Latest / Conversations: Special Guests with Preston Scott / Charlie Adelson Trial Day 6 - Charlie Takes The Stand

Transcript

Charlie Adelson Trial Day 6 - Charlie Takes The Stand · Conversations: Special Guests with Preston Scott

• 0:00
  It's the Morning Show with Preston Scott thirty five almost thirty six minutes past the
• 0:08
  hour here on the Morning Show. Great to be with you this morning,
• 0:13
  and of course big Stories in the press box brought to you by Custom Care
• 0:15
  Dry Cleaning and big story we are following to its conclusion is the trial of
• 0:22
  Charlie Adelson. Day six took place yesterday with Charlie Adelson himself on the witness
• 0:29
  stand and joining me to talk about is Carl Steinbeck, former prosecutor, Military
• 0:35
  Defense Council, State public defender and now a private practicing attorney in McKinney,
• 0:40
  Texas. Carl, Good morning, Charlie taking the stand. We knew he
• 0:45
  had to do it. It's is this kind of from a defense perspective,
• 0:50
  when the defendant takes the stand, is it usually kind of a hail Mary?
• 0:56
  Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that. I mean a hail Mary like
• 1:00
  it's a desperation move. A lot of times I've had clients that want to
• 1:03
  get on the stand because they've been falsely accused, and so they're eager to
• 1:07
  get on the stand and be able to explain what happened and help prove their
• 1:11
  innocence in this case, though, I think it is a hail Mary type
• 1:15
  of thing because it's just so preposterous a defense story. And what was really
• 1:19
  weird President is that this thing was dragged out by the defense attorney with very
• 1:23
  slow questioning, long pauses and whatnot. It's like he's trying to all this
• 1:30
  thing as long as he possibly can. It was really evident from so many
• 1:33
  jurors, and most of the court will wound up clearing out by the end
• 1:37
  of the day because they just got tired of hearing this dribble all day long
• 1:40
  of the same kind of slow process of asking questions. I know that attorneys
• 1:46
  don't necessarily like to pick on other attorneys, but give me your critique of
• 1:51
  Charlie Edelson's council and the decision to at times almost play to the jury and
• 1:59
  to do this of literally countering every piece of evidence with Charlie's interpretation of it.
• 2:07
  Right, Well, I think as a defense attorney's there's not a problem
• 2:12
  with going after every detail that the prosecution brought up that has a strong point
• 2:17
  against your theory of the case. But to go over every little detail and
• 2:23
  go over it's so slow. That's what I have a problem with because you
• 2:25
  lose the credibility of your defense. The jury's checked out, they don't want
• 2:30
  to hear anymore. You can just tell by the body language. So what
• 2:32
  I foresee is that this jury sees that the defense knows that they don't have
• 2:38
  a case, and so it's actually going to make I think jury deliberations go
• 2:43
  that much quicker. What about the cross first, is this going to I
• 2:47
  didn't see the conclusion of yesterday. Is this going to carry over today?
• 2:52
  Is he still speaking on his own behalf today or is it strictly cross day?
• 2:57
  Well, great is defense counsel's representation of the court. He's got at
• 3:00
  least another hour. So whether it's an hour or more, who knows.
• 3:04
  But I would say, if you're the prosecutor, normal cross examination probably has
• 3:08
  to be funneled down to disc go over the key points. And I would
• 3:12
  say, don't even go. You don't even have to go more than an
• 3:15
  hour or ninety minutes, just just to wrap this up because the jury is,
• 3:19
  like I say, they're loose. The defense has lost the jury.
• 3:22
  I think the way they're dragging this out now, the prosecution doesn't need to
• 3:25
  add to that. And go over all these same details again, your sense
• 3:30
  of sensibility, communicator of common sense amplified. It's the Morning Show with Preston
• 3:36
  Scott, day six of the trial of Charlie Aedelson, and we're expecting perhaps
• 3:47
  everything to wrap up today and talking about it with me is private practice attorney
• 3:53
  Carl Steinbeck from McKinney Texas, and Carl, I wrote so many notes about
• 3:59
  what I what I heard yesterday. They just continue to make the claim because
• 4:03
  they have to. It's where they've cast their lot that this was an extortion
• 4:09
  attempt and that all the payments, all the secret calls, all the code,
• 4:13
  all of it is because they were being extorted. But yet he's having
• 4:17
  all of these incredible, lengthy meetings and conversations with the person that somehow is
• 4:24
  involved in the extortion and they never call police. It doesn't make sense in
• 4:29
  any way, shape or form. You're right, I mean, it's just
• 4:32
  so far fetched. It's just absolute nonsense. And the jury's not going to
• 4:38
  believe anything like this. So they're really graspsmen of straws here. And so
• 4:44
  it's so ludicrous to think that Charlie gave up all his cash one hundred thirty
• 4:48
  thousand, eight dollars cash he had in his safe at the mir requests of
• 4:53
  hey, somebody that I'm not going to tell you who's given this threat,
• 4:56
  but they're threatening your life and your family members if you don't give one hundred
• 5:00
  and thirty three thousand dollars. So there's no knife involved, there's no gun
• 5:03
  involved, there's no name involved in who's communicating this threat. And for Charlie
• 5:06
  to say, oh, yeah, here it is, and oh and because
• 5:10
  I don't have any more on hand right now, I can make payments out
• 5:13
  over a couple of years of three thousand a month. So it's just so
• 5:15
  preposterous. And there's no exclamation, there's no emotion, there's no what,
• 5:23
  there's no you know, pushback to the to the requests for money at all,
• 5:29
  there's there's okay, what do we need to do to work this out?
• 5:31
  And and you're right, it's unbelievable. But is any of it resonating?
• 5:36
  Is there any part of the defense that resonates in your mind? No,
• 5:43
  not a single shred. I would say that you have to have something
• 5:47
  credible as a jury to have them even think about it, because the jury's
• 5:50
  not predetermined to think that the person is guilty necessarily, and they've selected the
• 5:56
  jury that they think is the best suited for this. So it's not going
• 5:59
  to be something that the jury's going to find when they're looking for a defense,
• 6:02
  They're not going to find anything there. Everything the defense is doing is
• 6:06
  indicating that they also know that Charlie's guilty. You know, as I listen
• 6:11
  to his attorney kind of set up, which is what you do? I
• 6:14
  mean, they've had some time to rehearse this. As the attorney setting up
• 6:17
  is questioning did you hire somebody to kill Dan Markel? And he says absolutely
• 6:24
  not or no. The fact of the matter is, I mean, from
• 6:27
  a technical standpoint, he's being a legalist, he probably didn't. Katie did.
• 6:30
  He just provided the money for it, right, right, But it
• 6:35
  was pre arranged ahead of time. So if you ask somebody to kill somebody
• 6:40
  else and then offer money once it's completed, right that you are a co
• 6:44
  principal under any state or federal theory, you'd be a co principal to the
• 6:47
  murder, just as guilty as a trigger puller. So when this comes back
• 6:53
  to Georgia Kapelman and she begins across are what would your advice be, I
• 6:59
  mean, what what do you think she ought to focus in and drill down
• 7:01
  on and take what thirty minutes and a half forty five an hour? Yeah,
• 7:06
  I mean I really do believe that if she just said no questions and
• 7:11
  sat down, the jury would probably be very happy to see that. But
• 7:16
  I think it's a prospet. You're automatically going to go into the cross examination
• 7:19
  mode. And so if you just hit your main highlights, maybe the top
• 7:24
  five, and go after those like this, like we're just talking now about,
• 7:28
  there was no credible thread against you, and so it's just so ridiculous.
• 7:32
  And I think the other issues that we have are think about compare and
• 7:38
  contrast how he acted when the law enforcement bump happened and they were trying to
• 7:43
  do this fake extortion just to get them talking, which worked beautifully by the
• 7:46
  way. And then Charlie's willing to have this undercover bump guy be killed and
• 7:54
  they're talking about fleeing the country. So innocent people don't talk in code.
• 7:58
  We heard hours and hours of code talk yep in this trial. Innocent people
• 8:01
  don't talk and code. The only people are talking code are criminals. In
• 8:05
  this case, murderers who are trying to evade the cops. Do you expect
• 8:09
  this to go to the jury today. I do think it could go to
• 8:13
  the jury today. It all remains on how much the defense really is going
• 8:18
  to commit to their one hour or not. So I would hope it goes
• 8:22
  to defense, and I think we could possibly have a verdict today, but
• 8:26
  not sure it could go into Monday. So either either by the end of
• 8:30
  today or for sure Monday, I think we'll have a verdict. Well,
• 8:33
  we will talk Monday regardless and then play it by here from there. But
• 8:37
  Carl, thank you for your expertise. I appreciate it very much. Yes,
• 8:41
  sir, thank you. Carl Steinbeck with us this morning. Could have
• 8:45
  a set of summary statements today, maybe a verdict that would be That would
• 8:54
  be like epic if Georgia Kappelman says, yeah, we have no h we
• 9:00
  have no questions, your honor, and then just tackle it in the in
• 9:05
  the closing statement. Forty six minutes after the outs The Morning Show with Preston
• 9:09
  Scott m hm hm hm