Fired attorney still working for Rudin

Kim Smith

Wednesday, May 9, 2001 | 10:46 a.m.

Margaret Rudin may have fired Michael Amador, but that didn't stop him from filing a motion for a new trial Tuesday.

Amador told District Judge Joseph Bonaventure he believes Rudin deserves a new trial because of juror misconduct, despite the fact Rudin notified the judge earlier in the day that she no longer wanted Amador's services.

On Tuesday, Bonaventure and defense attorney Thomas Pitaro received copies of letters by Rudin to Amador expressing her extreme displeasure with him.

In the letters, written April 13, Rudin complains about Amador's ill-preparedness and the fact he repeatedly said he took her case for free when that was not the case.

Rudin notes that the first two contracts she signed with Amador gives him media rights, and the third says he will receive $250,000 from her should she ever come into that kind of money.

The third contract, Rudin said, was signed only after Amador realized he needed to protect himself from any impropriety.

It is the third contract that Amador apparently gave Bonaventure in October, when he told the judge he was taking the case at no charge.

Rudin also complains that Amador has failed repeatedly to return property belonging to her, lied about his not taking any more clients and remaining celibate so he could devote all of his energy to her case.

Rudin expressed concern that Amador might be using cocaine.

"Lately, I have come to believe the lawyer who said to you and I that everyone is wondering if you're on cocaine, as your actions are so irrational compared to your words," Rudin wrote.

"You come to court unprepared, tired, pale and looking stressed, but I'm supposed to feel less stress because a 'professional' is in charge. Instead, you have increased my stress to unbearable limits on too many occasions."

In addition, Rudin expresses her fear that Amador is writing a book with a reporter with the National Enquirer -- a reporter Amador told her worked for the New Yorker magazine.

"I want a letter of confirmation you are not writing a book or screenplay with John Connolly nor assisting him and Yehuda Sharon in doing so by supplying them copies of my files, documents, letters, tape-recorded statements or meeting with either of them in any way shape or form and have not any intention of doing so in the future," Rudin wrote.

Prosecutors suspect Yehuda Sharon was Rudin's lover and assisted her in dumping her husband's remains at Lake Mohave after his December 1994 death. Sharon was granted immunity, and he denied any involvement in the case at trial.

Connolly also writes for Weaselsearch.com, an Internet company that has devoted an entire web page to the Rudin case. Amador is listed as the company's resident agent.

Rudin's firing of Amador is the latest development in a case that has been troubled from the start.

Amador was continually late for trial; he gave a rambling, three-hour opening statement; he asked for a mistrial a week into the 10-week trial because he was ill-prepared, and his cross-examinations were incredibly lengthy.

He ended the defense by delivering a 90-minute closing argument that touched on every area of Rudin's case -- despite the fact he promised Bonaventure a 30-minute closing argument that was to deal with one issue.

At that point, Bonaventure cut off all communication with Amador, saying, in the judge's eyes, the attorney had lost all believability and integrity. Bonaventure had already told Amador he was going to consider imposing sanctions against him after the trial. Undaunted, Amador vowed to file a complaint against the judge with the state's judicial discipline commission.

Pitaro said Tuesday the judge has a number of issues to decide today. Bonaventure must decide whether he should allow Rudin to fire Amador and, if so, who should handle both Rudin's sentencing and her appeal.

Should Amador leave the case, Pitaro said the judge could re-assign him and John Momot to represent Rudin during the sentencing, or he could assign the public defender's office to handle both the sentencing and the appeal.

Pitaro and Momot, who were relieved of their duties after Rudin was convicted of murdering her husband May 2, don't traditionally handle appellate work.

Bonaventure must also decide what to do about the motion for a new trial filed by Amador, particularly if Amador is no longer on the case.

When reached late Tuesday afternoon, Amador said he had not been provided a copy of Rudin's letters. As a result, he said he wasn't comfortable commenting on the latest development in what has been a problematic case from the beginning.

In an interview after the verdict, however, Amador was asked about the drug allegation.

"I don't use drugs," Amador said then. "I barely drink. I do stay up late a lot, though. I've got a lot to do. I have a lot of clients and a lot to get done."

According to his motion filed Tuesday, Amador said he believes Rudin deserves a new trial because 11 of the jurors browbeat the 12th jury into rendering a guilty verdict.

Amador also alleges the jury read newspapers during the trial, discussed the fact that trial delays were caused by the defense and penalized Rudin for not testifying during the trial.

In addition, Amador said the jury foreman, Ron Vest, relayed a "violent and intimidating" story about his past to Coreen Kovacs to convince her to vote guilty.

There was evidence admitted at trial that also shouldn't have been, including tests for blood that were "scientifically inaccurate," Amador said.

Amador further alleged that prosecutors held back evidence that could have helped Rudin.

Rudin was convicted of first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon in the December 1994 shooting death of her husband, Ronald Rudin.

Prosecutors alleged Rudin killed her husband so she could inherit 60 percent of his $11 million estate.

Amador alleged that Ronald Rudin's trustees killed him; Momot and Pitaro argued that the physical evidence didn't support the state's theory that Ronald Rudin was shot to death in his bedroom.

Momot and Pitaro were brought into the case after it became apparent Amador was ill-prepared to handle it.

Amador also mentions his relationship with Bonaventure in his motion for a new trial.

"The court's comments to defense counsel during the trial and in front of the jury, and the court's comments about the defense evidence/exhibits throughout the trial violated the defendant's right to a fair trial," Amador said.