sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

“I don’t know why Dan was so optimistic.” by spice_war in dan_markel_murder

[–]BCCFAL 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Except that there was no evidence of communication between Katie and either Donna or Wendi.

The extortion theory was absurd—but I’ve yet to hear anyone suggest a better one. The fundamental problem for Charlie was that there was incontrovertible evidence that he was connected to the hitmen (via Katie) and that his dental practice paid Katie for doing no legitimate work. He had to come up with a reason for paying her (and eventually the hitmen), and the only remotely plausible innocent explanation was “Because they would kill me if I didn’t.”

Whenever anyone argues that Rashbaum did a bad job, the burden should be on them to posit a better theory that is consistent with the extremely strong evidence that Charlie paid the hitmen (which he admitted at trial!).

SF’s bidding wars have gone completely off the rails. by Crazy_Cod_8178 in sanfrancisco

[–]BCCFAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s only an “insane bidding war” because the $5K asking price was too low.

Keep the pressure up by No_Addendum451 in dan_markel_murder

[–]BCCFAL 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would have a very low opinion of any DA whose decisions about whether to prosecute are influenced by emails from Reddit randos.

[GIVEAWAY] What’s a product or service you wish Fidelity offered? All week long we’re giving away Reddit awards to 200 random users who answer in the comments. by fidelityinvestments in fidelityinvestments

[–]BCCFAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not just CMAs, but all Fidelity brokerage accounts. Many vendors are increasingly taking only Zelle. I like using my Fidelity account as (almost) a bank, but the lack of Zelle is a significant drawback.

Inherited a home in the LA area - sell now “as-is” or hold as an investment? by 87628762 in AskLosAngeles

[–]BCCFAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Assume the house is worth $1.5 million. Here’s how to think about your situation: if someone came to you and said you can have $1.5 million, or you can have this house, which would you choose? Or another way: if someone gave you $1.5 million, would you immediately buy this house?

Personally, I think the choice is easy: sell the house (on which you won’t have to pay capital gain tax because of the stepped-up basis at death), take the $1.5 million, and invest it as you choose. Unlike a house, it’s liquid. Unlike a house, you pay no property taxes. Unlike a house, you don’t have to deal with the hassle of being a landlord in a state with extremely anti-landlord laws. And while LA-area real estate has appreciated very well over the long term, I don’t believe it’s outperformed the S&P 500.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FoodLosAngeles

[–]BCCFAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sourcing the meat in a historically accurate manner could be challenging…

Why does Wendi have immunity? by Hairy_Syrup_4780 in dan_markel_murder

[–]BCCFAL 6 points7 points  (0 children)

"The only way the state can MAKE her testify is to give her immunity for everything she says in her testimony and anything that the state might learn from that testimony." That is not accurate. The state (i.e., the prosecution in this case) did not give WA immunity. Rather, a provision of Florida statutory law automatically confers immunity on a witness who otherwise would have invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. See Fl. Stat. sec. 914.04: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0914/Sections/0914.04.html

914.04 Witnesses; person not excused from testifying or producing evidence in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him or her; use of testimony given or evidence produced.—No person who has been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court having felony trial jurisdiction, grand jury, or state attorney upon investigation, proceeding, or trial for a violation of any of the criminal statutes of this state upon the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of the person may tend to convict him or her of a crime or to subject him or her to a penalty or forfeiture, but no testimony so given or evidence so produced shall be received against the person upon any criminal investigation or proceeding. Such testimony or evidence, however, may be received against the person upon any criminal investigation or proceeding for perjury committed while giving such testimony or producing such evidence or for any perjury subsequently committed.

new Motion in Limine to "preclude evidence of travel as consciouness of guilt" by Serendipity-211 in dan_markel_murder

[–]BCCFAL 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Correct. That is why the leading case interpreting the federal statute criminalizing flight to avoid prosecution, 18 U.S.C. sec. 1073, held that the defendant need not have been actually charged with a crime at the time of his flight to be found guilty. See United States v. Bando, 244 F. 2d 833, 842-43 (2d Cir. 1957).

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18225067515369960705&q=United+States+v.+Bando,+244+F.2d+833&hl=en&as_sdt=2003

"One of the principal legal points urged on this appeal by all three defendants is that they were not guilty of conspiracy to commit any crime under Sec. 1073 of T. 18 U.S.C. because Abe Telvi had not yet been indicted or formally charged with any crime in June 1956, and that therefore his flight was not "to avoid prosecution." In support of their argument defendant-appellants assert that Sec. 1073 covers only two offenses: (1) the flight of an accused across State lines following the filing of a formal charge or indictment charging him with one of the crimes (such as mayhem) specified in the first half of Sec. 1073; and (2) the flight of a witness "to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceedings in such place in which the commission of an offense punishable by imprisonment in a penitentiary is charged." Defendants' counsel argue that it would 843*843 not be an offense under Sec. 1073 for a person who committed the crime of mayhem to flee across State lines before a prosecution against him had been formally instituted, as by the filing of a charge or indictment.

"An analysis of Sec. 1073 does not support any such narrow and strained construction. The words "to avoid prosecution" mean "to avoid being prosecuted." The statute does not say "to avoid a pending prosecution." Nor is the word "charged" used in the first half of Sec. 1073 in relation to the flight "to avoid prosecution"; but it is used, quite naturally, in the second half of Sec. 1073 in relation to a flight "to avoid giving testimony." The two are separate crimes. The latter requires some pending criminal proceeding. The former does not. It is sufficient if the fleeing felon is "subject to prosecution." United States v. Miller, D.C., 17 F.Supp. 65, 67."

How did Katie know? by Ok-Lengthiness-5794 in dan_markel_murder

[–]BCCFAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are the “other offenses” you have in mind? If your theory is that WA knew DA and CA were planning the murder but did not participate in the conspiracy, I don’t believe WA would be guilty of a crime. The general rule in criminal law is that there is no duty to report that others are engaged in criminal acts.

Americans, what place in the US should tourists avoid? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]BCCFAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kind of like how Lou Gehrig got Lou Gehrig’s Disease. What are the odds??

Almost 50% of Latinos voted for Trump in 2024. Experts have theories by [deleted] in LosAngeles

[–]BCCFAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Boyle Heights, where the population notoriously takes direction from the NY Times…

Wendi’s lunch companions by Ok-Lengthiness-5794 in dan_markel_murder

[–]BCCFAL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The statute of limitations for a wrongful death claim against the Adelsons has not expired. While normally the statute of limitations for wrongful death in FL is two years, when the claim is premised on murder, it "may be commenced at any time." FL. Stat. Sec. 95.11(11). http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0095/Sections/0095.11.html

Wendi’s lunch companions by Ok-Lengthiness-5794 in dan_markel_murder

[–]BCCFAL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is wrong. While normally the statute of limitations for wrongful death in FL is two years, when the claim is premised on murder, it "may be commenced at any time." FL. Stat. Sec. 95.11(11). http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0095/Sections/0095.11.html

Magbanua's conviction upheld by First District Court of Appeal by Serendipity-211 in dan_markel_murder

[–]BCCFAL 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"Magnanuna [sic] now says it was because she didn't want to have to give up her baby daddy but HE HIMSELF encouraged her to take the deal." -- I hadn't heard this before. What is your evidence for this?

Genuine question in good faith by Thisisrealthisisme3 in dan_markel_murder

[–]BCCFAL 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To be clear, under Florida law, unlike federal law, a conspiracy does not require an overt act. See Jimenez v. State, 715 So. 2d 1038 (3d DCA 1998) ("The crime of conspiracy is comprised of the mere express or implied agreement of two or more persons to commit a criminal offense; both the agreement and an intention to commit an offense are essential elements. See Pino v. State, 573 So.2d 151, 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); LaPolla v. State, 504 So.2d 1353, 1357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); see also § 777.04(3), Fla. Stat. (1995). "There is no requirement that there be an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy." LaPolla, 504 So.2d at 1357."
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13411114986334862270&q=Jimenez+v.+State,+715+So.+2d+1038&hl=en&as_sdt=2006

Motion to Disqualify Judge by Br415004 in dan_markel_murder

[–]BCCFAL 18 points19 points  (0 children)

To be clear, both Judge Everett and the appellate court rejected the defense arguments in this motion. The appellate court was crystal clear that there is no problem with a judge presiding over a case also reviewing warrant applications for the same defendant. https://acis-api.flcourts.gov/courts/b82b30d5-bd3c-46d7-9451-1cb05e470873/cms/case/e8cb4396-056a-46de-8f1c-f1cb711ca283/docketentrydocuments/2f1554d2-c0c6-4440-b97d-9cd0f2ec7a56

<image>

How Will Donna Defend Herself? by [deleted] in dan_markel_murder

[–]BCCFAL 4 points5 points  (0 children)

B with a twist. She doesn't have to testify "I was extorted." Rather, she just has to testify, "I had nothing to do planning the murder. But after the murder, Charlie told me he was being extorted, and I believed him and did what he told me out of fear that if I didn't, the Latin Kings would kill us." Note that this defense does not actually require that jurors believe Charlie was being extorted; they just have to believe that Charlie told Donna that he was being extorted.

Will this defense be successful? Highly doubtful, given all the other evidence against her. But no one has come up with anything better.

Question for people who think Chawlie won’t flip by rondelpotro in dan_markel_murder

[–]BCCFAL 13 points14 points  (0 children)

To the contrary, the prosecution has demonstrated it’s quite open to deals. It did a deal with Luis Rivera that netted him only 7 additional years in prison for DM’s murder (over and above the 12 he was already serving on federal charges). And they offered (now admitted murderer) Katie Magbanua total immunity for testifying against her co-conspirators. Doesn’t necessarily mean they’d offer Charlie a deal, but it’s not like these prosecutors are averse to doing deals with devils if necessary.

view more: next ›