Charlie Adelson Trial - The Verdict!

Carl Steinbeck, from the YouTube channel Jury Trial Mentor (and seasoned prosecutor and public defender), offered his thoughts as the jury took just over three hours to convict Charlie Adelson of murder in the death of his former brother-in-law, Dan Markel.

Episode Transcript

(00:06):
It is the big story in thepress box here on the Morning Show with
Preston Scott's Show five forty three,brought to you by Custom Care Dry Cleaning.
I'm Preston, that is Grant andCarl Steinbeck with us. In fact,
so excited to talk to us thismorning. He called an hour ago
to join us on the show.Hey Carl, Hey, good morning past.

(00:27):
You are doing yeoman's work, buddy. Carl is featured on a YouTube
channel, Jury Trial Mentor, andyou can follow the happenings on this case
as well as I'm sure many otherson the website. Carl, course is
a very seasoned prosecutor and defense counsel. The verdict came in. You called

(00:50):
it the timing of this. Itdidn't take him long. No, it
was such an awesome job done byGeorgia Kapelman. In her closing, she
had all all that deep dive ofminutia of detail in such a storyline fashion.
It was like a documentary or amovie, the way all this information
was showing up on the screen behindher as she's walking the jury through how

(01:11):
this murder plot happened and how Danmark Hill was viciously killed her. I
made several notes as she was doingher closing, and I, like you,
Carl, thought it was absolutely spectacularlybrilliant. I thought it was simple,
it was easy to follow, itwas chronological, it got into the

(01:32):
details. I think she also madea very important point at the beginning,
but I'm curious of your thoughts ofit. She said, it only takes
one of you to quit this guy, and so I'm going to go over
all of what this evidence is indetail. How important was that to kind

(01:52):
of challenge the jury? This ison all of you. Well, I
think it really took away anybody that'salready had their mind made up, because
I think the case was so strongthat she was absolutely right. I have
never heard a prosecutor say that before, and I'm going to remember that because
that has wrecked a great teaching point, because you don't want to bore the

(02:13):
jury, and that's exactly what thedefense council did, and Georgia did the
complete opposite. It was such amasterful job. As really impressed. Besides
the chronological presentation, I thought anotherthing, and I'd like you to comment
on this. You know, muchwas made of Katie mcbanwa testifying, and
she did and quite candidly, shegave a lot more information and knowledge than

(02:35):
I thought she would bring to thecase. But Georgia didn't really rely on
Katie at all in her closing.No, that was another really great point.
And because the defense was trying tomake a big deal about well,
you can't believe Katie. She's aliar. She's lied so many times.
Nothing she says is worthwhile. ButGeorgia pointed out, it's like, we
don't need to bring in her wholecharacter to understand what she knows and brings

(02:59):
a value to the case. Allyou have to look at is little pieces
of information she did testify which actuallydo fit the other pieces of their case
against Charlie Adelson. In case youmissed the news, Charlie Adelson has been
found guilty on three counts in themurder of Dan Markel first degree murder,
conspiracy to commit first degree murder,solicitation to commit first degree murder. Carl

(03:22):
What what's the importance of all threeof those charges? Just the fact that
in case the jury didn't agree onone of them, they could find him
guilty on the others. Right,Well, I think that that shows consistency
Number one with the other co conspirators. They were brought up and convicted on
all the other charges except for obviouslythe first one who roll over and pled
guilty and agreed to testify. Sowe have those same against Katie, and

(03:46):
we also have the same against saidcreator Garcia, the trigger pullers. So
it made sense to go with thosesame three. And you always want to
have some backup because if for somereason the the holdout on the murder one
charge, then you actually have someother lesser type included defenses that didn't actually
ultimately have to prove that he wasbehind the murder itself. So it was

(04:08):
a good strategy and it worked well, and I think it also shows the
momentum that now the prosecution has.I'm going to ask the question that I
hate asking, but I feel likeI owe it to the audience to ask
this question. Is there any possibilityDaniel Rashbaum offered such a ridiculous defense and
quite candily was seen in closing argumentssmiling, yawning, smirking, et cetera.

(04:33):
Is there any chance that that's groundsfor an appeal for Charlie. No,
not at all. I don't seethat as an issue. That's just
different body language matters, and Iwould say there was also I don't know
if it was on view from thetelevision coverage, but he also turns his
shoulder towards Charlie at times, andCharlie was trying to give him a note

(04:55):
or something. So there was somekind of issue going on between Charlie and
rock Bomb there for a little bit, but it was enough, and the
jury wasn't really paying attention to thatbecause they're, you know, listening to
Georgia's riveting clothing, so it wasa I don't think that's an issue at
all. This is the Morning Showwith Preston Scott forty two minutes past the

(05:18):
hour, Carl Steinbeck with me,Carl, what would you say to people
that are listening to this and arebored, bored with the pursuit of justice
in the murder of someone over custody. I'm getting an email or two from
somebody saying this is boring, verdictsover whatever. Well, that's exactly actually

(05:40):
why I created Jerry trout mentor mybrother is the technical expert in the host
of that channel, because I wasso outraged and he was as well about
the lack of progress and going afterthese other atle sins. It was just
so such an outrageous story when hetold me about it, and he got
me covering this case, and sothat somebody that doesn't have a concern for

(06:02):
the remaining justice against the other Adelson's, I have no idea why they wouldn't
want to see the rest of themgo down. And actually, if you
stop thinking about it, the prosecution'scase was against Donna and Wendy as well,
and they have a lot more evidenceagainst Wendy that didn't come out in
the trial, and they didn't needto, of course, but the evidence

(06:23):
is so compelling. And also Rachmumwas defending Wendy so much throughout the trial
as well as Donna. So anyway, it's a very compelling story and that's
why it's got the national coverage.Well, and I'm going to point out
we are not done with this storyyet. I mean, you and I
are Donna as of today. Maybewe'll talk tomorrow about a couple of other
things, but the fact of thematter is this case should continue, should

(06:47):
it not. I mean, wouldyou be shocked if they did not indict
at least Donna moving forward? Yes, I do really think Donna at a
minimum, and also Wendy. Wendy, there's a lot more circumstantial type evidence,
but there is no doubt. Ithink this jury if they had the
other two rolled up and sitting thereat the defense table as well, they

(07:11):
would have been convicted as well.And I think they'll go back and listen
to the jurors and say, hey, what would you want differently if we
were going to have these other twoas codefendants as well. So they have
this great opportunity to perfect their caseand go after the other Adolesen's what do
you think again? I think thecase with Donna is a parallel case to
Charlie in my opinion, I saidnight last night on the YouTube visit that

(07:36):
you did as well with surviving thesurvivor. I consider Donna the fuel to
all of this. She left alot of specifics to Charlie to arrange,
but she was certainly in on allof it, and I believe that she
was the push, She was themotivation to all of this happening. But
do you feel for Wendy there's afirst degree murder charge out there or do

(07:58):
you feel as though it's more conspiracyor related charges? They needed key information
about Dan and his whereabouts for Wendyand if he's got to think about it.
The prosecution argued in their closing thatjeffle Cost, her boyfriend at the
time all this went down, herboyfriend of eight months, was framed,

(08:20):
and how was he framed? Hewas framed to be the fall guy and
to take the blame and to trygreat reasonable out reasonable doubt in case law
enforcement came after him, and that'sexactly what they did. So it was
really a two track thing. Wendywas claiming or Wendy targeted jeffle Cost to
take the fall, while Charlie starteddating Katie mcvanwa to be able to be

(08:43):
a conduit to find hitman that coulddo that kind of thing. So it
was a dual track thing like that, And it just shows how deep down
sinister and evil this plot was andalso how long it take took to develop.
So that's why I think they gota really strong case against both of
them. Carl I've appreciated your expertise. Perhaps we'll visit tomorrow, we'll see
what the day holds for us,we'll see if further indictments are coming out.

(09:07):
But again, thank you so verymuch. Thanks sir Carl Steinbeck with
us this morning, and again it'strial Jury Trial mentor that has been covering
this case as well. We've gota blog up on my blog page where
you can see the reaction of CharlieEdelson. He was brought in knowing the
verdict before it was announced. Heknew it had leaked, it had gotten

(09:28):
to them because, as Tim Jansenpointed out, there are bayliffs, there
are people that are listening to Ithink it probably took them longer to prepare
the paperwork because I think the casewas so solid. But I told you
it was going to be I toldyou all along. This was the strongest
circumstantial case I had ever seen.And I'd spend six months as a grand

(09:52):
juror on Capitol murder cases years ago, and this one trumped all of them
by a factor probably two or three. Uh. Let's let's come back,
move on to other things. Lotsof stories in the news. We've got
a manly minute still to come onthe Morning Show with President Scott m hm hm