Donna Adelson, the 71-year-old matriarch found guilty of orchestrating the murder-for-hire plot that took the life of Florida State University law professor Dan Markel in 2014, has suffered another legal setback. On September 26, 2025, Leon Circuit Judge Stephen Everett denied Adelson’s motion for a new trial, ruling that the arguments presented by her defense team did not warrant overturning the jury’s verdict. This latest development marks a decisive moment in a case that has gripped Tallahassee and sent ripples through the legal community nationwide.
Just weeks earlier, on September 4, 2025, Adelson was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy, and solicitation in connection with Markel’s killing. According to reporting by Tallahassee Democrat and WTXL ABC 27, prosecutors argued that the murder plot was set in motion after a family court judge denied Adelson’s daughter, Wendi Adelson, permission to relocate with her two sons to Miami. That decision, prosecutors said, became the catalyst for a chain of events that ended with Markel being shot at his Betton Hills home.
Following the guilty verdict, Adelson’s attorneys quickly filed a motion seeking a new trial, alleging a host of procedural missteps and fairness concerns. Their arguments ranged from claims of juror misconduct—specifically, a juror’s viral TikTok posts and another juror’s appearance on a podcast—to accusations that the court made errors in legal rulings during the trial. The defense also insisted that the verdict was contrary to the law and the weight of the evidence, pointing to perceived discrepancies in the testimony of jailhouse informants, including Patricia Byrd, who testified that Adelson confessed to the crime.
But Judge Everett was unpersuaded. In a detailed 57-page order, he addressed each of the defense’s claims, systematically dismantling the arguments for a retrial. On the issue of juror misconduct, Everett found that Juror No. 7’s TikTok posts did not violate any rules about discussing the case. As he wrote, “Defendant did not object to the jurors being able to disclose that limited information, and Juror Number 7’s TikTok post comports with this exception to the communication prohibition. Defendant cannot now use Juror 7’s compliance with this directive as grounds to interview her.”
The judge also rejected the defense’s assertion that he had shown favoritism toward the prosecution. He noted that both the State and the defense were given ample opportunities to discuss whether Adelson would testify in her own defense. “The Court concluded, ‘I will make no further inquiry unless the State or the defense seeks for the Court to do so at this point,’” Everett wrote. “Neither party did. Accordingly, defendant was provided sufficient time to, and did, make a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent decision not to testify.”
Addressing the broader claim that Adelson was denied a fair and impartial trial, Everett was unequivocal in his response. He stated, “The Court does not find the arguments presented in this claim warrant a new trial.” He also stood by the evidence presented by the State, writing, “Stated succinctly, there is evidence in the record demonstrating overt actions by the defendant in furtherance of the murder-for-hire scheme.” Because of this, he denied not only the motion for a new trial but also Adelson’s renewed motion for acquittal, concluding, “The Court does not find the jury’s verdict is contrary to the law or the weight of the evidence.”
The digital motion at the center of this legal drama was filed on September 15, 2025, according to WTXL ABC 27. It included requests for permission to interview the two jurors in question, as well as a renewed push for both a new trial and an acquittal. The defense cited several grounds for their request: that the verdict was unsupported by the law or the evidence, that the court had erred on legal matters during the trial, and that Adelson had not received a fair hearing due to circumstances beyond her control.
But the court found these claims lacking. Key evidence was deemed insufficient to support the digital claims, and the judge ruled that the social media activity in question did not rise to the level of improper communication about the case. As reported by Tallahassee Democrat, Everett specifically noted that the TikTok posts simply discussed the process of being selected as a juror, not the substance of the trial or deliberations. The podcast appearance by another juror was similarly dismissed as grounds for further inquiry.
Adelson’s conviction makes her the fifth person to be found guilty in connection with Markel’s death—a case that has seen multiple defendants and years of complex legal maneuvering. Throughout the proceedings, the prosecution has maintained that the murder plot was rooted in the bitter family dispute over custody and relocation, with the Adelson family at the center of the planning and execution.
Now, with her motion for a new trial denied, Adelson remains in the Leon County Detention Facility as she awaits sentencing. She faces a possible life sentence, and her next court appearance is scheduled for a case management conference on October 14, 2025. The denial of her motion closes another chapter in a saga that has seen twists and turns at every stage, from the initial investigation to the courtroom drama that played out over the past year.
The ripple effects of the Markel case continue to be felt in the Tallahassee community and beyond. Legal experts have pointed to the case as a cautionary tale about the complexities of family law, the dangers of social media during high-profile trials, and the challenges of ensuring a fair trial in an age where information—and misinformation—can spread rapidly. The court’s careful consideration of the juror misconduct claims, and its ultimate decision to uphold the verdict, underscores the importance of judicial process and the high bar required to overturn a jury’s decision.
For those following the case, the judge’s ruling is a reminder that, despite the noise and spectacle that sometimes surrounds high-profile trials, the legal system is built on painstaking review and adherence to the law. As the October 14 hearing approaches, all eyes will remain on the Leon County courthouse, where the final chapter of Donna Adelson’s legal battle is set to unfold.