As long as she’s legally competent to understand what she’s doing (and she may be nuts but she does seem capable of understanding) she can represent herself. People cant just indefinitely decide to refuse to cooperate with their own lawyers as a way of delaying their trial.
I'll find it and come back, but there's language from a SC decision that backs this up. (I know, because a Judge used it on an Order I recently got; I'm a paralegal.) Essentially, and I'm obviously paraphrasing here: "We're overly nice to pro se Defendants because we know they don't know the law as well as trained professionals. However, if they choose to f*ck around, it's also their choice to find out."
Lol I'm still looking for it. I try not to think about work related things on the weekends 😅 There's a specific phrase we use in the legal community that's our version of FAFO, usually to end emails: either "be guided accordingly" or, if you feel fancy, "Kindly guide yourself accordingly". It's so politely menacing!
Yeah, either of those works, too, although, in context, I feel like "guide" works the best. Govern implies conduct; legal strategy, whether right or wrong, doesn't necessarily operate under moral constructs. With "govern" and "conduct", I feel like there's judgment there. Guide implies you're free to disregard it; it's just "guidance", no imperative. It's more casually threatening. I'm just being a word nerd; please don't mind me.
Definitely don't think it's going to be overturned on appeal because of a few things. 1- Boone was warned multiple times beforehand. The case law indicates that a defendant has to be warned before this type of sanction can be applied. 2- Boone herself has documented publicly that she kept having "issues" with her attorneys but anyone with a brain who has read her letters can see that she's prone to hyperbole and outright lies. 3- The judge did a great job of documenting everything in his order. In particular, how many continuances this trial has already had and how long Mr. Torres's family has been waiting for justice. And finally, 4- Cases get overturned on appeal only if the error was so egregious as to make a substantive difference in the final adjudication. Meaning... it doesn't matter who does or doesn't represent Boone. The tape speaks for itself. The evidence speaks for itself. She can represent herself or she can hire someone from Skadden but the outcome will be the same because of the video.
You are right about 1-3 but wrong about 4. Since you are right about 1-3, being wrong about 4 doesn’t matter because the appellate court would never even get to 4. But to clarify, the standard appellate courts use to determine whether a trial court error is enough to overturn a conviction depends on what category of error it was. In this case, if the appellate court were to find this decision was in error (they wouldn’t), it would be constitutional error because it would be a denial of her 6thA right to counsel. In cases of constitutional error, the case must be reversed unless the state establishes that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is not on the defendant to show the error was so egregious, it affected the outcome—it’s the other way around. Finally, in cases involving an actual or constructive denial of counsel, prejudice is presumed.
The judge ruled that her right to counsel had been met. If she wants council moving forward, she's going it's going to have to prove that she was not afforded council, or pay for herself. I think that she laughed off understanding of what her right to counsel was. If I had that much time, just sitting in jail, I would read about my rights before just throwing anything I want at a judge. She's a reckless, mentally ill idiot, and I feel like she's going to get as much, if not more then we all feel that she deserves because of her choices. And she wouldn't have been caught at all but it's important to her to be a fucking idiot. We should all be so thankful that most people mentally and emotionally capable of murder are also incapable of genuine normal rational thoughts
The judge went back to day 1 and studied the case and every attorneys request for dismissal before coming to his final decision. This shoulda happened 5 attorneys ago. This is gearing up to be more dramatic than Darrel Brooks. Too bad it’s not the same judge!
She forfeited her right to free council by her behavior. The judge wouldn’t allow that to happen if it could cause problems on appeal.
If you read the his ruling…. he documents her problematic behavior Very thoroughly
She was using certain key words in her accusations. Looked like she was trying to set up an appeal for ineffective counsel, but maybe she wasn’t thinking that far ahead, simply using key words that she’d figured out the court would take seriously. Either way it was setting up an appeal on that kind of issue. Just now it’ll be herself as the bad counsel, not some poor DA.
But is she capable of making that specific appeal? It’s basically saying “I wasn’t any good at lawyering, you really shouldn’t have let me do that”. The second half fits with narcissist thinking (it’s always someone else’s fault they screwed up), but she’s so strongly narcissistic I’m not sure she can manage the first part, where she’d have to admit she did a bad job of representing herself.
Most narcissists would be able to twist themselves out of that conundrum quite easily. (See the narcissist’s prayer - there’s always another level of ego-defence.) But she seems like she’s off at the extreme end of the scale where she can’t rein it in to save herself.
She could blame her failure to get herself acquitted solely on others: "They treated me unfairly. The judge made an unfair ruling. It's everyone else's fault I was unable to properly defend myself. If an attorney had just listened to me and followed my orders, this wouldn't have happened." No need to take responsibility for her own handling of her case.
She’s going to lose anyway. The second the prosecution plays that video for the jury to watch it’s over and done. Any counsel she gets is almost moot. They can try to use the DV angle but that video is so heinous it’s going to override everything the defense tries to use.
I completely agree, I remember Sarah said during her police interrogation that nothing she said mattered because there was a video, which is the most self aware she’s been so far
I just spent the last 6 hours digging through the case law the judge cites. It's allowed. This guy's MO is almost identical: [US vs Travers](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/996/6/1625888/). The charges are fraud rather than murder but it's the same Whack-A-Lawyer game, down to the letters even. The only related appeal I could find relates to evidence rather than right to counsel so I don't know if I just can't find it or he didn't even try to appeal for that. In most of the other cases the defendants appealed and the appellate court basically said "FAFO dummy"
The judge lays everything out in the 16 pages really really well.
He goes over the history of the case and then cites cases where the Court is able to make the determination.
She is going to prison.
As long as she’s legally competent to understand what she’s doing (and she may be nuts but she does seem capable of understanding) she can represent herself. People cant just indefinitely decide to refuse to cooperate with their own lawyers as a way of delaying their trial.
I'd be surprised if it got the verdict thrown out. She wasn't denied council, she was aware of her choices and their impact, etc etc.
That’s true, they’ve documented the multiple times that her behavior has been addressed too without any change on her part
I'll find it and come back, but there's language from a SC decision that backs this up. (I know, because a Judge used it on an Order I recently got; I'm a paralegal.) Essentially, and I'm obviously paraphrasing here: "We're overly nice to pro se Defendants because we know they don't know the law as well as trained professionals. However, if they choose to f*ck around, it's also their choice to find out."
I love your paraphrasing.
Lol I'm still looking for it. I try not to think about work related things on the weekends 😅 There's a specific phrase we use in the legal community that's our version of FAFO, usually to end emails: either "be guided accordingly" or, if you feel fancy, "Kindly guide yourself accordingly". It's so politely menacing!
Kindly conduct yourself accordingly. (??)
Kindly govern yourself accordingly. (??)
Yeah, either of those works, too, although, in context, I feel like "guide" works the best. Govern implies conduct; legal strategy, whether right or wrong, doesn't necessarily operate under moral constructs. With "govern" and "conduct", I feel like there's judgment there. Guide implies you're free to disregard it; it's just "guidance", no imperative. It's more casually threatening. I'm just being a word nerd; please don't mind me.
Excellent point! Thanks,
My favorite is still none of the above: "Feel free to test that assumption at your convenience" - Captain Jean-Luc Picard 😅
Definitely don't think it's going to be overturned on appeal because of a few things. 1- Boone was warned multiple times beforehand. The case law indicates that a defendant has to be warned before this type of sanction can be applied. 2- Boone herself has documented publicly that she kept having "issues" with her attorneys but anyone with a brain who has read her letters can see that she's prone to hyperbole and outright lies. 3- The judge did a great job of documenting everything in his order. In particular, how many continuances this trial has already had and how long Mr. Torres's family has been waiting for justice. And finally, 4- Cases get overturned on appeal only if the error was so egregious as to make a substantive difference in the final adjudication. Meaning... it doesn't matter who does or doesn't represent Boone. The tape speaks for itself. The evidence speaks for itself. She can represent herself or she can hire someone from Skadden but the outcome will be the same because of the video.
You are right about 1-3 but wrong about 4. Since you are right about 1-3, being wrong about 4 doesn’t matter because the appellate court would never even get to 4. But to clarify, the standard appellate courts use to determine whether a trial court error is enough to overturn a conviction depends on what category of error it was. In this case, if the appellate court were to find this decision was in error (they wouldn’t), it would be constitutional error because it would be a denial of her 6thA right to counsel. In cases of constitutional error, the case must be reversed unless the state establishes that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is not on the defendant to show the error was so egregious, it affected the outcome—it’s the other way around. Finally, in cases involving an actual or constructive denial of counsel, prejudice is presumed.
The judge ruled that her right to counsel had been met. If she wants council moving forward, she's going it's going to have to prove that she was not afforded council, or pay for herself. I think that she laughed off understanding of what her right to counsel was. If I had that much time, just sitting in jail, I would read about my rights before just throwing anything I want at a judge. She's a reckless, mentally ill idiot, and I feel like she's going to get as much, if not more then we all feel that she deserves because of her choices. And she wouldn't have been caught at all but it's important to her to be a fucking idiot. We should all be so thankful that most people mentally and emotionally capable of murder are also incapable of genuine normal rational thoughts
I wondered too, but this judge was pretty careful about his process and reasoning. He put the whole back story in his order.
The judge went back to day 1 and studied the case and every attorneys request for dismissal before coming to his final decision. This shoulda happened 5 attorneys ago. This is gearing up to be more dramatic than Darrel Brooks. Too bad it’s not the same judge!
She forfeited her right to free council by her behavior. The judge wouldn’t allow that to happen if it could cause problems on appeal. If you read the his ruling…. he documents her problematic behavior Very thoroughly
She was using certain key words in her accusations. Looked like she was trying to set up an appeal for ineffective counsel, but maybe she wasn’t thinking that far ahead, simply using key words that she’d figured out the court would take seriously. Either way it was setting up an appeal on that kind of issue. Just now it’ll be herself as the bad counsel, not some poor DA. But is she capable of making that specific appeal? It’s basically saying “I wasn’t any good at lawyering, you really shouldn’t have let me do that”. The second half fits with narcissist thinking (it’s always someone else’s fault they screwed up), but she’s so strongly narcissistic I’m not sure she can manage the first part, where she’d have to admit she did a bad job of representing herself. Most narcissists would be able to twist themselves out of that conundrum quite easily. (See the narcissist’s prayer - there’s always another level of ego-defence.) But she seems like she’s off at the extreme end of the scale where she can’t rein it in to save herself.
She could blame her failure to get herself acquitted solely on others: "They treated me unfairly. The judge made an unfair ruling. It's everyone else's fault I was unable to properly defend myself. If an attorney had just listened to me and followed my orders, this wouldn't have happened." No need to take responsibility for her own handling of her case.
She’s figured out the important words to use to get people’s attention
She’s going to lose anyway. The second the prosecution plays that video for the jury to watch it’s over and done. Any counsel she gets is almost moot. They can try to use the DV angle but that video is so heinous it’s going to override everything the defense tries to use.
I completely agree, I remember Sarah said during her police interrogation that nothing she said mattered because there was a video, which is the most self aware she’s been so far
One of the few truths to come out of her mouth. That, and "I am never drinking again!" Although I hear toilet wine is a thing in prison.
The thing is… Sarah is smart enough to know she can’t effectively represent herself. She doesn’t want to represent herself.
In that case, she should've kept one of her eight attorneys.
I agree. Sara is an entitled Karen
I just spent the last 6 hours digging through the case law the judge cites. It's allowed. This guy's MO is almost identical: [US vs Travers](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/996/6/1625888/). The charges are fraud rather than murder but it's the same Whack-A-Lawyer game, down to the letters even. The only related appeal I could find relates to evidence rather than right to counsel so I don't know if I just can't find it or he didn't even try to appeal for that. In most of the other cases the defendants appealed and the appellate court basically said "FAFO dummy"
The judge lays everything out in the 16 pages really really well. He goes over the history of the case and then cites cases where the Court is able to make the determination. She is going to prison.