Quote From: madaboutuJust want to point out that the lawyer did not bail on her. According to several newspaper accounts of the story, one of her first attorneys was appointed as a county prosecutor during the time between when she was charged and when the trial was supposed to take place (hit Daniel the day before Thanksgiving 2000, charged December 2001, one trial date was for September 17 and it was before this date that the appointment took place. When an attorney accepts a position in the prosecutor's office it really is possible that he would no longer be able to remain objective and give the best possible defense. He defintiely would have a conflict of interest. In this instance, he took the appointment and ceased to be her lawyer. I would imagine that he probably stepped down from quite a number of cases.
So her lawyer did not bail on her ....
The circumstances of his withdrawal from the case however would have made it harder for this young lady to have continuity in her defense - even though she did still have one of her original lawyers.
Thank you for the clarification. This is very logical and makes much sense.
Would it be possible for you to link to some of the old articles, if you can find them online so we can get more information on the case to fill in some holes - or should I say canyons.
