After
the
2014
murder
of
law
professor
Dan
Markel,
gunned
down
by
a
pair
of
hitmen,
suspicions
quickly
fell
upon
Markel’s
former
in-laws.
One
of
the
hit
men
infamously
told
authorities
that
they
did
it
because
“the
lady
wants
her
two
kids
back,”
seemingly
referring
to
Markel’s
ex-wife.
The
wheels
turned
relatively
slowly,
but
prosecutors
worked
their
way
up
the
tree,
from
the
gunmen,
to
one
of
the
assassins’
former
girlfriends,
Katherine
Magbanua,
who
hired
them,
to
Markel’s
former
brother-in-law
Charlie
Adelson,
who
also
dated
Magbanua.
Finally,
earlier
this
month,
a
jury
convicted
Markel’s
mother-in-law
Donna
Adelson
for
her
role
in
arranging
the
plot.
Adelson
then
launched
a
Hail
Mary
effort
to
get
a
new
trial,
citing
juror
media
use.
The
judge
has
now
rejected
that
bid:
Juror
No.
7
had
posted
on
TikTok
during
the
trial
that
she
had
been
selected
as
a
juror,
Adelson’s
lawyers said
in
a
new
trial
motion.
But
Everett
said
the
juror
did
not
reveal
the
parties
in
the
case,
the
attorneys,
the
alleged
crimes,
whether
it
was
criminal
or
civil,
or
even
the
location
of
the
trial.
As
a
result,
she
did
not
communicate
“about
this
case”
as
banned
by
jury
instructions,
he
concluded.The
text
displayed
over
juror
No.
7’s
video
had
said,
“When
I
told
God
I
needed
a
break,
and
he
makes
it
so
I
am
selected
to
serve
on
a
jury
for
a
two
week
trial…
won’t
he
do
it,”
and
included
a
happy
face.
A
caption
read,
“No
work,
no
kids
(for
most
of
the
day)
yk
what…
heaven
yeah.”
Sing
it,
sister.
While
perhaps
betraying
a
lack
of
appreciation
for
the
gravity
of
the
civic
duty
at
hand
to
describe
it
as
a
state-sponsored
vacation,
there’s
nothing
explicitly
wrong
with
indicating
that
you’re
on
jury
duty.
The
more
nuanced
argument
contends
that
this
description
provided
enough
for
someone
to
work
out
what
trial
the
juror
would
hear,
but
that
proved
a
stretch
without
any
other
information.
Adelson
also
complained
of
the
juror
talking
about
the
experience
after
the
trial
—
which
is
actually
fine
—
and
another
juror
who
told
a
podcast
after
the
fact
that
he’d
paid
attention
to
the
defendant’s
reaction
to
testimony
even
though
he’d
said
he
hadn’t
done
that
in
other
comments.
The
judge
brushed
away
that
concern
too,
explaining
that
there’s
nothing
wrong
with
observing
the
defendant.
With
Adelson
not
getting
a
new
trial,
the
case
will
move
forward
to
sentencing.
Earlier:
Jury
Reaches
Verdict
In
Donna
Adelson
Trial
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.