This whole motion doesn't make sense to me. I can't see what the purpose was.
Why would Prior and CD be presenting a motion to take Prior off the case, if they both wanted him ON the case, regardless of the finances? No one else was asking for Prior to go away.
i watched the hearing. Prior said "I'm not getting paid" -- and the court agreed that he should get paid -- which would have been a perfectly solid reason to allow him to leave the case. But then he added "I want to continue, whether I get paid or not," and CD chimed in "Even with the limitations he has outlined, I want Prior as my attorney, not someone else." All throughout, the judge kept trying to get either Prior or CD to say they wanted Prior removed, and neither would say it. Those statements by Prior and CD saying they want Prior to continue - in light of the rule that the defendant gets to pick his lawyer that is private pay, as long as the lawyer is willing to do the work -- forced the court to deny Prior's motion.
But if those statements by Prior and CD are true (and there is no reason for them to lie about it), then what was the point here? Why would they themselves bring this motion to force Prior off the case? What was their plan if Prior HAD BEEN taken off the case, even though they both really wanted him to stay? It all makes no sense to me.
Prior crying poverty didn't change anything. The state by law could not pay Prior, who was a private pay and private selected attorney. He previously had some side resources made available to him by the state, and still does. Even though he may not be getting paid personally, he can hire someone else of his choosing to be 2nd chair, plus whatever experts are needed, including a mitigation expert, and the court had previously said there are resources available for those costs.
I can come up with 4 possibilities, but they all seem far-fetched. Was this some sort of elaborate game being staged, where Prior was trying to make the state think he won't be prepared? Or was it a ploy to get the court and state to agree to delay the trial, in the interest of the defendant getting a FULLY prepared defense? Or to give money to Prior? Or was it a move to lay the groundwork for an appeal, on the basis of the court forcing a sole attorney to work alone and lacking the time to fully prepare against the sizable workforce of the state of Idaho? Those are the best I can conjur, but to me none of those really seem to fit the drama of "I have to quit this case."
