After the 2014 murder of law professor Dan Markel, gunned down by a pair of hitmen, suspicions quickly fell upon Markel’s former in-laws. One of the hit men infamously told authorities that they did it because “the lady wants her two kids back,” seemingly referring to Markel’s ex-wife. The wheels turned relatively slowly, but prosecutors worked their way up the tree, from the gunmen, to one of the assassins’ former girlfriends, Katherine Magbanua, who hired them, to Markel’s former brother-in-law Charlie Adelson, who also dated Magbanua. Finally, earlier this month, a jury convicted Markel’s mother-in-law Donna Adelson for her role in arranging the plot.
Adelson then launched a Hail Mary effort to get a new trial, citing juror media use. The judge has now rejected that bid:
Juror No. 7 had posted on TikTok during the trial that she had been selected as a juror, Adelson’s lawyers said in a new trial motion. But Everett said the juror did not reveal the parties in the case, the attorneys, the alleged crimes, whether it was criminal or civil, or even the location of the trial. As a result, she did not communicate “about this case” as banned by jury instructions, he concluded.
The text displayed over juror No. 7’s video had said, “When I told God I needed a break, and he makes it so I am selected to serve on a jury for a two week trial… won’t he do it,” and included a happy face. A caption read, “No work, no kids (for most of the day) yk what… heaven yeah.”
Sing it, sister.
While perhaps betraying a lack of appreciation for the gravity of the civic duty at hand to describe it as a state-sponsored vacation, there’s nothing explicitly wrong with indicating that you’re on jury duty. The more nuanced argument contends that this description provided enough for someone to work out what trial the juror would hear, but that proved a stretch without any other information.
Adelson also complained of the juror talking about the experience after the trial — which is actually fine — and another juror who told a podcast after the fact that he’d paid attention to the defendant’s reaction to testimony even though he’d said he hadn’t done that in other comments. The judge brushed away that concern too, explaining that there’s nothing wrong with observing the defendant.
With Adelson not getting a new trial, the case will move forward to sentencing.
Earlier: Jury Reaches Verdict In Donna Adelson Trial
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
The post TikTok Fails To Win Donna Adelson A New Trial appeared first on Above the Law.
After the 2014 murder of law professor Dan Markel, gunned down by a pair of hitmen, suspicions quickly fell upon Markel’s former in-laws. One of the hit men infamously told authorities that they did it because “the lady wants her two kids back,” seemingly referring to Markel’s ex-wife. The wheels turned relatively slowly, but prosecutors worked their way up the tree, from the gunmen, to one of the assassins’ former girlfriends, Katherine Magbanua, who hired them, to Markel’s former brother-in-law Charlie Adelson, who also dated Magbanua. Finally, earlier this month, a jury convicted Markel’s mother-in-law Donna Adelson for her role in arranging the plot.
Adelson then launched a Hail Mary effort to get a new trial, citing juror media use. The judge has now rejected that bid:
Juror No. 7 had posted on TikTok during the trial that she had been selected as a juror, Adelson’s lawyers said in a new trial motion. But Everett said the juror did not reveal the parties in the case, the attorneys, the alleged crimes, whether it was criminal or civil, or even the location of the trial. As a result, she did not communicate “about this case” as banned by jury instructions, he concluded.
The text displayed over juror No. 7’s video had said, “When I told God I needed a break, and he makes it so I am selected to serve on a jury for a two week trial… won’t he do it,” and included a happy face. A caption read, “No work, no kids (for most of the day) yk what… heaven yeah.”
Sing it, sister.
While perhaps betraying a lack of appreciation for the gravity of the civic duty at hand to describe it as a state-sponsored vacation, there’s nothing explicitly wrong with indicating that you’re on jury duty. The more nuanced argument contends that this description provided enough for someone to work out what trial the juror would hear, but that proved a stretch without any other information.
Adelson also complained of the juror talking about the experience after the trial — which is actually fine — and another juror who told a podcast after the fact that he’d paid attention to the defendant’s reaction to testimony even though he’d said he hadn’t done that in other comments. The judge brushed away that concern too, explaining that there’s nothing wrong with observing the defendant.
With Adelson not getting a new trial, the case will move forward to sentencing.
Earlier: Jury Reaches Verdict In Donna Adelson Trial
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
