TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (COURT TV) — With the case against Donna Adelson just a couple of weeks away, the defense team argued several motions in court this morning to ensure their client gets a fair trial. Adelson was in court for today’s hearing, where the judge considered those motions.
Adelson is accused in a murder-for-hire plot that targeted her former son-in-law, Dan Markel. Markel, a 41-year-old father and Florida State University law professor, was fatally gunned down in his driveway in 2014. Adelson, the fourth person to be tried in connection with Markel’s death, is charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and solicitation to commit murder. She has pled not guilty.
Donna Adelson appears at an Aug. 30, 2024 motions hearing ahead of her murder trial. (Court TV)
Adelson’s son, a wealthy South Florida periodontist, Charlie Adelson, was convicted of Markel’s murder last year in a case covered by Court TV. Charlie’s ex-girlfriend, Katherine Magbanua, was also convicted, as were two hitmen: Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera. Rivera accepted a plea deal.
READ MORE: FL v. Adelson: Dentist Mastermind Murder Trial
Prosecutors say Donna was desperate for her daughter, Wendi Adelson, and two young grandsons to relocate to the Miami area to be near her. At the time, Wendi and Markel were involved in a bitter custody battle following a contentious divorce. Donna allegedly involved Charlie, who involved Magbanua, who recruited Garcia and Rivera to carry out the actual shooting in return for a large sum of money from the Adelsons, who ran a successful dental practice.
In documents newly obtained by Court TV, a motion in limine has been filed on behalf of Donna seeking to exclude specific evidence or arguments from being presented at her upcoming trial. They want to exclude Tallahassee Police Investigator Craig Isom’s testimony from the 2019 joint trial of codefendants Magbanua and Garcia. Isom told the jury that he approached Donna at the memorial service for Markel, asking if she and her husband, Harvey Adelson, would submit to a police interview, but Donna and Harvey left Tallahassee without doing so.
According to the motion, Donna does not want Isom’s testimony to come up at her trial because it constitutes an improper use of her pre-arrest silence. In other words, she’s worried that her decision to keep mum a decade ago will be used to impeach her if she opts to testify in her own defense.
Charlie Adelson is cross examined by Assistant State Attorney Georgia Cappleman during his trial for the murder of Dan Markel on Friday, Nov. 3, 2023. Adelson is charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy and solicitation in the killing of Dan Markel, a 41-year-old attorney and legal scholar at Florida State University.(Alicia Devine/Tallahassee Democrat via AP, Pool)
The motion also seeks to omit certain details about the Adelson family’s finances. According to the argument, evidence about Donna and Harvey’s wealth, Charlie’s own money, and any accounts held by the family’s now-shuttered dental practice, the Adelson Institute, is irrelevant and could prejudice the jury.
Donna’s attorneys did, however, clarify that the funds given to Magbanua in the aftermath of Markel’s slaying came from Charlie’s money. The motion also highlights that the fact that the Adelson Institute cut Magbanua bi-monthly checks has no bearing whatsoever on Donna’s case, and could also inflame the jury and undercut Donna’s ability to get a fair trial.
The motion also seeks to exclude testimony from Wendi’s ex-boyfriend, Jeffrey Lacasse, which they argue constitutes hearsay. Lacasse testified at three trials related to the murder of Dan Markel: The case against Magbanua and Garcia, Magbanua’s retrial, and Charlie’s trial.
At all three trials, Lacasse stated that throughout their relationship, Wendi told him that Charlie bought her a TV as a gift because it was cheaper than hiring a hitman. Lacasse also said that Wendi confided in him that Charlie had seriously considered hiring a hitman and that Wendi and Charlie ate dinner at a restaurant to celebrate Markel’s murder.
In addition, the motion argues that Lacasse’s testimony that Charlie was prone to keeping large amounts of cash in his home constitutes hearsay within hearsay. Donna’s lawyers say admitting that testimony would violate Donna’s Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine Charlie should he be unable or unavailable to take the stand at his mother’s murder trial.
It looks like Charlie will be brought in as a witness at Donna’s trial. Court TV has obtained a copy of an order, approved by the judge, for Charlie to be transported from the South Dakota prison where he’s currently housed to Leon County, Florida, where Donna’s trial will take place. Charlie is scheduled to arrive by Sept. 17 and be transported back to South Dakota by Oct. 4.
FILE – Dan Markel (Florida State University)
Donna’s attorneys also want Wendi’s testimony at Charlie’s trial excluded. Wendi was questioned about topics, including changing her son’s last name from Markel to Adelson and Dan Markel’s parents’ efforts to see those two boys. The motion argues that Wendi’s statements have no bearing on the charges Donna faces and could unfairly prejudice the jury.
Wendi and Harvey have not faced charges related to Markel’s death.
Donna is also seeking to have jailhouse recordings of phone calls between her and Charlie in the days after Charlie’s conviction to be excluded. Although the calls were legally recorded and Donna’s statements can be played in court, her attorneys argue that Charlie’s statements constitute hearsay. In addition, they want Charlie’s statements omitted because they could unfairly prejudice the jury. For example, Charlie made comments about people from Tallahassee, particularly the jurors in his case, being “rednecks.”
The motion also seeks to have Dan Markel’s autopsy photos and other disturbing images excluded from her trial. Those pictures, including images of a wounded Markel in the hospital before his death, were displayed at Charlie’s trial as they were deemed relevant. Donna’s attorneys argue it’s not necessary to show jurors photos of a victim unless the issue is in dispute. In this case, they say, Donna does not dispute the manner or means of Markel’s death, and therefore, photographic evidence would only prejudice the jury.
In a separate motion filed earlier this month, Donna’s defense attorneys requested their client’s trial be held in Courtroom 3B of the Leon County Courthouse rather than Courtroom 3G, the courtroom where Charlie, Magbanua and Garcia were all tried and convicted. They argue that 3B is smaller, limiting the number of spectators and, therefore, the probability of outbursts and other disruptions, such as unauthorized use of cell phones, that could sway the jury. Donna’s defense also points out that 3B has no logistical issues and insists moving courtrooms will not inhibit courtroom decorum.
Finally, the defense team has crafted a juror questionnaire that they are asking to be sent to potential jurors to assist in selecting a fair and impartial jury. Most of the questions are designed to suss out how much potential jurors already know about the case, where they got their information, and whether they have already established strong opinions about it.
Donna, now 74, has been jailed since she was taken into custody last November, exactly one week after Charlie was convicted, as she was attempting to board a flight to Vietnam on a one-way ticket. Jury selection is set to commence on Sept. 17.
