Day 5 completed the prosecution's case through Agent Sanford's recalled wiretap testimony presenting the prosecution's interpretation of selected post-bump calls, the State formally rested, the defense's motion for judgment of acquittal was denied on all counts, and Charlie Adelson elected to take the stand — with his testimony deferred to Day 6.
Full day summary
Day 5 opened with Agent Patrick Sanford recalled for the continuation of his direct examination. Prosecutor Cappleman used Demonstrative B while Sanford described the sequence he attributed to the initial undercover approach — Donna Adelson calling Charlie Adelson, followed by Charlie calling and meeting Katherine Magbanua — and Sanford answered that Donna and Magbanua never communicated directly. The session moved through a sequence of wiretapped calls and physical evidence: Cappleman and Sanford then moved through selected intercepted calls and messages; Sanford interpreted a "$65.70" reference as the final digits of the undercover number and said Magbanua conveyed it to Sigfredo Garcia through a school-expense reference. State's Exhibit 114, the Matsuri restaurant undercover video capturing Charlie and Harvey Adelson meeting the day after the Dolce Vita recording, was admitted over a prior defense objection and published. The FBI bump letter (State's 79) was admitted without objection. Sanford testified that Charlie called the undercover himself using *67, and that his first call after hanging up went to Magbanua. The sequence closed with a recorded May 6, 2016 call in which Donna Adelson denied knowledge of the murder and told the undercover to collect the $100,000 reward from police — without reporting the alleged extortion to law enforcement.
On cross-examination, defense attorney Rashbaum constructed a behavioral contrast: Rivera and Garcia used burner phones during the murder, Magbanua obtained new phones after law enforcement contact, but Charlie Adelson kept the same phone number for over a decade, never moved, and continued working through years of arrests and media coverage. Sanford confirmed each point. Rashbaum also established that when police came to Magbanua's home she hid and called three people — none of them Charlie — and that Magbanua told Charlie a series of specific lies about the FBI undercover number, each of which Sanford confirmed. Rashbaum then drew out that during Magbanua's second proffer session Sanford told her directly that what she was saying "just doesn't make sense." Finally, Rashbaum played State's Exhibit 130, Call 989, roughly two minutes past the prosecution's stopping point, surfacing Charlie Adelson's statement — made 21 months after the murder, unaware he was being recorded — that Markel's death "was a tragedy."
On redirect, Cappleman returned to the breakup timeline after the defense framed the couple's early-July 2014 trip as a farewell before the murder. After reviewing text messages, Sanford testified that the breakup occurred around August 25, 2014, more than five weeks after the killing. Cappleman then asked whether extortionists typically operate in disguise; Sanford answered that neither Magbanua nor Garcia was observed that way during FBI surveillance.
Following the redirect, Prosecutor Cappleman formally rested the State's case. With the jury excused, defense counsel Meyers argued a judgment of acquittal on all three counts, centering on the absence of any direct contact between Charlie Adelson and the shooters and characterizing Magbanua's direct testimony as limited to a request to "rough up" Markel. Cappleman corrected the record, stating that Magbanua testified she knew she was solicited by and conspired with Adelson to commit the murder. Judge Everett denied the motion on all counts under the light-most-favorable-to-the-state standard.
The defense then called Kristin Adamson, Wendi Adelson's divorce attorney, as its first witness. Adamson testified that relocation motions are almost never granted — she has won only one in 35 years — and that she told Wendi from the outset it was a long shot. She characterized monetary relocation inducements, including waiving child support, as common and legal in divorce proceedings. She said she was not concerned about Markel's February and March 2014 motions alleging fraud and seeking disbarment of both Adamson and Wendi. On cross, Cappleman established that the phone calls the defense anchored to active May 2, 2014 litigation all occurred after the 3:14 PM filing — at 3:15, 3:49, 3:54, 3:56, 4:39, and 4:55 PM — and elicited from Adamson that Markel's fraud allegations, if substantiated, could have had serious consequences for Wendi's law license. Cappleman also drew out that the comparable relocation deal Adamson described involved roughly $200,000, not $1 million, and that Adamson found the overall case "odd." On redirect, Adamson clarified that "odd" referred specifically to Markel's uncommon step of seeking disbarment of both his ex-wife and her attorney — not to anything unusual about the underlying proceedings.
Court ended early after the jury was sent out and Charlie Adelson completed the required constitutional colloquy. He confirmed he understood his right to remain silent, that silence could not be held against him, that he had conferred with counsel, and stated: "I will testify." After a sidebar on the State's request for an uninterrupted examination window, Judge Everett declined to run late and deferred the start of Adelson's testimony to the following morning, dismissing the jury with instructions to return at 8:30 a.m.
8:03:55