Name: Sara Newhouse — Direct/Cross - Day 8 - Donna Adelson
Uploaded: 2025-09-03
Description: Sara Newhouse, the Tallahassee Police Department victim advocate assigned to Wendi Adelson on July 18, 2014, testifies for the defense about the phone call in which Wendi informed her mother Donna of Dan Markel's shooting.

Sara Newhouse, the Tallahassee Police Department victim advocate assigned to Wendi Adelson on July 18, 2014, testifies for the defense about the phone call in which Wendi informed her mother Donna of Dan Markel's shooting.

← Day 7

Day 9 →

Proceedings

Direct Sara Newhouse - Direct Line 1

Cross Sara Newhouse - Cross Line 53

Direct Sara Newhouse Joshua D. Zelman

1 6:25:34

JUDGE EVERETT: Please call your next witness.

2 6:25:46

MR. ZELMAN: Sara Newhouse.

3 6:26:50

JUDGE EVERETT: Please come up to the witness stand.

4 6:26:51

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

5 6:27:02

SARA NEWHOUSE: Yes, sir.

6 6:27:03

JUDGE EVERETT: You can take your seat. Please speak loudly and clearly.

7 6:27:06

JUDGE EVERETT: You may examine.

8 6:27:07

MR. ZELMAN: Good afternoon.

9 6:27:14

MR. ZELMAN: Good afternoon. Can you please introduce yourself to the jury?

10 6:27:16

SARA NEWHOUSE: Yes, my name is Sara Newhouse and I am currently the Bayboro Wellness Coordinator for the Police Department. Back in 2014, I was the victim advocate.

11 6:27:23

MR. ZELMAN: You're a victim advocate for the Tallahassee Police Department?

12 6:27:26

SARA NEWHOUSE: Yes, sir.

13 6:27:27

MR. ZELMAN: Okay. And in your role as a victim advocate, what does that entail?

14 6:27:32

SARA NEWHOUSE: When you work for the police department, typically it's following up with victims that are victims of crime — usually persons crimes, homicides, suicides, sexual batteries, domestic violence, things of that nature. And it's providing support, kind of being a middle person between them and the police investigation team.

15 6:27:49

MR. ZELMAN: And in that role as a victim advocate, were you working on July 18th of 2014?

16 6:27:59

SARA NEWHOUSE: Yes, I was.

17 6:28:01

MR. ZELMAN: Okay. Did you have occasion to get assigned to be the victim advocate for Wendi Adelson?

18 6:28:09

SARA NEWHOUSE: Yes, I did.

19 6:28:10

MR. ZELMAN: And were you present for the vast majority of her interview with law enforcement?

20 6:28:15

SARA NEWHOUSE: I was.

21 6:28:16

MR. ZELMAN: Were you also present when Wendi Adelson called her mother, Donna Adelson, towards the end of that interview?

22 6:28:25

SARA NEWHOUSE: I was.

23 6:28:26

MR. ZELMAN: And did you have an opportunity to listen to the portion of the interview where Wendi Adelson called her mother?

24 6:28:34

SARA NEWHOUSE: I did.

25 6:28:35

MR. ZELMAN: And I'm going to show you what is marked for identification purposes as Defense 71.

26 6:28:42

MR. ZELMAN: Did you have an opportunity to listen to this exhibit?

27 6:28:46

SARA NEWHOUSE: I did.

28 6:28:46

MR. ZELMAN: Okay, and is the portion of the recording a true and accurate reflection of what you remember from July 18th of 2014 when Wendi Adelson called her mother?

29 6:28:58

SARA NEWHOUSE: It is.

30 6:28:58

MR. ZELMAN: Okay, when Wendi Adelson called her mother, do you recall Donna Adelson's reaction to being told that Dan Markel had been shot?

31 6:29:15

SARA NEWHOUSE: Yes. Yes.

32 6:29:17

MR. ZELMAN: Did this upset her?

33 6:29:20

SARA NEWHOUSE: She sounded shocked, I guess would be the word that you'd say.

34 6:29:24

MR. ZELMAN: And it appeared that this was the first time she was hearing about it?

35 6:29:30

SARA NEWHOUSE: Yes.

36 6:29:34

MR. ZELMAN: And did she make any statements that you could hear from where you were sitting?

37 6:29:44

SARA NEWHOUSE: I don't recall if I could hear, other than reviewing the video, but it sounded like a normal amount of upset given a crisis situation.

38 6:29:54

MR. ZELMAN: At this point in time, I move into evidence Defense 71.

39 6:29:57

JUDGE EVERETT: Any objection?

40 6:30:10

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Subject to that. Objection.

41 6:30:13

JUDGE EVERETT: A lot of qualifications. Members of the jury, we're going to take a brief break. The bailiff will take you to the jury room.

42 6:30:50

JUDGE EVERETT: You can be seated.

43 6:30:51

JUDGE EVERETT: If anyone needs to stretch their legs or use the restroom, please do it now.

44 6:30:59

MS. CAPPLEMAN: It includes Wendi Adelson saying "this is the worst day of my life" before the call connects, and it includes the witness telling Ms. Adelson she did an awesome job on the call after the call doesn't match. So I would object to those two comments.

45 6:32:52

MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm fine. I understand I don't intend to publish it right now, so subject to those objections, no objection to the exhibit once those things are removed.

46 6:33:00

JUDGE EVERETT: Mr. Zelman?

47 6:33:01

MR. ZELMAN: As I indicated to Ms. Dugan when Ms. Cappleman was watching it, I've got to remember how I snipped it, but I don't have a problem removing the comment before and the comment after before it's published for the jury.

48 6:33:16

JUDGE EVERETT: So that's Defense 71. It will be admitted with the proper redactions when they can be made and bring back in the jurors.

49 6:33:22

JUDGE EVERETT: Everyone can be seated.

50 6:33:24

JUDGE EVERETT: Defense 71 is admitted at this time.

51 6:34:55

JUDGE EVERETT: You may continue with your examination.

52 6:34:57

MR. ZELMAN: I have no further questions for this witness, Your Honor.

Cross Sara Newhouse Georgia Cappleman

53 6:35:00

JUDGE EVERETT: Cross-examination.

54 6:35:02

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you hear any weeping or wailing going on at the other end of the phone during this phone call?

55 6:35:10

SARA NEWHOUSE: Not that I recall, no.

56 6:35:11

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you know Donna Adelson?

57 6:35:14

SARA NEWHOUSE: No.

58 6:35:14

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Have you ever met her?

59 6:35:15

SARA NEWHOUSE: No.

60 6:35:16

MS. CAPPLEMAN: So you don't know what her normal demeanor is like?

61 6:35:19

SARA NEWHOUSE: Correct, I don't.

62 6:35:20

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. But Wendi Adelson, her daughter, presumably does know.

63 6:35:23

SARA NEWHOUSE: Correct.

64 6:35:24

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you remember Wendi Adelson making the comment after that phone call that she handled that well?

65 6:35:29

MR. ZELMAN: Objection, Your Honor. That's hearsay. That's exactly what was asked to be removed from the record.

66 6:35:33

JUDGE EVERETT: Please sit down.

67 6:35:34

JUDGE EVERETT: As to the hearsay. Sustained.

68 6:35:37

MS. CAPPLEMAN: No further questions.

69 6:35:39

JUDGE EVERETT: Redirect.

70 6:35:40

MR. ZELMAN: No, Your Honor. Can we just strike the question from Ms. Cappleman?

71 6:35:44

JUDGE EVERETT: Members of the jury, you are to disregard the last question of the prosecutor as it is struck from the record.

72 6:35:51

JUDGE EVERETT: You may step down. Will the witness be recalled?

73 6:35:54

MR. ZELMAN: No, Your Honor.

Insights

Direct Sara Newhouse

Defense victim advocate Sara Newhouse testifies that when Wendi called Donna Adelson during her police interview to relay the news of Markel's shooting, Donna sounded shocked and appeared to be hearing it for the first time. Defense audio recording of the call is admitted with minor agreed redactions.

Case Significance

Newhouse provides a neutral law-enforcement-affiliated eyewitness account that Donna's reaction to Markel's death appeared consistent with receiving the news for the first time, offering the defense a credible counter to prosecution foreknowledge evidence. Defense 71, now admitted, will give the jury direct access to Donna's audible reaction.

Eyewitness characterization of Donna Adelson's shocked reaction supports absence of foreknowledge
Defense 71 audio recording admitted — jury will hear Donna's actual reaction to news of the shooting

Highlights

Testimony

Newhouse testifies that Donna sounded shocked when Wendi relayed the news of Markel's shooting, and that it appeared to be the first time Donna was hearing it — the core defense purpose of this examination.

“She sounded shocked, I guess would be the word that you'd say.”

— Sara NewhouseNewhouse's firsthand characterization of Donna Adelson's audible reaction — the central defense point of this examination and a direct counter to prosecution claims that Donna had foreknowledge of the murder.

“I don't recall if I could hear, other than reviewing the video, but it sounded like a normal amount of upset given a crisis situation.”

— Sara NewhouseNewhouse hedges her independent in-room recall while still characterizing Donna's response as proportionate to the crisis — reinforcing the defense narrative while acknowledging the limits of her own memory versus the recording.Evidence

Defense 71 audio recording admitted after brief jury recess; prosecution's two objections resolved by defense agreeing to redact the pre-call Wendi comment and Newhouse's post-call comment.

People Mentioned

Wendi Adelson Donna Adelson Dan Markel

Evidence Mentioned

Defense 71

Deep Analysis

Attorney Strategy

Neutral law-enforcement witness to authenticate Donna's reaction

Zelman uses a TPD-affiliated witness with no apparent personal stake to characterize Donna's shocked reaction and authenticate the audio recording — lending the defense account a credibility the defense team could not self-generate.

Case Theory Connections

Counter to prosecution foreknowledge theory

Newhouse's account that Donna appeared to receive the news of Markel's shooting for the first time is a direct defense argument against the prosecution's central conspiracy theory that Donna orchestrated or knew of the murder.

Credibility Observations

Memory hedging on independent in-room recall

Newhouse qualifies her recollection by noting she relied on reviewing the video rather than independent memory to assess what she heard — limiting the weight of her direct testimony while not undermining her characterization of Donna's reaction.

Evidentiary Or Procedural Notes

Defense 71 admitted with agreed redactions after jury recess

Prosecution objected to Wendi's pre-call statement and Newhouse's post-call comment before the jury. Defense agreed to redact both segments. The exhibit was admitted in redacted form following a brief jury recess.

Followup Questions Or Open Threads

Prosecution cross not yet conducted

Newhouse's characterization of Donna's reaction as shocked and 'a normal amount of upset' remains untested on cross-examination.

Testimony Themes

Donna's apparent lack of foreknowledge

Newhouse observed Donna sounding shocked when told of Markel's shooting and testified it appeared to be her first time hearing the news — supporting the defense argument that Donna was not complicit in the murder.

Witness Role And Importance

Witness Role And Importance

Sara Newhouse was the TPD victim advocate assigned to Wendi Adelson on July 18, 2014. She is a defense witness called to offer an eyewitness, law-enforcement-affiliated account that Donna Adelson appeared shocked and uninformed when Wendi called her — a direct evidentiary rebuttal to the prosecution theory that Donna had foreknowledge of Markel's murder.

Cross Sara Newhouse

Prosecution cross undercuts Newhouse's 'shocked' characterization by establishing she had never met Donna Adelson and had no baseline for her demeanor; a final question attempting to surface Wendi's post-call 'she handled that well' comment is struck as hearsay.

Case Significance

The cross neutralizes the 'shocked reaction' inference from direct by showing Newhouse lacked a demeanor baseline, and the improper question — seeking Wendi's 'she handled that well' comment — is notable because it mirrors the exact content the parties had already agreed to redact, resulting in a jury instruction to disregard.

Newhouse's admission she had no baseline for Donna Adelson's normal demeanor weakens the 'shocked reaction' inference from direct
Cappleman's attempt to introduce the redacted 'she handled that well' comment results in a sustained objection and a jury instruction to strike the question

Highlights

Testimony

Cappleman establishes that Newhouse had never met Donna Adelson and had no baseline for her normal demeanor, directly undercutting the defense's 'shocked reaction' inference from direct examination.

“So you don't know what her normal demeanor is like?”

— Georgia CapplemanEncapsulates the cross's strategic purpose: Newhouse's 'shocked' characterization carries no weight because she had never met Donna and lacked any baseline for comparison.Ruling

Cappleman asks whether Wendi commented that Donna 'handled that well' after the call — the exact content redacted from Defense Exhibit 71 by agreement moments earlier. Zelman objects on hearsay grounds, the court sustains, and on defense motion the question is struck with a jury instruction to disregard.

“Objection, Your Honor. That's hearsay. That's exactly what was asked to be removed from the record.”

— Joshua D. ZelmanFlags that Cappleman's question sought to introduce the precise content the parties had already agreed to redact — a notable procedural flashpoint that results in the question being struck and a jury instruction issued.

People Mentioned

Wendi Adelson Donna Adelson

Evidence Mentioned

Defense 71 (redacted portion)

Deep Analysis

Attorney Strategy

Prosecution: neutralize 'shocked' inference

Cappleman focuses narrowly on Newhouse's lack of familiarity with Donna to strip the 'shocked reaction' testimony of evidentiary weight, then attempts — unsuccessfully — to introduce Wendi's redacted post-call remark through oral examination.

Case Theory Connections

Defense: no-foreknowledge reaction

The defense called Newhouse to offer a lay observation that Donna's phone reaction appeared genuine and uninformed. The cross limits the probative force of that observation without eliminating it entirely.

Evidentiary Or Procedural Notes

Question struck — jury instruction issued

After the hearsay objection was sustained, defense counsel moved to have the question itself struck from the record rather than taking redirect. The court granted the motion and instructed the jury to disregard the prosecutor's last question.

Impeachment Or Tension Points

Attempted reintroduction of redacted content

Cappleman's question about Wendi's 'she handled that well' remark mirrored content that had been agreed to be redacted from Defense Exhibit 71 minutes earlier on direct. The court sustained the hearsay objection, struck the question, and issued a jury instruction.

Notable Admissions

No demeanor baseline

Newhouse concedes she had never met Donna Adelson and therefore did not know what her normal demeanor was like.

Testimony Themes

Demeanor baseline absent

Newhouse's inference that Donna was shocked is undermined by her admission that she had never met Donna and could not compare the reaction to any prior behavior.

Witness Role And Importance

Witness Role And Importance

Sara Newhouse is the TPD victim advocate assigned to Wendi Adelson on the day of the shooting. She was present when Wendi phoned Donna to relay the news and testified on direct that Donna sounded shocked. On cross, her value to the defense is curtailed: she concedes she had no baseline for Donna's reactions, having never met her.

Summary

Sara Newhouse, the TPD victim advocate assigned to Wendi Adelson on July 18, 2014, is called by the defense and examined by Joshua Zelman. Newhouse was present throughout Wendi's police interview and heard the phone call in which Wendi told her mother Donna about the shooting. Newhouse testifies that Donna sounded shocked and that it appeared to be her first time hearing the news — testimony offered to support the defense theory that Donna had no foreknowledge of the murder. Defense Exhibit 71, an audio recording of the call, is admitted after the parties agree to redact two segments: Wendi's pre-call statement and Newhouse's post-call remark to Wendi. On cross, Georgia Cappleman establishes that Newhouse heard no weeping or wailing during the call and that she had never previously met Donna Adelson and had no baseline for her normal demeanor. Cappleman then asks Newhouse about a comment Wendi made after the call — the same remark that had just been redacted from the audio exhibit. Zelman objects on hearsay grounds; the court sustains. On the judge's invitation for redirect, Zelman instead moves to have the question struck from the record. The court grants the request and instructs the jury to disregard the question entirely.

← Marissel Descalzo — Direct/Cross/Redirect 5 of 7 Defense Rests →