One thing it was missing, however, was protection.

By her own choice, the woman who allegedly committed the crime was not in court. I did not have a lawyer on hand to submit evidence on my behalf.

The table normally occupied by defense was completely empty.

As a result, trial in “absence” is a relatively rare phenomenon in which judicial proceedings unfold without the defendant ever setting foot in court. And technically, it is lawful to hold such a trial so long as the defendant knowingly and voluntarily decides not to appear.

“She simply chose not to attend,” Superior Court Judge Thomas Fink told attorneys and court officials that afternoon.

But Shanamaly Blackshire’s trial in absentia in Santa Cruz County Superior Court was even more extraordinary. She chose to represent herself after her court refused to cooperate with her two attorneys appointed by her.

The Blackshire case has presented a difficult problem for the local judicial system. What if the defendant chooses to represent himself and refuses to appear in court?

That Tuesday afternoon, as the evidence phase of Blackshire’s trial progressed, Judge Fink said detainees were reminding the defendant in custody that her own criminal trial was proceeding without her. He said he would.

But Blackshire did not appear in court that day, nor the next morning, nor the next day. She wasn’t there to present her closing arguments on her behalf or hear the jury deliver her verdict on January 12.

Examination of court documents reveals that Blackshire’s absence was not the only issue. According to the proceedings of the case, Blackshire was never judged by a psychiatrist whether he was fit to stand trial. She refused to participate in an evaluation by a qualified medical professional, according to court documents.

She also refused to sign a number of documents produced as part of the lawsuit, or to leave the court’s holding area to attend pretrial hearings.

According to pretrial memos from the county attorney’s office, Blackshire was offered a plea bargain in exchange for 10 years of probation. But now she faces 63.5 years in prison from her five years.

Blackshire sentencing is set for February 10th at 9am

Blackshire was charged with illegally breaking into two private residences in the summer of 2021, according to court documents. She also allegedly damaged property in both homes. Both houses belonged to a gated community on a private ranch northeast of Rio Rico.

Blackshire did not appear or testify in court, but claimed in past interviews to own at least one property.

“I’m responsible,” she told Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department detectives in a videotaped interview in July 2021.

In an interview, Blackshire did not deny access to the property. In fact, she told detectives that she used a hand saw and wire cutters to get into her residence.While still insisting on her innocence, Blackshire is a federal government proving her own ownership. She told detectives she had documents from

The detective, who testified at trial earlier this month, said he believed the documents presented by Blackshire were printed by her from the Internet.

“As far as I know, she never got the property,” he said.

A property owner told jurors she had never met Blackshire before the break-in.When Blackshire allegedly broke into her home in the summer of 2021, the owner said she was out of state. said. However, a maintenance worker in the area contacted her and she said she noticed a window on her property was broken.

Then on February 5, 2022, the owner said he was back at the ranch with a few friends when he saw Blackshire leave the property.

“She claimed to own the house,” a property owner testified at a trial in January.

The woman called 911, according to dispatch call records. By then, Blackshire was reportedly driven off.

Shortly after, Blackshire was arrested.

In Arizona, a law known as Rule 11 permits court-ordered psychiatric evaluations of defendants as they make their way through the judicial system. Under Rule 11, any party to a lawsuit may request an evaluation. A defendant charged with a felony must be evaluated by at least two of her mental health professionals.

If a defendant is found to be incapable of participating in court proceedings, the High Court can proceed in a number of ways, including rehabilitation treatment and involvement in medical facilities.

But for Blackshire, such an evaluation was never completed. She refused to participate in an evaluation by a medical professional, according to court documents. In a one-minute entry, court staff reported that the defendant “got up and walked away” during an attempted remote assessment via video call.

According to the one-minute entry, the defense attorney representing Blackshire at the time noted that he had spoken to his mother and that he believed Blackshire had the ability to stand trial.

“But (he) is seeking confirmation from a doctor,” the minutes said.

The June 13, 2022 minutes also noted that there were several attempts to facilitate the evaluation. However, according to court records, Blackshire reportedly said around that time that he did not want to join the staff of the Superior Court.

“The court found that the parties were here three times on the above-mentioned matters with the defendants,” the minutes said, later adding:

Speaking to lawyers in court during the trial in January, Judge Fink said he found Blackshire to have the mental capacity to stand trial.

Under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, criminal defendants have the right to an attorney. However, defendants may waive that right and represent themselves.

Initially, Blackshire was appointed attorney. In February 2022, local attorney James Miller was representing the defendant, according to court documents. At some point, that changed. By October, another attorney, JT McEwen, was listed in court documents as Blackshire’s attorney.

In a mid-October entry, McEwen told Fink that while he was trying to get in touch with Blackshire, “the defendant has no intention of communicating with him.”

“Defense counsel suggests defendants may not want a defense,” the minutes said.

At the January trial, Fink said Blackshire had a constitutional right to represent herself. claimed. He explained that self-representation in court is guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment.

“Her right to represent herself is fundamental and structural,” Fink said.

However, problems arise when the defendant does not appear in court. Without an attorney, virtually no one represents the defendant during the trial.

McEwen, who is now assigned to her advisory board, was on trial in case his assistance was needed. However, he was sitting in a gallery with other members of the public and did not participate.

Five days after a jury found him guilty, Blackshire appeared in court to pursue charges of second-degree robbery and resisting arrest. Her more recent indictment refers to an alleged encounter she had with a homeowner in Rio Rico on Feb. 5. In addition to her sentencing on Feb. 10, she was sentenced to another death on Feb. 28. to be put on criminal trial.

Initially, during the January 18 arraignment, Blackshire did not want to appear in court, according to McEwen. This caused the problem. A trial can legally proceed without the defendant in the room, but arraignment requires the presence of the defendant.

As the judge and lawyers discuss how to persuade Blackshire to enter the courtroom, McEwen slips into the holding cell and quickly returns.

“She doesn’t want to see me,” he told Fink. “And she accuses me of trying to ‘smuggle her papers.'”

Finally, some detainees entered the custody and returned with Blackshire, who calmly walked to the podium.

Fink spoke with Blackshire and explained the additional criminal charges, along with the defendant’s right to an attorney.

“Would you like a lawyer to represent you in this case?” Fink asked.

“I am silent, Your Highness,” replied Blackshire.

After further correspondence, Blackshire again said he would represent himself in court.

“Would you like to come to court and participate in the trial?” Fink asked.

“Answer that question,” Fink said, glancing at the jail officer. “They won’t let you out of here until I tell them to get you out.”

“If you’re fine,” said Blackshire.

“Are you in pain?” Fink asked.

“If I’m fine, please,” she replied.