Hidden True Crime - Sequestration Drama, Expert Clash, & Donna Stays Silent | Adelson Trial Day 8 Recap

Episode Date: September 4, 2025

Day 8 of the Donna Adelson trial brought defense experts who painted Wendi’s divorce as “routine,” not a bitter custody war, and pushed back on claims Donna pulled the strings. But prosecutors fought to keep their narrative intact, highlighting coded language, money disputes, and Donna’s looming decision on whether to testify. By the end of the day, the defense rested—setting the stage for closings and verdict watch. FULL BACKSTORY- Apple: ⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-true-crime/id1521619380?i=1000670853208⁠⁠ Spotify:⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/episode/2VGAg7V4owkukkAG8SgNFZ?si=8oxZ2529QP28a_gHMTrpvA⁠ For the full Surviving the Survivor interview, go here: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/live/NEu1uhfrOug⁠ About Hidden True Crime: What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at ⁠Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Lately, I've been trying to be more intentional about what I wear, intentional about everything, just choosing pieces that feel effortless, still put together, timeless, but also not overthinking it every morning. It's why I keep going back to quince. Their pieces just make getting dressed easier and I feel so classy. I feel elevated. The fits are flattering. The fabric is really high quality. Everything is wearable day to day. I actually got this really, really, beautiful yellow V-neck midi dress from them, and I paired it with some Italian leather sandals. It's one of those outfits that just works. It feels polished but still comfortable. It's exactly what I've been looking for. What surprises me, though, is the quality for the price. Quince uses

premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, but they cut out the middleman. So everything is priced way lower than you'd expect. Refresh. your every day with luxury you can actually use. Head to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince, quince, q-u-in-c-com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using wallfront. Che-ching, there's this much that I'm getting an interest and I didn't have to do anything. Clients like Angela earn up to 4.2% APY on their cash with the Wealthfront cash account. Get started at wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest.

Outcomes vary. 3.3% base API Y as of January 30th, 2026, is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage, LLC, member FINRA, SIPC, not a bank. Hello, gems. Day 8 of the Donna Edelson trial. What? A recap. Spoilers or no spoilers. I think most of you know. But for that handful that don't know, we'll say no spoilers. Let's just jump in. Day eight of the Donna Adelson trial kicked off with some housekeeping before the jury even came in. The defense raised an issue saying that a potential witness had backed out after being contacted by the sheriff's office. According to them,

this person was originally willing to testify, but later said she'd be on leave and unavailable. The judge explained that unless someone is subpoenaed, the court can't force them to cooperate if a witness doesn't want to talk. There's not much that can be done. To clear things up, a corrections deputy was called to the stand. She testified that their captain had gotten word that Donna's attorneys wanted to meet with Deputy Franklin at the jail. Franklin asked if she had to speak with them. And after checking with general counsel, the answer, was no. She didn't have to unless she was subpoenaed. It was completely voluntary. Importantly, no one ever told Franklin not to talk. The defense suggested the sheriff's office had blocked their access to a witness, but the deputy's testimony refuted that claim.

In fact, she clarified that Franklin isn't out on leave at all and is still available. The defense would just need to go through the proper subpoena process. So after that was cleared up, the first witness of the day, here we go, was Kristen Adamson, a family lawyer with nearly four decades of experience. She's been board certified since the mid-90s, served as president of Florida's top matrimonial law group, and is even a fellow in international family law. And this is the defense's next witness. So the defense called Adamson to push back on the state's framing of Wendy and Dan having a bitter custody battle. That was in quotes, bitter custody battle. So she told jurors that what Wendy went through wasn't that at all.

It was a relocation case, which is a very different type of dispute. Adamson explained that relocation cases are tough because they're essentially win or lose situations. One parent moves, the other stays behind. While rare overall, she said they're not a new. usual in Tallahassee because so many jobs and universities draw people in and out of the area. It's common for parents to want to be closer to their families, and she's seen plenty of cases where family members are very involved in their adult children's divorces, even sitting in on meetings and mediations. Still, she told jurors these relocation cases are extremely difficult to win. Adamson said she warned Wendy from the start. Leon County courts generally lean against relocation

and at best her odds were 50-50. She testified that in her 37 years practicing law, she had only won one relocation trial. Negotiated moves sometimes work, but judges approving them outright is rare. And Wendy's case fit the usual reasons. Young children, family ties, a solid job offer in Miami, but it wasn't enough.

Adamson said she made it clear, this was Wendy's one shot because post-divorce modifications are nearly impossible unless the kids are facing serious harm. Adamson also explained how Florida's financial disclosure rules work. So full tax returns, bank accounts, retirement funds, and property have to be listed and sometimes evaluated by experts to separate marital from non-marital assets. She confirmed that Wendy testified in court about the Miami job offer, but the judge ultimately denied the relocation. So according to Adamson, the judge even pulled the lawyers aside mid-hearing and admitted she understood why Wendy wanted to move, but didn't think it was in the kid's best interest. And that essentially signaled defeat

before Dan side even presented its case. At that point, Adamson and the opposing attorney encouraged their clients to stipulate to a denial with prejudice, meaning Wendy could not try again. Wendy agreed, knowing her best chance to move had already slipped away. And after the relocation was denied, the focus shifted to negotiating parenting schedules and dividing up finances instead of fighting it out in court. Mediation followed, and Adamson said Wendy stayed calm, understood the law, and seemed resigned to the loss. Talks nearly wrapped everything up, and within a week, the divorce was settled outside of trial. So Adamson emphasized that settling gave both sides more control than leaving the outcome in the judge's hands.

She also explained how mandatory affidavits and financial discovery work in family cases. Wendy had a Charles Schwab retirement account that was partly marital and partly non-marital, so they even called Schwab representatives during mediation to clarify the details. Full transparency was required. Dan also had about half a million dollars in non-marital Schwab funds. Once both sides understood what was marital versus non-marital, they finalized a marital settlement agreement. Adamson said that tied up the loose ends without needing major evidentiary hearings.

So after the divorce between Dan and Wendy wrapped up, Wendy invited Adamson to what she called a quote, get her groove back party at her new place in Tallahassee. It was meant as a lighthearted celebration of moving on. Adamson went with friends and remembered Wendy presenting herself as being in a good place after the divorce. Adamson testified that the divorce cost about $30,000 in fees and expenses, which she considered relatively modest for this kind of litigation. Aside from the relocation issue, there weren't any other contested hearings,

until later after the divorce. The defense highlighted that under the settlement agreement, Dan owed Wendy $120,000 for her share of the marital home and another $10,000 toward her attorney fees. But he only paid $50,000, leaving a large balance. Adamson filed to enforce the agreement, pointing out that Dan had significant assets. Instead of paying, Dan brought in new counsel and pushed back,

accusing Wendy of hiding money. Earlier in trial, the state pointed out that Dan had accused Wendy of concealing her Charles Schwab funds and retirement accounts. But the defense countered that those assets actually were already disclosed and even discussed during mediation during the divorce. So take a listen. Did that prompt Mr. Markell to pay? No, I did not.

What happened? So then Mr. Markell hired a new lawyer, and his new lawyer filed a responsive pleading to that my motion basically saying that he shouldn't have to pay because Ms. Adelson had breached the marital settlement agreement. How did he allege that she breached the settlement agreement? He filed multiple motions, but his first responses of motions, this first one, basically, if I remember correctly, was all about the money. And he said that he shouldn't have to pay because she had hidden the Charles Schwab money from him. And he used to have power of attorney. so he knew that she hit the money, which doesn't make sense because if he had power of attorney, he would know what the money was. So it didn't make sense to me. But anyway, that she had hidden

that money and that she hadn't told him about several other of her retirement accounts. And therefore, the marital settlement agreement was breached and he shouldn't have to pay her the money. So you filed a response, but did he seek to have the settlement agreement itself voided or set aside? He did not. So, And that is what I told Wendy at the time is that it's not a proper defense for not paying the money. Professor Markell, it was pretty obvious that he had actually written this pleading himself. And then lawyer just signed off on it. It had footnotes, which is not something litigation lawyers would do.

It was voluminous. And it was very personal about what was going on. and Wendy and how he I don't think at this point he alleged that he might have it alleged that she had committed fraud but an appropriate pleading would not that would have been for him to file a 12.540 I know it's kind of technical but basically if you think that an agreement is reached and it is not in good faith or there's assets that were not provided then you must file within a year for a 12.540 to have the whole agreement set aside.

You can't just say one good breach is another. And I filed a pleading basically saying that his motion should be dismissed because it was inappropriate. You filed a motion to strike as a sham pleading? I did. I filed a motion saying this was an inappropriate pleading and it should be dismissed because it was.

It wasn't the correct way to go about doing what he wanted to do. And we just did it so I then tried to set hearings on those motions. so that we could move this forward and everybody could get paid. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using Wellfront. Cheching, there's this much that I'm getting an interest in. I didn't have to do anything.

Clients like Angela earn up to 4.2% APY on their cash with the Wealthfront cash account. Get started at Wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3% base API as of January 30th, 2026, is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0. increase cash account offered by wealth front brokerage LLC member finra sipc not a bank she told wendy the fraud allegations weren't being handled correctly if dan truly believed there was fraud he needed to file a motion to set aside the agreement under rule 12540 within a year not just to refuse to pay what he owed in february 2014 the judge criticized dan's pleadings as inappropriate and even called them quote eye poking still she allowed

Wendy to be deposed, though with certain limits. Adamson said she stepped in to protect her client during this process. Dan also started raising parenting complaints after the divorce, accusing Wendy of blocking FaceTime calls, avoiding shared birthday parties, letting Donna babysit too much, and even alleging parental alienation. His filings escalated further, suggesting that Wendy should be disbarred and even began targeting Adamson herself. The defense painted these as frivolous attacks while still pressing forward on the unpaid settlement money.

On the issue of alienation, Adamson explained that the term parental alienation isn't clinically recognized, though real cases do exist, where one parent improperly influences children against the other. But she emphasized that even if Dan's claims were true, they wouldn't have justified limiting Wendy's parenting time. As the filings became more personal, accusing her a fraud and calling for disbarment, Adamson realized she had essentially become a witness and withdrew from representing Wendy. She brought in attorney Jimmy Jenkins to take over, which forced delays while he got up to speed on the case. For the defense, Adamson's testimony helped in two ways.

First, it showed that Wendy's relocation fight was always an uphill legal battle. And second, it undercut the idea. that Donna was operating everything. Adamson said Donna and Harvey were never involved in Wendy's legal meetings or strategy. They only showed up briefly at the relocation hearing, and even then they stayed out in the hallway. Her withdrawal, as Wendy's attorney showed how toxic the litigation had become, while her testimony chipped away at the state's narrative of Donna as being in control. Well, let's go, though, to cross-exam.

on cross Sarah Dugan pressed Adamson on whether Donna was secretly writing Wendy's court filings Adamson shut that down saying she herself drafted the documents at most Wendy gave

limited input and if there were any edits exchanged between mother and daughter Adamson said she never saw them well Dugan also suggested that Donna and Harvey were more involved than just sitting quietly on the sidelines Adamson acknowledged that in relocation cases, families often carry unrealistic expectations

and sometimes push harder than the client. But in her experience with this case, Donna was polite, not disruptive, and stayed in the hallway during the relocation hearing because she could have been called as a witness, not because she was disengaged. Adamson confirmed that after the divorce, Dan refused to pay with a settlement required, claiming Wendy had hidden assets. She dismissed those claims as legally baseless and filed motions to enforce the agreement and hold him in contempt. She clarified, though, that this wasn't the kind of contempt that could land someone in jail.

It was limited to financial enforcement, not like child support or alimony. Dugan circled back again to the accusation that Donna was writing Wendy's legal documents. Adamson repeated her answer. she wrote all of Wendy's pleadings and if any drafts or edits were shared between Wendy and Donna, they never made their way to her. Dugan reframed the point, arguing that families often insert themselves in custody disputes, which leaves room for influence even without direct involvement. And Adamson admitted that that kind of pressure is common,

but she maintained that in this case, Donna and Harvey were not steering her strategies. when asked why the Adelson sat outside the relocation hearing, Adamson explained that it was because they were potential witnesses. She described them as, quote, very nice people, but did not, did note, you know, that Wendy consulted with them privately after the judge denied her relocation request. Dugan also highlighted how Dan's filings escalated, accusing Wendy a fraud, pushing for her disbarment, and even trying to restrict Donna from babysitting.

Adamson agreed things got personal, but she still resisted labeling the divorce as especially contentious. Finally, Adamson confirmed that she withdrew from the case after Dan accused her of fraud knowing she had likely become a witness. The hearing never took place because Dan was murdered. Reflecting on that, Addison told the court, quote, It's rare, but I've had clients murdered before. I remember all of them."

End quote. That was said. And on redirect, the defense pointed to Dan's March 26th, 2014 filing, where he asked the court to restrict Donna's unsupervised time with the grandchildren under the, quote, right of first refusal, citing claims that she had made disparaging remarks about him. Well, Adamson clarified that she didn't step away from the case because of Dan's personal attacks. the only reason she withdrew was that she anticipated being called as a witness which created a conflict. Without that issue, the hearing would have gone forward in May 2014.

Zellman also emphasized that after the relocation request was denied, Donna appeared to accept the judge's decision. Adamson agreed with that, though she couldn't speak to whatever Donna may have said privately afterward. Finally, Adamson stood firm on the filing. She alone drafted all of the pleadings. While she relied on Wendy to provide factual details, she did not take legal arguments from her and Wendy's input was minimal. The judge turned next to the issue of witness sequestration,

revisiting sidebars from the prior two days about whether the next witness, attorney Linda Bailey, had been in the courtroom before taking the stand. Prosecutors reminded the court that sequestration rules exist to prevent even subtle or unconscious influence on testimony. The judge directed both sides to check the sidebar records, confirm Bailey status and be ready to address it with jurors if needed. The state then moved to exclude Bailey altogether, arguing this was the second time sequestration had been violated. They claimed the defense wrongly advised Bailey that she could sit through

Kristen Adamson's testimony despite these rules. The defense fired back, calling exclusion a, quote, drastic remedy. They pointed to Florida case law. that says a witness can only be barred if their testimony is substantially tainted by hearing someone else's. They argued that proper remedy is to test Bailey's credibility in court not to preemptively silence her. The judge agrees sequestration rules are about fairness, the stress that exclusion is reserved for extreme cases. The only way forward was to question Bailey directly about whether she'd been influenced. So the jury was excused. And Bailey, a family, a family, law attorney was then sworn in outside of the jury's presence for a proffer. She explained that

she had been retained to evaluate whether the Markell Adelson divorce was unusually contentious compared to typical cases. For her review, she relied on divorce pleadings, motions, and orders, emails and texts between Wendy and Dan, plus some bore with Donna and Kristen Adamson's prior testimony. She even consulted Adamson directly for confirmation. Bailey admitted she asked to sit in on Adamson's testimony to confirm the facts, but she maintained her conclusions didn't change. In her words, quote, it was very consistent with what I believe the facts to be, end quote. The defense framed Bailey as bolstering Adamson's credibility, not undermining the sequestration rule. The state still, though, the state still pressed to strike her,

but Bailey stood firm that nothing she heard altered her opinions. So then, Then on cross-examination, prosecutors pressed Bailey with a simple question. They asked if she learned anything new, that she learned, anything you learned new today. Haley? Oh, she said no, absolutely not. Proceedings paused as the court waited for Judge Everett's decision on whether Bailey, the defense's expert, could testify after being present at Kristen Adamson's testimony. And with the jury out, the judge ruled this was. was indeed a second sequestration violation by the defense.

Two now, citing the case Steinhurst v. State, Everett explained that exclusion is only proper if a witness's testimony was substantially affected. And because Bailey testified, her opinions were unchanged, the judge allowed Bailey to proceed, noting her credibility as a member of the bar carried weight. The prosecution reserved the right to request a jury instruction later to challenge her credibility. The defense said they had no objection as long as the instruction was fairly worded, reminding jurors that it's their role to decide whether Bailey's testimony was truly influenced. Judge Everett stressed the importance of clarifying sequestration rules now to avoid any more violations.

So after sorting that out, Linda Bailey officially, now finally, took the stand in front of a jury as the the defense's next expert. She explained to the jury that she is a Tallahassee family law attorney with 37 years of experience, board certified in marital and family law since 2011, and a certified mediator. She's handled roughly 2,000 family law cases and less than 1% of Florida lawyers hold that same certification. She's also been named to best lawyers in America, recognized as a super lawyer, and even taught pro bono attorneys family law. basics for five years focusing on parenting plans and relocation cases. Bailey testified that she reviewed the entire divorce file between Wendy and Edelson and Dan Markell from 2012 to 2014,

along with text between Wendy and Dan, emails between Wendy and Donna Adelson spanning 2011 to 2017, and some text between Donna and both Wendy and Charlie. She also spoke with Wendy's former lawyer, Kristen Adamson, for about an hour. Bailey explained that Wendy's for divorce in September 2012, and by October, she filed a motion for a temporary parenting plan. Bailey said that was a standard move in divorces involving children to create stability during the process. Wendy asked for a 51-49-time parenting split, which is essentially equal custody, right? I was so confused when they said this at first, but Bailey added that the only reason for asking for 51-49, instead of 50-50 was likely for IRS purposes.

The parent with 51% can claim head of household status and dependent deductions. She noted this was ordinary practice in family law at the time. And even though Wendy filed that motion, Bailey pointed out that she and Dan never actually went to court over this. Instead, they worked out a roughly 50-50 arrangement through their attorneys, which she said showed early cooperation between the two. Bailey also reminded jurors that Florida had stopped using the word custody in divorces by the early 2000s. By 2012, it was officially time sharing or parenting time language meant to avoid one parent feeling like the lesser parent. From her review of the file, Bailey said she found no evidence, Wendy, ever tried to block Dan from having substantial time with the children, defined as at least 40% of overnights. She only saw 51-49, which in practice is equal parenting time.

She noted there was just one contested hearing before the final divorce judgment, and that was June 21, 2013. And at that hearing, Dan's motion to dismiss Wendy's relocation request was denied, and his motion to enforce informal child care arrangements was also denied. Bailey explained that he had been trying to enforce emails and child care recommendations, not actual court orders. Bailey testified that at the June 2013 hearing, after Wendy's relocation motion was denied, she decided to withdraw the request entirely. That decision also meant she waived her right to appeal. Within five weeks, Wendy and Dan signed a full marital settlement agreement on July 31, 2013. The agreement covered everything. Wendy waived alimony, property was divided, child support was set, and a parenting plan was established. It also included a parenting plan.

coordinator to help mediate conflicts, able to enforce existing rules like timeliness, call frequency, and exchanges, but not allowed to add new terms. The goal, Bailey said, was to reduce litigation and conflict for the children. Bailey's expert opinion, the divorce was not unusually contentious. It wrapped up in just 10 months, which is faster than average, especially for a case that included a relocation dispute, which often takes two or more years. In her words, it was amicably settled. Everyone was moving on. Her testimony reframes a narrative that the prosecution has been pushing. If the disillusion was settled quickly and amicably, the idea that Wendy and by extension Donna were embroiled in a bitter, drawn-out custody war,

loses weight. Bailey added that from September 2012 to July 31, 2013, there were no discovery disputes, no motions to compel, no subpoenas to bank, and no chasing third parties for hidden accounts. Compared to high-conflict divorces, the file was quiet. Only two non-party depositions were taken, Dr. Phelps from creative preschool and a law school staff, or both of which were routine and non-adversarial. Dr. Phelps even noted that the children were doing great. She emphasized that the law also matters here. Relocation fights are difficult to win, and Wendy's waiver of her her right to appeal showed acceptance of the court's ruling not defiance. Bailey left it to the jury to decide whether any later hostility was genuine escalation or if prosecutors were stretching

and otherwise ordinary divorce into a motive for murder. Bayley reviewed emails between Donna and Wendy and saw nothing unusual about Donna's involvement. She explained it's common for parents, especially mothers, to hover during divorces. She said, quote, I see a lot of mothers. They're worried about their babies no matter how old they are, end quote. She told, told this to the jury. And Bailey confirmed that Donna sometimes called Dan, quote, gibbers. But she didn't find it provocative.

She said it actually fit the style of Dan's own filings, which were verbose, inconsistent, and difficult to enforce. She called them, quote, very wordy and full of hyperbole. She also noted that Dan's pleadings looked self-written, not attorney drafted, and contained contradictions, like

accusing Wendy of hiding Schwab accounts while admitting he knew about them. She added, quote, You can't say fraud and then admit you knew. Bailey said Dan's 2014 filings had no real legal strain. Wendy had filed enforcement motions in October 2013, and Dan waited until January 2014 to respond. He admitted he hadn't paid,

but claimed that Wendy's, quote, bad behavior excused it. Bailey said that argument was not legally strong. Looking at Donna's emails after the relocation denial in June 2013, Bailey noted that Donna was upset and asked if the decision could be reversed. Wendy responded, quote, mom, I am at peace. I'm good. And quote, Bailey said there was no further push and after July 2013 relocation wasn't raised again. Bailey explained to the jury that it's routine for parents to insert themselves into divorces. In cases where parents are heavily involved, she sometimes even invites

them into mediation sessions. She said, quote, I want them to hear my advice so they don't second guests at home. It keeps everyone on the same page. Bailey testified that Wendy ended up with about 55% parenting time until the children reached school age, then 50-50 afterward. By contrast, Dan wanted sole decision-making, kosher restrictions, more than half the assets, and equal birthday splits. And he got none of it. So in reality, most things went in Wendy's favor. Wendy secured shared responsibility and an equal division of assets. Dan was obligated to pay her $120,000 and $10,000 towards attorney fees due to their gap in resources. From September 2012 to July 2013, Bailey described the case as, quote, not contentious.

There was only one partial hearing and everything else was resolved in about 10 months. After the judgment, Dan only paid part of what he owed. Wendy waited past the deadline before filing an enforcement motion, and she did not request any drastic sanctions. Tex, from 2014, showed Dan and Wendy adjusting parenting exchanges for travel and even sharing ice cream outings with the boys. Bailey

noted that despite pending motions, they managed well and maintained cooperation with each other. Bailey reviewed Kristen Adamson's October 31st, 2013 motion. While it was titled, quote, enforcement and contempt, it was, its focus was that

Dan had not paid Wendy $120,000 plus 10,000 in attorney's fees. So inside the motions, where foreclaws, Adamson didn't request jail time or punitive sanctions, she asked the court to order Dan to transfer the remaining $120,000, also to pay the $10,000 in attorney fees and cover interest in any extra fees incurred to force the motion. Bailey explained this was routine, essentially a collection tool. The only risk to Dan was paying statutory interest and additional attorney fees, not jail time. Bailey also reviewed December 2013 emails. Dan wrote to the parenting coordinator and Wendy complaining that Donna had

allegedly called him stupid. Bailey said that he only wanted Wendy to be mindful not to outright ban Donna from seeing the boys. Despite raising the claim in emails, he didn't file any legal motion at that time. Bailey emphasized to the jury that the Edelson-Markelde divorce was ordinary, routine, amicable, and much easier than high conflict cases that rack up half a million dollars in costs involve multiple experts and dragged through discovery battles. By contrast, Dan's filings were verbose, hyperbolic, and lacked foundation. Kaplanman went after Bailey on cross, challenging her characterization of the divorce's routine. She pointed out that while lawyers might see it as standard to the parties involved, it could feel like the most important.

important thing in the world. Bailey pushed back describing the pleadings as, quote, annoying but not emotionally charged. Kaplanman pressed on the impact, noting lives are upended and divorced. Let's take a listen to this. A case as a lawyer might be routine, whereas to the parties, it's the most important thing in the world. To some degree, that's one reason I call Kristen is Ms. Adamson's in particular of the lawyers in our community of the family law bar is extremely measured and calm and I find that when I litigate against her we reach resolutions that people stay measured and calm and we get things done she's not one of the other lawyers in town who may stir cases up or play on those emotions so our

job as lawyers is to explain to our clients when we get a motion. If I get something, for example, that although I've never had, something similar to what Mr. Markell would file, the immediate response is to call your client and go, I know you're going to read this at first glance, it's going to seem messy. But there's no legal basis for this, so don't worry. And my understanding is that is what she communicated to ID. And when you communicate these things to your clients, hey, this is no big deal, this is no problem, this is a bunch of gibberish. Do they always accept that? Well, that's not the way I would present it, but...

Do they ever get upset about the gibberish in the pleadings, the offensive materials in the pleadings, regardless of whether or not it's going to impact their chance of success in court? It can be emotionally charged, can it? I would say annoying, more than emotionally charged. You would not say that divorce and child custody issues are emotionally charged? They can be, but in this case, they weren't. They weren't. How do you know?

From the pleadings, because I don't have 10,000 pages in front of me. You're not in the mind of the people whose lives are impacted by these pleadings. It's not just about pieces of paper and a binder, is it? I don't think that's what I said. People's lives are impacted by the decisions that go on in court, which for you are routine. Would you agree? In this instance, they reached agreement. on all issues. So they had complete control of what was coming out of the court.

Ma'am, could you please answer my question? Are people's lives impacted in drastic ways by routine matters that we see in court as lawyers? People's lives change after divorce, certainly. So like, I may think I've got a bag of stinky garbage, but the garbage man might not think it's stinky at all. Do you get the reference? I don't. What is no big deal to us is a big deal to these litigants, right? You can't agree with that. You can't agree with it. Kaplanman then asked about money.

She said, quote, $80,000 is a lot of money, isn't it? And Bailey replied, depends who you are. When pressed on contempt, Kaplanman suggested jail was the way then court can enforce payments. But Bailey disagreed. She said, quote, I don't see any possibility he was going to end up in jail. Jail was pretty far-fetched. Kaplan returned to language, emphasizing the anti-Semitic connotation of the word gibbers. Bailey clarified she had thought it meant someone who speaks gibberish, but admitted it wasn't flattering. Again, she insisted she'd seen worse in other cases. Kaplan also asked, quote, isn't alleging grandma disparaged dad fuel for anger?

Bailey maintained there was no proof and it shouldn't have been taken that way. She said that even baseless claims might carry emotional weight, but in her view, they were just annoying. Kaplaneman raised the stakes asking if Bailey had ever had clients die from family litigation, she admitted one Middle Eastern men killed himself the day after a petition was filed seemingly due to cultural shame. The point was clear. What seems routine to lawyers can be life-shattering to the parties. Kaplaneman pressed again asking, quote, What is routine to you? Maybe life-changing to them, isn't it? Bailey tried to hold her ground, saying agreements were reached, and this case wasn't high conflict.

Kaplan men snapped back saying, quote, you're not in their minds. It's not just paper in the binder, is it? Despite the pressure, Bailey stood firm that the Aedelson-Markeld divorce was routine. She emphasized the pleadings didn't justify extreme outcomes. They were just baseless motions, not proof of hostility. She told jurors she saw no evidence that Wendy copied Donna's suggestions into Adamson's filings or that Wendy relayed Adamson's answers back to her mother. Bailey acknowledged Donna was upset right after the relocation denial, but she saw no post-settlement email showing ongoing anger.

Here, Kaplanman pushed back some more. Let's keep listening to Kaplan. If Dan Markell had agreed to the relocation, post-denial, post-stipulation, post-post, post-post. It could still happen, right? I mean, if he agrees, it could happen. Sure, if he agreed, she could have relocated. All right.

And if he was murdered, it could happen, right? Obviously. She reiterated that Dan's pleadings were mostly baseless. They lacked legal merit and would never have succeeded, but Kauffleman highlighted the emotional side pointing out that even meritless filings can be inflammatory and upsetting to the parties and family. Bailey agreed saying, quote, sure, nobody wants to read those allegations,

true or not about themselves in a public record. Kauffleman then turned to the timeline, pointing out that at the time of Dan's murder, litigation was still ongoing with hearings scheduled for May 15th, 2014. Bailey agreed it added that she believed those hearings would likely have favored Wendy, potentially forcing Dan to pay her attorney's fees, the kind of ruling that usually deters further filings. But she acknowledged, quote,

we'll never know because he was murdered. And with that, Bailey was released. The court then broke for lunch and during recess, the defense would decide whether Donna would testify. Judge Everett reminded both sides that any remaining witnesses must stay out of the courtroom to avoid further sequestration, violations and lunch outside the presence of the jury, Donna was sworn in. Her former attorney would take the stand, but only after Donna waived her attorney-client privilege. Judge Everett pressed

the defense to make a firm decision. Would Donna testify? Or would she exercise her right to remain silent? The defense argued they needed more time to review six days of state evidence with her, but Judge Everett granted only five extra minutes saying they've had plenty of time. Chan Chinns rose and the defense flagged repeated laughter and comments from the gallery, claiming it was affecting Donna's ability to decide. They requested a limited sidebar with Donna, but their decision on whether she'd testify wasn't yet announced. They kept us hanging, didn't they? Court resumed after the extended lunch break, and Judge Everett ordered the-old. the jury back into the courtroom. And next to understand was Marcell Descalzo, a criminal defense

attorney who had been practicing since 2003. She began representing Donna shortly before her arrest. Descalzo testified that in late October 22, through early 2023, while Charlie was on trial, she began noticing concerns about Donna's mental state. Donna allegedly made multiple statements about self-harm if Charlie was convicted. Descalzo said she realized she needed to act. She first confirmed with Daniel Rashbaum, Charlie's attorney, and together they decided to contact their ethics council and the Florida bar to determine whether additional steps were required, such as the Baker Act evaluation or involuntary commitment.

Afterward, Descalzo and Rashbom spoke with Donna further. Let's listen to this. After doing that, did you have further discussions with Mrs. Adelson about her mental state and what she was going to do to try to clear things up? Mr. Rashbaum and I spoke to her further, and, you know, she told us that what she really wanted to do was she wanted, you know, to get away on a vacation with her husband. Her husband agreed that this would be good for her mental state. And so we discussed a potential vacation. Okay. At that point in time, was there anything preventing Mrs. Aylson from traveling? As far as Mr. Rashbaum and I knew, there was not.

And specifically, there were no warrants for her arrest. My understanding from speaking to Mr. Rashbaum, that Mr. Rashbon had communicated with law enforcement and that there was no outstanding warrant. I had been in touch with the prosecutor of this case, and I apologize because I only remember your first name with Georgia. And we had discussed previously, not around this time, we had previously discussed that I represented Mrs. Adelson. So I assumed that if anything would happen,

if there was a warrant or if Ms. Adelson was going to be arrested, that I would be contacted. Did you advise Mrs. Adelson, that if a warrant was issued, that you would provide her with that information so that she could self-surrender? So the discussions I had with Mrs. Adelson weren't exactly like that.

Mrs. Adelson discussed what would happen if there wasn't an arrest warrant and the potential things that might happen, the prosecutor had never guaranteed for me that Mrs. Adelson could self-surrender. Okay. Did you tell her that that was, did you tell Mrs. Aylson that self-sendorrender?

was something that could happen. Yes, I did. Okay. And on November 6th, her son was convicted. Did you speak with her after that specific as to her ability to travel? I don't remember the dates, but there was discussions about her traveling after the conviction, because around that time was when she was making a serious threat, was when Mrs. Edelson was making these serious threats about her

life. Let's be honest. Buying cannabis shouldn't be complicated, sketchy or low quality. That's why I want to tell you about mood.com. That's M-O-O-O-D.com. Mood ships federally legal cannabis straight to your door. No medical card, no hassle. And here's the kicker. The quality is better than anything you'll find at your local dispensary. Yeah, I said it. Whether you're into edibles, concentrates, flour, or just looking to explore, you'll find it all at mood. It's not just the variety that makes them stand out. Every product is sourced from small American-owned family farms that care deeply about what they grow. It's cannabis you can trust, delivered discreetly, and ready to elevate your mood.

And because you're a listener, you get 20% off your first order. Just head to mood.com. That's M-O-O-O-D.com to get started. They all agree that a short trip could be beneficial for her mental state. At that time, nothing legally prevented Donna from traveling. The attorneys even checked with law enforcement to confirm that she had no outstanding warrants. De Scalzo also stayed in touch with Georgia Kaplanman, who knew Descalzo was representing Donna. She assumed that if anything changed or if authorities planned to arrest Donna, Kaplanman would inform her.

Scalzo also assured Donna that if she was ever aware of a warrant, she would let her know so Donna could potentially surrender voluntarily. After Charlie was convicted, Scalzo spoke with Donna again about taking a vacation, noting that Donna's mental health had become very fragile, and she was expressing thoughts of self-harm. On cross-examination, Sarah Dugan asked as someone with a warrant can dictate the terms of their surrender. Descalzo explained that's usually up to law enforcement, though sometimes they're allowed to self-surrender as a courtesy. It's not a requirement to notify someone about a warrant, and if a person is considered a flight risk, that courtesy is less likely to be granted. She clarified that she spoke with Kaplan and before Charlie's conviction, but

Kaplanman never guaranteed that Donna would be able to self-surrender if a warrant were issued. Dugan then asked if Descalzo had disclosed to anyone in the state's attorney's office that Donna was going to self-harm. She said no, citing attorney-client privilege. When asked why Donna was suicidal, Descalzo said it was because she feared Charlie would spend the rest of his life in prison. Duggan asked whether Donna was worried about being convicted herself, and Descalzo said she didn't believe that was on Donna's mind at the time. Her focus was entirely on Charlie. Dugan asked that Discalzo was aware of a text Donna sent to Wendy suggesting she was afraid that she might be next,

but that Wendy shouldn't worry because Donna would, quote, take care of that. Descalzo said she was not aware of text Donna sent to others. And next, Duggan asked about a conversation where Donna indicated she might or might not make it to the airport. The Scalzo testified that she told Donna that even if there were no known active warrants, it didn't mean she couldn't be arrested at the airport. Next, Dugan asked if Descalzo knew whether the Adelson's planned vacation was to Vietnam, China, or Korea countries without U.S. extradition agreements, and Descalzo said she was not aware of where the Adelson's plan to travel.

Finally, Dugan asked Discalzo whether law enforcement overhearing Donna talk about ending her life for fleeing the country could have affected their trust that she'd be willing to turn herself in. Scalzo said she wasn't law enforcement, so she couldn't say for sure. But as Donna's attorney, she believed it would make things more difficult. On redirect, Zellman revisited the state's line of questioning about the fleeing, fleeing the jurisdiction. He and Descalso clarified that Donna never expressed a desire to flee. She said she wanted to take a vacation. Zelman then asked if Descalo had ever dealt with extradition from foreign countries. She confirmed she had and explained that being in a non-extradition

country doesn't mean the U.S. can't try to secure someone's return. She added that if the person is a U.S. citizen, the government can absolutely still attempt to bring them back. And next up on the stand was Sarah Newhouse, a former victim advocate for the Tallahassee Police Department. She explained that her role was to support victims and act as a liaison between them and law enforcement. On the day Dan was shot in 2014, Newhouse served as a victim advocate for Wendy. She was present when Wendy called Donna to let her know what had happened. In Newhouse's opinion, Donna sounded shocked.

It seemed to be the first time she was hearing the news. Defense Exhibit 71, a recording of Wendy's call to Donna was offered into evidence for the jury to review later. At the prosecution's request, Judge Everett ruled that any comments before and after the call, including unrelated remarks would be cut. The call was officially admitted, but only the trim portion, showing Donna's immediate reaction. On cross, exam, Kaplanman questioned Newhouse about Donna's reaction. She asked if she heard any wailing during the call. Newhouse said no, and noted that she had never met Donna in person, so she couldn't compare her reaction to what might be considered a normal demeanor. Kaplanman also brought up that Wendy had remarked that Donna, quote,

handled it well. But the judge immediately struck that question and instructed juries to disregard it. Newhouse stepped down after cross. The defense stated, they had no further witnesses lined up, none at all. So attention turned to the most asked question. Would Donna take the stand? They were, they were, we were holding our breath. And Judge Everett reminded Donna that she could testify or remain silent and that her silence cannot be held against her. Also saying that testifying would expose her to her, to cross-examination and scrutiny of her credibility. Donna, she hesitated, telling the court, quote, I'm not prepared to make the decision. This decision affects the rest of my life,

end quote, yes, yes it does. And Everett emphasized that she was in the same position as any criminal defendant and ultimately had to make her own choice. Donna requested more time since she wanted to consult with her church, but her clergy had already left. Everett pressed again asking what she intended to do. Visibly firm, he reminded the courtroom that Donna had already had ample time. He said, quote, what exactly are we going to accomplish now that we have not been able to since the trial started, pre-trial, the long recess yesterday, or even lunch break today, end quote. Well, Donna ultimately declined to testify to my disappointment. Clearly, I'll admit it. By exercising her, by exercising her constitutional right to remain silent,

Everett confirmed that the jury would be instructed that this cannot be held against her. And after that, the defense officially rested its case. There you go. Whom, Kauffleman indicated the state would not present present a rebuttal, though a brief conference was planned for confirmation. The defense announced they would tender two exhibits for admission. Even after a party rest, the court can still allow the admission of exhibits without calling another witness, as long as the evidence is properly authenticated or tied to a foundation. However, the state immediately objected on hearsay grounds, prompting a sidebar to determine whether the evidence could be admitted.

The defense argued the exhibits were necessary for completeness. Earlier, the state had introduced excerpts from Donna's 2014 and 2023 calendars. The defense now wanted the court to admit the full calendars, claiming the jury needed the full context beyond the state's selective entries. The prosecution pushed back, saying the defense could not use the rule of completeness to introduce entire calendars. The excerpts had been admitted for specific purposes only. The rest, they argued, was self-serving hearsay.

They noted, quote, it's a day planner, not a narrative, end quote. The defense countered arguing the state cherry-picked pages from Donna's 2023 calendar that showed items to sell, suggesting panic sales before her potential flight. They claimed admitting additional pages would show these listings were planned long before any Vietnam trip, undermining flight risk arguments. The judge ruled that the defense could not blanket admit the full 2023 calendar, completeness, applied differently to recordings than to day planners. Each page must be tied to a witness and have proper foundation. So then the defense didn't give up. The defense narrowed their request, seeking only the pages the state had already highlighted regarding items for sale. Everett took the matter under advisement, noting that not every calendar entry has value and without witness foundation,

most entries are irrelevant hearsay. The defense may argue the point in closing, but admissibility, remains unresolved. The prosecution emphasized that the 2023 page admitted at Charlie's trial that had a specific tie to license plate numbers unrelated entries like birthday planning do not complete that context. Regarding that 2014 calendar, they argued that only the license plate page had ever been relevant and that party planning notes added nothing. They demanded complete redactions of any unrelated material if the judge allows the defense to admit more. Judge Everett held off on ruling, reserving judgment on whether any 2014 plan or entries could be shown to the jury, and for now, the jury will not see them.

So again, since the defense has officially rested, jury instructions and closing arguments are set for tomorrow. And after the jury left, Judge Everett began reviewing the final jury instructions. Both sides could raise objections or propose change. as each section was discussed. Everett started with Instruction 3-1, the standard introduction, with no objections or changes.

Instruction 3-2, the statement of charge was adjusted stylistically at the defense's request. The word charge would no longer be in all caps. Instruction 7.1 covered the mandatory introduction to homicide.

It stated that Donna Edelson is accused of first-degree murder under count one. No changes were requested. Judge Everett confirmed that the defense requested all Category 1 lesser included offenses for count 1, meaning the jury will be instructed on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter. References to the victim will match the indictment naming Daniel Markell. Definitions for justifiable and excusable homicide were removed, so the jury will only consider first-degree murder and its lesser-included crimes. The final instruction to jurors, they are to consider the circumstances that must be proved before Donna

may be found guilty of first-degree murder or any lesser-included offense. Judge Everett moved on the elements of first-degree premeditated murder to convict the jury must find that Daniel Markell is dead, that his death was caused by Donna Adelson, and that the killing was premeditated. No felony murder theory will be presented. The defense requested a stylistic change asking the jury instructions avoid all full caps to prevent unduly highlighting the charges. Everett confirmed that definitions for act, killing with premeditation, and question of premeditation would be included. The heat of passion instruction was taken out, though, due to lack of supporting evidence. instructions three, four on lesser offenses moved forward with the same stylistic adjustment

covering second degree murder. And for that charge, the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that Daniel Markell is dead, that Donna Adelson caused his death, and that the killing was unlawful, imminently dangerous, and showed a depraved mind without regard for human life. Ever confirmed that imminently dangerous and depraved mind. definitions would be given. An intent to kill is not required or second-degree murder. Heat of passion is again excluded. Next, Everett reviewed manslaughter. To convict, the state must prove two elements beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that Daniel Markell is dead. And second, that Donna Edelson either intentionally committed an act causing his death or intentionally procured an act that caused it.

The procurement theory ties her to arranging the act rather than directly committing it. Everett clarified the language from the case State v. Spenter and instructions on excusable or justifiable homicide are omitted. Everett asked Donna if she understood what was being removed from the jury instructions, and Donna confirmed that she did. The defense formally conceded that the homicide will not be framed as excusable or justifiable. Judge Everett confirmed with Donna that she did. understood and consented to this concession. Donna requested a little more time with counsel,

which was granted. Everett then read the manslaughter instruction on negligence, emphasizing that everyone has a duty to act responsibly toward others. He clarified that Donna cannot be guilty of manslaughter based on mere negligence and with excusable or justifiable homicide removed. The instruction remains narrow. Both sides had no objections. For manslaughter by act, Everett will instruct the jury that the state does not need to prove intent to kill only that Donne intentionally committed an act that was more than mere negligence and that it caused death. References to justifiable or excusable homicide were removed. The definition of culpable negligence will still be given, but other references throughout instructions are removed. Instruction 3.5A on principles remain standard.

Italicized portions regarding attempted homicide are removed. The instruction tracks first-degree meditated murder, and the statement's intended Danielle Markel's killing for that charge. Second-degree murder instructions remain noting intent to kill is not required. The defense flagged manslaughter intent wording for additional review. Everett confirmed that no firearm enhancement applies removing language about higher degrees of crime involving a weapon, as there was no evidence Donna possessed one. Judge Everett then reviewed the principal's instruction 3.5B, which

tells the jury that if Donna paid or promised to pay someone else for to commit a crime, she is treated as if she did it herself. And elements 3-3-1 are included with the third element simplified to the crime was committed. The state asked whether the other person should be named, but Everett sided with keeping it generic, leaving it to the jury to determine who carried out the act and whether payment was involved. The defense confirmed it wanted the current 3.5A instruction rather than the 2014. version. For count two, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, the state must prove two things

that Donna Adelson intended to murder, to occur, and that she agreed, conspired, combined, or confederated with another person, specifically Charles Adelson, Catherine Megbanwa, or others to carry out the crime. No particular words or overt acts are required, and the defense did not request any instruction on withdrawal. For count three, solicitation to commit murder, the jury will hear that Donna solicited Charles Edelson, Catherine Megbanwa, or others to commit first-degree murder, and agreed, conspired, combined or confederated with them to carry it out. Again, no words or overt acts are required, and there is no withdrawal instructions. In addition, for solicitation specifically, the jury is instructed

that Donna commanded, encouraged, hired, or requested others to commit the crime. She was not required to take any further acts yourself, an affirmative defense is omitted because there is no evidence to support it. The verdict forms for count one provide four options. First degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, and not guilty. The defense requested that not guilty be listed first and in lower case, but the court kept the guilty options first and embold. All caps. Four clarity. Count two and count three have each two options, guilty. or not guilty. Each side will have two hours for closing arguments. Two hours. Each side, while with the state splitting its time between opening and rebuttal, the jury will receive photos,

discs, jump drives, and written reports, but demonstrative exhibits will not go back with them. Edits were made throughout the instructions for names and capitalization. The manslaughter instruction clarifies that the state does not need to prove Donna intended Markell's death. Standard jury discharge instructions were confirmed with no objections. Well, that was it for today. And I will be back tomorrow to bring you what happens during closing arguments. And then we will officially, officially be on verdict watch just before crimecom begins to. Wow, how that happens. Closing arguments, big day tomorrow. I'll be watching and bringing all of you the latest updates. Thank you so much, everyone. Have a great night, and we will see you tomorrow.

At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using Wellfronts. Chiching! Meet Angela, a wealthfront cash account client since 2023. I lost my job, not having something else lined up yet. I was pregnant with my second. We had to think about how do we make our money work for us. Every month, there's this much that I'm getting an interest in. I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own, and I can trust Wellfront is taking care of. with a wealthfront cash account earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. No account fees, no minimums, and no strings attached. Plus, free instant withdrawals to eligible accounts. Get started at

wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3% base APII as of January 30th, 2026, is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC, member FINRA SIPC, not a bank. Instant withdrawal subject to conditions, fees and eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account.