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.

 

[Cool Cats]

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.

Am I wrong?

I thought there are 2 different kinds of attorneys. BOTH Regular defense attorneys but one advises in court as a side counsel to a Pro se defendant. This defendant wants to represent themselves, wants to be a Pro se lawyer for themself but also needs guidence when navigating complicated trial protocol.

But Sarah does not want to represent herself and does not want to be a Pro se lawyer for herself but she is now in this position. As a Pro se lawyer why can't she have what other Pro se lawyers have? A side defense counsel who during trial can advise her of how to navigate the complicated legal system. Her life is on the line with 2nd degree murder charges and she needs advice during her trial. Period.

2 Cents

 

[Weki]

As explained at the hearing by the JCC rep who was on Zoom, stand by counsel is not co-counsel or an assistant. They stand by during a pro se defendant’s attempt to defend themselves then when the defendant changes his or her mind they take over. What SB wants is an assistant to do her bidding. Based on her previous behavior she is not willing to let anyone tell her what needs to be done. She wants a servant. Because she knows all and she knows best with her zero legal experience! These lawyers have other clients, they don’t want to give up their lives and work for 3 weeks to do SB’s bidding nor should they be ordered to do so by the court. Not to mention be insulted and berated by SB while doing it! There’s no due process right to have a slave!

In any case stand by counsel is for pro se defendants. SB is not pro se, she has forfeited her right to a public defender. She’s in a diff posture. If the judge says yes to stand by counsel he might as well just appoint the 10th public defender to be her lawyer because SB doesn’t want to be pro se. He has ruled that she has forfeited/waived her right to a public defender. Appointing stand by counsel would mean a reversal of his order.

JMO

 

[Lilibet]

As a Pro se lawyer why can't she have what other Pro se lawyers have? A side defense counsel who during trial can advise her of how to navigate the complicated legal system. Her life is on the line with 2nd degree murder charges and she needs advice during her trial. Period.

I think we’re in uncharted territory here…at least because it’s not a normal, voluntarily pro se situation. As the judge pointed out “Actions speak louder than words.” Her refusal to cooperate with eight attorneys makes it clear that she wants to represent herself, even if she says she doesn’t want to. She can’t be allowed to continue this parade of attorneys. But because she is not voluntarily representing herself, she is not entitled to the help a voluntary pro se defendant would receive. She has excavated a deep hole for herself and was warned that this would happen if she kept rejecting attorneys by refusing to cooperate. But she never seems to think that consequences will actually happen to her.

I agree with you that the legal system is very complicated and she is facing a second degree murder charge, so yes, she needs advice badly during the trial. She knows this because the judge has explained it to her. And yet, she has voluntarily refused help from eight attorneys. How many side defense counsels to help her navigate the system during the trial would she reject? Her previous behavior would continue if they give her advice she doesn’t want or like…or if they aren’t “nice” to her. SB thinks she can rewrite the rules regarding representation, but I don’t see how the judge can allow this to continue, no matter how much she needs legal help or how “unfair” SB claims the judge is.

JMO

 

[arielilane]

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?

Excellent point about a competency exam @gitana1.

Did the previous eight attorneys ever get an opportunity to request a competency exam? No one knows?

Anyway, your expertise is valued here and hope you can provide input regarding @Cool Cats questions.
You are greatly appreciated. TIA

 

[arielilane]

During Monday’s hearing SB expressed her dismay not to forfeit her right, saying it was your judgment. I dont want to be pro se. Judge Kraynick reiterated that he read everything related to SB’s case and that his order would stand, simply put- it's denied.

'I don't want to be pro se': Sarah Boone argues with judge

Accused killer Sarah Boone argued with a judge over access to evidence and whether she had a right to standby counsel at a hearing on Monday.

www.courttv.com

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

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

Yes Weki, hard not to agree entirely. And I just want to ensure whatever results in the courtroom with this case is ‘one and done’. Would be unfortunate to allow this one any breathing room. Any at all.

And one of our fellow posters way way up thread asked how did SB first husband ever meet her? I think another question is…. how did he manage to escape her?

So sad too….. underneath all of this is the absolutely unnecessary death of JT, and the effect of that on his children and family. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

In watching SB's last hearing -- I think it's beyond her not being cooperative with her previous counsel. Not only is she abusive but she's downright accused some of lying in affidavits and/or committing perjury in her case. It makes sense some withdrew citing ethical concerns. Attorneys have a right to protect themselves from the likes of SB! JMO