Jailhouse informant Drina Bernhardt testifies that Donna Adelson wrote a fabricated script in her notebook directing her to deliver false testimony about cooperating witness Katherine Magbanua, and promised cash, gifts, and a physician contact in exchange. Cross-examination targets Bernhardt's probation violation, her December 2024 cooperation meeting with prosecutors, and her February 2025 jail release as evidence of self-interest. Redirect establishes she held no current plea offer and had no prior knowledge of the story Adelson wrote.

Day 7 →

Proceedings

Direct Drina Bernhardt - Direct Line 1

Cross Drina Bernhardt - Cross Line 208

Redirect Drina Bernhardt - Redirect Line 343

Direct Drina Bernhardt Georgia Cappleman

1 5:47:06

MS. CAPPLEMAN: State calls Drina Bernhardt.

2 5:47:37

JUDGE EVERETT: Please raise your right hand, Ms. Bernhardt.

3 5:47:40

JUDGE EVERETT: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?

4 5:47:44

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, sir.

5 5:47:45

JUDGE EVERETT: You can take your seat. Please speak loudly and clearly. You can adjust the microphone if you need to.

6 5:47:50

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yeah.

7 5:47:51

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Please say your name and spell your name.

8 5:47:51

DRINA BERNHARDT: Drina Bernhardt. D-R-I-N-A. B-E-R-N-H-A-R-D-T.

9 5:47:57

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Ms. Bernhardt, are you currently incarcerated in the Leon County Jail?

10 5:48:01

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

11 5:48:01

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And are you currently on two different felony cases?

12 5:48:06

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

13 5:48:06

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. On the first case I want to ask you about — is the VOP, or violation of probation, case, is that one of your open cases? And is that a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison?

14 5:48:20

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, it is.

15 5:48:21

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And then also a second, third-degree felony is also pending, punishable by up to an additional five years. Is that right?

16 5:48:28

DRINA BERNHARDT: Okay.

17 5:48:29

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And are both of those cases totally unrelated to the murder case that we're here about in this courtroom?

18 5:48:34

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

19 5:48:36

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And, um, I want to ask if you've been promised anything by myself or any member of my team in exchange for your testimony here today.

20 5:48:47

DRINA BERNHARDT: No, ma'am.

21 5:48:48

MS. CAPPLEMAN: So any leniency or any help with your case, anything like that?

22 5:48:52

DRINA BERNHARDT: No.

23 5:48:53

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Has anyone promised you anything?

24 5:48:56

DRINA BERNHARDT: No.

25 5:48:58

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Is this your first stint in the Leon County Jail?

26 5:49:01

DRINA BERNHARDT: No, it's not.

27 5:49:02

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Have you been in and out of jail quite a few times?

28 5:49:05

DRINA BERNHARDT: I have.

29 5:49:05

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you have 27 prior convictions involving either felonies or crimes of dishonesty?

30 5:49:11

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

31 5:49:12

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were you recently incarcerated in the Leon County Jail with Donna Adelson?

32 5:49:16

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, I was.

33 5:49:17

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did you become friendly with her during the time that y'all were both in the jail together?

34 5:49:22

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

35 5:49:23

MS. CAPPLEMAN: How long were you together in the jail?

36 5:49:26

DRINA BERNHARDT: I can't remember exactly. Maybe around four months.

37 5:49:30

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Were you in the same pod that whole four months?

38 5:49:33

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

39 5:49:33

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes. And when you're in the pod together in jail, is it easier to become friendly than it is on the outside?

40 5:49:43

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

41 5:49:43

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Why is that?

42 5:49:44

DRINA BERNHARDT: We work together 24/7, so.

43 5:49:48

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Can you describe your friendship with Mrs. Adelson?

44 5:49:51

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes. Initially, it was very nice. She actually called me her jail daughter, and she and I got close. How much more detail do you want?

45 5:50:06

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Well, by close, did you talk to each other about personal things, like your life?

46 5:50:11

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

47 5:50:12

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And did she have a nickname for you besides her jail daughter?

48 5:50:17

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes — Sunshine.

49 5:50:18

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did she make paint pictures for you and write notes to you and things like that?

50 5:50:26

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

51 5:50:27

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Approach and show you what I've marked as State's Exhibit 61 — letters that she wrote to you?

52 5:50:36

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

53 5:50:37

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, ask to move into evidence State 61.

54 5:50:40

JUDGE EVERETT: There you are. State 61 is in.

55 5:50:40

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Thank you. Permission to publish, sir.

56 5:50:54

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is this her initials down here?

57 5:50:57

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

58 5:50:57

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And on the back, is that a little note to you?

59 5:51:02

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, it is.

60 5:51:06

MS. CAPPLEMAN: "Dear Drina, I hope your life will be filled with love, joy, and flowers. You deserve only the best because you are the best. Love, Donna." Is that what she wrote?

61 5:51:15

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

62 5:51:17

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did you return this type of favor and make little art and things for her as well?

63 5:51:25

DRINA BERNHARDT: Probably, yes.

64 5:51:31

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did she ever talk to you about her grandchildren?

65 5:51:33

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, she did.

66 5:51:35

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did she tell you anything about the type of relationship that she had specifically with the children of the deceased in this case?

67 5:51:44

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes. She said she was very close with them, and every now and then she would call them her children.

68 5:51:48

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And I want to ask you about whether Mrs. Adelson, during the time that y'all were friendly, ever discussed her case with you.

69 5:51:59

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

70 5:52:00

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And was her bringing up her case something that she did a lot, or was it only one time?

71 5:52:07

DRINA BERNHARDT: It was often.

72 5:52:08

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. So it was something that she was talking about daily?

73 5:52:12

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

74 5:52:13

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And was it a bunch of different aspects of her case she would talk about, or only one thing?

75 5:52:19

DRINA BERNHARDT: It was different aspects.

76 5:52:19

MS. CAPPLEMAN: At some point, did you end up reaching out to law enforcement to report some of the things that she had been saying to you about her case?

77 5:52:19

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, I did.

78 5:52:19

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And why did you do that?

79 5:52:19

DRINA BERNHARDT: Well, initially I did it for selfish reasons, but the more time I spent with Donna, I realized that it was morally correct, and I wanted to get justice for the Markel family.

80 5:52:19

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. So you felt it was the right thing to do, but you were also hoping to get something out of it?

81 5:52:21

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

82 5:52:21

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what kind of thing were you hoping to get out of it?

83 5:52:21

DRINA BERNHARDT: Um, just help — lighter sentence, maybe rehab.

84 5:52:21

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And are you still hoping that that might be the outcome for you?

85 5:53:01

DRINA BERNHARDT: Maybe, but right now I'm more interested in justice for the Markel family.

86 5:53:07

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did Donna Adelson ever talk to you when she was talking about her case? Did she ever mention any concerns about the testimony of her son, Rob Adelson?

87 5:53:17

DRINA BERNHARDT: She did. She said she was extremely worried about his testimony.

88 5:53:21

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. So that was something that she brought up often, or only one time?

89 5:53:24

DRINA BERNHARDT: A few times.

90 5:53:25

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Okay. Did she ever mention to you a state witness by the name of Catherine Magbanua?

91 5:53:31

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

92 5:53:32

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And was Ms. Magbanua somebody that was known to you?

93 5:53:36

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes. I knew Ms. Magbanua from being locked up with her years before.

94 5:53:41

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And how did she first bring up Magbanua to you, or did you bring Magbanua up to her?

95 5:53:47

DRINA BERNHARDT: I can't remember exactly how it was brought up. I just know that it was brought to her attention.

96 5:53:53

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Brought to her attention that you knew Magbanua?

97 5:53:56

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yeah.

98 5:53:57

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And at some point, did the defendant try to recruit you to become a witness for her in this case?

99 5:54:04

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

100 5:54:05

MS. CAPPLEMAN: How did she first approach you about that?

101 5:54:07

DRINA BERNHARDT: She asked me if I would be willing to do it, and I said yes.

102 5:54:14

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And was this topic discussed one time or more than one time?

103 5:54:20

DRINA BERNHARDT: More than once.

104 5:54:21

MS. CAPPLEMAN: How many times can you estimate?

105 5:54:24

DRINA BERNHARDT: A lot. A lot, yes.

106 5:54:27

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what is it that she wanted you to testify about?

107 5:54:32

DRINA BERNHARDT: She wanted me to testify about numerous different things about Kay — mostly about Ms. Magbanua.

108 5:54:40

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And Ms. Magbanua, you knew her by the nickname Kay?

109 5:54:43

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

110 5:54:44

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And so she had some things she wanted you to say about Kay.

111 5:54:49

DRINA BERNHARDT: Correct.

112 5:54:49

MS. CAPPLEMAN: At some point, did she prepare a script for you of exactly what she wanted you to testify to?

113 5:54:54

DRINA BERNHARDT: She did.

114 5:54:55

MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm going to approach and show you what I've marked as State's Exhibit 62.

115 5:55:10

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you recognize State's 62?

116 5:55:12

DRINA BERNHARDT: I do.

117 5:55:12

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is this the script that was prepared for you by Ms. Adelson?

118 5:55:16

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am, it is.

119 5:55:16

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Move into evidence State's 62.

120 5:55:20

JUDGE EVERETT: Any objection?

121 5:55:21

MR. ZELMAN: No objection.

122 5:55:22

JUDGE EVERETT: State's 62 is in.

123 5:55:24

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And publish?

124 5:55:25

JUDGE EVERETT: You're back.

125 5:55:38

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Whose notebook is this?

126 5:55:40

DRINA BERNHARDT: That's mine.

127 5:55:44

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Whose handwriting is this on this first page?

128 5:55:48

DRINA BERNHARDT: That's Donna's. Ms. Adelson.

129 5:55:50

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. So she wrote this in your notebook?

130 5:55:53

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

131 5:55:54

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what is it you're supposed to do with this information?

132 5:55:58

DRINA BERNHARDT: I was supposed to study it and answer it correctly on the stand for her.

133 5:56:07

MS. CAPPLEMAN: So this is what she wanted you to say in court?

134 5:56:10

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

135 5:56:11

MS. CAPPLEMAN: So, for example: "How did you know Donna Adelson?" You were supposed to say, "Everyone knew her. She's been on the news. I've seen and heard about this on TV shows and read it in the newspaper over the years." Correct?

136 5:56:23

DRINA BERNHARDT: Correct.

137 5:56:23

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you read the newspaper?

138 5:56:25

DRINA BERNHARDT: No.

139 5:56:26

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Did you know much about her or her case prior to coming in contact with her in the Leon County Jail?

140 5:56:32

DRINA BERNHARDT: No, ma'am.

141 5:56:35

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what were you supposed to do with this physical script?

142 5:56:39

DRINA BERNHARDT: I was supposed to copy it down and give it back to her.

143 5:56:43

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Copy it into your own handwriting?

144 5:56:45

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

145 5:56:48

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And is this — did you provide this item to my office?

146 5:56:54

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

147 5:56:55

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And was it copied and returned to you?

148 5:56:57

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

149 5:56:57

MS. CAPPLEMAN: What did you do with it once you returned with the original to Leon County Jail?

150 5:57:02

DRINA BERNHARDT: Returned it to her.

151 5:57:20

MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm going to go down a paragraph here. It says that you approached Mrs. Adelson and told her you had information about Kay that you wanted to give her. Is that true?

152 5:57:30

DRINA BERNHARDT: No.

153 5:57:31

MS. CAPPLEMAN: This says that Kay told you that she told Charlie on the night of the murder that some friends of hers went to Tallahassee and killed him.

154 5:57:46

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did Kay ever tell you that?

155 5:57:48

DRINA BERNHARDT: No, ma'am.

156 5:57:49

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. She asked him to give her the one-third of a million dollars that he was going to pay his sister to, so that she could relocate with her children to Miami.

157 5:58:00

MS. CAPPLEMAN: "He went crazy on her. He said that that was going to be an offer to his brother-in-law not to kill him."

158 5:58:10

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did Kay ever say any of that to you?

159 5:58:12

DRINA BERNHARDT: No, ma'am.

160 5:58:13

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And then over here, she convinced him that the murderers think a woman is paying for this. They don't know Charlie.

161 5:58:34

MS. CAPPLEMAN: "She told him she wouldn't tell her friends who he is. She can keep him safe." So she was, according to this story, extorting money out of Charlie, but he didn't know it. He thought she was his friend, but really she was his enemy. Is that the deal?

162 5:58:53

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, I suppose that's what it's supposed to be.

163 5:58:56

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did Kay — Catherine Magbanua — ever say any of that to you?

164 5:59:01

DRINA BERNHARDT: No.

165 5:59:02

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you know — are you familiar at all with Charlie Adelson's trial or his trial testimony?

166 5:59:09

DRINA BERNHARDT: No.

167 5:59:21

MS. CAPPLEMAN: There's a part on here that says "Here, she laughed about how easy it was to extort" — and "extort" is underlined. Did you underline that, or did Mrs. Adelson underline that?

168 5:59:41

DRINA BERNHARDT: I didn't underline it.

169 5:59:44

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. "How easy it was to extort him for the money. He wouldn't have to take her out to a fancy dinner. She could buy plenty of fancy dinners with the one-third of a million dollars."

170 5:59:54

MS. CAPPLEMAN: "She said she fooled her baby daddy, and she fooled Charlie."

171 5:59:59

MS. CAPPLEMAN: "Sigfredo would do anything for her, and he did."

172 6:00:02

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So again, sorry to keep asking the same question, but did Kay say any of this?

173 6:00:09

DRINA BERNHARDT: No.

174 6:00:09

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. "Charlie was scared and easy to extort. What a stupid fool. He believed her that she was keeping him safe from the killers. Ha ha. What a joke."

175 6:00:24

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is that the type -- is that the type of language that Catherine Magbanua would use?

176 6:00:33

DRINA BERNHARDT: No.

177 6:00:33

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you know her well enough to tell this jury that she wouldn't say something like, you know, "What a stupid fool, ha ha, what a joke"?

178 6:00:33

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yeah, she wouldn't talk like that.

179 6:00:51

MS. CAPPLEMAN: That's what Mrs. Adelson wanted you to come in and tell this jury?

180 6:00:54

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

181 6:00:57

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did she give you anything or promise you anything in exchange for reciting this script?

182 6:01:04

DRINA BERNHARDT: Well, when I was in jail, I received packages and phone calls, and I was promised things as well.

183 6:01:10

MS. CAPPLEMAN: What type of packages?

184 6:01:12

DRINA BERNHARDT: Packages are, in jail, just like a bunch of basically gas station food, but it's exciting when you're in jail.

185 6:01:19

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, and what about phone calls? What do you mean by that?

186 6:01:21

DRINA BERNHARDT: The phone calls are very expensive from jail, so she would let me use her phone to call my mother and other people.

187 6:01:29

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, and you said she promised you other things in the future. What other types of things?

188 6:01:33

DRINA BERNHARDT: $10,000, a grand piano.

189 6:01:36

MS. CAPPLEMAN: What else?

190 6:01:42

DRINA BERNHARDT: She promised me cameras, but none of that came to fruition.

191 6:01:49

MS. CAPPLEMAN: No. Okay, and what about pills? Did she mention anything to you about pills?

192 6:01:55

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, that if I needed pills, that I could call a doctor named — I think Obed. I think that's his name.

193 6:02:06

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, and that person would write you some prescriptions?

194 6:02:09

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

195 6:02:10

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And why would you be in need of prescription?

196 6:02:13

DRINA BERNHARDT: I'm a recovering drug addict.

197 6:02:17

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did she tell you that if you were to be released that you could make these phone calls, including this phone call to Dr. Obed?

198 6:02:28

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

199 6:02:28

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, and how were you gonna get these other items, like the $10,000?

200 6:02:34

DRINA BERNHARDT: The money would be through something called Zelle.

201 6:02:38

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, and who is going to send the money through?

202 6:02:40

DRINA BERNHARDT: So Harvey — that's her husband, Harvey Adelson.

203 6:02:44

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes. And how are you supposed to contact Harvey Adelson?

204 6:02:47

DRINA BERNHARDT: Through a phone app called Signal.

205 6:02:50

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Had you ever heard of the phone app Signal before?

206 6:02:54

DRINA BERNHARDT: No, ma'am.

207 6:02:55

MS. CAPPLEMAN: No further questions at this time, Judge.

Cross Drina Bernhardt Joshua D. Zelman

208 6:03:02

JUDGE EVERETT: Cross-examination.

209 6:03:03

MR. ZELMAN: Yes, Your Honor. Just a moment.

210 6:04:14

JUDGE EVERETT: Before the cross, please approach.

211 6:05:14

MR. ZELMAN: Good afternoon.

212 6:05:20

DRINA BERNHARDT: Good afternoon.

213 6:05:26

MR. ZELMAN: You testified that you haven't been promised anything, correct?

214 6:05:28

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, sir.

215 6:05:28

MR. ZELMAN: Isn't it true that you were released from jail on February 11th, 2025, as a result of your cooperation in this matter?

216 6:05:39

DRINA BERNHARDT: I don't know if it was a result of my cooperation, but yes, that's when I was released.

217 6:05:43

MR. ZELMAN: Okay. And so you met with law enforcement — in fact, you sent a letter to a Detective Turner in December of 2024, correct?

218 6:05:59

DRINA BERNHARDT: Correct.

219 6:05:59

MR. ZELMAN: And you said that you had information about Donna Adelson, correct?

220 6:06:03

DRINA BERNHARDT: Correct.

221 6:06:04

MR. ZELMAN: And that you cooperated in the past and you wanted to do it again, correct?

222 6:06:15

DRINA BERNHARDT: Correct.

223 6:06:15

MR. ZELMAN: And then as a result of that, on December 18th, Detective Turner came and met with you, correct?

224 6:06:24

DRINA BERNHARDT: Correct.

225 6:06:24

MR. ZELMAN: And you spoke with him about this matter?

226 6:06:25

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, sir.

227 6:06:25

MR. ZELMAN: And then on December 20th, you were taken up to the State Attorney's Office to meet with the State Attorney's Office, correct?

228 6:06:25

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, sir.

229 6:06:25

MR. ZELMAN: Okay. And then as a result of that conversation, on February 11th, you were released?

230 6:06:25

DRINA BERNHARDT: Oh, if that's how it works. Okay.

231 6:06:25

MR. ZELMAN: Now, I want to back up a little bit. You'd met — prior to being re-arrested in September of 2024 — you knew Patricia Byrd, correct?

232 6:06:27

DRINA BERNHARDT: Correct.

233 6:06:27

MR. ZELMAN: Were you guys friends on the outside?

234 6:06:27

DRINA BERNHARDT: No, just on the inside.

235 6:06:27

MR. ZELMAN: Yes, sir. But you've been friendly before?

236 6:06:27

DRINA BERNHARDT: Friendly, I suppose, for jail. And —

237 6:07:15

MR. ZELMAN: When you first met with law enforcement, or the State Attorney's Office, on December 20th of 2024, towards the end of that conversation, you said to them, "Did I do a good job?" Isn't that true?

238 6:07:29

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, it is.

239 6:07:35

MR. ZELMAN: Now, when you first met with them on that day, the offer that you'd had at that point was five to six years in prison, correct?

240 6:07:42

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, sir.

241 6:07:43

MR. ZELMAN: Okay. Now I want to back up a little bit.

242 6:07:46

MR. ZELMAN: You — know, that violation of probation, you originally — were put on that probation September 1st of 2023, correct?

243 6:08:06

DRINA BERNHARDT: Correct.

244 6:08:07

MR. ZELMAN: Okay. And at that point in time, isn't it true that you qualified for enhanced sentencing?

245 6:08:15

DRINA BERNHARDT: If you're talking about the PRR, is that what you're talking about?

246 6:08:18

MR. ZELMAN: I'm not sure. Did you qualify as a PRR sentence?

247 6:08:22

DRINA BERNHARDT: I think it was actually past the three years.

248 6:08:27

MR. ZELMAN: Okay. I'm going to approach, and I'll have this marked for identification purposes.

249 6:08:32

MR. ZELMAN: Judgment and sentence that was rendered on September 1st of 2023.

250 6:09:17

MR. ZELMAN: Do you recognize this?

251 6:09:20

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, I do.

252 6:09:21

MR. ZELMAN: And it indicates that you qualify for PRR sentencing.

253 6:09:25

MR. ZELMAN: But the State is waiving it at that time, correct?

254 6:09:28

DRINA BERNHARDT: Okay. Yes, it does say that.

255 6:09:30

MR. ZELMAN: And so this is a judgment and sentence — or conviction — for one count of burglary of an occupied dwelling, and one count of burglary of a dwelling, two counts of burglary of a conveyance. Is that correct?

256 6:09:44

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, sir.

257 6:09:45

MR. ZELMAN: Okay. And PRR sentencing means that when you commit a qualifying offense within three years of your release from prison, the court has to sentence you to the maximum sentence day for day unless you have a plea agreement that says otherwise, correct?

258 6:10:03

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, sir.

259 6:10:03

MR. ZELMAN: Okay. So that would mean that this sentence — in essence, the court would have to sentence you to 15 years, day for day in prison, correct?

260 6:10:13

DRINA BERNHARDT: If I went to trial, yes, sir.

261 6:10:15

MR. ZELMAN: If you didn't have this plea agreement?

262 6:10:17

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, sir.

263 6:10:18

MR. ZELMAN: But you did have this plea agreement?

264 6:10:19

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

265 6:10:20

MR. ZELMAN: And you were put on probation?

266 6:10:21

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, sir.

267 6:10:23

MR. ZELMAN: Now, it specifically says, if you violate probation, they can reimpose the prison releasee reoffender sentence.

268 6:10:33

MR. ZELMAN: Is that correct?

269 6:10:34

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

270 6:10:37

MR. ZELMAN: Unfortunately, you did violate that probation, didn't you?

271 6:10:40

DRINA BERNHARDT: I did.

272 6:10:43

MR. ZELMAN: Okay. And on June 18th of 2024, your probation officer signed an affidavit of violation because you started using again, correct?

273 6:10:58

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, sir.

274 6:11:02

MR. ZELMAN: You were re-arrested. You didn't go back to prison, did you?

275 6:11:05

DRINA BERNHARDT: No.

276 6:11:06

MR. ZELMAN: You got a chance for more treatment, didn't you?

277 6:11:09

DRINA BERNHARDT: I did.

278 6:11:09

MR. ZELMAN: Now, originally, in that 2023 sentence, you did an inpatient program.

279 6:11:13

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, at Sisters in Sobriety.

280 6:11:15

MR. ZELMAN: And you completed that.

281 6:11:16

DRINA BERNHARDT: I did.

282 6:11:18

MR. ZELMAN: Here, when you were reinstated in July of 2024, you were stepped down to outpatient, correct?

283 6:11:27

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, sir.

284 6:11:30

MR. ZELMAN: You didn't report to probation, did you?

285 6:11:32

DRINA BERNHARDT: No.

286 6:11:32

MR. ZELMAN: You started using again.

287 6:11:34

DRINA BERNHARDT: I did.

288 6:11:52

MR. ZELMAN: And you strung your probation officer along, lying to them. You did not make yourself available for supervision?

289 6:11:54

DRINA BERNHARDT: No, I didn't.

290 6:11:55

MR. ZELMAN: You didn't follow instructions?

291 6:11:58

DRINA BERNHARDT: I just didn't go.

292 6:12:00

MR. ZELMAN: And you also didn't test?

293 6:12:02

DRINA BERNHARDT: I didn't go.

294 6:12:02

MR. ZELMAN: Correct. And so then you were re-arrested not just for the violation of probation, but also for a new felony charge, correct? What's the new felony charge?

295 6:12:02

DRINA BERNHARDT: Burglary of a conveyance.

296 6:12:25

MR. ZELMAN: Okay. Yes, correct. And so in September of 2024, when you were re-arrested for violating probation and the new burglary charge, at that point in time you were facing 15 years mandatory day-for-day sentencing unless you can reach an agreement with the State.

297 6:12:43

DRINA BERNHARDT: Correct.

298 6:12:44

MR. ZELMAN: And then you meet Donna Adelson.

299 6:12:46

DRINA BERNHARDT: Correct.

300 6:12:47

MR. ZELMAN: Your get-out-of-jail-free card.

301 6:12:49

MR. ZELMAN: And you befriended her.

302 6:12:57

DRINA BERNHARDT: We became friends, yes.

303 6:12:59

MR. ZELMAN: And you would ask her questions about her case.

304 6:13:03

DRINA BERNHARDT: No, I didn't ask her questions about her case. She offered it to me, and I would listen to her.

305 6:13:09

MR. ZELMAN: So it's your testimony here today that you did not ask her questions?

306 6:13:14

DRINA BERNHARDT: I can't remember. Remember, I may have asked her one or two, and we were locked up for a long time, but I didn't go to her constantly and ask her questions.

307 6:13:21

MR. ZELMAN: Now, just a moment.

308 6:13:58

JUDGE EVERETT: Please make sure it's sufficiently clear as it relates to matters that have been ruled above.

309 6:14:03

MR. ZELMAN: Yes, sir, and that's exactly what I'm having ensured done.

310 6:14:09

MR. ZELMAN: Okay. So if you didn't reach an agreement with the State, the court would have to sentence you to 15 years day for day.

311 6:14:09

DRINA BERNHARDT: If I went to trial and was found guilty, yes.

312 6:14:09

MR. ZELMAN: So your understanding is, if you went to trial, you would face 15 years day for day?

313 6:14:09

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

314 6:14:09

MR. ZELMAN: So we're talking about a violation of probation. You go to a VOP hearing. You've already testified that you started using again?

315 6:14:10

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

316 6:14:10

MR. ZELMAN: You didn't show up for probation, correct?

317 6:14:10

DRINA BERNHARDT: Correct.

318 6:14:10

MR. ZELMAN: Okay. So if you went to court without an agreement, you would have to be sentenced to 15 years. Is that correct?

319 6:14:10

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

320 6:15:06

MR. ZELMAN: Now, isn't it true that when you went to meet with law enforcement on December 20th of 2024, you made sure a couple days prior to this to sit down in a location in the pod and engage in a lengthy conversation with Donna Adelson, correct?

321 6:15:27

DRINA BERNHARDT: No, actually, the pod — you can see the whole pod, is visible.

322 6:15:33

MR. ZELMAN: Isn't it true that you told them that you made sure that you sat where a camera could catch you while you sat with my client going over paperwork?

323 6:15:45

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

324 6:15:46

MR. ZELMAN: Okay. And you wanted them to make sure that they could get video of you with my client?

325 6:16:00

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

326 6:16:37

MR. ZELMAN: Just a moment, Your Honor. Did you tell my client she was naive about jail?

327 6:16:39

DRINA BERNHARDT: That she was naive about jail?

328 6:16:42

MR. ZELMAN: Yes — meaning that she just wasn't aware of what went on in jail.

329 6:16:48

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, I may have. I don't remember.

330 6:16:51

MR. ZELMAN: Now, let's talk about that video — I believe the State's going to be introducing that a little bit later. Now, describe for the jury how it came to be that my client wrote down the script that they've introduced into evidence. How it came to be?

331 6:16:51

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes. Donna wrote it, and she and I were supposed to go over it and practice it.

332 6:17:14

MR. ZELMAN: During that time that you were sitting there, did you write anything down?

333 6:17:19

DRINA BERNHARDT: I may have colored or written something, but I honestly don't remember.

334 6:17:26

MR. ZELMAN: Did you take things out of the notebook that you'd already written and show them to her?

335 6:17:32

DRINA BERNHARDT: Probably. Maybe. I don't know. I honestly don't remember. It's been a while.

336 6:17:36

MR. ZELMAN: So you don't remember telling her what to write?

337 6:17:38

DRINA BERNHARDT: No. I didn't tell her what to write.

338 6:17:41

MR. ZELMAN: Your testimony here today is that you never told her what to write?

339 6:17:45

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes.

340 6:17:46

MR. ZELMAN: That's the one thing you are sure about here today.

341 6:17:51

MR. ZELMAN: Just a moment, Your Honor.

342 6:17:58

MR. ZELMAN: Nothing further.

Redirect Drina Bernhardt Georgia Cappleman

343 6:18:01

JUDGE EVERETT: Redirect examination.

344 6:18:03

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Are you advised to say anything other than the truth here today?

345 6:18:11

DRINA BERNHARDT: No.

346 6:18:11

MS. CAPPLEMAN: You have a lawyer that's representing you on your criminal cases, right?

347 6:18:15

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

348 6:18:16

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And he's working with the prosecutor on that case, not me, right?

349 6:18:19

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

350 6:18:20

MS. CAPPLEMAN: To try to get you some kind of deal, not 15 years maximum penalty, right?

351 6:18:24

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

352 6:18:24

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And before your most recent release, you had a five-year plea offer at some point?

353 6:18:32

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

354 6:18:32

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, and as we sit here today, do you have a plea offer?

355 6:18:36

DRINA BERNHARDT: No.

356 6:18:36

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, so you're waiting to get a new plea offer.

357 6:18:39

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

358 6:18:40

MS. CAPPLEMAN: From somebody not me.

359 6:18:41

DRINA BERNHARDT: Correct.

360 6:18:42

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Hoping that maybe it will be better than what it would otherwise be based on this information.

361 6:18:48

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

362 6:18:48

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, but you had already provided that script to us before this most recent release and this most recent violation, and now you're gonna have to deal with accountability for that, right?

363 6:18:59

DRINA BERNHARDT: Yes, ma'am.

364 6:19:00

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And that script — it was suggested, like, oh, you told her what to write. Did you even know any of that story to tell her?

365 6:19:10

DRINA BERNHARDT: No, ma'am.

366 6:19:13

MS. CAPPLEMAN: No further questions.

367 6:19:15

JUDGE EVERETT: You may step down. Will this witness be recalled by another party?

368 6:19:21

JUDGE EVERETT: Ms. Bernhardt, you remain under your subpoena. Do not discuss your testimony with any other person.

Insights

Direct Drina Bernhardt

Jailhouse informant Drina Bernhardt testifies that Donna Adelson wrote a fabricated script for her to deliver on the stand about Katherine Magbanua, and offered $10,000, a grand piano, cameras, and drug prescriptions in exchange.

Case Significance

Bernhardt presents physical documentary evidence — a handwritten script in Donna Adelson's own hand directing fabricated testimony against the prosecution's key cooperating witness — corroborating a witness-tampering and suborning-perjury narrative, and for the first time names Harvey Adelson as an intended bribe conduit via Signal.

State's Exhibit 62: handwritten script in Donna Adelson's handwriting directing Bernhardt to deliver fabricated Magbanua statements
Bribe package: $10,000 via Zelle, grand piano, cameras, jail packages, phone calls, and drug prescriptions
Harvey Adelson named as payment conduit through the encrypted Signal app
Donna Adelson's expressed fear about Robert Adelson's trial testimony
Physical corroboration reduces pure-credibility vulnerability typical of jailhouse informant testimony

Highlights

Evidence

State's Exhibit 61 — letters and artwork from Donna Adelson to Bernhardt, including a note reading 'Dear Drina, I hope your life will be filled with love, joy, and flowers. You deserve only the best because you are the best. Love, Donna.' — is admitted and published, establishing the intimacy of their jail relationship.

“Well, initially I did it for selfish reasons, but the more time I spent with Donna, I realized that it was morally correct, and I wanted to get justice for the Markel family.”

— Drina BernhardtBernhardt openly concedes her dual motivation — self-interest and claimed moral conviction — preempting a credibility attack while framing her cooperation in terms of justice for the victim's family.Evidence

State's Exhibit 62 — a fabricated witness script written by Donna Adelson in Bernhardt's notebook, with instructions directing Bernhardt to copy it in her own handwriting and return the original — is admitted without objection and published to the jury.

“I was supposed to study it and answer it correctly on the stand for her.”

— Drina BernhardtDirect admission that Donna Adelson's written script was preparation for Bernhardt to deliver fabricated sworn testimony — the core allegation of suborning perjury.Testimony

Cappleman reads each claim from the fabricated script aloud — Magbanua's alleged murder-night admission, the extortion narrative, the taunting language ('What a stupid fool, ha ha, what a joke') — and Bernhardt flatly denies each one, including stating Magbanua 'wouldn't talk like that.'

Admission

Bernhardt details the full alleged bribe package: $10,000 via Zelle from Harvey Adelson (contact through Signal), a grand piano, cameras, jail packages, phone calls, and access to a physician named Dr. Obed who would write controlled-substance prescriptions for Bernhardt's drug addiction.

“$10,000, a grand piano.”

— Drina BernhardtCaptures the extraordinary scope of the alleged bribery: cash and a luxury item offered to a recovering addict in exchange for false testimony, underscoring the lengths to which Adelson allegedly went to manufacture a witness account.

“So Harvey — that's her husband, Harvey Adelson.”

— Drina BernhardtImplicates Harvey Adelson as the intended conduit for the $10,000 bribe via Zelle, with contact routed through the encrypted Signal app — extending the alleged obstruction beyond Donna to a family member not previously named in this trial.

People Mentioned

Katherine Magbanua Charlie Adelson Robert Adelson Dan Markel Harvey AdelsonJerome Obed

Evidence Mentioned

State's Exhibit 61 State's Exhibit 62

Deep Analysis

Attorney Strategy

Preemptive Credibility Inoculation

Cappleman leads with Bernhardt's 27 prior convictions, pending charges, and dual motivation before defense cross — a deliberate inoculation that presents the prosecution as transparent about the witness's background rather than concealing it.

Physical Document as Evidentiary Anchor

By centering the direct on State's Exhibit 62 — a tangible, handwritten document — Cappleman grounds the testimony in an artifact rather than recollection alone, making the jury's credibility assessment less dependent on Bernhardt's word.

Case Theory Connections

Consciousness of Guilt

Adelson's alleged effort to fabricate witness testimony and arrange payment through an encrypted channel while in pretrial custody supports the prosecution's theory that she was aware of and complicit in the murder-for-hire scheme.

Harvey Adelson's Alleged Role in Cover-Up

Naming Harvey as the bribe conduit via Signal extends the prosecution's family-conspiracy narrative beyond Donna and Charlie Adelson to Harvey, supporting themes of coordinated obstruction.

Credibility Observations

Mixed Motivation Disclosed Without Prompting

Bernhardt volunteers that her initial motivation was selfish before asserting moral conviction. The candor about self-interest is strategically useful to the prosecution because it reduces the appearance of coached testimony and preempts cross-examination on the point.

Physical Document Corroborates Account

Unlike most jailhouse informant testimony that rests solely on recollection, Bernhardt's account is anchored by State's Exhibit 62 — a physical document in Donna Adelson's handwriting — which substantially reduces the pure-credibility vulnerability of her testimony.

Evidentiary Or Procedural Notes

Both Exhibits Admitted Without Defense Objection

State's Exhibits 61 and 62 were admitted without objection from the defense, allowing immediate publication to the jury without an evidentiary foundation contest.

Followup Questions Or Open Threads

Defense Cross-Examination Pending

Defense has substantial impeachment material available: Bernhardt's 27 prior convictions, her admitted hope for leniency, and any inconsistencies between her account and prior statements to investigators. Cross has not yet occurred.

Impeachment Or Tension Points

27 Prior Convictions and Dual Pending Felony Cases

Cappleman proactively establishes Bernhardt's extensive criminal history (27 convictions for felonies or crimes of dishonesty) and two open felony cases carrying up to 20 combined years, while eliciting that no promises were made for her testimony — though Bernhardt acknowledges hoping for a lighter sentence.

Notable Admissions

Script Identified as Donna's Handwriting

Bernhardt identifies the script in State's Exhibit 62 as written in Donna Adelson's handwriting in Bernhardt's own notebook, and confirms the instruction to copy it and return the original — a process designed to obscure its source.

Harvey Adelson Named as Bribe Payment Conduit

Bernhardt testifies that $10,000 was to be sent by Harvey Adelson via Zelle, with contact arranged through Signal — the first named involvement of Harvey Adelson in an alleged overt act surfaced during this trial.

Donna's Expressed Fear of Robert's Testimony

Bernhardt testifies Donna told her she was 'extremely worried' about her son's testimony, corroborating that Adelson understood the evidentiary weight Robert carried against her.

Testimony Themes

Suborning Perjury via Written Script

Adelson wrote a detailed fabricated narrative about Katherine Magbanua in Bernhardt's notebook and instructed her to memorize it, copy it in her own handwriting, and deliver it as sworn testimony. Bernhardt denies every factual claim in the script.

Multi-Part Bribery Package

Adelson allegedly offered Bernhardt $10,000 via Zelle through Harvey Adelson (routed through Signal), a grand piano, cameras, jail packages, phone calls, and controlled-substance prescriptions targeting Bernhardt's drug addiction.

Consciousness of Guilt / Fear of Son's Testimony

Adelson discussed her case with Bernhardt daily and was described as 'extremely worried' about Robert Adelson's testimony — suggesting awareness that a family member's account could damage her defense.

Witness Role And Importance

Witness Role And Importance

Drina Bernhardt is a jailhouse informant and self-described recovering drug addict with 27 prior convictions who shared a Leon County Jail pod with Donna Adelson for approximately four months. She is the second jailhouse informant called by the prosecution on Day 6 and — unlike most jailhouse witnesses who rely solely on recollection — presents a physical document in Donna Adelson's own handwriting as the centerpiece of her testimony. The script (State's Exhibit 62) and the alleged bribery scheme it accompanied are the direct examination's primary evidentiary contribution, with her prior acquaintance with Katherine Magbanua providing the link that Adelson allegedly exploited.

Cross Drina Bernhardt

Defense impeaches jailhouse informant Drina Bernhardt by establishing she faced a 15-year mandatory sentence when she met Donna Adelson in jail and was released after cooperating with prosecutors, while extracting her admission that she deliberately positioned herself on jail cameras while reviewing documents with Adelson — though she holds firm that she never directed what Adelson wrote.

Case Significance

An effective credibility attack on a key prosecution witness, establishing concrete self-interest motive through documented sentencing exposure and a cooperation-then-release sequence. Several admissions — camera positioning, 'Did I do a good job?' — support the defense's jailhouse-snitch narrative. However, Bernhardt's core testimony that Donna wrote and rehearsed a fabricated script with her was not shaken, and she denied on the stand that she directed its content.

Establishes 15-year PRR mandatory sentencing exposure as direct motive for cooperation
Extracts admission that Bernhardt positioned herself on jail cameras while reviewing documents with Adelson
Extracts 'Did I do a good job?' admission signaling performance-oriented cooperation
Bernhardt's core testimony about the script's existence and Adelson's authorship was not undermined

Highlights

Admission

Bernhardt confirms she asked 'Did I do a good job?' at the close of her first meeting with the State Attorney's Office on December 20, 2024 — while holding a five-to-six-year plea offer — suggesting a performance-oriented approach to cooperation.

Testimony

Defense establishes the full scope of Bernhardt's sentencing exposure: she qualified for PRR mandatory sentencing of 15 years day-for-day on multiple burglary convictions, violated probation by resuming drug use and absconding from supervision, was re-arrested in September 2024 for the violation plus a new burglary charge, and met Donna Adelson in jail while facing that mandatory sentence without a cooperation agreement.

“Your get-out-of-jail-free card.”

— Joshua D. ZelmanDefense's sharpest compression of Bernhardt's motive — delivered immediately after completing the full exposition of her 15-year mandatory sentence exposure, framing Donna Adelson as the instrument of Bernhardt's freedom rather than the subject of a conscience-driven report.

“No, I didn't ask her questions about her case. She offered it to me, and I would listen to her.”

— Drina BernhardtKey denial drawing a distinction between passive reception and active cultivation — relevant to whether Bernhardt engineered the relationship to extract information. She partially retreats from this absolute position at utterance 39781 but does not concede active solicitation.Admission

Bernhardt admits she deliberately chose a location in the jail pod where cameras could capture her reviewing paperwork with Donna Adelson, and that she specifically wanted investigators to obtain that video footage.

Confrontation

Zelman presses Bernhardt on whether she told Donna what to write in the script, including whether she showed Donna pre-written materials from her notebook. Bernhardt's memory becomes selective on everything except the central point: she flatly denies directing the content. Zelman stops cross after her denial.

“No. I didn't tell her what to write.”

— Drina BernhardtBernhardt's flat denial on the central contested question: whether she directed the content of the fabricated script. Zelman ends his cross immediately after this answer, leaving the jury with both the motive framing and this single firm denial standing together.

People Mentioned

Katherine Magbanua Patricia Byrd Josh Turner

Evidence Mentioned

Defense Exhibit (marked for identification)

Deep Analysis

Attorney Strategy

Methodical build to 'get-out-of-jail-free card'

Zelman constructs the sentencing exposure across two dozen questions — PRR qualification, probation violation, drug use, absconding, new burglary charge — then collapses the entire sequence into a single memorable phrase at the moment Bernhardt acknowledges meeting Donna Adelson in jail.

Stopping on the flat denial

Zelman ends cross immediately after Bernhardt's firm denial that she told Donna what to write — leaving the jury holding both the motive architecture and the one claim she is certain of, without giving her space to elaborate.

Credibility Observations

Hedged causation on release

'I don't know if it was a result of my cooperation, but yes, that's when I was released' — Bernhardt concedes the sequence while declining to concede the connection, a phrasing that may read as evasive to a jury evaluating the overall pattern.

Firm on script direction, vague on everything else

Bernhardt cannot recall whether she wrote anything, showed materials, or exactly how the script session unfolded — but she is emphatically certain she never told Donna what to write. The asymmetry in memory confidence is a credibility signal.

Evidentiary Or Procedural Notes

Bench conference before cross — prior ruling on scope

Judge Everett called a brief bench conference before Zelman's first question, and later reminded him mid-examination that questions must be 'sufficiently clear as it relates to matters that have been ruled above' — indicating a prior ruling constraining some areas of cross.

Impeachment Or Tension Points

PRR mandatory sentence — 15 years as the stakes

Defense introduces Bernhardt's September 2023 judgment documenting PRR qualification and uses it to establish she faced 15 years mandatory day-for-day sentencing upon her September 2024 re-arrest — the sharpest impeachment of her stated altruistic motive.

Prior cooperation history and self-identification as a cooperator

Bernhardt's December 2024 letter to Detective Turner explicitly stated she had cooperated before and wanted to do it again — establishing a pattern of using incarceration contacts as cooperation currency.

Selective memory on the script session

When asked whether she wrote anything down or showed Adelson pre-written materials during the script session, Bernhardt answers 'probably,' 'maybe,' and 'I honestly don't remember' — while remaining certain only that she never directed the content. The inconsistency in memory depth is a credibility tension.

Notable Admissions

'Did I do a good job?'

Bernhardt confirms she asked prosecutors that question at the close of her first SAO meeting on December 20, 2024, while holding only a five-to-six-year plea offer — suggesting a performance orientation toward cooperation.

Camera positioning in the pod

Bernhardt admits she chose a specific location in the jail pod so cameras could record her reviewing paperwork with Donna Adelson, and that she wanted investigators to obtain that footage.

Release followed cooperation — sequence unrefuted

Bernhardt hedges causation ('I don't know if it was a result of my cooperation') but cannot refute that she contacted law enforcement in December 2024, met with the SAO, and was released February 11, 2025.

Testimony Themes

Self-interest as primary motive

The cross establishes a complete motive arc: Bernhardt qualified for 15-year PRR mandatory sentencing, reached out to law enforcement offering to cooperate, met with the SAO, and was released — all within five months of meeting Donna Adelson in jail while facing that sentence with no agreement in place.

Calculated conduct in the pod

Bernhardt's admission that she deliberately positioned herself on jail cameras while reviewing documents with Adelson suggests premeditated evidence-gathering, undermining any narrative of organic friendship and spontaneous disclosure.

Witness Role And Importance

Witness Role And Importance

Drina Bernhardt is a Leon County Jail inmate with 27 prior convictions who testified on direct that Donna Adelson wrote a fabricated script in her notebook directing her to deliver false testimony about Katherine Magbanua, offering $10,000, a grand piano, cameras, and drug prescriptions in exchange. This cross challenges her credibility by establishing that she faced 15 years mandatory sentencing with no agreement when she met Adelson, cooperated with prosecutors, and was released — framing her testimony as the price of her own freedom rather than a moral act.

Redirect Drina Bernhardt

Cappleman rehabilitates on redirect by clarifying that Bernhardt's deal is controlled by a separate prosecutor, that she currently holds no plea offer, and — most pointedly — that she had no prior knowledge of the script's content and therefore could not have dictated it to Donna Adelson.

Case Significance

Brief rehabilitation closing two cross-examination threads without introducing new evidence; preserves the core of Bernhardt's jailhouse-informant account.

Rebuts the defense theory that Bernhardt authored the script's content
Clarifies that any plea benefit is prospective and controlled by a separate prosecutor, not the trial team

Highlights

Testimony

Cappleman establishes that Bernhardt currently holds no plea offer — only a pending arrangement handled by a different prosecutor — reframing cooperation's benefit as prospective and arm's-length rather than a direct exchange with the trial team.

“Did you even know any of that story to tell her?”

— Georgia CapplemanThe redirect's pivotal question — framing the defense's script-authorship theory as logically impossible given Bernhardt's admitted ignorance of the Magbanua narrative.Testimony

Cappleman asks whether Bernhardt even knew the Magbanua story she supposedly dictated to Donna Adelson; Bernhardt answers no — the redirect's decisive exchange directly rebutting the defense's script-authorship theory.

“No, ma'am.”

— Drina BernhardtOne-word rebuttal that closes the defense's suggestion: Bernhardt possessed no prior knowledge of the script's content and therefore could not have dictated it.

Deep Analysis

Attorney Strategy

Structural separation of deal authority

Cappleman draws an explicit line between herself and the prosecutor handling Bernhardt's open cases, preempting the inference that the trial team offered leniency directly in exchange for this testimony.

Knowledge-gap rebuttal as closing move

The final substantive question — whether Bernhardt even knew the story she supposedly dictated — is designed to end the examination on Bernhardt's most unambiguous denial, countering the script-authorship theory without extended colloquy.

Credibility Observations

Absence of current deal marginally supports independence claim

The fact that no plea offer exists as of trial, confirmed on redirect, supports the prosecution's framing that Bernhardt's cooperation benefit remains prospective and has not been consummated by the trial team.

Notable Admissions

No current plea offer

Bernhardt acknowledges she holds no current plea offer as of trial — confirming the pending-benefit dynamic while establishing that no deal has been finalized with the prosecution.

Testimony Themes

Deal independence

Cappleman establishes that Bernhardt's potential plea arrangement is controlled by a separate prosecutor, not by the lead trial attorney — undercutting the inference that this testimony was directly bargained for in the courtroom.

No prior knowledge of script content

Bernhardt confirms she had no prior knowledge of the Magbanua narrative, directly addressing the defense's suggestion that she coached or directed Donna Adelson on what to write.

Witness Role And Importance

Witness Role And Importance

Drina Bernhardt is a Leon County Jail inmate and jailhouse informant who testified on direct that Donna Adelson gave her a handwritten fabricated script — directed at discrediting Katherine Magbanua — and offered her $10,000, a grand piano, drug prescriptions, and other inducements to deliver it as false testimony. The redirect is brief rehabilitative examination aimed at preserving her core account against the two most pointed cross-examination attacks.

Summary

Drina Bernhardt, a Leon County Jail inmate with 27 prior convictions and two open felony cases, testifies on direct examination by Georgia Cappleman that during roughly four months sharing a pod with Donna Adelson the two grew close — Adelson calling her "jail daughter" and "Sunshine," exchanging letters and artwork (State's Exhibit 61), and discussing the case daily. After learning Bernhardt knew Katherine Magbanua, Adelson recruited her as a defense witness and wrote a detailed fabricated narrative in Bernhardt's notebook in her own handwriting (State's Exhibit 62), directing Bernhardt to testify falsely that Magbanua had confessed to extorting Charlie Adelson by claiming she could protect him from the killers. Bernhardt denies Magbanua ever said any such thing and characterizes the scripted language as inconsistent with how Magbanua actually spoke. In exchange, Adelson allegedly promised $10,000 via Zelle from her husband Harvey, a grand piano, cameras, jail packages, phone calls, and access to a physician for controlled-substance prescriptions, with Harvey contact to be arranged through Signal. Bernhardt states she reported the scheme partly for personal benefit but primarily on moral grounds. On cross-examination, defense attorney Joshua Zelman constructs a cooperation-for-release timeline: Bernhardt was re-arrested in September 2024 for a probation violation and new burglary charge, qualifying her for a 15-year mandatory Prison Releasee Reoffender sentence; she sent a letter to Detective Turner in December 2024 offering to cooperate; met with the State Attorney's Office on December 20, 2024; and was released from jail on February 11, 2025. Bernhardt hedges on whether her release followed from cooperation but cannot refute the sequence. She admits asking "Did I do a good job?" at the end of her first SAO meeting and that she deliberately positioned herself where jail cameras could capture her reviewing paperwork with Adelson. She denies soliciting information, saying Adelson volunteered it, and is emphatic that she never told Donna what to write — calling that the one thing she is certain of. Zelman ends cross on that denial. On brief redirect, Cappleman establishes that Bernhardt's attorney is working with a different prosecutor, not Cappleman, and that Bernhardt holds no current plea offer — only the prospective hope that cooperation will improve her outcome relative to the 15-year mandatory minimum. Cappleman also asks directly whether Bernhardt knew the story attributed to Magbanua before Adelson wrote it; Bernhardt answers no. The court places Bernhardt under a standing subpoena and instructs her not to discuss her testimony with anyone.

← Patricia Byrd — Direct/Cross/Redirect 5 of 8 Kate Butler — Direct/Cross →

Drina Bernhardt — Direct/Cross/Redirect