Day 8 - May 27, 2022
Judge Wheeler read final jury instructions, both sides delivered closing arguments, and the jury returned guilty verdicts on all three counts — first-degree murder, conspiracy, and solicitation — after requesting an exhibit inventory and a playback of the Dolce Vita recording during deliberations.
Full day summary
11:54:55 1. Jury Instructions
Day 8 opens with a minor verdict form correction and distribution of jury instruction copies, followed by Judge Wheeler reading the full final jury instructions covering the three charges against Magbanua, the principals doctrine, the accomplice-witness caution applicable to Rivera, and the reasonable-doubt standard.
Highlights
Jury Instructions (Final) procedural action Judge Wheeler reads the principals 'hired by defendant' instruction, establishing that a defendant who paid others to commit a crime is treated as if she personally performed every act — the legal foundation for the prosecution's intermediary theory against Magbanua. Jury Instructions (Final) “If the defendant paid or promised to pay another person or persons to commit a crime, the defendant is a principal and must be treated as if she had done all of the things the person who was promised or received the money did, if, one, the defendant had a conscious intent that the criminal act be done; and two, she made or promised the payment in exchange for the commission or promise to commit the crime or to help commit the crime; and three, the crime was committed by the other person.” — Robert R. Wheeler The principals/hired-killer instruction is the legal mechanism enabling Magbanua's conviction for first-degree murder despite her absence from the crime scene — directly tailored to the prosecution's theory that she paid Garcia and Rivera to kill Markel. Jury Instructions (Final) procedural action Wheeler delivers the accomplice and cooperating-witness caution instruction, directing jurors to apply heightened scrutiny to witnesses seeking favorable treatment from the State — a standard squarely applicable to Rivera. Jury Instructions (Final) “You must consider the testimony of some witnesses with more caution than others. For example, a witness who claims to have helped the defendant commit a crime, has been promised immunity from prosecution, or hopes to gain more favorable treatment in his or her own case may have a reason to make a false statement in order to strike a good bargain with the State.” — Robert R. Wheeler The accomplice-witness caution instruction directly governs how the jury must evaluate Rivera's cooperation testimony — the sole direct witness against Magbanua — who testified under an agreement with the State.
2. Closing Arguments
Cappleman argued the rental car records, cell data, post-murder cash, and wiretap calls established Magbanua as the knowing intermediary between the Adelson family and the hitmen; Kawass attacked Rivera's credibility and contended confirmation bias corrupted the investigation from the outset; Cappleman's rebuttal framed the defense theory as a chain of required coincidences and read Magbanua's own texts tying her to the murder's aftermath.
Highlights
Closing Argument - Georgia Cappleman “The murder did not happen until Katherine Magbanua made it happen.” — Georgia Cappleman The prosecution's core thesis stated in a single sentence — the conspiracy predated Magbanua's involvement but only became a completed murder because of her role as intermediary between the Adelson family and the hitmen. Closing Argument - Georgia Cappleman “But don't let the way that they thought they would get away with this case be the way they get away with this case.” — Georgia Cappleman Rhetorical appeal warning the jury not to allow the conspiracy's own deliberate compartmentalization — intended to defeat prosecution — to succeed as a legal defense by creating apparent gaps in direct evidence. Closing Argument - Georgia Cappleman testimony highlight Cappleman summarizes the financial evidence: Magbanua deposited $13,200 in cash in the month after the murder — more than her entire prior year — her deposits tripled in 2014, Adelson Institute paychecks began two months after the killing, and those checks stopped the day Garcia was arrested. Closing Argument - Georgia Cappleman “She was the glue in this conspiracy. It does not work without her.” — Georgia Cappleman Direct statement of Magbanua's structural role — her intermediary function between Charlie Adelson and Garcia/Rivera was essential and deliberate, not incidental, because neither side had direct contact with the other. Closing Argument - Georgia Cappleman testimony highlight Cappleman articulates the prosecution's two converging investigative paths — the Prius leading to Garcia and Rivera, and the Adelson family's motive leading through Charlie — and argues both trails terminate at Magbanua as the single connecting link between them. Closing Argument - Georgia Cappleman testimony highlight Cappleman invokes the principals doctrine through a gun metaphor: Garcia was the bullet, Charlie Adelson was the finger on the trigger, and Magbanua was the gun itself — arguing each part is equally necessary and that Magbanua's absence from the crime scene does not diminish her criminal liability. Closing Argument - Georgia Cappleman “The defendant was the gun.” — Georgia Cappleman Culminating line of Cappleman's principals-doctrine analogy — Garcia as the bullet, Charlie as the finger on the trigger, Magbanua as the gun — designed to explain why Magbanua bears full criminal liability despite not being present at the shooting. Closing Argument - Tara Kawass testimony highlight Kawass frames the defense's core wrongful-prosecution theory: police identified Garcia, Rivera, and the Adelsons as the principals, then chose Magbanua as the convenient connector — and from that point built the case around their theory while filtering out everything inconsistent with it, including Garcia's direct call to the Adelson family. Closing Argument - Tara Kawass “This, members of the jury, is an anatomy of a wrongful prosecution.” — Tara Kawass Kawass frames the entire defense case in a single phrase — not merely insufficient evidence, but affirmative wrongful prosecution — setting the interpretive lens for every argument that follows. Closing Argument - Tara Kawass “Thank God they turned it back on in time: the less you know, the better. Sigfredo Garcia is telling Katherine Magbanua, the less you know, the better.” — Tara Kawass Kawass deploys the minimized wiretap — in which Garcia told Magbanua 'the less you know, the better' — as direct evidence that Garcia was deliberately keeping her ignorant, the opposite of the prosecution's intermediary-mastermind theory. Closing Argument - Tara Kawass testimony highlight Kawass systematically applies each jury instruction credibility factor to Rivera — opportunity to observe, memory, interest in outcome, consistency with other evidence, prior inconsistent statements, felony convictions, reputation for dishonesty — cataloging his trial-testimony contradictions on gun count, trip count, the owl-vs-lion Instagram post, and barbershop location, concluding he fails every factor. Closing Argument - Tara Kawass testimony highlight Kawass deploys Magbanua's refusal to cooperate over six years as affirmative evidence of innocence: a guilty person facing first-degree murder, with maximum incentive to implicate Charlie Adelson and go home, would have accepted a deal — Magbanua refused because 'cooperate' to the state meant telling their truth, not the actual truth, and she had no truth to tell. Closing Argument - Tara Kawass “You cannot convict her for having awful taste in men.” — Tara Kawass Kawass's most rhetorically compressed formulation of the defense theory: Magbanua's relationships with Garcia and Adelson are incriminating only if she shared their knowledge — absent that, they are circumstance, not guilt. Rebuttal Closing - Georgia Cappleman testimony highlight Cappleman presents a five-point coincidence framework — rental car visits, cash spike, Rivera's cooperation, deep-sea fishing text, and Magbanua being positioned between both hitman and alleged hirer — arguing the accumulation makes coincidence implausible and the single simplest explanation is guilt. Rebuttal Closing - Georgia Cappleman “How many coincidences does it take for it to no longer be a coincidence?” — Georgia Cappleman Rhetorical capstone of Cappleman's five-coincidence framework, challenging the jury to determine at what point the accumulation of circumstantial evidence eliminates reasonable doubt. Rebuttal Closing - Georgia Cappleman evidence event Cappleman reads Magbanua's text to Charlie Adelson — 'don't be such a dick to someone that has done something for you' — and her message about having 'a lot of weight on our shoulders,' connecting both to Donna Adelson's statement about feeling haunted by Dan Markel. Rebuttal Closing - Georgia Cappleman “She didn't come to Tallahassee. I can't give you a picture of her in Tallahassee. I can't put her in the Prius, because she wasn't in the Prius. She didn't come to Tallahassee. She didn't pull the trigger. But she's as guilty as everyone else that had a part in this crime.” — Georgia Cappleman Direct invocation of the principals doctrine; Cappleman explicitly concedes Magbanua's physical absence from the murder scene while arguing the law makes her equally liable as the paid intermediary who arranged the killing.
3. Jury Deliberation
Judge Wheeler concludes the jury instructions with deliberation mechanics, discharges the two alternate jurors, and sends the twelve deliberating jurors to begin deliberations. Both sides confirm no objection to the instructions as read. Two jury questions follow shortly after: a request for an exhibit inventory list, and a request to play back the Dolce Vita audio/video (Exhibit 116), which Wheeler orders played in the courtroom with headphones over a defense objection about procedure.
Highlights
Jury question 2 — Dolce Vita audio/video playback — Exhibit 116 objection Defense co-counsel DeCoste argues that only court staff should be present in the courtroom during Exhibit 116 playback to avoid any perception of influencing deliberating jurors; Kristen Kawass cites a Third District appellate decision in support. Jury question 2 — Dolce Vita audio/video playback — Exhibit 116 ruling Judge Wheeler denies the defense request to clear the courtroom, then oversees playback of Exhibit 116 (Dolce Vita audio/video) for the jury using headphones before returning them to deliberations.
4. Verdict
The jury returns guilty verdicts on all three counts against Katherine Magbanua: first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and solicitation to commit first-degree murder.
Highlights
Verdict ruling Judge Wheeler reads guilty verdicts on all three counts — first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and solicitation to commit first-degree murder. Verdict “The defendant is guilty of first-degree murder.” — Robert R. Wheeler The jury's finding on the most serious charge, read by Judge Wheeler from the signed verdict form — the central outcome of the retrial.