Joshua D. Zelman

Joshua D. Zelman led Donna Adelson's defense and handled evidentiary disputes from Day 1 onward. He sought a limiting instruction for an email offered as motive evidence, argued that a shared family email account did not identify the sender, and contested the foundation for the document called the Grandma Motion. The court directed the State to continue laying foundation and set limiting-instruction procedures rather than treating authorship as established.

In examining State witnesses, Zelman focused on gaps between source records and conclusions drawn from them. He asked Isom about investigative records not requested and an incomplete employment-record review, Newlin about whether a motion was shared with Donna Adelson and who used a shared email account, and Lacasse about secondhand information concerning her reaction. With Corbitt, he emphasized that cell-site evidence could not precisely locate a handset and elicited that it did not place Donna Adelson's phone at Charlie Adelson's residence. On recall, Corbitt said he knew of no overseas asset transfers and no evidence that Donna knew the content of Charlie Adelson and Katherine Magbanua's communications.

Zelman also tested jailhouse witness accounts. He questioned Byrd about differing earlier accounts and Bernhardt about cooperation, possible criminal exposure, contact with Adelson, and the document Bernhardt attributed to her. In the defense case, Khan denied that Byrd described benefits or a confession, Varnes said Byrd did not attribute offers, a confession, or instructions to Adelson, and Turner agreed that the jail video had no audible discussion, leaving its content unresolved.

Zelman used defense witnesses to develop alternative interpretations of travel, telephone, and family-law evidence. Gutterson and Shagran described temporary travel planning and assistance after Charlie Adelson's conviction, while Guay challenged call-frequency totals and provided limited cell-site testimony. Adamson said Donna Adelson was not involved in her representation of Wendi Adelson, while Bailey characterized the family litigation as routine and amicable, subject to court-imposed limits on comparison testimony. Descalzo described travel plans and possible arrest-warrant discussions, then said the proposed vacation was not flight and that a country's non-extradition status would not prevent an extradition request. Newhouse described Donna Adelson as sounding shocked during Wendi Adelson's call.

Zelman objected to proposed adoptive-admission testimony on Crawford and foundation grounds; Judge Everett allowed it subject to further foundation. He sought time to review a late-disclosed enhanced recording with Adelson, but the court found the disclosure violation inadvertent and nonprejudicial. At the instruction stage, he argued that intent wording could confuse the principal and lesser-offense instructions. The court settled the final instructions and later denied the defense's request for additional calendar evidence and renewed motion for judgment of acquittal.