'Extortion layaway' and the grilling of Charlie Adelson in Dan Markel murder-for-hire
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
Jurors could begin deliberating as soon as Monday in the trial of Fort Lauderdale dentist Charlie Adelson, who is accused of arranging and financing the 2014 murder-for-hire hit on his former brother-in-law, Florida State law professor Dan Markel.
Testimony in the trial ended Friday with a tough, two-hour cross-examination of Adelson by Assistant State Attorney Georgia Cappleman, the lead prosecutor in the years-long case. Closing arguments and jury instructions are set for Monday morning.
Cappleman, on the seventh day of testimony, tried to chisel away at his account of events around the murder — hoping to cast doubt on his explanation that he had been extorted by the actual killers but was too scared to go to the cops.
She hit him with questions about the comments he made on wire taps and secret restaurant recordings during the investigation by Tallahassee police and the FBI. She also grilled Adelson, who took the stand the day before, about his own defense testimony, including that he gave $138,000 in stapled bills to his girlfriend on the night of the murder to pay unseen extortionists.
“Doctor, have you ever heard the saying that the simplest explanation is always the most likely?” Cappleman asked. “Was your explanation to the jury over the last little over a day the simplest explanation?”
“It was the truth,” Adelson said.
“Do you agree that the only problem with having an explanation for everything is that there’s just so many explanations?” she asked.
“There’s no explanation,” he said. “I explained what happened.”
Adelson was at times combative on the stand, refusing to give a “yes” or “no” reply to some of Cappleman’s questions. He laughed when she referred to an expletive his mom, Donna Adelson, used to describe Markel in a text before the murder. He often repeated his answers, showing possible signs of rehearsal.
He showed little if any emotion when Cappleman asked whether he went to Markel’s memorial services in Tallahassee or Canada and if he grieved the death of his former family member.
“I didn’t attend,” he said. “I knew what had happened to him, and there’s no way I could have shown up. I would have been too upset.”
Markel was shot twice in the head in the garage of his Trescott Drive home the morning of July 18, 2014, after dropping off his two sons and daycare and going to the gym. He died 14 hours later at a Tallahassee hospital.
Two hit men, Luis Rivera, a Latin Kings gang leader, and Sigfredo Garcia, were later convicted in his killing, along with Katie Magbanua, who was dating Adelson at the time of the murder and had two kids with Garcia, her common law husband.
Dan Markel murder-for-hire conspiracy: Everything you need to know about the case and what happened
Dan Markel murder-for-hire conspiracy: Everything you need to know about the case and what happened
Prosecutors hit Adelson over extortion story: 'Is that the way it's done, doctor?'
Prosecutors allege that Adelson, along with his sister and Markel’s ex-wife, Wendi Adelson, and their parents, Donna and Harvey Adelson, plotted to kill Markel to put an end to a messy post-divorce child custody fight. None of the other Adelsons have been charged, and all deny involvement.
The indictment says Charlie Adelson conspired with Magbanua to dispatch the killers to Tallahassee, which ultimately allowed Wendi Adelson to return to Miami with the kids. The defendant denied that during redirect Friday with his lawyer, Dan Rashbaum.
“Their theory is wrong about your sister, correct?” Rashbaum asked. “Just like it’s wrong about you?”
“100%,” said Adelson, who’s charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy and solicitation.
On cross-examination, Cappleman asked Adelson about the night of the murder, after he’d returned home from a day of dental surgeries in Jupiter and Magbanua came over in a panic. He told jurors that Magbanua told him that people she knew had killed Markel and they wanted a third of a million dollars from him or he’d be killed.
“Do extortionists send a girlfriend of their victim to collect the extortion money?” Cappleman asked. “Is that the way it’s done, doctor?”
“I’m telling you what happened to me,” Adelson said.
Adelson acknowledged Magbanua — who he testified he believed had been “dragged” into the extortion plot, perhaps by Garcia — wasn’t armed when she asked him for the money. He earlier testified that she took all the money out of his safe, put it in a purse and left with it the next morning, after sleeping over with him.
“So you never actually had any contact with any Latin King?” Cappleman asked. “No phone calls ... no texts ... no letters? Did you have any contact with the thugs that were getting your money for two years?”
“No,” Adelson said.
“Did anybody ever put a gun to your head?” she asked.
“I was told that I would be killed within 48 hours if I didn’t pay up,” he said, eventually adding that, “no, nobody pulled a firearm.”
Prosecutors question 'layaway' extortion plan by Latin Kings member
Adelson testified that he thought Magbanua was innocent until her trial in 2019, when he said he realized she had been lying to him all along. A jury hung on her charges but found Garcia guilty of murder; she was convicted of murder during her retrial last year.
He said the extortionists learned from Magbanua about $1 million the Adelsons had discussed giving to Markel to end the custody dispute and his offer to put up a third of the money.
When he didn’t have that much cash in his safe for the extortion money, he said he agreed to give Magbanua $3,000 a month, funneled in part through his family’s dental practice, on top of the $138,000, which he said was his “life savings.”
Cappleman, deriding the purported arrangement as a “layaway plan,” pressed him about it.
“So this woman extortionist is going to do you a solid by negotiating with the Latin Kings for you to get on a payment plan?” she asked.
“Yes,” Adelson said. “Because I didn’t have the money, she asked me if I could pay $3,000 a month.”
Cappleman asked how Adelson felt about Markel and whether she considered him a “brilliant legal mind.” He called him “a little nerdy, nice guy” but added they didn't have "that much in common."
She noted that on the wire taps, Markel’s two sons, little boys at the time of the murder and now in their early teens, can be heard in the background. She noted that before the murder, Adelson’s parents only got to see them occasionally but that after, they were a part of their daily routine.
“Do you appreciate the fact that his death was a terrible loss to his sons?” she asked. “Do you think they were better off without him?”
“Absolutely not,” he said.
Cappleman also asked about the FBI's secret Dolce Vita recording, where Adelson told Magbanua at the Miami restaurant that they'd be at the airport already if police had any evidence.
"They're not going to have any evidence because you were careful," she said. "You were smart. You walled yourself off from the killers.
Adelson, talking over her, denied it all.
"I was sure they're not going to have evidence to show something I didn't do," he said.
Contact Jeff Burlew at jburlew@tallahassee.com or 850-599-2180.
Tim Jansen's take: Charlie had answer for everything. Will the jury believe it?
Tim Jansen, partner in Jansen & Davis, P.A., is a prominent criminal defense attorney in Tallahassee and former assistant U.S. attorney who worked major white collar crime cases as senior fraud prosecutor. He has represented numerous high-profile clients for years and is offering daily analysis on the Charlie Adelson trial to readers of the Tallahassee Democrat.
The evidentiary portion of the Adelson trial has been completed. Friday morning the defense finished their direct examination of the defendant, Charlie Adelson. Afterwards, lead prosecutor Georgia Cappleman cross-examined Charlie Adelson for more than one and a half hours.
Cross-examination is an important process in a trial. It’s the opportunity for the opposing party to question or test the credibility of the witness.
Moreover, it also allows the litigator to delve into the facts of their testimony to discredit or otherwise diminish their credibility to the jury. The ultimate purpose of cross examination is too fully dissect the evidence and or witness in a particular case. There is no bigger drama in a criminal trial than watching a prosecutor cross examine a defendant in a highly publicized murder case.
The art of cross examination has several common techniques by litigants. The goal in an effective cross is to know your end goal before you begin. Then, you must determine the best route to reach that goal. One can have a highly scripted cross with an exact listing of questions and go directly down the outline. This type of questioning should be carefully worded questions that prevent the witness from wandering off the track. It’s mission is to lock the witness/defendant into a precise question and answer dialogue.
Another type of cross examination has a broader questioning pattern for the witness/defendant. This method is much gentler and gives the lawyer more flexibility in responding to the answers of the witness/defendant. Quite often witnesses open the door to extremely fertile areas that can be exploited if the lawyer is paying close attention and is not tied to a script. The most effective cross examination will encompass a combination of both types.
One should never be tied to a script. Nor, should a litigant allow a witness to ramble on without answering the question and or providing self-serving answers to promote their agenda.
There are a couple of time-tested caveats for questioning a witness. One, never ask a question that you don’t know the answer. Two, never ask a question for which you know the answer will hurt your position in a trial. Finally, never get to a point in the cross examination where the witness/defendant is controlling the dialogue. Otherwise, make a game plan and be flexible depending on the witness/defendant on the stand.
While conducting cross examination the litigant must know when the exercise is futile, and or the points that are available have already been collected. There may be a witness/defendant that will not crack and will only frustrate you and undermine your examination. There are witnesses that you just need to make your points and move on. Unlike episodes of Perry Mason, it seldom occurs where a full confession or a “gotcha” moment will be reached in a trial. Take your points and deliver them in closing.
During the cross-examination of Charlie Adelson the state appeared frustrated by the responses by Mr. Adelson. Adelson was fully prepared and bucked at every turn during questioning.
He never conceded a point and continued to ramble about his highly disputed “extortion” defense. Prosecutor Cappleman employed both a limited and a general scheme in questioning of Adelson. While making several points, Adelson never wavered, faltered, or admitted to any incriminating conduct.
He continued to claim to be a victim of an extortion rather than a conspirator to murder. In fact, Charlie had an answer for everything, including dates and times of recordings and calls from ten years earlier. His credibility took several shots when he attempted to challenge the prosecution and its theory of the case against him. Several jurors' reactions were extremely negative.
The state did not get a Perry Mason “gotcha” moment during the cross-examination of Adelson. Nor was it expected based on the direct testimony of Adelson the day before. Adelson was over-prepared, and some say rehearsed in all the details of his so called "extortion" theory of defense.
Many in the galley and on social media were disappointed that Prosecutor Cappleman didn't get a knock out blow on Adelson. She made her points and will deliver such points in her closing argument which may be more important for sustaining a conviction. The jury will ultimately decide whether the state proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, or whether the defendant's defense is reasonable.
The final phase before closing arguments is the charge conference. This is where the parties select and agree to the final Jury instructions. This conference is where the court informs the parties which law applies in the case. Parties will suggest which instructions and laws apply depending on the facts and evidence admitted in the trial. Many times, the parties will disagree as to which instructions should apply in a particular case.
Some litigants may ask for lesser included offenses to be included in the jury instructions. Others may not want lesser included offenses, believing the jury will not convict on the most serious charge. This vehicle allows the jury to compromise on a lesser included crime for a party. The court ultimately decides on the offenses and the instructions that will be given to the jury in each case. The instructions should be carefully considered by the court and the litigants. The most common error causing a retrial is improper jury instructions.
Next up, will be the closing arguments for both parties on Monday morning. Then, the jury begins deliberations and attempts to reach a verdict.
Chronicling the Charlie Adelson trial
Pre-trial: What we learned from jury selection
Walkthrough of witnesses: Those making the case for, against Charlie Adelson
Case primer: Everything to know about the murder-for-hire case
Day 1 opening statements: Defense says ex-girlfriend was murder 'mastermind'
Day 1 testimony: Wendi Adelson says she was surprised to learn Charlie knew Dan Markel's murderer all along
Day 2: Charlie Adelson murder trial sees twists, turns as his sister and a hit man testify
Day 3: Magbanua flips: Web of lies and phone records dominate Day 3 of Charlie Adelson trial
Day 4: Enter the FBI: Surveillance, wiretaps and phone records dominate Day 4 of Adelson trial
Day 5: Charlie Adelson announces he will take the stand amid bombshell wire taps
Day 6: 'My life depends on it': Charlie Adelson testifies prosecutors 'wrong' about Markel murder
GAVEL-TO-GAVEL COVERAGE:
The Tallahassee Democrat will livestream each day of the trial of Charlie Adelson from the courthouse in Tallahassee. Watch on Tallahassee.com and the Tallahassee Democrat's Facebook and YouTube pages. For best viewing experience: Download the Tallahassee Democrat app to watch and receive text alerts on when to watch – from opening arguments to the verdict.
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Dan Markel murder: Charlie Adelson grilled with closings coming
