Day 8 - September 3, 2025

Day 8 opened with a defense allegation that a sheriff's office supervisor had discouraged correctional Deputy Franklin from meeting with the defense. Judge Everett declined to convene a Richardson hearing — no witness had been disclosed or subpoenaed — and instead brought in Undersheriff Gould, who testified under oath that Franklin had voluntarily declined to speak with the defense after being advised she could not be compelled without a subpoena. The undersheriff denied that any authority directed her not to cooperate. The defense separately abandoned a second unnamed witness it had been investigating. The morning's testimony centered on the character of the Adelson-Markel divorce. Board-certified family law attorney Kristin Adamson, who had represented Wendi Adelson, described the dissolution as a run-of-the-mill parenting case and testified that she had personally won only one relocation matter in 37 years, framing the June 2013 denial as an unsurprising outcome. She confirmed that Donna Adelson never attended client meetings, never communicated with her, and appeared at the relocation hearing only briefly in the hallway. On cross, prosecutor Dugan recontextualized the Adelsons' hallway presence as the rule of exclusion for potential witnesses, surfaced emails showing Donna was upset and disappointed after the relocation denial, and closed by confirming that the May 2014 hearing at which Adamson was to testify never occurred because Markel was murdered. Before defense family law expert Linda Bailey could testify, a sequestration dispute arose: Bailey had attended Adamson's testimony without an explicit court authorization. Judge Everett found the state had agreed only to allow adverse experts to observe opposing experts — not defense experts attending defense lay witnesses — and noted it was the second sequestration violation by a defense witness during the trial. After a sworn proffer in which Bailey confirmed her opinions were formed independently and that Adamson's testimony had not changed them, the court denied exclusion under the Steinhorst standard, crediting Bailey's representation as a member of the bar, and announced a jury instruction would be given allowing jurors to assess whether her testimony was influenced by her courtroom presence. Bailey then testified as an expert, characterizing the divorce as routine and amicable and opining that Dan Markel's March 2014 grandmother motion — which she labeled internally with "insert vitriol here" — would have drawn a judicial admonition and been denied, as courts essentially never restrict grandparent access absent extreme circumstances. She also testified that financial incentives to resolve relocation disputes are commonplace. On cross, Cappleman extracted the day's sharpest concession: when asked whether Markel's murder would have allowed Wendi to relocate, Bailey answered "Well, obviously." Bailey also agreed that Markel's filings were "inflammatory" and that no one wants such accusations in a public record. Cappleman further revealed that Bailey had not been provided Donna Adelson's post-July 2013 communications and had not seen evidence of Wendi forwarding Donna's questions verbatim to Adamson. Cappleman reframed Bailey's dismissal of Markel's filings as "gibberish" by noting that the term appears in trial evidence as an antisemitic slur. After the lunch recess, Judge Everett administered a sworn attorney-client privilege waiver colloquy to Donna Adelson, who defined the scope as post-Charlie-trial discussions with Descalzo regarding her travel and state of mind. Marissel Descalzo, Donna's former criminal defense attorney, then testified that during Charlie Adelson's trial in late 2023, Donna made numerous statements about ending her life if Charlie was convicted, prompting Descalzo and co-counsel Rashbaum to consult the Florida Bar's Ethics Counsel about Baker Act obligations. Descalzo explained the basis for Donna's no-warrant belief and stated she expected to be personally notified before any arrest given her known representation. On cross, Dugan established that any self-surrender discussion predated Charlie's verdict and was not a guarantee, that both Rashbaum and Descalzo had warned Donna she could still be arrested at the airport, and that Donna and her husband had been considering Vietnam, China, or Korea for their post-verdict trip — destinations Descalzo said she never knew. Descalzo on redirect testified that non-extradition country status does not prevent the United States from seeking the return of a U.S. citizen. Victim advocate Sara Newhouse, who was present when Wendi telephoned Donna to report Markel's shooting, testified that Donna sounded shocked and that it appeared to be the first time she was hearing the news. On cross, Cappleman established that Newhouse had never met Donna and had no baseline for her normal demeanor. Cappleman then attempted to elicit Wendi's post-call comment that Donna had "handled that well" — the precise content the parties had agreed to redact from the audio exhibit minutes earlier — drawing a sustained hearsay objection and a jury instruction to disregard the question. The day's most consequential moment came when Judge Everett placed Donna Adelson on the record for her formal testimony decision. Adelson initially said she was "not prepared" to decide, prompting a sharp judicial rebuke and a final five-minute extension. She then elected not to testify. The defense separately sought to admit additional pages from Adelson's 2014 and 2023 day planners under the rule of completeness to rebut the state's flight-preparation narrative; the court reserved ruling. With the jury present, defense counsel Zelman announced the defense rested, and the state confirmed no rebuttal witnesses, closing the evidentiary record. The evening charge conference settled jury instructions: justifiable and excusable homicide provisions were removed by agreement with Donna Adelson's on-record consent; a non-standard intent instruction was given over defense objection; the defense preserved an objection to principal liability being applied to the solicitation count; and defense affirmatively elected the current principals instruction over the 2014 version to which Adelson would have been entitled. Closing arguments were set at two hours per side for Day 9.