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

[Cool Cats]

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.

Maybe the judge will assign some court professional to work with her on a plea agreement if she wants one. These are "deadly" serious, like an important contract that a person should not be signing without having an attorney read it.

@gitana1

Any thoughts on these 4 things?

1.) Sarah getting appointed standby counsel?

2.) Sarah getting counsel to write up a plea deal if this is what she wants?

3.) In your professional opinion how do you think Sarah's trial will go with or without her having standby counsel?

4.) Do you think the judge is correct in assuming that Sarah is deliberately resisting counsel to delay her jury trial? He said actions speak louder than words and that her words tell the story she wants counsel for a trial but her actions show she does not want a trial....or wants it put off as long as possible.

Sorry to bother you with all these questions but I very much appreciate having a verified attorney on this thread. I hope you comment on this thread during Sarah's actual trial.

I am guessing that alot of posters are as perplexed as I am about this whole debacle.

2 Cents.....Thank You very much @gitana1

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

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 can understand what you mean but SB is an involuntary / unwilling pro se defendant because she has 'forfeited her right' to legal representation. As explained very clearly by the judge. She has forfeited her right by refusing to work reasonably with numerous lawyers, some of whom she's made very serious false allegations about. She's not workable with.

She was also IMO attempting to play the system, either consciously or unconsciously, by repeatedly and sustainedly failing to work with her appointed lawyer. She was gaming the system to fail so that she would never get a hearing - hence she's now been in jail for well over 4 years and has cost the state a fortune. In order to prevent this from keep happening, it was vital the judge intervened. So that there is justice for Jorge, that SB is not a woman kept in remain with no conviction, and that the law is served for everyone in general.

I don't believe SB was willing or able to work with anyone. I believe she's in denial and cognitive dissonance.

She can pay for private legal advice and hire a lawyer with her own money. Or she must now go it alone. There is no stand by lawyer as that is what people who elect to go pro se then change their minds are legally entitled to.