It was actually 66 days to prepare for trial. - Atty owens started working on the case 2 weeks prior to filing notice of appearance and got a 1 week hurricane continuance.
@@LisaPeterson227exactly! If anyone was pulling shady stuff it was him. Like burying the state with over 500 pages of useless medical records that they dumped on Mr. Jay the night before opening statements. Like Owen’s didn’t do that on purpose. Those medical records were useless and had nothing to do with the trial. It was a dirty tactic Owen’s pulled because he knew the state would have to go through every page and it would be a waste of time and take away from opening statements preparation. Owen’s is a slimbag.
Thank you Brother Counsel. I’m sure the judge followed all procedures expected of him. At every point he asked Owens and Boone if they were happy with the progress. It’s the verdict neither were happy with.
He chose to take on the case knowing full well of the timeline. She could have continued as she was, the judge had already decided she forfeited, not waived, her right to an attorney. He's using the tight timeline as one excuse for the outcome. No, the ridiculous claim of self-defense, the defendant lying on the stand, and the video of the crime are the reasons for the outcome.
Excellent and educational as always @Brother Counsel. Judge Kraynick did a thorough and detailed inquiry into Sarah Boones case before Owens came on board. Like Mr Jay has said “This is not Mr Owens trial.” This is Sarah Boones Trial.
YES! He is not allegedly a victim. He is a victim even if he is arguing it was nit her fault. She is convicted. He is a victim, he is her victim. Nothing alleged about it.
@@imolalajos8724 I understand why he didn't want to write simply "Victim", but it would have been better tone to simply use his name instead, though there are psychological reasons to not do that either. That is is a victim is an extant legal fact. The reason to avoid the moniker is that they wish to change that fact.
I am confident that there is no chance of a new trial on any of the defenses arguments. I also do not see an appeal. The judge was very thorough in this particular case. Cant wait for sentencing day
@@PH13PH I m sure Owens has said he wouldn’t handle the appeal! So I guess Sarah is back to public defender appeal lawyers? Unless another one parachutes in for her 😅
@@Buttercup203 that is correct. Owens is only representing through the sentencing. Any appeals will be done through an appellate lawyer as that is there specialty. I do not see anything in this case that would be grounds for an appeal. However I am not an appellate lawyer myself. But I do think she finds herself up shits creek with no paddle lol
Brother Counsel, this is yet another great deconstruction of legal arguments! You are always so careful to go through case law to explain your position and conclusions, and actually go the extra mile to look up case law not cited which would be more relevant to support the argument! This is not something I see with any other lawyer on UA-cam, usually they don’t even read the citation (only scroll through it) and provide an analysis without explaining whether the case law cited supports the legal argument. You not only provide a summary of the proceedings, you help us understand the rulings based on the law, completely unbiased. Public opinion in recent cases (Karen Read etc) is so biased and toxic that it makes it difficult to have intelligent and objective discussions, if only people followed the law and applied it to the case like you do, we would all be in a better place. Excellent work, I have recommended your channel to family and friends 😊.
If she gets a new trial and more time, (Lord help us) Mr Owens could possibly get some if not all of that damning rebuttal evidence excluded. She would still be convicted. The testimony out of her own mouth on the stand is what convicted her.
Owens stood in front of Judge Kraynick and said he fully understood the circus he was parachuting into. In court. We saw it. He could have had 4 years but the bottom line is... the videos.
Sarah was warned by both judges that she could lose her right to court appointed counsel and she even talked about it in one of her letters. She’d already had 16 continuances. I agree with the judge. Someone had to put a stop to her abuse of the court system and waste of taxpayer dollars.
I’m so glad I found your channel. You always seem measured and well prepared, plus you make it about the cases, and not your aspiring lawtube career which seems very common.
Of your many fine qualities, sheer tenacity is one. Persistent and relentless getting to the bottom of this! That you analyze, not simply report, the actual judicial opinions is quite valuable. Showing that the decisions are made on the basis of time honored objective principles and not just being pulled out of the air is at least one good reason why. And that comes with a nice demonstration of logical reasoning by drawing parallels and distinctions, too! I just love the depth of your videos! Thank you! 😊
The second argument is null and void on the basis that James Owens agreed to the terms set out for hm. He agreed to take the case with the understanding that the trial was set for a certain date, and that date would not be changed, unless extreme circumstances necessitated ~ which excluded Sarah Boone getting a new lawyer.
Exactly. Also, the judge extended the date for Owens / Sarah to object to the digital evidence the state planned to use, and there was a one week delay in the trial due to a hurricane. Owens did not use his time well. He spent it producing numerous motions about Sarah's hair and makeup, fittings for her clothes and snacks.
Holy moly I'm tired of this woman! Her asinine motions are a waste of time and resources. 🤦. She never had a case She never will. Just take her to prison and throw that key away already!!
@@Jazmarlyssa Exactly. These bogus motions are wasting other people's time. The judge has to read this and go through all the paperwork and write a response. Same with the state. Smh. 😮
IMO Owens was used to working in an area that had a Good Ole Boys network and he isn't used to playing by the rules and actually doing a good job. He spent so many years getting his way due to his position that he had no idea how to properly present a case...or even how to behave appropriately in the courtroom. Sarah got the clown for which she advertised.
He REALLY DID act like he was repeatedly shocked or surprised by how "the court was being conducted" as if "he'd never" seen a court run in "such a manner," didn't he? (what did he think he was going to achieve--make the judge doubt or question himself, wonder if he was doing something incorrectly... like someone telling a restaurant chain's server "I've been to many of this chains various locations and I've never had a server refuse to do this..." 😂
I absolutely love the way you're breaking these motions down! When you drill down on the case citations and go through them, it really cuts through all the BS and scary sounding demands.... Owens and Co have seemed to be having issues with case law throughout this case, even to the point where Judge Kraynick was getting frustrated. And for a judge like Judge Kraynick, it must be extremely frustrating because he went so far as to pull the actual case files to ensure he had all the information necessary to make his decisions and then dealing with an attorney who not only cites case law that doesn't apply, Owens sometimes doesn't cite ANY case law!
You would think she would've had enough of getting smacked down by the legal system after 4 years in jail, 8 lawyers, 16 continuances, going pro se, having a random lawyer "parachute in", only for it to lead to a 1.5 hour jury deliberation. Face it, Drunky the Bear, you're not the victim. Learn from your mistakes and be contrite before that PSI and sentencing happens.
Love you breaking down each of what will be the five appellate issues as Kraynick isn't going to reverse himself. Kraynick made very clear after 16 delays that trial was Oct 7th and that new counsel was not going to change that. Owens knew that before taking on the case. Owens problem wasn't the time frame, it was his client who he let run the show. Her other lawyers wouldn't do that which is why she made life so difficult they couldn't work with her. Her battered spouse defense was DOA by Sarah's own 911 call, police statements, and interviews. Her self recorded tapes showed depravity. Other tapes proved she was always in control, the aggressor, and that Jorge himself was a battered and abused spouse. Kraynick was very generous in his ruling she felt threatened by Jorge trying to escape his death box. Frankly, seems doubtful he had any opening in which to escape nor the breath to be making threats. Makes no sense anyway to threaten to kill her if let out then beg to be freed. The ONLY person battered that day was Jorge. That's why they lost the case. Sarah should have accepted the generous offer or stuck with her "it was an accident" story. Had she told this story earlier she would have also been charged with battery and imprisonment. Sarah deserves the 30-40 year sentence Judge Kraynick will likely impose.
Another channel broke down a zoomed in pic of the suitcase with Jorge in it and you can clearly see the zippers completely closed all way with zero gap and also the zippers were closed in the area that would’ve been behind his head and impossible to get at even if there was a gap. She lied about the gap being there and she lied about the positions of the zippers. The state should’ve had a zoomed in picture of those zippers being closed all the way but I guess they didn’t need it for a conviction. I still would’ve liked to seee her caught in that lie on the stand. If they do ever get another trial for any reason I’d like to see the state go for the throat and expose her even more!!! She’s lucky they took it easy on her imo.
@krystlelachance657 Exactly my point. There's no evidence to support her theory, only the opposite. Plus, why would she turn him right side up thinking an enraged Jorge could escape then go to bed? None of it makes sense and the jury didn't buy it either. Noteworthy, five of the six jurors were women and one a victim of DV herself. She had everything going for her to have a fair trial. I get Owens doing what is SOP to put appellate issues on the record but they're desperate and will fail.
💯. She should have claimed alcohol use disorder, was black out drunk and passed out after taunting him, that it was an accident and accepted a plea deal. But possessing her level of arrogance, she had to tell the jury that she shook the suitcase after Jorge tried to save his life telling him to stop doing that to her. She thought they would sympathize but that cooked her.
so glad you did this analysis of the case laws, I'm not a lawyer, but looked up some of the cases that Owens put on some of his motions and they didn't seem to apply.
I would be shocked if you took his word for it BC. I knew you would explain the argument clearly. It looks like a last minute filing with the appellant court. Thanks again. ☮️⚖️
Thank you Brother Counsel. I’m so glad I found your channel. Your analyses of cases is very thorough and you make it all understandable for those of us without legal experience. You stick to the law, always citing precedence. There’s no ego involved, no primping for the camera or audience. You keep it classy!
The prosecutors have 28 days to respond which is December 2nd and until they respond the judge can't respond. This is all a calculated delay by owens hoping they won't sentence her on December 2nd because of this frivolous motion.
The way that Owens' firm is just throwing cases that vaguely relate to the case regardless of whether they help their argument or not is kind of giving "I used ChatGPT to index cases and just copy pasted the results".
My questionis: is it really just fumbling or is it knowing misrepresentation of law and fact again and again. He is a practiced, experienced, knowledgeable person.
Judge Kraynick chided him before for not not citing any cases in prior motions, so he cited some cases. I can't decide if Owens is just checking off boxes knowing it's not going anywhere or if expects Judge K will just take his word for it that these cases support his argument. Of course Owens should know full well by now how thorough this judge is when forming his opinions and rulings. There's no way this kind of half hearted "here are some cases on this topic - no I didn't actually read them to see if they support my position" argument is going to sway him.
Judge K knows his Laws!! Mr Owens throws a lot of “stuff” out there but none of it can stick! Thanks Brother Council for explaining the laws to your unknowledgeable, but fascinated audience!!!
The judge really should've given sarah a warning, something like 'This is your last state appointed attorney.' To blindside her with pro se was reckless. The judge was LUCKY sarah was able to get attorneys the way she did. Had she not, for sure there would be a new trial.
If memory serves, Judge Kraynick wrote a 14-page ruling on SB's forfeiture of her right to counsel by her actions, wich resulted in the withdrawal of 4 attorneys.
I'm new here and your videos are great stuff without the needless fluff!! Owens didn't really need a continuance b/c those videos made this a cut and dried case! She's So Guilty!!!
100%. Owens keeps trying to make out that this case is super complicated and has so many moving pieces. It really doesn't. It has a handful of videos that Sarah took herself. 😮
Owens is weak on citing cases, he never made any sense when he rarely did cite a case, and his objections in court were laughable, he would object and begin rambling and the judge would have to stop him and ask what are the grounds for him to be objecting on, and he sometimes just dropped his whole objection there and then !!!
I loved it when the judge said whats the legal objection…….. i dont agree with it, thats not a legal objection Sir 😂….. what a dimwit how long has he been practicing law
Yes, he seemed to be going after the things that Sarah didn't like more than the things that would have legal standing. But that's the defense Sarah wanted. ❤
IMO Owens is salty because he didn't go through all of the phone extraction. Those text messages were a huge part of the prosecution rebuttal. They also destroyed Sarah's attempt to paint Jorge as the aggressor and Sarah as the "battered spouse". Who really knows what story sarah gave to Owens about what was in the cell phone or what it proved.
Exactly. He also had two paralegals and Margret (the secretary). They could have easily gone through those texts in a couple of hours. But apparently, Sarah wanted them to be her secret shoppers, getting her fitted clothes and makeup. I wondered a couple of times if it wasn't Owen's strategy to just take Sarah's word for it, not look too deeply into anything else, and run with what she told him.
If a new trial is granted, will the state have to appoint her new attorneys or does the judge's ruling that if she wants an attorney she has to pay for one or represent herself stand?
It’s disgusting they call Jorge the “alleged victim”. Ummmmm, you were found guilty. Not agreeing with the court’s verdict doesn’t change that he was the actual victim here. Even if she does get a new trial I doubt the outcome will change. She has absolutely no empathy. Every attempt to minimize or explain her actions comes off terribly callous. The burden isn’t on her to prove her innocence. All the state has to do is prove she put him in that suitcase and then went to sleep without helping him out. It’s that simple. Sometimes I wish I was delusional. I’m sure it would suck for everyone else, but what a blissful existence.
I think it’s obvious Owens wrote this appeal as fast as he could, and put any court case that came up when he used the “search” function. That’s how Owens performed the entire trial. Play fast & loose while making baseless claims of injustice.
Yep. And doing all of that, while, much like Ms. Boone herself, accusing any and everyone else of unethical "unfair" treatment and practices. He followed her examples precisely, and accused the Torre's family, the investigating detectives, the attorneys for the state, and even the court itself, of various misconducts. All of them baseless mud throwing. He accused the family of "creating an outburst in front of the jury" "that family knew what was going on" in his rambling mess of a close as well. Several times tried to paint the lead homicide detective as unethical, lying, "tricking and coercing", etc. Claimed that the sheriff's department, the state, or victims services were responsible for the mother quietly crying before leaving the courtroom - he heavily implied that the detectives sitting with the family was somehow responsible/unethical, and he and Sarah tried to have the lead detective thrown out of other hearings too, even when they had no right to demand such, and it was over ruled. It's just especially galling that both S.B and Owens are the first to shout, point fingers and exclaim "NOT FAIR TO ME!!" while engaging in all the disgusting acts they accuse others of doing.
Please give her another trial. I can watch the jury come back with a guilty verdict over and over again. This is not the last time we will hear from her. She is the Micheal Jordan of Karens.
From his own mouth he said his initial goal was to hammer out a plea deal, when that couldn’t happen, he started walking, but SB somehow roped him in to representing her…..his bad🤭
Owens is the worst, most of us would do better than him, just by understanding the english language. Did Margaret look up these case laws? If she didnt most that come in contact with Owens are done for.
God, Owens is a terrible lawyer. How someone that inept got as far in his career as he did is a mystery. I wouldn't let him represent me in a case of jaywalking.
My "adventure" though the family law system during my divorce really highlighted for me who many awful lawyers are out there. Its insane. My lawyer was confounded by my high-deductible HSA heath plan. He literally couldnt wrap his head around it. I knew i was going to get slammed by the judge when my lawyer started a long confused butchered explanation of it in court. He had almost a year to understand it! It was embarrasing.
He’s from a county that probably Operated under a good ole boys club mentality so he got away with a lot more tomfoolery. Kraynick doesn’t mess around so it exposed how bad of a lawyer Owens is.
Great breakdown!!! Thank you!! Lots of hate on Owen's on here. I respect him. Everyone, even sarah, deserves a defense. No matter his reasons....he stepped up and took the case to trial on an extremely short timeline. I give props for that. You could tell he wanted her to take the deal yet still stood with her through a trial littered with bad facts. I'd hire him.
We should be grateful for Owens standing up to defend her. Horrid as the situation was, and as much as I found him annoying… Sarah Pro Se would have been waaay worse! Also Sarah Pro se would have been more traumatic for Jorge’s family, the jury and the court staff and DAs!!!
Owen’s has the look of a good lawyer but after looking deep into his letters and case stuff like you I’m thinking he’s either A) Really stupid B) extremely unethical C) a mixture of both
So how can an attorney file a motion for a new trial post conviction ? Isn't that what an Appeal is for ? And if so, can Mr. Owen act as her Appellate attorney ?
The chance of appeal is slim as it has to be for specific reasons, ie ineffective council. Owen is asking for a new trial by throwing a bunch of different crap at the wall to see what sticks. It's a faster way to skirt around getting a new trial. He's still her lawyer for now but if she ends up appealing, he won't be representing her. An appellate lawyer will be appointed, as per Owen's interview.
The judge stated in court that he had personally read every letter from Sarah. He had reviewed all filings from all prior attorneys and reviewed the case. I can not see this being a mistrial based on his denial of another continuance.
Sarah Boone' s defense council reminds me of people I've worked with in the past: just sloppily throw some things together and hope nobody notices. Ha ha Thank you for deep diving into the "supporting" case law defense threw together, which supported nothing!
Let’s suppose the Universe is out of whack + she gets a new trial, does she HAVE to argue BSS or can she change it? Im wondering if thats what she wants to do as BSS was ridiculous???
@@Buttercup203 It's highly, HIGHLY unlikely that she'd get a new trial, as shown in these breakdowns. There's really no legal basis for her to get one! The judge and the state trod very carefully in allowing her nonsense up to a point, so she couldn't claim "unfair!", not while being taken seriously, anyway. But all of this stuff is now on the record. Even if she tried to come up with some completely new defence, and abandoned the battered spouse stuff, other evidence like the suitcase videos are still enough to convict her of M2 over and over again. Her absolute best shot, was to accept the sweetheart plea deal the state offered. I also think they offered that sweetheart deal after having a very good measure of her character, that she would relish in rejecting it, because she refuses to take even a SCINTILLA of responsibility for her actions, and wouldn't have accepted anything less than a declaration that Ms. Boone is entirely innocent, compensation in the millions, and a ticker tape parade as she's carried out of the courtroom and set free. Even Owens admitted she probably wouldn't have accepted any plea deal, she wanted "her day in court". I'm pretty sure the state had the measure of Sarah's character too, they've been well prepared for any claims she might have tried to make in court, knowing everything they had on her phone and on things like the police bodycams and police reports that disproved her stories. But she can't claim she was overcharged, or appeal that there was no plea on the table, or anything like that! She proudly rejected the plea, and was rightfully convicted by a jury, during a fair trial.
I have 2 observations to share. The first regards this motion that Owens filed. Citing authority that doesn't have a close correlation with the facts related to Sarah Boone's case is simply shoddy lawyering. It seems Owens is betting that Kraynick won't check the references in the motion. This means Owens's 2 strongest arguments will fail from the word "go." The second relates to alternative theories of the case that a defence attorney may present to the court. These have to be soundly anchored in the known facts of the case and, more to the point, be coherent and reasonably plausible. Alex Murdaugh's vanishing perpetrator is a good example of an unprovable althernative theory. Charlie Adelson's second extortion story was implausible and made little rational sense. On the other hand, in Karen Read's case the defence's theory of the crime seemed more plausible, because Read was also part of a larger Boston Police family and may have known something about the personal and professional conflicts among the police implicated in this case. This despite the fact that the defence only had to introduce reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.
Mr. Owens is not good at looking up. Case laws During her whole trial, he was not coming up with case laws at all. He just stated.I feel like this is unfair.For my client, zeraboo fillings are not case law
So it appears that Owens just cites case law whether it helps make his point or not, just to cite a case for reference. As a prior public defender it appears he doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing at times. Keep grasping at straws Owen’s. It’s not going to help. She’s not getting a new trial
Some of us still want to watch coverage of this case. If you don't want to see it, stop clicking on it, rather than trying to control what other people cover or are allowed to show interest in.
Nah, he's not ruining his career. A he announced in his rambling mess of a close, he's 63 years old, approaching retirement age anyway. He wants to be a Court TV talking head lawyer to bump his retirement cash, judging by the way he was giving them interviews both before trial and immediately after the verdict. He's revealed himself to be a horrible human being, and not a very ethical lawyer, but that doesn't appear to be his concern, and "new clients for himself as a lawyer" doesn't seem to be what's motivating him, to my mind. The interviews show where his priority lay, and it was being in front of the cameras and making more headlines with frivolous motions, rather than practicing well as an attorney.
It was actually 66 days to prepare for trial.
- Atty owens started working on the case 2 weeks prior to filing notice of appearance and got a 1 week hurricane continuance.
When does Owens get contempt of court for the way he has acted?
@@LisaPeterson227exactly! If anyone was pulling shady stuff it was him. Like burying the state with over 500 pages of useless medical records that they dumped on Mr. Jay the night before opening statements. Like Owen’s didn’t do that on purpose. Those medical records were useless and had nothing to do with the trial. It was a dirty tactic Owen’s pulled because he knew the state would have to go through every page and it would be a waste of time and take away from opening statements preparation. Owen’s is a slimbag.
He also could have stepped up sooner, (or, "parachuted in"). He had seen Sarah's poster several weeks before.
@@krystlelachance657Exacty and I agree 100%
They had all the information…… her very first attorney was ready for trial, they were only 2 weeks from trial when he withdrew
Thank you Brother Counsel. I’m sure the judge followed all procedures expected of him. At every point he asked Owens and Boone if they were happy with the progress. It’s the verdict neither were happy with.
Sarah had received 16 previous continuations
Wow! 😅❤ I didn't know that. I must have lost count somewhere. 😮
I am such a layman that I have only an eighth grade education, yet, I can understand nearly all of Brother Council's narratives!.❤
Wow, thank you!
He chose to take on the case knowing full well of the timeline. She could have continued as she was, the judge had already decided she forfeited, not waived, her right to an attorney. He's using the tight timeline as one excuse for the outcome. No, the ridiculous claim of self-defense, the defendant lying on the stand, and the video of the crime are the reasons for the outcome.
Excellent and educational as always @Brother Counsel. Judge Kraynick did a thorough and detailed inquiry into Sarah Boones case before Owens came on board. Like Mr Jay has said “This is not Mr Owens trial.” This is Sarah Boones Trial.
Also his use of the "alleged" victim ... is gross.
YES! He is not allegedly a victim. He is a victim even if he is arguing it was nit her fault. She is convicted. He is a victim, he is her victim. Nothing alleged about it.
@@imolalajos8724 I understand why he didn't want to write simply "Victim", but it would have been better tone to simply use his name instead, though there are psychological reasons to not do that either.
That is is a victim is an extant legal fact. The reason to avoid the moniker is that they wish to change that fact.
That really gauled me!
Owens really does underestimate Judge Kraynick who is a most thorough and informed Judge
I am confident that there is no chance of a new trial on any of the defenses arguments. I also do not see an appeal. The judge was very thorough in this particular case. Cant wait for sentencing day
Even if she somehow gets a new trial, the evidence isn't going to go away.
She should be sentenced to natural life plus 1 day.
@@PH13PH I m sure Owens has said he wouldn’t handle the appeal! So I guess Sarah is back to public defender appeal lawyers? Unless another one parachutes in for her 😅
@@Buttercup203 that is correct. Owens is only representing through the sentencing. Any appeals will be done through an appellate lawyer as that is there specialty. I do not see anything in this case that would be grounds for an appeal. However I am not an appellate lawyer myself. But I do think she finds herself up shits creek with no paddle lol
@ yay! Glad to hear from a professional that she doesn’t stand a chance! Buh bye Sarah! 👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻
Brother Counsel, this is yet another great deconstruction of legal arguments! You are always so careful to go through case law to explain your position and conclusions, and actually go the extra mile to look up case law not cited which would be more relevant to support the argument! This is not something I see with any other lawyer on UA-cam, usually they don’t even read the citation (only scroll through it) and provide an analysis without explaining whether the case law cited supports the legal argument. You not only provide a summary of the proceedings, you help us understand the rulings based on the law, completely unbiased. Public opinion in recent cases (Karen Read etc) is so biased and toxic that it makes it difficult to have intelligent and objective discussions, if only people followed the law and applied it to the case like you do, we would all be in a better place. Excellent work, I have recommended your channel to family and friends 😊.
Thanks so much!
If a new trial is granted, it will just waste the tax payers money and she will just be found guilty again. This was a cut and dry case.
YUP!!!
Nothing Sarah can say or lie/attest to can overcome all the damming evidence!
Her alcoholic narcissistic goose is cooked!
Another reason why it will be denied!!!
I have to disagree! Was not cut and dry, it was clearly open and shut 🧳😂
If she gets a new trial and more time, (Lord help us) Mr Owens could possibly get some if not all of that damning rebuttal evidence excluded. She would still be convicted. The testimony out of her own mouth on the stand is what convicted her.
Thank you. That was an excellent analysis. And comforting to know it’s not going anywhere.
Owens stood in front of Judge Kraynick and said he fully understood the circus he was parachuting into. In court. We saw it. He could have had 4 years but the bottom line is... the videos.
parachuted in was my favorite line of the trial! shows how much kraynick has had enough of this circus!
Sarah was warned by both judges that she could lose her right to court appointed counsel and she even talked about it in one of her letters. She’d already had 16 continuances. I agree with the judge. Someone had to put a stop to her abuse of the court system and waste of taxpayer dollars.
You are the best at explaining cases! Thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge!
Wow, thank you!
I’m so glad I found your channel. You always seem measured and well prepared, plus you make it about the cases, and not your aspiring lawtube career which seems very common.
Thank you so much!
Of your many fine qualities, sheer tenacity is one. Persistent and relentless getting to the bottom of this!
That you analyze, not simply report, the actual judicial opinions is quite valuable. Showing that the decisions are made on the basis of time honored objective principles and not just being pulled out of the air is at least one good reason why. And that comes with a nice demonstration of logical reasoning by drawing parallels and distinctions, too!
I just love the depth of your videos! Thank you! 😊
Maybe Judge K and Brother Council will show Sarah Boone it isn’t a good idea to lie to the Law!!!!
All of this!
I cannot tell you how much I enjoy listening to your analyses which are in depth, well articulated and meaningful to me, a layperson. Thank you.
Cool, thanks!
Owens is misrepresenting case law? Color me shocked.
🤣
Can you hear the tiny violins playing? 🎻
Congratulations on 10K!
The second argument is null and void on the basis that James Owens agreed to the terms set out for hm. He agreed to take the case with the understanding that the trial was set for a certain date, and that date would not be changed, unless extreme circumstances necessitated ~ which excluded Sarah Boone getting a new lawyer.
James Owen’s is just as bad as Sarah, they would make a great couple, he should marry her, both annoying as fk
Exactly. Also, the judge extended the date for Owens / Sarah to object to the digital evidence the state planned to use, and there was a one week delay in the trial due to a hurricane. Owens did not use his time well. He spent it producing numerous motions about Sarah's hair and makeup, fittings for her clothes and snacks.
@@windywednesday4166And being interviewed by news outlets.
Holy moly I'm tired of this woman! Her asinine motions are a waste of time and resources. 🤦. She never had a case She never will. Just take her to prison and throw that key away already!!
Nice breakdown though BC!!
@@Jazmarlyssa Exactly. These bogus motions are wasting other people's time. The judge has to read this and go through all the paperwork and write a response. Same with the state. Smh. 😮
Owens eeking out his 15 minutes of infamy.
He's such a loser.
and he is proving himself to be a really shit lawyer
💯
IMO Owens was used to working in an area that had a Good Ole Boys network and he isn't used to playing by the rules and actually doing a good job. He spent so many years getting his way due to his position that he had no idea how to properly present a case...or even how to behave appropriately in the courtroom. Sarah got the clown for which she advertised.
He REALLY DID act like he was repeatedly shocked or surprised by how "the court was being conducted" as if "he'd never" seen a court run in "such a manner," didn't he? (what did he think he was going to achieve--make the judge doubt or question himself, wonder if he was doing something incorrectly... like someone telling a restaurant chain's server "I've been to many of this chains various locations and I've never had a server refuse to do this..." 😂
SB had 16 continuances and when Owens and his parachute arrived he had 45 days not 2-3 days PLUS Hurricane Milton gave an additional week.
I absolutely love the way you're breaking these motions down! When you drill down on the case citations and go through them, it really cuts through all the BS and scary sounding demands.... Owens and Co have seemed to be having issues with case law throughout this case, even to the point where Judge Kraynick was getting frustrated. And for a judge like Judge Kraynick, it must be extremely frustrating because he went so far as to pull the actual case files to ensure he had all the information necessary to make his decisions and then dealing with an attorney who not only cites case law that doesn't apply, Owens sometimes doesn't cite ANY case law!
She forfeted her right to PUBLICALLY FUNDED counsel.
You would think she would've had enough of getting smacked down by the legal system after 4 years in jail, 8 lawyers, 16 continuances, going pro se, having a random lawyer "parachute in", only for it to lead to a 1.5 hour jury deliberation. Face it, Drunky the Bear, you're not the victim. Learn from your mistakes and be contrite before that PSI and sentencing happens.
Love you breaking down each of what will be the five appellate issues as Kraynick isn't going to reverse himself. Kraynick made very clear after 16 delays that trial was Oct 7th and that new counsel was not going to change that. Owens knew that before taking on the case. Owens problem wasn't the time frame, it was his client who he let run the show. Her other lawyers wouldn't do that which is why she made life so difficult they couldn't work with her. Her battered spouse defense was DOA by Sarah's own 911 call, police statements, and interviews. Her self recorded tapes showed depravity. Other tapes proved she was always in control, the aggressor, and that Jorge himself was a battered and abused spouse. Kraynick was very generous in his ruling she felt threatened by Jorge trying to escape his death box. Frankly, seems doubtful he had any opening in which to escape nor the breath to be making threats. Makes no sense anyway to threaten to kill her if let out then beg to be freed. The ONLY person battered that day was Jorge. That's why they lost the case. Sarah should have accepted the generous offer or stuck with her "it was an accident" story. Had she told this story earlier she would have also been charged with battery and imprisonment. Sarah deserves the 30-40 year sentence Judge Kraynick will likely impose.
Another channel broke down a zoomed in pic of the suitcase with Jorge in it and you can clearly see the zippers completely closed all way with zero gap and also the zippers were closed in the area that would’ve been behind his head and impossible to get at even if there was a gap. She lied about the gap being there and she lied about the positions of the zippers. The state should’ve had a zoomed in picture of those zippers being closed all the way but I guess they didn’t need it for a conviction. I still would’ve liked to seee her caught in that lie on the stand. If they do ever get another trial for any reason I’d like to see the state go for the throat and expose her even more!!! She’s lucky they took it easy on her imo.
@krystlelachance657 Exactly my point. There's no evidence to support her theory, only the opposite. Plus, why would she turn him right side up thinking an enraged Jorge could escape then go to bed? None of it makes sense and the jury didn't buy it either. Noteworthy, five of the six jurors were women and one a victim of DV herself. She had everything going for her to have a fair trial. I get Owens doing what is SOP to put appellate issues on the record but they're desperate and will fail.
Perfectly stated!!!!
Well said. This is another nothing burger from Owens, and sentencing is on December 2nd. ❤
💯. She should have claimed alcohol use disorder, was black out drunk and passed out after taunting him, that it was an accident and accepted a plea deal. But possessing her level of arrogance, she had to tell the jury that she shook the suitcase after Jorge tried to save his life telling him to stop doing that to her. She thought they would sympathize but that cooked her.
so glad you did this analysis of the case laws, I'm not a lawyer, but looked up some of the cases that Owens put on some of his motions and they didn't seem to apply.
This is great - thank you for explaining this in depth in layman’s terms 🇨🇦🇨🇦
I would be shocked if you took his word for it BC. I knew you would explain the argument clearly. It looks like a last minute filing with the appellant court. Thanks again. ☮️⚖️
I enjoy the detailed explanations! Thank you!
You're very welcome!
Anyone else sick of hearing Owens say he tried his best?
And his continuously ridiculous countdown days🙄😂
No.
Thank you Brother Counsel. I’m so glad I found your channel. Your analyses of cases is very thorough and you make it all understandable for those of us without legal experience. You stick to the law, always citing precedence. There’s no ego involved, no primping for the camera or audience. You keep it classy!
Thnx!!
Any ideas as to why the judge and prosecution have not responded yet?
The prosecutors have 28 days to respond which is December 2nd and until they respond the judge can't respond. This is all a calculated delay by owens hoping they won't sentence her on December 2nd because of this frivolous motion.
❤ Thank you. I appreciate you getting into the case law. 😊
The way that Owens' firm is just throwing cases that vaguely relate to the case regardless of whether they help their argument or not is kind of giving "I used ChatGPT to index cases and just copy pasted the results".
😅❤ Right?! 100% the vibe I get from his motions!
My questionis: is it really just fumbling or is it knowing misrepresentation of law and fact again and again. He is a practiced, experienced, knowledgeable person.
Judge Kraynick chided him before for not not citing any cases in prior motions, so he cited some cases. I can't decide if Owens is just checking off boxes knowing it's not going anywhere or if expects Judge K will just take his word for it that these cases support his argument. Of course Owens should know full well by now how thorough this judge is when forming his opinions and rulings. There's no way this kind of half hearted "here are some cases on this topic - no I didn't actually read them to see if they support my position" argument is going to sway him.
Judge K knows his Laws!!
Mr Owens throws a lot of “stuff” out there but none of it can stick!
Thanks Brother Council for explaining the laws to your unknowledgeable, but fascinated audience!!!
Congratulations Brother Counsel on 10K subscribers‼️💯❤️
🎉Awesome! Congrats!
Tysm! Always enjoy
Owens shouldnt win on this when SB wasted his time filing motions for makeup artists and extra snacks!!!
😅❤ Ah, so that's where all the time went! 😮
Not to mention the numerous interviews he did with news outlets.
Another terrific podcast - thank you 🇨🇦🇨🇦
Thanks!
The judge really should've given sarah a warning, something like 'This is your last state appointed attorney.' To blindside her with pro se was reckless. The judge was LUCKY sarah was able to get attorneys the way she did. Had she not, for sure there would be a new trial.
I absolutely hate the way owens keeps calling Jorge the alleged victim, he is dead because boone murdered him he is the victim.
I do too!
He s not allegedly dead, she admits to killing him
Exactly! It was super annoying that he did it before the trial. To do it now is just obnoxious.
If memory serves, Judge Kraynick wrote a 14-page ruling on SB's forfeiture of her right to counsel by her actions, wich resulted in the withdrawal of 4 attorneys.
I've learned about law watching your channel, and this video shows me that these excuses are only giving such a bad reputation to Owens.
What is Olsen trying to prove. The video showed everything, guilty
Great job, thank you
I'm new here and your videos are great stuff without the needless fluff!! Owens didn't really need a continuance b/c those videos made this a cut and dried case! She's So Guilty!!!
Thanks!!
Yep
100%. Owens keeps trying to make out that this case is super complicated and has so many moving pieces. It really doesn't. It has a handful of videos that Sarah took herself. 😮
Congratulation 10k
Owens is weak on citing cases, he never made any sense when he rarely did cite a case, and his objections in court were laughable, he would object and begin rambling and the judge would have to stop him and ask what are the grounds for him to be objecting on, and he sometimes just dropped his whole objection there and then !!!
I loved it when the judge said whats the legal objection…….. i dont agree with it, thats not a legal objection Sir 😂….. what a dimwit how long has he been practicing law
Yes, he seemed to be going after the things that Sarah didn't like more than the things that would have legal standing. But that's the defense Sarah wanted. ❤
So Mr Owens includes case law that goes against his motion for new trial? Ha ha ha!
Love this!
IMO Owens is salty because he didn't go through all of the phone extraction. Those text messages were a huge part of the prosecution rebuttal. They also destroyed Sarah's attempt to paint Jorge as the aggressor and Sarah as the "battered spouse". Who really knows what story sarah gave to Owens about what was in the cell phone or what it proved.
He still should have looked at all the evidence and fact checked everything Sarah told him.
There were 3 lawyers working on it…….3 !
Exactly. He also had two paralegals and Margret (the secretary). They could have easily gone through those texts in a couple of hours. But apparently, Sarah wanted them to be her secret shoppers, getting her fitted clothes and makeup.
I wondered a couple of times if it wasn't Owen's strategy to just take Sarah's word for it, not look too deeply into anything else, and run with what she told him.
I dont understand how Jorge saying that Sarah was the aggressor is hearsay, its coming from his own mouth ? Sarah is allowed to say Jorge hit her…..
It's hearsay if it's something that someone said that can't be clarified in Court
If a new trial is granted, will the state have to appoint her new attorneys or does the judge's ruling that if she wants an attorney she has to pay for one or represent herself stand?
Great analysis.
I am new to your channel.
Thank you for sharing your views 😊
Thanks for joining!
I’ve got more chance of winning the lottery four times in a row than she has of getting a new trial.
It’s disgusting they call
Jorge the “alleged victim”. Ummmmm, you were found guilty. Not agreeing with the court’s verdict doesn’t change that he was the actual victim here. Even if she does get a new trial I doubt the outcome will change. She has absolutely no empathy. Every attempt to minimize or explain her actions comes off terribly callous. The burden isn’t on her to prove her innocence. All the state has to do is prove she put him in that suitcase and then went to sleep without helping him out. It’s that simple. Sometimes I wish I was delusional. I’m sure it would suck for everyone else, but what a blissful existence.
Thank you for your time and explanation. I don't think Sarah deserves anymore delays, keeping her from her new accomodations.
Not much to this case she killed George
Imo if owens had spent less time filing excessive and frivolous motions he could have had more time to prepare for trial
I’m convinced the paralegals cited these cases as a result of a quick keyword search and didn’t read the findings.
She will not get a new trial.
I think it’s obvious Owens wrote this appeal as fast as he could, and put any court case that came up when he used the “search” function. That’s how Owens performed the entire trial. Play fast & loose while making baseless claims of injustice.
Yep. And doing all of that, while, much like Ms. Boone herself, accusing any and everyone else of unethical "unfair" treatment and practices. He followed her examples precisely, and accused the Torre's family, the investigating detectives, the attorneys for the state, and even the court itself, of various misconducts. All of them baseless mud throwing. He accused the family of "creating an outburst in front of the jury" "that family knew what was going on" in his rambling mess of a close as well. Several times tried to paint the lead homicide detective as unethical, lying, "tricking and coercing", etc. Claimed that the sheriff's department, the state, or victims services were responsible for the mother quietly crying before leaving the courtroom - he heavily implied that the detectives sitting with the family was somehow responsible/unethical, and he and Sarah tried to have the lead detective thrown out of other hearings too, even when they had no right to demand such, and it was over ruled.
It's just especially galling that both S.B and Owens are the first to shout, point fingers and exclaim "NOT FAIR TO ME!!" while engaging in all the disgusting acts they accuse others of doing.
If a continuous was granted, an appeal based on violation of speedy trial could possibly win.
When a case is continued by the request of the defense I believe the defendant has to say they waive their right to speedy trial
Good’solaining! Thanks!
Please give her another trial. I can watch the jury come back with a guilty verdict over and over again. This is not the last time we will hear from her. She is the Micheal Jordan of Karens.
Has Owens actually been counsel for a trial like this before or is he just an ambulance chaser NTTAWWT?
From his own mouth he said his initial goal was to hammer out a plea deal, when that couldn’t happen, he started walking, but SB somehow roped him in to representing her…..his bad🤭
Owens is the worst, most of us would do better than him, just by understanding the english language. Did Margaret look up these case laws? If she didnt most that come in contact with Owens are done for.
Margaret is his alter ego
@@afrotiff💯
If I ever get in trouble, I’m asking you to defend me !
im all in for sarah boone flailing pathetically
I thought he had an opportunity to request continuance with deadline when he first came on and never requested.
She better not be allowed a knew trial. She has wasted enough tax payers money
God, Owens is a terrible lawyer. How someone that inept got as far in his career as he did is a mystery. I wouldn't let him represent me in a case of jaywalking.
My "adventure" though the family law system during my divorce really highlighted for me who many awful lawyers are out there. Its insane.
My lawyer was confounded by my high-deductible HSA heath plan. He literally couldnt wrap his head around it. I knew i was going to get slammed by the judge when my lawyer started a long confused butchered explanation of it in court. He had almost a year to understand it! It was embarrasing.
He’s from a county that probably
Operated under a good ole boys club mentality so he got away with a lot more tomfoolery. Kraynick doesn’t mess around so it exposed how bad of a lawyer Owens is.
Great breakdown!!! Thank you!! Lots of hate on Owen's on here. I respect him. Everyone, even sarah, deserves a defense. No matter his reasons....he stepped up and took the case to trial on an extremely short timeline. I give props for that. You could tell he wanted her to take the deal yet still stood with her through a trial littered with bad facts. I'd hire him.
We should be grateful for Owens standing up to defend her. Horrid as the situation was, and as much as I found him annoying… Sarah Pro Se would have been waaay worse! Also Sarah Pro se would have been more traumatic for Jorge’s family, the jury and the court staff and DAs!!!
Owen’s has the look of a good lawyer but after looking deep into his letters and case stuff like you I’m thinking he’s either
A) Really stupid
B) extremely unethical
C) a mixture of both
If she gets a new trial, d9es she also get the plea deal offer again?
Absolutely not. That's over
@Klove5343 phew that's a relief
Enough of the attorney abuse ! She belittles her attorney fired 8 or more hit one of them wants to continue and continue !!
So how can an attorney file a motion for a new trial post conviction ? Isn't that what an Appeal is for ? And if so, can Mr. Owen act as her Appellate attorney ?
Apparently its quite normal to do this, setting out reasons for appeal
The chance of appeal is slim as it has to be for specific reasons, ie ineffective council. Owen is asking for a new trial by throwing a bunch of different crap at the wall to see what sticks. It's a faster way to skirt around getting a new trial. He's still her lawyer for now but if she ends up appealing, he won't be representing her. An appellate lawyer will be appointed, as per Owen's interview.
The judge stated in court that he had personally read every letter from Sarah. He had reviewed all filings from all prior attorneys and reviewed the case. I can not see this being a mistrial based on his denial of another continuance.
Sarah Boone' s defense council reminds me of people I've worked with in the past: just sloppily throw some things together and hope nobody notices. Ha ha Thank you for deep diving into the "supporting" case law defense threw together, which supported nothing!
Forfeited and alternatively waived her right to counsel
Every person that was forced to have Owens represent them as a public defender should have their cases up for review.
IMO, Owens ruined his reputation with this case. AND telling reporters he was shocked at the verdict ruined it even further.
when will judge respond to these
Rewatch crew
Oh goodness she really thinks people are stupid and don’t see thru her bs
Let’s suppose the Universe is out of whack + she gets a new trial, does she HAVE to argue BSS or can she change it? Im wondering if thats what she wants to do as BSS was ridiculous???
She can change it. Now that she knows all of what the prosecution has on her she likely would
@ ok thx for the info? IF it sh happen the State would have PROOF of now a 3rd story? She’s cooked either way!!
@@Buttercup203 It's highly, HIGHLY unlikely that she'd get a new trial, as shown in these breakdowns. There's really no legal basis for her to get one! The judge and the state trod very carefully in allowing her nonsense up to a point, so she couldn't claim "unfair!", not while being taken seriously, anyway. But all of this stuff is now on the record. Even if she tried to come up with some completely new defence, and abandoned the battered spouse stuff, other evidence like the suitcase videos are still enough to convict her of M2 over and over again.
Her absolute best shot, was to accept the sweetheart plea deal the state offered. I also think they offered that sweetheart deal after having a very good measure of her character, that she would relish in rejecting it, because she refuses to take even a SCINTILLA of responsibility for her actions, and wouldn't have accepted anything less than a declaration that Ms. Boone is entirely innocent, compensation in the millions, and a ticker tape parade as she's carried out of the courtroom and set free. Even Owens admitted she probably wouldn't have accepted any plea deal, she wanted "her day in court". I'm pretty sure the state had the measure of Sarah's character too, they've been well prepared for any claims she might have tried to make in court, knowing everything they had on her phone and on things like the police bodycams and police reports that disproved her stories. But she can't claim she was overcharged, or appeal that there was no plea on the table, or anything like that! She proudly rejected the plea, and was rightfully convicted by a jury, during a fair trial.
💕
I have 2 observations to share.
The first regards this motion that Owens filed. Citing authority that doesn't have a close correlation with the facts related to Sarah Boone's case is simply shoddy lawyering. It seems Owens is betting that Kraynick won't check the references in the motion. This means Owens's 2 strongest arguments will fail from the word "go."
The second relates to alternative theories of the case that a defence attorney may present to the court. These have to be soundly anchored in the known facts of the case and, more to the point, be coherent and reasonably plausible. Alex Murdaugh's vanishing perpetrator is a good example of an unprovable althernative theory. Charlie Adelson's second extortion story was implausible and made little rational sense.
On the other hand, in Karen Read's case the defence's theory of the crime seemed more plausible, because Read was also part of a larger Boston Police family and may have known something about the personal and professional conflicts among the police implicated in this case. This despite the fact that the defence only had to introduce reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.
Mr. Owens is not good at looking up. Case laws During her whole trial, he was not coming up with case laws at all. He just stated.I feel like this is unfair.For my client, zeraboo fillings are not case law
erred is pronounced "aired" not "eared"
Actually, it's pronounced "erred"!
@ "urd"? No.
So it appears that Owens just cites case law whether it helps make his point or not, just to cite a case for reference. As a prior public defender it appears he doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing at times. Keep grasping at straws Owen’s. It’s not going to help. She’s not getting a new trial
😊
Its timecto stop covering this nut case! Clearly, she has no insight into her own selfishness and sense of decency
SB was documented to lack insight. This shows that is a FACT.
Some of us still want to watch coverage of this case. If you don't want to see it, stop clicking on it, rather than trying to control what other people cover or are allowed to show interest in.
JAMES OWEN IS LIKE A CHILD JUST LIKE SARAH!!!!!!!! HE IS RUINING HIS CAREER!!!!!!!!!!
Nah, he's not ruining his career. A he announced in his rambling mess of a close, he's 63 years old, approaching retirement age anyway. He wants to be a Court TV talking head lawyer to bump his retirement cash, judging by the way he was giving them interviews both before trial and immediately after the verdict. He's revealed himself to be a horrible human being, and not a very ethical lawyer, but that doesn't appear to be his concern, and "new clients for himself as a lawyer" doesn't seem to be what's motivating him, to my mind. The interviews show where his priority lay, and it was being in front of the cameras and making more headlines with frivolous motions, rather than practicing well as an attorney.