In a motion filed December 30, 2010, Jose Baez argues statements by his client spoken to her father, George Anthony, during a public record jail visit should not be admitted to trial because Mr. Baez describes Mr. Anthony as an agent of the State of Florida.
Mr. Baez’s motion may be read at the following link.
http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/High-Profile-Cases/Anthony/Downloads/Motion%20to%20Suppress%20-%20Jail%20Interiew%20of%20Defendant%20by%20Agents.pdf
“3. On July 24, O.S.C.O. investigators Yuri Melich and John Allen had a discussion with George Anthony in which they discussed whether there was any possible way to induce Miss Anthony to talk. While questioning George Anthony, Mr. Melich reminded Mr. Anthony that there was no necessity for Miss Anthony to have her lawyer present in interrogations and that in his opinion a good defense lawyer confines himself to making sure the elements of the crime with which his client is charged fit, and that a lawyer that decides to “take the fight” is crossing the line. George was agreeable throughout.”
“On July 24, O.S.C.O. investigators Yuri Melich and John Allen had a discussion with George Anthony in which they discussed whether there was any possible way to induce Miss Anthony to talk.” – Mr. Baez defines the date and topic of a “discussion”, which is sensitive to Mr. Baez as seen by the use of the words “discussion” and “discussed” in the same sentence. Was the “discussion” about Mr. Anthony working as an agent for the State? No, Mr. Baez states the “discussion” was about “any possible way to induce Miss Anthony to talk”. If Miss Anthony chooses “to talk” to her father with the knowledge she has the right to remain silent, does her choice make Mr. Anthony an agent of the State? Did the investigators request Mr. Anthony to act as their agent? Not according to this statement by Mr. Baez.
“While questioning George Anthony, Mr. Melich reminded Mr. Anthony that there was no necessity for Miss Anthony to have her lawyer present in interrogations” – Mr. Baez notes several pieces of information relayed by the investigator with which Mr. Baez is not comfortable as seen by the repeated use of the distancing word “that”. What do these points have to do with the State employing Mr. Anthony as an investigator?
The first point is “there was no necessity for Miss Anthony to have her lawyer present in interrogations”. Mr. Baez does not approve of Mr. Melich reminding Mr. Anthony if his daughter wishes to answer questions concerning her missing daughter, Mr. Baez’s presence is not required.
The second point is “that in his opinion a good defense lawyer confines himself to making sure the elements of the crime with which his client is charged fit”. Mr. Baez does not approve of Mr. Melich defining the duties of a “good defense lawyer”. Mr. Baez does not approve of Mr. Melich’s opinion of a “good defense lawyer”. Mr. Baez acknowledges and does not approve of Mr. Melich’s opinion of Mr. Baez as something other than a “good defense lawyer”.
The third point is “that a lawyer that decides to “take the fight” is crossing the line”. Mr. Baez states Mr. Melich believes Mr. Baez “is crossing the line”. Mr. Baez refers to this as his taking “the fight”. What is “the fight”? We do not know, but presumably Mr. Baez references those actions of his which do not address the “fit” of the “elements of the crime” with his client, such as national media interviews.
Order is important. It is most important to Mr. Baez he relate to the court Mr. Melich’s suggestion to Mr. Anthony counsel for his daughter need not be present for her to answer questions about the disappearance of her daughter. Next in importance is for Mr. Baez to relate Mr. Melich insinuated Mr. Baez is not a “good defense lawyer”. Of least importance to Mr. Baez is telling the court Mr. Melich may believe Mr. Baez has crossed “the line”.
Do Mr. Melich’s personal views of defense attorneys in general or of Mr. Baez in particular have any bearing on the agent status of Mr. Anthony?
Although none of these points have anything to do with Mr. Anthony being or not being an agent of the State, Mr. Baez includes them, indicating these points are important to him even if they have no relation to the motion.
“4. The following day George visited his daughter in jail where he and his wife Cindy questioned her about matters relating to investigation and tried to convince her to talk to the police. The attempts to induce Miss Anthony to make statements, in utter disregard for her constitutional rights, continued throughout her July-August 2008 incarceration. All of these attempts and the statements Miss Anthony made in response were recorded by the jail and subsequently released to the public.”
“where he and his wife Cindy questioned her about matters relating to investigation” – Mr. Baez ties the questions Mr. Anthony asked his daughter, which Mr. Baez claims were asked by an agent of the State, with the questions asked by Mrs. Anthony. Since Mrs. Anthony was not at the “discussion” Mr. Baez referenced earlier, is Mrs. Anthony an agent of the State? Should her questions and any answers provided by Miss Anthony be allowed even if Mr. Anthony’s are stricken?
“matters relating to the investigation” – This is Mr. Baez’s definition of questions about the location of missing Caylee Anthony, Miss Anthony’s daughter. By asking about the location of their missing granddaughter, have the Anthonys made themselves agents of the State or are they concerned family members?
“and tried to convince her to talk to the police” – If Mr. and Mrs. Anthony are trying “to convince” Miss Anthony talk to the police, it stands to reason Miss Anthony is fully aware she is not required to speak to police or anyone else. If Mr. and Mrs. Anthony “tried”, they did not succeed. If they did not succeed, why is Mr. Baez attempting to block this conversation from the trial? Must anyone who tries to convince a family member or friend speaking to the police is the best course of action be an agent of the State?
“The attempts to induce Miss Anthony to make statements, in utter disregard for her constitutional rights, continued throughout her July-August 2008 incarceration” – “Attempts to induce” acknowledge Mr. and Mrs. Anthony were unsuccessful. Miss Anthony was not induced.
Do family members who offer advice to incarcerated family members which goes against the advice of their attorney demonstrate an “utter disregard” for the individual’s “constitutional rights”? Didn’t Mr. Baez file multiple motions arguing his client’s “constitutional rights” to privacy were violated because she was not allowed to speak with her parents in private? If the Anthonys had made these same requests of Miss Anthony in an unrecorded setting, would they have still been in “utter disregard for her constitutional rights”?
“throughout her July-August 2008 incarceration” – Does it make a difference if Miss Anthony was incarcerated or not as to Mr. Anthony’s designation as an agent of the State?
“the statements Miss Anthony made in response” – Miss Anthony chose to respond even though she was aware she was not required to do so.
“7. A full detailed memorandum of law is being prepared that will outline all arguments that show George, Cindy and Lee Anthony, Maya Derkovich, Robyn Adams and Sylvia Hernandez were acting as agents of the State.”
“A full detailed memorandum of law is being prepared” – The agent of the State status Mr. Baez wishes to place on Mr. Anthony is only in his own mind at the moment as he admits in this statement the motion which the court would rule upon to define Mr. Anthony as an agent has not yet been “prepared” or submitted.
We have learned Mr. Baez is concerned about possible slights to his own character by Mr. Melich.
We have learned Mr. Baez would like to define anyone who spoke to Miss Anthony while she was incarcerated as an agent of the State of Florida even though Miss Anthony spoke of her own free will with these individuals, at one point defying the orders of Mr. Baez while he was absent from town in order to speak with her parents.
We have learned Mr. Baez has not yet done the prerequisite work required for this motion not to fail. We have learned Mr. Baez has problems with carts and horses, he is never sure which should come first.
Bull Stopper Stops Bull 
“7. A full detailed memorandum of law is being prepared that will outline all arguments that show George, Cindy and Lee Anthony, Maya Derkovich, Robyn Adams and Sylvia Hernandez were acting as agents of the State.” This sounds like Baez-speak for “I haven’t been able to find any case law supporting my position yet. I plan to read the blogs to see what the legal commentators suggest.”
It is true that Casey was not allowed to be questioned directly or indirectly by agents of the State, such as the jail personnel who observed and/or filmed Casey in the infirmary when Casey was taken there on the pretext that she might need psychological care after learning that a child’s body had been discovered a few hundred feet away from the Anthonys’ residence. The State also cannot use paid jailhouse informants who receive money, favorable treatment, etc. in exchange for questioning the defendant in the absence of the defendant’s attorney.
Walls v. State (cited in the motion) involved a CORRECTIONAL OFFICER.correctional officer named Vickie Beck who was asked to conduct a surveillance of Walls, because he was suspected of being involved in other murders. Beck approached Walls and assured him that anything he said to her would remain confidential. She also insisted that Walls not tell his attorney about their conversations. Beck took detailed notes of Walls’ statements and behavior, which she gave to the State and the State’s psychiatrists. This was impermissible.
Miller v. Fenton involved a confession that was ultimately deemed “voluntary” despite deception and significant psychological pressure by the interrogating officer to the point where the defendant collapsed afterwards and was taken to a hospital.
There is no real dispute that Correctional officer Sylvia (Silvia?) Hernandez was acting as an agent of the State even if though her violations of the jail rules resulted in her termination of employment. A reasonably good argument can be made that Maya Derkovich and Robyn Adams may have been acting as paid jailhouse informants even if they didn’t actually receive any payment if their actions were motivated by expectations of payment/benefit. I am not aware of any case law supporting the defense team’s assertion that George, Cindy and Lee Anthony should be deemed to have been agents of the State.
The signature cut and the scribbled signature make it difficult to tell which attorney is claiming responsibility for this motion. This is significant because attorneys are usually proud of their good work same as anybody else is proud of their good work, and they WANT people to know who wrote the eloquent, well-researched work of art that they are filing with the court. Normally, an attorney will sign their motion on a signature cut that plainly reveals which particular attorney is responsible for that motion. Mine look a lot like this:
Respectfully submitted:
WEE, CHEATUM & HOWE
____________________________
Katprint
Attorney for Defendant JOHN DOE
The State’s In Camera Motion to Delay Disclosure was signed:
____________________________________
Jeffrey L. Ashton
Assistant State Attorney
Florida Bar #318337
PO Box 1673, 415 N Orange Ave
Orlando, FL 32802-1673
(407) 836-2406
and no other attorneys were listed although obviously there are other attorneys assigned to this prosecution. Similarly, Judge Perry’s Order Granting State’s Motion for Sanctions leaves no doubt who signed it.
I think Baez is not proud of his work; to the contrary, he is trying to spread the blame.
Great info. Kat!!
Interesting points.
In your opinion, would George, Cindy, and Lee need to have received some form of payment above and beyond information they can be assumed to desperately have wanted about their granddaughter? If so, do you see any type of compensation they received from the State?
About the signatures – it is definitely Jose’s signature, but your point about the blame sharing through inventive signature cut is important. I have noticed this on many of the defense motions, although the ones by the others tend to list their names first and I notice none list Jose as “lead counsel” even though JP identifies him as such in court and directed the sanction only against him.
I think for an item which is basically boilerplate, all of the defense attorneys show exceeding sloppiness. It seems to me, the basic format of these motions are exactly the same, or should be, so how hard is it to set up the correct format once and keep using it? I am probably going way to far with this one, but if you have multiple attorneys all working on the same case, and they don’t normally work together so each has an individual manner and presentation style for their motions, perhaps for this one case all of them should get together and create a standard format for their motions so they don’t confuse each other. But what do I know?
And last, but not least, would you have filed this motion prior to the motion which he says is being researched?
Baez is basically suggesting that the State had some duty to prevent Casey from talking to her parents after she invoked her right to counsel, because the State would be able to use that conversation against her. One of the many problems with this theory is the obvious public policy in favor of allowing inmates to communicate with their families as opposed to being held incommunicado. Another problem is that Casey herself knew that she was not supposed to be speaking to her family – she says so in one of the jailhouse videos – and knew the conversation would be recorded. As far as we know, there was no prearrangement with the Anthonys that they should talk to Casey and get her to make incriminating statements for use by the State. To the contrary, the Anthonys were trying to get information for themselves and were trying to speak in code to prevent the State from getting information.
By contrast, in the secretly recorded interview with Lee in Tony’s car, Tony was definitely a state agent. It is not absolutely necessary for Tony to have received payment – he could have been doing it for the warm fuzzies in his heart – but I’m betting the State had a little chat with Tony about his being present on some of the store surveillance videos showing Casey using Cindy’s credit cart and agreed not to pursue any accomplice/accessory charges against him if he cooperated.
And yes, I would ABSOLUTELY have researched the motion prior to filing it. I could research and write this motion in 4 hours or less. If I didn’t have time to do that then I could hire a law and motion attorney to write it on a contract basis but then they would need to be paid and Baez seems to be having some cash flow problems lately.
Oh my…. Baez just filed w/ the court to reconsider his Sanctions, which I think he has until tomorrow to pay ( I think, I’m not sure). Is he trying to get disbarred? I’m starting to think he is.
Ohhhhh….bad, bad move Baez! Not good.
Click to access Order%20Granting%20States%20Motion%20for%20Sanctions%20-%20Motion%20to%20Compel.pdf
By my reading of the order, Jose has until Jan 13th end-of-business to pay the fine. It depends if the 6th counted as a day or not. If not, the 13th.
From my reading, today was the last day Jose could dispute the fine. I am wondering if this is the dispute, so he will not pay and say he disputed.
What a great article. I don’t usually respond but always read – so thank you. I agree with Kas that he may be trying to get dismissed – or could he really be this stupid.
Or maybe he is sacrificing himself for the good of the defense by getting a mistrial based on his late stage dismissal.
But he doesn’t really seem like the sacrificing type.
And if he wanted off the case, why not go the troubled tummy route he already set the stage for?
Or a simple six-pack suicide motel run should do the trick.
lol Bull!
Sorry – your comment just made me laugh out loud – Baez? Sacrifice?!!
lololol
Great article
don’t forget the pizza. a suicide isn’t complete without the pizza.
Another WOW article Bull. I feel smarter after reading here. And Kat-you are awesome!
Thanks for reading!
Bull, funny you say that about a mistrial. I think there is a little truth in that. Not that Jose is sacrificing himself for the defense, but that at this point it’s his only way of this mess.
It may be his only way out, but I can’t see him taking it voluntarily.
But you have to wonder why Mason isn’t offering some valuable advice about following court orders.
Which brings us back to Kat’s point about the signatures and Jose spreading around the blame. You think Mason’s happy his name is on that motion? Do you think he got a chance to proof it? I am thinking maybe, in this one instance, because it is not as sloppy as Jose’s usual and there are law citations.
Just guessing here, but I’m thinking you don’t have to be paid to be an “agent of the state”. For example, I suppose Tony L. could be considered an agent of the state during the time when he agreed to be wired for his jeep conversation with Casey’s brother, Lee. Like that.
Cindy, George and Lee as agents of the state? Side-splittingly funny!
Good point.
However, I am assuming Tony signed some kind of paperwork acknowledging his status as an agent. Did he gain something in exchange for his cooperation? Not that we have evidence of. But if I remember correctly, Tony’s roommate appeared on the Nancy Grace Show way back at the beginning of the case and stated he and others smoked pot nightly at Tony’s apartment. I don’t remember any charges against Tony or his roommates for drugs and I would assume such, especially at the beginning of the case, would have been highly publicized. I am not saying Tony gained anything or these facts are related or stating there were any deals made as I have no documentation. But I notice things and wonder.
I don’t think the state can trick you into being an agent. I also don’t think a person is an agent of the state because their goals coincide. For example, I am for lower unemployment and my state is for lower unemployment, but I am not an agent of the state because we agree low unemployment is good. I believe taxes are too high, the state believes too low, but I am not an agent for anarchy because there would be less taxes.
My impression was Tony wanted to do anything he could to help law enforcement and agreed to be wired for the conversation with Lee. He may have been required to sign a consent but I personally don’t think it was any kind of quid pro quo (as any kind of deal to avoid pot smoking charges lol). I assume recreational pot smoking is low on the list of LE concerns. I never got the idea it was an issue or Tony and his friends were sweating bullets over it – nor do I think there was any pressure or coercion. It’s just a feeling I have, no proof.
I definitely don’t think Tony was paid.
I imagine and Tony, as well as Amy and Jesse and Ricardo have very supportive families and highly competent attorneys guiding them.
Bottom line, I believe Tony really wanted to help and it took little to no prodding for him to agree to be wired. It’s the least he could do – man I bet he was so outraged at what occurred with Caylee and Casey he would’ve done anything LE asked.
states give immunity all the time. you see it in probably 99% of all cases tried. but that doesnt mean these thugs from jail never get to testify. as for the anthonys george just kept telling her she ws in control and to ask to speak with someone. she never gave any info state needed nor wanted so whats the big beef. they found caylee without her or family help. this motion is from anger he was sanctioned.and as usual not even complete.
I agree with you, bullstopper, that there’s a papertrail of some sort with TL agreeing to be an “agent of the State”. Caylee was murdered “on his watch” as b.f. — in fact, most people associate Casey’s misconstrued comment about his alleged preference to one day procreate enough boys to make a sports team as being one of the modus operandi she had for “erasing” Caylee, in addition to financial & “Cindy-issues” reasons. He didn’t “see it coming” in terms of Caylee’s death, wouldn’t have associated himself or any of his comments made to Casey as being a rationale she’d have used to commit filicide, & this shows up in his conversation with Lee on the wire. After returning to NYC to launch his career, his next serious relationship was with a single mom who had a young daughter…although it might be coincidence, I think it’s psychologically significant, & a way of healing for him.
I’d agree with your view that there’s a papertrail of some sort with TL & that there’s some quid pro quo going on.
And Bull, I think Tony’s payment (of sorts) was the bit of satisfaction he got helping LE nail that piece of garbage he’d been spending time with. Imagine the pent up frustration and anger he felt when the news hit. He wasn’t going to go on blogs or hang with the media or collect licensing fees. He had one outlet. Work with LE. It probably felt pretty darn good and it was the least he could do.
Your view of Tony is refreshing as it is much less cynical than mine.
Well… I don’t think Tony is some kind of saint. Just an average age-appropriate college student guy. Nothing more, nothing less. Probably comes from a decent family who are at least keeping their mouths shut.
agree with you sophie
But yeah, you may be right that I do have a pretty good opinion of Tony overall – or what Tony will settle into *being*.
Because whatever his current 20-something lifestyle is at the moment, I do think he has core values. He told Casey not to have Caylee sleep over and he stuck to that. Maybe he didn’t want the bother but maybe somewhere inside he knew it wasn’t a good environment for a baby.
I think he’s shown some class throughout this ordeal. He helped LE, he’s keeping a low profile and trying to get back to his life without making a quick buck.
Overall I’d say he has more class in his little finger than all of the Anthonys combined.
He also wouldn’t give Casey a key to his apartment. So he’s not stupid.
Re the signature cut issue – Cheney Mason’s Motion for Reconsideration http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26455761/detail.html has the following signature cut:
______________________________
J. CHENEY MASON, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 0131982
J. CHENY MASON, P.A.
390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 2100
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: 407-843-5785
Facsimile: 407-422-6858
One of the Attorneys for Defendant
and no other attorneys are listed. The signature is almost illegible but at least one can see the Ch scribble y and then the M scribble. Pretty clear who wrote and signed this motion.
“GUESSWORK..here Bull. But not by the defense.LOL Don’t bother to respond yourself.. Let No.1 on your blog “dispicable me” respond with her crap.. She is really, honestly, frankly, truthfully, without a doubt, unequivocably,spot on, 1,000% “number two” anyway. OMG, I’M SICK.LOL
Thank you so much Bull for keeping her harrassment towards me in moderation!!! You know it’s killing her. You can’t hurt what you can’t touch 🙂
What a perfect way for Tony L. to “break it off” with Casey without actually having to tell her, or face her. Maybe he tried before he went to New York but she “talked” him out of it. ‘As in.. Lay down, I want to talk to you Tony.” LOLLOL. “Friendly persuasion” I think it’s called.. and most men fall for it.LOL How about you Bull, do you fall for it? Or maybe you “talk” to yourself mostly. My husband and I “talk” occasionally, but we have been married for quite a few years, so we have more “silent conversations.” Very sweet. Now you certainly don’t want to pass up the opportunity to tell me to “get talked too” or “talk to myself”, right Bull. I will be waiting…LOLLOL
Bull,
This is getting beyond disgusting and disturbing.
I agree Tony is a typical 20 something. Far from a saint, but not a bad guy either. I think he was horrified by what Casey did. he went out of his way to help the state because he didn’t like being played for a fool.
I disagree about Baez, Bull. I think he would like nothing more than to voluntarily walk away from this mess now that it is no longer making him money. I think he knows the case is a loser, he knows his TV career depends on him getting out of this case as unscathed as possible. I think he believed all the hard work would be done by the attorneys who left the case when the money dried up. jmho but I think he wants out any way he can get there.
Mason makes no sense to me. Watching a clip of the last hearing, hubby asked if Mason was senile. He meant it sincerely and I have to admit I have wondered that myself. His behavior in court is far from what one would expect from an attorney with his experience
“I think he was horrified by what Casey did. he went out of his way to help the state because he didn’t like being played for a fool.”
Becca, that’s it in a nutshell.
I don’t think Mason is senile. I think he’s all about “screw the rules”, cheat and lie, to win.
What a hella way to conduct yourself as a professional. Is this what being a lawyer comes down to? Who can lie best? Who can cheat best?
Here’s a concept. Go for a win while respecting and complying with the law. I mean, you are an, uh, attorney, with a LAW DEGREE, right?
What’s going on with the legal profession is what I want to know. How is this tolerated for one second? Is this cute, is this funny, is this supposed to impress the court or the general public? How have things deteriorated to this degree?
I’m concerned.
Bullstopper, I wrote another post about Cheney Mason’s signature cut on his Motion for Reconsideration but it didn’t show up. Is it in moderation? Did it get lost in the ether? Should I repost?
I found it stuck in spam and released it.
Another professional question for you:
Could you tell us about the use of proper names in motions in general? When you write a motion, do you refer to people by their first and last names, first names only, honorifics, etc? I notice Baez and Mason have an interesting method in their motions of using only the first name people they do not like. Is this typical?
I am wondering because I always assumed it was customary to refer to anyone in a legal motion as honorific last name and if confusion was possible, the inclusion of the first name. If so, I think this speaks to the character of Baez and Mason.
And also, back to this motion, is it possible for JP to approve this motion without the referenced and unprepared motion? If not, due to the schedule JP set for hearing motions, would you expect this one to be denied prior to the referenced and unprepared motion being heard?
I went back and looked at Mason’s Motion for Reconsideration that I linked. I skimmed it briefly and did not notice the “first name” problem. Perhaps you could direct my attention to a particular page and line?
It is usually considered more respectful to refer to someone by their professional title i.e. “counsel for defense” or “my esteemed colleague” or “Your Honor” than to refer to them by name unless the name is required to distinguish one attorney for the prosecution from another (as we saw in Mason’s motion when he identified which prosecutor had said something) or one judge from another or one party from another. When names are used, it is considered more respectful to use an honorific and last name (Mr. Baez, Judge Strickland) rather than their first name. However, sometimes if people share a last name – for example, the Anthonys – then it can be confusing to use the last names and rather lengthy and redundant to use both first and last names so then it is common to see first names or initials used.
I am not clear on what you mean by Baez “approving” the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Mason. However, I do expect it to be denied on the merits (or lack thereof.)
Oh, sorry. I was asking about the motion to exclude all statements by KC to agents of the state in both questions.
I think you answered it about the names. Throughout, Jose refers to George as George, but your explanation about the last names makes sense. I don’t have another example, but I have noticed Baez is fairly loose with what I would expect in legal motions, but other than this case, I have read virtually none.
My other question was also about this motion. Since Baez references an unfiled motion which he is preparing to name the agents of the state, can JP rule favorably at this point for Baez? My thinking here is Baez will not file the other motion prior to the deadline JP has set for hearing filed motions. So, this one will be heard, denied, then Baez will submit one naming agents of the state, some might be approved, then he re-files this same motion perhaps minus some names again. Or is there some other strategy I am not seeing?
Bull:
I think Baez has an entirely different definition of “sacrifice”, or more importantly “self-sacrifice”. He might very well want out from under this whole thing, knowing full well at this point how it’s all going to unfold.
It’s just all so unfair. He doesn’t have the “resources” the State does. And don’t get him started on those horrible bloggers (like YOU), with their “little Blogs” that are being so mean to his client and him. His “sacrifice” would be getting as far away from all this horrible unfairness as he can. All in “the best interest of his client”, of course!!