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.
sasha17 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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
 
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
 
sasha17 said:
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
Click to expand...
This is probably why she couldn’t get along with any of the assembly line of attorneys that she’s been granted in the past. She has likely been insisting on using this defense and didn’t like being told that she couldn’t have it both ways. It was either a drunken and unintentional accident OR she did it because she suffers from Battered Wife Syndrome. It can’t be both, but she wants to argue both.
 
Or... before she got blackout drunk and can't recall the events of that night, she was suffering from Battered Spouse Syndrome and had come to the conclusion the only way out of the relationship was to kill JT.

Which ramps her up a few notches to 'premeditated murder' doesn't it?

'Well... I was going to kill him one day but in this instance I got drunk and don't actually recall what happened, so it wasn't intentional' doesn't exactly stack up as a very convincing defence but it may even be true which is terrifying. JMO MOO pure speculation.
 
Speaking outside of court after the hearing, Owens said that he had unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a plea deal for Boone, but will move forward with the case despite being unable to secure a continuance. “I’m going to have to have some help,” Owens acknowledged. “I’m trying to assemble a team right now.” Owens also noted that he was not working pro bono on the case, telling the cameras, “Sarah owes me.”

Boone is due back in court for a motions hearing on Sept. 26. Her trial is scheduled to start on Oct. 7.


www.courttv.com

Judge: Sarah Boone 'only has herself to blame' for current predicament

Sarah Boone's new attorney appeared with her at a hearing but was not able to convince the judge to delay her case.
www.courttv.com www.courttv.com
September 3, 2024
 
Does he yet rue the day?

How many days until he bids her adieu? If SB came across as amenable or agreeable in his time with her, this too shall pass.

SB can't help but be SB.

JMO
 
arielilane said:
She is not wealthy, well-positioned, or privileged and can't buy a legal team or PR team to protect her from the crime so I can see this easily being a conviction. She knows this, it's the reason she (alone) contributed to all the delays. jmo
Click to expand...
All delay on her. 100% agree. Her responsibility for the long,long delays.
 
arielilane said:
Speaking outside of court after the hearing, Owens said that he had unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a plea deal for Boone, but will move forward with the case despite being unable to secure a continuance. “I’m going to have to have some help,” Owens acknowledged. “I’m trying to assemble a team right now.” Owens also noted that he was not working pro bono on the case, telling the cameras, “Sarah owes me.”

Boone is due back in court for a motions hearing on Sept. 26. Her trial is scheduled to start on Oct. 7.


www.courttv.com

Judge: Sarah Boone 'only has herself to blame' for current predicament

Sarah Boone's new attorney appeared with her at a hearing but was not able to convince the judge to delay her case.
www.courttv.com www.courttv.com
September 3, 2024
Click to expand...
This is the 3rd time I'm saying this about Owens.

IMO:

Something is real off with this guy.

Also he recently gave the name of a lawyer friend of his who joined the case.
???
 
sasha17 said:
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
Click to expand...

In Owens earlier Motion -- he recognized that he only had 8 days to get this Change of Defense (Battered Spouse Syndrome) Notice of Intent filed, and filed a skinny, one page Notice on Sept 6, 2024. Although the Notice included the name & address of the witness, the defense clearly failed to include a Statement of Particulars.

Incidentally, the Defense was first to request a Statement of Particulars from the State.
A motion for a statement of particulars is a common part of a criminal defense. It's a way to challenge the information, which is the document that formally charges the defendant. On Sept 8, the State responded to the defense's request in part:

1. A statement of particulars is never required in Florida except in exceptional cases. Peel v. State, 154 So. 2d 910 (1963); appeal dismissed 168 So. 2d 148; certiorari denied 380 U.S. 986.There is nothing in the Motion, or in an affidavit, that shows exceptional circumstances in this case requiring a statement of particulars. 2. Receiving a statement of particulars is not a legal right, but rather an act of judicial discretion. Miller v. State, 764 So. 2d 640 (1st DCA 2000).

Perhaps the defense will argue tit- for- tat on the statements of particulars-- give us ours, and we'll give you yours!

IMO, regardless of whether or not the Notice of Intent by the defense was legally deficient in form, how can SB claim she honestly feared for her life when she allowed the victim to suffocate inside the suit case while she slept peacefully in her bed for about 12 hours before finding him zipped inside -- telling investigators over and over it was not intentional.

We've all seen the video of JT pleading with SB that he could not breath. He was not threatening-- even as she taunted him! We know that SB even turned the suitcase over, yet she never unzipped it!

Nope, I don't think SB meets the three criteria necessary to claim BSS:

Seattle1 said:
In most cases where evidence of battered spouse syndrome is admitted, it is solely for this limited purpose. Battered spouse syndrome is only a small part of the traditionally narrow self-defense doctrine. It is not, itself, a complete defense.

To justify homicide under any claim of self defense, a defendant must establish the presence of three elements:

1) the defendant believed she must use force against an imminent threat of harm;
2) the amount of force used was proportionate to the threatened harm; and
3) the defendant retreated to the greatest degree reasonably possible.

Evidence that a woman suffers from battered spouse syndrome addresses part one of this standard, namely, whether the woman honestly feared for her life.

Part three of this tripartite self defense standard, the duty to retreat, is inapplicable in a defendant’s own home because of the so-called “castle doctrine,” or privilege of non-retreat. The castle doctrine provides that if an assailant threatens a victim with violence in the victim’s own home, the victim may turn aggressor without any duty of retreat, and still be able to justify his actions by claiming self defense.
Click to expand...

Rule 3.201 - BATTERED-SPOUSE SYNDROME DEFENSE

(b) Time for Filing Notice. The defendant shall give notice of intent to rely on the defense of battered-spouse syndrome no later than 30 days prior to trial. The notice shall contain a statement of particulars showing the nature of the defense the defendant expects to prove and the names and addresses of the witnesses by whom the defendant expects to show battered-spouse syndrome, insofar as possible.
Fl. R. Crim. P. 3.201

Rule 3.201
 

Hearings​


DateHearingTimeLocationPagesDoc
10/7/2024Trial - Kraynick, Michael S9:00 AMRoom 12-A On The 12th Floor
9/26/2024Trial Management Conference - Kraynick, Michael S9:00 AMRoom 12-A On The 12th Floor
9/24/2024CANCELED-Cancelled Trial Management Conference - Kraynick, Michael S1:30 PMRoom 12-A On The 12th Floor
9/24/2024Hearing - Munyon, Lisa T.9:00 AMRoom 19-A on the 19th Floor
9/19/2024Hearing - Kraynick, Michael S1:30 PMRoom 12-A On The 12th Floor

 
SB was very familiar with ringing the cops on JT and complaining about him to others, such as her female landlord who took pity on her at first.

IMO if she locked him in the suitcase for a joke or even to be cruel and then felt too scared to let him out because he might act in anger / violence against her, she was more than well equipped and experienced in seeking help. She could have called LE / Emergency Services, ran to a neighbouring household, or called up her ex or the landlord etc.

She could have also unzipped the case just enough and legged it from the house. She did none of those things.

JMO MOO
 
NameDOBTypeAttorneyAtty Phone
SARAH BOONE10/10/1977DefendantTONY HENDERSON850-400-1715

DateDescription
10/07/2024HEARING - Trial - Kraynick, Michael S
09/26/2024HEARING - Trial Management Conference - Kraynick, Michael S
09/24/2024HEARING - Hearing - Munyon, Lisa T.
09/24/2024HEARING - CANCELED-Cancelled Trial Management Conference - Kraynick, Michael S
09/19/2024HEARING - Hearing - Kraynick, Michael S

All hearings @ 9:00 am ET

Exception:
Hearing on 9.19.2024 @1:30 pm ET

Orange County Clerk of Courts Records Search
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 196 more.
Total: 553 (members: 197, guests: 356)

Online statistics

Members online
197
Guests online
356
Total visitors
553
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,716
Messages
18,257,220
Members
234,735
Latest member
SophBlue
Back
Top