Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/08/2014 8:00 AM
This is the time set for Defendant’s pro per Motion to Represent Herself Pro Per.
The Court proceeds with waiver of right to counsel hearing.
The Court advises the Defendant of the responsibilities of counsel such as asserting legal
defenses, interviewing witnesses, doing investigation, doing legal research, filing and arguing
motions, examining and cross examining witnesses, giving opening statement and final argument
to the jury.
The Court further advises the Defendant that he/she will be held to the same standard as
an attorney regarding the presentation of the case. This standard includes knowledge of
courtroom procedure, applicable state law, Arizona Rules of Evidence, and Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
The Court advises the Defendant that she will not be granted a continuance of the trial
setting based on her request for self-representation.
In asking the Defendant if she still wishes to give up her right to counsel and represent
herself, the Defendant responded affirmatively.
The Court advises Defendant of her right to change her mind and obtain an attorney
anytime during the proceedings, however the retained or appointed attorney will not be allowed
to repeat any part of the case already held or waived without their presence.
The Defendant acknowledges understanding her waiver of right to counsel.
The Court finds, based upon the totality of the circumstances, that Defendant knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily desires to waive the right to representation by an attorney and to
represent herself.
IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Rule 6.1(c), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, that
Defendant’s waiver of right to counsel is accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED assigning Kirk Nurmi and Jennifer Willmott as advisory
counsel to assist defendant in preparation and trial of the case, consistent with the guidelines
announced in McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 178-179, 184 (1984) and State v. DeLuna 110
Ariz. 497, 520 P.2d 1121 (1974)
FILED: Waiver of Counsel with attached Letter
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming Capital Case Management Conference on
8/13/14 at 8:30 a.m. in this division.
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/082014/m6427527.pdf
fftobed:
. I had remembered that when he tried to withdraw once before, many moons ago, it was brought up that Wilmott was his assist but that she was not DP qualified. And Nurmi handled the case and the closing for the dp sentencing stage. So I would think that if Wilmott were the DP attorney she would not have allowed Nurmi to give the closing argument over whether Jodi got life or death. Further, when I looked up that female attorney that JA requested last week, it said she is with the public defenders office and is DP qualified. I can't remember her name , something like trumpff, but I don't know now. So please correct me if I am wrong.
lease: :rose: Justice for Travis ! :rose:
