Donna Adelson reacts to a jury finding her guilty for the murder of Dan Markel on Thursday, Sept. 4, 2025.

The jury deliberated for just over three hours before finding Donna guilty of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and solicitation for the death of FSU law professor Dan Markel, who was gunned down outside his home in 2014. Donna was the fifth person to be charged and convicted in the murder plot; she was preceded by her son, Charlie Adelson, Charlie’s ex-girlfriend and two hitmen.

In the motion for a new trial and for leave to interview jurors, filed on Monday, Donna’s attorneys claim she deserves a new trial based, in part, on juror misconduct.

The motion identifies Juror 5 and Juror 7, both of whom came forward after the verdict to talk about their experiences. Juror 7 did not reveal her name but did post videos on TikTok saying she was the foreperson of the jury. Donna’s lawyers said that they want to interview her to ask her about her social media activity during the trial.

MORE | ‘I stayed neutral’: Donna Adelson juror discusses verdict

Juror 5 appeared on the “Surviving the Survivor” podcast, where he said “he considered how Mrs. Adelson reacted to the evidence and testimony admitted during the trial,” despite the fact that her reactions were not something the jury was supposed to consider as evidence. The motion notes that Judge Stephen Everett told Donna that “she was not permitted to show any emotion in the presence of the jury. … Appearing to be cold to the seriousness and evidence in the case may cause the jury to believe the Defendant had no care or concern for what the victim endured.” In the motion, Donna’s attorneys said they want to talk to the jurors to determine whether they can confirm any juror misconduct to then “make more extensive arguments” about why it could merit a new trial.

The motion does not ask to interview Juror 6, Evan Higginbotham, who spoke to Scripps News Tallahassee and said he had been “leaning towards guilty” as deliberations began.

Separate from any juror issues, Donna’s attorneys say her guilty verdict should be set aside due to a number of issues, including the credibility of jailhouse informants who testified and the lack of evidence proving that Donna knew about the plot to kill before Markel’s death. “There is no evidence that the Defendant ‘did some act’ to assist in the commission of the crime. The most that the evidence shows is that she knew of the plan at some point.” Referencing the money Donna allegedly gave to Charlie to pass on as payment for the murders, her attorneys said, “At worst, even if Mrs. Adelson dropped cash off at Charlie’s house after the murder, and signed the payroll checks after the murder would establish her culpability as an accessory after the fact, but are not competent evidence as a principal to first degree murder.”

MORE | Juror reveals evidence that led to Donna Adelson’s murder conviction

Donna’s attorneys argue in the motion that prosecutors based their entire case on “speculation, impermissible stacking of inferences, and theory” and then pointed to the courtroom environment itself as a reason why their client was convicted. The defense pointed to moments where the courtroom gallery laughed in response to rulings from the judge and reminded Judge Everett that he had to admonish spectators on more than one occasion.

“Not only were they laughing out loud,” the motion says, “videos and images captured through the live videocasting revealed gallery members making faces and moving about to capture the attention of jurors while testimony was underway.”