SBM. It has since become known that the prosecution's objection was indeed about MM. Regarding the conflict of interest, Lori Hellis states in her latest newsletter that a conflict of interest has nothing to do with attorney's qualifications but is related to their contact with individuals, their prior representation or ethical obligations. I still wonder what it is, if it's not prior representation of Chad.
In the not too distant past (early June) LH wrote in her newsletter '
Chad Arraigned and Pleads Not Guilty' that once the prosecution files notice of intent to seek the death penalty, the court
will appoint an attorney from the death penalty panel, and if the destruction of evidence charges were merged with the murder charges JP
will not be able to remain on Chad’s case as the lead counsel. In her next newsletter '
Chad's Trial Date and More' she wrote that if the state files their notice of intent to seek the death penalty the court
will appoint new, death-penalty qualified lawyers.
All of this was incorrect because, as per the Idaho Criminal Rules I have previously cited in past threads, the court only gets involved in qualifications of counsel when the state is paying, ie the defendant is indigent. Even then it is a right to have representation but the defendant can and sometimes does choose to waive their right and represent themselves or an attorney of their choice can work pro bono.
It's quite a big thing for a lawyer to get wrong.
I'm not saying LH is wrong about the conflict of interest but I'm not going to automatically assume that if LH states it it must be correct either. She could be right but I'm sticking with my guess that it was an administrative decision going forward to protect her rights once the state had decided her case was going to be a death penalty case, and not leave important decisions like preserving evidence with potentially ineffective counsel. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, it happens a lot.
MOO
