Is Jose Baez Frightened of Spicy Peanuts?

On October 15, 2010, criminal defense attorney Jose Baez filed a Motion For Reconsideration of his previously rejected request to seal from the public jail records of his client, convicted felon Casey Anthony.

The motion can be found at the following link:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/58052840/Casey-Anthony-motion-to-reconsider-jail-house-visitors-privacy

“Additionally the Defendant requests that the jail commissary records, telephone and visitation logs are also not subject to public record disclosure under Chapter 119, such disclosure was never contemplated by the legislature and serves only to embarrass and invade the privacy of the Defendant.  Miss Anthony has not been convicted of any of the charges for which she is being held by the Orange County Jail.”

The grammar employed by Mr. Baez is atrocious.  Please do not use his writing as a model for your own.

“Additionally the Defendant requests that the jail commissary records, telephone and visitation logs” – The “jail commissary records, telephone and visitation logs” are sensitive to Mr. Baez and he wishes to distance himself from them.

“are also not subject to public record disclosure under Chapter 119” – The “public record disclosure” of “jail commissary records, telephone and visitation logs” is not part of the information deemed inappropriate to disseminate by the court decision Mr. Baez cites as his reason for filing this motion.  Mr. Baez is requesting the court to include these types of records as if they were covered by the court decision which did not address them, but did deal with the recording of jail telephone calls.

Order is important.  “Jail commissary records” are more important than “telephone and visitation logs”.  Mr. Baez is more concerned about the public release of the lists of snack and hygiene items Ms. Anthony orders than public knowledge of the people who call and visit her.

“such disclosure was never contemplated by the legislature” – Mr. Baez claims to know the contemplations of the legislature as they crafted and implemented the public record disclosure laws.  It is unlikely Mr. Baez has personal knowledge of the thoughts of all the members of the legislature in regards to these laws.  The purpose of informing the court he knows the thoughts of the legislature is an attempt by Mr. Baez to validate his assertions.  The laws cannot speak for themselves, Mr. Baez must inform the court of their true intent.

“serves only to embarrass and invade the privacy of the Defendant” – The “public record disclosure” of “jail commissary records, telephone and visitation logs” embarrasses Casey Anthony.  Ms. Anthony is embarrassed for the public to know her snack orders.  Ms. Anthony is embarrassed by the people who call her and the people she calls. Ms. Anthony is embarrassed by those who visit her in jail.

“invade the privacy of the Defendant” – Mr. Baez claims Ms. Anthony has an expectation of privacy while incarcerated in the Orange County Jail despite previous court rulings in her case which included reminders inmates have no rights to privacy while in jail.  Mr. Baez makes this claim even after he personally lost a motion to keep his own telephone call with an inmate sealed due to the lack of privacy of inmate phone calls.  The privacy which Ms. Anthony does not posses in jail is invaded if the public has access to the documentation of her snack orders and the people who call and visit her.

Order is important.  The most important effect of the public disclosure of Ms. Anthony’s jail documentation is the embarrassment of Ms. Anthony.  The second most important issue is the invasion of privacy.  Ms. Anthony’s rights to a fair trial are not affected by the public disclosure of the jail records.  The verdict of guilty or not guilty in her capital case is not affected by the granting or denial of this motion.  Mr. Baez’s motion has nothing to do with the trial of Ms. Anthony.

“Miss Anthony has not been convicted of any of the charges for which she is being held by the Orange County Jail.” – This is a factual lie.  Ms. Anthony has been convicted of felony charges.  Ms. Anthony is being held by the Orange County Jail as she awaits her reassignment to prison, which is delayed by her trial for the charges of murder of two-year-old Caylee Anthony.  Ms. Anthony has not been convicted of the charges for which she currently stands trial, but those charges are not the only reason she is held by the Orange County Jail.  If the charges for which Ms. Anthony currently stands trial were dropped today, the Orange County Jail would continue to incarcerate her for the felony charges for which she has been convicted.  Mr. Baez has no valid legal purpose for including this lie in his motion as the conviction status of a jail inmate does not affect their lack of right to privacy.

As of October 17, 2010, Casey Anthony is incarcerated in the Orange County Jail for Probation Felony, not charges of murder, according to the Florida Department of Corrections Website.

We have learned Mr. Baez could use some beginner courses in English grammar.  We have learned Mr. Baez is unsure of the proper use of commas and regularly abuses them.

We have learned Ms. Anthony is embarrassed by the people who visit her in jail, those who call her, anyone she calls, and public knowledge she enjoys spicy peanuts.

We have learned Mr. Baez believes the number of hair scrunchies a female inmate purchases is a fundamental issue of privacy.

We have learned this motion does not, cannot, and will not affect the murder trial of Casey Anthony.