Verdict watch as jury deliberates

And it could be her last.

Each side presented their closing arguments today, and the judge has instructed the jury how to deliberate. The jury could decide Donna’s fate by the end of the day, Friday – or beyond.

Donna is accused of helping organize a murder-for-hire scheme that led to two hitmen shooting Markel, her ex son-in-law, in the driveway of his home. At the time, he and his ex-wife, Wendi Adelson, were in the middle of a custody battle as Wendi attempted to relocate to Miami with their two young sons.

The 75-year-old is the fifth person to be charged in the infamous murder of Markel, a law professor at Florida State University. She is charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy and solicitation. The killing has led to the convictions of two hitmen, a middleman between the Adelson family and the hitmen and her son Charlie Adelson, who was convicted in the same courtroom in 2023 after just three hours of deliberation.

Here are the latest updates from the Adelson trial:

The jury is finally deliberating after a full day of closing arguments.

Leon Circuit Judge Stephen Everett gave the jurors final instructions on their duty.

“Do not contact anyone to assist you during deliberations,” Everett said.

“It is important that you follow the law spelled out in these instructions as it applies to your verdict,” he said.

Jurors were allowed to take only their instructions and notes with them when they left at 4:20 p.m. to hunker down in the deliberation room.

Court is in recess until a decision comes back or the judge decides to continue deliberations tomorrow.

Closing arguments played out in Courtroom 3G, the same place the defendant’s son, Charlie Adelson, was convicted in 2023. Donna Adelson is charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy and solicitation, the same three crimes for which her son was convicted.

Assistant State Attorney Georgia Cappleman reminded jurors how they heard about the conspiracy to kill Markel and how it unraveled over the 11 years since his death.

Jackie Fulford, one of Donna’s attorneys, wasted no time in going after the state’s motive that an acrimonious divorce and custody battle led Donna and Charlie Adelson to arrange the contract killing.

Read more about the closing arguments here.

Assistant State Attorney Georgia Cappleman said everything they’ve said is for the jury to decide, but she still stands by the evidence the state presented.

“I tell you what I think it shows, they tell you what they think it shows,” she said.

This case is not hinged on some bad words, she said.

“I’m sorry there’s not a smoking gun, but she was too smart for that,” Cappleman said.

The evidence is based on mistakes, mistakes Donna made, she said. Everyone responsible for this murder should be held accountable for the murder.

Cappleman re-emphasized the text Donna sent to Charlie that said she was outside of his house the night of the murder. “I don’t know why she’s denying that,” she said.

She argued that after the bump, Donna would’ve mentioned to Charlie that the extortion is happening again if it had happened in the first place.

The defense painted Donna as a caring person, but the problem is that Donna decides what other people need and is willing to justify any means to get to her ends, Cappleman said.

“You must not base your verdict on feelings of sympathy,” Cappleman said. “Yes she’s a grandmother, and most murderers don’t look like her, but the evidence has revealed what she is.”

“She was neck deep in this thing,” she said.

“There’s only one truth,” Cappleman said in closing. “Render a verdict that does justice. Find her guilty.”

Jackie Fulford, one of Donna Adelson’s attorneys, cleared up with the jury that they were not attacking Dan Markel by calling the witnesses they examined.

“They’ve been calling this a bitter custody battle for years,” Fulford said, referring to the state.

But it wasn’t, she said, and the defense’s witnesses were to testify to that. Luis Rivera and Sigfredo Garcia followed Markel around before ultimately shooting him and leaving him for dead.

“Those are the people who killed Danny Markel,” Fulford said.

Donna’s name never came up when Rivera testified, Fulford said as she reminded the jury that she had Rivera point out people who were involved. He said Donna wasn’t involved, Fulford added.

Fulford emphasized that Donna didn’t know Wendi Adelson was giving up on trying to relocation. Relocation was the center of Wendi’s and Markel’s argument during their legal proceedings after the divorce happened.

“She gave up because she didn’t want it any more, but she didn’t tell her mother that,” Fulford said.

Fulford admitted that Donna had called Markel “ugly names” during the divorce but this didn’t mean she hated him.

“That proves they wanted him killed, are you serious?” Fulford said. “You call somebody some bad names and that means you wanted him dead?”

The jury is to judge Donna’s conduct leading up to the murder and not once did Donna say she wanted Markel dead or was planning to have someone kill him, she said: “Calling someone ugly names is not proof.”

The state likes to convey theories and spin evidence, Fulford said. It could be easy to think “well Charlie did it and it sure looks like Wendi did it,” but this doesn’t mean Donna had anything to do with it, Fulford said.

Additionally, Charlie’s relationship with Katherine Magbanua has nothing to do with Donna, Fulford said. She pointed to Magbanua’s testimony when she said she was hoping to see her kids again. Fulford suggested to the jury that Magbanua is now saying this to help the state prosecute an innocent woman in hopes of getting something out of it.

One of the state’s arguments focused on Donna’s planner with a note to cancel their disability insurance before leaving for Vietnam.

“They want you to take what they believe that means,” Fulford said. The state suggested this was because they were fleeing and didn’t intend to come back.

Fulford said the birthday gift for Harvey that the state honed in on was paella, not the murder of Markel. She also poked at Rob Adelson, Donna’s estranged son. He hardly spoke with or visited his family during the period in which Markel was killed. He couldn’t know the information he testified to because he doesn’t talk to them.

“This is a guy with an axe to grind,” Fulford said.

You can only make your decision based on the evidence presented to you,” she said. “She’s a meddler, not a murderer.”

Not a single witness connected Donna to the murder, she said. All the state has is that she called him ugly names.

“Shame on her getting involved in her daughter’s divorce,” Fulford said.

Fulford reminded the jury of their witnesses’ testimony that provided them with context about the divorce process. It was said that it’s very common for people to offer financial incentives to settle disputes.

“But if Mrs. Adelson does it, she must be up to no good,” she said.

Divorce filings were flashed on a projector for the jury. Fulford said that nowhere in there was Markel refusing to let Donna have contact with the children, and if he was so worried about it, he wouldn’t have let them stay with her for two weeks.

Donna also had made a loaf of banana bread the way Markel liked it — with chocolate chips — when he was coming by one day.

“But she hates him and wants him dead,” Fulford said. “It’s unbelievable. Us sitting here is actually unbelievable.”

The defense played a recording of Wendi calling her parents at the Tallahassee Police Department to tell them the news about Markel.

“Danny has been shot, and I don’t think he’s going to make it,” Wendi is heard saying as she rubs her head.

It’s clear Donna’s voice is elevated, and she’s concerned, asking for details, Fulford said: “This is not somebody who has planned for him to be killed.”

Fulford argued that the text that Donna sent saying she was outside of Charlie’s house isn’t proof she went to his house after the killing.

“I’m not saying that’s illogical to jump to that conclusion, but there’s no evidence,” she said.

There’s also no evidence that Donna kept her money stapled and stacked in the way that the money was when it was paid to the killers. Charlie kept money this way, she said.

Fulford attacked the credibility of the inmates who came before the court and testified. Fulford said that investigators testified that what the inmates said in court is not what she said when the investigators interviewed them.

All Donna knew about the murder was what Charlie told her two months later — his accusation of extortion. She believed it was the truth so she did what he told her to do, Fulford said.

Donna took the run in with the undercover agent “very seriously.” Fulford then played a wiretapped recording of Donna calling the agent.

The FBI tried five times to get Donna to pay the money, but Donna kept insisting that it wasn’t her and the person should go to the police if they know everything. Fulford asked “why in the world” Donna would suggest that if she was guilty.

The state’s interpretation isn’t what matters, the evidence is what matters, she said.

Fulford explained that first-degree murder means Donna intent to kill Markel had to be present in the mind at the time of the killing.

They have no evidence of her doing anything until after the murder,” she said.

The state has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Donna helped people commit the crime. She referred to the the train of communication between Donna, Charlie, Magbanua and the hitmen.

“This isn’t a train, this is someone’s life,” Fulford said. “It’s Danny Markel’s life.”

Since Donna was arrested, the state has said she was “fleeing,” but the defense says Harvey Adelson, he husband, was trying to get Donna somewhere else to clear her mind because she was threatening to kill herself after Charlie’s trial concluded.

“When Mrs. Adelson got her visa, there was not a warrant,” Fulford said. “She was not doing anything wrong.”

Multiple law enforcement agencies have collected hundreds of thousands of emails, thousands of phone calls, she said. The jury has listening to testimony for almost two weeks but nothing that pins Donna to the crime.

“Charlie, yep,” Fulford said. “Potentially Wendi Adelson, she’s the one who said she hated him.”

“Please take this case seriously,” she added in closing. “Don’t get talked into something you don’t agree with.”

Leon Circuit Judge Stephen Everett released the court for a lunch break after the state presented its nearly two-hour closing argument.

Everyone is to return at 1:30 p.m. to hear the defense’s closing argument.

Assistant State Attorney Georgia Cappleman flashed a picture of Dan Markel for the jury.

“This is Dan Markel,” Cappleman said.

Markel was a professor, son, friend, but “most importantly a father.” He was a “pain in Wendi’s butt,” and in Donna’s butt, she said.

Cappleman said he wasn’t a “bumbling idiot” during the divorce like the defense had painted him to be, but rather, he was a Harvard-educated attorney trying to make it impossible for his children to be relocated.

Wendi Adelson’s nonnegotiable was also Markel’s − his boys.

“The only thing [Markel] was guilty of was fighting like hell for those little boys,” Cappleman said.

The “beloved” professor was gunned down, Cappleman said, and Wendi pointed law enforcement to her family when she told them that her parents had more reason to hate Markel than anyone else.

Charlie was devoted to ensuring he got things done for Donna, who was the “number one woman in his life.”

“[Donna] micromanaged Wendi’s life,” she said. Donna knows what is best for everyone, and when she can’t accomplish it, “Charlie is her go-to guy to get it done.”

From the start, Donna was very involved in Wendi’s divorce, suggesting Wendi seek a restraining order against Markel, threaten to convert their children to Christianity, among other things.

Cappleman reminded the jury of Rob Adelson’s testimony. The estranged Adelson son said his mother has “rigid” ideas of what she wants and things are fine when you comply, but when you don’t things are not fine.

An email from Donna said her life, as well as her husband’s life, would be impacted by the denial of a relocation and that Wendi needed to do everything she could to win − relocation is a “nonnegotiable.”

“Donna Adelson repeatedly paints Dan Markel” as an idiot who can’t take care of his children, Cappleman said.

Cappleman said that Donna wasn’t “kept in the dark on anything in this family,” and she knew that relocation was no longer on the table. The defense previously argued that Donna hadn’t been informed that Wendi’s request was denied so Donna kept scheming up plans to keep trying. Cappleman said this was proven to not be true.

Donna suggested having the boys baptized in the Catholic Church and also offered Markel $1 million to allow Wendi to move with the boys.

“The defendant continues to react to the relocation being denied,” Cappleman said.

“Fight for yourself Wendi,” Donna wrote in an email that Cappleman read for the jury. “We’ll be there to help you.”

“Giving up was not an option for Donna Adelson,” Cappleman said. “Neither was losing.”

Markel would’ve still been alive had he “submitted” to Donna’s will and relocated with them to South Florida, she said. “It was a huge problem, and she made it Charlie’s problem,” she said.

Charlie was kept in the loop about the divorce proceedings via Donna. On Halloween of 2013, Wendi filed a motion to get Markel to comply with their settlement, and Charlie “solicited Katherine Magbanua” for what would become a murder.

He asked Magbanua if she knew anyone who could hurt someone, Cappleman said.

Cappleman recounted emails and other proceedings during the divorce filings. He threatened to get a judge involved if Wendi couldn’t get Donna to stop disparaging him in front of his children.

Markel said he feared the children’s best interest wasn’t being considered as much as what grandma wanted.

The defense tried painting the divorce as amicable and not contentious, but Cappleman said Donna even told Charlie once to not mention the “divorce drama” to Wendi, which implies there was some drama.

Cappleman brought up the birthday party and gift for Harvey that the state believes is code for the murder − the murder being the gift.

There were no birthday gifts for Harvey at the party, according to Rob’s testimony.

Charlie joked about hiring a hitman, but he’d been actively pursuing that option since at least Halloween the year prior to the murder, Cappleman said.

Cappleman laid out the trail of phone calls and texts that pinpoint the hitmen’s trips to Tallahassee. Sigfedo Garcia and Luis Rivera traveled to Florida’s capital city a month before the murder.

Cappleman also showed a note that Donna wrote to herself to notify people that Harvey’s birthday party is off if that’s what they want to do. Her estranged son testified that there was nothing happening with anyone’s health or otherwise that would’ve warranted a cancellation.

When Charlie would discuss the murder with Magbanua, he would often step in and out to call his mother, returning to stress the point that the murder needed to happen.

A detailed timeline of the day of the murder was recounted for the jury. Cappleman said Wendi didn’t call anyone to make sure Markel or her kids were OK after seeing police were at Markel’s house.

“[Wendi] suggests Charlie when someone asked who might do this on her behalf,” Cappleman said. Wendi also expressed relief when her parents seemed surprised that Markel was killed.

Magbanua’s banking records were referenced for the jury, reminding them that Magbanua’s account saw a huge spike after the murder, and she wasn’t employed at the time. Magbanua made a comment that her money was wet and moldy, and Charlie said this was because his mother washed it, Cappleman said.

Cappleman also mentioned that Rob testified that his mother instructed him not to speak to the FBI, and when he informed her that he had, she said “he didn’t know anything anyway,” she said.

Over 40 checks were written to Magbanua from the Adelson Institute, signed by Donna. Harvey, Charlie and her all had signing authority for checks.

“But the defendant is the one who wrote that check,” Cappleman said.

The state argued throughout the case that Donna was detail oriented, but Rob testified that his mother said she didn’t know nor cared what happened to Markel.

“Her total lack of interest in who killed her former son-in-law … is totally out of character,” Cappleman said.

“There is nothing normal in how the defendant conducts herself” after the FBI conducted their undercover operation. In the years following Markel’s murder, Donna was approached by an undercover agent who was asking her for money for one of the hitmen.

Cappleman said an innocent person would look at the paper that was handed to her and wouldn’t walk back down the same street with her young grandchildren where a strange, scary man approached her.

After the operation, which the state has dubbed “the bump,” Donna called Charlie. She said the TV was around $5,000. The undercover never mentioned a TV and Charlie is heard “picking up what she’s putting down,” Cappleman said.

The TV is code for the murder, the state has alleged. “Innocent people do not talk in code,” she said.

During his trial, Charlie argued that he was being extorted by Magbanua and the hitmen. But Cappleman said you wouldn’t have your extorter stay the night with you and be interested in her plans.

This extortion theory doesn’t hold up, she said, because Donna and Charlie repeatedly said they shouldn’t talk on the phone, and if they were innocent they could’ve talked on the phone.

“But they don’t do that because it’s bull,” Cappleman said.

Cappleman continued to press and poke holes in this extortion theory. “They’ve convinced themselves they’re untouchable,” she said.

She referenced Rob’s testimony when he said the last time he talked to his mother was on a phone call after Rivera’s arrest. He brought the arrest up to her and she didn’t say anything about it. They haven’t spoken since.

Cappleman said Donna adopted Charlie’s theory again when she wrote out his story in the script that she wrote for Drina Bernhardt to use to perjure herself in front of a jury. Bernhardt is an inmate who formerly bunked with Donna in the Leon County Detention Facility.

“Regardless of what you think about [Bernhardt and Patricia Byrd], it’s clear what the defendant was trying to do with them,” Cappleman said.

Byrd is another inmate who testified in Donna’s trial.

“It’s true she did not pull the trigger,” Cappleman said. “She is accused of first-degree murder as a principle.”

Cappleman walked the jury through examples that jurors could consider direct evidence: her conversation with her son Rob, telling Charlie the matter involved the two of them, the checks she signed to Magbanua and more.

She reminded the jury of Donna’s arrest in the airport as she was trying to leave to go to Vietnam, a non-extradition country.

“I mean, you all decide if it’s a vacation,” she said.

“Don’t let the way she thought she’d get away with this be the way she gets away with this,” Cappleman said in closing. “Render a verdict that brings justice. Find her guilty.”

Leon Circuit Judge Stephen Everett listed Donna Adelson’s charges and facts of the case, charging the jury with the duty to decide her guilt or innocence.

He read off the elements that the state had to prove to be convicted of the three charges she’s being tried for: first-degree murder, criminal conspiracy and solicitation of murder.

Each count has different definitions and stipulations that the jury has to weigh and determine if the evidence proves Donna is guilty of these counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

“The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty, this means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent,” Everett said to jurors.

If the doubt is reasonable, “you must find the defendant not guilty … If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty,” he said.

The judge said the jurors are to determine whether the witnesses were credible and truthful. He also said they cannot perceive Donna’s choice to not testify as a proof of guilt.

The case cannot be decided based on feelings

“Whatever verdict you render, the verdict must be unanimous,” Everett said.

Donna Adelson agreed to waive her right to have the jury consider lesser and included charges as they weigh her guilt or innocence.

Leon Circuit Judge Stephen Everett also denied the defense’s request from the previous day to have the entire calendar published into evidence. The state had admitted portions of a 2014 and 2023 calendar as evidence, showing Donna had written Dan Markel’s license plate information. Donna’s attorneys requested that the calendar be shared in its entirety.

After being denied, Zelman said he’d use it as demonstrative evidence in his closing argument instead.

The state and defense are setting up for closing arguments, and the jury will enter the courtroom around 9:20 a.m. Everett reminded the gallery again that no facial expressions or indication of approval or disapproval of arguments will be permitted.

“I instruct you to conduct yourself accordingly,” he said.

A jury of 12 – eight men and six women including two alternates – will determine the guilt or innocence of Donna Adelson.

During the trial, jurors have filled notebooks and listened intently to hours of testimony and secretly recorded conversations.

The jury has been admonished throughout to not talk about the case. That changes when deliberations begin between jurors. There has been no talk of sequestering jurors overnight, and it’s unclear how long deliberations may last.

Georgia Prosecutor Cappleman’s cross-examination of legal expert

The Donna Adelson murder trial over the 2014 death of Florida State University law professor Dan Markel continues Sept. 3.

The defense rested its case Sept. 3 after leaving the court on the edge of its seat waiting to hear whether Donna would testify. Leon Circuit Judge Stephen Everett asked Donna and her attorneys at least three times throughout the day if she’d be testifying or invoking her right to remain silent.

As the end of the day neared, Donna gave her answer: “At this time, I don’t want to testify.”

Her son Charlie Adelson opted to testify during his trial two years ago, a fateful decision that didn’t end well. Jurors deliberated only three hours before returning guilty verdicts on all counts. He is serving a life sentence in a South Dakota prison.

Read more about Donna’s decision here.

For best viewing experience for the trial: Download the Tallahassee Democrat app to watch and receive text alerts on when to watch – from opening arguments to the verdict.

The Tallahassee Democrat will livestream each day of the trial of Donna Adelson from the courthouse in Tallahassee. Watch on Tallahassee.com and the Tallahassee Democrat’s Facebook and YouTube pages. 

Download the Tallahassee Democrat app to watch and receive text alerts on when to watch – from opening arguments to the verdict.