3rd September 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 defense 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: Daniel Markel (Deceased)
Todays Witnesses
- Witness #34 – Defence Witness #9 – Kristen Adamson – Wendi Adelson’s Former Lawyer
- Witness #35 – Defence Witness #10 – Linda Bailey – Marital and Family Law Expert
- Witness #36 – Defence Witness #11 – Marissel Descalzo – Attorney
- Witness #37 – Defence Witness #12 – Sarah Newhouse – Victim advocate for Law Enforcement
The sheriff says that he was approached by Capt. Dent and Dept. Franklin that she can speak with the defense if she wants to be served and that they never instructed the witness to not speak with the defence and the defence arent pursuing calling her as a witness due to her status.
- Witness #34 – Defence Witness #9 – Kristen Adamson – Wendi Adelson’s Former Lawyer
a. Direct Exam – Conducted by Josh Zelman
i. She testifies to being a lawyer with focus in Family law, she is board certified and a member of fellow academy of federal lawyers and was chair president in 2012.
ii. She testifies to being Wendi Adelson’s lawyer with her divorce with Dan Markel and expresses that she wouldn’t characterise the divorce as a bitter divorce. She explains that relocation is a win or lose case where other aspects of divorce are a “split the baby” scenario.
§ Seems to me that the defence are trying to set the scenario that it was normal course of business.
iii. She testifies that she always tell her clients that relocation is difficult to achieve but it’s a 50/50 shot should they pursue it and informed Wendi that this is the one shot she had to get relocation with the relocation motion.
i. She explains that arguing detriment is very hard to prove as they would need to show abuse, children failing in school etc.
ii. She explains that relocation are hard to win and that she has only had 1 client she had won a relocation work.
iii. She believed that Wendi had a good shot at winning it due to family being in Florida, Dan’s constant movement for his work but it was never going to be easy.
iv. She testifies to the hearing that they had on the relocation, and the person that had offered her a job and showed why the relocation should be approved.
i. She explains that the judge had rejected the motion saying Wendi had not met the burden of proof that the move is in the best interest of the kids.
ii. She also explains that Wendi’s parents were there at the hearing but only in the lobby and explains that Wendi was upset regarding losing the motion and she had explained the legal ramifications and they began speaking about the mediation.
iii. In response to the question of Wendi offering financial incentives to Dan after losing the motion and She explains that the case was not finished and the mediation is always another avenue of resolving matters. She also says its not illegal as she negotiates these incentives with Dan Markel despite losing.
v. She testifies to Wendi having a get her groove back party where she was invited to go but she didn’t go.
vi. She testifies that Dan Markel was aware of the non marital portion of the assets that Wendi would get and the case was settled within a week.
vii. She testifies they tried to get Dan Markel to pay for the divorce settlement agreement but he didn’t and he obtained a new lawyer who argued that he doesn’t have to pay money because Wendi had not disclosed assets and alleged fraud and filed two pleadings as a follow-up of this.
i. She explained that she believed that Dan Markel would not have been successful with his pleadings.
viii. She testifies that Donna was not involved in any of the hearings and only spoke with Donna and Harvey when they came to one of the hearings regarding the relocation hearing and said that they were out in the hallway.
b. Cross Exam – Conducted by Sarah Dugan
i. She says that she would be drafting the filings for the relocation filings but wasn’t aware of her drafting things to put things into the filings.
ii. She says that she didn’t have knowledge of Wendi messaging Donna to edit this etc and state highlights that it was between Donna and Wendi and she agrees.
iii. When asked if Donna and Harvey were potential witnesses during the relocation hearing she says she doesn’t know if they were witnesses but was not out of place as parents can and do attend and they were nice people.
iv. She says that she doesn’t know how Donna felt when she the relocation was denied.
v. She says its true that Dan Markel had accused Wendi of non compliance.
vi. The state highlights her comment of it not being a contentious divorce and says that Dan had alleged fraud, tried to get her disbarred and alleged that even her as a lawyer was in on the fraud that she had to withdraw from representing Wendi but she maintains it wasn’t contentious.
c. Redirect Exam – Conducted by Josh Zelman
i. She said that the hearing in 15 May 2014 would have continued with her if he had not made allegations of fraud against her that made her a witness and she had to resign from being Wendi’s lawyer.
There was a proffer regarding an expert witness Linda Bailey that was to be brought in to testify to the divorce of both Wendi Adelson and Dan Markel but broke the rules of sequestration for witnesses, similar to what happened on day 7 with Tim Kelly, the realtor. Judge Everett felt it would be extreme to remove the witness in response to the state’s motion of exclusion and did a proffer so both sides can understand better the substance of her testimony and how much she may have been influenced by the testimony of Kristin Adamson. After the proffer, judge Everett rejected the state’s motion to exclude the witness and the witness was allowed to testify.
- Witness #35 – Defence Witness #10 – Linda Bailey – Marital and Family Law Expert
a. Direct Exam – Conducted by Josh Zelman
i. She testifies that she went to law school with Wendi’s lawyer Kristin Adamson and known her for over 30 years, she says she teaches other professionals on marital and family law and was tendered as expert meaning that she can speculate on facts relevant on her knowledge.
ii. She testifies that she didn’t see anything from the files to suggest that Wendi was trying to get Dan to not have substantial time sharing and not trying to prevent Dan from spending time with the kids.
iii. She explains what a parenting coordinator’s role was and how they handle marital settlement agreements and any violations that may occur.
iv. She testifies that jibbers means someone who spoke gibberish.
v. She testifies that the marital settlement was favourable to Wendi and says it was only favourable because Dan had filed things that were unwinnable so he didn’t get his demands and later acquiesced dismissing his filings and agreeing to the settlement terms.
vi. She testifies to it being common to pay money to have Dan relocate and says that Wendi had always understood that the relocation motion was denied as she had waived hr right to appeal.
vii. She testifies that Dan was alleging fraud and had opportunities to file compel motions to support his fraud allegations and how it had to have impacted him which was required. She said that Dan knew about the assets so it was baseless accusations.
viii. She testifies that Dan had filed for total control of the parenting decisions and says that he had filed it incorrectly.
ix. 13 March 2014 grandmother motion was filed and says that Dan never requested that Donna not have permission to see Donna.
b. Cross Exam – Conducted by Georgia Cappleman
i. The state brings up the fact that these issues in the pleadings in the divorce arent just routine but it can impact people’s lives. She testified that she had a client who had committed suicide due to a motion in his divorce and the state uses her example of the suicide and said that divorce proceedings does not have an impact.
ii. The state brings up the jibbers comment highlighting that it is not just meaning gibberish however she says that she didnt see it that way and says it was due to Dan’s filings.
iii. The state highlights that we will never know the outcome of the hearing she had explained regarding the fraud allegations as Dan Markel was dead and she says that clearly thats the case.
c. Redirect Exam – Nothing of note
Out of the jury’s presence, the defence asked for more time to confer with Donna Adelson regarding her wish to testify and remind her all the witnesses they had seen. Judge Everett stated they have had countless opportunities to discuss this, including the early break they were given during the course of the defence case in chief and is not going to give them more time.
- Witness #36 – Defence Witness #11 – Marissel Descalzo – Attorney
a. Direct Exam – Conducted by Josh Zelman
i. She testifies to representing Donna Adelson a few months before she was arrested. She said that she had concerns about Donna’s mental state such as terminating her life if Charlie was convicted
i. She says that she contacted Charlie’s attorney Rushbaum whether to get her baker acted (meaning put her in a psychiatric hold).
ii. She says that Harvey suggested taking a holiday rather than a psychiatric hold and they agreed that it was the better choice.
iii. She says that Rushbaum had told her there was no outstanding warrants for her or anything that could impact her leaving the country. She says that they only did this due to her comments about terminating her life.
b. Cross Exam – Conducted by Sarah Dugan
i. She agrees with the state that law enforcement would not have to inform people that they are issuing warrants
ii. She says it would have been a violation of Donna’s attorney client privilege had she reported to the bar.
iii. She says that she had no knowledge of a text where Donna had said she is next and I will take care of it when the state confronted her with this.
c. Redirect Exam – Conducted by Josh Zelman
i. She says that Donna was not fleeing the jurisdiction, just a vacation. She also says that she had dealt with clients dealing with extradition issues and says it doesn’t stop you from being extradited especially if you are a citizen. - Witness #37 – Defence Witness #12 – Sarah Newhouse – Victim advocate for Law Enforcement
a. Direct Exam – Conducted by Josh Zelman
i. She testifies to being a victim advocate for Wendi Adelson when she was with law enforcement on the day of Dan Markel’s murder.
ii. She says that she was with Wendi, she had sounded shocked and that it seemed like it’s the first time she heard of it.
b. Cross Exam – Georgia Cappleman
i. She said that she cannot tell or know of Donna’s demeanour.
c. No redirect exam
Donna Adelson decided not to testify and the defence rested!
The state also rested after conferring with counsel and also decided to rest and not provide rebuttal testimony.
Court Adjourned for the day!
Download the timeline of events PDF here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qy-QyT-brlzrrEaDS_FuwRvj0YNkswr2/view?usp=drive_link
Hope you are now caught up with the substance of what happened in court on Day 8.
Thanks for reading xo
Sources:
Trial clips of the full trial is from The Trial Channel, Youtube Playlist: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLq-6my_qlf8oMS9eGIfgoqSlfn4Vk6Vn&si=2m4b-tTAa2IwJVU4
