FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #24

[IQuestion]

Dear Mods, I need more emojis...specifically "I am confused" and "I agree with part of what you are saying" emojis.
PS. Thank you for keeping the discussion fit for consumption.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Not to be a naysayer since the delay could possibly be only a few months as you say, BUT what if DA ends up with an entire new crew to represent her? That could easily make it a year or more before a trial starts. This thing has dragged on too long. Way past time for the state to put things in motion for WA and HA and give the Markels some belated justice. They have waited long enough. The state needs to finish this thing or get someone in charge that will. JMO

totally agree - I am hoping it is not a lengthy delay and counting on DA wanting to get out of there ASAP so she will stick with Morris

 

[Going Rogue]

Dear Mods, I need more emojis...specifically "I am confused" and "I agree with part of what you are saying" emojis.
PS. Thank you for keeping the discussion fit for consumption.

 

[cottonweaver]

Short and sweet from Jared Ross at Justice For Dan and again a consensus is building among the attorneys who follow the case. ( STS will doubtless interview some more attorneys in the next few days. Be interested to hear Dave Aronberg & Mutz's take too)

 

[MTW2011]

Yes. It did from the start seem like a ploy, but the state can’t do anything about it. This is an unusual case int his regard. I am sure Charlies appellate attorney came up with the idea and filled him in. Charlie knew he was coming to FLorida for this circus. Everyone said how happy he looked. In the long run, he will find ways to appeal through other missteps of Rashbaum. And the next lawyer for Donna will do a better job. I just hope she doesnt hire Tim Jansen. Lol.

I know we are past this point of DR withdrawing now, but in rewatching the hearing yesterday GC said not only did she review some appellate cases where the State WAS seeking removal of the conflicted defense attorney, that she was putting on the record that they did NOT want that to happen. I thought that distinction was very interesting, as they wanted to proceed ahead with DR on the case. “…the State is in agreement with proceeding as outlined by defense counsel. In the limited research I was able to do it seems like a lot of the times when it goes the other way and the court in its discretion decides to boot the counsel of record or conflict, the State is seeking that. So just want to put on the record that we are not seeking for your honor to do that in this situation”

Judge: to dismiss Mr Rashbaum?
GC: Correct

Carl Steinbeck seems to be one of the voices I’ve listened to reflect on this and he puts some blame on the Judge and the State for not addressing this sooner/when it did come up they did not object to this. I know it doesn’t seem to matter now though as DR has removed himself from the picture. Maybe GC was playing “fair” as some others here have said but if that’s the case she still seemed willing to plow ahead with an issue she herself said she knew the higher Courts have found issues with in the past….which seems like it would be a pretty slippery slope to go down. I’m not sure why they’d be willing to risk something like that but JMOO.

 

[Sustained]

Beyond the scope of Rashbaum stepping away, is any party responsible for reimbursing those who had airline/hotel reservations for the trial or is it just tough luck for those parties ?

Also, the costs of prisoner transport for CA/KM/LR ?

 

[BUF]

Beyond the scope of Rashbaum stepping away, is any party responsible for reimbursing those who had airline/hotel reservations for the trial or is it just tough luck for those parties ?

Also, the costs of prisoner transport for CA/KM/LR ?

After Dan Rashbaum and Alex Morris both individually finished behind-closed door reviews with the judge, Stephen Everett returned to the courtroom and said the jurors would be released and the trial will be postponed.

He blamed the defense for the derailed trial saying "this continuance will be charged to the defense." He said that prosecutors could charge the defense for the transportation of Charlie Adelson, Katherine Magbanua and Luis Rivera.

"I’m not happy," Everett said. "But we’re trying to get this right."

RECAP: Jury selection hits major snag in trial of Donna Adelson; attorney withdraws

The Tallahassee Democrat will livestream each day of the trial of Donna Adelson from the county courthouse in Florida's capital city.

www.tallahassee.com

 

[cottonweaver]

I know we are past this point of DR withdrawing now, but in rewatching the hearing yesterday GC said not only did she review some appellate cases where the State WAS seeking removal of the conflicted defense attorney, that she was putting on the record that they did NOT want that to happen. I thought that distinction was very interesting, as they wanted to proceed ahead with DR on the case. “…the State is in agreement with proceeding as outlined by defense counsel. In the limited research I was able to do it seems like a lot of the times when it goes the other way and the court in its discretion decides to boot the counsel of record or conflict, the State is seeking that. So just want to put on the record that we are not seeking for your honor to do that in this situation”

Judge: to dismiss Mr Rashbaum?
GC: Correct

Carl Steinbeck seems to be one of the voices I’ve listened to reflect on this and he puts some blame on the Judge and the State for not addressing this sooner/when it did come up they did not object to this. I know it doesn’t seem to matter now though as DR has removed himself from the picture. Maybe GC was playing “fair” as some others here have said but if that’s the case she still seemed willing to plow ahead with an issue she herself said she knew the higher Courts have found issues with in the past….which seems like it would be a pretty slippery slope to go down. I’m not sure why they’d be willing to risk something like that but JMOO.

Georgia also said that she'd like to present the Judge with some case law - at the same time as Dan - when they were discussing Colker(? spelling) precedent and before Everett went the courtroom.

Tragos - ex FSU & knows Ufferman - said that Ufferman effectively ' wrote the book' on appeal issues.
Tragos added words to effect of - Everett knows that Ufferman knows it's a slam dunk reversible and knows more about appellate law than any ASA like Cappleman or even Everett himself.

So... I just wonder whether Georgia fully appreciated that the verdict would be immediately reversed?

 

[KariKae]

Completely changing topics, but do we know who paid for CA's defense? Did he pay himself or did Donna and Harvey fund it? Just curious, because after paying for CA, and then DA's defense (with a second legal team and possibly $100K for court costs), the Adelson family coiffeurs would be depleted. Then if WA is arrested, where will the $$$ come from to defend her? Remember the trusts DA was so proud of setting up for the grandkids. Probably won't be anything left.

 

[nodamselindistress]

I loved what Tragos said about DA really wanting Rash to rep her and now that got blown up by Charlie, she may be all in it for herself and not care about Charlie any longer. The defense could change a bit, we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Knitpicker]

totally agree - I am hoping it is not a lengthy delay and counting on DA wanting to get out of there ASAP so she will stick with Morris

So either Morris stays on and there are appeal issues later, or all new lawyers and we are looking at 1.5-2 years till Donnas trial. Right?

 

[Knitpicker]

T

Completely changing topics, but do we know who paid for CA's defense? Did he pay himself or did Donna and Harvey fund it? Just curious, because after paying for CA, and then DA's defense (with a second legal team and possibly $100K for court costs), the Adelson family coiffeurs would be depleted. Then if WA is arrested, where will the $$$ come from to defend her? Remember the trusts DA was so proud of setting up for the grandkids. Probably won't be anything left.

They seem to have rental properties (they just raised the rent on substantially) that brings them in about 40K cash a month.
Does Donna still get social security in jail?

 

[Going Rogue]

Without naming anyone specifically that has a voice in this ‘community’, in my opinion, there are way too many ‘voices’ that have been publicly expressing views that take things way too personally against ‘people’ that they view as on the ‘other’ side. This is not a new development, its been going on for a LONG time. Its okay to feel a sense of outrage for the length of time its taking for justice and its okay to be critical of some of the missteps along the way, but it seems that a lot of frustration some have is being channeled in the wrong places. That’s my personal opinion based on listening to certain people pontificate or comment and express (and spread) ‘hatred’ towards certain people attached to this case and attack them personally and publicly. We need defense attorneys like Rashbaum and appellate attorneys like Ufferman to ensure the courts operate in a fair and impartial manner at ALL times to ensure defendants are getting a fair trial. Potential appellate issues should be taken seriously and with the utmost caution. Look at the Alec Baldwin case and the Brady violation – that was absolutely unacceptable and gross negligence on the prosecutor. As I said previously, there is plenty of blame to be shared for yesterdays debacle and the more I digest things the more I lean more towards this was avoidable and the Leon Cty DA's office & Judicial Circuit should have not let it get to that point.

 

[amicuscurie]

Short and sweet from Jared Ross at Justice For Dan and again a consensus is building among the attorneys who follow the case. ( STS will doubtless interview some more attorneys in the next few days. Be interested to hear Dave Aronberg & Mutz's take too)

Dbm

 

[amicuscurie]

Without naming anyone specifically that has a voice in this ‘community’, in my opinion, there are way too many ‘voices’ that have been publicly expressing views that take things way too personally against ‘people’ that they view as on the ‘other’ side. This is not a new development, it’s been going on for a LONG time. Its okay to feel a sense of outrage for the length of time its taking for justice and its okay to be critical of some of the missteps along the way, but it seems that a lot of frustration some have is being channeled in the wrong places. That’s my personal opinion based on listening to certain people pontificate or comment and express (and spread) ‘hatred’ towards certain people attached to this case and attack them personally and publicly. We need defense attorneys like Rashbaum and appellate attorneys like Ufferman to ensure the courts operate in a fair and impartial manner at ALL times to ensure defendants are getting a fair trial. Potential appellate issues should be taken seriously and with the utmost caution. Look at the Alec Baldwin case and the Brady violation – that was absolutely unacceptable and gross negligence on the prosecutor. As I said previously, there is plenty of blame to be shared for yesterdays debacle and the more I digest things the more I lean more towards this was avoidable and the Leon Cty DA's office & Judicial Circuit should have not let it get to that point.

Everyone has a show now, it seems, and they spring up fast, at least to me.

 

[nodamselindistress]

So either Morris stays on and there are appeal issues later, or all new lawyers and we are looking at 1.5-2 years till Donnas trial. Right?

I do not see it that way. I thought the Judge did his best to question Morris about the "wall" between he and Rash to avoid additional appeal issues later - didn't he?

 

[ch_13]

Did the judge actually SAY he was satisfied that Rash had not passed privileged info to Morris, or did he just say Morris would continue as the attorney? I’m not clear on that.

Well, we know that the judge held an in camera hearing about just what privileged info Morris was given. Presumably, he wouldn't allow Morris to continue if there was a conflict.

I think it’s entirely possible that Rash may have told Morris something that Charlie had told him, or let it slip. I believe the whole thing is tainted and Morris should withdraw.

Let's say for argument's sake, Morris does have some privileged information. Unless Morris is dumb enough to let this info slip while cross-examining Charlie, then I don't see how it becomes an appealable issue. I mean in pretty much every trial lawyers are privy to information that they can't ask witnesses about. And if they do ask, then it's a potential mistrial. This doesn't seem to be all that different.

IMO, it's a completely different situation than with Rashbaum. As Charlie's former lawyer, he still has ethical obligations to his ex-client.

 

[Going Rogue]

I do not see it that way. I thought the Judge did his best to question Morris about the "wall" between he and Rash to avoid additional appeal issues later - didn't he?

Yes, that’s accurate. I trust that an ethical wall exists, however, Carl Steinbeck argued that anyone part of the legal team should be considered tainted and the judge should err on the side of caution and remove Morris if he doesn’t withdraw from the case. Hard to argue with Carl when he’s been raising the issue of the Rashbaum conflict for the past year and look how quickly things unraveled because of that conflict. Obviously Donna has the right to counsel of her choice, BUT that choice is with limits and not absolute. Rashbaum was clearly conflicted and in hindsight, he should have been removed by Judge Everett – that is not my opinion, that is Carl’s and I yield to his experience and expertise. I could see the removal of Morris as being more controversial than Rashbaum, but I’d love to hear more on the legal grounds to remove Morris ‘IF” an ethical wall does exist. Short of discovery that Morris is lying about the ethical wall, which I sincerely doubt, how can his removal be justified and not become an appellate issue of itself by violating Donna’s rights to counsel of her choice. Again, that is assuming an ethical wall exists between Morris & Charlie – which was already vetted by Everett.

 

[clearskies1]

When the dust settles from yesterday's hearing -- Will Morris even want to stay and take on the role of lead counsel? Will Donna want him as her lead counsel? Will Morris withdraw to avoid any potential conflict argument? JMO.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Great questions! Only time will give us the answers...unless Steinbeck can see the writing on this wall as well

JMO but I think DA is much like CA was during his trial, she believes she is going to get off (although deep down she knows she is guilty) and it is my belief she wants to take the shortest route to accomplish that, which means keeping Morris.