22nd August 2025!
Background of the case: Donna Adelson, 75, is on trial in Tallahassee for her alleged role in orchestrating the 2014 murder-for-hire of her former son-in-law, Dan Markel, a respected law professor at Florida State University. Markel was fatally shot in the head in his Tallahassee garage amid a bitter custody dispute with his ex-wife, Wendi Adelson. The prosecution and the defence presented their theory of the case in the trial and a few witnesses took the stand and we shall be going through key parts of their testimony.
Case Info
Judge: Stephen Everett
Prosecutor: ADA Sarah Kathryn Dugan, ADA Georgia Cappleman
Defence Attorneys: Jackie Fulford, Josh Zelman
Victim(s): Dan Markel (Deceased) – 18th July 2014
Opening Statements
Prosecution
The state theorised that Donna is part of a conspiracy to hire a hit man to kill Dan Markel. They say that on 18th July 2014, Dan was shot dead in broad daylight. They theorised he was being followed by two hit men and the neighbour saw a Pruis speed off and when the neighbour went to the house, he saw the glass had shattered and Dan was shot in the head.
They theorised that all paths from the investigators led to Donna Adelson.
The state theorised that Wendi and Donna spoke in emails of bribes to Dan Markel to make it possible for Wendi to relocate and let Wendi move to Miami to be with her and the sons, that Wendy should aggrevate Dan and put on the performance of her life in order for him to lose control and submit to the relocation request but the judge had denied this with prejudice meaning it can no longer be raised. They theorised Donna was not happy with this and would do anything to have Wendi move closer to her and the kids.
They theorised that Charlie Adelson and Donna would speak regularly and Donna would stress to Charlie how Dan was a crazy person. They would file custody violations and violations up to his death. They also theorised 48 hours after Dan Markel was killed, they had moved into the street and lived there and their problem was solved.
They theorised that when Wendi Adelson (Dan Markel ex wife) had told the police when she spoke to Donna about the death of Dan, that at least she looked surprised and joked about hiring a hit man into killing Dan Markel and spent the money on TV instead and this TV became Donna’s alibi as she had setup a TV repair appointment.
They theorised that they thought they got away with murder and havent spoken for two years. They theorised that the police staged an event where an undercover agent had posed as a blackmailer and gave a piece of paper of Dan Markel murder and had and she put it in her pocket. She never called the police but called Charlie saying they are talking about us and mentioned the TV is probably five. They theorised Charlie had called his ex Katherine Magbanua to set up the murder plot to kill Dan Markel.
They theorised that they were speaking in analogies knowing the police was likely listening during the undercover work and reassuring her that they wouldnt be in trouble as the police would need hard-core proof. Charlie Adelson had decided to try and get the blackmailer killed and had called Garcia who the state theorised had made the hit in a Prius and how Rivera had cut a deal with law enforcement and confessed to the killing of Dan Merkel. They theorised that the Adelson’s and Katherine would speak in code and TV was mentioned a lot. They theorised that the Adelson’s had a lot of money at their disposal.
They theorised that hours of Charlie Adelson being convicted that Donna was searching for countries to flee to without extradition treaties and three days of boarding a one way flight to Vietnam, she was arrested at Miami airport. They theorised that she was sending bribes to people to give false testimony in this case.
Defense
They theorised that the jury has heard a lot of others have done in the case but not what Donna had done. The defence theorised was an accomplished professor and was respected and highlighted that two people are the ones that killed him. They theorised that when Wendi moved out after the divorce, that he did not want to divorce. They theorised that he agreed a 50/50 custody with Wendi.
They theorised that Donna is just a normal person.
They theorised that the state can prove that Charlie and the hit men had killed Dan but its just theory with Donna and had no evidence. They highlighted the state had propped her up in the media as the mastermind but they had no evidence.
Today’s witnesses:
- Witness #1 – James Geiger – 911 Caller
- Witness #2 – Sgt. David Sims – Officer On Scene
- Witness #3 – Joanne Maltese – Crime Scene Specialist
- Witness #4 – Craig Isom – Detective
- Witness #5 – Luis Rivera – Driver of Prius
Witness #1 – James Geiger – 911 Caller
Direct Exam
- He testifies to hearing a noise, a loud noise. He thought that someone had broken into the markel house.
- He testifies he walked to the house and approached the house and saw the motor running so he thought no burglary happened so he returned to his house.
- He testifies that something didnt feel right five minutes later as Danny didnt back out so he returned to the house and saw the glass was shattered and tried calling out to Danny but no response and he called 911 and they arrived in 5 minutes
- He testifies that the driver side window was shattered and didnt see the other windows
- An audio of the call was played
No cross exam.
Witness #2 – Sgt. David Sims – Officer On Scene
Direct Exam
- He testifies to speaking with the neighbour Geiger who heard a loud noise
- He testifies to seeing the car running. He says that he called Daniel and there was no response and he was gasping for air
- He testifies that Daniel had a cell phone in one hand and a business card in the other and that he had turned off the car.
- He testifies that Daniel never regained consciousness.
- He testifies that this incident wasnt indicative of a burglary and there were no signs of a struggle with Daniel.
No cross exam
Witness #3 Joanne Maltese – Crime Scene Specialist
Direct Exam
- She testifies to the materials collected from the scene like an eye glass lens and Dan Markels wallet.
- She testifies to collecting swabs and lifting fingerprints from the scene for further testing.
- She testifies that there was an indication of stipling, meaning that the shot was fired at close range.
Stipulated fact (meaning both prosecution and defence declared this was true) was the projectiles was examined microscopically and it belonged to a revolver.
Witness #4 – Craig Isom – Detective
Direct Exam
- He testifies to speaking with Wendi Adelson two hours after the shooting at 2:14pm on 14th July 2014. He told her in the interview that she wasnt a suspect and wasnt in trouble, it was a non custodial interview.
- He testifies that he learnt that Dan Markel and Wendi were in a contentious divorce. He says that Wendi was attempting to relocating from Florida.
- The objection was sustained under hearsay after he was asked why Wendi was trying to relocate so we do not know what reason she gave.
The judge was not happy with the defence continually objecting for the same ruling the judge made regarding the email coming in. They went through the objectionable items to allow a flow in court.
- He testifies to reviewing Wendi’s divorce files and emails where Dan was seeking to restrict Donna’s access to the kids. He reads that Dan was saying that he doesnt want Donna to have unsupervised contact with the kids
- He testifies about emails with Wendi and Donna where Donna was calling Dan names like a cool huge f word etc
- He testifies that the relocation request was denied and Donna was still continuing to push for the relocation to South Florida. He testifies that there were benefits to be had in the event of Dan’s death.
- He testifies to the Prius tracking Dan Markel when he had finished the gym and went home. They showed CCTV footage of the tracking from 9:11 am to 10:39am.
- More clips of the Pruis tracking was presented from the city bus from Thomasville road, this was covering times from 10:46 – 10:55am.
- He testifies that based on the time the shooting had already happened likely at 10:51am and had left to rejoin traffic.
- He testifies that the Pruis was likely 2006 to 2009 for the year it was made. He also explained the process they went through to track down the vehicle after they were not able to get hold of the license information.
- He testifies that they learnt that the Pruis was a rental from safegas. They learnt that Luis Rivera had rented the car based on the rental contract, his brother was Sigfredo Garcia. 16th July 2014 was the date of the rental and was due back on the 17th July 2024 but they didnt get it back 21st July 2024
- He testifies that the only connection to the men in the Pruis was Katherine Magbanua. He says that post murder, she started receiving money from the Adelson institute. She was working for them in an administrative role.
- He testifies that after they subpoenaed, they received the documents of her supposed employment that started on July 18th, same day as the homicide incident.
- He testifies that he received a call from Charlie’s lawyer when he was processing Katherine but this was sustained because it was beyond the scope of the co conspirator.
Cross Exam
- The defence highlighted that Donna never said she hated Dan he agreed
- The defence also brought up the bribes and says that it’s not out of the realm in divorces to offer financial incentives he says its not his realm.
- The defense highlights that Donna was not going to benefit from the life insurance.
- The defense also highlighted that Wendi didnt take suggestions by Donna to dress their kids up in Christian clothes, he agreed
- The state highlighted that he did not receive a call from Donna like how he received a call from Charlie.
- The defence shows emails where Donna was encouraging to take the kids to Shabbat and also showed that sometimes the dad would send emails from the same email.
Redirect Exam
- State highlighted that there were emails where it was signed by both mom and dad.
Witness #5 – Luis Rivera – Driver of Prius, the Hitman.
Direct Exam
- He testifies he is not offered anything to testify in this case and no one had told him what to say.
- He testifies that he was hired to kill and the purpose of the murder was because they wanted the kids. He testifies to not knowing the family, only working through Katie who’s Katherine.
- He testifies to receiving a picture of Dan Markel to know who to kill as well as his address from Katherine.
- He testifies to buying a gun off the street jn order to kill Dan. He says he took two trips before killing him. He followed him on the first trip to a day but didnt kill him becauase he had the kids with him so they didnt do it.
- He testifies that the gun was a 38 revolver.
- He testifies that Dan Markel was about to leave town the day after so it had to be done that day and says that Wendi had told Katherine this. He didnt know Wendi.
- He says he was driving and Garcia was the one that shot him
- He testifies to receiving the money from Katherine Magbanua, 35k in 1k staples. He bought a motorcycle and so did Garcia with the money. He says that he bought it a month after. He also says he dumped the gun.
- He says that he would have robbed the owner of the money in the safe of the dentist who is Charlie Adelson so that he wouldnt have to do the murder
Cross Exam
- He testifies that he didnt know he was going to the gym that he followed him
- The defence highlights that it was Wendi Adelson that wanted to have him killed for the kids.
No redirect exam
Hope you are now caught up with the substance of what happened in court on Day 2.
Thanks for reading xo
Download the timeline of events PDF here: Click her for the timeline!
Sources:
Trial clips of the full trial is from The Trial Channel, Youtube Playlist: Click here for playlist!
