Wendi Adelson says she was surprised to learn Charlie knew Dan Markel's murderer all along

Wendi Adelson took the stand Thursday in the trial of her brother, Charlie Adelson, testifying that her family had nothing to do with the 2014 murder of law professor Dan Markel — and that she was surprised to learn hours earlier that her brother knew who her ex-husband's killer was all along.

During nearly two hours of harsh direct examination by Assistant State Attorney Georgia Cappleman, Wendi Adelson, who was married to Markel for six years before abruptly leaving him in 2012, also denied having any knowledge of the murder-for-hire plot or any involvement herself.

“Your family had your ex-husband killed to try to help you, right?” Cappleman asked.

THE LATEST: Records reveal Charlie Adelson spent 35 hours on phone with mother, Donna Adelson, in week of her arrest

“No, that’s completely untrue,” she replied.

A bitter divorce before a vicious murder

Markel, a law professor at Florida State University, was killed the morning of July 18, 2014, as he was locked in a bitter fight with his ex-wife over their two young sons and other post-divorce disputes. Two hit men from Miami, Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera, stalked him that morning before he was shot twice in the head at point-blank range in the garage of his Betton Hills home.

Prosecutors have long alleged that Wendi Adelson and her parents, Donna and Harvey Adelson, wanted her to relocate to Miami with her kids so bad the family was willing to kill for it. A judge had ruled against her request to move a year before the murder. The state has labeled all three unindicted co-conspirators.

It marked the third time Wendi Adelson, herself an attorney who worked at FSU before moving to Miami days after her ex-husband was killed, has testified in the case. As before, during the 2019 trial of Garcia and Katherine Magbanua, who was dating Charlie Adelson when the murder happened, and Magbanua’s retrial last year, Wendi Adelson was granted limited immunity for her testimony.

Daniel Rashbaum, the Miami attorney representing Charlie Adelson, asked her during cross-examination whether she had anything to do with the murder.

“Absolutely not,” she said.

“Is it fair to say the state has it wrong?” he asked.

“Absolutely,” she said.

Cappleman hit her with questions about Charlie Adelson’s defense — which Rashbaum rolled out earlier in the day during his opening statement.

Was Charlie Adelson extorted by 'mastermind' Katherine Magbanua?

Rashbaum's theory of the case involves an elaborate extortion scheme.

He told jurors that Magbanua was the murder plot "mastermind," who told Charlie Adelson shortly after the murder that people she knew had done it, and that he would have to pay them or they would kill someone in his family. The hit men and Magbanua split $100,000 the day after the murder, which prosecutors said came from Charlie Adelson in stapled-together $100 bills.

“In all the years this has been pending, your brother has known who killed your child’s father and you didn’t know?” Cappleman, the lead prosecutor for years on the case, asked incredulously.

“I did not know,” Wendi Adelson said. She also said she didn’t find out about that defense account of what happened until earlier that day.

Cappleman asked if Charlie, her older brother and the middle child of Donna and Harvey Adelson’s three children, had ever mentioned hiring a hit man to kill her ex-husband. After she gave a “no” answer, Cappleman read from the interview Wendi Adelson had with Tallahassee police investigators the same day as the murder.

In the interview, Wendi Adelson said it was “always his joke” that Charlie Adelson looked into hiring a hit man but bought her a TV instead because it was cheaper.

“Is that what he said?” Cappleman asked.

“That was the joke that he made in poor taste, yes,” she replied.

The television itself is a key part of the case. Wendi Adelson was at home the morning of the murder, waiting for a Best Buy Geek Squad member to come look at the TV, which had a cracked screen. The appointment, which she said she arranged, gave her an alibi.

She also denied telling her ex-boyfriend, Jeffrey Lacasse, that shortly before the murder, Charlie Adelson had seriously looked into hiring a hit man. Lacasse testified last year that he had heard the joke before, but that before the murder, Wendi Adelson confided in him that Charlie Adelson had inquired about paying for a hit and that it would cost perhaps $50,000. He told jurors the comments were “chilling” and that he thought Charlie Adelson was dangerous.

Cappleman grilled her about a trip she took to Miami a couple of weeks before the murder. She said it was to celebrate her dad’s 70th birthday with Charlie Adelson and the rest of the family. She couldn’t recall what she got her dad as a present.

“Was the murder of Dan Markel your big gift?” she asked.

“Of course not,” Wendi Adelson replied. “That’s a horrible thing to say.”

Tim Jansen's Take:

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.

"Opening statements are designed to give the jury an overview of the case and the evidence that is expected to be admitted in the trial. Parties also use this time to give their view of the evidence and their theory of defense in the case. This is also time they will discuss the facts and how they apply to the law in the case for their party. It's often called a 'roadmap' by the parties,  so the jury will understand how the evidence fits together.

In most cases, the prosecution and defense have different motivations in delivering an opening statement. Opening statements are not the time to argue the law. In fact, most courts prohibit any arguments in an opening statement. The state/prosecution carries the burden of proof, so they will be open and detailed with the facts in their opening statement.  The defense can choose to waive an opening statement. In fact, in most cases the defense will limit the specifics they give in an opening statement. Thus, not tying their defense to statements they made in the opening statement. Trials are fluid and defenses can change, or be altered by witness testimony or other evidence. An experienced trial lawyer will want to have multiple possible defenses in a case.

Should the defense give a detailed defense in the opening statement it will then be stuck with those statements and that defense strategy throughout the trial. This is a highly risky proposition and should be signed off by the client in writing. In certain cases this may, in fact, be the best defense possible for a defendant. However, this is not without risk of failure and must be considered carefully.

In the state's case against Charlie Adelson, Prosecutor Sarah Dugan provided a highly detailed presentation of the facts in the case.

The state gave a lengthy timeline of the events leading up to the murder of Professor Dan Markel. Ms. Dugan listed numerous witnesses and evidence that tied the defendant to the hiring and payment of the hit men in the case. She carefully outlined the lengthy investigation by the FBI and other law enforcement that implicated the defendant to the murder. The state provided a very compelling opening which directly implicated the defendant to the murder.

On the defense side, Josh Dubin and his team were not present in the courtroom, even though he conducted the voice dire of this jury panel the day before. As such, Daniel Rashbaum addressed the jury and gave his opening statement. In his initial address to the jury. Mr. Rashbaum gave an unusually highly detailed and specific theory of defense to the charges.

While not outright saying his client would testify. He seemed to back him in the corner by having the defendant as the most likely, and only party they could introduce some of the evidence that he said would exonerate his client. Sure, there are recordings and emails that can be argued by counsel, but some of the specific allegations of his client being extorted by Katie Magbanua, and the killers must come from the defendant himself. It's a dangerous ledge to put a defendant in if they are unable to produce a witness to back up such facts. Coincidently, the defense admitted that the stapled money used to pay the killers came from the defendant.

Another concession I am sure the defendant had to sign off and agree to put before the jury.

The defense is conveniently admitting the most damning evidence against his client while claiming that there were two extortions, and that his client was the victim of extortion and not a conspirator to murder of his sister's ex-husband. Rashbaum uses the "pieces of a puzzle"analogy throughout his presentation. This is a large hill to climb for the defendant when the alleged extortionist mastermind is the defendant' ex-girlfriend and who had no reason to commit the murder of Professor Markel. Nor, did she have the means to hire the killers.

This is a novel defense under the facts of this case. The question is whether the defense should have fully exposed its defense strategy at this stage of the case. The impact may have been more significant and would have limited the state's ability counter the evidence if announced later in the trial. Litigants are often called to make trial tactic decisions on the fly. Time will tell if this was the right decision.

The question will be will the jury believe this highly suspect defense. The same jury that Mr. Rashbaum did not conduct the voir dire in the previous three days. Will the lack of rapport with the jury impact his effectiveness with the jury, especially when asking them to leap of the dock with this suspect defense?"

FSU professor Dan Markel's killing: Everything to know about the murder-for-hire case

Charlie Adelson Trial Day 1 openings: Defense says ex-girlfriend was murder 'mastermind'

Dan Markel murder: Walkthrough of witnesses making the case for, against Charlie Adelson

Charlie Adelson trial

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. 

Contributing: C. A. Bridges, Grace Pateras, USA TODAY Network

Already a subscriber? Thank you! If not, please consider subscribing and supporting local journalism like this. Click here for today's deals.

This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Dan Markel murder: Wendi Adelson, sister of Charlie, testifies at trial