LIVE! Real Lawyer Reacts: Sarah Boone’s 6th Lawyer Wants Out - Judge Says No? Plus Sarah’s Letters 

i mean, to be fair, admitting fault in an interrogation isn’t in the suspect’s best interest. It would make it worse/harder for her attorney if she accepted it “was her fault.”

@@discdoggie her saying it wasn’t intentional is admitting fault

@MrGST360 If memory serves me correctly Sarah admitted the day she called 911 after Jorge was dead, she admitted she zipped Jorge in the suitcase as thought they were playing an innocent game of Hide & Seek, never mentioning that Jorge was begging to be let out of the suitcase bc he couldn't breathe, but stating she got sleepy and went up to bed before Jorge could get himself out and come and find her. My question is after stating all that on a recorded statement they was also videoed before the detectives arrived at her house Sarah was speaking to the deputy sheriff which was also the first responder the whole thing was taped. They were the only 2 there who else could have done this other than Sarah? Why is there even a question to guilt or not guilty? If she pleads not guilty, but the video is shown that totally shows Sarah's very first statement isn't true what happens with that? That is exactly what has happened here she said one thing and something else happened and there is proof. I am confused on the difference in what you say in recorded statements and pleading guilty, not guilty in pretrial hearings?

@MrGST360: My impression is that she pretty much gets ghosted by the appointed attorneys. Six have been allowed to withdraw due to "irreconcilable differences," and it's clear this 7th attorney has only talked to her once. He's trying everything to get away from her and her god-forsaken case, because she has no defense and he knows he can't win.

"With attorneys" is superfluous.

She does have an over-powering personality

Sounds accurate.

Don't forget she always knows what to do and how to do it ° always 🤦

@@donnamorgan2522 that’s polite

I’m sure her past lawyers got a lot of “are you trying to make it worse?” too!!!

This is beautiful. 😂

Let's not forget...NO MALICIOUS CONTENT!!! NO MALICIOUS! (I realize you mentioned "no malicious", but you forgot what went before it). 😂😂😂

Epic! Sarah-isms 😂

😂😂😂😂😂

😂😂😂

😂😂😂😂

They didn't intentionally quit.

​@@mcaddicts 😂

Lol, probably!

closet?

Let's not forget She insisted they lied to her to get her there, insist she hasn't had a drink since then and finally Really guys? Yes really! Why because George is Dead!

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂😂😂😂👍

SB’s days as a student was NOT last year-it was MANY years past

Yes I think that she definitely believes that “not intentional”, is an acceptable defence. Perhaps she successfully used it with her parents growing up???

@@MR-gl9xu Her use of "That's not FAIR!" is ridiculous. She said it repeatedly during her interrogation. No one over the age of 5 should be able to use that.

Not to mention recording the crime

But it was not intentional!!! 🙃

@Mark Zelinski right she could have not talked to the police and that recording should be enough. Man I'm so glad she is dumb and did that

It wasn’t malicious

@@ashleywhite8734 unintentional!

But yeah if he’s been using a medical issue as an excuse, then maybe take a short term leave from work so Sarah gets a new lawyer and you get your back sorted.

But we don't. That's the point of this video. Her letters were reasonable enough. This isn't about her being a good or bad person or how annoying she comes across in the video. She's guilty as hell but she does have the right to receive legal counsel.

She should take a guilty plea and move on to sentencing. Life with no parole in super maximum cell 23/7.

@@Pavia1525 I think if she took a guilty plea it would be less than life without for sure. I bet she could plea down to manslaughter. It’s always the ones who think they’re the smartest who end up screwing themselves over the most.

@@NoUseForAName06 her letters were dumb af. Talking to the judge about her pen running out of ink and theatrics, repeating herself over and over. And I never once said she didn’t *deserve* counsel.

I agree but as much as we all dislike her ,she has the right to be represented and a fair trial . I could not imagine having to have her as a client. She's going to now end up with an appeal and drag this out and costs tax payers hundreds of thousands more .

Her theory must be crazy if none of the lawyers want to run with it.

@@magpie3924 thing is she does have a right to an attorney but just like you don’t get to tell someone what tool to use to fix your car you don’t decide the argument your attorney uses. Thats why they’re the expert and you have a right to one because they know the tricks of the trade much better than a layperson.

Maybe she should hire the exemplary legal scholar Darrell Brooks, I'm sure the two of them would get along fine.

@@magpie3924 yes, unfortunately if the system can't function any better than this they might have to just let her go.

she's guilty imo, but the thing about this is that even the guiltiest person can end up having a mistrial, or even be freed, if their lawyer messed up this badly. Look at Bill Cosby who walked free because the prosecution messed up despite his obvious guilt. It's why the judge in the Brook's case was so careful with all her warnings and she even helped him sometimes. She wanted to make sure the final ruling was rock-solid. I'm worried Sarah's case won't be because her lawyer is messing up. Yes, she's an awful person who did something absolutely terrible, but if you're a public defender for murder trials you need to understand you'll have terrible clients probably quite frequently.

@@platedlizard Do you think that the attorney wanted her to walk free by doing this ??

Sigh. We KNOW. Still doesn't affect her right to fair council and trial.

Only problem is she's GUILTY AS HELL.. No Innocence here....

@@singlewhitefemale1707 agreed... no matter how many times she blurts out "NOT INTENTIONALLY". Someone MAY HAVE BELIEVED HER, if it wasn't for those "unintentional" videos.

I would say that's exactly it....she's convinced that claiming unintentional is her ticket to freedom. I read / heard where she did get a plea deal for 10 years in prison which she rejected, but I can't confirm that

@@timgreen1835 I almost agree with her, though, that she could be found NG or get less than 10 years with the right defense. She's definitely a weirdo and a drunk, and possibly aspergers-y given her demeanor, but this really seemed like a prank gone wrong. She was definitely being cruel to him, but I think she thought he was exaggerating when he said he couldn't breathe, and she thought that he would just be able to let himself out whenever he wanted to. Kind of a "9-1/2 weeks" sort of sadistic joke. Then she passed out from the drinking. To me the most appropriate sentence for someone like this would be supervised community service combined with a prison sentence, maybe five years. I don't think she's a risk to society or would do this again.

@@nancyeaton731 Those FU's were very mean, purposeful, and vindictive as she obviously was trying to prove a point in punishing him, because that's exactly what she said she's doing. Also, which I don't believe too many people have thought of this, but the videos were made at around 11 PM, and she stated that she went to sleep at 12:30 AM. That's one and a half hours that he was in there literally begging for his life and suffocating, until she went to bed, when she tried to say that he was only in there for a few minutes. She lied so much. I would venture to say that Jorge was already dead when she went up to bed, Because he had already been suffocating in that suitcase for around an hour and a half. And the only explanation of how Jorge received all of those injuries, is Sarah pushing him down the stairs inside of that suitcase, which would've proved where his injuries came from (and the neighbors heard just that) And I do not think all the scratches on his back is from sex, but she was trying to brutalize him....and may have beat him with a baseball bat that was found close by. Personally, I do not think it's a stretch to have charged her with first-degree murder, and I wouldn't be surprised if she got life in prison, even with second-degree murder. She talked so much without an attorney, and I believe she talked her way right into a long prison sentence. I can't Think of one way that a defense attorney will help her. She can't use domestic violence, she Emphatically said that she was "not" drunk. And she went on and on about how they had one of the best days that they ever had before, but then she feels the need to zip Jorge in a suitcase, telling him to F off numerous times, killing him with him begging for her to let him out. When she went upstairs, hearing the man (that she said she loved) beg for his life and ignoring his pleas, that's intentional murder because she knew he was suffocating to death. There can't be any "woe is me" defense, And that's just a cop out when Sarah said that about Jorge. The videos clearly shows that the suitcase did not have a gap for him to unzip, plus, he was stuffed in that suitcase like a sardine, and I bet he couldn't even move his pinky finger, nonetheless his arms and hands to try to unzip himself. She kept saying unintentional… But if a drunk driver has a crash and kills somebody, they still get charged with murder, even though that was not their intention. Same situation with Sarah. Whatever defense her attorney comes up with, it will still be murder with intent and motive. She admits to zipping him in that suitcase, and she admitted that he would give him five minutes and they are to squirm around, but an hour and a half later, she goes to bed and to sleep. What woman in a serious relationship would not know that her man was not in bed with her during the night? Ok, I'm sorry this was so long, I'm disabled so I don't have much of anything else to do. Lol

@@timgreen1835 hey don't apologize, those are all good points. I only make a counter argument because I had an abusive spouse I left a long time ago, but who would have done this to me, thinking it was funny and making me uncomfortable. Like I said, if you watch the move 9-1/2 weeks there are people who are sadistic for fun as a means of control. If she genuinely believed she was teaching him a lesson but had given him a way to get out, then her being drunk and passing out, and when, wouldn't really matter. He'd been abusive to her in the past so this could have been just her giving him what she'd received in the past. I don't think she should get off scot free and definitely deserves punishment, but I don't think she meant to kill or injure him or that it occurred to her that his death could even happen. When he said he couldn't breathe, the fact that he was still able to talk and yell her name could have made her think he was exaggerating. I'm just presenting a possible defense. She's definitely weird and not quite right in the head, but I don't think murder is the right charge here vs. manslaughter, and a lengthy punishment seems too excessive if it was just a drunken mistake and prank gone wrong.

@@nancyeaton731yea I wanna bet you wouldn’t feel that way were it her in the bag and him being ‘cruel’

That's an interesting observation. Still, it doesn't explain the erratic behavior of her attorney.

@@windywednesday4166 That's kind of what I'm leading into with that, yes, her attorney's actions may seem, superficially, unprofessional. But they may be a response to her giving few other options. For example, she may have crossed a line he warned her about, so he had to shut communication down. But, not being the kind to take no for an answer, she just kept pushing as though it had not happened, "What's next? What do I need to do now?" If she's already been told she will need to wait for a round of proceedings, there's nothing more to say to her, no matter how many times she asks, just like there was nothing more the detectives could say to her. I'm wondering if the lawyer's disappearance was to buy time for consultation, etc. But there have been so many attorneys before, the chances of this one just "coincidentally" behaving unusually seems unlikely.

@@MacyMathildeMillicentMarceline Ah, yes. There are some totally bizarre things going on behind the scenes in everything about this whole situation... I'm hoping someone like Jasmine Noor does a look at it to tie up some of the loose ends. Her relationship with her boyfriend was bizarre, her relationship with her ex was allegedly "interesting"... and going through six lawyers? Yikes.

With liberty and justice for all (those who can afford it.)

Yes justice is NOT free!!! In the land of the “free”!

100% agree!

Did you want to ask him out on a date now that you’ve written him a love letter? Lol

Thank you for explaining that. I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt that she really missed 4 bdays but couldn't figure out how that worked on the calendar. Unless the bday was literally the day before 🤷

@@jenniferthomas5926 I know, it took me a second thinking, "what?" Even if it was the day before, she would have been there so she wouldn't have missed it. Also, she's not taking responsibility for her actions.

It’s the best way he can think of to defend her, cause an appeal after she’s convicted 😂🤣

Thank goodness it was "attempted." Not minimising trauma, just glad the offender did not succeed. Hope it is closed soon; waiting chips at the spirit. Cheers.

How can you have a "former" family member lol

@@FuckFascistRU-vid was an in-law who is no longer married to a family member

@@ConnieLeinicke yeah ol’ Scotty missed the logic on that one. God that’s awful Connie, I guess I hope for your sake that they nail that broad to the wall, I don’t care what the situation is, to even ponder trying to “unalive” someone is beyond sinister

My heart goes out to your brother, you, and the whole family. What an awful thing to go through. Happy new year: May 2023 bring you peace and serenity.

I see what you did there. 😂 👍

Sarah now has a crush on the lawyer?

Thank you!!

I agree. So much good information and I love learning about the law.

*Welcome!* I’m so glad you very quickly and easily saw the qualities that we all see, and why this group appreciates him so very much. He is my go-to for misc. legal topics AND for following current “hot” cases. He’s even done a video on how to get the best bang for your buck on your car insurance policy, and I highly recommend it. It was very helpful & enlightening. Take care.

It seems like their typical day was get increasingly drunk, fight verbally and sometimes physically, and then make up the next day once they sobered up. And this time it just went too far.

"Not intentional!" lol

They want her to take a plea, and she's probably pushing for a jury trial. If she has one with a jury, she's toast.

Cuz she’s a lying liar who lies?

I agree… because she lies!! Hahahaha

Maybe pass out drunk? Fell asleep, But not intentional,.

@@vincentzazueta2353 Lol, def "not intentionally!"

Other lawyers left her because she was ringing them every day every time she could. This letter is a lie. She’s trying to sound like she’s being reasonable. This is what narcissists do. If you watched her interrogation she swore on her sons life that she didn’t kill him and then they found video on her phone of him saying to her he can’t breathe in the suitcase and her saying well now you know how it feels when you cheat on me.

@@maireado1744 she’s entitled to representation. Attorneys need to know how to handle different types of clients I’m sure including narcissists if you are diagnosing her as that. I’m not qualified to diagnose someone Regardless representation is needed.

@@marieb6447 Again I am not saying she’s not entitled to representation. What I’m saying is they will probably find her attorney has spoken to her just not everyday like she wants.

MarieB-I’d have to say it’s understandable if her lawyer avoids having to deal with her tbh,I’d throw myself off a Bridge if she was my client

Have you seen her Interrogation and the suitcase video ?

@rain tree - Yes! Both them + more. After first learning about the case, I went far down a rabbit hole and looked at just about every piece available. It was exhausting yet fascinating & intriguing at the same time. 🤯

💯

Lawyers are not allowed to lie or misrepresent facts period

Could she be fishing for Appeal.

Good question.

It's hilarious. Wonder if they told her keeping her for 4 years before court wasn't intentional. Therefore it's excused. Thats Sarah's logic.

I think this only happened in 2020 so it hasn’t been 4 years at all. She’s a liar.

I hope she represents herself a la Darrell Brooks style.

This is the biggest downside of televised trials.

@@nancyeaton731 It’s definitely a huge one, yes. I think that for some, it can work out great. Camille Vasquez, Ben Chew, Judge A, Judge Dorow… they’re all loved for the way they handled themselves during trial. (Of course, some psychos will still harass them.) This guy, though, is not hired. His name was pulled from a hat and the overwhelming consensus is that she is guilty and despicable. I am sure that is daunting.

@@nora__ But it rarely works out great for the defense attorneys. I can't remember a case where a defense attorney was not vilified for defending a client that was horrible and publicly hated. The public trials that have become must-see video for the daily drama make this even worse. It's almost mind boggling that anyone would want to be a defense attorney today given this kind of situation, when the client refuses to accept a plea and demands a trial.

Thanks for watching!

Lindy Chamberlain was sentenced to life for the murder of her daughter. She served 4 years before evidence finally came out proving her story that a dingo stole her child away whilst they were camping. She received $1.4 million compensation which is nothing for everything that poor mummy went through proving her innocence. I know this is not what you meant in your comment but after reading what you wrote, this case came to mind and I thought it would give you an idea of compensation amounts etc...

Which certain groups of people are you referring to? 🤔

Strictly as a reading comprehension exercise, I’m going with “people who don’t have access to robust civics education.” Therefore, “groups of people” would refer to those communities across the country that struggle to fund, meet and maintain quality performance metrics in their middle schools. It seems clear to me also that common knowledge regarding basic rights and lawfulness is becoming less common amongst the general public and poor understanding makes a person vulnerable to manipulation. (Example: Just look at all those super smart sovereign citizens who are so much smarter than the rest of us!) I see that Peter is involved and invested in providing accessible education to the public and developing young lawyers. I agree that there are important legal and civic topics that need to be addressed earlier and better in basic education, and these are important conversations to have.

That should change it should be equal to what the prosecution pays Prosecutors have 4 lawyers - defense must as well Prosecutors have 3 experts, defense must as well !!