If I understand it correctly he wants an assessment of his sanity in 2005- I'm wondering how any Psychologist/Psychiatrist can do this so long after the fact....?
JLM Charged in 2005 Farifax Rape Case
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
- Status
If I understand it correctly he wants an assessment of his sanity in 2005- I'm wondering how any Psychologist/Psychiatrist can do this so long after the fact....?
bestill
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 8,998
- Reaction score
- 65,894
Could this "inner struggle" be strategic on the part of the defense? Setting up an opportunity for possible appeal and to cast doubt on JM's proper representation. And why was Camblos allowed to mention his motion for JM's mental evaluation at this time? Thinking that was an attempt to postpone the plea hearing further than two weeks.
M
The judge found JLM indigent. The judge then appoints a PD. The defendant doesn't get to choose his PD but since Camblos made that request to the court, the court took that under consideration. So really, JLM ends up having the best of both worlds, so to speak. He gets the attorney he wants at the Commonwealth's expense. IMO
The judge found JLM indigent. The judge then appoints a PD. The defendant doesn't get to choose his PD but since Camblos made that request to the court, the court took that under consideration. So really, JLM ends up having the best of both worlds, so to speak. He gets the attorney he wants at the Commonwealth's expense. IMO
He has rubbed the PD up the wrong way already, that was obvious!
I understood JLM's 'family' (whether mother or uncle or larger family pooling resources and influence) had retained Camblos between the time JLM appeared at the police station and the time he was apprehended in TX.
The answer is "no" to your double representation question. A public defender is appointed when a defendant cannot pay for one himself. Matthew did not retain Camblos, at least not in the Fairfax case.
"§ 19.2-159. Determination of indigency; guidelines; statement of indigence; appointment of counsel.
D. Except in jurisdictions having a public defender, or unless (i) the public defender is unable to represent the defendant by reason of conflict of interest or (ii) the court finds that appointment of other counsel is necessary to attain the ends of justice, counsel appointed by the court for representation of the accused shall be selected by a fair system of rotation among members of the bar practicing before the court whose names are on the list maintained by the Indigent Defense Commission pursuant to § 19.2-163.01. If no attorney who is on the list maintained by the Indigent Defense Commission is reasonably available, the court may appoint as counsel an attorney not on the list who has otherwise demonstrated to the court's satisfaction an appropriate level of training and experience. The court shall provide notice to the Commission of the appointment of the attorney.
§ 19.2-163.4. Inapplicability of §§ 17.1-606 and 19.2-163 where public defender offices established; exception.
In counties and cities in which public defender offices are established pursuant to § 19.2-163.04, defense services for indigents charged with jailable offenses shall be provided by the public defenders unless (i) the public defender is unable to represent the defendant or petitioner by reason of conflict of interest or (ii) the court finds that appointment of other counsel is necessary to attain the ends of justice. Except for the provisions of § 19.2-163 relating to reasonable expenses, §§ 17.1-606 and 19.2-163 shall not apply when defense services are provided by the public defenders."
I highly recommend watching the entire hearing - especially when the two defense attorneys talk about their credentials and experience. JLM will receive extremely adequate representation in the courtroom - a privilege granted to few defendants.
He will have NO grounds for appeal on the grounds of inadequate defense.
The judge's reasons for appointing both Camblos and the Fairfax public defenders as co-counsel were very sound - IMO.
That's odd.... if he requests the #1 Defense Atty in the State, he can have it? How does someone who is indigent get to choose?
I'm new to this but here it goes... if you listen to video of the court proceedings the judge asks JLM if he has retained Mr. Camblos as his attorney for the Fairfax case...either JLM or Mr. Camblos replies no. JLM does not have the money to hire his own attorney. Since Fairfax is a different jurisdiction than Charlottesviile/Albermarle, the law requires the judge to appoint a PD from the Fairfax jurisdiction. IMO appointing the PD and Mr. Camblos to co-council is pertecting JLM's rights and the victims rights. Since JLM does not have any income available to hire a lawyer to represent him Fairfax, the judge had not choice but to appoint a PD from Fairfax. Letting Mr. Camblos also be involved because of his relationship with JLM and ties to other cases that may/are related to 2005 rape case makes perfect sense to me. Mr. Camblos needs to stop being so arrogant, IMO and just work with the PD office in Fairfax. His client is the one that is charged with these horrible crimes - I believe the judge and the justice system is bending over backwards at this point to protect his right to a fair and speedy trial. IMO
Hank Scorpio
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 225
You have to be certified as a PD in VA in order to be allowed to serve as the PD on a case involving an indigent person.
I would guess he is not on the acceptable list...otherwise it probably would not have been an issue.
In this case, the state LEGALLY has to appoint a PD for representation. Secondary representation and all of that are outside of the statute.
The state can wave the requirement of being a certified PD and on their list, and usually will....that is why I think for some reason they just dont like Camblos.
Thanks and welcome to the forum! That explains it better than anything I've seen today!
The way I heard it was Petit asked if Dawn Butorac could be lead "trial" counsel and the judge said he didn't care. I could be mistaken but that's what I thought was said.
Does anyone want to speculate on the "connection" between the three cases that keeps being repeated? For some time, there have been reports eluding to the fact that something wasn't being mainstreamed that would show a connection to these and even the Liberty rape (not sure about the CNU one). Is this the right forum for this discussion?
ChasingMoxie
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 394
- Reaction score
- 17
Once the judge determines that JLM cannot afford an attorney, here is his quote (taken from the raw courtroom footage at http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/201...uspect-court-sex-assault-fairfax-co/18230807/ ):
"The law indicates, Mr Camblos, that I am to appoint the public defender in the case, unless it is necessary to appoint someone else to attain the ends of justice. That's what the code section says. So the question becomes whether I should appoint the public defender or not."
I think he did the right thing appointing both, and after listening to the credentials, it's clear that JLM is extremely well-represented. I don't think there is any room for successful appeal on this point.
"The law indicates, Mr Camblos, that I am to appoint the public defender in the case, unless it is necessary to appoint someone else to attain the ends of justice. That's what the code section says. So the question becomes whether I should appoint the public defender or not."
I think he did the right thing appointing both, and after listening to the credentials, it's clear that JLM is extremely well-represented. I don't think there is any room for successful appeal on this point.
Except the lawyers are not getting along. Camblos is not happy he is not named lead. JM wants Camblos, not the PD and the judge is telling them to work it out. Most of this hearing was about that. Ridiculous. Maybe he'd have had to have plead by now if his lawyers weren't squabbling. IF they don't resolve it yes, there could be a case to be made that he had bad counsel . THey get made enough at each they could each say the other was wrong at evey misstep. Not a good start at all. I see there could be grounds to appeal if this keeps up
MJPeony
SF Bay Area
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2014
- Messages
- 1,744
- Reaction score
- 10,664
I only have very limited law experience, but I also personally think the judge made a good decision. Seems like a fair and logical deal all around to have both the Fairfax PD and Camblos on it together, and I think the judge explained it clearly. Camblos looked bizarrely emotional here to me. His body language was arrogant and he seemed whiney. I don't understand it. He should have known the 2-attorney outcome was likely, and he should have been prepared for that ruling. JMO.
All makes me wonder why it was such a big deal for him to be the ONLY att'y for JM in Fairfax. Makes me think he's worried his case won't be as strong if someone else is involved b/c Camblos is planning a very emotionally-bent trial. Where he relies heavily on a pity-party for JM and Camblos feels he is best suited to be dramatic about that. Again, totally JMO.
IMO, Camblos's ego has long been, and continues to be, of the VERY LARGE variety. Not surprised he would come off today as arrogant and whiney. He didn't get his way.
Apart from JM's DNA?
Camblos wears a bow tie. Public defender wears a neck-tie. Camblos probably is liberal, civil rights activist. Public defender is probably not, but more toward protection of constitutional rights of all citizens, rather than affirmative action, defense on grounds of social justice.
JMO - admittedly guessing, going by appearances. Disclosure: have been wrong more than a thousand times.
He did not have to plead because he did not have a lawyer appointed until today.
Lawyers can make their motions and argue accordingly -- that is the way the system works. There is no evidence that after the Judge's decision, these lawyers will not work together in the best interest of their client. The Judge was worried about constant delays if he only appointed Camblos, because Camplos has other, related cases, that could cause conflicts with the Court's calendar. On the other hand, there are very good reasons to keep Camplos in the case.
I think he made a good decision.
- Status