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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seattle1 said:
But don't you think (by definition) that's covered in the large font heading of her announcement "Inmate seeks Attorney?"
Click to expand...
According to Cornell Law School, an attorney can be someone authorized to practice law or it can be someone authorized to act on the behalf of another including outside the practice of law, for example attorney-in-fact otherwise known as power-of-attorney.

www.law.cornell.edu

attorney

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

So yes, legally generally the definition refers to someone authorized to practice law and has graduated law school and passed the bar.

However, if someone wanted to be difficult or corny just for one they could inquire what does she or he or anybody mean specifically they mean attorney. (Likely they don’t mean POA but I am just saying as a joke).

Plus, even if it is safe to assume by the definition of attorney that they passed the bar and graduated law school it could still be helpful to ask about potential attorneys backgrounds and credentials to build rancor and learn more about them, for example,how long they have been practicing, how long have they been practicing, how long have they been practicing in the state of Florida, how often have they tried cases like yours, success rate, how do they feel about your case and such.

lawyerissue.com

Questions to Ask Your Defense Lawyer - Lawyer Issue

No one anticipates needing a lawyer, but there may come a time when you need a lawyer at your side, defending your name in front of a judge. If this time ever comes, there are a few things that you need to remember before hiring the right defense lawyer for your case. Keep reading to…
lawyerissue.com lawyerissue.com

thedefenders.net

What to Ask a Criminal Defense Lawyer | The Defenders

Looking for a defense attorney for your case. Here is what you need to know before choosing one. For any other information, give us a call.
thedefenders.net thedefenders.net
 
Last edited:
She also loves to complain about the media being all up in her business and yet she posts that ad purely for media attention. Clearly, no lawyer is going to come forward and offer their eternal devotion to this woman who is so tedious to say the least. Also remember the state is not going to pay for this lawyer. It would be pro bono. She is hoping the media attention in the case would draw someone who wants the spotlight. JMO
 
AppleTreeGreen said:
According to Cornell Law School, an attorney can be someone authorized to practice law or it can be someone authorized to act on the behalf of another including outside the practice of law, for example attorney-in-fact otherwise known as power-of-attorney.

www.law.cornell.edu

attorney

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
Click to expand...
A person off the street is not allowed to practice law (other than for oneself).

See also, from your source: admission to practice
 
AugustWest said:
A person off the street is not allowed to practice law (other than for oneself).

See also, from your source: admission to practice
Click to expand...
Yes, I know.

legally generally the definition refers to someone authorized to practice law and has graduated law school and passed the bar.

However, if someone wanted to be difficult or corny just for fun they could inquire what does she or he or anybody mean specifically they mean they need an attorney. Do they mean like a legal kind for court, for example? Or did they just need someone to speak for them and their wishes and they have no one else around to do so so they are willing to pay for a POA in addition to writing the will and directive and all that stuff? They just want a human voice around to vouch for their wishes too. (Likely they don’t mean POA but I am just saying as a joke and bc of a movie plot line IIRC with similar premise).
 
Seattle1 said:
Mercy -- the suitcase video that SB recorded is difficult to watch but one thing we know for certain is the dying victim wasn't threatening, combative, or using abusive language as he repeatedly told SB he couldn't breathe and wasn't joking.

In other words, this is no 'self-defense,' or 'I was in fear for my life' defense! This is a case of SB being SB. MOO
Click to expand...
Agreed that this isn’t a self-defense case. I was just saying for SB to even talk about that incident on the video and in the tone in which did so implies to me that they maybe weren’t as lovey dovey and pleasantly happy together that day as she alludes to detectives. Maybe they got into an argument, maybe they were annoyed or just tired but either way seems like some tension may have been brewing including even in the absence physical and domestic violence or aggression occurring.
 
AppleTreeGreen said:
Yes, I know.

legally generally the definition refers to someone authorized to practice law and has graduated law school and passed the bar.

However, if someone wanted to be difficult or corny just for fun they could inquire what does she or he or anybody mean specifically they mean they need an attorney. Do they mean like a legal kind for court, for example? Or did they just need someone to speak for them and their wishes and they have no one else around to do so so they are willing to pay for a POA in addition to writing the will and directive and all that stuff? They just want a human voice around to vouch for their wishes too. (Likely they don’t mean POA but I am just saying as a joke and bc of a movie plot line IIRC with similar premise).
Click to expand...
Got it! Missed the joke; my apologies!
 
Cool Cats said:
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
Click to expand...

Initially, I was under the impression that SB would be assisted with some sort of a duty court lawyer(s) who would work on behalf of the court in a legal capacity to mediate between herself and the judge / jury and prosecution. Like a legal clerk on the days of court. However, that's not the case.

SB is now fully loaded with the onus of representing herself, including how she interacts with all other parties in court and with no legal guidance whatsoever. She has her own Private Investigator, paid for by the state and that's it. This is why the judge has given an extra week (raised from two weeks to three weeks) court sitting time.

Apparently, she's not the first defendant to be in this position.

JMO but the judge has been exceptionally considerate and clear with her so that she cannot claim an unfair trial.
 
Megnut said:
Unless SB says it herself before it can be stricken, the jury won't know why she's defending herself and will try to make sense of whatever she cobbles together. IMO the judge believes her to be competent enough, intelligent enough, self-interested enough and capable enough for her to get a fair trial. Plus he knows himself. He handled her amazingly well. Refused to engage. Period.

I'm sure her previous counselors all told her a plea was in her best interest. Accept reckless homicide, or diminished capacity or somesuch because of her alcohol level, then plead for mercy at sentencing. But SB can't be reasoned with.

Is there a precedence anywhere for a this cluster: a defendant who has forfeited her right to court appointed counsel then being bodily removed from court for essentially not behaving, and then a judge continuing the trial with the defendant in absentia, whereby he continues to rule making sure the State's case is fair? Carefully not acting as her lawyer but keeping the wheels of the trial still turning?

How, how, how can this proceed smoothly with her playing her own attorney?

She is a clown car. And all the clowns.

JMO
Click to expand...

Bolded by me

I don't know if there's a precedent but IMO this is exactly what's going to happen. Well, one of two things. SB is going to (finally) be forced to view and acknowledge the evidence held against her before the trial starts. This happens by way of two methods - firstly, she has been give a laptop pre-loaded with all the documentation held against her that she now has to view before the next case status hearing.

Secondly, she will be brought to be present in court when all the physical evidence held by the prosecution is submitted for admission - this is literal physical objects that cannot be 'scanned' into a computer and will be referred to during the course of the trial. I imagine those physical objects will be: the suitcase, Jorges clothes, shoes, mobile phone, SB's clothes and shoes and mobile phone, any physical notes they wrote to one another, any weapons or blood spattered objects, possibly wine bottles and alcohol containers, cigarette butts etc.

It is my imagination that once SB gets very real indeed after looking at all the evidence on the laptop and has a chilling reality check of the physical objects, she will negotiate for a plea that means the hearing doesn't need to take place. LE will have their lawyers present and waiting for her to be able to do this, should she choose.

The other option is her defiance and denial becomes beyond all belief, she acts out in court so badly she's removed from being present during her own case. Maybe someone legally trained can explain whether if she's removed from the court, that any substitute lawyer is put in place of her in her absence, conditional on her absence (if that makes sense).

JMO MOO
 
I’ve seen a defendant go pro se and sit in court and not utter a single word throughout the trial while the state presented their case. She was convicted. And it was a death penalty case! She sat there and didn’t say anything during the penalty phase. She got the death penalty!

If SB decides to go that route, the case will proceed without her cooperation. If she’s disruptive, the judge will move her to another room where he can control her interruptions etc. Just like we saw with Darryl Brooks. She is not the first nor the last to try these dilatory tactics. JMO
 
Weki said:
I’ve seen a defendant go pro se and sit in court and not utter a single word throughout the trial while the state presented their case. She was convicted. And it was a death penalty case! She sat there and didn’t say anything during the penalty phase. She got the death penalty!
Click to expand...

Do you recall which case this was? I'd love to read more about how that all went down.
 
There are other scenarios that I forgot to mention and speculate could happen with SB = she could make more physical attempts to disrupt proceedings - for example dispute that the laptop works at all or the documents are not there, etc, could take up time and require technical assistance. She could 'accidentally' / deliberately / or in a fit of temper destroy the laptop and render it unusable.

Further she could resort to medical complaints, self injurious events, or attempt to take her own life. IMO SB is showing signs of Narcissistic Personality Disorder and although that makes her naturally unlikeable, it does also have an extremely high completed suicide rate and we do see prisoners who were arrogant and controlling in their outside lives resort to this when they're caught for a serious crime.

SB has played a game of very extreme disruption and I don't see why she is likely to stop now because she's backed into a corner. She's just going to do different things. IMO JMO
 

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com acrobat.adobe.com

One of the cases referenced in the above order is U.S. v. Thomas, 357 F.3d 357 (3d Cir. 2004).

U.S. v. Thomas, 357 F.3d 357 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read U.S. v. Thomas, 357 F.3d 357, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com

The court in this case ruled a waiver by conduct after the 4th attorney requested to withdraw. (As we all know, SB was afforded twice that many!)

The District Court appointed Arthur McQuillen as Thomas' fourth counsel, but reiterated that a defendant can, under certain circumstances, be deemed to have waived his Sixth Amendment right based upon his conduct. At a hearing conducted February 19, 2002, the District Court repeatedly explained to Thomas the nature and extent of his right to counsel, the attorney's obligation to accommodate all "reasonable requests" from Thomas, but that unreasonable demands "may constitute what the law considers misconduct by the Defendant client" and that such misconduct "may constitute a waiver of [his] right to counsel." App. at 125-26. The Court reminded Thomas he was not entitled to an attorney who would docilely take orders from Thomas or share his precise view of the appropriate case strategy.

Moreover, the District Court did not rely solely on Thomas' threat in finding forfeiture. Indeed, the District Court also emphasized that Thomas had been verbally abusive to McQuillen, tore up his correspondence, refused to cooperate in producing a witness list, and hung up on him during a telephone conversation. Further, Thomas attempted to force McQuillen to file several meritless, frivolous claims, such as ones regarding the Interstate Detainers Act and suppression. Perhaps most critically, Thomas engaged in this sort of misconduct not once, but in relationships with four attorneys. The District Court properly found that Thomas forfeited his right to counsel.

There are other cases referenced in the judge’s ruling, so it seems precedent has been sufficiently established. Honestly, the judge’s ruling answers pretty much any and every question one may have about this case.
 
Seattle1 said:
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 www.courttv.com
Click to expand...
Yes. I agree with you. I mean one can see from her 58 page letter that she is able to form a coherent thought, and she expresses herself in a logical, albeit infuriating manner, in court.

But if I had a client throwing little tantrums when I was trying to work them, I’d probably request a competency exam just to cover my tail.
 
Kittybunny said:
Oh @gitana1 Sarah Boone is looking for you! How could you possibly pass up such an opportunity?!?

View attachment 522924

In all seriousness…run.Run far far away!
Click to expand...
She’s a nightmare!

I’m working a case where the opposing party is very similar. She has gone through two attorneys and failed to hire the free one the court would appoint her for a contempt I’ve filed against her. (Contempts are quasi criminal actions in civil, family law).

So now I have to deal with her myself. And she’s a nut. So incredibly bizarre.
 
Seattle1 said:
^^ I agree. The legal talking heads and YT hosts have all opined the same that generally, this charade by SB should have ended after 3 attorneys.
Click to expand...
Right, I was getting frustrated with the court for allowing it to continue as long as it did. The audacity of her now claiming the court is forcing her to go pro se is just…..smh. The last defense atty is especially known for dealing with difficult clients and even SHE said nope! I want this to go to trial because I love a train wreck trial but like I said I think she will plead out. JMO
 
Have y’all seen how Darryl Brooks has been behaving since his outlandish performance at his trial? So well behaved. He’s a completely diff person now. He took a plea on the outstanding charges he had involving his ex. I only bring this up as a demonstration that the defendants who do this are doing it deliberately to frustrate the process and gain control. It’s all about control! SB is so smug and pleased with herself that all these ppl have to sit there under her control because they are bound by law to give her a fair trial. She gets to be bridezilla until she’s convicted.

JMO
 
Weki said:
Have y’all seen how Darryl Brooks has been behaving since his outlandish performance at his trial? So well behaved. He’s a completely diff person now. He took a plea on the outstanding charges he had involving his ex. I only bring this up as a demonstration that the defendants who do this are doing it deliberately to frustrate the process and gain control. It’s all about control! SB is so smug and pleased with herself that all these ppl have to sit there under her control because they are bound by law to give her a fair trial. She gets to be bridezilla until she’s convicted.

JMO
Click to expand...
And once convicted, she'll go full SusanSmith, yanking in lovahs from her fantail. She will always be the star of all three rings of her circus.

JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 197 more.
Total: 1,006 (members: 198, guests: 808)

Online statistics

Members online
198
Guests online
808
Total visitors
1,006
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,811
Messages
18,258,233
Members
234,765
Latest member
Dickere
Back
Top