From my understanding, SB no longer has a choice about representing herself. She can hire a private attorney if she chooses, but I doubt anyone would agree to take the case as the court has ruled the trial date (October 7, 2024) will not be extended on the basis of SB obtaining counsel.
Here’s SB’s timeline of representation that I gathered from the court order dated 6/28/2024.
2/26/2020 - public defender’s office appointed to represent SB (attorney #1)
3/9/2020 - SB retained private counsel — Mauricio Padilla (attorney #2)
4/18/2022 - Padilla moved to withdraw due to “irreconcilable differences” (SB objected to the withdrawal)
4/29/2022 - at the hearing, the court advised Padilla to provide more information about the “irreconcilable differences” and SB testified about a “lack of trust” between herself and Padilla
5/4/2022 - Padilla filed an amended motion to withdraw and said the relationship had become adversarial and would interfere with his ability to effectively represent SB
5/10/2022 - at the hearing, Padilla said he had no other choice but to withdraw due to ethical concerns (SB also confirmed she wanted to terminate Padilla as counsel); his motion was accepted and the court appointed a public defender (attorney #3)
6/6/2022 - the public defender moved to withdraw due to a conflict
6/7/2022 - the court allowed the order and appointed the Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel (RCC) (attorney #4)
6/10/2022 - the RCC moved to withdraw due to a conflict
6/22/2022 - the court allowed the order and appointed Marc Consalo (attorney #5)
7/8/2022 - Consalo moved to withdraw due to a conflict
7/11/2022 - the court allowed the order and appointed Frank J Bankowitz (attorney #6)
12/19/2022 - Bankowitz moved to withdraw due to “irreconcilable differences”
12/27/2022 - at the hearing, SB did not seek to remove Bankowitz; Bankowitz advised the court that SB attempted to call him 5-10 times a day and advised the court of his efforts to balance his other clients with SB’s expectations; in response, SB called his statements “untruths” and then sought to remove him; the court pointed out SB’s inconsistent statements and addressed concerns about her motivations; the court advised that she wasn’t entitled to an endless line of court appointed attorneys and explained that she could represent herself; ultimately, SB chose not to request to remove Bankowitz and his motion was denied
8/22/2023 - Bankowitz again filed a motion to withdraw due to “irreconcilable differences” and stated that SB would not be satisfied with any attorney unless the attorney has no case load and can solely devote his/her time to SB; he also advised that the best possible avenue is to have SB represent herself
9/8/2023 - at the hearing, Bankowitz addressed SB’s derogatory statements (calling him a “dud” and a “buffoon”) and berating behavior; his motion to withdraw was granted and the court appointed Winston Hobson (attorney #7); the court further advised SB about the numerous deterioration of her working relationships with counsel and cautioned her about having unrealistic expectations; the court reminded her of her right to retain private counsel
2/1/2024 - Hobson filed a motion to withdraw due to “irreconcilable differences” including ethical concerns
2/9/2024 - at the hearing, Hobson addressed a number of issues including disagreements about legal strategy, on what can and cannot be done, SB’s demands including non-viable legal positions; the court advised SB her right to appointed counsel is not unlimited and warned her that she may not be appointed another attorney and would have to represent herself if similar circumstances occur; the court granted Hobson’s motion and appointed Patricia A Cashman (attorney #8); it was specifically mentioned that Cashman has extensive experience representing defendants accused of murder and is widely known to successfully handle difficult clients
6/7/2024 - at the hearing, SB advised the court that she’d walked out of meetings with Cashman and hand delivered letters to the judge; Cashman advised the court that they’d had disagreements on legal strategy, including SB attaching importance to issues not legally important; in response, SB accused Cashman of telling “lies” and “half-truths”
6/11/2024 - Cashman moved to withdraw citing “irreconcilable differences” including ethical considerations
6/28/2024 - at the hearing, the court allowed Cashman’s motion and cited SB’s refusal to cooperate with attorneys and her personal attacks as evidence that she will not permit herself to be represented by anyone and thereby
forfeits her right to counsel by waiver of conduct;
the case shall remain set for the two week trial beginning October 7, 2024 and will not be continued for any reason except by extraordinarily good cause and such extraordinarily good cause shall not include retention of counsel by SB.
acrobat.adobe.com
