FL - Sarah Boone, 42, charged with murdering boyfriend Jorge Torres, 42, by leaving him locked in suitcase, Winter Park, Feb 2020

[sasha17]

Sounds like state is eager to talk to her for a potential plea negotiation. Very interesting development. The prosecutor said that she has indicated to lawyers she’s spoken to recently that she wants to speak to the state.

I think she has legitimate concerns and is overwhelmed by having to rep herself. But she did this to herself by being a prima Donna. For example, she doesn’t have access to a phone or internet to be able to contact potential trial witnesses etc. These are legit concerns but no one can help her now. I’m liking the judge. He’s sticking by his decision and not coddling her. He’s like “yup you have 62 days to get ready for trial!” Yeeeeeesh! That’s not enough for a lawyer let alone a pro se defendant.

She may actually come out OK in all this if the state pleas her out just to not go through a painful trial! I don’t know if the victim has family that’s breathing down the state’s neck! But I see a voluntary manslaughter plea deal in her future. The state has leverage now because she clearly will be convicted if she goes to trial as pro se. It’s a forgone conclusion!

JMO

If her choices are a plea deal or a pro se trial she knows she'll lose, it would make a lot of sense for her to take a plea but I also see her as hardheaded enough to want to take it to trial.

 

[Seattle1]

If her choices are a plea deal or a pro se trial she knows she'll lose, it would make a lot of sense for her to take a plea but I also see her as hardheaded enough to want to take it to trial.

I think the defendant who goes through eight (8) attorneys is one who thinks they are the smartest person in the room! This^^ and because SB wants her attorney to speak nicely to her. If the Judge would instruct her last lawyer to speak gently, and be nice to SB, she would rehire the lawyer!

I found the Judge at today's hearing being very patient, and providing SB with detailed answers to her questions. IMO, SB doesn't feel like he's blowing her off, and I think she likes "being on level" with the Judge.

But I think SB will tire, and will next request a new Judge! Failing at this request, only then could she entertain a plea agreement. JMO

 

[Weki]

Yes I agree I think she’s already getting tired. The judge is unflappable. He’s putting on a masterclass for how to effectively deal with controlling, difficult personalities. She’s so annoying in how she mirrors his speech cadence. It’s like she’s mocking him but I think it’s her way of managing her lack of control. By acting like she’s on the same level as the judge etc. So gross. In that cloying little voice of hers.

The state is being very helpful towards her. I think they’re buttering her up so she will agree to a plea deal. That’s what I mean - her obstinate behavior may end up serving her in the end. As tired as she is, the court and state are also tired of her bs. The judicial system has to proceed in an efficient, almost rubber stamp like manner in order to get things done. That’s how all these people are used to doing it. The pro se defendants have an advantage in being able to create chaos for people who like order. They want to be done with this case as quickly as possible. That’s her leverage.

JMO

 

[gitana1]

I have some questions if anyone knows the answers. Was she warned that if she kept causing attorneys to move to withdraw, she could waive her right to counsel?

And has she had a competency exam?

 

[Seattle1]

I have some questions if anyone knows the answers. Was she warned that if she kept causing attorneys to move to withdraw, she could waive her right to counsel?

And has she had a competency exam?

Seems she was warned about forfeiting counsel:

Why did Sarah Boone forfeit her right to a court-appointed attorney?​

Judge Kraynick said Boone forfeited her right to court-appointed counsel and had "waived by her conduct" her right to counsel, according to the order. The judge justified the decision, noting that Boone had previously been warned that a future court-appointed lawyer may not be provided and that she had been warned about the "dangers of self-representation."

"Actions speak louder than words," Judge Kraynick said.

"Although defendant’s words seemingly reveal a desire to go to trial, however, as set forth herein, her actions and inability to work with court-appointed counsel, are repeated over and over. Allowing defendant to her eighth court appointed attorney (her ninth attorney overall) will only serve to delay the case further and encourage defendant to persist in efforts to prevent the resolution of the case on its merits," he said.

Sarah Boone loses 8th lawyer, must now represent herself in Florida murder trial, judge rules

Sarah Boone, the Florida woman accused of killing her boyfriend by locking him inside of a suitcase at their Winter Park home during an alleged game of hide-and-seek, has forfeited her right to any more court-appointed defense lawyers – and will now have to represent herself at her trial...

www.fox35orlando.com

 

[gitana1]

I wonder why none of her attorneys have asked for a competency exam.

 

[Cool Cats]

I wonder why none of her attorneys have asked for a competency exam.

Seems like the judge should do this to make sure she is menta!ly competent to be pro se.

What's the Difference Between a "Pro Se" and "Pro Per" Defendant? - Dandy Law

The term "pro se" comes from Latin and means "for oneself." When a defendant represents himself in court, he is said to be appearing pro se. The term "pro per" is short for "in propria persona," which also means "for oneself." Essentially both terms refer to defendants who choose to represent...

dandylaw.com

 

[Seattle1]

I wonder why none of her attorneys have asked for a competency exam.

IMO, SB is clearly intelligent and competent to understand the charges and process. Seems to me that none of her attorneys believed SB was incapable of participating in her own defense due to mental health symptoms-- but that the client attorney relationship deteriorated because of personality conflicts.

IMO, SB is personality disordered -- perhaps this doesn't warrant a competency exam in Florida -- I really don't know.

I'm only familiar with MSM reports from and about Boone's most recent or 8th attorney:

Cashman addressed the judge, saying that she had spent 20 hours with Boone and had accepted collect phone calls from the jail for which she will not be reimbursed. Cashman accused Boone of walking out of their previous two meetings after she didn’t like hearing the results of depositions or discovery.

“I don’t understand what she has against me,” Boone told the judge. “I told her from day one that her snotty attitude was inappropriate, and I try very hard to bear with her and her attitude. … I feel that her attitude has equaled prejudice which is not in my favor especially considering she’s going to be representing my life.... If you could just let her know, please, to please be nice to me and have a welcoming attitude and things will probably change.”

And this:

Patricia Cashman. Cashman was assigned to the case earlier this year, replacing a long line of attorneys who have left the case, including one who told the judge that Boone called him a “dud” and a “buffoon.”

6/7/24

'Please be nice to me': Sarah Boone complains about new attorney

Sarah Boone stopped short of asking for a new attorney to be assigned to the case, but asked the judge to instruct her attorney to 'be nice.'

www.courttv.com

 

[Kittybunny]

Oh @gitana1 Sarah Boone is looking for you! How could you possibly pass up such an opportunity?!?



In all seriousness…run.Run far far away!

 

[Cool Cats]

Oh @gitana1 Sarah Boone is looking for you! How could you possibly pass up such an opportunity?!?

Hey, yah....you are an attorney @gitana1 .... Sarah Boone wants you!

LOL

 

[cujenn81]

Thought I’d share the court order here again.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

To summarize —

February 26, 2020 - the public defender’s office was appointed to represent Defendant (Attorney 1)

March 9, 2020 - the public defender moved to withdraw due to Defendant retaining private counsel (Mauricio Padilla, Esq and the Padilla Law Group) (Attorney 2)

March 23, 2020 - Defendant was charged with Second Degree Murder

April 18, 2022 - Padilla moved to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences that made it impossible to effectively represent Defendant

April 29, 2022 - hearing held on Padilla’s Motion to Withdraw

- the Court received two letters from Defendant objecting to Padilla’s withdrawal (dated 4/20/2022 and 4/26/2022)

- the Court advised Padilla he needed to provide more information about the irreconcilable differences

- Padilla requested an opportunity to amend the Motion to Withdraw

- Defendant testified to a “lack of trust” between herself and Padilla

May 4, 2022 - Padilla filed an Amended Motion to Withdraw that stated the relationship between himself and Defendant had become adversarial

May 6, 2022 - Padilla filed a Second Amended Motion to Withdraw that indicated the attorney-client relationship had deteriorated to the point where he could no longer give effective aid in Defendant’s defense

May 10, 2022 - hearing held on Padilla’s Second Amended Motion to Withdraw

- Padilla advised the Court that he had no other choice but to withdraw due to ethical concerns

- Defendant confirmed that she wanted to terminate Padilla as her attorney

- the State expressed concerns about a strategy to allow defense attorney after attorney to represent the Defendant

- the Court advised the Defendant about the State’s concerns regarding a strategy of being unhappy with every attorney and advised Defendant about the dangers of self-representation

- the Court appointed the Public Defender (Attorney 3)

June 6, 2022 - the Public Defender moved to withdraw due to conflict

June 7, 2022 - the Court appointed the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel (RCC) (Attorney 4)

June 10, 2022 - the RCC moved to withdraw due to conflict

June 22, 2022 - the Court appointed Marc Consalo (Attorney 5)

July 8, 2022 - Consalo moved to withdraw due to conflict

July 11, 2022 - the Court appointed Frank J Bankowitz (Attorney 6)

October 27, 2022 - Bankowitz filed a Motion to Continue

December 19, 2022 - Bankowitz moved to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences between Defendant and his family that would make him unable to effectively and properly continue representing the Defendant

December 27, 2022 - hearing held on Bankowitz’s Motion to Withdraw

- the Court received letters from Defendant dated 10/3/2022, 11/3/2022, and 12/5/2022

- the Court conducted a Nelson hearing and Defendant indicated she was not seeking to remove Bankowitz

- Bankowitz advised the Court of the 1000s of pages in discovery he’d reviewed and organized, as well as his contact and potential use of, and collaboration with, expert witnesses, including experts Padilla had utilized

- Bankowitz advised the Court of Defendant’s attempts to call him at a rate of 5-10 times a day and advised of his efforts to balance the demands of his other clients with Defendant’s expectations for communication

- SB riposted that Bankowitz’s representations were “untruths,” raised Bankowitz’s prior public reprimands for his lack of communication and alleged his action in this case rose to a similar level, and then sought to remove Bankowitz

- the Court pointed out the Defendant’s inconsistent statements within minutes of them being made and addressed concerns over her motivations, especially when there was something she disagreed with

- the Court advised Defendant she is “not entitled to an endless line of court appointed lawyers until you find the one that you personally prefer”

- the Court also explained the circumstances where Defendant could represent herself

- ultimately, Defendant did not request to remove Bankowitz and the Court denied his motion to withdraw

>> the case was continued several times due to Bankowitz’s attempts to retain an expert through JAC and JAC’s response to same <<

>> the Court received numerous letters from the Defendant dated 1/10/2023, 3/22/2023, 4/6/2023, 5/15/2023, 6/29/2023, 8/2/2023 <<

August 22, 2023 - Bankowitz again moved to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences that made it impossible for him to effectively represent his client, indicating that Defendant will not be satisfied with any attorney unless said attorney does not have a caseload and can dedicate his or her time solely to this case

September 8, 2023 - hearing held on Bankowitz’s motion

- Bankowitz addressed Defendant’s “derogatory” statements (i.e., “dud,” “buffoon”) and “berating” behavior

- the Court confirmed the receipt of letters from the Defendant dated 8/26/2023 and 8/26/2023

- after Defendant’s acquiescence to Bankowitz’s withdraw, his motion was granted

- the Court appointed Winston Hobson (Attorney 7)

- the Court cautioned Defendant that “if this becomes a problem on another court appointed attorney, I’m going to look more closely at what the alleged disputes are”

- the Court further advised that there were certain decisions the attorney gets to make and certain decisions a defendant gets to make (i.e., go to trial and/or testify) and cautioned Defendant about having “unrealistic expectations” regarding court appointed counsel and reiterated her right to retain private counsel

February 1, 2024 - Hobson moved to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences including, but not limited to, ethical considerations

February 9, 2024 - hearing held on Hobson’s motion

- Hobson addressed a number of issues for the basis of withdrawing: including disagreements about legal strategy, on what can and cannot be done, a lack of resources, defendant’s demands make her difficult to work with, including Defendant taking nonviable legal positions and being unreasonable

- Hobson advised that a retained undisclosed expert key to a substantive defense is not in keeping with what the defendant has in mind

- the Court advised the receipt of a letter from SB dated 1/19/2024

- the Court outlined the overriding claims for withdraw by Padilla, Bankowitz, and Hobson; adversarial relationships, lack of satisfaction, and inability to meet defendant’s desires

- the Court found that all of Defendant’s relationships with court appointed counsel have deteriorated such that Defendant and the appointed counsel cannot work together

- the Court advised Defendant that although she has a right to court-appointed counsel, that right is not unlimited

- the Court twice advised Defendant that she may not be provided another court appointed attorney and would have to represent herself if circumstances similar to Hobson’s Motion to Withdraw occur

- the Court further advised Defendant about the dangers of self-representation due to her lack of legal training and knowledge

- Hobson’s request was granted and the Court appointed Patricia A. Cashman (Attorney 8)

- the Court said it was aware of Cashman’s extensive experience representing criminal defendants as both an Assistant Public Defender and in private practice, including representing defendants accused of murder and is widely-known to be able and willing to deal with and manage difficult clients

June 7, 2024 - status hearing held

- Defendant advised the Court of walking out of several meetings with Cashman, launching multiple attacks on Cashman’s professionalism, and provided the Court with letters dated 6/4/2024 and 6/7/2024

- Cashman addressed disagreements on legal strategy, including Defendant attaching importance to issues that may not be legally important

- In riposte, SB accused Cashman of “lies” and “half-truths”

June 11, 2024 - Cashman moved to withdraw under Florida Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.7(b)(2) (substantial risk that the representation of 1 or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client) and “irreconcilable differences including, but not limited to, ethical considerations have arisen such that counsel can no longer provide representation”

June 28, 2024 - hearing held on Cashman’s motion and the Court ordered and adjudged as follows

- Cashman’s Motion to Withdraw is granted

- Sarah Boone has FORFEITED her right to court-appointed counsel

- alternatively, Sarah Boone, has WAIVED BY HER CONDUCT her right to court-appointed counsel

- the trial management conference SHALL REMAIN SPECIALLY SET for Tuesday, September 24, 2024 at 1:30 PM

- this case SHALL REMAIN SPECIALLY SET FOR TRIAL for the two week trial period beginning Monday, 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 the Defendant

- any and all pretrial motions in this case must be filed no later than the close of business on Monday, July 22, 2024

 

[Cool Cats]

Thought I’d share the court order here again.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

To summarize —

February 26, 2020 - the public defender’s office was appointed to represent Defendant (Attorney 1)

March 9, 2020 - the public defender moved to withdraw due to Defendant retaining private counsel (Mauricio Padilla, Esq and the Padilla Law Group) (Attorney 2)

March 23, 2020 - Defendant was charged with Second Degree Murder

April 18, 2022 - Padilla moved to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences that made it impossible to effectively represent Defendant

April 29, 2022 - hearing held on Padilla’s Motion to Withdraw

- the Court received two letters from Defendant objecting to Padilla’s withdrawal (dated 4/20/2022 and 4/26/2022)

- the Court advised Padilla he needed to provide more information about the irreconcilable differences

- Padilla requested an opportunity to amend the Motion to Withdraw

- Defendant testified to a “lack of trust” between herself and Padilla

May 4, 2022 - Padilla filed an Amended Motion to Withdraw that stated the relationship between himself and Defendant had become adversarial

May 6, 2022 - Padilla filed a Second Amended Motion to Withdraw that indicated the attorney-client relationship had deteriorated to the point where he could no longer give effective aid in Defendant’s defense

May 10, 2022 - hearing held on Padilla’s Second Amended Motion to Withdraw

- Padilla advised the Court that he had no other choice but to withdraw due to ethical concerns

- Defendant confirmed that she wanted to terminate Padilla as her attorney

- the State expressed concerns about a strategy to allow defense attorney after attorney to represent the Defendant

- the Court advised the Defendant about the State’s concerns regarding a strategy of being unhappy with every attorney and advised Defendant about the dangers of self-representation

- the Court appointed the Public Defender (Attorney 3)

June 6, 2022 - the Public Defender moved to withdraw due to conflict

June 7, 2022 - the Court appointed the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel (RCC) (Attorney 4)

June 10, 2022 - the RCC moved to withdraw due to conflict

June 22, 2022 - the Court appointed Marc Consalo (Attorney 5)

July 8, 2022 - Consalo moved to withdraw due to conflict

July 11, 2022 - the Court appointed Frank J Bankowitz (Attorney 6)

October 27, 2022 - Bankowitz filed a Motion to Continue

December 19, 2022 - Bankowitz moved to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences between Defendant and his family that would make him unable to effectively and properly continue representing the Defendant

December 27, 2022 - hearing held on Bankowitz’s Motion to Withdraw

- the Court received letters from Defendant dated 10/3/2022, 11/3/2022, and 12/5/2022

- the Court conducted a Nelson hearing and Defendant indicated she was not seeking to remove Bankowitz

- Bankowitz advised the Court of the 1000s of pages in discovery he’d reviewed and organized, as well as his contact and potential use of, and collaboration with, expert witnesses, including experts Padilla had utilized

- Bankowitz advised the Court of Defendant’s attempts to call him at a rate of 5-10 times a day and advised of his efforts to balance the demands of his other clients with Defendant’s expectations for communication

- SB riposted that Bankowitz’s representations were “untruths,” raised Bankowitz’s prior public reprimands for his lack of communication and alleged his action in this case rose to a similar level, and then sought to remove Bankowitz

- the Court pointed out the Defendant’s inconsistent statements within minutes of them being made and addressed concerns over her motivations, especially when there was something she disagreed with

- the Court advised Defendant she is “not entitled to an endless line of court appointed lawyers until you find the one that you personally prefer”

- the Court also explained the circumstances where Defendant could represent herself

- ultimately, Defendant did not request to remove Bankowitz and the Court denied his motion to withdraw

>> the case was continued several times due to Bankowitz’s attempts to retain an expert through JAC and JAC’s response to same <<

>> the Court received numerous letters from the Defendant dated 1/10/2023, 3/22/2023, 4/6/2023, 5/15/2023, 6/29/2023, 8/2/2023 <<

August 22, 2023 - Bankowitz again moved to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences that made it impossible for him to effectively represent his client, indicating that Defendant will not be satisfied with any attorney unless said attorney does not have a caseload and can dedicate his or her time solely to this case

September 8, 2023 - hearing held on Bankowitz’s motion

- Bankowitz addressed Defendant’s “derogatory” statements (i.e., “dud,” “buffoon”) and “berating” behavior

- the Court confirmed the receipt of letters from the Defendant dated 8/26/2023 and 8/26/2023

- after Defendant’s acquiescence to Bankowitz’s withdraw, his motion was granted

- the Court appointed Winston Hobson (Attorney 7)

- the Court cautioned Defendant that “if this becomes a problem on another court appointed attorney, I’m going to look more closely at what the alleged disputes are”

- the Court further advised that there were certain decisions the attorney gets to make and certain decisions a defendant gets to make (i.e., go to trial and/or testify) and cautioned Defendant about having “unrealistic expectations” regarding court appointed counsel and reiterated her right to retain private counsel

February 1, 2024 - Hobson moved to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences including, but not limited to, ethical considerations

February 9, 2024 - hearing held on Hobson’s motion

- Hobson addressed a number of issues for the basis of withdrawing: including disagreements about legal strategy, on what can and cannot be done, a lack of resources, defendant’s demands make her difficult to work with, including Defendant taking nonviable legal positions and being unreasonable

- Hobson advised that a retained undisclosed expert key to a substantive defense is not in keeping with what the defendant has in mind

- the Court advised the receipt of a letter from SB dated 1/19/2024

- the Court outlined the overriding claims for withdraw by Padilla, Bankowitz, and Hobson; adversarial relationships, lack of satisfaction, and inability to meet defendant’s desires

- the Court found that all of Defendant’s relationships with court appointed counsel have deteriorated such that Defendant and the appointed counsel cannot work together

- the Court advised Defendant that although she has a right to court-appointed counsel, that right is not unlimited

- the Court twice advised Defendant that she may not be provided another court appointed attorney and would have to represent herself if circumstances similar to Hobson’s Motion to Withdraw occur

- the Court further advised Defendant about the dangers of self-representation due to her lack of legal training and knowledge

- Hobson’s request was granted and the Court appointed Patricia A. Cashman (Attorney 8)

- the Court said it was aware of Cashman’s extensive experience representing criminal defendants as both an Assistant Public Defender and in private practice, including representing defendants accused of murder and is widely-known to be able and willing to deal with and manage difficult clients

June 7, 2024 - status hearing held

- Defendant advised the Court of walking out of several meetings with Cashman, launching multiple attacks on Cashman’s professionalism, and provided the Court with letters dated 6/4/2024 and 6/7/2024

- Cashman addressed disagreements on legal strategy, including Defendant attaching importance to issues that may not be legally important

- In riposte, SB accused Cashman of “lies” and “half-truths”

June 11, 2024 - Cashman moved to withdraw under Florida Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.7(b)(2) (substantial risk that the representation of 1 or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client) and “irreconcilable differences including, but not limited to, ethical considerations have arisen such that counsel can no longer provide representation”

June 28, 2024 - hearing held on Cashman’s motion and the Court ordered and adjudged as follows

- Cashman’s Motion to Withdraw is granted

- Sarah Boone has FORFEITED her right to court-appointed counsel

- alternatively, Sarah Boone, has WAIVED BY HER CONDUCT her right to court-appointed counsel

- the trial management conference SHALL REMAIN SPECIALLY SET for Tuesday, September 24, 2024 at 1:30 PM

- this case SHALL REMAIN SPECIALLY SET FOR TRIAL for the two week trial period beginning Monday, 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 the Defendant

- any and all pretrial motions in this case must be filed no later than the close of business on Monday, July 22, 2024

Wow...I was just trying to find this where the judge writes the decision to deny anymore counsel for SB

 

[Seattle1]

Thought I’d share the court order here again.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

To summarize —

February 26, 2020 - the public defender’s office was appointed to represent Defendant (Attorney 1)

March 9, 2020 - the public defender moved to withdraw due to Defendant retaining private counsel (Mauricio Padilla, Esq and the Padilla Law Group) (Attorney 2)

March 23, 2020 - Defendant was charged with Second Degree Murder

April 18, 2022 - Padilla moved to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences that made it impossible to effectively represent Defendant

April 29, 2022 - hearing held on Padilla’s Motion to Withdraw

- the Court received two letters from Defendant objecting to Padilla’s withdrawal (dated 4/20/2022 and 4/26/2022)

- the Court advised Padilla he needed to provide more information about the irreconcilable differences

- Padilla requested an opportunity to amend the Motion to Withdraw

- Defendant testified to a “lack of trust” between herself and Padilla

May 4, 2022 - Padilla filed an Amended Motion to Withdraw that stated the relationship between himself and Defendant had become adversarial

May 6, 2022 - Padilla filed a Second Amended Motion to Withdraw that indicated the attorney-client relationship had deteriorated to the point where he could no longer give effective aid in Defendant’s defense

May 10, 2022 - hearing held on Padilla’s Second Amended Motion to Withdraw

- Padilla advised the Court that he had no other choice but to withdraw due to ethical concerns

- Defendant confirmed that she wanted to terminate Padilla as her attorney

- the State expressed concerns about a strategy to allow defense attorney after attorney to represent the Defendant

- the Court advised the Defendant about the State’s concerns regarding a strategy of being unhappy with every attorney and advised Defendant about the dangers of self-representation

- the Court appointed the Public Defender (Attorney 3)

June 6, 2022 - the Public Defender moved to withdraw due to conflict

June 7, 2022 - the Court appointed the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel (RCC) (Attorney 4)

June 10, 2022 - the RCC moved to withdraw due to conflict

June 22, 2022 - the Court appointed Marc Consalo (Attorney 5)

July 8, 2022 - Consalo moved to withdraw due to conflict

July 11, 2022 - the Court appointed Frank J Bankowitz (Attorney 6)

October 27, 2022 - Bankowitz filed a Motion to Continue

December 19, 2022 - Bankowitz moved to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences between Defendant and his family that would make him unable to effectively and properly continue representing the Defendant

December 27, 2022 - hearing held on Bankowitz’s Motion to Withdraw

- the Court received letters from Defendant dated 10/3/2022, 11/3/2022, and 12/5/2022

- the Court conducted a Nelson hearing and Defendant indicated she was not seeking to remove Bankowitz

- Bankowitz advised the Court of the 1000s of pages in discovery he’d reviewed and organized, as well as his contact and potential use of, and collaboration with, expert witnesses, including experts Padilla had utilized

- Bankowitz advised the Court of Defendant’s attempts to call him at a rate of 5-10 times a day and advised of his efforts to balance the demands of his other clients with Defendant’s expectations for communication

- SB riposted that Bankowitz’s representations were “untruths,” raised Bankowitz’s prior public reprimands for his lack of communication and alleged his action in this case rose to a similar level, and then sought to remove Bankowitz

- the Court pointed out the Defendant’s inconsistent statements within minutes of them being made and addressed concerns over her motivations, especially when there was something she disagreed with

- the Court advised Defendant she is “not entitled to an endless line of court appointed lawyers until you find the one that you personally prefer”

- the Court also explained the circumstances where Defendant could represent herself

- ultimately, Defendant did not request to remove Bankowitz and the Court denied his motion to withdraw

>> the case was continued several times due to Bankowitz’s attempts to retain an expert through JAC and JAC’s response to same <<

>> the Court received numerous letters from the Defendant dated 1/10/2023, 3/22/2023, 4/6/2023, 5/15/2023, 6/29/2023, 8/2/2023 <<

August 22, 2023 - Bankowitz again moved to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences that made it impossible for him to effectively represent his client, indicating that Defendant will not be satisfied with any attorney unless said attorney does not have a caseload and can dedicate his or her time solely to this case

September 8, 2023 - hearing held on Bankowitz’s motion

- Bankowitz addressed Defendant’s “derogatory” statements (i.e., “dud,” “buffoon”) and “berating” behavior

- the Court confirmed the receipt of letters from the Defendant dated 8/26/2023 and 8/26/2023

- after Defendant’s acquiescence to Bankowitz’s withdraw, his motion was granted

- the Court appointed Winston Hobson (Attorney 7)

- the Court cautioned Defendant that “if this becomes a problem on another court appointed attorney, I’m going to look more closely at what the alleged disputes are”

- the Court further advised that there were certain decisions the attorney gets to make and certain decisions a defendant gets to make (i.e., go to trial and/or testify) and cautioned Defendant about having “unrealistic expectations” regarding court appointed counsel and reiterated her right to retain private counsel

February 1, 2024 - Hobson moved to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences including, but not limited to, ethical considerations

February 9, 2024 - hearing held on Hobson’s motion

- Hobson addressed a number of issues for the basis of withdrawing: including disagreements about legal strategy, on what can and cannot be done, a lack of resources, defendant’s demands make her difficult to work with, including Defendant taking nonviable legal positions and being unreasonable

- Hobson advised that a retained undisclosed expert key to a substantive defense is not in keeping with what the defendant has in mind

- the Court advised the receipt of a letter from SB dated 1/19/2024

- the Court outlined the overriding claims for withdraw by Padilla, Bankowitz, and Hobson; adversarial relationships, lack of satisfaction, and inability to meet defendant’s desires

- the Court found that all of Defendant’s relationships with court appointed counsel have deteriorated such that Defendant and the appointed counsel cannot work together

- the Court advised Defendant that although she has a right to court-appointed counsel, that right is not unlimited

- the Court twice advised Defendant that she may not be provided another court appointed attorney and would have to represent herself if circumstances similar to Hobson’s Motion to Withdraw occur

- the Court further advised Defendant about the dangers of self-representation due to her lack of legal training and knowledge

- Hobson’s request was granted and the Court appointed Patricia A. Cashman (Attorney 8)

- the Court said it was aware of Cashman’s extensive experience representing criminal defendants as both an Assistant Public Defender and in private practice, including representing defendants accused of murder and is widely-known to be able and willing to deal with and manage difficult clients

June 7, 2024 - status hearing held

- Defendant advised the Court of walking out of several meetings with Cashman, launching multiple attacks on Cashman’s professionalism, and provided the Court with letters dated 6/4/2024 and 6/7/2024

- Cashman addressed disagreements on legal strategy, including Defendant attaching importance to issues that may not be legally important

- In riposte, SB accused Cashman of “lies” and “half-truths”

June 11, 2024 - Cashman moved to withdraw under Florida Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.7(b)(2) (substantial risk that the representation of 1 or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client) and “irreconcilable differences including, but not limited to, ethical considerations have arisen such that counsel can no longer provide representation”

June 28, 2024 - hearing held on Cashman’s motion and the Court ordered and adjudged as follows

- Cashman’s Motion to Withdraw is granted

- Sarah Boone has FORFEITED her right to court-appointed counsel

- alternatively, Sarah Boone, has WAIVED BY HER CONDUCT her right to court-appointed counsel

- the trial management conference SHALL REMAIN SPECIALLY SET for Tuesday, September 24, 2024 at 1:30 PM

- this case SHALL REMAIN SPECIALLY SET FOR TRIAL for the two week trial period beginning Monday, 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 the Defendant

- any and all pretrial motions in this case must be filed no later than the close of business on Monday, July 22, 2024

Thank you for the Summary -- it was much worse than I ever imagined!

 

[Weki]

There are no competency issues. Being a pain in the behind is not a competency issue. It’s so obvious this individual is having a hard time coping with her lack of control. And that’s the nicest way of putting it. Darryl Brooks did the same thing and he was waaaay worse. No competency issues with him either. It’s called subverting justice. JMO

 

[sasha17]

Thought I’d share the court order here again.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

To summarize —

February 26, 2020 - the public defender’s office was appointed to represent Defendant (Attorney 1)

March 9, 2020 - the public defender moved to withdraw due to Defendant retaining private counsel (Mauricio Padilla, Esq and the Padilla Law Group) (Attorney 2)

March 23, 2020 - Defendant was charged with Second Degree Murder

April 18, 2022 - Padilla moved to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences that made it impossible to effectively represent Defendant

April 29, 2022 - hearing held on Padilla’s Motion to Withdraw

- the Court received two letters from Defendant objecting to Padilla’s withdrawal (dated 4/20/2022 and 4/26/2022)

- the Court advised Padilla he needed to provide more information about the irreconcilable differences

- Padilla requested an opportunity to amend the Motion to Withdraw

- Defendant testified to a “lack of trust” between herself and Padilla

May 4, 2022 - Padilla filed an Amended Motion to Withdraw that stated the relationship between himself and Defendant had become adversarial

May 6, 2022 - Padilla filed a Second Amended Motion to Withdraw that indicated the attorney-client relationship had deteriorated to the point where he could no longer give effective aid in Defendant’s defense

May 10, 2022 - hearing held on Padilla’s Second Amended Motion to Withdraw

- Padilla advised the Court that he had no other choice but to withdraw due to ethical concerns

- Defendant confirmed that she wanted to terminate Padilla as her attorney

- the State expressed concerns about a strategy to allow defense attorney after attorney to represent the Defendant

- the Court advised the Defendant about the State’s concerns regarding a strategy of being unhappy with every attorney and advised Defendant about the dangers of self-representation

- the Court appointed the Public Defender (Attorney 3)

June 6, 2022 - the Public Defender moved to withdraw due to conflict

June 7, 2022 - the Court appointed the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel (RCC) (Attorney 4)

June 10, 2022 - the RCC moved to withdraw due to conflict

June 22, 2022 - the Court appointed Marc Consalo (Attorney 5)

July 8, 2022 - Consalo moved to withdraw due to conflict

July 11, 2022 - the Court appointed Frank J Bankowitz (Attorney 6)

October 27, 2022 - Bankowitz filed a Motion to Continue

December 19, 2022 - Bankowitz moved to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences between Defendant and his family that would make him unable to effectively and properly continue representing the Defendant

December 27, 2022 - hearing held on Bankowitz’s Motion to Withdraw

- the Court received letters from Defendant dated 10/3/2022, 11/3/2022, and 12/5/2022

- the Court conducted a Nelson hearing and Defendant indicated she was not seeking to remove Bankowitz

- Bankowitz advised the Court of the 1000s of pages in discovery he’d reviewed and organized, as well as his contact and potential use of, and collaboration with, expert witnesses, including experts Padilla had utilized

- Bankowitz advised the Court of Defendant’s attempts to call him at a rate of 5-10 times a day and advised of his efforts to balance the demands of his other clients with Defendant’s expectations for communication

- SB riposted that Bankowitz’s representations were “untruths,” raised Bankowitz’s prior public reprimands for his lack of communication and alleged his action in this case rose to a similar level, and then sought to remove Bankowitz

- the Court pointed out the Defendant’s inconsistent statements within minutes of them being made and addressed concerns over her motivations, especially when there was something she disagreed with

- the Court advised Defendant she is “not entitled to an endless line of court appointed lawyers until you find the one that you personally prefer”

- the Court also explained the circumstances where Defendant could represent herself

- ultimately, Defendant did not request to remove Bankowitz and the Court denied his motion to withdraw

>> the case was continued several times due to Bankowitz’s attempts to retain an expert through JAC and JAC’s response to same <<

>> the Court received numerous letters from the Defendant dated 1/10/2023, 3/22/2023, 4/6/2023, 5/15/2023, 6/29/2023, 8/2/2023 <<

August 22, 2023 - Bankowitz again moved to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences that made it impossible for him to effectively represent his client, indicating that Defendant will not be satisfied with any attorney unless said attorney does not have a caseload and can dedicate his or her time solely to this case

September 8, 2023 - hearing held on Bankowitz’s motion

- Bankowitz addressed Defendant’s “derogatory” statements (i.e., “dud,” “buffoon”) and “berating” behavior

- the Court confirmed the receipt of letters from the Defendant dated 8/26/2023 and 8/26/2023

- after Defendant’s acquiescence to Bankowitz’s withdraw, his motion was granted

- the Court appointed Winston Hobson (Attorney 7)

- the Court cautioned Defendant that “if this becomes a problem on another court appointed attorney, I’m going to look more closely at what the alleged disputes are”

- the Court further advised that there were certain decisions the attorney gets to make and certain decisions a defendant gets to make (i.e., go to trial and/or testify) and cautioned Defendant about having “unrealistic expectations” regarding court appointed counsel and reiterated her right to retain private counsel

February 1, 2024 - Hobson moved to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences including, but not limited to, ethical considerations

February 9, 2024 - hearing held on Hobson’s motion

- Hobson addressed a number of issues for the basis of withdrawing: including disagreements about legal strategy, on what can and cannot be done, a lack of resources, defendant’s demands make her difficult to work with, including Defendant taking nonviable legal positions and being unreasonable

- Hobson advised that a retained undisclosed expert key to a substantive defense is not in keeping with what the defendant has in mind

- the Court advised the receipt of a letter from SB dated 1/19/2024

- the Court outlined the overriding claims for withdraw by Padilla, Bankowitz, and Hobson; adversarial relationships, lack of satisfaction, and inability to meet defendant’s desires

- the Court found that all of Defendant’s relationships with court appointed counsel have deteriorated such that Defendant and the appointed counsel cannot work together

- the Court advised Defendant that although she has a right to court-appointed counsel, that right is not unlimited

- the Court twice advised Defendant that she may not be provided another court appointed attorney and would have to represent herself if circumstances similar to Hobson’s Motion to Withdraw occur

- the Court further advised Defendant about the dangers of self-representation due to her lack of legal training and knowledge

- Hobson’s request was granted and the Court appointed Patricia A. Cashman (Attorney 8)

- the Court said it was aware of Cashman’s extensive experience representing criminal defendants as both an Assistant Public Defender and in private practice, including representing defendants accused of murder and is widely-known to be able and willing to deal with and manage difficult clients

June 7, 2024 - status hearing held

- Defendant advised the Court of walking out of several meetings with Cashman, launching multiple attacks on Cashman’s professionalism, and provided the Court with letters dated 6/4/2024 and 6/7/2024

- Cashman addressed disagreements on legal strategy, including Defendant attaching importance to issues that may not be legally important

- In riposte, SB accused Cashman of “lies” and “half-truths”

June 11, 2024 - Cashman moved to withdraw under Florida Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.7(b)(2) (substantial risk that the representation of 1 or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client) and “irreconcilable differences including, but not limited to, ethical considerations have arisen such that counsel can no longer provide representation”

June 28, 2024 - hearing held on Cashman’s motion and the Court ordered and adjudged as follows

- Cashman’s Motion to Withdraw is granted

- Sarah Boone has FORFEITED her right to court-appointed counsel

- alternatively, Sarah Boone, has WAIVED BY HER CONDUCT her right to court-appointed counsel

- the trial management conference SHALL REMAIN SPECIALLY SET for Tuesday, September 24, 2024 at 1:30 PM

- this case SHALL REMAIN SPECIALLY SET FOR TRIAL for the two week trial period beginning Monday, 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 the Defendant

- any and all pretrial motions in this case must be filed no later than the close of business on Monday, July 22, 2024

Great summary! A couple other points, from the hearing on August 5:

- The trial has been set for a two week period beginning October 7, but a third week has been reserved in case the trial runs longer than expected.

- SB is not eligible for appointed standby counsel because that is only for defendants who choose to go pro se. SB isn't choosing to go pro se but instead has forfeited her right to counsel by her behavior.

 

[Lilibet]

a third week has been reserved in case the trial runs longer than expected.

Given the length of SB’s letters to the judge, I don’t think an extra week will be enough! SB will love the attention and will drag out her moment in the spotlight as defendant and “attorney” ad nauseum. It will be quite a show. Stock up on popcorn.

 

[Cool Cats]

Great summary! A couple other points, from the hearing on August 5:

- The trial has been set for a two week period beginning October 7, but a third week has been reserved in case the trial runs longer than expected.

- SB is not eligible for appointed standby counsel because that is only for defendants who choose to go pro se. SB isn't choosing to go pro se but instead has forfeited her right to counsel by her behavior.

Huh?

Regardless of how she has ended up representing herself, in my opinion in the name of justice, she should have a right to have appointed standby counsel just like other Pro se defendant's do.

At least someone to whisper to her when she can speak and not speak, call witnessess, object, approach bench, and help her follow simple normal procedural guidelines.

How else will she be able to conduct her own trial Pro se?

She has all ready told the judge she is "thoroughly confused" as to why everyone knew about her last 2 hearings except her. She even complained that the media knew about her hearing when she did not, given the fact the media was righ there recording her hearing. She asked "Shouldn't she be included if she is Pro se?"

I have never heard of a Pro se defendant not wanting to be a Pro se defendant.

**** SCRATCHING HEAD ****

2 Cent Confusion

 

[sasha17]

Huh?

Regardless of how she has ended up representing herself, in my opinion in the name of justice, she should have a right to have appointed standby counsel just like other Pro se defendant's do.

At least someone to whisper to her when she can speak and not speak, call witnessess, object, approach bench, and help her follow simple normal procedural guidelines.

How else will she be able to conduct her own trial Pro se?

She has all ready told the judge she is "thoroughly confused" as to why everyone knew about her last 2 hearings except her. She even complained that the media knew about her hearing when she did not, given the fact the media was righ there recording her hearing. She asked "Shouldn't she be included if she is Pro se?"

I have never heard of a Pro se defendant not wanting to be a Pro se defendant.

**** SCRATCHING HEAD ****

2 Cent Confusion

I was surprised to hear it too. Requesting standby counsel was one of SB's handwritten motions that she presented to the judge. He denied this motion. If you go back and watch the video from the August 5 hearing, the judge discusses it including citing the relevant case law.

 

[Lilibet]

I was surprised to hear it too. Requesting standby counsel was one of SB's handwritten motions that she presented to the judge. He denied this motion. If you go back and watch the video from the August 5 hearing, the judge discusses it including citing the relevant case law.

The judge not only cited case law but he mentioned SB’s actions. SB has run through EIGHT attorneys. Does anyone think she will accept the first standby counsel appointed? It will be more of the same. She was warned. I agree with @Weki that there will be a plea deal.

 

[Seattle1]

SB's hearing on 8/5 is a great example of how SB has frustrated the process with her prior attorneys-- nothing is her fault, and she refuses to be accountable for anything! And nothing on her part has been intentional. She tells the Court she did not forfeit her right to counsel -- it was not intentional. Just as she did not murder the victim JT -- his dying inside the suitcase was not intentional.

ETA: I wonder why the party at the far left was wearing an overcoat for the length of the hearing? It's August -- I can't imagine the A/C in the courtroom is efficient plus!