Murder Sheet Podcast

Episode: The Murder of Dan Markel: The Sentencing of Donna Adelson

Release Date: October 14, 2025

Hosts: Áine Cain and Kevin Greenlee

Overview

This episode covers the dramatic sentencing hearing of Donna Adelson, recently convicted for her role in the 2014 murder of her former son-in-law, Florida State law professor Dan Markel. Hosts Áine (Anya) Cain, a journalist, and Kevin Greenlee, an attorney, break down the background of the case, provide legal insight into sentencing hearings, and offer a blow-by-blow account of events and behavior at the hearing—including the controversial statements from Donna's friends and family.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Understanding the Sentencing Hearing

• Purpose: A sentencing hearing is where a judge imposes a sentence after a conviction. The guilt has been determined; this is almost a formality, especially in states with mandated sentences.
• Victims' and Defense's Voices: Victims' families and, for the first time, those close to the victim, get a chance to speak. Defense can also make final statements or arguments—though in this case, the mandatory sentence meant limited options.
• Role of the Judge: Limited discretion, especially in Florida for a first-degree murder conviction.

“In many ways the judge's hands are tied and we have a pretty good idea of what a sentence is going to be, but there are still some interesting things that happen at these sentencing hearings.”
— Kevin Greenlee, 02:29

2. Recap of the Crime & Legal Proceedings

• Victim: Dan Markel, a Harvard-educated law professor at FSU, embroiled in a nasty divorce with Wendy Adelson.
• Crime: Markel was shot and killed outside his Tallahassee home on July 18, 2014, in a meticulously planned hit.
• Hitmen Convictions: Luis Rivera (getaway driver, pled guilty, received 19 years), Sigfredo Garcia (trigger man, life plus 30 years).
• Other Key Defendants:
  • Catherine Magbanua—convicted as go-between, life + 30 years.
  • Charlie Adelson (Dan’s ex-brother-in-law)—convicted, life + 30 years.
  • Donna Adelson (defendant in focus): Widow, retired dental worker, alleged mastermind alongside son Charlie in orchestrating the murder over child custody concerns.

“The theory became Donna and Charlie essentially schemed to get rid of this son-in-law... because of this so very horrible case, two young boys were left without their father.”
— Anya Cain, 08:40

3. Scene Setting: Sentencing Day—Key Players & Atmosphere

• Donna Adelson: 75, elderly, appeared frail, hands chained, visibly emotional.
• Family: Husband Harvey Adelson present, also grim and emotional..
• Prosecution & Defense:
  • Prosecution by Georgia Kaplan.
  • Defense led by Jackie Fulford (former judge) and Josh Zellman.
• Judge Everett: Presided with strong calmness and competence; previously handled Charlie Adelson's trial.

“I salute to Judge Everett, because I thought he did a very good job, especially under some circumstances in this sentencing hearing that were kind of weird but he was very calm.”
— Anya Cain, 15:41

4. Housekeeping and Legal Mechanics

• Pre-Sentencing Report (PSI): Defense meticulously combed for typos and factual errors—a necessary though uncontroversial step (21:30).
• Score Sheets & Sentencing Guidelines in Florida: Sentences largely determined by statute (“set in stone” for first-degree murder); debate about judge discretion and fairness.
• Defense’s Opportunity: Limited by mandatory sentence but corrected the record and tried to set up points for appeal.

5. Defense Witnesses & Letters—Contentious and Unconventional Testimony (28:56–54:13)

• Friends & Family Statements: Ranged from supportive character references to direct attacks on the court, the process, and even the judge and jury.

• Key Moments:

  • Dr. Ben Graeber (Defense Witness, Zoom, 31:36):
    • Longtime family friend, not in close contact last 20 years.
    • Asserted Donna’s innocence and blamed her son Charlie as manipulator.
    • Veered into relitigating the verdict—frustrating the hosts.
    • Quote:

      “She’s innocent on all counts. The victims are both the families.”
      — Dr. Graeber, 33:00

  • Rick Shaman (In-Person, 42:15):
    • 35-year friend. Claimed Donna would not have been convicted with a change of venue; questioned the judge’s and jury’s impartiality.
  • Dr. Harvey Adelson (Husband, 54:00):
    • Emotional, attacked the trial as unfair, judge as biased, jury as influenced by publicity.
    • Quote:

      “A biased judge and jury were influenced by years of one-sided news pieces.”
      — Dr. Harvey Adelson, 55:28

• Letters from Friends: More traditional—focused on Donna’s character outside the criminal context, acts of kindness, but some touched on their disbelief in her guilt.

“I never heard them say a negative word about anybody at any time.”
— Marian & Tim Chavman (letter, 47:18)

• Hosts’ Commentary: Noted that many of these statements missed the purpose of a sentencing hearing, which should focus on character, not relitigating guilt.

6. Donna Adelson’s Unsorn Statement to the Court (60:31–65:38)

• Allowed by Law: Unsworn means not under oath—not liable for perjury.

• Content:

  • First praised victim Dan Markel (“a fine and decent man”).
  • Became emotional, discussed trauma for her grandsons.
  • Gradually shifted to attacking the state’s case, verdict, evidence, and jury; claimed innocence, and criticized the process.
  • Explicitly accused the jury of not paying proper attention.
  • Judge interrupted, warning this was not relevant to sentencing and noting she had “utter lack of remorse.”
  • Quote:

    “Without one iota of actual evidence... Where is the evidence prior to the murder, evidence beyond reasonable doubt?”
    — Donna Adelson, 62:24

• Hosts’ Reaction: Noted her lack of remorse and continued antagonism, plus stark contrast between her statements and evidence (including her own hostile emails about Markel). Raised the issue that her approach might affect appeals.

7. Sentencing and Judge’s Ruling (69:11–72:28)

• Defense’s Final Request: If sentence stands, asked Donna be incarcerated near Miami and kept separate from Catherine Magbanua; judge agreed to recommend but not binding.
• Judge Everett’s Statement:
  • Recapped planning and coordination of the murder; cited overwhelming evidence, lack of remorse.
  • Adhered to mandatory minimums:
    • Count 1: Life in prison without parole for first-degree murder.
    • Count 2: 30 years consecutive for conspiracy.
    • Count 3: 30 years concurrent for solicitation.
  • Donna was led out without fanfare, camera lingered on her husband.

“The level of planning and coordination to bring the murder of Professor Markell to fruition was significant in this case. These were not crimes of chance or opportunity…”
— Judge Stephen Everett, 71:23

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Role of Judges at Sentencing:

  “A lot of what judges do in the sentencing process is written in stone. They don't have as much leeway as they used to… For better or for worse.”
  — Kevin Greenlee, 23:16

• On Character Letters:

  “Sometimes when you hear people say, ‘I never heard them say a negative word about anybody at any time’... do we believe that? I don't know anybody in my life who I've never heard utter a negative word about someone.”
  — Kevin Greenlee, 47:44

• On Donna Adelson’s Unsorn Statement:

  “Most of this stuff was, as the judge said, a series of personal grievances. It really didn't feel appropriate for the setting. But, you know, people are gonna do what they will.”
  — Anya Cain, 65:11

• On the Markel Family’s Ordeal:

  “It’s been a long, long road for the Markell family, for people who cared about Danny... But I'll be curious to see what else will happen. There's no guarantees—these conspiracy cases have lots of layers.”
  — Anya Cain, 72:28

Important Timestamps

• Overview of Sentencing Hearings: 02:29
• Detailed Crime Recap: 03:59 – 09:04
• Donna Adelson’s Background: 09:49 – 11:50
• Judge Everett’s Competence: 15:41
• Corrections to Presentencing Report: 19:20
• Score Sheet & Judge Discretion Debate: 23:16 – 27:14
• Defense Witnesses Begin (Dr. Graeber): 31:36
• Dramatic Statements by Husband Harvey Adelson: 54:00 – 58:14
• Donna Adelson’s Direct Address (Unsworn Statement): 60:31 – 65:38
• Final Sentencing and Judge’s Statement: 69:11 – 72:28

Podcast Takeaways

• Sentencing Hearings Can Be Unpredictable: Especially when the defendant and their supporters insist on contesting the verdict rather than focusing on character and remorse.
• Mandatory Sentencing Means Limited Legal Drama—but Plenty of Human Drama: The legal outcome was never in doubt, but the emotions and unconventional statements made this hearing memorable.
• Host Perspective: Anya and Kevin consistently steer the analysis toward legal process, psychological motives, courtroom norms and deviations. They call out logical fallacies, misplaced emotional appeals, and explain legal nuances.

Final Thoughts

This episode provides an insider’s look at a high-profile sentencing hearing for a notorious and long-running case. It deftly balances legal explanation and relatable reactions to courtroom theatrics, helping listeners understand both the criminal justice process and the highly charged human drama at its core. The Markel murder saga is far from over in the appeals and possibly additional prosecutions, but for Donna Adelson, the court’s verdict is now set in stone.