Browse sidebar discussions from all 4 trials in the Dan Markel archive, with links to the exact point in each transcript.
The 155 entries below include every sidebar marked in the court reporter transcripts available to the archive.
Counsel disputed photographs offered for identification, including a family photograph challenged as prejudicial and a Prius aerial photograph questioned for authentication.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection to the photograph of Mr. Markel with his children.
The parties addressed a juror's question about whether Dan Markel's house was to the left or right when viewing the area.
Court's actionThe court asked the State to provide State's Exhibit 1 for the juror's question.
Counsel challenged a photograph depicting substantial blood on Mr. Markel's face as unfairly prejudicial, while the State said it would assist later medical testimony.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection.
Counsel disputed whether a witness could offer a trajectory opinion after reviewing additional materials, including an opinion favoring a taller shooter.
Defense counsel objected that an enhanced version had not been provided and sought a Richardson hearing before testimony about marked alterations.
Court's actionThe court reserved the issue and called a ten-minute recess.
The parties discussed the State's remaining witnesses and whether to begin a lengthy witness later in the day.
Court's actionThe court directed an early break rather than proceeding late with a lengthy witness.
The parties debated whether an iCloud phone-number contact entry could be used to show a connection and how the number would be linked to Ms. Magbanua.
Court's actionThe court overruled the hearsay objection, finding that the iCloud contact entry suggesting a connection was not hearsay.
The parties disputed hearsay concerns over phone contacts and logs, including entries connected to Daniel Markel and calls on the date of the homicide.
Court's actionThe court sustained the defense objection to Exhibit 126 and overruled objections to Exhibits 70, 71, 72, and 74, admitting those exhibits.
The prosecutor sought to recall Mr. Brown to introduce the original bus footage after concerns were raised about alterations to the admitted disk.
Defense counsel objected to material proposed for display to the jury because it had not been provided for review.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection, characterizing the material as a demonstrative aid.
The defense sought to explore an alternative explanation involving phone numbers and cell data beyond the timeframe covered on direct examination.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection as outside the scope of direct examination and permitted the defense to recall the technical witness.
Counsel discussed objections to juror questions about a phone number on a demonstrative and other phone activity that could contact a cell tower.
Court's actionThe court instructed that the question about the phone number marked “new” would not be asked and nothing would be said about it.
Counsel disputed the foundation for voice identification and whether a highlighted phone-call summary had been provided in discovery.
Court's actionThe court overruled the voice-opinion objection, treated the disclosure issue as a Richardson hearing, and reserved ruling pending clarification of what documentation had been provided.
The sidebar addressed limits on questioning about Rivera's Latin King involvement and alleged connections to other members.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection to family-heritage questioning, while allowing inquiry into Rivera's Latin King affiliation and position.
At sidebar, counsel discussed whether a question about prior drug dealing could be supported by conduct addressed in the witness's factual proffer.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection, finding the question too broad.
Counsel sought to admit Mr. Rivera's October 4, 2016 statement to law enforcement without publishing it to the jury at that time.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection at that time, finding it was not the appropriate time to admit the statement.
The court raised concern that a proposed question could draw a comment on the client's right to remain silent, and counsel withdrew it.
Court's actionThe court instructed that counsel could not later complain if the question elicited a comment on the client's right to remain silent.
Counsel disputed testimony suggesting Garcia sold cocaine and the limits on further questioning about it.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection to the follow-up question, denied the mistrial motion, and overruled the request to pursue how cocaine use was paid for.
Counsel objected to testimony characterizing conversations as code and sought a Daubert hearing if Sergeant Corbitt were offered as an expert.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection, finding the explanation of minimization necessary to explain how decisions were made.
Counsel raised concern that testimony about 2016 call-detail records could imply records existed beyond early 2016, then withdrew the issue.
The prosecutor sought reconsideration of a ruling limiting questions about whether Charlie identified Katherine Magbanua without Donna stating her name.
Court's actionThe court declined to revisit its prior ruling.
Counsel objected to unredacted language in a document, arguing it could be viewed negatively by some jurors.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection.
Defense counsel raised concern that testimony about an initial interview could mislead or confuse the jury despite a redaction of the invocation.
Court's actionThe court instructed that the jury leave the courtroom.
Counsel disputed whether a Facebook photograph supported impeachment concerning when the person was working.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection to the proposed Facebook photograph.
Defense counsel raised lack of notice and documentation concerning a possible meeting between an agent and Whitney.
Court's actionThe court declined the requested recess and directed the parties to move on.
Counsel discussed using limited portions of calls to impeach an investigator while preserving the prior hearsay objection.
Court's actionThe judge said he would revisit the prior suppression ruling if the substance of the Adelson calls was introduced, without prejudging whether that would occur call by call or more broadly.
The parties disputed the State's use of previously authenticated text messages on redirect concerning the witness's investigation and Magbanua's employment.
Court's actionThe court overruled the defense objection and instructed the State to lay a foundation that the witness was aware of the information.
Counsel discussed a motion-in-limine concern about investigative-opinion testimony and the defense's treatment of the arrest.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection and permitted testimony on whether the arrest procedure was unusual.
At sidebar, the court and counsel reviewed juror questions about financial records, employment, searches for the gun, an arrest, and calls to an undercover number.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection to asking whether Garcia's tax returns matched his deposits because it exceeded the witness's prior examination.
The parties disputed whether testimony about an attorney's call after Magbanua's arrest was admissible to show how arrest information was conveyed.
Court's actionThe court excluded the proposed testimony, finding its potential prejudice outweighed its probative value.
The parties discussed how to address a juror's question after an objection to a follow-up question about a call from Charles Adelson's attorney.
Court's actionThe court denied the mistrial motion and declined to allow the proposed immunity matter, while considering a reminder that questions are not evidence and jurors should not speculate about answers.
The parties discussed proposed summary exhibits of Katherine Magbanua's tax information and defense objections concerning late disclosure and potential prejudice.
Court's actionThe court overruled the defense objection and directed that the proceeding continue.
Counsel discussed whether the email, phone records, and extracted messages sufficiently connected the communications to the asserted participants.
Court's actionThe court overruled the relevance objection at that point.
The parties disputed whether a prior discussion with Katherine Magbanua could be used for impeachment or was protected as negotiation-related.
Court's actionThe court sustained the State's objection and allowed the parties to make a later proffer outside the jury's presence if they could show the discussions were different from negotiations.
The parties disputed whether statements concerning Juan Marcos Vega could be used to challenge how the investigation was conducted.
Court's actionThe court sustained the hearsay objection, allowing inquiry into whether the witness interviewed Vega but not the substance of Vega's statements.
The record notes that an off-the-record sidebar conference occurred.
Counsel disputed questions about an alleged affair and the permissible scope of relationship-conflict evidence.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection and denied severance, while directing counsel not to explore specific acts of domestic violence.
Counsel disputed whether a question about a news article and the witness's awareness of the State's desire for cooperation would improperly enter excluded plea-related topics.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection to the proposed question but instructed counsel not to revisit plea discussions or negotiations.
The court reviewed jury questions about promotions, employment, tips, tax forms, and food stamps, then addressed a defense photograph and cash-related demonstrative.
Court's actionDefense Exhibit 41 was admitted without objection; Exhibit 42 was permitted for demonstrative use only and was not admitted as evidence.
The parties disputed defense text-message exhibits offered to address alleged loans, work for the Adelson Institute, and a night job, then revisited the hearsay issue for wire call J.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection to the proposed night-job exhibit and declined to revisit the hearsay objection to wire call J.
The court and counsel discussed ending for the day and completing motions and the charge conference before beginning instructions and closing arguments the next morning.
Court's actionThe court instructed that the jury be sent home for the night and set judicial motions and the charge conference before instructions and closing arguments the next morning.
Counsel raised a cumulative-evidence concern about photographs showing different angles of the same injury.
Court's actionThe court found the images were not cumulative and admitted them.
Counsel clarified that the materials had been available previously, and the defense withdrew its objection.
The sidebar addressed whether a witness was consulting handwritten notes, reports, or both while testifying.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to establish on the record whether the witness was referring to a report to refresh recollection.
The parties discussed whether testimony about phone calls following Magbanua's call could improperly suggest a connection between defendants.
Court's actionThe court found the proposed phone-call evidence relevant and admissible.
Counsel sought to impeach testimony that no evidence showed Magbanua worked at the Adelson Institute by referring to a wiretap statement.
Court's actionThe court allowed questioning about the April 15 wiretap for impeachment.
The parties disputed whether proposed deposition-based questioning about a witness leaving jail improperly concerned an offer of immunity.
Court's actionThe court did not allow the proposed questioning, treating it as an offer of immunity.
The parties disputed whether a witness could be asked about the defendant's prior-trial testimony and whether that testimony could later be offered in the case.
Court's actionThe court barred the proposed question and declined to allow the prior testimony at that point.
Defense counsel challenged the presentation of iMessages as combining communications from different days and times, while the prosecutor said the exhibit would be used for this line of questioning.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to speed up and stated that recross would not occur unless questioning covered something different.
Counsel discussed authenticating a phone-download report and postponing cross-examination so the witness could review the relevant documents.
Court's actionThe court directed that the witness remain outside, review the items, and return for cross-examination after the break.
Counsel addressed whether documents could be used for motive and raised concerns about statements being presented to the jury before objection.
Court's actionThe court declined reconsideration, barring the document and questions that would reveal its statements while permitting some general questions.
Counsel disputed whether the witness could be questioned about a prior reference to a third trip despite later saying there had been only two trips.
Court's actionThe court allowed the defense to confront the witness with the prior third-trip statement and permitted rehabilitation with the statement that there were only two trips.
The parties disputed whether a cell-phone map presentation was an admissible summary or an advocacy-oriented demonstrative, including how it described locations and communications.
Court's actionThe court allowed the map presentation and other header pages, but required removal of the item already in evidence and a header that attributed movements directly to Ms. Magbanua.
The parties disputed whether the evidence supported identifying a phone number on a demonstrative as Luis Rivera's.
Court's actionThe court barred referring to the number as Luis Rivera's and instructed the jury to disregard information identifying it as his phone number.
Counsel disputed whether a phone number shown on a slide could be attributed to Anthony Ortiz without supporting records or direct testimony.
Court's actionThe court allowed the testimony, with cross-examination available on the uncertainty over the number's attribution.
Counsel disputed whether a witness who had testified about bank and employment records could be questioned about reviewed messages concerning a vehicle-registration exchange.
Court's actionThe court allowed counsel to use the reviewed messages either to refresh the witness's recollection or to impeach her.
Counsel disputed a suggestion that a prospective witness had invoked the Fifth Amendment and requested a curative instruction.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection, directed counsel not to ask the question, and declined a curative instruction.
The court discussed accommodating two jurors' Thursday graduation commitments and whether the jury should be sequestered during deliberations.
Court's actionThe court decided the jury would not be sequestered and would not receive the case late Friday for a brief deliberation before the weekend.
The sidebar addressed a camera operator’s apparent mistake and whether it warranted an immediate instruction to the jury.
Court's actionThe court directed counsel to warn the camera operator that another mistake could result in restricted camera access, and decided to wait for any juror concern rather than give an instruction immediately.
Counsel debated whether a brief statement attributed to Luis Rivera could be introduced for a non-hearsay purpose related to later cross-examination.
Court's actionThe court allowed the statement into evidence over the hearsay objection.
The parties disputed whether another witness could be used to impeach Rivera concerning prior statements about three trips.
Court's actionThe court allowed impeachment of Rivera with an out-of-court statement after confirming the statement had been made in court.
Counsel raised concerns that media and bloggers could capture private notes and conversations and might discuss the case near jurors.
Court's actionThe judge said the media would be instructed not to zoom in on counsel tables and that no one may interfere with jurors or the trial.
The court discussed whether to pause before the first witness and the need for a break.
Court's actionThe court ordered a recess.
The defense raised an improper-comment objection, and the State agreed to strike the comment.
Defense requested a copy of the email exhibit pages being used during the witness examination.
Court's actionThe court ordered a brief break before the examination continued.
Counsel discussed the expected length of the examination and how to avoid interrupting the witness's testimony in a way that could affect jury retention.
Court's actionThe court directed counsel to begin and set a 5:45 stop time, with the witness to resume in the morning.
The parties debated whether a document concerning legal options for moving children and furniture was relevant and admissible to show Wendi's state of mind.
Court's actionThe court permitted the document to be admitted.
The parties discussed stipulating to identification of voices on calls and proceeding with the witness.
Defense raised concerns about undisclosed witness-interview material before questioning proceeded.
Court's actionThe court found no additional matter to address and directed the proceedings to continue.
Counsel disputed whether an officer's words could be used for impeachment without first following the proper procedure.
Court's actionThe court allowed counsel to restart and lay the proper foundation for impeachment.
The parties discussed proceeding with two brief out-of-town witness examinations before lunch.
Court's actionThe court directed that the two proposed witnesses be called and approved a five-minute break.
The court raised whether a transcript authenticated as the Dolce Vita recording would be offered into evidence, noting it had previously been disputed.
Court's actionThe court instructed the parties to address any argument over the transcript when the State is ready to offer it.
The parties discussed ending for the evening and postponing the Dolce transcript issue until the next morning.
Court's actionThe court instructed that the Dolce transcript issue would be taken up at 8:30 the following morning.
Counsel disputed whether unadmitted text messages could be used to challenge the context of a witness's summary testimony.
Court's actionThe court permitted contextual questioning about messages addressed on direct, but barred verbatim reading of unadmitted messages unless used for specific impeachment.
Counsel discussed whether a juror may have heard courtroom comments and how to conduct a follow-up inquiry.
Court's actionThe court declined to exclude the public from any inquiry and accepted a follow-up question through the bailiff.
The sidebar addressed a deputy's note about possible gallery-related disruption and a proposed instruction that jurors disregard reactions in the gallery.
Court's actionThe court denied the State's request for a five-minute recess extension.
Counsel addressed a gallery issue involving the victim's elderly mother and requested that she be permitted to return.
Court's actionThe court indicated the victim's mother could return.
The parties disputed whether call-communication graphs accurately reflected the underlying records and could be shown during witness examination.
Court's actionThe court allowed the call graphs to be used as a demonstrative, but instructed counsel to move on from any graph the witness says is inaccurate.
Counsel disputed whether a proposed text message could be considered without earlier messages that allegedly supplied its context.
Court's actionThe court ordered a 10-minute break.
The parties discussed ending early during a lengthy recordings witness and allowing the defense time afterward to consult with its client about whether he would testify.
Court's actionThe court set a target stopping point around 4:45 or 5:00 at a natural break in the recordings and said the defense would receive time after the witness to make its decision.
Counsel disputed whether proposed text-message evidence was self-serving hearsay or relevant to state of mind and impeachment.
Court's actionThe court overruled the hearsay objection and instructed counsel to lay a foundation establishing the items were true and correct.
The parties disputed whether text messages could be used for impeachment or to address the alleged motive rather than for their truth.
Court's actionThe court permitted the text messages as evidence bearing on the stated motive, while cautioning that impeachment without first confronting Ms. Magbanua with the statement would be problematic.
Counsel discussed whether a broad set of text messages could be used to show the defendant's ordinary activities and state of mind during the relevant period.
Court's actionThe court directed counsel to identify the most relevant text-message portions addressing state of mind without unnecessarily embarrassing the parties, and allowed the State to review the proposed defense exhibit before a break.
Counsel discussed questioning about selected text messages and potentially offering them into evidence later.
Court's actionThe court allowed questioning about the text messages to continue, with the State reserving contemporaneous objections.
Counsel advised that examination of the first three recorded wires would likely take 20 to 30 minutes.
Court's actionThe court directed that a break be taken at that point.
Defense counsel reported that people seated behind the prosecution table were allegedly shaking their heads or gesturing.
Court's actionThe judge said he would notify the people behind the prosecution table before they left.
The sidebar addressed audio working in headphones but not through the speaker.
Court's actionThe court instructed that the audio person be asked to come over.
Counsel said he could proceed without playing the material after the court asked about a teaching commitment.
Counsel confirmed that Call Y was already in evidence but had not yet been played for the jury.
Court's actionThe court instructed that Call Y could be played.
The parties discussed limiting the next day’s proceedings and postponing jury instructions and closing arguments until Monday.
Court's actionThe court approved ending the next day’s proceedings early, with jury instructions and closing arguments to occur Monday.
The parties disputed whether questioning about a jet ski theft and the witness's failure to contact police was relevant and tied to admitted wire calls.
Court's actionThe court allowed counsel to finish this line of questioning but instructed the parties to move on afterward.
The parties confirmed no additional defense witnesses or state rebuttal and discussed the schedule for jury instructions and closing arguments.
Court's actionThe court said closing arguments would occur Monday and indicated the jury could be sent home early for the weekend while the parties addressed jury instructions.
Rashbaum objected that Cappleman was discussing defenses from earlier trials that had not been introduced into evidence.
Court's actionThe judge said he would instruct jurors to rely on their memory of the evidence and cautioned against discussing facts not in evidence.
Rashbaum asked that the State give its rebuttal before any lunch break.
Court's actionThe judge said closings would finish without a lunch break and food would be ordered for the jurors.
Cappleman objected to Rashbaum’s comments about juror speculation, citing the instruction that reasonable doubt is not speculative, imaginary, or forced.
Court's actionThe judge said he would instruct jurors to disregard the last comment about speculation.
The court raised concerns about the defendant’s facial expressions and head shaking during the State’s opening and discussed a short break before the defense opening.
Court's actionThe court said it could give the parties a break to allow setup and address the defendant’s conduct.
The parties invoked the witness-sequestration rule and clarified that Investigator Newlin remained excepted.
Court's actionThe court instructed the State to tell its witnesses not to discuss their testimony and to remain outside the courtroom until called, with Investigator Newlin excepted under an earlier ruling.
The court and counsel discussed the defendant’s reaction to crime scene photographs and whether she needed time before autopsy evidence.
Court's actionThe court ordered a brief recess so the defendant could compose herself and instructed those present to avoid emotional outbursts before the jury.
The parties disputed whether the selected divorce-file documents in State's 60 were sufficiently tied to the defendant's communications and whether duplicate documents should remain.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that the jury be sent out.
The parties discussed beginning Wendi Adelson's anticipated lengthy testimony on Monday after a predicate hearing concerning divorce documents.
Court's actionThe court instructed that the jurors be released for the weekend.
The parties discussed delaying the predicate hearing and using an investigator, rather than Wendi Adelson, to authenticate documents and emails.
Court's actionThe court instructed that jurors report at 9:15 Monday.
The parties discussed whether the foundation for admitting an item tied to an email address and related communications had been established.
Court's actionThe court instructed that Mrs. Adelson could be examined about the communications; after that foundation is established, the court said the foundational issues would be resolved absent further argument.
The court addressed whether a requested statement should be made outside the jury's presence.
Court's actionThe court instructed that the jury would be sent out before the statement was placed on the record.
The court discussed the estimated remaining time for direct and cross-examination before recessing for lunch.
Court's actionThe court directed that the lunch break begin at that point.
The parties discussed whether three admitted documents referring to the children as Adelson could be used to question the defendant about the children's name change.
Court's actionThe court permitted inquiry into the three admitted documents, required that their context not be misrepresented, and allowed the defense to address any resulting context on cross-examination.
Counsel sought to locate prior testimony for possible use after the witness did not recall making the statement.
Court's actionThe court permitted counsel to consult with her client.
Counsel discussed using a brief transcript excerpt of earlier testimony as a demonstrative rather than admitting it for impeachment.
Court's actionThe court permitted use of the transcript excerpt as a demonstrative and ordered a ten-minute recess.
The sidebar addressed the permitted scope of Robert Adelson's testimony after questioning about family contact and personality traits.
Court's actionThe court barred Robert Adelson from offering opinions on whether he believes his family committed the crime, permitted inquiry into personality traits related to Donna Adelson, and said it would instruct him on those limits outside the jury's presence.
The parties disputed whether prior testimony or opening statements allowed questioning about whether she was gullible or simply followed directions.
Court's actionThe court permitted questions about the witness's knowledge of business operations and other personality traits, but not whether she was gullible or misled.
The parties disputed whether testimony about a plan affecting Dan Markel's marriage was admissible for motive and as party-opponent or coconspirator statements.
Court's actionThe court allowed the testimony as to statements attributed to Donna, while excluding statements attributed to Wendi.
Counsel disputed whether a statement about a secret boyfriend could be used to show its effect on a witness and an asserted effort to direct suspicion toward Jeff Lacasse.
Court's actionThe court instructed that jurors may not consider the statement for its truth and may consider it only in connection with the asserted theory of creating future homicide suspects.
The sidebar addressed anonymizing a proposed family-law demonstrative and arranging time for Juror 3's Wednesday appointment.
Court's actionThe court directed that Wednesday include a longer lunch to allow Juror 3 time for the appointment.
Counsel disclosed an anonymous report about a possible jury-selection restroom conversation and asked about jurors and audience members sharing break areas, with no specific improper contact identified.
The court discussed anonymous texts that identified a different person as Juror 14 and could not be verified.
The parties disputed whether the evidence had yet connected Donna Adelson to a conspiracy for purposes of admitting co-conspirator-related testimony.
Court's actionThe court reserved ruling on whether Donna Adelson had been connected to the conspiracy, while finding a conspiracy involving Charlie and Wendi Adelson established and allowing potential impeachment concerning Wendi Adelson's statements to Jeffrey Lacasse.
The sidebar addressed whether a witness's training-based information and prior statements had been disclosed in discovery, with disagreement over whether the testimony was expert evidence.
Court's actionThe court instructed that further questioning on this subject required a showing that the information had been provided in discovery.
The court and counsel discussed scheduling an extended lunch break so Juror No. 3 could attend a rabies-shot appointment.
Court's actionThe court approved noon for Juror No. 3's appointment and an extended lunch break.
Defense counsel objected that the prosecutor was leading the witness rather than eliciting the witness's own information.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection to the last question and instructed the prosecutor to use open-ended questions.
The parties addressed expert access to other testimony and the continued sequestration of lay witnesses.
Court's actionThe court permitted the experts to review the specified testimony while keeping the witness-sequestration rule in place for lay witnesses.
The parties disputed whether a witness could address Charlie Adelson’s prior testimony and whether Donna Adelson’s later messages could be treated as an adoptive admission.
Court's actionThe court reserved ruling on whether the material constituted an adoptive admission and sent the jurors out.
Counsel discussed giving the defense time to review original and enhanced versions of an open-line call recording and choose which version to publish.
Court's actionThe court found that no Richardson inquiry was needed because the defense had additional time to review the audio.
The sidebar addressed the permissible scope of testimony about the witness's gang-member portrayal during an operation.
Court's actionThe court allowed questioning about posing as a gang member, but reserved Latin Kings details for the defense case-in-chief, subject to competent knowledge.
The court and counsel discussed starting Pat Sanford's testimony, which was not expected to finish that day.
The defense objected that questioning after phone-call excerpts were published was repetitive, while the prosecution said it would highlight important portions and seek additional context.
Court's actionThe court instructed that questions about published evidence must seek new context from the witness rather than cumulatively repeat information already elicited.
Counsel sought additional time to review an enhanced version of a 15-minute recording with the defendant before the State published it.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to review the recording as much as possible that day and, if needed, before trial the following morning; the court also allowed reconvening to move from 1:20 to 1:30 for additional time.
Defense raised timing concerns about beginning cross-examination after additional calls and sought time to review recordings and compare a planner.
Court's actionThe court ended proceedings early and allowed defense counsel to retrieve the original planner for comparison.
The court directed counsel to approach for an off-the-record sidebar discussion.
The sidebar addressed Fulford's ability to continue examining witnesses and whether Bernhardt's recordings could be triggered by the defense's planned cross-examination.
Court's actionThe court allowed Fulford to continue, limited the recordings' rebuttal use, deferred a broader ruling, and said it would confirm Adelson's consent to the defense strategy.
The court addressed concerns about emotional reactions during testimony and counsel's request to avoid any admonition before the jury.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to address the client's facial gestures and emotional displays, explaining that the jury could not be excused for each recording or witness.
Defense counsel withdrew an objection after clarifying a misunderstanding about a communication between counsel.
The sidebar addressed whether questioning about advice concerning a possible warrant would implicate attorney-client privilege and permit further examination by the State.
Court's actionThe court sustained the hearsay objection and instructed that questioning about legal advice or acting on it raises attorney-client privilege, with the State permitted to examine those matters if the defense opens the subject.
The court addressed repeated interruptions, allowed defense counsel time to confer with Mrs. Adelson about an attorney-client privilege issue, and asked about the remaining cross-examination.
Court's actionThe court ordered a brief five-minute break.
The court placed on the record that defense counsel’s cross-examination of Special Agent Sanford was not compromised by the previously discussed sidebar issue.
Before cross-examination, the court addressed compliance with prior limits and cautioned against raising excluded topics.
Court's actionThe court instructed defense counsel to recheck the excluded topics and permitted cross-examination to proceed.
The parties discussed how to address the undisputed authorship of a script and whether it should be presented to the jury.
Court's actionThe court permitted limited inquiry of the witness on the handwriting point and directed the parties to proceed.
The parties discussed whether defense arguments denying compensation offers would permit additional evidence concerning Bernhardt and Exhibit 134.
Court's actionThe court ruled that the State may present evidence concerning State's Exhibit 134 if Drina Bernhardt's credibility is attacked during the defense case, and permitted the State to lay foundation for the exhibit during its case in chief.
Counsel objected that the witness was reading an admitted exhibit word for word without providing context.
Court's actionThe court instructed that further questions must add specific context rather than repeat the handwriting examiner's prior testimony.
The parties addressed whether coconspirator statements, including statements attributed to Charlie Adelson, met the requirements for admission.
Court's actionThe court found a sufficient nexus to satisfy all admissibility thresholds and applied its ruling to Charlie Adelson's statements, also permitting their use to demonstrate the defendant's intent or participation concerning Counts 1 through 3.
The parties discussed privilege waiver and cross-examination limits for former counsel, defense scheduling, and newly identified jail-related witnesses.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that former counsel could be cross-examined on matters raised on direct and bias or impeachment, and that any late-disclosed witnesses would require formal disclosure and a Richardson inquiry.
The parties discussed whether a defense witness could offer character-related testimony and what other evidence the witness could provide about the time of the murder.
Court's actionThe court found that the defense had opened the door to the defendant’s character traits and cautioned that further rebuttal testimony could permit additional State rebuttal.
The parties discussed whether a statement made the night of the killing could be offered to show the defendant's state of mind.
Court's actionThe court allowed the defense to develop foundation with the witness, requiring a specific hearsay exception or a reliable state-of-mind basis before admission.
The sidebar addressed limits on penalty-related questioning and whether testimony about the defendant's travel plans and state of mind could be admitted.
Court's actionThe court overruled the hearsay objection only as to testimony about the defendant's state of mind concerning travel, requiring proper hearsay exceptions or foundation for other statements.
The parties discussed whether testimony about Mrs. Adelson's stated reason for going to Vietnam could be offered without her testimony.
Court's actionThe court ruled that if the proposed testimony is offered as corroboration of a subsequent act, Mrs. Adelson would need to testify, while emphasizing that she cannot be compelled to do so or have that right improperly implicated before the jury.
The parties debated whether questions about Annie Cunningham and July 18 records could be used to challenge testimony concerning Donna Adelson's records.
Court's actionThe court permitted the questioning on the stated ground that the records included Donna Adelson's records and could support impeachment through other witnesses if testimony proved false or inaccurate.
The sidebar addressed a proposed clarifying question distinguishing ordinary phone calls from third-party application calls after cross-examination.
Court's actionThe court permitted one question about whether the witness made ordinary voice calls that evening, citing the witness's availability, and directed counsel to move on afterward.
The defense sought time to assess a newly identified potential witness before deciding whether to disclose and call the person, while the court discussed the anticipated afternoon witness schedule.
Court's actionThe court instructed that, if the defense decides to call the potential witness, it must promptly provide the witness's name and information to the State; any prejudice arguments and ruling would occur then.
The court addressed whether the next witness was a fact witness and why he had been present in the courtroom.
Court's actionThe court instructed that the jurors be sent out.
The court and counsel discussed the remaining defense witnesses, time to review admitted exhibits with the defendant, and notice and deposition planning for a possible new witness.
Court's actionThe court sent the jurors home for the day.
Defense counsel raised concern that audible reactions from the Markel family could affect how the jury perceives the defense.
Court's actionThe court said it would address the family members' conduct.
The defense sought additional time for Adelson to confer with counsel before deciding whether to testify, while the State opposed further delay.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to provide a decision on whether Adelson planned to testify after the remaining defense witnesses, while reserving whether any direct examination would begin that afternoon.
The court confirmed Donna Adelson's decision not to testify and discussed final consultation time and preparations for instructions and closing arguments.
Court's actionThe judge allowed a 30-minute recess for Donna Adelson to confer with counsel before proceedings resumed.
The sidebar addressed homicide-instruction language, Donna Adelson's firm decision not to testify, and defense review of the State's closing presentation.
Court's actionThe court directed removal of lesser-offense and excusable-or-justifiable-homicide language, ordered an updated first instruction page for counsel and jurors, and asked the State to identify its demonstrative slides for defense review.
The parties discussed taking a lunch recess after the State's initial closing so the defense could eat, prepare additions to its closing, and set up.
Court's actionThe court granted the defense-requested recess and said it would instruct jurors not to discuss the case with anyone else.
Counsel raised possible jury fatigue and requested a break while discussing the remaining time.
Court's actionThe court permitted a break if counsel wished and instructed that the lectern remain in place.
The parties discussed a request for additional time.
Court's actionThe court granted five additional minutes and noted that the two previously allotted minutes had been used.
No sidebars match these filters.