I believe that is what Rashbaum is talking about starting at 4:52:10 below. Also see approx 11:00 to approx 15:00 below. JMO.
Right. Remember her list about who she wanted to sue.
You are right. When I heard the Judge laughing today and making a joke of the hearing by his comments, I realized that he knew he messed up. This is a very serious issue and not to be taken lightly. His joking and laughing-I found very disturbing tbh.In hindsight and in light of what actually unfolded in the last 48 hours, there are probably many issues that could have arisen because of the Rashbaum conflict of counsel issue. Yes, IMO, the court should have asked for that waiver but, as I understand it, Charlie could have changed his mind at anytime and revoked his decision to waive privilege. Hypothetically if Charlie did have a waiver in place AND he changed his mind mid trial and revoked the waiver / privilege, that state would have been forced to drop him from the witness list. Today we learned that they only intended to call him as a rebuttal witness, but depending on Donna defense, Uffemans motion could be a blessing in disguise for the state. There could have been a scenario where they wanted to call Charlie but couldn’t because of an appellate concern. I predict that in many places (specifically meaning those that cover the case), Rashbaun’s name is going to be dragged through the mud, but I think equal blame is to be shared by the Tallahassee DA’s office and Judge Everett. We should have never gotten to this point. To quote Carl Steinback – “This was avoidable” – I think he said that
Georgia is also still on faculty at FSU.
How can he continue as her lead counsel?
I agree. And it's funny you mentioned about Markus. That is exactly what I thought as well. That I am sure he did not want to go up there for the trial. But he was the former attorney representing Charlie. Who knows if he raised any issues with anyone or who knows what. I also agree that there is blame to go around for everyone from both sides and the bench. I am really scratching my head that the state wanted to go forward still even with all of those issues for an appeal.
As long as Everett was satisfied an ethical wall exists between Morris & Charlie he can stay on - I believe that was squared away today. Whether Donna wants him as lead counsel is another story.
Agree with everything you said. I think they have always been playing 4D chess given the caliber of Wendi's lawyers, etc Not Rashy, but Wendi's. But let's see if there is a really good explanation of how potentially the state could get in all that they need without Wendi's testimony. If it is plausible, and more than plausible,if it is as strong a case without her. maybe they will charge her and bring them both to trial at the same time. Introduce all of the evidence that they had through her another way.
Yes! Hearing that today ( did he was able to rescind the waiver at any time) made it all the more apparent how insane the whole plan was. I don't understand how the judge allowed it, I don't know why the state went with it, none of it makes any sense to me. I understand from the state's perspective that all of this was still fresh in their mind, and it was easier to try the case only 10 months later; however, given all the inherent appealable issues due to the conflict, I just don't understand how they proceeded with any of this.
This is what I want to know as well. I don't understand how Morris is not tainted either. He said he's going to go on his lead counsel. He said it opens up different avenues for defenses for her. He also said that you never know that there may be some plea deal.
We will have to see, but I don't see Donna giving up Wendi. I do think it was the strategy the whole time to make the prosecution do all the preparation, and wait until the day before trial to spring this so that they might be more willing to make a deal.
I think that not waiving a conflict of interest is tantamount to objecting to that lawyer representing another individual. Under Florida Bar Rule 4-1.9(a) (which was cited by CA's attorney today) an attorney must get informed consent (i.e., a waiver) to represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client. Rule 4-1.9 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST; FORMER CLIENT, R. Regul. Fl. Bar 4-1.9 | Casetext Search + Citator. So because CA would not tell DR that he was waiving a conflict of interest, DR said he need to withdraw. JMO.
