Two San Jose Lawyers To Represent Karr

In yet another curious twist to this case it appears that Patience Van Zandt, who represented John Mark Karr in 2001 as a member of the Public Defender's Office and her boss, Jamie Harmon will represent John Mark Karr once he gets to Colorado, which isn't expected to happen until some time next week.

What makes this so strange is that Harmon & Assocaites is a small three person law firm from San Jose, California. Not exactly the high powered type of law firm that one might expect in this colossal type of case. Speculation is running rampant in the legal community as to why these two women would take on such a case of magnamimous proportions.


"Any lawyer that would get that close to that circus would have to be out of his mind," said James McManis, of Manis Faulkner & Morgan, one of San Jose's most prominent law firms. "I think it peculiar some San Jose attorney would hold a press conference in Los Angeles on this brief stop-over Mr. Karr is making en route from Thailand to Boulder, Colorado. I think it's just bizarre."

And it seems as though one of the attorneys, Jamie Harmon has some baggage of her own. In a series of articles published earlier this year, the San Jose Mercury did a piece on Harmon questioning her legal advice.

Harmon, 49, had been cited by judges on three occasions for giving incorrect legal advice to clients, isolated instances that Harmon has said are not illustrative of a 23-year career that has involved hundreds of cases. Wednesday she portrayed herself the victim of a political agenda.



"That series of articles was to further the political agenda of the person who was running for district attorney who has enormous animosity towards me personally and who wanted to use that forum in order to give her animosity some exercise," Harmon said at a news conference Wednesday.



In one case in 2002 involved client Ralph A. Cortez who was charged with sexual molestation. Although he maintained his innocence, he agreed to plead no contest based on Harmon's counsel. He later changed his mind and declared Harmon's advice was wrong.

As proof, he submitted a secret tape recording -- made weeks after his plea -- in which Harmon is heard telling Cortez he could petition to have his name expunged from the state's sex offender registry. In reality, Cortez would have had to apply after a 10-year period and hope for a governor's pardon.

After hearing the tape, Judge Edward Lee allowed Cortez to withdraw his plea, but not before saying, "There is something in this case that simply stinks."




Is Harmon and her little three person law firm up to the task? That remains to be seen.