September 16, 2025 • 37 mins
Donna Adelson has filed a new motion asking for a new trial citing juror misconduct, not getting a fair trial, the court siding with the state, and more. Let's read through the document.
DISCLAIMER - My brain was glitching while editing, so if there are mistakes in the editing, sorry about that!
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.
DISCLAIMER - My brain was glitching while editing, so if there are mistakes in the editing, sorry about that!
- 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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What you know, alibiers. Welcome to another episode of Pretty
Lies and Alibis. I'm Jigi. Good to have you here.
It's Tuesday, September sixteenth. Donna Adelson has filed a motion
for a new trial and for leave to interview jurors.
As you guys know, some of the jurors have spoken out,
including the jury four person on TikTok, and a couple
(00:21):
of other jurors have also given interviews with the media.
So let's read through this and see what she's saying.
They're asking the court grant a new trial and in
support thereof states as follows. Number one, a jury convicted
Missus Adelson as charged in the indictment on September fourth,
twenty twenty five. Number two, This motion is timely filed
(00:42):
within ten days of the verdict. Number three. Missus Adelson
requests leave to interview juring number five and juror number seven.
Number four. Missus Adelson files this motion for a new
trial on the following grounds. One jury misconduct. Two verdict
is contrary to the law or the weight of the evidence.
(01:04):
Three the Court aired in a decision of any matter
of law which arose during the trial. And four for
other cause, not due to missus Adelson's fault. She did
not receive a fair and impartial trial. Okay, well that's bold,
So let's go to the first section, motion for leave
to interview jurors. In a footnote, it says, although the
(01:27):
jurors have identified themselves through social media or media appearance,
the court previously ordered the parties to refer to the
jurors by their juror numbers. And we're back to number five.
In the court's preliminary instructions to the jury, the standard
instruction was read, you are also not permitted to communicate
about this case with anyone, including your spouse, family members, friends, neighbors,
(01:51):
and even your fellow jurors. No communication includes no in person, telephonic,
or electronic communication such as emailing, text messaging, posting information
on social media or a website, or any other form
of communication. That's the admonition they get when the trial
(02:12):
is actually happening. Let's see what number six says. Subsequent
to the trial, Juror seven went viral on TikTok concerning
her jury service. She revealed she posted a TikTok during
the trial in reviewing Juror seven's TikTok account. The Undersigned
identified she posted on TikTok that she was selected as
(02:32):
a juror on August twenty six, twenty twenty five. A
flash drive with this video will be provided to the court.
As the Undersign has been informed that particular TikTok was
deleted by the juror from her account. The Undersigned seeks
to interview Juror seven concerning her social media activity during
(02:52):
the trial. Additionally, Juror five appeared on the podcast Surviving
the Survivor. During his appearance, he revealed he considered how
Missus Adelson reacted to the evidence and testimony admitted during
the trial. There is a footnote here that says, based
on the Court's numerous admonitions to Missus Adelson during trial,
she was prohibited from expressing any emotion during the trial,
(03:17):
although he subsequently stated he obviously did not consider that
during deliberations that he considered Missus Adelson's reaction whatsoever is concerning,
as her reactions are not evidence and are external rather
than that which adheres in the verdict number nine. As
a result, the Undersign seeks to interview j seven concerning
(03:38):
his consideration of missus Adelson's reactions to the evidence. The
next section is Jurama's conduct discussion of law. They quote
some different cases. It says, according to the Florida Supreme Court,
potentially harmful jurama'sconduct is presumptively prejudicial. That's Amazon versus State,
(03:58):
and see also Rman versus Gloria Farms. A party seeking
a juror interview does not have to conclusively establish that
the alleged germis conduct occurred and actually prejudiced his case.
They cite some other cases. Rather, it is only necessary
that the party establish a basis for an inquiry or
(04:19):
grounds the party believes may exist. Number eleven. Once improper
contact or germisconduct is established by a juror interview, the
moving party is entitled to a new trial unless the
opposing party can demonstrate there is no reasonable possibility that
the germist conduct affected the verdict. Number twelve. If juror
(04:39):
misconduct is confirmed from the juror interviews, the undersigned will
request leave to make more extensive arguments concerning why the
jerm misconduct in this case warrants a new trial. We'll
see where that goes. I don't think that him saying
that he watched her body language is a big deal
more if the person on TikTok identified her self as
(05:00):
a juror in this case, you know, we'll have to
see where that goes. I'm not sure. We need to
talk to a lawyer, so I'll see what I can
find out. Part two. Verdict is contrary to the law
or the weight of the evidence Discussion of law number thirteen.
The only avenue for judicial review of the weight of
the evidence is by motion for a new trial at
(05:21):
the trial court level. They cite Kelly versus State and
Robinson versus State. In Robinson, the Court stated that the
rules of criminal procedure and the Court continue to recognize
the critical need for some form of discretionary judicial review
to serve as a safety valve in those cases where
(05:41):
the evidence is technically sufficient to prove the criminal charge,
but the weight of the evidence does not appear to
support the jury verdict. Number fifteen. A motion for a
new trial requires a trial court to evaluate whether a
jury's verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence
and to act in effect as an additional juror Number sixteen.
(06:03):
This standard is different than the one used by a
court in ruling on emotion for a judgment of acquittal
which utilizes a sufficiency of the evidence standard, and they
cite Veloso versus State. Number seventeen. Florida courts have held
multiple times that when considering a motion for a new
trial based on a claim that the verdict is against
(06:25):
the weight of the evidence, the trial court must exercise
its discretion to determine whether a greater amount of credible
evidence supports one side of an issue or the other.
Number eighteen. The trial court acts as a safety valve
by granting a new trial where the evidence is technically
sufficient to prove the criminal charge, but the weight of
(06:46):
the evidence does not appear to support the jury verdict.
Number nineteen when determining the weight of the evidence, in essence,
the trial court acts as a safety valve by granting
a new trial where the evidence is technically sufficient to
prove the criminal charge, but the weight of the evidence
does not appear to support the jury verdict, and they
(07:06):
cite State versus Heart. The role of the trial judge
in passing on motion for new trial on the grounds
that jury verdict is contrary to the weight of the
evidence is to weigh all of the evidence and determine
credibility of witnesses so as to act in effect as
additional juror count one first degree murder. At this stage,
(07:29):
the court must make a finding that Patricia Bird was
credible before considering missus Adelson's alleged confession to Bird. Under
no set of circumstances can Bird be considered credible. She
testified the defense investigator with whom she spoke was a
white woman. Miss con was obviously not white, y'all. That's
(07:49):
a little desperate, but less keep going, Number twenty one.
She further testified that she told both mister Varnes and
miss Kahn that missus Adelson confessed that missus Adelson offered
her financial incentives in exchange for perjured testimony. Both mister
Varnes and miss Kahn disputed those claims. Number twenty two. Additionally,
(08:11):
Miss Cohn testified she never met with missus Adelson. Thus,
unless the court were to believe defense counsel conveyed to
Miss Kahn that Miss Bird was to be offered money
for false testimony, miss Bird's testimony should be disregarded completely.
Number twenty three. The same is true of Drina Bernhardt.
(08:31):
Miss Bernhardt's motivation to lie was and is significant. With
twenty seven felony convictions and facing a mandatory fifteen year
prison sentence as a prison release reoffender, Bernhardt's credibility was
significantly impeached. The only one who testified this was missus
Adelson's words rather than miss Bernhardt was miss Bernhardt. However,
(08:54):
the surveillance video admitted into evidence establishes that she and
missus Adelson worked together to write the script, but don
still worked on that script right number twenty four. The
theory of the state's case was the defendant is guilty
as a principle to the charge of murder because she
agreed to the plan that was carried out by her son,
(09:14):
Catherine Magbanua, Sigfredo Garcia, and Luis Rivera, and that she
paid for the crime to be carried out. There is
no evidence that missus Adelson committed any act or uttered
any words in furtherance of the offense prior to it
being completed, and for that reason, the evidence is not
sufficient to support her conviction as a principle to first
(09:38):
degree murder. Additionally, there is no evidence other than the
adoptive admission from Charlie Adelson's trial testimony that Missus Adelson
was aware of her son's plans until September seventeenth, twenty fourteen,
Number twenty five. Although a person can be convicted as
a principle to a criminal offense based on words alone,
(10:00):
and they cite William versus State, there must be competent,
substantial evidence these words were spoken in advance of the crime.
A person can be convicted as principal to a crime
under Florida statute only if there is evidence that he
or she committed some act or uttered some words to
assist another in the commission of the crime when the
(10:24):
crime was being carried out. The elements of the crime
are set out in the leading case of State and
versus State as follows. In order to be guilty as
a principle for a crime physically committed by another, one
must intend that the crime be committed and do some
act to assist the other person in actually committing the crime.
(10:44):
As acknowledged previously, intent is an operation of the mind
and may be established by circumstantial evidence. There certainly is
no direct evidence Missus Adelson intended for mister Marquel to
be killed. However, there also is no so circumstantial evidence
that missus Adelson wanted mister Markel to be killed. Even
(11:05):
if there was, there is no evidence to establish the
second element that she did some act to assist the
other person in actually committing the crime. Magbanawah testified that
per Charlie Adelson his parents had stopped by his residence
on July eighteenth, twenty fourteen, after mister Markel was murdered. However,
(11:27):
Magbanawah did not testify that Missus Adelson or her husband
dropped off any money that night, and the state's expert
agreed the state could not place Missus Adelson or doctor
Harvey Adelson's handsets at Charlie Adelson's residence on July eighteenth,
twenty fourteen. Even if Missus Adelson and doctor Harvey Adelson
(11:48):
did stop at his residence, it would have been approximately
nine hours after mister Markel was shot Number twenty seven.
In fact, at the state's request, the court found that
Missus Adelson had adopted Charlie Adelson's prior testimony. This included
Charlie's testimony that he paid Magbaniwah from his own money,
(12:09):
which he kept stapled, as confirmed by Katie Ryan Fitzpatrick
and Charlie's ex girlfriend June. Charlie's testimony also included the
fact that he did not tell missus Adelson he paid
Magbaniwah for the shooting until September seventeenth, twenty fourteen. No
evidence was presented that missus Adelson was aware of anything
(12:31):
other than mister Markel had been killed. Prior to September seventeenth,
twenty fourteen, Number twenty eight. The defendant in Stton drove
the perpetrators to the scene of the crime and then
drove them away in the car. In these circumstances, the
jury could legitimately infer that petitioner was a participant in
(12:52):
the crime, and thus the Supreme Court concluded that the
evidence supported the defendant's conviction. As a principal. Vative acts
such as these are common in prosecutions under the Principal
Statute number twenty nine. Writing for a unanimous court in
Ammon's versus State, Judge Brad Thomas explained the rule as follows.
(13:14):
To sustain his conviction as a principle, the state was
required to establish that the appellant intended that the crime
be committed and do some act to assist the other
person in actually committing the crime. That was state and
versus state. Judge Thomas noted that he was emphasizing the
phrase do some act in the quotation from Stateton to
(13:36):
explain why the court was reversing the defendant's conviction. Although
there was evidence that the defendant intended to participate in
the crime, there was no sufficient evidence that he did
some act to assist in the commission of the crime
number thirty. In this case, as in Ammons, there is
no evidence the defendant did some act to assist in
(13:58):
the commission of the crime. The most that the evidence
shows is that she knew of the plan at some point.
That is not sufficient under the rule in Stton and
Ammons number thirty one. Additionally, in Williams, the court held that,
even taking a broader view of the murder of Mike
the scheme that preceded his death, whereby Denise was to
(14:21):
make sure Mike went on the trip with Brian, there
was no evidence regarding what she did rather than what
she was supposed to do in furtherance of the scheme
that day. As we have explained, proof of the conspiracy
alone is not enough agreeing with someone to commit a crime,
or developing a criminal scheme with someone else by itself
(14:44):
does not establish that the person assisted in the eventual
actual commission of the underlying offense. At a minimum, there
must be proof of some overact or some words uttered
in furtherance of the scheme that led to the murder.
The state offered no such evidence at trial number thirty two.
Is the Williams case continued, there still needed to be
(15:07):
evidence of what she did to assist Brian as the
offense unfolded. There was no testimony that Denise assisted Brian
at the lake as the murder happened, nor any testimony
that Denise was on the phone with Brian while he
was at the lake with Mike, encouraging him to go
through with it, or giving him advice or guidance on
(15:28):
how to pull the murder off when things were not
going as they had originally planned. In fact, there was
no testimony about anything Denise did, any acts or words
uttered to facilitate the offense, to encourage the offense, or
to direct the offense at any point during that fateful day.
(15:48):
To establish a criminal conspiracy, an agreement and intent that
the underlying crime occur are all things that must be proved,
not so when proving principal criminal liability. The legislature eliminated
the requirement that there be proof of a defendants present
at the scene of the crime. It did not eliminate
(16:09):
the texts requirement that there be proof of what the
defendant did or said in connection with the unfolding of
the crime that helped in its success. It is this
proof that was missing from the state's case. Even when
there is a scheme that precedes the murder, the crime
is complete upon the victim's death, unlike with a robbery,
(16:31):
where the crime continues through the escape. Evading detection of
the murder after the killing would not be part of
the crime number thirty three. The state may argue that
missus Adelson's act of delivering money to her son's house
sufficiently establishes what she did the day of the murder. However,
nothing about delivering money after the murder could support her
(16:52):
conviction as a principle to the murder itself. Additionally, there
is no evidence of what missus Adelson agreed to pay
the killers prior to the murder. In fact, Katie testified
during trial the amount of the payment was never addressed
prior to the murder Number thirty four. The state may
also argue that missus Adelson necessarily provided mister Markel's tag
(17:16):
number to her son, who gave it to Katie, who
then gave it to Garcia and Rivera. However, there is
no evidence the tag number was ever given to Charlie,
let alone Katie, Garcia or Rivera. Even if such evidence existed,
there is no evidence this was done on or even
before July eighteenth, twenty fourteen. No evidence was admitted during
(17:40):
trial to establish the purpose for which missus Adelson had
the tag number in her twenty fourteen planner. Finally, with
respect to the second principal Instruction three point five B,
there's no evidence missus Adelson made any payment prior to
the murder, or that she, rather than Charlie, promised any
(18:00):
payment prior to the murder. At worst, even if missus
Adelson dropped cash off at Charlie's house after the murder
and signed the payroll checks after the murder would establish
her culpability as an accessory after the fact, but are
not competent evidence as a principle to first degree murder.
(18:20):
Moving on to count two, conspiracy to commit first degree
murder number thirty six. The state's theory on count two
was that Missus Adelson agreed with Charlie and others to
kill mister Markel number thirty seven. As was clear throughout
the trial, there was no direct evidence of Missus Adelson's
involvement in the conspiracy. The state proved as to Charlie Adelson,
(18:44):
Katie Rivera, and Garcia. Moving on to count two, conspiracy
to commit first degree murder number thirty six, The state's
theory on count two was that Missus Adelson agreed with
Charlie and others to kill mister Markel number thirty seven.
As was cleared throughout the trial, there was no direct
evidence of Missus Adelson's involvement in the conspiracy. The state
(19:07):
proved as to Charlie, Katie, Sigfredo and Rivera Number thirty eight.
The primary evidence against Missus Adelson was the motive Missus
Adelson desired to have her daughter and grandsons moved to
South Florida thirty nine. Although there was certainly evidence Missus
Adelson was not happy with the way mister Markel treated
(19:28):
her daughter in the litigation process, there was no evidence
Missus Adelson said or did anything to suggest mister Markel
be killed a year after relocation was denied and the
dissolution of marriage had been settled. There was also no
evidence Missus Adelson was even aware, according to jeff La Cass,
that Charlie Adelson looked into hiring a hitman in the
(19:50):
summer of twenty thirteen, Number forty. In order to establish
prima facie case of conspiracy, the state had to admit
evidence that a the intent of Donna Adelson was that
the offensive first degree murder would be committed and be
in order to carry out the intent, Donna Adelson agreed conspired,
(20:11):
combined or confederated with Charlie Adelson, Katie Magbanawa, or other
persons to cause first degree murder to be committed by
either of them or one of them, or by some
other person. Number forty one. The Undersign asked the court
to consider the evidence without the state's spin placed on it. Certainly,
(20:33):
Missus Adelson suggested crazy and offensive methods to her daughter
to convince mister Markel to change his mind about relocation.
Once the dissolution was final on July thirty one, twenty thirteen.
What evidence exists that Missus Adelson continued to have a
motive for mister Markel to be out of the picture.
They put in parentheses. If we ignore the emails where
(20:55):
she suggested her daughter ensure mister Markel be obligated to
share expenses with her for their son's college education, etc.
All events which would necessarily take place after he was killed,
there is none. Forty two. Where is the evidence Missus
Adelson agreed conspired, combined, or confederated with anyone else that
(21:18):
mister Markel be killed? There is none. Forty three. The
state's entire case is premised on speculation, impermissible stacking of inferences,
and theory. Without the speculation, theory and impermissible stacking of inferences,
there was no evidence Missus Adelson ever agreed for mister
(21:40):
Markel to be killed. Forty four. The evidence of flight
was not that she was fleeing to avoid prosecution, but
at that time, in November twenty twenty three, she believed
in her son's innocence and that if he were convicted,
the state would next turn their attention to her, rather
than consciousness of guilt. That is evidence of her real
(22:01):
fear the which hunt would continue. Okay. Forty five The
trial court must exercise its discretion to determine whether a
greater amount of credible evidence supports one side of an
issue or the other. Although the fancy presentations prepared by
the state may have been persuasive to the jury, Missus
(22:21):
Adelson asked the court to look objectively at the evidence,
removing the improper stacking of inferences on which the jury
verdict is premised. Moving on to count three, solicitation to
commit first degree murder number forty six, The state's theory
on count three was that Missus Adelson convinced her son
Charlie to find someone to murder mister Marquelle forty seven.
(22:45):
The charge of criminal solicitation requires evidence that the person
intends for the crime to be committed, and that she commands, encourages, hires,
or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which
would constitute the commission of the crime. Forty eight. As
the jury instructions set out, the state must prove beyond
(23:07):
a reasonable doubt that A Donna Adelson solicited Charles Adelson
or Katherine Magbanawa or other persons to commit first degree
murder B During the solicitation Donna Adelson commanded encouraged, hired,
or requested Charles Adelson or Katherine Magbanawa or other persons
(23:29):
to engage in specific conduct, which would constitute the commission
of first degree murder. To solicit means to ask earnestly
or to try to induce another person to engage in
specific conduct. Number forty nine. The evidence admitted at trial
failed to establish that missus Adelson asked anyone earnestly or
(23:49):
tried to induce anyone to murder mister Markel. Number fifty Rather,
the component's substantial evidence establishes that when Charlie was speaking
with Katie concerning mister Markel, he would at times make
or receive calls from missus Adelson. Katie did not testify
to any messages Charlie conveyed to her, and Charlie, although
(24:11):
transported from prison to testify, was not called as a witness.
Number fifty one. As with the argument concerning count one above,
the evidence may have established her involvement after the fact
and her complaining to Charlie about how mister Markell treated
Wendy Adelson. There was simply no evidence she commanded, encouraged, hired,
(24:34):
or requested that mister Markel be murdered prior to the murder.
Number fifty two, Common sense and the plain language of
Florida's statute required the solicitation be committed prior to the crime.
Fifty three, with there being no testimony from any witness
or any evidence admitted that missus Adelson asked anyone to
(24:55):
murder mister Markel. The entire premise for her conviction on
count three is simply speculation, and, as argued in court,
an improper stacking of inferences. For these reasons, missus Adelson's
conviction on count three should be set aside in a
new trial. Granted the next section, the court aired in
(25:17):
a decision of any matter of law which arose during
the trial. Number fifty four, The court aired in denying
missus Adelson's request to admit into evidence the complete twenty
fourteen planner and twenty twenty three planner Number fifty five.
During the trial, the defense sought to admit the complete
planners to correct the misrepresentation expected to be made by
(25:40):
the state and which came to fruition during the state's
closing argument Number fifty six, the state argued that mister
Markell's tag number in the twenty fourteen planner was evidence
Missus Adelson provided the tag number to the shooters, despite
there being no evidence this happened. Rivera testified there were
wars words on the photograph given to Garcia, but no
(26:03):
evidence was offered as to what those words were Number
fifty seven. With the twenty twenty three planner, the State
argued the planned indicated, in anticipation of fleeing the country,
that Missus Adelson was selling personal items. Admission of the
complete planner would have corrected the misrepresentation by the State
(26:23):
that there were thirty nine other entries in the planner
where Missus Adelson listed to sell the identical items as
far back as January twenty twenty three fifty eight. In
Curtis versus State, the court recognized that judges have a
duty to admit evidence that does not fit neatly within
the confines of the evidence code in order to protect
(26:45):
the defendant's right to a fair trial. As the court
admitted portions of both planners, there is no question concerning
the authenticity of the materials. Exclusion of the planners infringed
on Missus Adelson's right to present a defense, and the
evidence was important to defeat the argument that she was
(27:05):
fleeing to avoid prosecution. Thus, the court aired in excluding
the planners as evidence the next section for other cause,
not due to missus Adelson's fault, she did not receive
a fair and impartial trial Number fifty nine. It goes
without saying that all defendants are guaranteed of fair an
impartial trial under the Florida and United States Constitutions. Sixty
(27:29):
the due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the
right of state criminal defendants to be tried by an
impartial jury. They cite Woods versus Dugger. The Fourteenth Amendment
incorporates the essence of the sixth Amendment rights to be
tried by a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors whose verdict
(27:49):
must be based upon the evidence developed at the trial.
They cite Irvin versus Dowd. As Chief Justice Warren has observed,
the constitutional guarantee of das process requires the courts to
safeguard against the intrusions of factors into the trial process
that tend to subvert its purpose. Specifically, the courts must
(28:11):
guard against the atmosphere in and around the courtroom becoming
so hostile as to interfere with the trial process, even
though all the forms of trial conformed to the requirements
of Law sixty one. The court explained in Shoots versus State,
the presence of courtroom observers wearing uniforms, insigna buttons, or
(28:32):
other indica of support for the accused, the prosecution, or
the victim of the crime does not automatically constitute denial
of the accused right to a fair trial. See also
Holbrook versus Flynn, and then they cite Carrie versus Musladdin. However,
there are situations where the atmosphere in the courtroom might
(28:53):
infringe on the defendant's right to a fair trial. When
such a claim is raised, a case by case approach
is required to allow courts to consider the totality of
the circumstances. A defendant claiming she was denied a fair
trial must show either actual or inherent prejudice. Actual prejudice
requires some indication or articulation by a juror or jurors
(29:17):
that they were conscious of some prejudicial effect they cite
Poso versus State. Inherent prejudice, on the other hand, requires
a showing by the defendant that there was an unacceptable
risk of impermissible factors coming into play number sixty three.
This is a case where the cumulative effects of a
number of factors constitute inherent prejudice, resulting in Missus Adelson
(29:42):
not receiving a fair trial. Sixty four. When the court
would rule against the defendant on many occasions, the members
of the gallery supporting the state would laugh out loud.
Counsel for the defendant brought this to the attention of
the court, and the Court appropriately advised the gallery this
was not acceptable. The court did this on more than
(30:03):
one occasion. However, the conduct continued throughout the trial, and
the court took no action to remove those who violated
his order. This undermined the credibility of the defense in
the eyes of the jurors. Sixty five. Not only were
they laughing out loud, videos and images captured through the
live video casting revealed gallery members making faces and moving
(30:26):
about to capture the attention of the jurors while testimony
was underway. This interfered with the juror's ability to focus
on the evidence and distracted them from closing arguments. Sixty six.
The court admonished the defendant on numerous occasions that she
was not permitted to show any emotion in the presence
of the jury. That law does not require that a
(30:49):
defendant appear without any emotion. In fact, as in this case,
appearing to be cold to the seriousness and evidence in
the case may cause the jury to believe the defendant
had no care or concern for what the victim endured.
Sixty seven. During the course of the trial prior to
the reading of the verdict, the defendant did not do
(31:11):
anything to disrupt the proceedings. She did become tearful during
her first sight of autopsy photographs and got choked up
when her children appeared to testify against her. She did
not speak out. She was not sobbing out loud, She
was not crying out loud. She did not need tissues
to wipe away her tears. But she made no noises
(31:32):
that distracted the jury in any way. Even the victim's
parents noted that she showed no remorse due to her
lack of emotion during the trial. This impacted the decision
of the jury, resulting in Missus Adelson not receiving a
fair trial. Look, she could have shed some tears, and
she also could have got up on the stand and
told her side of the story. But let's move on
(31:54):
to sixty eight. The state presented evidence and testimony over
a period of six days. The defense had requested four
to five days for its case. On the second day
of the defense case, the court demanded Missus Adelson decided
whether she would testify. Both counsel for Missus Adelson as
well as Missus Adelson herself repeatedly advised the court that
(32:16):
more time was needed to discuss the evidence admitted and
the pros and cons of testifying based on the volume
and substance of the evidence admitted during trial, in order
to make a knowing and intelligent decision in what was
probably the most important decision in her life. This was
especially significant in that the state made numerous changes to
(32:37):
evidence during the trial. Number sixty nine. When the court
recessed early on September second to allow counsel to meet
with Missus Adelson, we first spent a great deal of
time reviewing the exhibits actually admitted so we could discuss
them with Missus Adelson. Counsel then drove to the detention
center to meet with Missus Adelson for two hours authorized
(33:00):
arriving approximately at five pm. Council did not have enough
time to go through every exhibit with missus Adelson during
this meeting. Council advised the court of this fact the
following day, when the Court inquired about Missus Adelson's decision
Number seventy not only did the court force the defendant
to make an unformed decision, he threatened to hold counsel
(33:22):
for the defendant in contempt because they were continuing to
speak to their client about this important decision that she
had to make, which again brought an audible derogatory response
from the gallery. Number seventy one. Oddly enough, whenever the
state needed additional time to set up electronics for opening statements,
(33:43):
for witness testimony, closing arguments, and even additional time to
make their closing argument, the court not only gave them
the additional time, he joked with the prosecutors about it,
thus leaving the clear impression that he favored the state
in this case. Surely, the decision of a defendant facing
life in prison is more important than the extra time
(34:06):
the state requested to conclude its closing argument. The defendant's
request was not granted and made a huge impact on
the outcome of this case. Seventy two, the Court showed
favoritism to the state at most every juncture of the trial.
While the trial had delayed starting times to accommodate the
state's needs, the defense was required to meet its task
(34:28):
over the lunch breaks, thus not allowing council time to
adequately meet the obligations of counsel for the trial, resulting
in the inability to consume lunch over the break Number
seventy three. The court sustained the objections of the state
without giving the defense an opportunity to respond. Under some situations,
(34:49):
sidebar arguments were made, but on more than one occasion
the court denied the defense request to approach. Additionally, even
when the court sustained a defense objection sidebar, when the
sidebar was concluded, the court announced to the jury the
objection was overruled. Seventy four. During one sidebar discussion, the
(35:10):
court asked counsel a question. As counsel attempted to answer
the question, council was met with the scolding to not
talk over the court. Council thereafter was prevented from answering
the court's questions. Seventy five. The temperament of the court
towards the defense council was regarded as negative and gave
the appearance of partiality for the state on the part
(35:33):
of the court to not only the defense, but spectators
in the gallery, the media, and those viewing the trial
through the media. Fellow defense attorneys commented they had appeared
before the court in trial on similar charges and they
were shocked to see the obvious disdain the court showed
toward Missus Adelson and her counsel in this case. Seventy six.
(35:56):
Although there is a standard jury instruction to the jury
that they are to disregard anything the Court may have
done that led them to believe he favored one outcome
over another, and that was read in this case, it
is not realistic that a jury can set those feelings aside.
The jury clearly disregarded the instructions of the court on
(36:17):
other issues, and did so on this instruction as well.
Seventy seven the year I was born birthday this Sunday.
By the way, the totality of circumstances present during Missus
Adelson's trial establish inherent prejudice, to wit that there was
an unacceptable risk of impermissible factors coming into play. Wherefore,
(36:40):
the defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant this motion,
grant Missus Adelson a new trial and for such further
relief as is just and proper. And this was filed
yesterday at nine eight pm, so I cannot wait for
the prosecutors to respond to this, and when they do,
(37:02):
we will wrap it up in another episode. But y'all,
that was a lot. That is it for today. I
hope you guys have a good rest of your evening
and we will see us soon.
What you know, alibiers. Welcome to another episode of Pretty
Lies and Alibis. I'm Jigi. Good to have you here.
It's Tuesday, September sixteenth. Donna Adelson has filed a motion
for a new trial and for leave to interview jurors.
As you guys know, some of the jurors have spoken out,
including the jury four person on TikTok, and a couple
(00:21):
of other jurors have also given interviews with the media.
So let's read through this and see what she's saying.
They're asking the court grant a new trial and in
support thereof states as follows. Number one, a jury convicted
Missus Adelson as charged in the indictment on September fourth,
twenty twenty five. Number two, This motion is timely filed
(00:42):
within ten days of the verdict. Number three. Missus Adelson
requests leave to interview juring number five and juror number seven.
Number four. Missus Adelson files this motion for a new
trial on the following grounds. One jury misconduct. Two verdict
is contrary to the law or the weight of the evidence.
(01:04):
Three the Court aired in a decision of any matter
of law which arose during the trial. And four for
other cause, not due to missus Adelson's fault. She did
not receive a fair and impartial trial. Okay, well that's bold,
So let's go to the first section, motion for leave
to interview jurors. In a footnote, it says, although the
(01:27):
jurors have identified themselves through social media or media appearance,
the court previously ordered the parties to refer to the
jurors by their juror numbers. And we're back to number five.
In the court's preliminary instructions to the jury, the standard
instruction was read, you are also not permitted to communicate
about this case with anyone, including your spouse, family members, friends, neighbors,
(01:51):
and even your fellow jurors. No communication includes no in person, telephonic,
or electronic communication such as emailing, text messaging, posting information
on social media or a website, or any other form
of communication. That's the admonition they get when the trial
(02:12):
is actually happening. Let's see what number six says. Subsequent
to the trial, Juror seven went viral on TikTok concerning
her jury service. She revealed she posted a TikTok during
the trial in reviewing Juror seven's TikTok account. The Undersigned
identified she posted on TikTok that she was selected as
(02:32):
a juror on August twenty six, twenty twenty five. A
flash drive with this video will be provided to the court.
As the Undersign has been informed that particular TikTok was
deleted by the juror from her account. The Undersigned seeks
to interview Juror seven concerning her social media activity during
(02:52):
the trial. Additionally, Juror five appeared on the podcast Surviving
the Survivor. During his appearance, he revealed he considered how
Missus Adelson reacted to the evidence and testimony admitted during
the trial. There is a footnote here that says, based
on the Court's numerous admonitions to Missus Adelson during trial,
she was prohibited from expressing any emotion during the trial,
(03:17):
although he subsequently stated he obviously did not consider that
during deliberations that he considered Missus Adelson's reaction whatsoever is concerning,
as her reactions are not evidence and are external rather
than that which adheres in the verdict number nine. As
a result, the Undersign seeks to interview j seven concerning
(03:38):
his consideration of missus Adelson's reactions to the evidence. The
next section is Jurama's conduct discussion of law. They quote
some different cases. It says, according to the Florida Supreme Court,
potentially harmful jurama'sconduct is presumptively prejudicial. That's Amazon versus State,
(03:58):
and see also Rman versus Gloria Farms. A party seeking
a juror interview does not have to conclusively establish that
the alleged germis conduct occurred and actually prejudiced his case.
They cite some other cases. Rather, it is only necessary
that the party establish a basis for an inquiry or
(04:19):
grounds the party believes may exist. Number eleven. Once improper
contact or germisconduct is established by a juror interview, the
moving party is entitled to a new trial unless the
opposing party can demonstrate there is no reasonable possibility that
the germist conduct affected the verdict. Number twelve. If juror
(04:39):
misconduct is confirmed from the juror interviews, the undersigned will
request leave to make more extensive arguments concerning why the
jerm misconduct in this case warrants a new trial. We'll
see where that goes. I don't think that him saying
that he watched her body language is a big deal
more if the person on TikTok identified her self as
(05:00):
a juror in this case, you know, we'll have to
see where that goes. I'm not sure. We need to
talk to a lawyer, so I'll see what I can
find out. Part two. Verdict is contrary to the law
or the weight of the evidence Discussion of law number thirteen.
The only avenue for judicial review of the weight of
the evidence is by motion for a new trial at
(05:21):
the trial court level. They cite Kelly versus State and
Robinson versus State. In Robinson, the Court stated that the
rules of criminal procedure and the Court continue to recognize
the critical need for some form of discretionary judicial review
to serve as a safety valve in those cases where
(05:41):
the evidence is technically sufficient to prove the criminal charge,
but the weight of the evidence does not appear to
support the jury verdict. Number fifteen. A motion for a
new trial requires a trial court to evaluate whether a
jury's verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence
and to act in effect as an additional juror Number sixteen.
(06:03):
This standard is different than the one used by a
court in ruling on emotion for a judgment of acquittal
which utilizes a sufficiency of the evidence standard, and they
cite Veloso versus State. Number seventeen. Florida courts have held
multiple times that when considering a motion for a new
trial based on a claim that the verdict is against
(06:25):
the weight of the evidence, the trial court must exercise
its discretion to determine whether a greater amount of credible
evidence supports one side of an issue or the other.
Number eighteen. The trial court acts as a safety valve
by granting a new trial where the evidence is technically
sufficient to prove the criminal charge, but the weight of
(06:46):
the evidence does not appear to support the jury verdict.
Number nineteen when determining the weight of the evidence, in essence,
the trial court acts as a safety valve by granting
a new trial where the evidence is technically sufficient to
prove the criminal charge, but the weight of the evidence
does not appear to support the jury verdict, and they
(07:06):
cite State versus Heart. The role of the trial judge
in passing on motion for new trial on the grounds
that jury verdict is contrary to the weight of the
evidence is to weigh all of the evidence and determine
credibility of witnesses so as to act in effect as
additional juror count one first degree murder. At this stage,
(07:29):
the court must make a finding that Patricia Bird was
credible before considering missus Adelson's alleged confession to Bird. Under
no set of circumstances can Bird be considered credible. She
testified the defense investigator with whom she spoke was a
white woman. Miss con was obviously not white, y'all. That's
(07:49):
a little desperate, but less keep going, Number twenty one.
She further testified that she told both mister Varnes and
miss Kahn that missus Adelson confessed that missus Adelson offered
her financial incentives in exchange for perjured testimony. Both mister
Varnes and miss Kahn disputed those claims. Number twenty two. Additionally,
(08:11):
Miss Cohn testified she never met with missus Adelson. Thus,
unless the court were to believe defense counsel conveyed to
Miss Kahn that Miss Bird was to be offered money
for false testimony, miss Bird's testimony should be disregarded completely.
Number twenty three. The same is true of Drina Bernhardt.
(08:31):
Miss Bernhardt's motivation to lie was and is significant. With
twenty seven felony convictions and facing a mandatory fifteen year
prison sentence as a prison release reoffender, Bernhardt's credibility was
significantly impeached. The only one who testified this was missus
Adelson's words rather than miss Bernhardt was miss Bernhardt. However,
(08:54):
the surveillance video admitted into evidence establishes that she and
missus Adelson worked together to write the script, but don
still worked on that script right number twenty four. The
theory of the state's case was the defendant is guilty
as a principle to the charge of murder because she
agreed to the plan that was carried out by her son,
(09:14):
Catherine Magbanua, Sigfredo Garcia, and Luis Rivera, and that she
paid for the crime to be carried out. There is
no evidence that missus Adelson committed any act or uttered
any words in furtherance of the offense prior to it
being completed, and for that reason, the evidence is not
sufficient to support her conviction as a principle to first
(09:38):
degree murder. Additionally, there is no evidence other than the
adoptive admission from Charlie Adelson's trial testimony that Missus Adelson
was aware of her son's plans until September seventeenth, twenty fourteen,
Number twenty five. Although a person can be convicted as
a principle to a criminal offense based on words alone,
(10:00):
and they cite William versus State, there must be competent,
substantial evidence these words were spoken in advance of the crime.
A person can be convicted as principal to a crime
under Florida statute only if there is evidence that he
or she committed some act or uttered some words to
assist another in the commission of the crime when the
(10:24):
crime was being carried out. The elements of the crime
are set out in the leading case of State and
versus State as follows. In order to be guilty as
a principle for a crime physically committed by another, one
must intend that the crime be committed and do some
act to assist the other person in actually committing the crime.
(10:44):
As acknowledged previously, intent is an operation of the mind
and may be established by circumstantial evidence. There certainly is
no direct evidence Missus Adelson intended for mister Marquel to
be killed. However, there also is no so circumstantial evidence
that missus Adelson wanted mister Markel to be killed. Even
(11:05):
if there was, there is no evidence to establish the
second element that she did some act to assist the
other person in actually committing the crime. Magbanawah testified that
per Charlie Adelson his parents had stopped by his residence
on July eighteenth, twenty fourteen, after mister Markel was murdered. However,
(11:27):
Magbanawah did not testify that Missus Adelson or her husband
dropped off any money that night, and the state's expert
agreed the state could not place Missus Adelson or doctor
Harvey Adelson's handsets at Charlie Adelson's residence on July eighteenth,
twenty fourteen. Even if Missus Adelson and doctor Harvey Adelson
(11:48):
did stop at his residence, it would have been approximately
nine hours after mister Markel was shot Number twenty seven.
In fact, at the state's request, the court found that
Missus Adelson had adopted Charlie Adelson's prior testimony. This included
Charlie's testimony that he paid Magbaniwah from his own money,
(12:09):
which he kept stapled, as confirmed by Katie Ryan Fitzpatrick
and Charlie's ex girlfriend June. Charlie's testimony also included the
fact that he did not tell missus Adelson he paid
Magbaniwah for the shooting until September seventeenth, twenty fourteen. No
evidence was presented that missus Adelson was aware of anything
(12:31):
other than mister Markel had been killed. Prior to September seventeenth,
twenty fourteen, Number twenty eight. The defendant in Stton drove
the perpetrators to the scene of the crime and then
drove them away in the car. In these circumstances, the
jury could legitimately infer that petitioner was a participant in
(12:52):
the crime, and thus the Supreme Court concluded that the
evidence supported the defendant's conviction. As a principal. Vative acts
such as these are common in prosecutions under the Principal
Statute number twenty nine. Writing for a unanimous court in
Ammon's versus State, Judge Brad Thomas explained the rule as follows.
(13:14):
To sustain his conviction as a principle, the state was
required to establish that the appellant intended that the crime
be committed and do some act to assist the other
person in actually committing the crime. That was state and
versus state. Judge Thomas noted that he was emphasizing the
phrase do some act in the quotation from Stateton to
(13:36):
explain why the court was reversing the defendant's conviction. Although
there was evidence that the defendant intended to participate in
the crime, there was no sufficient evidence that he did
some act to assist in the commission of the crime
number thirty. In this case, as in Ammons, there is
no evidence the defendant did some act to assist in
(13:58):
the commission of the crime. The most that the evidence
shows is that she knew of the plan at some point.
That is not sufficient under the rule in Stton and
Ammons number thirty one. Additionally, in Williams, the court held that,
even taking a broader view of the murder of Mike
the scheme that preceded his death, whereby Denise was to
(14:21):
make sure Mike went on the trip with Brian, there
was no evidence regarding what she did rather than what
she was supposed to do in furtherance of the scheme
that day. As we have explained, proof of the conspiracy
alone is not enough agreeing with someone to commit a crime,
or developing a criminal scheme with someone else by itself
(14:44):
does not establish that the person assisted in the eventual
actual commission of the underlying offense. At a minimum, there
must be proof of some overact or some words uttered
in furtherance of the scheme that led to the murder.
The state offered no such evidence at trial number thirty two.
Is the Williams case continued, there still needed to be
(15:07):
evidence of what she did to assist Brian as the
offense unfolded. There was no testimony that Denise assisted Brian
at the lake as the murder happened, nor any testimony
that Denise was on the phone with Brian while he
was at the lake with Mike, encouraging him to go
through with it, or giving him advice or guidance on
(15:28):
how to pull the murder off when things were not
going as they had originally planned. In fact, there was
no testimony about anything Denise did, any acts or words
uttered to facilitate the offense, to encourage the offense, or
to direct the offense at any point during that fateful day.
(15:48):
To establish a criminal conspiracy, an agreement and intent that
the underlying crime occur are all things that must be proved,
not so when proving principal criminal liability. The legislature eliminated
the requirement that there be proof of a defendants present
at the scene of the crime. It did not eliminate
(16:09):
the texts requirement that there be proof of what the
defendant did or said in connection with the unfolding of
the crime that helped in its success. It is this
proof that was missing from the state's case. Even when
there is a scheme that precedes the murder, the crime
is complete upon the victim's death, unlike with a robbery,
(16:31):
where the crime continues through the escape. Evading detection of
the murder after the killing would not be part of
the crime number thirty three. The state may argue that
missus Adelson's act of delivering money to her son's house
sufficiently establishes what she did the day of the murder. However,
nothing about delivering money after the murder could support her
(16:52):
conviction as a principle to the murder itself. Additionally, there
is no evidence of what missus Adelson agreed to pay
the killers prior to the murder. In fact, Katie testified
during trial the amount of the payment was never addressed
prior to the murder Number thirty four. The state may
also argue that missus Adelson necessarily provided mister Markel's tag
(17:16):
number to her son, who gave it to Katie, who
then gave it to Garcia and Rivera. However, there is
no evidence the tag number was ever given to Charlie,
let alone Katie, Garcia or Rivera. Even if such evidence existed,
there is no evidence this was done on or even
before July eighteenth, twenty fourteen. No evidence was admitted during
(17:40):
trial to establish the purpose for which missus Adelson had
the tag number in her twenty fourteen planner. Finally, with
respect to the second principal Instruction three point five B,
there's no evidence missus Adelson made any payment prior to
the murder, or that she, rather than Charlie, promised any
(18:00):
payment prior to the murder. At worst, even if missus
Adelson dropped cash off at Charlie's house after the murder
and signed the payroll checks after the murder would establish
her culpability as an accessory after the fact, but are
not competent evidence as a principle to first degree murder.
(18:20):
Moving on to count two, conspiracy to commit first degree
murder number thirty six. The state's theory on count two
was that Missus Adelson agreed with Charlie and others to
kill mister Markel number thirty seven. As was clear throughout
the trial, there was no direct evidence of Missus Adelson's
involvement in the conspiracy. The state proved as to Charlie Adelson,
(18:44):
Katie Rivera, and Garcia. Moving on to count two, conspiracy
to commit first degree murder number thirty six, The state's
theory on count two was that Missus Adelson agreed with
Charlie and others to kill mister Markel number thirty seven.
As was cleared throughout the trial, there was no direct
evidence of Missus Adelson's involvement in the conspiracy. The state
(19:07):
proved as to Charlie, Katie, Sigfredo and Rivera Number thirty eight.
The primary evidence against Missus Adelson was the motive Missus
Adelson desired to have her daughter and grandsons moved to
South Florida thirty nine. Although there was certainly evidence Missus
Adelson was not happy with the way mister Markel treated
(19:28):
her daughter in the litigation process, there was no evidence
Missus Adelson said or did anything to suggest mister Markel
be killed a year after relocation was denied and the
dissolution of marriage had been settled. There was also no
evidence Missus Adelson was even aware, according to jeff La Cass,
that Charlie Adelson looked into hiring a hitman in the
(19:50):
summer of twenty thirteen, Number forty. In order to establish
prima facie case of conspiracy, the state had to admit
evidence that a the intent of Donna Adelson was that
the offensive first degree murder would be committed and be
in order to carry out the intent, Donna Adelson agreed conspired,
(20:11):
combined or confederated with Charlie Adelson, Katie Magbanawa, or other
persons to cause first degree murder to be committed by
either of them or one of them, or by some
other person. Number forty one. The Undersign asked the court
to consider the evidence without the state's spin placed on it. Certainly,
(20:33):
Missus Adelson suggested crazy and offensive methods to her daughter
to convince mister Markel to change his mind about relocation.
Once the dissolution was final on July thirty one, twenty thirteen.
What evidence exists that Missus Adelson continued to have a
motive for mister Markel to be out of the picture.
They put in parentheses. If we ignore the emails where
(20:55):
she suggested her daughter ensure mister Markel be obligated to
share expenses with her for their son's college education, etc.
All events which would necessarily take place after he was killed,
there is none. Forty two. Where is the evidence Missus
Adelson agreed conspired, combined, or confederated with anyone else that
(21:18):
mister Markel be killed? There is none. Forty three. The
state's entire case is premised on speculation, impermissible stacking of inferences,
and theory. Without the speculation, theory and impermissible stacking of inferences,
there was no evidence Missus Adelson ever agreed for mister
(21:40):
Markel to be killed. Forty four. The evidence of flight
was not that she was fleeing to avoid prosecution, but
at that time, in November twenty twenty three, she believed
in her son's innocence and that if he were convicted,
the state would next turn their attention to her, rather
than consciousness of guilt. That is evidence of her real
(22:01):
fear the which hunt would continue. Okay. Forty five The
trial court must exercise its discretion to determine whether a
greater amount of credible evidence supports one side of an
issue or the other. Although the fancy presentations prepared by
the state may have been persuasive to the jury, Missus
(22:21):
Adelson asked the court to look objectively at the evidence,
removing the improper stacking of inferences on which the jury
verdict is premised. Moving on to count three, solicitation to
commit first degree murder number forty six, The state's theory
on count three was that Missus Adelson convinced her son
Charlie to find someone to murder mister Marquelle forty seven.
(22:45):
The charge of criminal solicitation requires evidence that the person
intends for the crime to be committed, and that she commands, encourages, hires,
or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which
would constitute the commission of the crime. Forty eight. As
the jury instructions set out, the state must prove beyond
(23:07):
a reasonable doubt that A Donna Adelson solicited Charles Adelson
or Katherine Magbanawa or other persons to commit first degree
murder B During the solicitation Donna Adelson commanded encouraged, hired,
or requested Charles Adelson or Katherine Magbanawa or other persons
(23:29):
to engage in specific conduct, which would constitute the commission
of first degree murder. To solicit means to ask earnestly
or to try to induce another person to engage in
specific conduct. Number forty nine. The evidence admitted at trial
failed to establish that missus Adelson asked anyone earnestly or
(23:49):
tried to induce anyone to murder mister Markel. Number fifty Rather,
the component's substantial evidence establishes that when Charlie was speaking
with Katie concerning mister Markel, he would at times make
or receive calls from missus Adelson. Katie did not testify
to any messages Charlie conveyed to her, and Charlie, although
(24:11):
transported from prison to testify, was not called as a witness.
Number fifty one. As with the argument concerning count one above,
the evidence may have established her involvement after the fact
and her complaining to Charlie about how mister Markell treated
Wendy Adelson. There was simply no evidence she commanded, encouraged, hired,
(24:34):
or requested that mister Markel be murdered prior to the murder.
Number fifty two, Common sense and the plain language of
Florida's statute required the solicitation be committed prior to the crime.
Fifty three, with there being no testimony from any witness
or any evidence admitted that missus Adelson asked anyone to
(24:55):
murder mister Markel. The entire premise for her conviction on
count three is simply speculation, and, as argued in court,
an improper stacking of inferences. For these reasons, missus Adelson's
conviction on count three should be set aside in a
new trial. Granted the next section, the court aired in
(25:17):
a decision of any matter of law which arose during
the trial. Number fifty four, The court aired in denying
missus Adelson's request to admit into evidence the complete twenty
fourteen planner and twenty twenty three planner Number fifty five.
During the trial, the defense sought to admit the complete
planners to correct the misrepresentation expected to be made by
(25:40):
the state and which came to fruition during the state's
closing argument Number fifty six, the state argued that mister
Markell's tag number in the twenty fourteen planner was evidence
Missus Adelson provided the tag number to the shooters, despite
there being no evidence this happened. Rivera testified there were
wars words on the photograph given to Garcia, but no
(26:03):
evidence was offered as to what those words were Number
fifty seven. With the twenty twenty three planner, the State
argued the planned indicated, in anticipation of fleeing the country,
that Missus Adelson was selling personal items. Admission of the
complete planner would have corrected the misrepresentation by the State
(26:23):
that there were thirty nine other entries in the planner
where Missus Adelson listed to sell the identical items as
far back as January twenty twenty three fifty eight. In
Curtis versus State, the court recognized that judges have a
duty to admit evidence that does not fit neatly within
the confines of the evidence code in order to protect
(26:45):
the defendant's right to a fair trial. As the court
admitted portions of both planners, there is no question concerning
the authenticity of the materials. Exclusion of the planners infringed
on Missus Adelson's right to present a defense, and the
evidence was important to defeat the argument that she was
(27:05):
fleeing to avoid prosecution. Thus, the court aired in excluding
the planners as evidence the next section for other cause,
not due to missus Adelson's fault, she did not receive
a fair and impartial trial Number fifty nine. It goes
without saying that all defendants are guaranteed of fair an
impartial trial under the Florida and United States Constitutions. Sixty
(27:29):
the due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the
right of state criminal defendants to be tried by an
impartial jury. They cite Woods versus Dugger. The Fourteenth Amendment
incorporates the essence of the sixth Amendment rights to be
tried by a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors whose verdict
(27:49):
must be based upon the evidence developed at the trial.
They cite Irvin versus Dowd. As Chief Justice Warren has observed,
the constitutional guarantee of das process requires the courts to
safeguard against the intrusions of factors into the trial process
that tend to subvert its purpose. Specifically, the courts must
(28:11):
guard against the atmosphere in and around the courtroom becoming
so hostile as to interfere with the trial process, even
though all the forms of trial conformed to the requirements
of Law sixty one. The court explained in Shoots versus State,
the presence of courtroom observers wearing uniforms, insigna buttons, or
(28:32):
other indica of support for the accused, the prosecution, or
the victim of the crime does not automatically constitute denial
of the accused right to a fair trial. See also
Holbrook versus Flynn, and then they cite Carrie versus Musladdin. However,
there are situations where the atmosphere in the courtroom might
(28:53):
infringe on the defendant's right to a fair trial. When
such a claim is raised, a case by case approach
is required to allow courts to consider the totality of
the circumstances. A defendant claiming she was denied a fair
trial must show either actual or inherent prejudice. Actual prejudice
requires some indication or articulation by a juror or jurors
(29:17):
that they were conscious of some prejudicial effect they cite
Poso versus State. Inherent prejudice, on the other hand, requires
a showing by the defendant that there was an unacceptable
risk of impermissible factors coming into play number sixty three.
This is a case where the cumulative effects of a
number of factors constitute inherent prejudice, resulting in Missus Adelson
(29:42):
not receiving a fair trial. Sixty four. When the court
would rule against the defendant on many occasions, the members
of the gallery supporting the state would laugh out loud.
Counsel for the defendant brought this to the attention of
the court, and the Court appropriately advised the gallery this
was not acceptable. The court did this on more than
(30:03):
one occasion. However, the conduct continued throughout the trial, and
the court took no action to remove those who violated
his order. This undermined the credibility of the defense in
the eyes of the jurors. Sixty five. Not only were
they laughing out loud, videos and images captured through the
live video casting revealed gallery members making faces and moving
(30:26):
about to capture the attention of the jurors while testimony
was underway. This interfered with the juror's ability to focus
on the evidence and distracted them from closing arguments. Sixty six.
The court admonished the defendant on numerous occasions that she
was not permitted to show any emotion in the presence
of the jury. That law does not require that a
(30:49):
defendant appear without any emotion. In fact, as in this case,
appearing to be cold to the seriousness and evidence in
the case may cause the jury to believe the defendant
had no care or concern for what the victim endured.
Sixty seven. During the course of the trial prior to
the reading of the verdict, the defendant did not do
(31:11):
anything to disrupt the proceedings. She did become tearful during
her first sight of autopsy photographs and got choked up
when her children appeared to testify against her. She did
not speak out. She was not sobbing out loud, She
was not crying out loud. She did not need tissues
to wipe away her tears. But she made no noises
(31:32):
that distracted the jury in any way. Even the victim's
parents noted that she showed no remorse due to her
lack of emotion during the trial. This impacted the decision
of the jury, resulting in Missus Adelson not receiving a
fair trial. Look, she could have shed some tears, and
she also could have got up on the stand and
told her side of the story. But let's move on
(31:54):
to sixty eight. The state presented evidence and testimony over
a period of six days. The defense had requested four
to five days for its case. On the second day
of the defense case, the court demanded Missus Adelson decided
whether she would testify. Both counsel for Missus Adelson as
well as Missus Adelson herself repeatedly advised the court that
(32:16):
more time was needed to discuss the evidence admitted and
the pros and cons of testifying based on the volume
and substance of the evidence admitted during trial, in order
to make a knowing and intelligent decision in what was
probably the most important decision in her life. This was
especially significant in that the state made numerous changes to
(32:37):
evidence during the trial. Number sixty nine. When the court
recessed early on September second to allow counsel to meet
with Missus Adelson, we first spent a great deal of
time reviewing the exhibits actually admitted so we could discuss
them with Missus Adelson. Counsel then drove to the detention
center to meet with Missus Adelson for two hours authorized
(33:00):
arriving approximately at five pm. Council did not have enough
time to go through every exhibit with missus Adelson during
this meeting. Council advised the court of this fact the
following day, when the Court inquired about Missus Adelson's decision
Number seventy not only did the court force the defendant
to make an unformed decision, he threatened to hold counsel
(33:22):
for the defendant in contempt because they were continuing to
speak to their client about this important decision that she
had to make, which again brought an audible derogatory response
from the gallery. Number seventy one. Oddly enough, whenever the
state needed additional time to set up electronics for opening statements,
(33:43):
for witness testimony, closing arguments, and even additional time to
make their closing argument, the court not only gave them
the additional time, he joked with the prosecutors about it,
thus leaving the clear impression that he favored the state
in this case. Surely, the decision of a defendant facing
life in prison is more important than the extra time
(34:06):
the state requested to conclude its closing argument. The defendant's
request was not granted and made a huge impact on
the outcome of this case. Seventy two, the Court showed
favoritism to the state at most every juncture of the trial.
While the trial had delayed starting times to accommodate the
state's needs, the defense was required to meet its task
(34:28):
over the lunch breaks, thus not allowing council time to
adequately meet the obligations of counsel for the trial, resulting
in the inability to consume lunch over the break Number
seventy three. The court sustained the objections of the state
without giving the defense an opportunity to respond. Under some situations,
(34:49):
sidebar arguments were made, but on more than one occasion
the court denied the defense request to approach. Additionally, even
when the court sustained a defense objection sidebar, when the
sidebar was concluded, the court announced to the jury the
objection was overruled. Seventy four. During one sidebar discussion, the
(35:10):
court asked counsel a question. As counsel attempted to answer
the question, council was met with the scolding to not
talk over the court. Council thereafter was prevented from answering
the court's questions. Seventy five. The temperament of the court
towards the defense council was regarded as negative and gave
the appearance of partiality for the state on the part
(35:33):
of the court to not only the defense, but spectators
in the gallery, the media, and those viewing the trial
through the media. Fellow defense attorneys commented they had appeared
before the court in trial on similar charges and they
were shocked to see the obvious disdain the court showed
toward Missus Adelson and her counsel in this case. Seventy six.
(35:56):
Although there is a standard jury instruction to the jury
that they are to disregard anything the Court may have
done that led them to believe he favored one outcome
over another, and that was read in this case, it
is not realistic that a jury can set those feelings aside.
The jury clearly disregarded the instructions of the court on
(36:17):
other issues, and did so on this instruction as well.
Seventy seven the year I was born birthday this Sunday.
By the way, the totality of circumstances present during Missus
Adelson's trial establish inherent prejudice, to wit that there was
an unacceptable risk of impermissible factors coming into play. Wherefore,
(36:40):
the defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant this motion,
grant Missus Adelson a new trial and for such further
relief as is just and proper. And this was filed
yesterday at nine eight pm, so I cannot wait for
the prosecutors to respond to this, and when they do,
(37:02):
we will wrap it up in another episode. But y'all,
that was a lot. That is it for today. I
hope you guys have a good rest of your evening
and we will see us soon.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.