Becker was court-appointed, but that didn't stop her - at her initial representation appearance before the judge who appointed her from instigating a fruitless, heated conflict over Becker's plans to delay the trial and go work at her parents' nut farm in Tucson. Predictably, this infuriated the judge, as it would have without regard to whether a prosecutor or defense lawyer had accepted a case, then shown complete disregard for the processes and the court's schedule. This initial battle, which "we" lost although I was no part of it, inescapably reflected on me throughout the case. From then on embittered (frequently telling me the case was actually about the judge being unfairly against her, rather than about my innocence), Becker would miss appointments never making them up, but simply deducting the time from case preparation change defense strategies without explanation, arrive unprepared for appointments having failed to do promised research, make zero investigatory use of a fully-paid for investigator (eventually, in a dispute over her failure to make use of the investigator, Becker fired the P. I., then made no use of her replacement) and break her word (example: she supposedly submitted a motion on the key issue in the case - I don't know if she did or did not and I requested a copy which she promised to provide, but which I never received; this was important because one can only appeal if the issue has been first brought to the trial court's attention). Becker came to trial ill-prepared with a half-baked strategy to use the prosecution's own expert witness against them. She executed this audacious strategy with the lack of finesse of a 1st year law student in her first trial practice class. Predictably, this shambles exploded in her face. (In a pre-trial proceeding, the court asked Becker about this "strategy" since the judge was unfamiliar with the existence of it; Becker explained it as best she could, leaving the judge visibly puzzled. I have over 20 years of trail practice, plus the judge's 30 years of court room experience, and we exchanged looks of bewilderment showing we had no understanding of Becker's "strategy"). Her grip firmly tightened on this oddball approach, at trial Becker was left with only a "cross-examination" defense where, by devastating erudition and learned rhetoric (read, lack thereof'), she would present her triumph. About that: as she sat down following her examination of the first prosecution "witness" (who actually hadn't witnessed anything), I asked, "you do know that cross examination is more than merely reinforcing the prosecution's key points?" Her answer was, "don't be so negative." (I was not indulging in negativity, but rather seeking to discover if she knew enough to continue "defending" me.) Her ineffective closing argument amounted to a suggestion that the jury acquit since her client had been having "a bad day." As soon as she got me convicted, she told me she had already submitted the required Notice of Appeal (court mittimus shows no record that she ever did) and promised to brief the appeal. More broken promises: at her next appearance, she appeared by phone asking permission to withdraw. Also telling, in addition to firing our investigator for wanting to investigate, Cobea is no longer in partnership with her former partner and no longer pictures on her website the replacement investigator she hired.