Donna Adelson Motion For New Trial DENIED! Let's Read The Ruling

Judge Everett denied Donna Adelson's motion for a new trial - she cited several reasons including juror misconduct. Let's read his ruling.

• ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout  - NEW STYLES 
• Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) 
• PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibis
• Venmo - @prettyliesalibis
• Buy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesr
• Cash App- Prettyliesandalibis
• All links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibis
• Merch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.com
• Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis
• (Weekly lives and private message board)

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
What you know alibiers. Welcome to another episode of Pretty
Lies and Alibis. I'm jiji good to have you here.
It is still Saturday, September twenty seventh. We are going
to read the order denying Donna Adelson's post trial motion
for a new trial. This was filed on September twenty fifth,
at eleven twenty six a m No new trial for you, Donna,

(00:22):
which I'm sure has ruined her weekend. Let's jump right in.
This cause came before the Court for consideration of the
defendant's motion for leave to interview jurors, motion for a
new trial, and renewed motion for judgment of acquittal, all
filed September fifteenth, twenty twenty five. The Court, having reviewed
the defendant's motions, the court file trial record, and being

(00:46):
duly advised in the premises hereby fines. As far as
the motion for leave to interview jurors, defendant seeks to
interview two members of the jury intercase Jurors five and seven.
In moving to interview jurors, the motion must set forth
allegations that are not merely speculative, conclusory, or concern matters

(01:07):
that inhere in the verdict itself, they cite Foster versus State. Consequently,
juror interviews are not permissible unless the moving party has
made sworn allegations that, if true, would require the court
to order a new trial because the alleged error was
so fundamental and prejudicial as to matters that inhere in

(01:28):
the verdict itself, and they cite Foster versus State. Consequently,
juror interviews are not permissible unless the moving party has
made sworn allegations that, if true, would require the court
to order a new trial because the alleged error was
so fundamental and prejudicial as to vitiate the entire proceedings,

(01:48):
and he cites Johnson versus State. Defendant's allegations do not
establish a prima facie case of jury misconduct, but instead
encourage the court to engage in proceed j durw disapproved
of by the Florida Supreme Court in Smith versus State.
The argued reason for interviewing Juror number five is that
he revealed he considered how the defendant reacted to the

(02:12):
evidence and testimony during the trial. However, defendant also notes
that Juror Number five expressly stated he did not consider
her reactions during deliberations. Defendant's motion concedes that jural number
five said he did not consider Defendant's reactions when deliberating.
This challenge primarily concerns that jur number five observed Defendant's

(02:34):
reactions during her trial. By operation of fundamental procedural and
statutory rights, the jurors are present in the same courtroom
as the defendant, it is not impermissible for jurors to
visually observe the defendant over the course of a trial.
The Florida Supreme Court in Phillips versus State, found the

(02:54):
fact that three jurors briefly viewed a defendant in his
jail uniform was insufficient to warrant a new trial. The
facts alleged here falls short of the argued prejudice found
as insufficient in Phillips. Accordingly, Definitt may not have leave
to interview Juror number five. The argued reason for interviewing
Juror number seven is that she posted on TikTok that

(03:17):
she was selected as a juror on August twenty six,
twenty twenty five. Defendant provided a video recording of this post,
and the court was also able to locate the post
on the jurors TikTok account, where it remains as an
active post as of the filing of this order. It
displays the following text over video of Juror number seven
quote when I told God I needed a break and

(03:40):
he makes it so. I am selected to serve on
a jury for two week trial? Won't he do it?
Along with a caption that reads no work, no kids
for most of the day. You know what? Heaven? Yeah?
They have the exhibit attached at the end of this file.
It says Juror number seven TikTok August twenty six, twenty five,

(04:02):
and there is a link to that in the filing.
The jury was instructed not to communicate with anyone, including
your fellow jurors, about this case. No communication includes no emailing, text, messaging, tweeting, blogging,
or any other form of communication. The court concludes Jury
number seven's TikTok post does not constitute communication about the case. Rather,

(04:24):
it was a comment about her jury service, and its
length does not reveal the parties, the attorneys, the alleged crime,
whether it was a civil or criminal case, or even
the location of the trial. In other words, it was
not about the case. As such, it is not duror misconduct.
The TikTok post was not so fundamental and prejudicial as

(04:46):
to vitiate the entire proceedings, and again they cite Johnson. Furthermore,
every perspective, juror was informed, if you are picked for
the jury, you may tell people that you have been
selected for the jury and how long the case may take. However,
you must not give anyone any information about the case
itself or the people that are involved. In this case,

(05:08):
the defendant did not object to the jurors being able
to disclose that limited information, and during number seven's TikTok
post comports with this exception to the communication prohibition. Defendant
cannot now use Juror seven's compliance with this directive as
grounds to interview her. Accordingly, the defendant may not have

(05:28):
leave to interview Juror number seven. The motion for leave
to interview jurors is denied as to both Jurors five
and seven. The next section motion for a new trial
and renewed motion for judgment of acquittal. Underneath it says,
contrary to the law or the weight of the evidence
and judgment of acquittal, the court does not find the
jury's verdict is contrary to the law or the weight

(05:49):
of the evidence. When considering a rule a new trial
motion based on the weight of the evidence, the trial
court must exercise is discretion to determine whether a greater
amount of credible evidence supports an acquittal. The court must
weigh the evidence and determine credibility, just as a juror
would a cite State versus Bowler. The court concludes the

(06:13):
greater amount of credible evidence supports the convictions. The court
relies upon its previous rulings all direct and circumstantial evidence admitted.
The evidence demonstrating defendant's consciousness of guilt and its own
credibility determination of the witnesses stated succulently. There's evidence in
the record demonstrating overt actions by the defendant in furtherance

(06:36):
of the murder. For higher scheme, see Williams versus State,
which says, at minimum, there must be proof of some
overt act or some words uttered in furtherance of the
scheme that led to the murder. The members of a
conspiracy may have more than one objective. The trial evidence
demonstrates defendant's objection for the crimes as being completed and

(06:58):
separate and distinct from her son on the middle woman
and the triggermen. However, their combined acts resulted in the
crimes committed and the death of the victim. Because the
objective of certain co conspirators here was obtaining money through
criminal acts, the death of the victim did not terminate
the conspiracy until the co conspirators received their payment and

(07:19):
they cite us versus Hickey, the trial evidence established defendants
connection to those payments. Thus, based on the unique facts
of this murder for hire, Defendant's case is distinguishable from Williams.
The Court also denies the renewed motion for judgment of acquittal,
relying on its denial of Defendant's initial motion for judgment

(07:40):
of acquittal. All direct and circumstantial evidence admitted an evidence
demonstrating Defendant's consciousness of guilt. The next part decision of
any matter of law which arose during the trial. The
Court does not find error in refusing to admit the
complete twenty fourteen and twenty twenty three planners. The state

(08:01):
introduced particular entries from the two calendars. Defendant asked to
introduce the complete calendars during its case in chief as
an initial matter. The request was untimely under Florida statutes.
Although the plain language of the statute requires the adverse
party to introduce the other part of the statement at
the time the first party introduces the statement, Florida courts

(08:24):
have generally allowed the adverse party to delay introducing the
other part of the statement until cross examination. They cite
Schreiber versus State. Defendant's request was too late because it
came after cross examination of the relevant witness. Even if
the request was timely, it was improper because the purpose
of the rule of completeness is to avoid the potential

(08:46):
for creating misleading impressions by taking statements out of context,
and they cite Gonna Butcher this name probably Lazell versus State.
By its very nature, a calendar slash day planner is
divided into to a series of pages corresponding with the
days in a year. Thus, the court concludes the juries
the state admitted into evidence were not out of context.

(09:10):
They were not one part of a whole. They were
specific dates in the calendar's referencing specific events, and those
relevant entries were admitted in their entirety, interpreting the rule
of completeness to allow for every other entry in the
calendars would require the contemporaneous admission of any written or
recorded statement that might cast light on an admitted statement.

(09:33):
Using the language of Florida statute, fairness does not require
turning a trial into a voyage on a sea of hearsay,
citing Carter versus State. Accordingly, the defendant's invocation of the
rule of completeness was properly denied. Moreover, the court permitted
defendant to use the entire set of calendar entries as
a demonstrative exhibit during or closing argument, and defendant argued

(09:57):
the state did not want the jury to see them.
In addition, the twenty twenty three calendar juries defendants sought
to admit would not rebut arguments that she was fleeing
to avoid prosecution when compared to the vast amount of
contrary evidence that existed beyond the planner, such as enter alia,
defendant's text messages, WhatsApp messages, Google searches for non extradition countries,

(10:22):
recorded conversations, emergency fast tracked visa, and one way ticket
to Vietnam. The next part for other cause, the court
does not find the arguments presented in this claim warrant
a new trial, specifically addressing defendant's decision not to testify.
The court relies on the trial record. After defendant had

(10:42):
closed her case, but prior to the commencement of closing arguments,
The parties were asked to approach at sidebar. There are
a lot of attachments listed here, and attached to this
document are trial transcripts. The court explained it had performed
additional research and wanted to confirm that defendant did not
want to take testify. The court added, the reason why
I'm bringing this issue to the party's attention is only

(11:05):
because I believe the appellate cases of this state make clear,
prior to instructions and closing, the exercise of the fundamental
right leans towards allowing the defendant to reopen her case
if she wanted to testify. Upon the court's inquiry, Council responded,
we talked to her for a somewhat lengthy period of
time last night over the phone while we were preparing.

(11:27):
She was informed Miss Fulford and my paralegal that she
felt secure in her decision. Defendant was then placed under
oath and asked if she was absolutely firm about this
decision not to testify defendant twice responded yes, I am,
but asked for a few minutes to talk to counsel.
The court then granted an additional thirty minutes to further

(11:48):
discuss her decision. After that time had elapsed, defendant once
again stated I've made a decision. I'm not going to testify.
When asked if she was firm on this decision, defendant
answered I am. The court concluded, I will make no
further inquiry unless the state or the defense seeks for
the court to do so at this point, and neither

(12:10):
party did. Accordingly, defendant was provided sufficient time to and
did make a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent decision not to testify.
In denying defendant's other allegation, the court relies on the
complete trial transcript of the proceedings. It is therefore ordered
and a judge that the defendant's motion for leave to

(12:32):
interview jurors, motion for a new trial, and renewed motion
for judgment of acquittal are denied. So there you have it.
This is ten pages out of fifty seven. Most of
those are transcripts from the trial. Donna Adelson's next case
management hearing is on October fourteenth. I will live stream
that on the channel and sentencing will occur at a

(12:54):
later date after a pre sentenced investigation is completed. So
that is it for now. Hope you guys have a
good rest your weekend because I'm taking tomorrow off, but
we will see you on Monday. Have a good one.