former Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2021
Messages
435
Reaction score
1,711
KM's attorneys didn't move to exclude that evidence. Her defense was essentially "We admit that SG killed DM. He did it because CA, DA, and WA asked him to. I had nothing to do with it!"

With respect to CA's defense, I believe they will move to exclude evidence of co-conspirator convictions and would give them at least even odds of winning that motion. But that's just speculation (unlike the probable cause affidavit which lays out a very good case against CA despite Meggs' statements).
With respect to CA's defense, I believe they will move to exclude evidence of co-conspirator convictions .

I believe you are correct - because KM was convicted of conspiracy to murder. ON the new GJury warrant on CA she's named as a co conspirator with CA. Previously she allegedly conspired. I don't believe CA was named as a co conspirator as he was not charged at that time and legally it would be messy. So her conspiracy at time of conviction was not linked to CA personally. TK wanted to prove that CA conspired with SG but that never went anywhere, so there's a legal basis for excluding those convictions from evidence.

People are hard on ex SA Willie Meggs but bear in mind that at the time Rivera had not offered to turn state's evidence, KM had not been charged, her cell phone had not been recovered, Dolce Vita tapes had not been enhanced and there were issues with getting Jessica to testify (it seems she was going to contradict Rivera in details).
 

Gardenista

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
16,001
Reaction score
122,907
I guarantee that one of the first motions in limine filed by CA's attorney will be to exclude evidence concerning the conviction of non-testifying co-conspirators. There's a decent chance that doesn't come in at trial unless KM or SG testify.

Can't remember what was filed on KM's behalf, but I still highly doubt he's going to call Meggs. All he'd have to say is much more evidence came in.
 

Twister2

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2018
Messages
5
Reaction score
61
Top