LIVE | It Ends with Settlement and Sarah Boone Appeals

Brendan Banfield's sentencing is set for Friday, May 8th. Prior to this, a motion for a new trial is scheduled, which is largely seen as a procedural step. The judge is expected to deny it, as similar arguments were rejected during the trial. The sentencing will include victim impact statements, which are anticipated to be emotionally difficult.

Host Emily D. Baker details the upcoming Banfield sentencing on Friday, 10:00 a.m. Eastern, and the motion hearing for a new trial scheduled for 'tomorrow' (the day after the podcast recording). She states, 'He has a motion for new trial. What's going to happen for the motion for new trial? He's going to say, 'I should have a new trial.' And Judge A is going to say, 'Well, no.''

The civil case involving 'It Ends With Us' settled just before jury selection. This timing is strategic, as it's when the full costs and risks of trial become concrete after all motions, depositions, and discovery are complete. Settlements typically involve mutual disappointment but a shared desire to avoid the unknown outcome and expense of trial. Insurance companies can also play a significant role in pushing for settlement to mitigate vast exposure.

Baker explains, 'The real conversation about how much is this thing going to cost to try, those conversations happen at the beginning of a case, but they're not real real until a jury's about to walk into the building.' She also notes, 'if insurance is also involved, insurance may also have conversations about whether settlement is happening or not.'

In the 'It Ends With Us' case, the Wayfarer/Baldoni team strategically used their court filings, particularly the counterclaim, as a de facto press statement. Despite judicial admonishments against using filings for media, this approach ensured their narrative reached the public, especially since they were the defendants and the plaintiff had already initiated media coverage.

Emily D. Baker states, 'Baldon's lawyers say bet and file literally a screenplay of what happened during this movie. And the judge was just like we don't need we don't need that much.' She adds, 'it was written with tremendous savvy because it was easy to understand. It was easy for the media to understand. It was easy for people to turn into headlines.'

Sarah Boone, facing a second-degree murder charge, posted a unique 'inmate seeks attorney' advertisement on the court docket. This ad, seeking a lawyer 'ready for your close-up on national television' with 'extraordinary expertise' and 'extreme efficiency in listening,' surprisingly worked, attracting an attorney who parachuted into the case.

Baker details, 'She made an advertisement, Emily, for lawyers. And it worked.' She then reads from the actual filing: 'Inmate seeks attorney. Looking for a prosperous challenge. Ready for your close-up on national television? Are you zealous with a side of keen?'

After being sentenced to life for second-degree murder, Sarah Boone filed an unredacted letter to Judge Krennic, which she had partially read in court. The letter was highly critical, referring to the judge as 'Mr. Michael Krennic' (not Judge), accusing him of 'clear error' and 'full-blown unfair bias,' and claiming she was 'oppressed.' This letter was a stark display of disrespect and a refusal to accept responsibility.

Emily D. Baker reads from Boone's letter: 'I forgot that she refers to the judge as Mr. Michael Krennic, not Judge Krennic, not Judge K. Mr. I forgot that it started with disrespect.' And later, 'But your clear error, underlined, and full-blown unfair bias against me since your involvement in my crucible case as a whole.'

Sarah Boone presented a lengthy 'forgiveness' statement at her sentencing, framing herself as a victim and a 'deity' who forgave everyone involved in her case. This included the judge (accused of 'black robe disease'), social media (labeled 'organized crime' for 'sentencing her by anticipation'), the victim (for whom she listed perceived wrongdoings), and her own defense attorneys (accused of perjury, greed, and unethical conduct). She even 'forgave' the jury for being 'hangry' and making a 'corrupt decision.' This narrative consistently deflected accountability, portraying herself as a 'survivor' rather than acknowledging her role in the crime.

Boone's statement detailed her 'gold' (scars) and 'forgiveness' for the victim's actions, social media's 'exploitation,' and her attorneys' alleged misconduct. She claimed, 'I didn't lose. God just wanted me to win in a different way.'

Emily D. Baker expressed significant frustration with the poor writing and structure of Sarah Boone's appellate brief. She noted the brief's lack of direct quotes from crucial court rulings, confusing sentence structure, and unclear argumentation. This poor quality made it challenging to follow the legal points and diminished the perceived strength of the arguments presented.

Emily repeatedly highlighted issues like 'Why are these sentences so bad?' (03:00:21), 'This isn't even a real sentence.' (03:17:11), and 'It's a really poorly written brief truly.' (03:19:20). She noted the brief often summarized rather than directly quoting court transcripts, leading to a lack of trust in its representation.

One of Boone's appeal arguments was that the trial court improperly limited her opening statements by prohibiting the use of demonstrative aids, specifically photos of her prior injuries. Emily D. Baker argued this was a weak point, as courts typically prevent the display of evidence in opening statements that has not yet been admitted or may never be admitted into evidence, adhering to standard rules of evidence.

The brief stated the court ruled, 'You can talk about it,' but not show photos (02:52:26). Emily countered, 'In all opening statements, you can't show evidence that may not be admitted because it's not evidence.' (02:52:51)

The appeal brief argued a 'substantial discovery violation' occurred when the state's expert witness, Dr. Warner, allegedly changed her opinion on Boone's diagnosis (specifically regarding PTSD and battered spouse syndrome) between her deposition and trial testimony. The defense claimed this constituted a 'trial by ambush' and that the court's remedy of an 'on-the-fly' deposition was inadequate.

The brief cited Dr. Warner's statement that she hadn't disclosed her opinion earlier because 'Boon's council didn't specifically ask her about that' (02:44:31). Emily questioned whether the state also knew about the change and the overall strength of the 'trial by ambush' claim given the expert's rationale.

Boone's appeal challenges the jury instruction on the 'initial aggressor' exception to self-defense. The defense argued that this instruction was improperly given because it negates the right to self-defense if the defendant committed a forcible felony, but in Boone's case, the alleged 'aggravated assault' (zipping the victim in the suitcase) was integral to the murder, not an independent, separately charged felony. This 'circularity' is argued to be prohibited by Florida case law (Martinez v. State).

The brief quoted the instruction: 'if at the time Sarah Boon used deadly force, she was committing an aggravated assault... then the defendant had a duty to retreat.' (03:10:05). The defense argued this created 'circularity Martinez prohibits' because the assault was 'integral to the homicide act, not independent' (03:16:05). Emily noted this argument could be 'reversible error' if the instruction was indeed wrong.

The appeal argues that the trial court improperly allowed an expert to testify on an 'ultimate issue of fact' by directly applying the legal standard for self-defense (reasonable belief of imminent danger) to the facts, effectively telling the jury how to decide the case. This is contrasted with case law stating an expert opinion isn't objectionable merely for including an ultimate issue, unless it only tells the jury how to decide without aiding in determining what occurred.

The expert's opinion directly applied the legal standard for self-defense, 'reasonable belief of imminent danger of death/grap bodily harm to the facts,' effectively telling the jury to reject the defense. The trial court relied on a case citation to overrule the objection, which the appeal argues was not applicable.

The defense claims the trial court's remedy was inadequate when the state's expert witness changed their testimony from a pre-trial deposition, specifically regarding Sarah Boone's PTSD. The expert stated they did not believe Boone had PTSD, claiming they were not asked about it previously. The court allowed a 'voir dire' of the witness outside the jury's presence, but the defense argued they were unable to adequately prepare for this change.

The state's expert changed their opinion from a pre-trial deposition, stating they did not believe Sarah Boone had PTSD, and the court's remedy was to allow a 'voadier of the witness outside the presence of the jury.' The appeal brief makes 'conclusory statements' about lack of preparation without specifying what actions counsel would have taken.

The appeal brief claims 'erroneous jury instructions further prejudiced the appellant,' specifically mentioning an 'initial aggressor instruction.' However, the brief is criticized for not quoting the full language of the instruction read to the jury, making it difficult to assess the validity of the argument.

The brief states 'erroneous jury instructions further prejudice the appellant in violation of germanine Florida case law' and mentions the 'initial aggressor instruction was improperly given' but 'didn't exactly quote the full language of what instruction was read to the jury.'

The appeal argues the court improperly limited the defense's opening statements, specifically by not allowing photos of Sarah Boone's injuries (from other incidents) to be shown to the jury. While argument about the injuries was permitted, the visual evidence was not, which the defense claims prevented them from properly framing their self-defense theory.

The court 'improperly limited the appellent's opening statements' by not allowing the defense to 'use photos of injuries to Boon that happened at another time in her opening statement,' though argument was allowed.