August 7, 2025 • 20 mins
Going through the outstanding motions for Donna Adelson ahead of her final pre-trial hearing tomorrow. I will be live streaming, so come watch with us!
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.
- ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout
- 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's you know? Alibiers. Welcome to another episode of Pretty
Lies and Alibis. I'm Gigi. It's Thursday, August seventh. Hope
you guys are having a good day so far. I
took yesterday off to work in the Merch store. I'm
still designing a lot of new stuff for the store,
but there is some new merch ups so go check
it out and it's ten percent off with code Sherlock ten.
(00:21):
That takes care of your shipping and a little bit
of the cost. So I appreciate you guys who have
purchased some merch from the store. It helps me keep
doing what I love. So tomorrow, Donna Adelson has her
final pre trial conference. I will be live streaming that
on the channel tomorrow, so come watch with the Alibiers.
And I really think this is going to be a
very different trial than Charlie's. I mean, we had this
(00:43):
new investigation. There is discovery unique to Donna, and they
got a search warrant for Charlie's laptop to try and
collaborate information they found. And one new big witness that
will be testifying is her son Rob Her Trials August nineteenth,
I will be live streaming every day and at the
(01:04):
end of the day doing a recap in an hour
or less of the day's best testimony. I posted a
few days ago that Surviving the Survivor podcast, Tim Jansen
said he had heard from a source that Donna was
offered a deal to walk out of jail if she
gave up Wendy. Now, there have been some statements since
that was said. The defense kind of cryptic and said
(01:27):
that there was no firm offer presented to Donna, and
the state said there was no offer. Now, these kind
of things happen a lot just before trial, so who
knows if it was just floated around or not. Even
if they offered that to Donna, I don't think she
would take it. And the reason I don't think she
(01:47):
would have Wendy put in jail at her hands because
of what that might do to the boys. Now, Charlie,
no doubt if they gave him that option, he would
throw Wendy under the bus and back over her for
good measure. But we are going to trial August nineteenth,
so I am ready now. Back in July, her defense
(02:09):
team was granted a motion by Judge Everett for the
state to turn over all of the raw, unredacted emails
and cell phone records, as well as telephone conversation and
text messages. This is part of that new investigation. Her
defense team said the reason they wanted that was to
verify state reports generated from Celebrate, which is the extraction
(02:32):
software when they're downloading all of the data from someone's phone.
Judge Everett did warn the defense about any materials that
might pertain to Donna's previous lawyer, Dan Rashbaum or her
son Charlie, which he worries could reignite the conflict of
interest which derailed the original trial date. Now, her attorney
(02:53):
said he has not discussed that with Donna because he
doesn't think that will be an issue. The judge did
tell the defense as far as giving conflict free representation
to Donna, should anything change with your review of the
Celebrates that may include communications from prior council or deal
with matters that pertain to information that was provided by
(03:16):
Charlie Adelson, at that point, we are going to have
to revisit the issue. At her last hearing, when asked
about outstanding motions they intended to file since that trial
date is set to begin August nineteenth, with jury selection.
He said the deadlines, he said were not arbitrary. The
defense said they were not trying to delay the trial,
(03:38):
but they have not received all of the discovery from
the state. Her attorney said he had three additional motions
he intended to file. Judge Everett said the proposed date
of when this would occur is not specific. It's not certain.
It's pretty much a moving piece of jello. Prosecutor Kapelman
said both sides were working diligently to meet the deadlines,
(04:00):
but pointed out she had matters that are still pending
past deadlines, including a report from a handwriting expert. She
told Judge Everett, I understand your comment about the Jello.
I've got a couple of orders myself of jello that
I'm wrangling, and the judge gave both sides a deadline
of July twenty first to have all that in So
(04:21):
on July twenty first, the defense filed emotion in lemony
regarding travel as a consciousness of guilt. Now we know
she was arrested at the Miami International Airport shortly before
boarding her one way flight to Vietnam. She booked things
through third parties, talked about self harm. On the hot
mic call, she mentioned she was getting things in order
(04:44):
for her grandkids, such as getting trust funds set up.
She talked about fleeing to a non extradition country, purchased
that one way ticket, and also, if you guys remembered,
there was the mention of a call with her former
attorney rash Bomb where they talked about what they were
thinking up there, meaning in Tallahassee and the prosecutors as
(05:06):
far as arresting Donna. This is not verbatim, but he
also told Donna as far as going to the airport
and making that flight, she may make it out, she
may not. Also, on Monday, November thirteenth, twenty twenty three,
a friend of Charlie's contacted the State Attorney's office in Tallahassee.
They advised Donna and Harvey had contacted them on November twelfth,
(05:29):
twenty twenty three, regarding travel to the Philippines. The Adelsons
advised they had travel plans to Saigon until November twentieth,
twenty twenty three, but had no further plans at that time.
The Adelsons were seeking advice for airlines as well as
places to stay. This family friend has known that Adelson's
for over ten years and has never had a conversation
(05:52):
longer than five minutes with Donna or Harvey, so they
found the contact very strange. Harvey Adelson and told the person,
you must not mention to Charlie anything about our plans.
So a lot of things going in there. The reason
the defense doesn't want this to come in is because
it looks really bad for Donna. But the defense said
(06:14):
in their filing new facts and facts known but not
previously argued warrant the court revisiting this ruling. Specifically, during
Jason Newlan's July ninth, twenty twenty five deposition, Newlan admitted
that prior to the warrant for arrest being issued for Donna,
she was free to travel and leave the country. Namely,
(06:36):
at that time, Donna purchased her ticket to Dubai and
Vietnam on November seventh, twenty twenty three, then traveled to
the airport on November thirteenth, twenty twenty three. She was
unaware a warrant had been issued for her arrest and
nothing prevented her from traveling. Additionally, Scott Radius testified at
(06:57):
as August twenty first, twenty twenty four, deput position that
Newland told him there is no bench warrant for the arrest,
so they could lead the country if they want. Finally,
Donna's then attorney, Dan Rashbaum, advised her after Charlie's conviction
that there was no warrant for her arrest and she
could travel. The attorney also advised she had an agreement
(07:19):
with the state that if a warrant were issued for Donna,
that Donna would self surrender at the Leon County Detention Center.
Based on these additional facts and concluding the analysis required
by both case law and Florida law, the defense request
this court revisit is August thirtieth, twenty twenty four ruling
(07:40):
and prohibit the state from arguing her travel was a
consciousness of guilt. My two cents, which doesn't matter in
the grand scheme of things. Is it's coming in Moving
on to the defendant's motion in lemony regarding this new investigation.
This document is heavily redacted, but let's pick out what
we can can. On April seventh, twenty twenty five, the
(08:03):
state disclosed the existence of a new investigation that began
after a jailhouse informant contacted the state in December twenty
twenty four. The first informance information led to a second informant.
Although both informants made statements which were consistent on a
limited basis, the vast majority of the first informance claims
(08:26):
were either established to be false or could not be coroborated.
By this motion, the defense moves to exclude evidence from
the new investigation. One of the informants was interviewed on
December twentieth, twenty twenty four, January thirteenth of this year,
January twenty ninth, and February eleventh. Everything is redacted as
(08:49):
far as what was said, but underneath it says the
new investigation failed to uncover any evidence to coroborate this claim.
And there's over a dozen examples that are all redacted
on this filing. One example where the wording was different.
It said these alleged ties could not be verified by
law enforcement. On April second, twenty twenty five, Patricia Bird
(09:14):
was interviewed by law enforcement. During this interview, Bird made
numerous claims about Donna. There's a lot of redactions. Bird
confirmed telling the investigators that Katie Magbanawab was arrogant and manipulative,
and that Katie got special benefits from guards. She also
said Katie told her whole pod that her boyfriend paid
(09:36):
for her boob job. However, the original investigation failed to
produce any evidence to coroborate that there are redactions here.
But it goes on to say, but suggested Katie paid
for the boob job, at least in part from the
money she received on July eighteenth, twenty fourteen. It is
the Undersign's position that these claims made by Bernhardt and
(09:59):
Bird are faults. It is axiomatic that no party is
permitted to present faults or perjured evidence. Aside from innocent details,
there is no evidence that collaborates their claims. The Undersigned
concedes that generally speaking, such evidence is admissible. However, the
evidence must still be a truthful and be its probitive
(10:23):
value not be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
confusion of issues, or misleading the jury. It is the
Undersign's position that the claims made by Bernhart and Bird
are falts. Additionally, the defense objects to Bernhardt testifying absent
and opportunity to have her sit for a deposition. The
(10:45):
state waited to disclose the new investigation until about five
weeks after they last had contact with Bernhardt, and three
weeks after a warrant was issued for Bernhardt's arrest for
violating probation, as well as an order to show cause.
The next section, evidence is not inextricably intertwined. The Honorable
(11:06):
Milton Hirsch stated that a common law inextricably intertwined evidence
is defined as other crimes evidence which must be indivisible
from the evidence of the charged crimes, such that the
tale of the charged offenses could not be told without
relating the evidence of the uncharged offenses, as recognized in
(11:30):
McGhee versus State, Evidence of uncharged crimes which are inseparable
from the crimes charged, or evidence which is inextricably intertwined
with the crime charged, is not William's rule evidence. It
is admissible under law because it is a relevant, inseparable
part of the act which is an issue. It is
(11:52):
necessary to admit the evidence to adequately describe the deed.
The Florida Supreme Court has described the mission of collateral
crime evidence as inextricably intertwined in the following manner. Occasionally,
when proving the elements of a crime it becomes necessary
to admit evidence of other bad conduct to adequately describe
(12:15):
the offense or connect the elements of the offense, because
the charged offense and the other conduct are significantly linked
in time and circumstance. In other words, this evidence is
amissible because it's a relevant, interwoven part of the conduct
that is at issue. When it is impossible to give
(12:35):
a complete or intelligent account of the criminal episode without
reference to other uncharged crimes or bad conduct, such evidence
may be used to cast light on the primary crime
or elements of the crime at issue. However, when there
is a clear break between the prior conduct and the
charged conduct or, it is not necessary to describe the
(12:59):
charged conduct by describing the prior conduct. Evidence of the
prior conduct is not admissible on this theory. Such evidence
of other bad conduct on the part of the defendant
is it missible where its presentation is part of the
general context in which the criminal action occurred. They cite
(13:19):
a case Hall versus State that says, holding that testimony
regarding first degree murder defendant's theft of the murder weapon
was inextricably intertwined and was necessary to establish the entire
context out of which the crime arose. Collateral crime's evidence
is inextricably intertwined. If the evidence is necessary to one
(13:43):
adequately described the deed, two provide an intelligent account of
the crimes charged, three established the entire context out of
which the charged crime arose, or four adequately described the
events leading up to the charge crimes moving on in
the dock past all the redactions a bit. It says
(14:04):
care must be taken to assure that prior crimes are
not received in evidence solely because they proceed or closely
follow the crime charged. The purpose of this use of
such evidence is to complete a picture, not to paint another,
and to provide context and meaning to the central events
(14:25):
in issue. Other offenses not useful to such ends should
be excluded, no matter how close in time or place. Moreover,
is admission is unnecessary to establish a material element of
the crimes for which Donna is under indictment. As a result,
admission of such evidence as inextricably intertwined would be improper
(14:47):
and should be excluded. On that basis as well. The
undersign concedes there is a part here redacted. The remainder
of Bird's testimony is likely admissible the the same is
not true concerning the varied claims made by Bernhardt during
her multiple interviews with law enforcement. If she is located
(15:09):
for trial and only for those claims which are relevant,
the probative value of almost all of her claims is
substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect. In the end, it
requests the judge enter in order prohibiting the state from
introducing evidence from the new investigation or limiting admission of
(15:29):
the new investigation as set forth above, very very interesting filings.
So what did these jailhouse informants say. It's all redacted,
so we don't know, but clearly they are saying Donna
best up to something else. So we will see what
the judge rules tomorrow about what could come in. This
(15:50):
could really spice up this trial in a big, big way.
Of course, the defense is like, we don't want that
in y'all. Another motion is asking the j to prohibit
Newlan and Sandford from offering their opinions concerning the new
investigation during Donna's trial. It says on July ninth, twenty
twenty five, investigator Jason Newlan was deposed. On July sixteenth,
(16:15):
twenty twenty five, Special agent Patrick Samford was deposed. During
their respective depositions, both Newlan and Sanford express their opinions
on the new investigation. By this motion, Donna moves to
exclude opinion testimony of both Newlan and Sanford. The threshold
question for admission of evidence is relevance. In Florida statutes,
(16:38):
it permits lay witnesses to offer opinion testimony in limited situations. Namely,
it provides that if a witness is not testifying as
an expert, the witness's testimony about what he or she
perceived may be in the form of inference and opinion.
When number one, the witness cannot readily and with equal
(17:00):
accuracy and adequacy communicate what he or she has perceived
to the trier of fact without testifying in terms of
inferences and opinion when one not mislead the trier of
fact to the prejudice of the objecting party and to
the opinions and inferences do not require a special knowledge, skill, expertise,
(17:24):
or training. However, under this exception, opinion testimony is usually
limited to matters relating to distance, time, size, weight, form,
and identity, which are easily observable. The opinions expressed by
Newlan and Sandford do not concern distance, time, size, weight, form,
(17:48):
or identity. Rather, they concern the truthfulness of allegations raised
during the New investigation, allegations, the vast majority of which
are not coroborated by any evidence. Even if their opinions
concerning the new investigation were admissible as lay opinions, such
testimony should be prohibited as its probative value is substantially
(18:12):
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Florida law.
So they're asking for an order prohibiting Newlan and Sandford
from offering opinions on the new investigation during her trial,
and they request that the Honorable Court exclude any testimony
interpreting the contents of emails, recorded phone calls, and or
(18:35):
text messages, and in support thereof states as follows. Throughout
the prior trials, state witnesses have testified concerning their interpretation
of one Donna's emails, two statements made by various parties
on recordings, and three text messages. They cite a case
(18:56):
Thorpe versus State, which says during trial, the witness was
asked to opine what the defendant meant when the defendant
made a statement. The defense objected, arguing that the question
called for the witness to speculate, that his interpretation was
irrelevant and the witness was not qualified to offer his opinion.
(19:17):
The trial court permitted the testimony. On appeal, the Florida
Supreme Court held, as a general rule, lay witnesses may
not testify in the form of opinions or inferences. It
is the function of the jury to draw those. Since
the witness was able to convey what the defendant said,
(19:38):
the exact meaning of Thorpe's words, and the inferences that
may have been drawn from Thorpe's statement should have been
made by the jury and not by the witness. Although
it would be appropriate under the rules of evidence for
a qualified witness to interpret coded conversations, testimony which interprets
clear conversations does not aid the j and is inadmissible.
(20:02):
Even if their testimony were it missible about the meaning
of the words. Such testimony should be prohibited as its
probitive value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
There was a sealed motion in lemony by Donna filed
on July twenty ninth, and the State's response to that
(20:23):
was due August fifth. We do not know what that
was about. A couple of other things I don't think
have been ruled on, but I would assume would be
addressed tomorrow. Is the defense able to identify Rivera as
a member of the Latin Kings and still that change
of venue issue, So we will see what happens tomorrow again.
I will live stream that on my channel. I'll post
(20:46):
a link on my socials and you'll see it here
on YouTube. So come watch with the alibiers tomorrow evening.
I will wrap up that hearing if you're not able
to watch, so you don't miss a minute. But seems
like the defense is worried about a lot of things,
which tells me doesn't look good for Donna any of
this stuff. So that is it for today. I hope
(21:08):
you guys have a good rest of your evening and
we will see you soon.
What's you know? Alibiers. Welcome to another episode of Pretty
Lies and Alibis. I'm Gigi. It's Thursday, August seventh. Hope
you guys are having a good day so far. I
took yesterday off to work in the Merch store. I'm
still designing a lot of new stuff for the store,
but there is some new merch ups so go check
it out and it's ten percent off with code Sherlock ten.
(00:21):
That takes care of your shipping and a little bit
of the cost. So I appreciate you guys who have
purchased some merch from the store. It helps me keep
doing what I love. So tomorrow, Donna Adelson has her
final pre trial conference. I will be live streaming that
on the channel tomorrow, so come watch with the Alibiers.
And I really think this is going to be a
very different trial than Charlie's. I mean, we had this
(00:43):
new investigation. There is discovery unique to Donna, and they
got a search warrant for Charlie's laptop to try and
collaborate information they found. And one new big witness that
will be testifying is her son Rob Her Trials August nineteenth,
I will be live streaming every day and at the
(01:04):
end of the day doing a recap in an hour
or less of the day's best testimony. I posted a
few days ago that Surviving the Survivor podcast, Tim Jansen
said he had heard from a source that Donna was
offered a deal to walk out of jail if she
gave up Wendy. Now, there have been some statements since
that was said. The defense kind of cryptic and said
(01:27):
that there was no firm offer presented to Donna, and
the state said there was no offer. Now, these kind
of things happen a lot just before trial, so who
knows if it was just floated around or not. Even
if they offered that to Donna, I don't think she
would take it. And the reason I don't think she
(01:47):
would have Wendy put in jail at her hands because
of what that might do to the boys. Now, Charlie,
no doubt if they gave him that option, he would
throw Wendy under the bus and back over her for
good measure. But we are going to trial August nineteenth,
so I am ready now. Back in July, her defense
(02:09):
team was granted a motion by Judge Everett for the
state to turn over all of the raw, unredacted emails
and cell phone records, as well as telephone conversation and
text messages. This is part of that new investigation. Her
defense team said the reason they wanted that was to
verify state reports generated from Celebrate, which is the extraction
(02:32):
software when they're downloading all of the data from someone's phone.
Judge Everett did warn the defense about any materials that
might pertain to Donna's previous lawyer, Dan Rashbaum or her
son Charlie, which he worries could reignite the conflict of
interest which derailed the original trial date. Now, her attorney
(02:53):
said he has not discussed that with Donna because he
doesn't think that will be an issue. The judge did
tell the defense as far as giving conflict free representation
to Donna, should anything change with your review of the
Celebrates that may include communications from prior council or deal
with matters that pertain to information that was provided by
(03:16):
Charlie Adelson, at that point, we are going to have
to revisit the issue. At her last hearing, when asked
about outstanding motions they intended to file since that trial
date is set to begin August nineteenth, with jury selection.
He said the deadlines, he said were not arbitrary. The
defense said they were not trying to delay the trial,
(03:38):
but they have not received all of the discovery from
the state. Her attorney said he had three additional motions
he intended to file. Judge Everett said the proposed date
of when this would occur is not specific. It's not certain.
It's pretty much a moving piece of jello. Prosecutor Kapelman
said both sides were working diligently to meet the deadlines,
(04:00):
but pointed out she had matters that are still pending
past deadlines, including a report from a handwriting expert. She
told Judge Everett, I understand your comment about the Jello.
I've got a couple of orders myself of jello that
I'm wrangling, and the judge gave both sides a deadline
of July twenty first to have all that in So
(04:21):
on July twenty first, the defense filed emotion in lemony
regarding travel as a consciousness of guilt. Now we know
she was arrested at the Miami International Airport shortly before
boarding her one way flight to Vietnam. She booked things
through third parties, talked about self harm. On the hot
mic call, she mentioned she was getting things in order
(04:44):
for her grandkids, such as getting trust funds set up.
She talked about fleeing to a non extradition country, purchased
that one way ticket, and also, if you guys remembered,
there was the mention of a call with her former
attorney rash Bomb where they talked about what they were
thinking up there, meaning in Tallahassee and the prosecutors as
(05:06):
far as arresting Donna. This is not verbatim, but he
also told Donna as far as going to the airport
and making that flight, she may make it out, she
may not. Also, on Monday, November thirteenth, twenty twenty three,
a friend of Charlie's contacted the State Attorney's office in Tallahassee.
They advised Donna and Harvey had contacted them on November twelfth,
(05:29):
twenty twenty three, regarding travel to the Philippines. The Adelsons
advised they had travel plans to Saigon until November twentieth,
twenty twenty three, but had no further plans at that time.
The Adelsons were seeking advice for airlines as well as
places to stay. This family friend has known that Adelson's
for over ten years and has never had a conversation
(05:52):
longer than five minutes with Donna or Harvey, so they
found the contact very strange. Harvey Adelson and told the person,
you must not mention to Charlie anything about our plans.
So a lot of things going in there. The reason
the defense doesn't want this to come in is because
it looks really bad for Donna. But the defense said
(06:14):
in their filing new facts and facts known but not
previously argued warrant the court revisiting this ruling. Specifically, during
Jason Newlan's July ninth, twenty twenty five deposition, Newlan admitted
that prior to the warrant for arrest being issued for Donna,
she was free to travel and leave the country. Namely,
(06:36):
at that time, Donna purchased her ticket to Dubai and
Vietnam on November seventh, twenty twenty three, then traveled to
the airport on November thirteenth, twenty twenty three. She was
unaware a warrant had been issued for her arrest and
nothing prevented her from traveling. Additionally, Scott Radius testified at
(06:57):
as August twenty first, twenty twenty four, deput position that
Newland told him there is no bench warrant for the arrest,
so they could lead the country if they want. Finally,
Donna's then attorney, Dan Rashbaum, advised her after Charlie's conviction
that there was no warrant for her arrest and she
could travel. The attorney also advised she had an agreement
(07:19):
with the state that if a warrant were issued for Donna,
that Donna would self surrender at the Leon County Detention Center.
Based on these additional facts and concluding the analysis required
by both case law and Florida law, the defense request
this court revisit is August thirtieth, twenty twenty four ruling
(07:40):
and prohibit the state from arguing her travel was a
consciousness of guilt. My two cents, which doesn't matter in
the grand scheme of things. Is it's coming in Moving
on to the defendant's motion in lemony regarding this new investigation.
This document is heavily redacted, but let's pick out what
we can can. On April seventh, twenty twenty five, the
(08:03):
state disclosed the existence of a new investigation that began
after a jailhouse informant contacted the state in December twenty
twenty four. The first informance information led to a second informant.
Although both informants made statements which were consistent on a
limited basis, the vast majority of the first informance claims
(08:26):
were either established to be false or could not be coroborated.
By this motion, the defense moves to exclude evidence from
the new investigation. One of the informants was interviewed on
December twentieth, twenty twenty four, January thirteenth of this year,
January twenty ninth, and February eleventh. Everything is redacted as
(08:49):
far as what was said, but underneath it says the
new investigation failed to uncover any evidence to coroborate this claim.
And there's over a dozen examples that are all redacted
on this filing. One example where the wording was different.
It said these alleged ties could not be verified by
law enforcement. On April second, twenty twenty five, Patricia Bird
(09:14):
was interviewed by law enforcement. During this interview, Bird made
numerous claims about Donna. There's a lot of redactions. Bird
confirmed telling the investigators that Katie Magbanawab was arrogant and manipulative,
and that Katie got special benefits from guards. She also
said Katie told her whole pod that her boyfriend paid
(09:36):
for her boob job. However, the original investigation failed to
produce any evidence to coroborate that there are redactions here.
But it goes on to say, but suggested Katie paid
for the boob job, at least in part from the
money she received on July eighteenth, twenty fourteen. It is
the Undersign's position that these claims made by Bernhardt and
(09:59):
Bird are faults. It is axiomatic that no party is
permitted to present faults or perjured evidence. Aside from innocent details,
there is no evidence that collaborates their claims. The Undersigned
concedes that generally speaking, such evidence is admissible. However, the
evidence must still be a truthful and be its probitive
(10:23):
value not be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
confusion of issues, or misleading the jury. It is the
Undersign's position that the claims made by Bernhart and Bird
are falts. Additionally, the defense objects to Bernhardt testifying absent
and opportunity to have her sit for a deposition. The
(10:45):
state waited to disclose the new investigation until about five
weeks after they last had contact with Bernhardt, and three
weeks after a warrant was issued for Bernhardt's arrest for
violating probation, as well as an order to show cause.
The next section, evidence is not inextricably intertwined. The Honorable
(11:06):
Milton Hirsch stated that a common law inextricably intertwined evidence
is defined as other crimes evidence which must be indivisible
from the evidence of the charged crimes, such that the
tale of the charged offenses could not be told without
relating the evidence of the uncharged offenses, as recognized in
(11:30):
McGhee versus State, Evidence of uncharged crimes which are inseparable
from the crimes charged, or evidence which is inextricably intertwined
with the crime charged, is not William's rule evidence. It
is admissible under law because it is a relevant, inseparable
part of the act which is an issue. It is
(11:52):
necessary to admit the evidence to adequately describe the deed.
The Florida Supreme Court has described the mission of collateral
crime evidence as inextricably intertwined in the following manner. Occasionally,
when proving the elements of a crime it becomes necessary
to admit evidence of other bad conduct to adequately describe
(12:15):
the offense or connect the elements of the offense, because
the charged offense and the other conduct are significantly linked
in time and circumstance. In other words, this evidence is
amissible because it's a relevant, interwoven part of the conduct
that is at issue. When it is impossible to give
(12:35):
a complete or intelligent account of the criminal episode without
reference to other uncharged crimes or bad conduct, such evidence
may be used to cast light on the primary crime
or elements of the crime at issue. However, when there
is a clear break between the prior conduct and the
charged conduct or, it is not necessary to describe the
(12:59):
charged conduct by describing the prior conduct. Evidence of the
prior conduct is not admissible on this theory. Such evidence
of other bad conduct on the part of the defendant
is it missible where its presentation is part of the
general context in which the criminal action occurred. They cite
(13:19):
a case Hall versus State that says, holding that testimony
regarding first degree murder defendant's theft of the murder weapon
was inextricably intertwined and was necessary to establish the entire
context out of which the crime arose. Collateral crime's evidence
is inextricably intertwined. If the evidence is necessary to one
(13:43):
adequately described the deed, two provide an intelligent account of
the crimes charged, three established the entire context out of
which the charged crime arose, or four adequately described the
events leading up to the charge crimes moving on in
the dock past all the redactions a bit. It says
(14:04):
care must be taken to assure that prior crimes are
not received in evidence solely because they proceed or closely
follow the crime charged. The purpose of this use of
such evidence is to complete a picture, not to paint another,
and to provide context and meaning to the central events
(14:25):
in issue. Other offenses not useful to such ends should
be excluded, no matter how close in time or place. Moreover,
is admission is unnecessary to establish a material element of
the crimes for which Donna is under indictment. As a result,
admission of such evidence as inextricably intertwined would be improper
(14:47):
and should be excluded. On that basis as well. The
undersign concedes there is a part here redacted. The remainder
of Bird's testimony is likely admissible the the same is
not true concerning the varied claims made by Bernhardt during
her multiple interviews with law enforcement. If she is located
(15:09):
for trial and only for those claims which are relevant,
the probative value of almost all of her claims is
substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect. In the end, it
requests the judge enter in order prohibiting the state from
introducing evidence from the new investigation or limiting admission of
(15:29):
the new investigation as set forth above, very very interesting filings.
So what did these jailhouse informants say. It's all redacted,
so we don't know, but clearly they are saying Donna
best up to something else. So we will see what
the judge rules tomorrow about what could come in. This
(15:50):
could really spice up this trial in a big, big way.
Of course, the defense is like, we don't want that
in y'all. Another motion is asking the j to prohibit
Newlan and Sandford from offering their opinions concerning the new
investigation during Donna's trial. It says on July ninth, twenty
twenty five, investigator Jason Newlan was deposed. On July sixteenth,
(16:15):
twenty twenty five, Special agent Patrick Samford was deposed. During
their respective depositions, both Newlan and Sanford express their opinions
on the new investigation. By this motion, Donna moves to
exclude opinion testimony of both Newlan and Sanford. The threshold
question for admission of evidence is relevance. In Florida statutes,
(16:38):
it permits lay witnesses to offer opinion testimony in limited situations. Namely,
it provides that if a witness is not testifying as
an expert, the witness's testimony about what he or she
perceived may be in the form of inference and opinion.
When number one, the witness cannot readily and with equal
(17:00):
accuracy and adequacy communicate what he or she has perceived
to the trier of fact without testifying in terms of
inferences and opinion when one not mislead the trier of
fact to the prejudice of the objecting party and to
the opinions and inferences do not require a special knowledge, skill, expertise,
(17:24):
or training. However, under this exception, opinion testimony is usually
limited to matters relating to distance, time, size, weight, form,
and identity, which are easily observable. The opinions expressed by
Newlan and Sandford do not concern distance, time, size, weight, form,
(17:48):
or identity. Rather, they concern the truthfulness of allegations raised
during the New investigation, allegations, the vast majority of which
are not coroborated by any evidence. Even if their opinions
concerning the new investigation were admissible as lay opinions, such
testimony should be prohibited as its probative value is substantially
(18:12):
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Florida law.
So they're asking for an order prohibiting Newlan and Sandford
from offering opinions on the new investigation during her trial,
and they request that the Honorable Court exclude any testimony
interpreting the contents of emails, recorded phone calls, and or
(18:35):
text messages, and in support thereof states as follows. Throughout
the prior trials, state witnesses have testified concerning their interpretation
of one Donna's emails, two statements made by various parties
on recordings, and three text messages. They cite a case
(18:56):
Thorpe versus State, which says during trial, the witness was
asked to opine what the defendant meant when the defendant
made a statement. The defense objected, arguing that the question
called for the witness to speculate, that his interpretation was
irrelevant and the witness was not qualified to offer his opinion.
(19:17):
The trial court permitted the testimony. On appeal, the Florida
Supreme Court held, as a general rule, lay witnesses may
not testify in the form of opinions or inferences. It
is the function of the jury to draw those. Since
the witness was able to convey what the defendant said,
(19:38):
the exact meaning of Thorpe's words, and the inferences that
may have been drawn from Thorpe's statement should have been
made by the jury and not by the witness. Although
it would be appropriate under the rules of evidence for
a qualified witness to interpret coded conversations, testimony which interprets
clear conversations does not aid the j and is inadmissible.
(20:02):
Even if their testimony were it missible about the meaning
of the words. Such testimony should be prohibited as its
probitive value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
There was a sealed motion in lemony by Donna filed
on July twenty ninth, and the State's response to that
(20:23):
was due August fifth. We do not know what that
was about. A couple of other things I don't think
have been ruled on, but I would assume would be
addressed tomorrow. Is the defense able to identify Rivera as
a member of the Latin Kings and still that change
of venue issue, So we will see what happens tomorrow again.
I will live stream that on my channel. I'll post
(20:46):
a link on my socials and you'll see it here
on YouTube. So come watch with the alibiers tomorrow evening.
I will wrap up that hearing if you're not able
to watch, so you don't miss a minute. But seems
like the defense is worried about a lot of things,
which tells me doesn't look good for Donna any of
this stuff. So that is it for today. I hope
(21:08):
you guys have a good rest of your evening and
we will see you soon.
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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!