Jackie L. Fulford

Jackie L. Fulford opened for the defense by asking jurors to separate motive from proof of the charged conspiracy and solicitation. She acknowledged that the State could prove involvement by Sigfredo Garcia, Luis Rivera, and Katherine Magbanua and had alleged a payment by Charlie Adelson, but argued that none of that established Donna Adelson's participation. She also framed the relocation dispute as resolved by the final judgment and returned throughout trial to the State's burden to prove each element.

Her cross-examinations tested personal knowledge and the inferential links in the State's case. Rivera agreed that, as far as he knew, Donna and Harvey Adelson were not involved. Fulford questioned Wendi and Robert Adelson about relocation, family communications, responsibility for the killing, and the source of advice not to speak with police. She challenged June Umchinda's exact recollection and prior statements, Ryan Fitzpatrick's implied view of the family's feelings, and Katherine Magbanua's prior false accounts, payment narrative, and lack of direct communications with Donna after a dental-office encounter.

On financial, investigative, and undercover evidence, Fulford asked Mary Hull about limits in the reviewed records and whether a cash-or-check discount reflected avoided card fees. She elicited that the undercover operation produced no $5,000 payment and questioned Patrick Sanford about direct-evidence limits, wiretap monitoring, travel, Donna Adelson's arrest, and Magbanua's earlier lies. Her examination of Jonathan Grossman used photographs and questions about a safe and luggage to test the completeness of the residence search. Through defense witnesses Ann Elizabeth Cunningham and Tim Kelly, she developed testimony about communications, what Donna had or had not said about checks and extortion, plans to return for a bar mitzvah, and a 2011 Tallahassee home search. The court limited some Cunningham hearsay offered to explain state of mind and travel.

Fulford also preserved evidentiary issues. The court sustained the defense hearsay objection to a proposed slide using an out-of-court statement, but reaffirmed an earlier ruling after Fulford argued that questioning during recorded-call playback repeated material already heard and displayed in highlighted transcripts. During the State's closing, she objected that parts of the argument shifted the burden and commented on Donna's choice not to testify; the court overruled the objection. In her own closing, she argued that coded-language interpretations, cash references, family communications, the undercover call, travel evidence, and the search record remained disputed inferences rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and she asked for acquittal.