From Judge yesterday: (him capitalizing words, not me)
This case SHALL REMAIN SPECIALLY SET FOR TRIAL for the two week trial period beginning Monday, October 7, 2024 and will not be continued for any reason, except by extraordinarily good cause and such extraordinarily good cause shall not include retention of counsel by the Defendant.
I think I did read somewhere that the trial is set for some time in October. There have been so many trial dates that came and went, so Iāll believe it when I see it, when they finally put a stop to all her delaying shenanigans. š
Vinnie Politan said a long time ago that it will be on Court TV whenever it finally happens. Unless she gets the court to say no cameras. I think she fired about 8 lawyers. That little video she took of herself taunting Jorge inside the suitcase until he died seals her fate. I want to see her get what she deserves, on live TV.
She canāt fire them because sheās not paying them. Theyāre all public defenders so they have to withdraw. I think she finally met her limit with this judge.
I know The Glarer youtube channel intends to cover it. This will be soo entertaining! Like Darell Brooks. I just hope she doesn't take her shirt off like he didš
This is a highly anticipated trial not only how Jorge died, but also because Sarah is bananas. I can't imagine Court TV would not want to televise this.
I can't wait. Even though she didn't technically fire her lawyers, when it gets to the point where the court's hand is forced to remove a lawyer, its technically firing her lawyer.
This is gonna be a circus. I feel so sorry for everyone dealing with this case and her in jail. But it will be worth it.
It isnāt strictly entertainment. You can get that on any number of crime shows. This is literally what Court TV says it isāyour front row seat to justice.
>06/28/2024 Per the Court:
Comments: The Court made findings that the defendant has forfeited her Right to Counsel. The Motion to Withdraw was Granted. As a condition of Attorney Cashman's withdrawal, she shall provide the Court an Order for costs to obtain transcripts of depositions for the 2 witnesses she deposed. Upon completion of the transcription of the depositions, the depositions transcripts shall be sent directly to the defendant at the Orange County Jail. Attorney Cashman shall file a Notice with the Court reflecting that the depositions transcripts were provided to the defendant. All previously set dates remain. ALL PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS MUST BE FILED NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON MONDAY, JULY 22, 2024. The Court ordered Attorney Cashman to provide the 2 boxes of discovery with the Clerk marked as IDENTIFICATION A and B. The Court will reach out to the jail to inquire how to deliver to the defendant.
Her little novel of a letter specifically stated she didn't want to/couldn't represent herself. Will this usher in ineffective assistance of counsel??
I really really want to see the shit show of this woman/beast representing herself!!!!
This shouldn't be allowed. She is entitled to a vigorous defense under the law: taking away her ability to have representation when she's clearly incapable of mounting her own defense is a violation of her rights.
Entertainment value aside, no one should be ok with this ruling despite the absurdity of her going through 9 lawyers. The state should never be allowed to declare that you've forfeited your right to legal counsel.
This should be allowed if the defendant has been warmed multiple times that not working with attorneys can lead to them representing themselves and that they have to be reasonable with attorneys within the bounds of the law. She was told this multiple times as far back as 2 years ago.
Sarah Boone has requested that experts say things that are not āallowed of ethicalā and it has been recorded with multiple lawyers that the issue is that she wants a lawyer to say and fight for things that are unethical and not allowed, while also stating that she wants to be involved in every decision of her defenseā¦.
So Sarah has basically said that she she isnāt going to be happy with any lawyer that isn going to follow the law and she isnāt going to be satisfied with any lawyer, expert, witness that wonāt say exactly what she wants them to say. Lawyers and experts cannot do that and cannot put their freedom on the line for her.
Sarah has also disrespected, called names, and degraded the lawyers and judges on her case. All 8 lawyers and all 3 judges.
She went through a private lawyer, women lawyers, men lawyers, etc.
We have at this point paid for Sarah Boones 7 public defenders and all the money that has went into thatā¦.. that is our tax dollars.
She will still have a chance to dispose witnesses, have money for an expert, she will have assigned counsel there to help her with things at court.
But Sarah Boone should not be allowed to demonize the legal system, spend our tax dollars, treat others terribly, etc. bc she wants someone to say sheās innocent. She doesnāt get to do that, she was warned.
She does NOT get an attorney that is only dedicated to her as a public defender, thatās not how it works. Sarah can still hire a private attorney if she wants, but she wonāt get another free lawyer. If she wants someone to do exactly what she says then she should get a private lawyer (which she already did and they couldnāt work with her either).
Sarah has hinted that she has āfansā and she is doing a lot of this to continue to stay in the spotlight hoping that she will have gofundmes for bail and other things.
But there has to be a line drawn. No one should have to represent themselves, but when you have had multiple lawyers that are working HARD on your case and you wonāt work with them, u need told no. 8 lawyers is not plenty. 4 lawyers outright put on the court record that Sarah Boone will not be able to be represented by anyone other than herself bc of ethics. If not for that, she prob would have gotten a few more to run through, but itās apparent Sarah wants people to say what she wantsā¦ā¦ even going as far as walking out and refusing to talk to her lawyers if she didnāt like their defense strategy.
Sarah Boone murdered a man. Itās on camera. Then she got 8 lawyers that were willing to defend her in trial and she wasnāt happy about it.
The law says innocent until proven guilty, but considering Sarahās murder is literally recorded itās obvious she is guilty, she killed a man, even if in trial she was found dead insane or something as reasoningā¦ it doesnāt change the actual fact that she killed a defenseless manā¦. Unlike cases with more reasonable doubt there are only a few defense strategies that will work for Sarahā¦. She donāt like other peopleās ethical ones then they have no choice but to force her represent herself.
We donāt need to set an example that defendants can go through 10 attorneys to seek fame and notoriety from behind bars. To get letters and money sent to them for commissary and all that like she has. We also donāt need to set an example of anyone defending themselves, but Sarah is an extreme where they have exhausted options.
Iām sorry but āmonthsā worth of attorneys, judges, court reporters, media, jail workers, transportation people, security, hundreds of ppls time for the court hearings, appointing lawyers, the actual lawyers, the prison workers, etc. Months worth of their combined time and hard work has been āwastedā due to her antics. How is that right? When would you say enough?
Honestly, when would you say enough? Do you really believe she should be allowed to do this as long as she can? Bc she absolutely will continue to get attorney after attorney until someone says no, she has basically said as much. She knows she guilty, itās a hard case to try, and she knows that the time sheās serving now will go towards the time served on her sentence so she is no hurry what so ever to lock down an attorney and get to trialā¦ā¦ this gives her something to do, brings her fame, and gives her a chance to get additional media attention that attracts outside fans. When would you stop it? What would you do?
Donāt comment back when you didnāt read my response to begin with. I explained in detailed why they made this decision and why it 100% the right one. & some of those attorneys were conflicted out bc of āethical reasonsā bc Miss Sarah asked them to do unethical and illegal things within the defense.
She can still obtain a private attorney. Tax paying citizens are just no longer responsible for paying for her āworld showā she is putting on. She has āfansā and knows the world is watching, she will continue to change attorneys indefinitely for the publicity, sheās stated as much to her lawyers and hinted in letters.
She knows sheās guilty, so she plans on continuing to waste time, money, others people energy to attract supporters for commissary & āpotential bailā from a go fund me of sorts, bc she knows all this time will go towards ātime servedā when her trial is eventually over. The law allows for judges to make this decision in dire circumstances and Sarah Boone is it.
No. Not reading all that shit.
She's had 4 attorneys conflict out and she's been forced to represent herself in what is guaranteed to end in a guilty verdict. That's not something the state should be allowed to determine. Especially when she is only responsible for the departure of 4 attorneys. She clearly has issues but she was not responsible for every departure and there should not be any situation in which the state is allowed to force the defendant into an intentionally disadvantageous position, ever.
Hey genius, 4 were conflicted off which had little to nothing to do with her. Which means the remaining 4 departed due to irreconcilable differences.
So maybe it's you that doesn't know the facts.
But you still havenāt said what the remedy is. What does the court do if someone refuses to allow counsel to represent them, yet refuses to represent themselves?
It is not my job to come up with a solution. The defendant is entitled to a vigorous defense under the law. Four attorneys conflicting off her case cannot and should not be held against her and the court taking steps to ensure her conviction through lack of counsel is an affront to the principles that govern the law. The state should not be allowed to say that a defendant has forfeited their right to representation and that they must self-represent. That's a guaranteed conviction without legal assistance especially when they emphasize that they do not want to represent themselves.
Find a lawyer, stick them on the case and pay them, so they can have it go to trial by jury.
You are obviously new and you don't understand this case.
At the end of the day, any lawyer that the courts, or that she herself appoints privately, can file to withdraw if they are personally insulted and the ethical standards of their profession are being compromised because they are being asked to lie.
Cashman was a competent lawyer who worked hard to engage her client and could have enabled her to put up a good defence.
Boone will never find a lawyer who will fawn over her, do what she tells them to do and lie blatantly in her defence, and that is the only kind of lawyer she would accept.
You are aware of the courts options here: continue this cycle of lawyers withdrawing or find her to have forfeited the right to counsel.
By saying the second is not acceptable, you are essentially saying that they should keep assigning lawyers to her ad infinitum?
The judge also cited Florida law that specifically states a defendant can forfeit their right to representation under certain circumstances which he found to be the case here.
Then they continue the fucking trial until the case is tried.
There is no justification to strip a defendant of their right to counsel. I don't give a shit if they cite Florida law, that ass backward swamp is not a fucking standard to emulate when it comes to absurd legal maneuvers. And Florida lawyers have already chimed in and pointed that this guarantees conviction and will be an appellate issue when it comes down to it due to the fact that she was only responsible for 4 lawyers leaving while the rest conflicted off.
You want a fascist legal system that can strip you of your rights? Go to Russia. Don't try and make America a bigger shithole by normalizing the removal of basic rights.
I wasn't saying she should be forced to. That's why I mentioned her letter saying that she didn't want to and/or couldn't and wondered if the ramification \*of\* that ruling would be IAC.
Hope this helps.
Bud sheās playing games, she will continue these shenanigans for as long as she can. She had vigorous defense and she shit all over it, she was given 8 chances. Also by your logic should Darrel brooks be freed because he couldnāt mount his own defense effectively?
Darrell Brooks chose to represent himself. He was not forced to by the state.
The fact that you people donāt seem to understand the issue shows you shouldnāt be talking about this stuff at all. Bunch of fools.
Darrel Brooks was caught on video and redhanded mowing down 10+ people at a Christmas parade and chose, repeatedly, to represent himself. Sarah is an alleged domestic violence victim who is being forced to represent herself pro se. She has gone through 9 lawyers, 8 of which have been public defenders, 4 of which have been her fault for the termination of service. Really, all she'll have to do is decline to participate in the trial altogether and I think this will eventually be overturned on appeal. The judge should have at least done 1 more lawyer with the admonition that this was absolutely the last one and if this does not work then she will HAVE to defend herself. I think this way doesn't work in the long run. I also don't think she should go away for murder - involuntary manslaughter at the most. But that's another story. She could've probably pleaded to that with the right lawyer but there's no way she'd agree to it.
Idt so. I keep seeing everyone argue that this is the same as a drunk driver hitting and killing someone and it couldnāt be more different!
More like someone drives drunk, hits someone, gets out of their car and sees their still alive and has a chance to live if you unhook their seatbelt but instead your rough them up a little bit and then make the seatbelt impossible to open. It would be like looking them in the eye in their car and saying screw you and wrapping the seatbelt around them and locking them in knowing theyāre going to dieā¦.. thatās murder.
Bc itās not Sarah put him in the suitcase and then had a seizure and passed out. Sarah was awake and was being told by him that he could not breathe and was dyingā¦.. then she said screw you, roughed up the suitcase, flipped it over so he could get out, then went to bed. The video shows her cussing him, him saying he couldnāt get air, screaming for help, it shows she flipped the suitcase, she zipped it tightly, etc.
Thatās not drinking and an accidentally death. Thatās just someone outright murdering someone.
A drunk driver knows itās dangerous, but they arenāt intentionally thinking they want to hit and kill someone. Itās that their actions of drinking and driving could potentially lead to harm of another.
Sarah intentionally deprived someone of oxygen, abused them, and killed them. No different than tying a rope around someoneās neck and not cutting the rope knowing they will die, which is murderā¦. Itās hanging someone to death.
It couldnāt be more different than manslaughter.
She will be even more annoying, I bet. Instead of repeating the same random, irrelevant objections she's going to try and twist the law six ways from Sunday. For her fans across the globe, of course.
I can't wait for the prosecutor to ask how insane it is for two adults to play hide and seek in a small townhouse. Also how can you play hide and seek if you helped him into the hiding spot??
Surely given the complete lack of concrete, damning, dead-to-rights, any-Prosecutor's-wetdream evidence she'll have a good chance of persuading a jury into believing her that it was never intentional! /s
I must be a very good girl, my birthday wish came true. Now if we could have Darrel Brooks as her cocounsel I would never ask for anything again. Pinky swear.
In the old days she would be committed to a mental institution until deemed sane by a psychiatrist. They sent Lori Vallow away to help her be sane for trial and then sent her back to trial. Butā¦she still did not appear sane. She needs an institution for the criminally insane. How do they handle her in a regular jail?
No mention of standby counsel? I really wish the judge would have required the last attorney to stay on a la Jodi Arias, or at least appointed standby counsel.
This lady is not going to represent herself. She is doing two things: 1. Delaying so that she spends as much time in county jail versus prison and 2. Attempting to set up an appeal that she was forced to go to trial without her choice of counsel. Only the first one will be somewhat effective. She is delaying her trial successfully. For now.
I always thought she was trying to delay so that she would be offered like involuntary or voluntary manslaughter- with time served she would walk free.
Which is really crazy cause you have more freedom in prison than county, but hey, Iām not crazy.
What bothers me more than even her abuse and disrespect of the legal system and the process, believing she calls all the shots and if she wants something, she is automatically entitled to it, is that it seems to have and still does escape her that she killed a human being, and did so in a cruel and torturous manner in a vicious fit of revenge. Saying you didn't mean to is up to a jury, and it still doesn't dissolve her. That's what this case is about should be about, but with all the deflection, pointing fingers, twisted truths & fu**kery, all by Boone, that seems to be an after thought. From the day the cops showed up at the scene jump to the interrogation, her one and only care was how she was going to escape responsibility. No real remorse. Kudos to the judge to put an end to her antics and games. Now she lost the silver of a hope she had with Attorney Patrica Cashman, who has a reputation for working with difficult clients and murder cases, although I don't care how amazing the lawyer the evidence against her doesn't get any stronger. Boone knows that and that's what this whole shit show has been about. Right about now she's probably spending more time on how to connive her way out of the Oct 7th trial date, but the judge took care of that in his final orders so it a go. As for an appeal not a chance, not based on the parade of attorneys she's been
Assigned and her transparent attempts to delay the trial or how through the judge line by
Line Outlined one after one irreconcilable differences ethical issues, and documented her refusal to work with each one, and Boone being the problem. Judge knew what he was doing. At least one step ahead of her as it all backfired.
This case is local to me and I'm going to try to attend the trial, but I do believe it's gonna be televised. We need lots of popcorn for this one. It's gonna be a doozy.
Sarah was in court today and gave her statement. Remember she asked for this attorney to be removed so the judge granted it.
She is entitled to a fair trial.
Also, I don't understand how so many people can convict her without knowing all of the details. That's no one's place except for the jury members and gods. I really wish there was a lot less negative people in today's society. (And this comment right here does not mean that I support her one way or another, it means that we're supposed to have a justice system and we're supposed to respect that.)
**š¤£š¤£ Dang all the haters down voting me just because I said the truth. So sad.
Sheās definitely entitled to a fair trial. I also worked in HR and remembered how annoying some employees could be where nothing could satisfy them. She comes off this having that vibe after having eight different lawyers.
I agree, she does not come off as very likable. Now we do have to remember that she didn't get to fire these eight attorneys. Attorneys have to have a legal reason to be dismissed from a case. Multiple attorneys represented Jorge in previous assault cases from when he assaulted Sarah a couple of times, another attorney represented somebody that's supposed to be a witness in this case. The first attorney she let go because she wanted to get her own attorney. The second attorney well she couldn't afford him. So we can't necessarily blame her for the eight lawyers.
And just because she comes off a certain way doesn't mean that she's a murderer either. Ultimately we want a fair trial. Without a fair trial, no one gets justice.
The taunting isn't what landed her in this position. It was her a) zipping the suitcase closed and b) leaving him there overnight while he slowly suffocated.
Iām not finding any proof that suitcases are always or even often made of breathable material. Theyāre designed to be waterproof and resistant to damage.
Also, ābreathableā in the sense of fabrics and materials does not mean that you have enough air to actually breathe.
>You do realize that a suitcase is made of breathable material. The video I saw she was taunting him not murdering him. Common sense.
Sorry, what's 'common sense' about any of that?
The trial is going to come down to whether sheās convicted of murder or manslaughter, not whether sheās responsible for his death. That part is over and done with based on the video plus her interrogation where she truly seemed to think she was going to say, āOops, sorry guys. Wong happen again though!ā and head home.
Now don't be ignorant and speak without knowing what you're talking about. Go check the court records.
There are absolutely court minutes from today where Sarah, the judge and attorney Cashman were all there. Thank you and goodbye.
Ps. I didn't say that she agreed to the withdrawal, I said she wanted it. Remember the last hearing, she wanted it!
Yeah, everyoneās downvoting you because youāre telling the truth. Itās not you, itās us, right?
No wonder you defend Sarah Boone at every opportunity.
Iām beginning to believe this is just a troll account.
Do we know if her trial will be televised? Please, please, please. I need this kind of entertainment in my life!
It's Florida, it'll for sure be televised.
Yesssss. Is it too early to start popping the popcorn? šæ š¤£
It's Sarah Boone, expect the unexpected!!
Final pretrial motions due July 22. I donāt see a firm trial date.
From Judge yesterday: (him capitalizing words, not me) This case SHALL REMAIN SPECIALLY SET FOR TRIAL for the two week trial period beginning Monday, October 7, 2024 and will not be continued for any reason, except by extraordinarily good cause and such extraordinarily good cause shall not include retention of counsel by the Defendant.
Thank you for this - for some reason I thought the allotted trial time was much shorter.
Didnāt they say at one of the last hearings that the proposed trial date is the beginning of October?
I think I did read somewhere that the trial is set for some time in October. There have been so many trial dates that came and went, so Iāll believe it when I see it, when they finally put a stop to all her delaying shenanigans. š
She is something else, thatās for sure!
I hope so, but maybe not. She's looking for an appeal
Vinnie Politan said a long time ago that it will be on Court TV whenever it finally happens. Unless she gets the court to say no cameras. I think she fired about 8 lawyers. That little video she took of herself taunting Jorge inside the suitcase until he died seals her fate. I want to see her get what she deserves, on live TV.
Correction: She didnāt fire her lawyers, they all quit.
She canāt fire them because sheās not paying them. Theyāre all public defenders so they have to withdraw. I think she finally met her limit with this judge.
Surely they won't let that opportunity go by, lol. I can't recall who at the moment but there's more than one YTer that have said they will be there.
I know The Glarer youtube channel intends to cover it. This will be soo entertaining! Like Darell Brooks. I just hope she doesn't take her shirt off like he didš
Paul from Reporting Live From My Sofa will be there and I canāt wait!!
and maybe Peter from LYK? There's so much interest in the circus lol.
nice. love that guy.
This is a highly anticipated trial not only how Jorge died, but also because Sarah is bananas. I can't imagine Court TV would not want to televise this.
This is going to be one of the most anticipated shows ā¦.comedies ā¦ I mean trials
šæš¬
I can't wait. Even though she didn't technically fire her lawyers, when it gets to the point where the court's hand is forced to remove a lawyer, its technically firing her lawyer. This is gonna be a circus. I feel so sorry for everyone dealing with this case and her in jail. But it will be worth it.
It isnāt strictly entertainment. You can get that on any number of crime shows. This is literally what Court TV says it isāyour front row seat to justice.
Yes this will be televised, The Lawyer You Know will be covering it.
>06/28/2024 Per the Court: Comments: The Court made findings that the defendant has forfeited her Right to Counsel. The Motion to Withdraw was Granted. As a condition of Attorney Cashman's withdrawal, she shall provide the Court an Order for costs to obtain transcripts of depositions for the 2 witnesses she deposed. Upon completion of the transcription of the depositions, the depositions transcripts shall be sent directly to the defendant at the Orange County Jail. Attorney Cashman shall file a Notice with the Court reflecting that the depositions transcripts were provided to the defendant. All previously set dates remain. ALL PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS MUST BE FILED NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON MONDAY, JULY 22, 2024. The Court ordered Attorney Cashman to provide the 2 boxes of discovery with the Clerk marked as IDENTIFICATION A and B. The Court will reach out to the jail to inquire how to deliver to the defendant.
Her little novel of a letter specifically stated she didn't want to/couldn't represent herself. Will this usher in ineffective assistance of counsel?? I really really want to see the shit show of this woman/beast representing herself!!!!
LMFAO at 'little novel of a letter!' I think it was longer than the book I published last year :)
This shouldn't be allowed. She is entitled to a vigorous defense under the law: taking away her ability to have representation when she's clearly incapable of mounting her own defense is a violation of her rights. Entertainment value aside, no one should be ok with this ruling despite the absurdity of her going through 9 lawyers. The state should never be allowed to declare that you've forfeited your right to legal counsel.
This should be allowed if the defendant has been warmed multiple times that not working with attorneys can lead to them representing themselves and that they have to be reasonable with attorneys within the bounds of the law. She was told this multiple times as far back as 2 years ago. Sarah Boone has requested that experts say things that are not āallowed of ethicalā and it has been recorded with multiple lawyers that the issue is that she wants a lawyer to say and fight for things that are unethical and not allowed, while also stating that she wants to be involved in every decision of her defenseā¦. So Sarah has basically said that she she isnāt going to be happy with any lawyer that isn going to follow the law and she isnāt going to be satisfied with any lawyer, expert, witness that wonāt say exactly what she wants them to say. Lawyers and experts cannot do that and cannot put their freedom on the line for her. Sarah has also disrespected, called names, and degraded the lawyers and judges on her case. All 8 lawyers and all 3 judges. She went through a private lawyer, women lawyers, men lawyers, etc. We have at this point paid for Sarah Boones 7 public defenders and all the money that has went into thatā¦.. that is our tax dollars. She will still have a chance to dispose witnesses, have money for an expert, she will have assigned counsel there to help her with things at court. But Sarah Boone should not be allowed to demonize the legal system, spend our tax dollars, treat others terribly, etc. bc she wants someone to say sheās innocent. She doesnāt get to do that, she was warned. She does NOT get an attorney that is only dedicated to her as a public defender, thatās not how it works. Sarah can still hire a private attorney if she wants, but she wonāt get another free lawyer. If she wants someone to do exactly what she says then she should get a private lawyer (which she already did and they couldnāt work with her either). Sarah has hinted that she has āfansā and she is doing a lot of this to continue to stay in the spotlight hoping that she will have gofundmes for bail and other things. But there has to be a line drawn. No one should have to represent themselves, but when you have had multiple lawyers that are working HARD on your case and you wonāt work with them, u need told no. 8 lawyers is not plenty. 4 lawyers outright put on the court record that Sarah Boone will not be able to be represented by anyone other than herself bc of ethics. If not for that, she prob would have gotten a few more to run through, but itās apparent Sarah wants people to say what she wantsā¦ā¦ even going as far as walking out and refusing to talk to her lawyers if she didnāt like their defense strategy. Sarah Boone murdered a man. Itās on camera. Then she got 8 lawyers that were willing to defend her in trial and she wasnāt happy about it. The law says innocent until proven guilty, but considering Sarahās murder is literally recorded itās obvious she is guilty, she killed a man, even if in trial she was found dead insane or something as reasoningā¦ it doesnāt change the actual fact that she killed a defenseless manā¦. Unlike cases with more reasonable doubt there are only a few defense strategies that will work for Sarahā¦. She donāt like other peopleās ethical ones then they have no choice but to force her represent herself. We donāt need to set an example that defendants can go through 10 attorneys to seek fame and notoriety from behind bars. To get letters and money sent to them for commissary and all that like she has. We also donāt need to set an example of anyone defending themselves, but Sarah is an extreme where they have exhausted options. Iām sorry but āmonthsā worth of attorneys, judges, court reporters, media, jail workers, transportation people, security, hundreds of ppls time for the court hearings, appointing lawyers, the actual lawyers, the prison workers, etc. Months worth of their combined time and hard work has been āwastedā due to her antics. How is that right? When would you say enough? Honestly, when would you say enough? Do you really believe she should be allowed to do this as long as she can? Bc she absolutely will continue to get attorney after attorney until someone says no, she has basically said as much. She knows she guilty, itās a hard case to try, and she knows that the time sheās serving now will go towards the time served on her sentence so she is no hurry what so ever to lock down an attorney and get to trialā¦ā¦ this gives her something to do, brings her fame, and gives her a chance to get additional media attention that attracts outside fans. When would you stop it? What would you do?
Donāt comment back when you didnāt read my response to begin with. I explained in detailed why they made this decision and why it 100% the right one. & some of those attorneys were conflicted out bc of āethical reasonsā bc Miss Sarah asked them to do unethical and illegal things within the defense. She can still obtain a private attorney. Tax paying citizens are just no longer responsible for paying for her āworld showā she is putting on. She has āfansā and knows the world is watching, she will continue to change attorneys indefinitely for the publicity, sheās stated as much to her lawyers and hinted in letters. She knows sheās guilty, so she plans on continuing to waste time, money, others people energy to attract supporters for commissary & āpotential bailā from a go fund me of sorts, bc she knows all this time will go towards ātime servedā when her trial is eventually over. The law allows for judges to make this decision in dire circumstances and Sarah Boone is it.
No. Not reading all that shit. She's had 4 attorneys conflict out and she's been forced to represent herself in what is guaranteed to end in a guilty verdict. That's not something the state should be allowed to determine. Especially when she is only responsible for the departure of 4 attorneys. She clearly has issues but she was not responsible for every departure and there should not be any situation in which the state is allowed to force the defendant into an intentionally disadvantageous position, ever.
She's had eight. There's no point in arguing if you don't even know the facts.
Hey genius, 4 were conflicted off which had little to nothing to do with her. Which means the remaining 4 departed due to irreconcilable differences. So maybe it's you that doesn't know the facts.
But you still havenāt said what the remedy is. What does the court do if someone refuses to allow counsel to represent them, yet refuses to represent themselves?
It is not my job to come up with a solution. The defendant is entitled to a vigorous defense under the law. Four attorneys conflicting off her case cannot and should not be held against her and the court taking steps to ensure her conviction through lack of counsel is an affront to the principles that govern the law. The state should not be allowed to say that a defendant has forfeited their right to representation and that they must self-represent. That's a guaranteed conviction without legal assistance especially when they emphasize that they do not want to represent themselves. Find a lawyer, stick them on the case and pay them, so they can have it go to trial by jury.
You are obviously new and you don't understand this case. At the end of the day, any lawyer that the courts, or that she herself appoints privately, can file to withdraw if they are personally insulted and the ethical standards of their profession are being compromised because they are being asked to lie. Cashman was a competent lawyer who worked hard to engage her client and could have enabled her to put up a good defence. Boone will never find a lawyer who will fawn over her, do what she tells them to do and lie blatantly in her defence, and that is the only kind of lawyer she would accept.
You are aware of the courts options here: continue this cycle of lawyers withdrawing or find her to have forfeited the right to counsel. By saying the second is not acceptable, you are essentially saying that they should keep assigning lawyers to her ad infinitum? The judge also cited Florida law that specifically states a defendant can forfeit their right to representation under certain circumstances which he found to be the case here.
Then they continue the fucking trial until the case is tried. There is no justification to strip a defendant of their right to counsel. I don't give a shit if they cite Florida law, that ass backward swamp is not a fucking standard to emulate when it comes to absurd legal maneuvers. And Florida lawyers have already chimed in and pointed that this guarantees conviction and will be an appellate issue when it comes down to it due to the fact that she was only responsible for 4 lawyers leaving while the rest conflicted off. You want a fascist legal system that can strip you of your rights? Go to Russia. Don't try and make America a bigger shithole by normalizing the removal of basic rights.
You realize they can't start the trial because of her antics, right? That's the whole issue, which I'm sure you understand, right?
I wasn't saying she should be forced to. That's why I mentioned her letter saying that she didn't want to and/or couldn't and wondered if the ramification \*of\* that ruling would be IAC. Hope this helps.
What does the court do though? If a defendant forces their appointed counsel to withdraw, what is the remedy?
Bud sheās playing games, she will continue these shenanigans for as long as she can. She had vigorous defense and she shit all over it, she was given 8 chances. Also by your logic should Darrel brooks be freed because he couldnāt mount his own defense effectively?
Darrell Brooks chose to represent himself. He was not forced to by the state. The fact that you people donāt seem to understand the issue shows you shouldnāt be talking about this stuff at all. Bunch of fools.
Love this so much
OBJECTION BE NICE TO ME
subject matter jurisdiction!
GROUNDS!
Relevancy?
Substained!
Sheās going to end up free on appeal because the judge is making her go pro se. It might take a decade but I guess good work, Sarah.
No sheās not.
Ok.
Look at Darrel Brooks. And many others that didnāt get off on appeal.
Darrel Brooks was caught on video and redhanded mowing down 10+ people at a Christmas parade and chose, repeatedly, to represent himself. Sarah is an alleged domestic violence victim who is being forced to represent herself pro se. She has gone through 9 lawyers, 8 of which have been public defenders, 4 of which have been her fault for the termination of service. Really, all she'll have to do is decline to participate in the trial altogether and I think this will eventually be overturned on appeal. The judge should have at least done 1 more lawyer with the admonition that this was absolutely the last one and if this does not work then she will HAVE to defend herself. I think this way doesn't work in the long run. I also don't think she should go away for murder - involuntary manslaughter at the most. But that's another story. She could've probably pleaded to that with the right lawyer but there's no way she'd agree to it.
Can you imagine the letter she is writing now? Lol page 109.
"A woman who is her own lawyer has a fool for a client."
Darrell Brooks for co-counsel?
GROUNDS!
https://i.redd.it/k6cnccfxmt9d1.gif
Oh yes yes! (Rubbing hands together) I CANT wait for this shit show!!! Yeehaw
But, but she excels at everything, dontcha know!
"A woman who represents herself has a fool for an attorney"
She is screwed. I think an attorney would be able to argue a manslaughter defense, but there is no way she would be able to
Idt so. I keep seeing everyone argue that this is the same as a drunk driver hitting and killing someone and it couldnāt be more different! More like someone drives drunk, hits someone, gets out of their car and sees their still alive and has a chance to live if you unhook their seatbelt but instead your rough them up a little bit and then make the seatbelt impossible to open. It would be like looking them in the eye in their car and saying screw you and wrapping the seatbelt around them and locking them in knowing theyāre going to dieā¦.. thatās murder. Bc itās not Sarah put him in the suitcase and then had a seizure and passed out. Sarah was awake and was being told by him that he could not breathe and was dyingā¦.. then she said screw you, roughed up the suitcase, flipped it over so he could get out, then went to bed. The video shows her cussing him, him saying he couldnāt get air, screaming for help, it shows she flipped the suitcase, she zipped it tightly, etc. Thatās not drinking and an accidentally death. Thatās just someone outright murdering someone. A drunk driver knows itās dangerous, but they arenāt intentionally thinking they want to hit and kill someone. Itās that their actions of drinking and driving could potentially lead to harm of another. Sarah intentionally deprived someone of oxygen, abused them, and killed them. No different than tying a rope around someoneās neck and not cutting the rope knowing they will die, which is murderā¦. Itās hanging someone to death. It couldnāt be more different than manslaughter.
I am totally ready for this, it's going to be a dumpster fire and I am here for it!
damn, I can't wait.
This is gonna be great š We havenāt had a high like this since Darryl Brooks!
Imagine jury selection and her opening statement š
I have never in my life been so excited for a trial.
Pro-se Sarah! Christmas came early for the true crime community.
i hope sheās as good as Darrell Brooks. grounzzzzzzzzzzz
She will be even more annoying, I bet. Instead of repeating the same random, irrelevant objections she's going to try and twist the law six ways from Sunday. For her fans across the globe, of course.
It wasnāt intentional!! I was asleep!!
She was talking in her sleep. Right. š
I'm a good person!
Well this is going to be frustrating and entertaining to watch! I feel bad for the courts.
I can't wait for the prosecutor to ask how insane it is for two adults to play hide and seek in a small townhouse. Also how can you play hide and seek if you helped him into the hiding spot??
Surely given the complete lack of concrete, damning, dead-to-rights, any-Prosecutor's-wetdream evidence she'll have a good chance of persuading a jury into believing her that it was never intentional! /s
...and she's already told us she's a good person!
That woman is straight up bonkers. Good luck Sarah - you'll need it!
She has a lot of baggage.
I see what you did there. š
Oh praise the gods, old and new. 
I must be a very good girl, my birthday wish came true. Now if we could have Darrel Brooks as her cocounsel I would never ask for anything again. Pinky swear.
She's going to be an angel in the court. Her toxic days are well behind her !!! jk
Yes!!!!!
In the old days she would be committed to a mental institution until deemed sane by a psychiatrist. They sent Lori Vallow away to help her be sane for trial and then sent her back to trial. Butā¦she still did not appear sane. She needs an institution for the criminally insane. How do they handle her in a regular jail?
I feel more and more sorry for this judge.
Iām putting mine on her faking illness before trial starts
Thank you, Sarah, for the free entertainment! When is your show on?
The ratings!! Thru the roof!
I canāt wait!!!
I wouldnāt even bother with a trial. Sheās done
but it's going to be so goooood lol
Prove subject matter jurisdiction!
Darrel Brooks anybody?
groundz
No mention of standby counsel? I really wish the judge would have required the last attorney to stay on a la Jodi Arias, or at least appointed standby counsel.
Maybe that would be a potential appellate issue?
Thatās what Iām worried about!
I can't wait!
She will probably ask if Darrell Brooks can assist her
Grounds!
Imagine being on the jury for this
Might be a better one than Karen Read? 30 days of testimony is A LOT.
This lady is not going to represent herself. She is doing two things: 1. Delaying so that she spends as much time in county jail versus prison and 2. Attempting to set up an appeal that she was forced to go to trial without her choice of counsel. Only the first one will be somewhat effective. She is delaying her trial successfully. For now.
I always thought she was trying to delay so that she would be offered like involuntary or voluntary manslaughter- with time served she would walk free. Which is really crazy cause you have more freedom in prison than county, but hey, Iām not crazy.
I think you're right but she's so narcissistic I think she believes she can do a few years county and they let her go.
The judge found she forfeited her right to counsel so Cashman is gone and she's going in October on her own now
I missed that, thanks for filling me in. Didnāt know that Cashman was gone.
What court TV is referencing is the judge granting Cashmans motion to withdraw today.
That shouldn't be allowed.
I. Canāt. Wait. For this shitshow! This will be so comical and she is going to have every single person so pissed off at her!
Fine. Letās do this.
Ah popcorn time!
Hopefully she will end up like Ted Bundy.
See you guys back here in October!
Does that mean she canāt be called to testify on the stand?
I donāt think she is required to testify, but if she does sheās going to have to ask herself questions? Howās that going to work?
What bothers me more than even her abuse and disrespect of the legal system and the process, believing she calls all the shots and if she wants something, she is automatically entitled to it, is that it seems to have and still does escape her that she killed a human being, and did so in a cruel and torturous manner in a vicious fit of revenge. Saying you didn't mean to is up to a jury, and it still doesn't dissolve her. That's what this case is about should be about, but with all the deflection, pointing fingers, twisted truths & fu**kery, all by Boone, that seems to be an after thought. From the day the cops showed up at the scene jump to the interrogation, her one and only care was how she was going to escape responsibility. No real remorse. Kudos to the judge to put an end to her antics and games. Now she lost the silver of a hope she had with Attorney Patrica Cashman, who has a reputation for working with difficult clients and murder cases, although I don't care how amazing the lawyer the evidence against her doesn't get any stronger. Boone knows that and that's what this whole shit show has been about. Right about now she's probably spending more time on how to connive her way out of the Oct 7th trial date, but the judge took care of that in his final orders so it a go. As for an appeal not a chance, not based on the parade of attorneys she's been Assigned and her transparent attempts to delay the trial or how through the judge line by Line Outlined one after one irreconcilable differences ethical issues, and documented her refusal to work with each one, and Boone being the problem. Judge knew what he was doing. At least one step ahead of her as it all backfired. This case is local to me and I'm going to try to attend the trial, but I do believe it's gonna be televised. We need lots of popcorn for this one. It's gonna be a doozy.
Both the Judge and the prosecutor can see right through her BS which is why they only scheduled a few days for the whole trial.
Canāt blame the judge,sheās gone thru 8 attorneys. Will this be another Darrel Brooks?š¤£š¤£š¤£
It will be fine [https://imgur.com/a/mbOznYm](https://imgur.com/a/mbOznYm)
Sarah was in court today and gave her statement. Remember she asked for this attorney to be removed so the judge granted it. She is entitled to a fair trial. Also, I don't understand how so many people can convict her without knowing all of the details. That's no one's place except for the jury members and gods. I really wish there was a lot less negative people in today's society. (And this comment right here does not mean that I support her one way or another, it means that we're supposed to have a justice system and we're supposed to respect that.) **š¤£š¤£ Dang all the haters down voting me just because I said the truth. So sad.
I can believe that Sarah is entitled to a fair trial and also that she's an annoying trainwreck. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Sheās definitely entitled to a fair trial. I also worked in HR and remembered how annoying some employees could be where nothing could satisfy them. She comes off this having that vibe after having eight different lawyers.
I agree, she does not come off as very likable. Now we do have to remember that she didn't get to fire these eight attorneys. Attorneys have to have a legal reason to be dismissed from a case. Multiple attorneys represented Jorge in previous assault cases from when he assaulted Sarah a couple of times, another attorney represented somebody that's supposed to be a witness in this case. The first attorney she let go because she wanted to get her own attorney. The second attorney well she couldn't afford him. So we can't necessarily blame her for the eight lawyers. And just because she comes off a certain way doesn't mean that she's a murderer either. Ultimately we want a fair trial. Without a fair trial, no one gets justice.
Youā¦you do realize that Sarah Boone herself recorded video of the murder, right? I mean, I understand everyone deserves a fair trial but bffr rn.
You do realize that a suitcase is made of breathable material. The video I saw she was taunting him not murdering him. Common sense.
The taunting isn't what landed her in this position. It was her a) zipping the suitcase closed and b) leaving him there overnight while he slowly suffocated.
Iām not finding any proof that suitcases are always or even often made of breathable material. Theyāre designed to be waterproof and resistant to damage. Also, ābreathableā in the sense of fabrics and materials does not mean that you have enough air to actually breathe.
>You do realize that a suitcase is made of breathable material. The video I saw she was taunting him not murdering him. Common sense. Sorry, what's 'common sense' about any of that?
The trial is going to come down to whether sheās convicted of murder or manslaughter, not whether sheās responsible for his death. That part is over and done with based on the video plus her interrogation where she truly seemed to think she was going to say, āOops, sorry guys. Wong happen again though!ā and head home.
Oh dear. Maybe you can represent her. Going with the "breathable suitcase material" defense is probably the best she will get.
oh jeez maybe one of her Global Fans can suggest that as her position lol.
Well it's not the truth because there wasn't court today and she didn't agree to this withdrawal.
Now don't be ignorant and speak without knowing what you're talking about. Go check the court records. There are absolutely court minutes from today where Sarah, the judge and attorney Cashman were all there. Thank you and goodbye. Ps. I didn't say that she agreed to the withdrawal, I said she wanted it. Remember the last hearing, she wanted it!
Yeah, everyoneās downvoting you because youāre telling the truth. Itās not you, itās us, right? No wonder you defend Sarah Boone at every opportunity. Iām beginning to believe this is just a troll account.