The Donna Adelson trial barreled through a pivotal day, as prosecutors stacked witnesses to tighten the net around the family.
The morning opened with Mary Hull, a longtime employee at the Adelson Institute. Hull testified about old office systems and how Donna never disparaged Dan Markel in her presence. On cross, the defense emphasized her characterization of the Adelsons as a “hard-working family.”
Legal analysis: Hull’s testimony offered the defense a sliver of normalcy. But the state’s strategy was not to prove the murder through Hull; it was to contrast her benign perspective with later testimony that revealed the darker undercurrents. It’s a common prosecutorial move: start with low-impact witnesses, then escalate to heavier evidence.
The second witness, Jeff Lacasse, Wendy Adelson’s ex-boyfriend, revisited old ground that jurors have seen before. Lacasse described how Donna and Wendy’s emails were filled with vitriol toward Markel, painting him as an obstacle to Wendy’s relocation and the family’s peace of mind.
Legal analysis: Motive evidence is tricky. Statements like Donna’s “major fucker” email could risk being labeled as prejudicial. But under Florida law, such communications can be admitted to show motive and intent, not just character. The prosecution’s tactic was to let Lacasse anchor jurors in the hostile climate Markel faced inside the Adelson orbit.
The afternoon belonged to Katherine Magbanua, once at the center of the conspiracy. Magbanua admitted on the stand that she lied under oath in previous trials, but told jurors she was now coming clean: Charlie Adelson solicited her to find someone to “harm” Markel, she turned to Sigfredo Garcia, and Lewis Rivera joined as the second hitman. She described cash payments, payroll checks, and even money allegedly washed by Donna Adelson.
Legal analysis: Putting Magbanua on the stand is a double-edged sword. She is already serving life, has admitted to perjury, and jurors will be skeptical. But prosecutors know her insider account directly links Charlie to the killers. Florida courts allow testimony from accomplices even if credibility is battered; the jury is instructed to weigh it cautiously. The state’s gamble is that corroboration — texts, bank records, wiretaps — will backstop her words.
The day closed with Sergeant Christopher Corbett, Tallahassee Police Department’s communications analysis expert. Corbett explained call detail records, tower dumps, and frequency reports. He walked jurors through how Garcia’s phone appeared in Tallahassee, how Rivera’s number surfaced, and how Adelson family phones overlapped in suspicious ways.
Legal analysis: Communication records are treated as business records — inherently reliable because they’re generated automatically by carriers. They don’t tell you exactly where someone was, but prosecutors use them to include or exclude possible locations. By cross-referencing Garcia’s frequency contacts with Magbanua and Charlie Adelson, Corbett created a data-driven map of conspiracy. For jurors, it provides the hard, technical frame that Magbanua’s testimony alone cannot.
By adjournment, the arc of the day was clear: from minor witnesses like Hull, to motive through Lacasse, to a confession-like narrative from Magbanua, and finally to forensic phone records. Each block added weight, brick by brick, on Donna Adelson’s shoulders.
Author
