FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *3 guilty* #15

[Seattle1]

Before the trial started the judge ruled that the Dolce tape could come in. So Rashbaum knew that before his opening. What changed was allowing the transcription to be shown to the jury. The judge ruled pre-trial that the Dolce transcript could not be shown, but then Katie testified and authenticated the transcript and the judge changed his ruling, allowing it to be shown to the jury. That was a biggie because that Dolce tape is 1) very hard to hear; and 2) horrible to listen to because Charlie goes on and on, talking non-stop forever, amid clattering plates and silverware. The transcript makes it way easier to follow.

^^rsbm

OK, this bit about the transcripts is somewhat confusing to me.

I've probably followed more federal cases so I might be biased because federal courtrooms are typically equipped with state of the art, higher quality equipment than state courts with limited budgets. Also, I think the feds tend to invest in quality sound equipment including headsets because recordings such as wiretaps are notoriously bad quality audio.
IRRC, both federal and state discovery rules provide that with wiretaps and audio recordings, the only admissible evidence is the audio recording itself, and why the court allows the prosecution and defense to use current technology to enhance the quality of a voice/wiretap-- without altering the content, of course.

Transcripts of both good and bad audio recordings are often produced for the the convenience of all trial parties including the attorneys for each side and the court, but they are only a trial aids and NOT evidence.

Visual aids such as graphs and charts are generally allowed at trial to present information but they are also NOT evidence, and therefore not allowed to go to the jury room for deliberations.

Just as Judge Everett advised the jurors prior to opening statements how statements made by the attorneys for the state and defendant are NOT evidence, the court often advises the jurors that demonstrative aids might be used during the trial but they are not evidence (i.e., won't be available to the jurors during deliberation). Instead, they can use their notes. I don't recall if Judge Everett made any disclosure during jury instructions about the trial aids.

I dunno -- seems to me Rashbaum is making an art of complicating what is generally common evidence! JMO

 

[vislaw]

...

Transcripts of both good and bad audio recordings are often produced for the the convenience of all trial parties including the attorneys for each side and the court, but they are only a trial aids and NOT evidence.

Visual aids such as graphs and charts are generally allowed at trial to present information but they are also NOT evidence, and therefore not allowed to go to the jury room for deliberations.
...

With respect to transcripts of audio recordings, courts are divided whether to admit the transcript as evidence. An exhaustive article in the 2006 Washington Law Review discusses how some courts deem the transcript as an aid for the jury while stating "A more realistic view, articulated by the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Onori, is that once a transcript has been authenticated and evidence has been introduced as to its accuracy, the transcript is admissible opinion evidence as to what is said on the recording."

I've been involved in a number of trials in which a transcript has been produced by a party and in every case where the trial court permitted the jury to see the transcript it was also delivered with the rest of the exhibits to the deliberation room. In California the Judicial Counsel includes a proposed jury instruction for the jury to explain how they are to use the transcript during deliberations:

"A [sound/video] recording has been admitted into evidence, and a
transcription of the recording has been provided to you. The recording
itself, not the transcription, is the evidence. The transcription is not an
official court reporter’s transcript. The transcription was prepared by a
party only for the purpose of assisting the jury in following the [sound/
video] recording. The transcription may not be completely accurate. It
may contain errors, omissions, or notations of inaudible portions of the
recording. Therefore, you should use the transcription only as a guide to
help you in following along with the recording. If there is a discrepancy
between your understanding of the recording and the transcription, your
understanding of the recording must prevail."

I'm not sure what the rules are in Florida, of course.

Regarding graphs, charts, and other demonstrative exhibits, trial courts also have varying approaches. My company specializes in forensic visualization, and we prepare all manner of demonstrative exhibits. More often than not the exhibits go to the jury with a minimal amount of foundation testimony that simply confirms the accuracy of the depiction. In the case of charts and diagrams, the exhibits almost always are sent to the jury for use during deliberation (but, in fairness, there rarely is an objection by opposing counsel).

 

[cottonweaver]

I believe he will not. Most think he will. I'm often wrong.

I agreed with every line of your funny post so the final sentence was a disappointing possibility.
I so want to see him go up in a ball of flames during cross-examination.

 

[GordonX]

why was the ENHANCED Dolce audio version NOT played/admitted yet the transcript WAS admitted? it seems to me if the transcript was admitted then the enhanced audio should have been as well. the sound was terrible on that Dolce audio yesterday. almost unlistenable and undecipherable. the Enhnaced version is so much clearer.

 

[cottonweaver]

I’m confused about Monica Jordan’s role because I’m pretty certain Rivera only mentioned two lawyers of his who were a father and son team who were there during the proffer. Monica is not a lawyer? Right? She’s a private investigator.

Yep
IDK how the system works, apparently she often works for lawyers as an investigator. I've also heard Janssen describe her as his assistant on some cases. Her OH is an undercover cop too. IDK why she seemed to help the DA's office in this case.

In an earlier STS Live this week when Janssen was holding the fort for WIlding, Janssen credited the role of the two LR public defenders (who @Seattle1 posted about a WS page back ) as instrumental and also Monica being there.
Then last night, she added some extra detail because she said she was there at all three Rivera interviews.
I assume she has strong interpersonal skills because she sure knew a lot about Rivera's bio -eg he was a dad at 13 yrs old.

BTW. She was also q clear that she believed LR when he relayed SG on his sighting ' that's the lady' with the 2 boys. (Thurs morning 17 July 2014. The morning after WA had the kids on the Wednesday. Who knows whether it was just a figment of SG's paranoia or whether WA did do a casual stroll at Mitchell Park that day)

PS @Seattle1 or anybody else who watched the same show.
Wasn't it Monica who mentioned that when CA was finally arrested, LEO found that he had a rifle set-up, trained on his window or was it Tim? ( CA Residence photos are listed in Defense Exhibits List)

 

[Seattle1]

With respect to transcripts of audio recordings, courts are divided whether to admit the transcript as evidence. An exhaustive article in the 2006 Washington Law Review discusses how some courts deem the transcript as an aid for the jury while stating "A more realistic view, articulated by the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Onori, is that once a transcript has been authenticated and evidence has been introduced as to its accuracy, the transcript is admissible opinion evidence as to what is said on the recording."

I've been involved in a number of trials in which a transcript has been produced by a party and in every case where the trial court permitted the jury to see the transcript it was also delivered with the rest of the exhibits to the deliberation room. In California the Judicial Counsel includes a proposed jury instruction for the jury to explain how they are to use the transcript during deliberations:

"A [sound/video] recording has been admitted into evidence, and a
transcription of the recording has been provided to you. The recording
itself, not the transcription, is the evidence. The transcription is not an
official court reporter’s transcript. The transcription was prepared by a
party only for the purpose of assisting the jury in following the [sound/
video] recording. The transcription may not be completely accurate. It
may contain errors, omissions, or notations of inaudible portions of the
recording. Therefore, you should use the transcription only as a guide to
help you in following along with the recording. If there is a discrepancy
between your understanding of the recording and the transcription, your
understanding of the recording must prevail."

I'm not sure what the rules are in Florida, of course.

Regarding graphs, charts, and other demonstrative exhibits, trial courts also have varying approaches. My company specializes in forensic visualization, and we prepare all manner of demonstrative exhibits. More often than not the exhibits go to the jury with a minimal amount of foundation testimony that simply confirms the accuracy of the depiction. In the case of charts and diagrams, the exhibits almost always are sent to the jury for use during deliberation (but, in fairness, there rarely is an objection by opposing counsel).

Thanks for the link @vislaw.

In my experience working with expert witnesses, the practice is mostly to mark the illustrative exhibits as “Court Exhibit _____, Not in Evidence.” They can then be made part of the record, for appellate review, but are generally not in evidence, nor given to the jury for their deliberations. However, it follows that the practice would be different for state's own evidence.

Given the advancements in technology and even with the advent of AI, it seems kind of silly that Statues are not keeping up to allow the best form of fair, accurate, information entered as evidence.

From the Florida Bar:

What is the statute for demonstrative evidence in Florida?

Before a demonstrative exhibit may be used at trial, the witness should establish that the exhibit resembles and is substantially the same as the object or area in question. If a model is used, it must fairly and accurately represent the original and should be built to scale.

How do you use demonstrative aid in a trial?

A demonstrative aid is not evidence and does not usually go to the jury room.

The basic rule is that a demonstrative aid can be used if: (1) it is based on the evidence, (2) it would help the jury understand the evidence, and (3) it is not unfair.

It is clear that courts distinguish demonstrative “evidence” from demonstrative or illustrative “aids.” As in other broadly defined categories of evidence that tend to overlap and become blurred, the demarcation between “evidence” and “aid” is not always apparent.

Generally, however, the more accurate the exhibit, the more likely it is to be admitted into evidence. Rough handwritten notes, maps, charts or drawings may be useful as aids but may not be admissible evidence.

Nevertheless, they may still be used to illustrate a relevant point with the jury even though not offered in evidence. Categorizing evidence is a concern to trial lawyers, and the distinction between demonstrative evidence and demonstrative aids is practical and critical.

Aids, unlike substantive evidence, are not allowed in the jury room during deliberations. Therefore, failure to properly distinguish between the two can lead to reversible error.

A party’s use of a demonstrative exhibit is within the trial judge’s discretion. See Chamberlain v. State, 881 So.2d 1087, 1102 (Fla. 2003). This means its admissibility is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review.

A Practitioner's Look at Demonstrative Evidence

 

[cottonweaver]

Charlie will never turn against Donna. No way! This is the end of Justice for Dan Markel I fear. I just think if state was gonna charge Donna she would’ve been charged and tried with Charlie. That just makes the most sense to me cause it’s the exact same evidence for both. JMO

Appreciate Janssen is not the be-all & end-all but he keeps stressing IHO
- if Charlie is convicted
- next stage will be for State to interview jurors
- one of the items on states checklist will be how jury felt about KM testimony
- if the latter is positive, the DA's office will sit down & make a decision on charging DA but we won't hear anything for 2-3 months.

 

[Niner]

Wednesday, Nov. 1st:
*Trial continues (Day 5) (@ 9am ET) - FL – Daniel Eric Markel (41) (shot to death July 18, 2014, Tallahassee) - *Charles Jay Adelson (37 @ time of crime/45/now 46) was indicted (4/20/22), arrested & charged (4/21/22) & booked (in Leon County 4/25/22) with 1st degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder & solicitation to commit murder. No bond (denied bond 4/26/22). Bond release denied (9/9/22).
Jury selection set to begin on 10/23/23 & ended on 10/25/23. 12 Jurors & 3 alternates (8 men & 7 women; 7 white men, 1 Black man, 2 white women & 5 Black women)
Trial began on 10/26/23. (thru 11/9/23). From 9am 5:30pm except Wednesdays from 9am-5pm/5:15pm
Circuit Judge Stephen Everett presiding. Prosecutor Georgia Cappleman. Defense attorney Daniel Rashbaum.
Court info from 4/21/22 thru 10/23/23 & Jury Selection Day 1-3 (10/23-10/25/23) & Trial Day 1-3 (10/26-10/30/23) reference post #554 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...murdered-by-hitmen-3-guilty-15.694569/page-28
10/31/23 Tuesday, Trial Day 4: State witnesses: Tallahassee Police Sgt. Chris Corbitt, a communication analysis expert. He supervises TPD’s technical operations unit continues his testimony. The undercover FBI agent who completed “the bump” (image & identifiers may not be published). Next FBI agent. This agent said he was surveilling Charlie Adelson for the FBI’s undercover operation related to Markel’s murder.
For more info see post #695 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...murdered-by-hitmen-3-guilty-15.694569/page-35
State witnesses continued: Kieth McElveen,expert forensic engineer. He is testifying on the audio & video related to the Dolce Vita meeting. A former member of the FBI violent crimes force. He reviewed physical & electronic surveillance of Charlie Adelson. Another FBI agent. Jury listens to phone recordings Between Charlie & Donna. The jury watches “the bump” video & subsequent calls between Charlie, Donna & Magbanua & Video of the 2016 bump is played in court. The prosecution played the first Dolce Vita meeting recording.
For more info see post #774 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...murdered-by-hitmen-3-guilty-15.694569/page-39
Trial continues on Wednesday, 11/1/23.

 

[Seattle1]

why was the ENHANCED Dolce audio version NOT played/admitted yet the transcript WAS admitted? it seems to me if the transcript was admitted then the enhanced audio should have been as well. the sound was terrible on that Dolce audio yesterday. almost unlistenable and undecipherable. the Enhnaced version is so much clearer.

I missed this argument today!

This was a police wiretap similar to police bodycams, once the sound quality of the recording is enhanced, it can then be admitted as a clarified exhibit to assist the Trier of Fact. We are not talking about altered content here!

It makes no sense except that the defense/Rashbaum is being difficult--perhaps he's arguing undue prejudice or that the probative value of the enhanced model is greatly outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

Audio Forensic Expert

 

[cottonweaver]

Can't wait to see how Rashbaum tries to spin this! Should be crazy.

he's going to create a ball of confusion over what the jurors thought they just heard on the Dolce tapes and because they can't use the transcript in deliberation it will make them question their own hearing.
It's going to be ugly - if his cross of KM is an indicator of what's to come

Later when the jury are deliberating, they're going to have to replay segments multiple times and potentially argue over it, taking many hours. ( This last point from Janssen on one of the 'Lives'. Am not saying Janssen is right, just want to credit it as his prediction, rather than suggest it's mine)

 

[Seattle1]

he's going to create a ball of confusion over what the jurors thought they just heard on the Dolce tapes and because they can't use the transcript in deliberation it will make them question their own hearing.
It's going to be ugly - if his cross of KM is an indicator of what's to come

Later when the jury are deliberating, they're going to have to replay segments multiple times and potentially argue over it taking many hours. ( This last point from Janssen on one of the 'Lives'. Am not saying Janssen is right, just want to credit it as his prediction, rather than suggest it's mine)

Thank you @cottonweaver for all you extra effort catching both the trial and the commentary -- more like an 18 hour shift!

 

[cottonweaver]

Thank you @cottonweaver for all you extra effort catching both the trial and the commentary -- more like an 18 hour shift!

High stakes - how many years have we waited for this?
It's ridiculous but yeah approx 16 hrs with either phone or speakers trying to avoid missing any coverage so we can get a handle on how it's going.

Anyway, another point Monica and/or Stephen made last night was wtte:
- state /GC has been dogged over the years. no time limit to prosecute the next Adelson in line. Expressed hope that at some point somebody who knows the As & has some critical circumstantial evidence will go to LE.

considering the extent of WA's social circle, blabber-mouthing among confidants, I just don't believe one of her pals hasn't got juice. ( Same goes for DA's neighbours, somebody might have seen them eg declutter their car in advance of 18th 7pm, or make an appointment cancellation too early etc etc )

If anybody is reading here..... ( stranger things have happened - June used to get updates via reading WS!)

 

[Tapeartree]

I feel like he has nothing to work with though and was likely told to do this. It’s this or no defense, you know?

He seems to have gone to a greater extent to defend WA and DA actions than CA. It's almost as if he were told that CA is toast, but make sure the rest of the A's are clear. I guess I expected the defense attorney to throw WA and DA under the bus to defend CA.

 

[clearskies1]

^^rsbm

OK, this bit about the transcripts is somewhat confusing to me.

I've probably followed more federal cases so I might be biased because federal courtrooms are typically equipped with state of the art, higher quality equipment than state courts with limited budgets. Also, I think the feds tend to invest in quality sound equipment including headsets because recordings such as wiretaps are notoriously bad quality audio.
IRRC, both federal and state discovery rules provide that with wiretaps and audio recordings, the only admissible evidence is the audio recording itself, and why the court allows the prosecution and defense to use current technology to enhance the quality of a voice/wiretap-- without altering the content, of course.

Transcripts of both good and bad audio recordings are often produced for the the convenience of all trial parties including the attorneys for each side and the court, but they are only a trial aids and NOT evidence.

Visual aids such as graphs and charts are generally allowed at trial to present information but they are also NOT evidence, and therefore not allowed to go to the jury room for deliberations.

Just as Judge Everett advised the jurors prior to opening statements how statements made by the attorneys for the state and defendant are NOT evidence, the court often advises the jurors that demonstrative aids might be used during the trial but they are not evidence (i.e., won't be available to the jurors during deliberation). Instead, they can use their notes. I don't recall if Judge Everett made any disclosure during jury instructions about the trial aids.

I dunno -- seems to me Rashbaum is making an art of complicating what is generally common evidence! JMO

Yes, so all the helpful graphics that Corbett created of the text messages and calls are not evidence and don't go back with the jury in deliberations. They were just aids to help the jury understand the evidence as it was presented. And the judge only allowed the Dolce transcript to be used as an aid after Katie testified and said it was accurate. Some have said that was the main benefit to the state of Katie testifying in this trial.

 

[Tapeartree]

I had been thinking about KM's testimony. I was wondering what others thought about her testimony. Do you think she is holding back information? If so, why would she at this point? If I recall, she testified that she didn't know that the person SG/LR was to murder was CA's brother in-law, but didn't she tell her friend (Yindra, I think is the name) that CA's brother in law died in a car accident on 7/19 when she picked her kids up? If that is the case, she knew who SG/LR were going to murder and did murder him. I need to go back and listen to old testimony.

If this is true, she is clearly not honest with her testimony. Why should her sentence be reduced?

 

[Seattle1]

Much has been made on every trial blog about whether or not WA let others in Miami know the hit on Dan happened as planned, (which might explain why KM allegedly knew the hit was done when SG phoned her about 2 hours following the shooting).

For whatever reason, WA was never asked if she made contact with any Adelson on 7/18/14 between 11 AM - 1:30 PM but I also don't understand why the prosecution just didn't ask KM if she really told SG that she knew the hit was done when he phoned her for the first time after turning on his cell phone a couple of hours after leaving Tallahassee!

KM was supposed to be in truth mode on Monday so why didn't the prosecution ask KM to clear up this million dollar question, and if true, tell us how she learned about it!

Just the same, what would stop CA from checking out the police scanner for Dan's neighborhood on the morning of 7/18/14 or KM for that matter? All one needed to know was that there was a police presence at/near his address. JMO

Leon County Florida Live Audio Feeds

Leon County Florida Live Audio Feeds

www.broadcastify.com

 

[cottonweaver]

I had been thinking about KM's testimony. I was wondering what others thought about her testimony. Do you think she is holding back information? If so, why would she at this point? If I recall, she testified that she didn't know that the person SG/LR was to murder was CA's brother in-law, but didn't she tell her friend (Yindra, I think is the name) that CA's brother in law died in a car accident on 7/19 when she picked her kids up? If that is the case, she knew who SG/LR were going to murder and did murder him. I need to go back and listen to old testimony.

If this is true, she is clearly not honest with her testimony. Why should her sentence be reduced?

My recollection of KM's testimony in Trial 3 is that at the time of the murder-planning she knew the victim was to be Wendy's ex husband but she did not know the target's actual name, in advance.
In T3 KM never denied that the target was the B-i-Law.

That ties in with LR's testimony that the name was not on 'the paper.' ( Just address & photo)

Rashbaum tried to create as much confusion as possible around the same point. Rashbaum wtte: ' Now Liar Katie is claiming she didn't even know the victim was DM!'
-----
Anyway, setting Katie aside, the implication of no-name on the paper to me is also staggering - if true.
As is providing only a single photo (' face-on?' BW or colour?) + address . ( IIRC the paper doesn't have the DM car reg either) Two strangers who have never seen the target before, have done no research, haven't even got a profile photo of the victim, SG can't even call his hit by his name to confirm that is definitely DM in that car before pulling trigger

( Imagine a scenario where one of Dan's male friends - who drives similar vehicle- was visiting Dan's home at time of kill, or offered to use the car to take the boys to daycare instead? Even at gym, the killers are parked a distance away - for ID purposes)
The assassination method was reckless but was also intimately tied to: identification by tailing; by the preferred kill-location of the home address; and by the the two boys presence as means of ID; and a go-between ' on the ground' who was in telecoms with DM...and that was Wendi

ETA - there's a reason that CA doesn't add the target's actual name on the paper? Thoughts, anybody? IDK what the photo print out says, if anything. Name on it or not

 

[Tapeartree]

Much has been made on every trial blog about whether or not WA let others in Miami know the hit on Dan happened as planned, (which might explain why KM allegedly knew the hit was done when SG phoned her about 2 hours following the shooting).

For whatever reason, WA was never asked if she made contact with any Adelson on 7/18/14 between 11 AM - 1:30 PM but I also don't understand why the prosecution just didn't ask KM if she really told SG that she knew the hit was done when he phoned her for the first time after turning on his cell phone a couple of hours after leaving Tallahassee!

KM was supposed to be in truth mode on Monday so why didn't the prosecution ask KM to clear up this million dollar question, and if true, tell us how she learned about it!

Just the same, what would stop CA from checking out the police scanner for Dan's neighborhood on the morning of 7/18/14 or KM for that matter? All one needed to know was that there was a police presence at/near his address. JMO

Leon County Florida Live Audio Feeds

Leon County Florida Live Audio Feeds

www.broadcastify.com

I have thought about the "I know" comment. Perhaps KM told SG " call me once it's done", and the phone call from him itself was an indicator that he completed the job. She just blurted out what she knew before she picked up the phone.

At this point, I don't think WA let anyone know what she saw on Trescott. It doesn't mean that I don't think she knew something was planned ahead of time. I think her driving by the crime scene is an indicator that she was in on the plot, but she couldn't help herself. She was curious. JMO

 

[Tapeartree]

My recollection of KM's testimony in Trial 3 is that at the time of the murder-planning she knew the victim was to be Wendy's ex husband but she did not know the target's actual name, in advance.
In T3 KM never denied that the target was the B-i-Law.

That ties in with LR's testimony that the name was not on 'the paper.' ( Just address & photo)

Rashbaum tried to create as much confusion as possible around the same point. Rashbaum wtte: ' Now Liar Katie is claiming she didn't even know the victim was DM!'
-----
Anyway, setting Katie aside, the implication of no-name on the paper to me is also staggering, as is providing only a single photo ' face-on' ( BW or colour?) + address . ( IIRC the paper doesn't have the DM car reg either) Two strangers who have never seen the target before, have done no research, haven't even got a profile photo of the victim.

( Imagine a scenario where one of Dan's friends - who drives similar vehicle- was visiting Dan's home at time of kill, or offered to use the car to take the boys to daycare instead? Even at gym, the killers are parked a distance away - for ID purposes)
The assassination method was reckless but was also intimately tied to identification by tailing, by the preferred kill-location of the home address and by the the two boys presence as means of ID.... and a go-between ' on the ground' who was in telecoms with DM...and that was Wendi

ETA - there's a reason that CA doesn't add the target's actual name on the paper. Thoughts, anybody?

Thank you for clearing that up. I hope there aren't any jurors like me on the jury. I think I am being confused by the defense attorney.

 

[cottonweaver]

Thank you for clearing that up. I hope there aren't any jurors like me on the jury. I think I am being confused by the defense attorney.

Yes I totally agree. - it's confusing & deliberately so
imo he's very good at creating confusion, mischaracterising evidence and if he can't do that he bores people to death so that they zone out.
fingers crossed - there's no certainties on verdict.