For those interested, below is the link to a video of the prosecution and defence opening statement in yesterday's first day of the trial of two of the suspects in the 2014 murder of Florida state law professor Dan Markel. The two people on trial are Sigfredo Garcia (who is charged with being one of the two hired guns who carried out the murder) and Katherine Magbanua, his longtime on and off girlfriend, who is charged with being the conduit between the two killers and the family of Dan's ex-wife, Wendi Adelson, who authorities believe commissioned the hit so that Wendi would get sole custody of her and Dan's two sons. Magbanua also dated Wendi's brother Charlie Adelson, who is alleged to have commissioned the hit along with her mother (Donna Adelson).
The prosecution opening statement outlines the theory described above, and the evidence supporting it.
Interestingly, the defence lawyers' theory of the case is actually very similar to that of the prosecution, even though earlier there were hints they might present a fundamentally different account of what happened.. All three lawyers suggest it is likely that the Adelsons commissioned the hit, and that Luis Garcia (the second hitman, who made a deal with the state and is testifying for the prosecution) carried it out.
The defence counsel argue, however, that their respective clients were NOT in on the conspiracy, but were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time, and also victims of Garcia, who lied about their roles in exchange for a deal. Thus, Magbanua's counsel says that her client was just a "pawn in Charlie Adelson's plan to kill Dan Markel," and that her only real sin was "terrible taste in men." Garcia's lawyer says that Rivera is lying about the former's role in the crime, and that it is more likely that Rivera just did the deed himself, possibly working with one of his minions in the Latin Kings street gang.
In my view, Magbanua's lawyer does make some good points about parts of the prosecution's evidence, but nowhere near enough so to convince me that Magbanua is innocent (whether there's a reasonable doubt about her guilt is a closer question). My biggest reservation about the defence position is that, if it is indeed the case that the Adelsons simply hired Rivera directly, without help from Magbanua, it's not clear why Rivera wouldn't just say so. That would eliminate the need to try to develop evidence against Magbanua. Ditto for Garcia's role. If Garcia is indeed innocent, it's not clear why Rivera would finger him, as opposed to just fingering the Adelsons directly. The defence lawyers recognise that the latter were the ultimate targets of the government's efforts, and indeed they claim the government is barking up the wrong tree because of their obsession with getting the Adelsons.
I don't have time for any more analysis. But you can watch the video and judge the arguments for yourselves!
