This is not directed towards anyone specifically, but there are a lot of people with social media platforms that are providing their ‘opinion’ (qualified or not) on every turn of events on this case. There are many varying opinions being expressed which is not the issue from my perspective - the issue, and what really gets under my skin, is certain people with platforms are constantly taking personal jabs at other people’s opinions. It’s okay to disagree, but the condescending tone and attitude some express towards other opinions is sickening. Not sure if its ego, jealousy or a combination, but it’s ridiculous and I have limited my ‘exposure’ to what’s being covered by many of the sources I previously enjoyed listening to. I really think a lot of people with platforms need to grow up and act more professionally.
Regarding Judge Everett’s latest motion to disqualify Morris and Komisar, I’d love to hear a ‘few’ qualified legal scholars / pundits in a roundtable discussion discuss how we got to this point and discuss the latest decision by Judge Everett objectively rather than hearing someone dish out the blame after the fact. Based on many things I have seen and heard, in my opinion, I don’t think this issue is as black and white as some with platforms have strongly expressed. I’d rather hear an open discussion amongst qualified legal scholars than someone expressing their strongly biased interpretation of how the legal process has played out who is to blame. In the court of law often times situations arise based on the complexities of the laws, rules, and principals that govern an individuals right to a fair trial. Based on many of the things I have read regarding Donna’s 6th amendment rights and how things ultimately unfolded, I don’t see this as a black and white issue and I’d love to hear a discussion amongst a qualified panel discussing this.
Maybe one of the larger channels / platforms covering the case will be able to assemble a qualified panel to discuss?
I’m no legal scholar, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once.
One of the legal scholars who appears on these various shows is Professor Jo Potuto, she’s very good and doesn’t trash the other hosts at all. Her opinion, as I recall, is that this conflict should have been obvious to everyone involved from the beginning. In my opinion, that’s not exactly placing “blame.”
Recall that in 2016, at the time of the initial arrests, Markus represented Charlie. I believe that at that time, Rash represented Donna and Harvey. I believe he even put out a statement on their behalf, calling the state’s theory “fanciful fiction.” (Where have we heard that before?)
Then, in 2022, Markus withdrew and suddenly Rash represented Charlie. In my opinion, the conflict arose at that point. In my opinion, in order to represent Charlie, Rash would have needed to obtain a waiver from both Charlie and Donna regarding his prior representation of Donna. Even then, a court might have determined the conflict was not waivable (as it did just now.).
As far as I know, nobody raised this issue when Rash took over Charlie’s representation. I know that I recall spotting this conflict and wondering about it at the time.
Everett, I believe, was not the judge assigned to the case in 2016, he was only put on the case for Katie’s second trial. So it’s possible, in my opinion, that when Rash took over Charlie’s representation, Everett may not have been aware of the statement Rash put out on behalf of Donna in 2016, or that Rash had represented Donna before he represented Charlie. But in my opinion, I believe the state should have been aware of it, and I question why the potential conflict was never raised or addressed.
Unfortunately that’s the exact conflict that is arising now, and that is why Rash had to recuse himself: because CHARLIE did not waive the conflict presented by Rash’s representation of DONNA.
At Donna’s pretrial, Everett seemed to me to be very concerned about whether DONNA waived the conflict presented by Rash’s previous representation of CHARLIE. He did not address the OTHER conflict, whether CHARLIE waived the conflict presented by Rash’s representation of DONNA. Had he done so, we might have avoided the situation this case now finds itself in.
Professor Potuto brought up these points on various panel shows.
In my opinion, Rash was hired as Donna’s lawyer from the beginning, and therefore, in my opinion, he could never have provided objective conflict-free representation of Charlie at all. The jail calls immediately after Charlie’s conviction, in which, to me, Donna appears to be going to him for legal advice, only bear that out.
Now, because this conflict wasn’t addressed when it arose with Rash’s representation of Charlie, Rash can’t represent Donna (his original client), and Charlie may, in my opinion, have a successful post-conviction claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. The result is a delay in the judicial process, as well as the state possibly having to re-try Charlie should he succeed with his claim for post-conviction relief.
It’s ironic that it took the retention of appellate counsel on Charlie’s behalf to finally draw attention to this original conflict. I do wonder how much of a hand Donna and/or Rash had in selecting that representation.
