4.Stephen Webster — Direct/Cross
183 linesJUDGE EVERETT: Mr. Lacasse, you may step down. You may be recalled at some point.
Members of the jury, we're going to take our lunch break at this point. Once again, I'm going to remind you not to discuss the case with each other or anyone else. Do not look at any news coverage or discuss the matter with any friends or family.
Enjoy your lunch break. we will get started once again at 1:15. Please report back by 1:10.
(Jury exits.)
JUDGE EVERETT: Everyone can be seated.
I hate to ask because I'm almost afraid what will come back. Do the lawyers have anything to raise before we go on lunch break?
MR. RASHBAUM: TI don't know who the witnesses are, but we'll find out.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Can I have a moment with defense counsel, Your Honor?
JUDGE EVERETT: Go ahead.
(A pause in the proceeding.)
MR. RASHBAUM: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Just one second.
CA pause in the proceeding.)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. We don't have anything else, Judge.
JUDGE EVERETT: wonderful answer.
Next time we have a proffer, Mr. Rashbaum, if you can keep your voice down for the information that you don't want the jurors to hear. That wall's still -- something can get through. Keep the volume down, please.
MR. RASHBAUM: Thank you, Your Honor, for the reminder. It's a bad habit.
JUDGE EVERETT: All right. Please be back by 1:10 as well. we'll get started then.
(A recess in the proceeding.)
BAILIFF: All rise. Court is now in session. The Honorable Judge Stephen Everett presiding.
JUDGE EVERETT: Everyone can be seated.
Second scariest question I'm going to ask today: Do the parties have anything to raise before the jurors comes in? Ms. Cappleman?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE EVERETT: Mr. Rashbaum?
MR. RASHBAUM: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Please bring in the jurors.
Also, for everyone watching in the gallery, once again, if you leave while the testimony is taking place of a witness, you'll need to remain outside until that witness has finished with testimony.
BAILIFF: All rise. Jury entering the courtroom.
(Jury enters.)
JUDGE EVERETT: Everyone can be seated.
Members of the jury, I hope you had a restful break. We are going to resume with the State's case at this time.
Please call your next witness.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: State calls Stephen webster.
JUDGE EVERETT: Please raise your right hand.
WHEREUPON, STEPHEN WEBSTER was called as a witness, having first been duly sworn to speak the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth, was examined and testified as follows:
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Yes, sir, I do.
JUDGE EVERETT: You may take your seat.
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Thank you, Judge.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Please introduce yourself and spell your name.
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Good afternoon. My name is Stephen webster. S-t-e-p-h-e-n, W-e-b-s-t-e-r.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How are you employed?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: I'm an attorney.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How long have you been a member of the Florida Bar?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Since 2005.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you represent Dan Markel?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: During what time period did you represent him?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: I think it was May of 2014 until he was murdered.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And during the time that you were -- well, let me ask you, before his murder, when was the last time you had spoken with him?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: I spoke to him that morning.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what was the main goal of your representation of Mr. Markel?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: So I -- I had just started my firm, and, you know, like any small business, you're scared and you're hungry. And a friend of mine called me, Tor Friedman, and said, I have a client for you. And I was like, okay. And he said, He's a law professor. And I was like, okay. And he said, It's a family law case.
And I said, well, Tor, I don't do family law. You know that.
And he said, well, it doesn't matter. He's a law professor. He'll teach you everything you need to know.
And I said, Okay. Well, that makes sense. So I -- I agreed to meet with him. And the night before, I read all the papers, and they were voluminous. TI printed them and actually read every word.
And I -- we had already set up a meeting at voodoo coffee on Tennessee Street, and I really didn't think I was going to accept the case. I could just tell from the tenor of the papers that it was really, really contentious and it just didn't feel like something I probably wanted to get involved in. And -- but I wanted to meet him anyway, and so I met him and I liked him. I liked him a lot. And so I decided I would take the case.
I mean, it's not a prerequisite that I like you to represent you, but in something like that, I didn't want to get involved in a contempt-type case with law professors where, ultimately, it could end up being disrespectful to the court. And I didn't want to be involved in something like that if it was -- if I really felt like it was going to be that kind of a relationship. But when I met him, I didn't feel like it was going to be that way, and so I agreed to take it.
And his primary concerns were he wanted to get more time with his children, if at all possible, but he didn't want to change the -- kind of the time-sharing. He had kind of an unusual request. He wanted to see if there was any way that he could see the children every night when he didn't have them to tuck them into bed and kiss them goodnight. And he said, Look, I'll only stay five minutes. I promise, I won't bother anybody and I'll leave.
And I said, Dan, that's probably never going to happen. That's just probably not reasonable.
And then he was really concerned about parental alienation, which at the time, I wasn't, you know, really familiar with it. I didn't do family law. But I was familiar with it from the perspective of I learned about it in law school and stuff like that. But he was really concerned that the grandmother, Donna Adelson, was really trying to drive a wedge between him and the children.
And he actually told me that he heard her refer to him as "stupid" on a Skype call. He couldn't see her in the Skype screen, but he heard her say something to the effect of "Stupid's on the phone." And he was livid about it, and he was ready to basically kind of go to war over that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did that sort of reference the filing that we're familiar with where "Grandma says you're stupid,” and he was seeking to have Grandma enjoined from having unsupervised contact with the kids?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Yeah. And I -- I didn't have the opportunity to actually talk to him about that yet because he was killed. But it was my understanding that after that filing, he heard her -- actually, he heard her, because that's what he told me. He said, I heard her call me stupid. And -- but she wasn't in the screen but he knew her voice. And so he was very upset about that.
And then the other thing that he was upset about, he wanted the Holocaust diamond back.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So property of his -- family property that wendi had?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Yeah, and he wanted that back.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So what about money? was he worried about money?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Any chance that the case could have been resolved through a million-dollar payoff to Dan Markel from the Adelsons?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: For -- in exchange for what?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: A relocation.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: we've heard some testimony that everything was going well between Dan Markel and wendi in the few weeks leading up to his death. Do you have any knowledge of that fact?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: It's untrue. There's a reason he hired me. He didn't retain me because he needed a friend. Tor basically told me on the -- on the phone call, he said, Look, there's going to be a trial and it's going to be acrimonious. And he needs a lawyer that can go into the courtroom and be prepared to fight. He said, That's why I think you could handle this case.
And that was -- we were heading towards a trial. And he certainly -- you know, I mean, he sent me an e-mail the day before, talked about how he was irate because Wendi, unbeknownst to him, had actually enrolled -- or applied to have Ben enrolled at the School of Arts and Sciences, and she didn't even talk to Dan about it. So he found out the day before when he got called from the school saying that Ben had been accepted. And so he e-mailed me and said, I'm irate about this. He said, you know, I don't think it's appropriate. So no --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So there were bunch of issues still going on?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: He was hot at the time?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And there was some suggestion that Dan Markel was expected to lose all the filings that were currently pending at the time of his death, and wendi was expected to prevail on everything. Do you agree with that assessment?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: You mean, like, with the contempt and all of that?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yeah.
STEPHEN WEBSTER: No. I mean, I wouldn't have -- I would not have got involved if I thought he was going to lose on the contempt. You know, I -- my reputation travels with my clients, too, if they're doing things like that, right? I mean, if you're representing a client who is disrespecting the court, you know, it's hard not to feel like that's bleeding off on you and you're disrespecting the court. In Tallahassee, Florida, if you practice in this circuit, you know, if I disrespect Judge Everett today, you know, every judge in this circuit that matters to me is going to know about it before lunch tomorrow. And it's just -- no. So no, I would not have -- that's why I didn't think I was going to take the case when I read all that.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Seeking contempt is kind of a big deal amongst lawyers, right?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Yes. I mean, you know, contempt is -- you know, it's an ugly -- you know, it's a very ugly kind of prospect. And as a lawyer, that was one of my main concerns is, you know, she was a lawyer, and I did feel like she should be held in contempt. She didn't disclose things on her financial affidavit and Dan convinced me of that and --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: But that was to be determined, right, by a court?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Yes. But in my mind --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes.
STEPHEN WEBSTER: -- that was the only reason I took it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay.
STEPHEN WEBSTER: And, you know, at the end of the day, you can lose your law license for that, you know. I mean, you would -- I guess you would have to report that to the bar. I didn't research it, but the court would refer it to the bar. If the court found you were in contempt, the court would refer it to the bar and, you know, you could lose your law license. So, yeah, it's pretty serious in that regard.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: we heard, I think from both sides in opening, that Mr. Markel was brilliant, but I'm not sure anyone that actually knows about that has told us. Do you have any knowledge of that?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Yeah. I mean, it was -- it was why I decided to take the case. I liked him. You know, he was actually funny. Like, he had good humor about it. Even kind of as acrimonious as all this was, the -- kind of the big picture stuff didn't really -- he didn't have any anger, you know. He was angry about the calling him stupid. That made him angry. But I think in his mind, eventually, a lot of this stuff would -- you know, would resolve and should resolve.
He -- you know, he wasn't -- he wasn't vindictive, you know, or vengeful, and that was a big part of the reason why I was willing to get involved. He was -- I felt like he was kind of looking at it like a business deal still, with the exception of the "stupid" comment. And, you know, so he was funny. And, I mean, obviously smart; smarter than I am, that's for sure so...
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what are a lawyer's ethical obligations to a client in terms of the client knowing what is in the filings that are being filed on their behalf?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: well, I mean, I think that depends.
MR. RASHBAUM: Objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Basis?
MR. RASHBAUM: He's not an expert.
JUDGE EVERETT: Approach.
(Bench conference held as follows:)
JUDGE EVERETT: Response?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, this witness has been a lawyer for 20 years. I don't think it's an opinion what the ethical obligations are. He either knows them or he does not.
JUDGE EVERETT: AS it relates to the rules concerning professional conduct, all members of the bar are expected to know these. Is there a particular area in which you're saying he cannot state what these obligations are?
MR. RASHBAUM: I think she needs to set that foundation, first of all, and I'll also object on relevance.
JUDGE EVERETT: All right. As to foundation, if you can establish he is aware of the rules of professional conduct, I believe that settles that issue. As to relevance, what is your response?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That Ms. Adelson testified that she was not familiar with the contents of the filings. Her lawyers just filed things on her behalf.
MR. RASHBAUM: That's not what she said.
JUDGE EVERETT: So you're trying to impeach, then, as it relates to her testimony?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Correct.
JUDGE EVERETT: All right. The objection, then, is going to be overruled. You will need to establish the foundation of what a lawyer needs to tell their client.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay.
(Bench conference concluded.)
JUDGE EVERETT: Objection is overruled. You may continue examining the witness.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Are all attorneys in Florida governed by the rules of professional conduct?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And are you, as a 20-year lawyer, familiar with those rules?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So what are those rules in reference to, can a lawyer put things in a filing that the client doesn't know about or not?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: You have a duty to keep your client informed. That is an actual affirmative duty on every lawyer, that you have to be in contact with your client, keep them informed of important events that are going on in the -- in the case. There are certain decisions that only the client can make, like whether to testify, things like that, but, you know, there are certain decisions that a lawyer can kind of make procedural decisions on, filing certain things. But you have a duty to keep your client informed of important events.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: If Dan Markel was planning to move or seeking to relocate himself at the time of his murder, would you have known about that?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And was he planning to do that or trying to do that?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Absolutely not.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: One moment, please, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Take your time.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No further questions.
JUDGE EVERETT: Cross-examination?
MR. RASHBAUM: Very briefly.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RASHBAUM:
MR. RASHBAUM: Good afternoon, Mr. Webster.
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Good afternoon.
MR. RASHBAUM: You started representing Professor Markel in, I think you said, May 2014, around that timeframe?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Yes, sir, I believe so.
MR. RASHBAUM: By the way, at that -- at that point in time, what did you specialize in? What was your -- were you a divorce lawyer?
MR. RASHBAUM: Had you ever done a divorce case?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: I mean, we had -- I had done some. Like, I'd worked for other firms, you know, and -- but for the most part, if I was going to take it, me, personally, it would have to be no kids involved and, like, you know, one of those situations where the assets were already, like, agreed upon how they were going to be split up. I didn't want to get involved in fighting in cases where kids were going to get hurt. It's not how I wanted to use my law license.
MR. RASHBAUM: Excuse me. I'm sorry. I'm sorry for talking over you.
what -- what did you specialize in?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: I mean, aS a -- aS an attorney, I don't think I'm allowed to say I specialize in anything unless I'm board-certified. So I'm not board-certified in anything.
MR. RASHBAUM: what did you -- what type of work did you do more of ?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: At that point in my career, I primarily had done a lot of criminal defense work.
MR. RASHBAUM: Okay. So you were a criminal defense lawyer who was going to do a divorce case?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Yeah. I guess that's fair to Say.
MR. RASHBAUM: Were you aware that Professor Markel's previous lawyer had quit?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: I saw in the filings that lawyers had withdrawn and -- yeah.
MR. RASHBAUM: And you never went to court with Professor Markel, right?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: No. He got killed before I had my chance.
MR. RASHBAUM: You're aware that the court admonished Professor Markel in court earlier in the year, right?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: I don't know if I was familiar with that. I read the papers; if it was in the papers. I mean, look, it appeared to me that, you know, it was very acrimonious and, you know, there were lengthy pleadings and filings. And, you know, it was -- it was one of the things I talked to Dan about. I said, you know, You need a lawyer. You need to stop drafting voluminous pleadings, and we need to just get this on the rails and focus on what matters.
MR. RASHBAUM: Okay. MS. Cappleman asked you about court filings and the ethics of lawyers. You recall her asking you that?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Yes, sir.
MR. RASHBAUM: Sometimes you file things. You have to keep your clients informed, right?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Uh-huh.
MR. RASHBAUM: Sometimes you file things, and you're able to file things and you don't have to go over every word with your client, right?
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Yeah, that's fair.
MR. RASHBAUM: No further questions.
JUDGE EVERETT: Redirect examination?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Mr. Webster, you may step down.
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Thank you, Your Honor.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: He can be released, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Have a good day.
STEPHEN WEBSTER: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE EVERETT: Please approach.
(Bench conference held as follows: )
JUDGE EVERETT: All right. I believe Mr. Rivera is going to be next.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No. We've had a change. sorry.
JUDGE EVERETT: who's next?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: June Umchinda. we probably won't get to Rivera today. Let's see how we do.
JUDGE EVERETT: All right.
(Bench conference concluded.)
JUDGE EVERETT: Please call your next witness.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: State calls June Umchinda.
(A pause in the proceeding.)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Could we approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE EVERETT: You may.
(Bench conference held as follows:)
JUDGE EVERETT: Do we need to take a break?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I think so. I mean, I do have another witness I could call, but Mr. Rashbaum advises that could take the rest of the day, and I really need to get Ms. Umchinda on a plane.
MR. RASHBAUM: It won't take the rest of the day now, but it's up to you.
MS. DUGAN: Well, how much -- how long will it take?
MR. RASHBAUM: TI don't know what you're going to ask him, but it will take a while.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: We just don't know where she -- like, she went --
MS. DUGAN: Jason sent her down and we just know she's not out there now, so we've got to go look for her. If Ryan Fitzpatrick will take 45 minutes, we could go ahead and do him.
MR. RASHBAUM: TI don't know.
JUDGE EVERETT: Let's just take a break.
(Bench conference concluded.)
JUDGE EVERETT: Members of the jury, we're going to take a brief break at this point. The bailiff will escort you back to the jury room. we'll resume with the testimony as quickly as we can.
(Jury exits.)
JUDGE EVERETT: Everyone can be seated.
How long do you think it'll take Mr. Newlin to find her?
MS. DUGAN: Got to go to all the ladies' rooms so...
MS. CAPPLEMAN: We'll advise the bailiff as soon as we have her ready, Judge.
JUDGE EVERETT: All right. All points bulletin on the next witness. we'll be in recess at least until 1:50 p.m.
(A recess in the proceeding.)
BAILIFF: All rise. Court is back in session.
JUDGE EVERETT: Everyone can be seated.
All right. Please bring in the jurors.
Ms. Umchinda, you will need to be sworn in front of the jury.
JUDGE EVERETT: Okay.
JUDGE EVERETT: Did you enjoy your tour of the courthouse?
JUDGE EVERETT: I've been here, like, twice before. It's my third time so I'm getting used to it. Sorry for the delay.
JUDGE EVERETT: You're good.
JUDGE EVERETT: I think I'm going to sit until they come.
JUDGE EVERETT: You're good. You may.