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

[Seattle1]

I missed that there's a new handwritten motion, uploaded on September 5th to the Orange County court! It looks like it was written before Owens joined the case because she refers to herself as pro se in it. Orange County Clerk of Courts Records Search

The title is MOTION TO OBJECT BY THE DEFENDANT TO STATE'S DIGITAL EVIDENCE (USB JUMP DRIVE).

The gist of her issues seem to be:
- The cell phone video/audio can't be authenticated.
- The cell phone video/audio would prejudice a jury against her.
- She believes the the cell phone video/audio was obtained illegally and that violates her Fourth Amendment rights.
- Same complaints about authenticity of the police body cam videos.
- She says she wasn't read her Miranda rights before being questioned by LE so her Fifth Amendment rights have been violated.
- Interrogation video doesn't have a time stamp so it can't be authenticated.

I imagine this is all moot since she's no longer pro se, but we'll see what the judge does with it.

Typical -- if SB didn't initiate it, then it's false or not admissible!

There are forensic phone experts for each side who can authenticate the cell phone video for all -- including the jurors. Just because SB can't spy with her tiny eye the date stamp on the video she took of Jorge begging to be freed from the suitcase does not mean it's not authentic. And SB had a right to remain silent but keeping her mouth shut would be torture to SB. The interrogation video can be authenticated to the satisfaction of her counsel. And good luck to you Mr. Owens...JMO

 

[sasha17]

Earlier this week, Sarah's attorney (Owens) filed the required notice saying that they would be using the Battered Spouse Syndrome defense and included the name and CV of a psychiatrist who already saw Sarah.

Today, the state filed a motion to strike this notice as legally insufficient because:
1. The Florida rule of criminal procedures says that this kind of notice requires an included “statement of particulars showing the nature of the defense the defendant expects to prove…” and the notice does not include any particulars other than a psychiatrist's name and info.
2. According to the court rules, an expert witness (in this case, the psychiatrist) "cannot be used as a conduit to introduce inadmissible hearsay evidence, such as the Defendant offering the Defendant’s hearsay statements."
3. Sarah already told LE that she accidentally left Jorge in the suitcase overnight. According to case law, "Battered Spouse Syndrome testimony is not admissible if her defense is that killing the victim was an accident."

To me, these things (rules of criminal procedures, court rules, relevant case law) seem like things attorney Owens should have known. JMO! Orange County Clerk of Courts Records Search

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

The above makes sense, IMO in order for Battered Spouse Syndrome to be applied, SB would have to explain to the jury that she did intend to let JT die because she was so terrified of him that she dare not unlock him again and had lost her mind with fear.

To my mind, that is a terrible defence for many reasons. She would have to explain why she lied to all the LE and detectives involved so far to date. That version of events also isn't backed up by the video footage. So she would worsen her case.

It's highly believable that SB was a chronic alcoholic and blackout drunk who wasn't altogether aware of her behaviour and the consequences of it. The idea that she intentionally allowed JT to die slowly, painfully, and whilst pleading for his life over the course of several hours is not an improvement on how the judge and jury could perceive her. JMO MOO