Friday, July 20, 2001 | 11:50 a.m.
Defense attorney Michael Amador still maintains he did an adequate job representing Margaret Rudin, despite scathing criticisms in her motion for a new trial that he was unprepared and more interested in media deals.
Amador this morning said Rudin is acting just like any other person who has been convicted of murder.
"Her attorneys are trying to help their client, who wants a new trial and will do or say anything to get one," Amador said. "Clients do it all the time: 'Attack your attorney.' "
According to the motion that was filed Thursday, Amador and Judge Joseph Bonaventure behaved so poorly during Rudin's murder trial that Bonaventure has no choice but to grant Rudin a new trial with a different judge.
The motion was filed by Deputy Public Defenders Jordan Savage and Curtis Brown, who were appointed after Rudin fired Amador one week after her May 1 conviction.
Rudin, 58, was convicted first-degree murder in the December 1994 death of her husband, Ronald Rudin.
Should the motion for a new trial be denied, Rudin will be sentenced Aug. 31. She faces a life sentence with or without the possibility of parole.
Bonaventure is expected to hear arguments from both sides Aug. 17.
According to the motion and several supporting affidavits, Amador never prepared.
His former secretary, Annie Jackson, claims Amador didn't begin working on the Rudin case until mid-December 2000 -- five months after he took on the case.
Rudin was brought to the office from the jail several times, but no work was ever done during these visits, Jackson alleges. Instead, she says, Rudin and Amador spent nearly 20 hours in media interviews.
Amador lied to Bonaventure about not having a movie or book deal and has hidden six to eight boxes of Rudin materials from her new defense attorneys, Jackson said. She also claims Amador has a safe filled with personal items belonging to Rudin.
According to the motion, "These things included disks with book information, clothing, pictures, and things that Mr. Amador could use in a movie or book. He told Margaret Rudin that he had lost them because he did not want to return them."
In the days leading up to trial and even after the trial began, Jackson alleges Amador would ask her to prepare and file motions that were sometimes due within an hour of his request.
Amador disputed Jackson's allegations, saying "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
Not only is she not qualified to judge the performance of an attorney, but her own performance was sadly lacking, Amador said.
Attorney Thomas Pitaro was appointed to help Amador three weeks prior to the trial's starting date of March 2. He was quickly joined by private investigators Michael Wysocki and Thomas Dillard.
According to affidavits signed by Pitaro and Dillard, none of the state's witnesses had been questioned, defense experts hadn't been hired and no one had been subpoenaed. Those files that weren't missing were in disarray or clearly hadn't been read, they said.
Jackson alleges that Amador wrote his opening statement the night before the trial and re-wrote it during lunch the day the trial began.
Three days later, Rudin asked for a mistrial citing Amador's incompetence and lack of preparation, and Bonaventure denied it.
From that point on, Pitaro and Dillard say, they were forced to put on a defense case "hour by hour and minute and minute."
Prosecutors had seven years to prepare their case against Rudin, the motion states. Pitaro had three weeks.
Pitaro, Wysocki and Dillard worked around the clock preparing their case, but Amador rarely made their meetings, according to the motion.
Even when Bonaventure gave the defense a few days off after he denied the mistrial request, Amador chose instead to look for houses with his new girlfriend, Jackson alleges.
Because the defense was so ill-prepared, Rudin's attorneys allege "dozens of misstatements, misrepresentations and convenient omissions were put forward in the state's case without any objection or refutation whatsoever,"
According to the motion, Bonaventure should have found Amador was incompetent and declared a mistrial.
That wasn't his only mistake, however, the attorneys argue.
Bonaventure erred when he conducted private interviews with Rudin and with a juror who now claims she was coerced into convicting Rudin. Judges are never supposed to speak with defendants or jurors without the attorneys for both sides being present.
The judge also forced Rudin to waive her attorney-client priviledge when discussing the mistrial request.
The defense attorneys also criticize Bonaventure for his treatment of Amador. He was so antagonistic toward Amador that he should have recused himself, they say.
archive
