DAN MARKEL: Florida v Magbanua, Garcia, & Adelson in murder-for-hire *Magbanua & Adelson GUILTY* *DONNA GUILTY* (5 Viewers)

Leon Circuit Judge James C. Hankinson set an April 13 trial date for Katherine Magbanua, whose charges in the murder of Florida State law professor Dan Markel ended in mistrial earlier this month.

Magbanua, wearing a blue Leon County Detention Center jumpsuit, appeared in the courtroom with her attorneys, Chris DeCoste and Tara Kawass. Hankinson asked about her legal representation moving forward; DeCoste said he and Kawass intend to continue defending her.

Judge sets retrial date for Katherine Magbanua in Dan Markel killing

After a mistrial earlier this month, a new trial date has been set for Katherine Magbanua in the killing of Dan Markel.

www.tallahassee.com

 

[Guess Who]

the defense fought against that. Hoping that if count 1 was thrown out during an appeal, a concurrent sentence on count 2 would allow Donna to walk, Thankful that the Judge didn't choose that.

It would still be a 30 year sentence though if count 1 was thrown out.

 

[Regina]

No remorse, indeed! And what a performance!
I vividly recall Robert's testimony that nobody was curious as to what happened to Dan, that to the contrary, Donna said she didn't care, that it didn't concern her.

I was quite amused by her struggle over whether to testify but I wonder whether that was actually just another performance.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Defense asked for THREE years on the lower charge. Judge didn't go for it.

I watched the sentencing today. Never quite seen anything like it. They basically tried to retry it imo and complained about all they feel wrong or done wrong, and of course she didn't do this. That included her and Harvey and one friend not really making it about character references. Harvey called the JUDGE and jury biased. He's been thought of as kind of a quiet nothing type but boy he was nothing like was thought. He was angry and using the opportunity to finally say things.

I'm surprised the judge was as patient as he was. Start to finish I thought worth the watch.

I see Vinnie also has a show about the fact that area's Grand Jury is now in session or going into session. All have speculated when that would be and if Wendy will be next.

 

[Regina]

Defense asked for THREE years on the lower charge. Judge didn't go for it.

I watched the sentencing today. Never quite seen anything like it. They basically tried to retry it imo and complained about all they feel wrong or done wrong, and of course she didn't do this. That included her and Harvey and one friend not really making it about character references. Harvey called the JUDGE and jury biased. He's been thought of as kind of a quiet nothing type but boy he was nothing like was thought. He was angry and using the opportunity to finally say things.

I'm surprised the judge was as patient as he was. Start to finish I thought worth the watch.

I see Vinnie also has a show about the fact that area's Grand Jury is now in session or going into session. All have speculated when that would be and if Wendy will be next.

I think it's a certainty that she'll be next, that the question is when.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I think it's a certainty that she'll be next, that the question is when.

I think so too.

 

[Regina]

I think so too.

I just can't hardly wait, that's all.
I think there's plenty already known against her and I think there's plenty more that hasn't been revealed.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I just can't hardly wait, that's all.
I think there's plenty already known against her and I think there's plenty more that hasn't been revealed.

Georgia has methodically charged one person after the other... Most speculated that it would be after she can get the case to the next grand jury. I'm hoping.

I agree and for sure there's as much circumstantial on her as there was on Charlie and Donna, probably more even. Some of it came up in the other trials.

I'm pretty sure they will go for it, the question is more about when will they...

 

[Regina]

Georgia has methodically charged one person after the other... Most speculated that it would be after she can get the case to the next grand jury. I'm hoping.

I agree and for sure there's as much circumstantial on her as there was on Dan and Donna, probably more even. Some of it came up in the other trials.

I'm pretty sure they will go for it, the question is more about when will they...

(You said Dan but I know you meant Charlie.)

Yeah, I don't know if a grand jury indictment is actually necessary. I know it is in some places- maybe most- but I've never understood why, do you?

 

[GrandmaBear]

(You said Dan but I know you meant Charlie.)

Yeah, I don't know if a grand jury indictment is actually necessary. I know it is in some places- maybe most- but I've never understood why, do you?

Thanks for pointing that out, I went back and changed it, I in no way want to have mixed up victim and perp.

Our state basically never uses grand juries so no, I never really understand the necessity either. I guess it avoids a preliminary hearing for one. Also you have a body of jurors saying to charge the person, there's enough, so I guess there's that but a judge does it if they go the other way.

The one thing that may be a benefit is they can call people and ask things they maybe couldn't in the courtroom once charged... I think anyhow.

We've seen cases I think that are already charged and they then turn sideways to a grand jury instead, that I don't understand at all.

Yeah, I'm not one to ask as I'm not familiar with it. I have asked, I have looked things up about it and yet I still don't get why they use them lol. Plus they have to wait until they convene.

 

[Paradise]

(You said Dan but I know you meant Charlie.)

Yeah, I don't know if a grand jury indictment is actually necessary. I know it is in some places- maybe most- but I've never understood why, do you?

The grand jury convened here in Florida over a week ago. We were hoping it would be Wendi but there was another high profile case that they were dealing with. waiting...

 

[Regina]

Thanks for pointing that out, I went back and changed it, I in no way want to have mixed up victim and perp.

Our state basically never uses grand juries so no, I never really understand the necessity either. I guess it avoids a preliminary hearing for one. Also you have a body of jurors saying to charge the person, there's enough, so I guess there's that but a judge does it if they go the other way.

The one thing that may be a benefit is they can call people and ask things they maybe couldn't in the courtroom once charged... I think anyhow.

We've seen cases I think that are already charged and they then turn sideways to a grand jury instead, that I don't understand at all.

Yeah, I'm not one to ask as I'm not familiar with it. I have asked, I have looked things up about it and yet I still don't get why they use them lol. Plus they have to wait until they convene.

(You're welcome.)

I haven't looked into it at all, I just asked off the top of my head, lol.
I really don't get it and as for preliminary hearings, I don't get those either, lol.
Needless to say, the district attorney has to be good and same for the judge.
I didn't pay nearly as much attention to the prior trials- Garcia / Magbanua, then retrial Magbanua- but the judge in Charlie's and then Donna's trials was exceptional!
He's calm and patient while rather stern, has a good understanding of the law, and is decisive.
Re the prosecutors, it's my impression that they're fully confident and knowledgeable as to what the evidence shows or doesn't and so I don't see a reason that a grand jury would be involved.

 

[GrandmaBear]

(You're welcome.)

I haven't looked into it at all, I just asked off the top of my head, lol.
I really don't get it and as for preliminary hearings, I don't get those either, lol.
Needless to say, the district attorney has to be good and same for the judge.
I didn't pay nearly as much attention to the prior trials- Garcia / Magbanua, then retrial Magbanua- but the judge in Charlie's and then Donna's trials was exceptional!
He's calm and patient while rather stern, has a good understanding of the law, and is decisive.
Re the prosecutors, it's my impression that they're fully confident and knowledgeable as to what the evidence shows or doesn't and so I don't see a reason that a grand jury would be involved.

A preliminary (also called the probable cause hearing I believe) is where prosecution has to show enough evidence or cause that the charge should go forward. For instance if all they had was Joe Schmoe said he saw the defendant walking past the victim's house on such and such a date, it would I think be thrown out for not enough cause to charge and go forward; however if they had matching DNA, an eyewitness and say cell phone evidence there would be enough evidence for the judge to move the case forward.

If I understand it if a Grand Jury finds enough reason to recommend charges, no probable cause hearing is then held and it is the GJ that decides and not the judge as in a probable cause. Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong as I certainly do not understand them well.

I do know GJs can be seated a long time and they are also secret. I think it would be arduous on jurors. Also only prosecutors do it, there are no defense attys present.

In a probable cause hearing the defense would hear all the prosecution decided to use at that time to show enough evidence AND they can question. I suppose for these reasons maybe it is preferred by prosecutors sometimes. Also maybe it gives them a good look at how jurors see the evidence even though these are not the jurors who will decide final guilt or innocence.

Again, anyone can correct me if wrong.

I also did not pay much attention to the Garcia's and Magbanua's trials.

 

[Regina]

A preliminary (also called the probable cause hearing I believe) is where prosecution has to show enough evidence or cause that the charge should go forward. For instance if all they had was Joe Schmoe said he saw the defendant walking past the victim's house on such and such a date, it would I think be thrown out for not enough cause to charge and go forward; however if they had matching DNA, an eyewitness and say cell phone evidence there would be enough evidence for the judge to move the case forward.

If I understand it if a Grand Jury finds enough reason to recommend charges, no probable cause hearing is then held and it is the GJ that decides and not the judge as in a probable cause. Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong as I certainly do not understand them well.

I do know GJs can be seated a long time and they are also secret. I think it would be arduous on jurors. Also only prosecutors do it, there are no defense attys present.

In a probable cause hearing the defense would hear all the prosecution decided to use at that time to show enough evidence AND they can question. I suppose for these reasons maybe it is preferred by prosecutors sometimes. Also maybe it gives them a good look at how jurors see the evidence even though these are not the jurors who will decide final guilt or innocence.

Again, anyone can correct me if wrong.

I also did not pay much attention to the Garcia's and Magbanua's trials.

I just don't understand why either is necessary, I mean, I think it should go like this: LE offers a case for the DA to consider charges and the DA decides whether or not to go to trial. Easy-peasy, lol!
Seriously, why can't it be that simple?

 

[Tresir]

I just don't understand why either is necessary, I mean, I think it should go like this: LE offers a case for the DA to consider charges and the DA decides whether or not to go to trial. Easy-peasy, lol!
Seriously, why can't it be that simple?

Maybe LE don't think they have enough evidence. I guess we will eventually find out.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I just don't understand why either is necessary, I mean, I think it should go like this: LE offers a case for the DA to consider charges and the DA decides whether or not to go to trial. Easy-peasy, lol!
Seriously, why can't it be that simple?

Yeah, that is how it is done here and in many places. The GJ process does seem arduous and unnecessary to me.