Did Jose Baez Lie to the Public about Laura Buchanan?

On October 5, 2010, Jose Baez, defense attorney for Casey Anthony, made statements to the press about Laura Buchanan and the evidence exculpatory to his client he asserts Ms. Buchanan possesses.  Mr. Baez’s statements may be found at the following link.

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2010/october/158452/Defense-to-plant-doubt-in-Casey-Anthony-case

“It is my understanding that she has testified under oath that she was there. Is there any evidence to contradict that yet? I haven’t come across any yet,” said Jose Baez, Anthony’s lead attorney.

“It is my understanding” – Mr. Baez disassociates himself from his assertion.  This may not be fact, it is the “understanding” of Mr. Baez and may be flawed.

“that” – Mr. Baez distances himself further from what he is about to claim.

“she has testified under oath” – Mr. Baez has an “understanding” Ms. Buchanan “testified under oath”.  Was this in court?  We do not know as Mr. Baez fails to indicate a specific place or time.  “Under oath” indicates Ms. Buchanan either did not lie or faces consequences if she did.

“that she was there” – Mr. Baez again distances himself with “that”.  Where exactly did she claim to be?  At the exact spot where Caylee’s body was recovered or in the general vicinity?  Is the media really asking Mr. Baez if Ms. Buchanan was there or are they asking if her testimony will reveal Caylee Anthony’s body was not there?

“Is there any evidence to contradict that yet?” – Mr. Baez makes no statement, but poses a question designed to insinuate no evidence exists to “contradict” Ms. Buchanan’s claim “she was there” or she “testified under oath”.  The all important word in this question is “yet”, which indicates a belief on the part of Mr. Baez contradictory “evidence” will emerge, but has not “yet”.

“I haven’t come across any yet” – Mr. Baez claims he personally has not “come across any”, but adds the all important word “yet” again.  Mr. Baez expects to personally “come across” contradictory “evidence”, but has not “yet”.  Notice Mr. Baez does not deny the existence of contradictory “evidence” by limiting this sentence to “I”.  Mr. Baez speaks only for himself, not necessarily for the defense team or the defense investigators.

On October 3, 2010, two days prior to this statement by Mr. Baez, Mr. Brad Conway, former attorney for Casey Anthony’s parents, was interviewed by investigators who brought forth documentation of evidence concerning Ms. Buchanan and her possible claims which was in the possession of the defense team in late 2009, prior to a conversation between Mr. Conway and Mr. Baez which occurred in February 2010.

The rather long interview may be found at the following link.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/70388758/20101003-Brad-Conway-Interview

The gist of the interview is law enforcement is aware Mr. Baez was in possession of documents which indicate Ms. Buchanan did search the site where Caylee’s remains were discovered when he questioned Mr. Conway about further documentation in February 2010.

Corporal Edwards: “And now knowing that he (Jose Baez) was asking you the same question in February of 2010, when it’s painfully obvious from the statements that we’ve show you that his defense team was already in possession of those documents, what’s your interpretation of that?”

Brad Conway: “The question in February 2010, now knowing as we sit here right now, I believe that that question was designed to find out whether I had information that might have disputed what he was putting forth to the court in terms of Laura Buchanan’s statement.  I think he (Jose Baez) was trying to find out whether I had something that would negate what he was putting into the court file, putting into court ahhh… courts information.”

The statements of Mr. Conway illustrate he personally feels Mr. Baez believes contradictory “information” or “something to negate” would eventually come to light.

We have learned Mr. Baez doesn’t answer simple questions in a forth-right manner.

We have learned Mr. Baez has feared for more than a year “evidence” which had not appeared “yet” to undermine his claims concerning Laura Buchanan will be discovered by the prosecution.

Did Casey Anthony Ever Tell Her Father, Mother, or Fellow Inmates the Truth?

In a motion filed December 30, 2010, Jose A. Baez, Esquire, argues for suppressing information obtained from his client, Casey Anthony, in both oral and written form during communications at the county jail with her father, mother, or fellow inmates.  Mr. Baez supplies various legal reasoning as the basis for his request.  His motion may be found 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

In one of his more eloquently argued motions, Mr. Baez cites case law and statutes, but the purpose of this article is not to critique his professional performance.  Our purpose is discover why Mr. Baez desires to suppress the words which came from his client despite her knowledge any statements she makes after the time of her arrest can be held against her in a court of law.

Miss Anthony is a well-known liar as testified to by virtually all who knew her prior to her arrest in July 2008.  Much of the information she supplied to the investigators searching for her missing daughter was deception.  Since very little Miss Anthony asserts can be taken as fact, why is Mr. Baez interested enough in suppressing her statements he takes the time and effort to write this one motion out of the many he has filed with at least a hint of professional adequacy as opposed to the sloppy messes he normally submits?

“c. Second, admission would violate Miss Anthony’s Due Process Rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Federal Constitution and Article 1, 9 of the State of Florida Constitution.  In our system it is not only the truth, but the method to obtain it, that is significant.  Walls v. State, 580 So. 2d 131, 133 (Fla. 1991); Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 109, (1985).  The collaborative efforts of her family and law enforcement agents to elicit information in the absence of counsel was neither fair nor honest and need not be tolerated by the court.”

“Second” – In the previous section, “b.”, Mr. Baez states, “Admission of the statements would be improper on four separate grounds.”  Why Mr. Baez would begin a treatise on four points in outline form beginning with lettered section “b.” is unknown.  Why Mr. Baez would state four points, then list only three is also unknown.  Either Mr. Baez meant to include lettered point “a.” as one of his four points and confused the issue by placing what should have been his introductory sentence as the first sentence of the second paragraph (which seems improbable as he begins the sentence after announcing there will be four points with the word “first”) or he has difficulty with the number four.  All the available evidence suggests Mr. Baez is unable to count as high as the number of fingers on one of his hands, yet he is able to charge his client more than $90,000 for services barely rendered.  How many hands and fingers did Mr. Baez need to borrow to verify the dollar amount of her payment was correct?  Did ABC loan him any fingers or toes to assist?

“In our system it is not only the truth, but the method to obtain it, that is significant.” – Mr. Baez defines the information obtained through a method which he personally disapproves as “truth”.  Miss Anthony told her parents or her fellow inmates or both the “truth”.  She may have also told them lies, but Mr. Baez is concerned about the “truth” she revealed to them.  Mr. Baez may be correct about the “method to obtain” being “significant” and he may prevail in his quest to suppress, but the information he is interested in suppressing is the “truth”.

We have learned Miss Anthony told the “truth” about some matter connected to this case to her parents and her fellow inmates.

We have learned Mr. Baez wishes to suppress the “truth”, regardless of the validity of the information.

We have learned Mr. Baez is not interested in reaching the “truth” in this case, he is interested in hiding the “truth” to protect his client.

We have learned Mr. Baez could use a set of wooden painted numbered blocks to utilize in practicing his counting skills.  Refrigerator number magnets may be another option.

What Information is Jose Baez Hiding From Defense Experts?

This article continues our examination of the Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with Order for Expert Witness Reports filed by Jose Baez on January 25, 2011.  The motion may be found at the following link.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=70057594

“2. The Defendant, Miss Anthony has been declared indigent for costs.  This has limited her ability to have all of her experts together to properly consult with and furnish all information needed, in order for them to reach well-informed opinions.  In light of the Court’s recent decision precluding testimony that is not either in reports or disclosed in deposition.  The Defense would like to have the opportunity to meet with experts Reichs and Rodriguez prior to them rendering their opinions as they may have additional opinions after review of additional material.  The Defense will have a unique opportunity in the very near future and is requesting an additional 45 days to comply with those two witnesses and a reasonable amount of time for Doctors Logan and Spitz.”

“The Defendant, Miss Anthony has been declared indigent for costs.” – Grammatical errors abound within the written documents of Jose Baez.  In this sentence, Mr. Baez experiences comma related difficulties.  The facts referenced are true.

“This has limited her ability” – “This” refers and brings Mr. Baez closer to the declaration of “indigent for costs”, one of his few legal victories in the case to date.  Indigency has in some way “limited her ability”.

“to have all of her experts together to properly consult with and furnish all information needed” – Mr. Baez claims his legal victory in having Miss Anthony declared indigent has resulted in an inability to gather her experts, to consult with her experts, and for her experts to submit their reports.  In what way are these three issues affected by Miss Anthony’s indigency?  Her status does provide a means of payment for necessary defense expenses as approved by the JAC.  If the JAC will not pay for these three types of expenses, Mr. Baez is not following their rules.  If Mr. Baez is not following the guidelines established by the JAC, Mr. Baez is the reason her experts are unable to gather, consult, or provide reports, not the indigent for cost status of his client.

Order is important.  The most important effect of Miss Anthony’s indigent status as claimed by Mr. Baez is an inability to “have all of her experts together”.  Why is it necessary to “have all of her experts together” in order for them to each furnish their independent opinion based upon their independent examination of the evidence?  If an expert does require the opinion of another, are there no phones or other forms of communication available to either party?  If not, is Mr. Baez not capable of arranging for communication between the members of his team?  Does Mr. Baez truly anticipate the Court to accept Mr. Baez had an expectation when he contracted with experts from various states and countries there would be an opportunity to gather them all together, but never made any plans to do so with trial a mere three months away?

Second most important to Mr. Baez is an opportunity to “properly consult”, indicating Mr. Baez and the experts are able to “consult” while not in close physical proximity to one another, but the consultations are not “properly” done.  Something happens when they are all together, something which is not able to occur through electronic means, which can be easily recorded.

Of least importance to Mr. Baez is the inability of the experts to “furnish all the information needed”, which we would assume to be the reports required by the Court’s order.  In a document to the Court detailing his inability or unwillingness to comply with the orders of the Court, Mr. Baez reveals the requirements of the Court to be his least concern when considering the quandaries posed by the indigency he requested and was granted for Miss Anthony.

“in order for them to reach well-informed opinions” – Mr. Baez claims if the experts cannot gather in the same physical space, “properly consult” with each other and Mr. Baez, and “furnish” their reports, they will not be able to “reach well-informed opinions”.  Either Mr. Baez is stating their opinions will change after consulting with the other experts even though they have already submitted their reports, or “furnish all the information needed” does not refer to the reports ordered submitted by the Court.  What needed information would the experts be providing which would not be in their reports and which would change the opinions of the other experts?  If Mr. Baez does not need this information to turn over to the Court, what is his referenced need?  “Information” is sensitive as seen by the use of “needed” and the almost immediate later use of “well-informed”.

“In light of the Court’s recent decision precluding testimony that is not either in reports or disclosed in deposition.” – Mr. Baez begins a sentence, but does not finish despite his misuse of a period.  “The Court’s recent decision” which requires Mr. Baez to comply with the rules of discovery shines a “light” on the “information” he would prefer to keep in the dark.  Mr. Baez mischaracterizes “the Court’s recent decision” as an additional requirement for the defense, an untrue assessment since the Court merely clarified the rules of discovery which apply equally to both sides and with which the defense refused to comply.

“The Defense would like to have the opportunity to meet with experts Reichs and Rodriguez prior to them rendering their opinions” – The Defense does not want two experts to submit written reports allegedly based upon their independent assessment of the evidence and facts until the Defense as an opportunity to influence their opinions.

“as they may have additional opinions after review of additional material” – Mr. Baez is in possession of “additional material” which he feels to be of significance to the formation of his experts’ opinions, but he has not shared this information with his experts.  Mr. Baez is not communicating with his experts.  Mr. Baez is withholding critical “additional material” from his experts.  “Opinions” and “material” are both sensitive as seen by the use of the same extra word to modify each, “additional”.  Mr. Baez has stuff to add, but he cannot be bothered to get around to it within the time frames set by the court despite the impending trial beginning in a few short months.

“The Defense will have a unique opportunity in the very near future” – What is the “unique opportunity” and when will it occur?  Mr. Baez refers to “the very near future”, then requests an “additional 45 days” to extend an order which originally encompassed less than 30 days.  The “future” is not “very near”, but it the “future” is sensitive to Mr. Baez.  Does the “unique opportunity” involve the experts gathering together?  We do not know.

“is requesting an additional 45 days” – “Additional” is sensitive for Mr. Baez.  This portion of the document is why.  Mr. Baez is asking for more days in this request than the 30 days he initially asked for which the judge told him was an unacceptable time frame and of such length it could not be approved.

“and a reasonable amount of time” – Mr. Baez does not define “reasonable amount of time” or indicate if it exceeds the 45 days requested for the other two experts.

“WHEREFORE, the Defendant CASEY MARIE ANTHONY respectfully requests this Honorable Court to extend the time required to submit expert report’s as it has substantially complied with the Court’s order dated January 6th, 2011 and has a good faith basis for the extension of time on the remaining experts.”

“as it has substantially complied with the Court’s order” – Mr. Baez refers to “the Defendant CASEY MARIE ANTHONY” as “it”, who has “substantially complied”.  Mr. Baez asserts not communicating with experts, withholding information from experts, delaying expert reports until he is able to “consult with” them, and requesting more time than originally granted the day before the deadline for defense to be in full compliance with the order as “substantially complied”.

“has a good faith basis for the extension of time on the remaining experts” – Mr. Baez asserts withholding vital information to the formation of expert opinions during a time frame in which he has been ordered to provide written expert reports and his desire to influence the opinions of the experts during a physical meeting are a “good faith basis for the extension of time”.

We have learned Mr. Baez is hampering the defense of his client by refusing to maintain communications with his experts or to provide them with the information needed to finish their jobs.

We have learned Mr. Baez blames Judge Perry for the State of Florida’s rules of discovery in criminal cases.

We have learned Mr. Baez plans to blame his client’s indigency for all his failures as a defense attorney.

We have learned Mr. Baez desperately needs to take at least one class in English grammar, but probably blames his client’s lack of funds for his inability to utilize a comma or form a complete sentence.

Does Jose Baez Believe a Good Faith Effort to be the Maximum Responsibility Required of a Death Penalty Attorney?

On January 25, 2011, one of the attorneys for Casey Marie Anthony, Jose A. Baez, filed a motion requesting an extension to the extension which had previously been granted to comply with the Court’s order requiring submission of details of expected expert witness testimony and which was clarified and amended over the course of two months, three hearings, and one sanction.  The request of Mr. Baez may be read at the following link.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=70057594

“1. The undersigned has made a good faith effort to comply with this Courts order on January 6th 2011 and has substantially complied in part and addresses each expert individually.”

“The undersigned” is Mr. Baez.

“has made a good faith effort” – Mr. Baez has not been successful in complying with the Court’s order.  He attempts to excuse his non-compliance by stating he “made a good faith effort”.  What is either “good” or “faith” about his “effort”?  As this issue has been broiling for almost two months and Mr. Baez is again attempting to stall complying with the Court’s order, his “effort” seems to be directed against compliance, not in “good faith” to comply.

“and has substantially complied in part” – Mr. Baez limits “complied” with both “substantially” and “in part”.  Only “part” of that which he was required to do to comply has he done.  Of the “part”, it only “substantially” complies, meaning it does not comply.  Mr. Baez has partly complied partially in some limited aspects, but has not complied with the Court’s order and cannot represent he has done so without a number of modifiers.

Order is important.  It is more important to Mr. Baez to relate to the Court he “made a good faith effort” than to speak about his compliance.  If Mr. Baez felt he had complied with the Court’s order, he would have led with a statement of his compliance.  Instead, he hides his pitiful “substantially complied in part” behind “made a good faith effort”.

“j. The undersigned has made multiple attempts to reach Dr. Barry Logan.  The defense fully anticipates being able to comply with the Court’s order prior to his deposition.  Dr. Logan is a nationally recognized chemist and the defense believes that his schedule is simply the issue as Dr. Logan has been available previously to the defense.”

“The undersigned has made multiple attempts to reach Dr. Barry Logan” – Mr. Baez has repeatedly tried to contact Dr. Logan.  What methods of communication has Mr. Baez employed?  We do not know.  How many attempts?  We do not know.  How many times since the Court’s order was received by Mr. Baez has he communicated with Dr. Logan?  Zero.  Why has there been no communication?  Dr. Logan will not return calls or messages to Mr. Baez.

“The defense fully anticipates being able to comply with the Court’s order prior to his deposition” – Since the dates of submission are an integral part of the Court’s order and this motion is a communication from Mr. Baez he will not comply with this deadlines, how does he “anticipate being able to comply with the Court’s order”?  Mr. Baez adds the phrase “prior to his deposition”, but this is not the time frame established by the Court’s order.  Mr. Baez is modifying the order as he sees fit and minimizing the negative effects to the prosecution and possibly his client’s defense should his expert’s testimony be barred from trial due to his non-compliance.

“the defense believes that his schedule is simply the issue” – If this was “simply the issue”, would Mr. Baez feel the need to describe “the issue” as “simply”?  If Mr. Baez is unable to contact Dr. Logan, how can he assert Dr. Logan’s reason for the non-contact?  What proof does Mr. Baez offer the “schedule” is “simply the issue”?

“as Dr. Logan has been available previously to the defense” – This is the proof Mr. Baez offers for his scheduling theory.  At one point, Dr. Logan did return phone calls and messages.  Now, he does not.  Mr. Baez would have the court believe past performance predicts future performance, but does not explain why present performance does not match past or why present performance would not be expected to continue.  Something happened between Dr. Logan being “available previously” and now.

We have learned Mr. Baez is not in compliance with the Court’s order and does not anticipate being so by the deadline.

We have learned assertions by Mr. Baez the defense is in partial or substantial compliance or has made good faith efforts is ludicrous as the purpose served by submitting this motion is to delay compliance with the order.

We have learned Mr. Baez is having significant trouble maintaining contact with at least one expert, an indication of strife between the expert and Mr. Baez.

We have learned Mr. Baez has absolutely no idea why Dr. Logan will not return his calls or e-mails, or if he does, he does not wish to reveal the reason.

We have learned Mr. Baez has significant trouble utilizing apostrophes in a consistent manner.

Does Jose Baez Understand the Implications of the Death Penalty?

After the State of Florida announced in April 2009 they would be seeking the death penalty against Casey Anthony for the murder of her daughter, Caylee Anthony, defense counsel Jose Baez made remarks to the press about his reaction. The comments of Mr. Baez may be found at the following link.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/19174406/detail.html

Jose Baez: “She was fully aware that this was a strong possibility. She’s aware of the forces that are out to get her.”

“She was fully aware” – Mr. Baez states Ms. Anthony “was fully aware” the state might reverse their decision not to seek the death penalty prior to the discovery of the body. Somehow, Ms. Anthony became “fully aware” the death penalty might be re-introduced as a result of the discovery of Caylee Anthony’s body. If Ms. Anthony was “fully aware”, Mr. Baez was also “fully aware” despite his protestations which continue through the present the announcement the state would again seek the death penalty came as a surprise and threw the defense behind in preparation for the trial.

“strong possibility” – Like “aware” with “fully”, “possibility” is a sensitive word for Mr. Baez as indicated by the use of the extra word “strong”. Mr. Baez reveals he felt “this” to the one of the, if not the, most likely possibilities following the discovery of the body in December 2008.

“was” – The sentence is phrased in the past tense. These are the thoughts of Ms. Anthony and Mr. Baez prior to the day he made these comments. They did not come to the conclusion on this day the re-introduction of the death penalty would be a “strong possibility”, they planned for it prior.

“She’s aware” – Mr. Baez moves to the present tense. He spoke about what they felt prior, now he speaks about the things of which Ms. Anthony is currently “aware”, things about which Ms. Anthony has knowledge, things of which she is wary.

“of the forces” – The things of which Ms. Anthony are wary are not people or evidence or witnesses, but “forces”, which would seem to indicate people with power. George and Cindy Anthony are most likely not “forces” as they have little personal power over Ms. Anthony’s situation. Prosecutors and law enforcement have power, they do impact Ms. Anthony’s situation, they could be “forces”. However, “forces” could also be circumstances beyond the control of Mr. Baez and Ms. Anthony, such as fate or destiny.

“that are out to get her” – Mr. Baez assigns a motivation to the “forces”, but distances himself from this definition with the word “that”, indicating he is not comfortable with his assertion. Mr. Baez claims the “forces” “are out to get her”. What does it mean, “to get her”? If the “forces” are law enforcement and the prosecution, they already have her. Mr. Baez implies the “forces” seek more than justice, they seek to “get” Ms. Anthony. For Mr. Baez, the re-introduction of the death penalty is not about justice for Caylee Anthony, but about some unnamed reason multiple individuals among law enforcement and the prosecutors have conspired together to “get” Ms. Anthony.

Jose Baez: “If they think that this is going to make her plea, they’re sadly mistaken. They’ve been trying to intimidate Casey Anthony from day 1 and it didn’t work then, and it’s not going to work now.”

“If they think” – “They” refers to the “forces”, which are capable of thought.

“that” – Mr. Baez distances himself from his claims about the thoughts of “they”, the “forces”.

“this is going to make her plea” – Mr. Baez insinuates the re-introduction of the death penalty by prosecutors is not to seek the maximum penalty allowed by law for the crime of first degree murder, but as a strategical move to force Ms. Anthony to “plea”. Mr. Baez reveals he is expecting a move to entice Ms. Anthony to “plea”, but does not explain how finding a body would encourage the prosecutors to believe they needed to convince Ms. Anthony “to plea”.

“they’re sadly mistaken” – Mr. Baez implies Ms. Anthony will not “plea”.

“They’ve been trying to intimidate Casey Anthony from day 1 and it didn’t work then, and it’s not going to work now.” – Mr. Baez equates the seeking of the death penalty with “trying to intimidate Casey Anthony”. Who is “they” and how did they try to “intimidate” on “day 1”? Since prosecutors were not on scene on “day 1” and law enforcement who was on scene “day 1” did not make the decision to re-introduce the death penalty, who is “they”?

Jose Baez: “”Will it affect the trial? Yes, it may delay it. It certainly will make the costs to the taxpayers to the state of Florida at least triple.”

Mr. Baez foresees only two effects of the state seeking the death penalty, a delay of trial and tripling of the costs to the taxpayers. If these are truly the only two effects, why is Mr. Baez complaining about intimidation? Does Mr. Baez not understand a death penalty case brings a significant amount of responsibility to the defense attorney as they must now prepare for an extensive possible penalty phase and a rigorous jury selection? Does Mr. Baez not understand defending a death penalty case means his personal responsibility in the event of his own failure as increased from the long-term effects of a life in prison on his client to the loss of her very life?

Jose Baez: “It changes absolutely nothing. For people to be out there saying I’m going to be off the case or I’m going to be in the background, they really don’t know what they’re talking about.”

“absolutely nothing” – “Nothing” is sensitive as it must be defined as “absolutely”. Something has changed because of the re-introduction of the death penalty, but Mr. Baez wishes to downplay the change.

“For people to be out there saying I’m going to be off the case or I’m going to be in the background, they really don’t know what they’re talking about” – Mr. Baez reveals his true concerns about the re-introduction of the death penalty, “people” are “out there saying” things about Mr. Baez he doesn’t want them to say. Mr. Baez attempts to minimize the impact of their comments with “they really don’t know what they’re talking about”, but weakens his statement with the conditional phrase “they really”. They may know “what they’re talking about”. Or Mr. Baez may fear their statements as he sees truth in them as he is aware he is not qualified to try a death penalty case.

We have learned Mr. Baez worries about what people are out there saying about him.

We have learned the concerns Mr. Baez has about the state seeking the death penalty revolve more around the effects to himself as lead counsel than to his client’s possible demise should the ultimate punishment be approved in the penalty phase.

We have learned the inexperienced and unqualified-to-try-a-death-penalty-case Mr. Baez is unaware of the impact on the defense of the announcement the state is seeking the death penalty by his comment, “It changes absolutely nothing”.

Do Jose Baez and Cheney Mason Feel Depositions Are a Category A Pain-in-the-Keister?

On Friday, September 3, 2010, defense attorneys Jose Baez and Cheney Mason finished conducting depositions of close to 35 law enforcement officers listed as Category A witnesses by the prosecution in the case against Casey Anthony accused of the murder of her two-year-old daughter, Caylee Anthony.

The two attorneys made comments to the press about the depositions and their feelings about the state listing these witnesses as Category A.  The comments may be found at the following link.

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2010/september/146607/Casey-Anthony:-Defense-plans-to-question-35-officers

Cheney Mason: “It’s the policy of this office to list every single person who drove by and waved.  We’re going to wind up taking well in excess of 100 depositions that should never have been taken.”

“It’s the policy of this office” – Which office is “this office”?  Mr. Mason appears to be referring to the prosecution.  It is the “policy” of the prosecution office to which Mr. Mason will speak.

“to list every single person who drove by and waved” – Mr. Mason categorizes Category A witnesses in a murder trial as people “who drove by and waved”.   Where did they drive by?  To whom did they wave?  Did Mr. Mason actually conduct a deposition of a law enforcement officer who testified his role consisted of driving by and waving?  Mr. Mason is both accusing the prosecution of listing law enforcement officers who do not meet the legal definitions of a Category A witness, all of whom the state is required by law to list as Category A, and of ridiculing the standards which the prosecution uses to determine a Category A witness, standards which are not defined by the prosecution, but by law.

“We’re going to wind up taking well in excess of 100 depositions” – How many is “well in excess of 100”?  101?  115?  200?  We do not know, but we would assume less than 200 and probably less than 150.  Mr. Mason is not happy about the actual number of depositions and wishes to exaggerate it for impact to the press.  “Going to wind up taking” indicates this is not the choice Mr. Mason would make if he had a choice.

“that should never have been taken” – “That” distances Mr. Mason from this statement.  Perhaps these depositions should have been taken, but as we saw in the previous phrasing, Mr. Mason does not want to take them.  Mr. Mason is implying these depositions are not from Category A witnesses, yet the witnesses are listed as Category A.

Cheney Mason: “We’ve asked the state to discriminate on these categories so we wouldn’t have to waste our time and money.”

“We’ve asked” – Who is we?  Mr. Mason and Mr. Baez?  Previous defense members?  Mr. Mason and his legal assistant?  We do not know.  We do know they made a request.

“the state to discriminate on these categories” – Mr. Mason and other undefined parties requested “the state” to illegally re-define the Category A witness definition and other categories as the definitions are set by law.  If the prosecution had granted Mr. Mason’s request, they would have jeopardized any ruling against Casey Anthony by potentially hiding key witnesses with vital information.  Mr. Mason characterizes the attempt by himself and other undefined parties to trick the prosecution into a legal violation, possibly resulting in a mistrial, as a request to “discriminate”.

“so we wouldn’t have to waste our time and money” – Since the defendant is destitute and her defense expenses are paid for by the State of Florida, what “money” is Mr. Mason describing as a “waste”?  Did Mr. Mason expend personal funds to perform these depositions for which he will not be reimbursed?  Mr. Mason makes it clear any benefit derived from the state’s compliance with his request to “discriminate on these categories” would be a benefit only for the defense with no benefit for the prosecution.  Mr. Mason is upset the prosecution did not make life easier for the defense at a cost to themselves.  Mr. Mason feels deposing Category A witnesses is a waste of his “time” when defending a client who faces the death penalty.  Mr. Mason feels spending his time in a courtroom calling searchers from TES who may be potential witnesses is worthier of his efforts than deposing people already designated as Category A witnesses who do have some piece of information, however small, about the case.

Jose Baez: “Apparently it’s office policy to designate everybody,everybody, no matter how minor their role, as a Category A witness”.

“Apparently” – This word tells us Mr. Baez’s following statement is not backed up by any facts, but is a personal conclusion which he desires to publicly disseminate.  Mr. Baez wishes his interpretation of the events to be our interpretation.

“it’s office policy” – Mr. Baez echoes Mr. Mason’s assertion the listing of Category A witness is determined by prosecution “office policy”, not by legal requirements.  How do Mr. Mason and Mr. Baez know the “office policy”?  Do they have a written copy of office policy?  Or have they decided between themselves to comment upon a fictitious “office policy” which they feel must exist because it is “apparent”?

“to designate everybody,everybody, no matter how minor their role, as a Category A witness” – Mr. Mason defined the policy as listing only “every single person who drove by and waved”, a much more discriminating set of parameters than “everybody, everybody, no matter how minor their role”.

“minor their role” – These witnesses had a “role”, “their role”.  These witnesses played some part in the investigation of Casey Anthony.  The “role” these witnesses took in the investigation defines them as Category A witnesses.

Mr. Baez is stating the prosecution office lists everyone who had a role, even if it was minor, as a Category A witness.  Mr. Baez attempts to make his statement sound as broad as possible by repeating the sensitive word “everybody”, but subsequent definition declares only those who have a role in this case are designated, not “everybody” in the world.

Jose Baez: “These are people who may have collected something, an item of evidence and then turned it over to someone else.  People who showed up and conducted one interview.  People who sat in while another detective interviewed.”

Mr. Baez defines the minor roles performed by these law enforcement Category A witnesses.  They “collected something” defined as “a piece of evidence”.  They “turned” over evidence to “someone else”, another law enforcement officer or forensic agency.  In other words, these individuals are vital to the chain of custody for each piece of evidence.  If a witness were not to be listed, there could be the potential for an attack on chain of custody for a specific piece of evidence, resulting in its exclusion from trial.

“People who sat in while another detective interviewed” – These witnesses possess first hand accounts of witness and/or suspect interviews.  Although they may not have asked any direct questions, they did observe the interviewee, their responses, their body language, and their facial expressions.  It is possible they came away from the interview with more or less or a different understanding of the information obtained during the interview.  These witnesses are excellent witnesses if the defense plans to attack any portion of witness testimony.  Mr. Baez indicates with this sentence the defense in this case will most likely not attack any of the witness testimony obtained in police interviews or if they are, they will not do so effectively.  However, an attorney in another case, one who did plan to attack witness testimony, would probably not include this definition as a witness who should not be Category A.

We have learned from the definitions provided by Mr. Baez these witnesses are Category A and listed correctly by the State of Florida.

We have learned from Mr. Mason’s request to “discriminate these categories”, the defense understands and agrees these witnesses are correctly designated even though the defense does not wish to depose them.

We have learned the defense wishes to redefine these categories in order to save themselves time, which they feel is wasted deposing witnesses with real and verified knowledge of the investigation.

We have learned Mr. Mason and Mr. Baez both blame the prosecution for the legalities requiring the defense to depose Category A witnesses.

We have learned Mr. Mason and Mr. Baez feel they are wasting their time and money complying with the law in their defense of Casey Anthony.

Is Jose Baez a Slow Learner?

On January 19, 2011, defense attorney Jose Baez filed his third motion requesting additional investigative hours be approved by the court.  The motion may be found at the following link.

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/High-Profile-Cases/Anthony/Downloads/Third%20Motion%20For%20Additional%20Hours%20of%20Investigation.pdf

Prior to the filing of this motion, Judge Perry has advised Mr. Baez and his co-counsel Mr. Mason on more than one occasion the court will only approve hours for which adequate justification is submitted.  In order for the court to approve any additional investigative hours, the court must review specific details of how the hours are to be used.  In the last hearing on this issue, the judge found many of the requested hours were for tasks which cannot be paid by the state under hours for investigation.  The judge also made comments about the state not providing funding for “fishing expeditions”.

In order to determine if Mr. Baez learned the lesson the judge has been attempting to teach while ruling on the previous two requests, we will examine the following quote from the current motion.

“4. Furthermore, the State has filed 18 Notice of Provision of Supplemental Discovery, which includes more than 9,600 pages and 165 audio files of discovery, all of which need to be reviewed and investigated by the defense.”

“the State has filed 18 Notice of Provision of Supplemental Discovery” – The State has followed the standard court procedures and filed discovery.  We assume “Notice” should have been plural.

“which includes more than 9,600 pages and 165 audio files of discovery” – This is a description of the discovery.  Mr. Baez is attempting to persuade the court the number of pages and audio files is extreme.

“all of which need to be reviewed and investigated by the defense.” – “all of which” refers to the discovery, all of the discovery filed since May 7, 2010.  The defense is admitting they have neither reviewed nor investigated any discovery which was filed later than May 7, 2010.  Mr. Baez is also implying the previous two requests for investigative hours did not include any hours to investigate any of this portion of the discovery.

Mr. Baez fails to provide any details as to the exact areas of the discovery filed between May 7, 2010 and January 19, 2011 which must be “investigated”.  It is reasonable for the court to assume the discovery must be “reviewed”, but a review does not require investigative hours.  It is not reasonable for the court to assume all of the discovery must be “investigated”.  Mr. Baez must demonstrate to the court the need for investigation, which this motion fails to do.

We have learned Mr. Baez has an expectation the court will approve additional investigative hours based upon his personal non-review of the discovery, some of which has been available to him in excess of six months.

We have learned Mr. Baez is a procrastinator who is not up-to-date as to the state’s case against his client.

We have learned Mr. Baez has not grasped the instructions given to him by the court or he is unwilling to comply.

We have learned the odds against Mr. Baez being granted his full request of 300 additional hours are staggering.

Did Cheney Mason Smile for the Camera?

Co-counsel in the defense of Casey Anthony, Cheney Mason, filed a motion on December 30, 2010, concerning “super telephoto” camera equipment along with accusations of illegal activity by the court photographer.  Mr. Mason’s motion may be found at the following link.

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/High-Profile-Cases/Anthony/Downloads/Motion%20to%20Restrict%20in%20Court%20Photography%20-%20Videoing.pdf

“5. At another recent hearing, defense counsel observed what, in good faith, was believed to be a further attempt by the still camera photographer, using such super telephoto equipment, to discover a note being written by the Defendant to her counsel.”

“At another recent hearing” – Mr. Mason references an unspecific time frame.  Which “recent hearing”?  “Another” indicates Mr. Mason is referring to multiple hearings within his motion, but fails to specify the date and time of any of them.  Mr. Mason makes his claims difficult to verify by avoiding identification of specific hearings.

“defense counsel observed what” – “What” is the action “defense counsel”, who we assume to be Mr. Mason but could be Mr. Baez, “observed”.

“in good faith” – Mr. Mason inserts an extra phrase.  How does “good faith” play a part in Mr. Mason’s recounting of events he witnessed?  On whose part is the “good faith” invoked?  Mr. Mason is stating his account as written in this motion is done is authored by him in “good faith”.  Mr. Mason is assuring the court the accusation he is making against the still photographer is honest.  If a seasoned attorney well-known to the court feels he must provide assurance he is not lying, is he comfortable with his claims?

“was believed to be” – Mr. Mason states what he “believed” to be the purpose of the actions of the still camera photographer.  Mr. Mason “believed”, but no longer believes.  He is relaying his initial thought, not his current one.

“a further attempt by the still camera photographer” – Although Mr. Mason has failed to provide any proof of a previous violation by the still camera photographer, he attempts to bolster his current claim by labeling it a “further attempt”, implying such an “attempt” has been previously made.

“using such super telephoto equipment” – The “telephoto equipment” is sensitive to Mr. Mason as he adds the word “super” repeatedly throughout the motion.  There is nothing “super” about the “telephoto equipment”.  The “equipment” is designed to magnify the image to be recorded by the camera.  The level of magnification depends upon the quality and manufacture of the lens and the choice of the operator.  A lens which captures images of increased magnification is not “super” compared to other lenses, it simply magnifies to a greater degree.  Mr. Mason is implying the photographer is utilizing equipment other than what would be used in any other court setting, therefore purposely laboring to violate the rights of Miss Anthony.

“to discover a note being written by the Defendant to her counsel” – Mr. Mason assigns an immoral and illegal motivation to the photographer.  Mr. Mason cannot know the mind of the photographer nor does he offer any proof as to his claim of the man’s thoughts.  Is it not possible the photographer was attempting to take photographs of Mr. Mason and his client as is his job?  If the photographer was attempting to discover, then he did not discover.  If he did not discover, how does Mr. Mason know he was attempting to discover?

When this issue was heard in court, Mr. Mason was unable to produce a photograph of sufficient resolution for any notes to be read.  If such a photograph existed and others in the media and blogs were able to read the notes, why did Mr. Mason arrive at court unprepared to defend his motion with proof?

We have learned if Mr. Mason ever believed, he no longer believes the accusations of wrong-doing he makes against the court photographer in this motion.

We have learned Mr. Mason is sensitive and concerned about the telephoto lenses utilized by the court photographer even though he rarely shies away from the post-court media who utilize similar equipment and video cameras.

We have learned Mr. Mason despite his often-referenced experience and longevity in his profession, despite his many years trying cases in the Orlando court system, despite his friendly remarks and jovial attitude toward the judge, must assure the court he is not lying in his written documents by including phrases like “in good faith”.

Is Jose Baez living the “Bella Vita”?

On December 30, 2010, Kissimmee attorney Jose Baez filed a flurry of motions in defense of Casey Anthony.  One motion dealt with a tattoo his client had inked to her shoulder during the month Caylee Anthony was missing, but unreported to police.  The motion may be found at the following link.

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/High-Profile-Cases/Anthony/Downloads/Motion%20in%20Limine%20&%20Memorandum%20of%20Law%20to%20Exclude%20Tattoo.pdf

“2. Since Miss Anthony’s arrest, the media and popular blogs have repeatedly published stories regarding her tattoo.  These stories have led to an outpouring of prejudice and contempt from potential jurors.  If the Prosecution introduced this evidence at trial, a substantially similar response will be provoked.”

“Since Miss Anthony’s arrest” – Mr. Baez limits his statement to the time period following Miss Anthony’s arrest, but does not specify which arrest.

“the media and popular blogs” – Order is important.  “Media” is more important to Mr. Baez than “blogs”.  However, the “blogs” are sensitive and limited to those which are “popular”.  The popularity of the blog is a factor in its importance to Mr. Baez.  Unpopular blogs are not an issue.

“have repeatedly published” – The key concern for Mr. Baez is not limited to the publishing by “the media and popular blogs”, but the repeated publishing.  The tattoo is a “popular” topic on the “blogs”.

“stories regarding her tattoo” – Mr. Baez characterizes what “the media and popular blogs” publish as “stories”, a word which tends to describe fictional accounts such as soap operas and novels.  Miss Anthony’s purchase of a tattoo which reads “Bella Vita”, Italian for “Good Life”, during the time frame in which her daughter was missing and Miss Anthony claimed to be conducting an investigation into her disappearance is not a story.  It is fact.  The tattoo is a fact.  The tattoo exists.  The tattoo is not fictional.  The information published by “the media and popular blogs” is not fiction.

“These stories have led to an outpouring of prejudice and contempt” – Mr. Baez re-emphasizes the word “stories” by repeating it.  Mr. Baez blames “these stories”, the published accounts by “the media and the popular blogs” of the tattoo, for “an outpouring of prejudice and contempt”.  Mr. Baez shifts the responsibility from his client for her actions which cause others who are told about them to react with “prejudice and contempt” to those who tell the world, publish, Miss Anthony’s actions in written form.  “These stories” do not cause “an outpouring” as Mr. Baez claims.  Miss Anthony’s behavior after the disappearance and, most likely, death of her daughter causes “an outpouring”.

“from potential jurors” – Mr. Baez limits the “outpouring of prejudice and contempt” to “potential jurors”.  Those who read the “stories”, but who have no “potential” to be on the jury do not react with an “outpouring of prejudice and contempt”.  However, Mr. Baez appears to be confused about the jury selection process as it is designed to eliminate any who reacted with an “outpouring of prejudice and contempt”.  Therefore, those who reacted with an “outpouring of prejudice and contempt” are not “potential jurors”.

“If the Prosecution introduced this evidence at trial, a substantially similar response will be provoked” – Mr. Baez claims jurors who have not read published “stories” will “be provoked” in a “similar” manner to an “outpouring of prejudice and contempt” when told about Miss Anthony’s purchase of a tattoo which screams to the world of her satisfaction with life at a time when her daughter was no longer a burden to her.  Mr. Baez is acknowledging that twelve normal citizens chosen as a jury of Miss Anthony’s peers will feel contempt for Miss Anthony when they learn she celebrated her daughter’s removal from her life.  The jury will not be responsible for their reaction as they will have been “provoked”.  Is the jury’s reaction to Miss Anthony’s behaviors a valid legal reason to keep knowledge of her behaviors from the jury?

We have learned Mr. Baez knows normal people do not celebrate the death or disappearance of loved ones with permanent messages tattooed on their bodies which declare their love for life.

We have learned Mr. Baez is aware normal people such as those who will compose a jury will not react with favor to knowledge Miss Anthony purchased a tattoo stating her life was beautiful within days of her daughter’s disappearance.

We have learned Mr. Baez will not introduce the topic of the tattoo at trial, but fears the moment when the prosecution does.

Special Reader Activity:

Mr. Baez requested five numbered points from the court at the end of his motion.

“4. Further, Miss Anthony requests that, should such an offer be made, or hearing held.”

Readers, here is an opportunity to test your Bullstopper skills by answering the following questions:

1. Is numbered request 4 a full sentence?

2. To what does “that” refer?

3. Does Mr. Baez proofread any of his legal documents?

4. What is Mr. Baez requesting?

5. Will Judge Perry have any idea what Mr. Baez is requesting?

Who Is Confused, the Prosecution or Mr. Mason?

In an attempt to salvage the future career of his current partner in the defense of Casey Anthony, Orlando attorney Cheney Mason filed a motion concerning the lifting of sanction on January 11, 2011.  Mr. Mason’s motion may be found at the following link.

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/High-Profile-Cases/Anthony/Downloads/Def.%20Mot.%20For%20Reconsideration%20of%20the%20Courts%20Order%20Granting%20States%20Mot.%20For%20Sanctions%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20&%20Request%20to%20Vacate%20Fining%20of%20Contempt.pdf

“3. Not withstanding the foregoing obvious confusion as to this Court’s Order, and the invitation by the defense (Mr. Baez) to call with any questions, the prosecution failed to make any further inquiry, whatsoever, prior to filing the “Motion for Clarification/to Compel Compliance with Order for Additional Discovery”, the same being dated December 1, 2010.  It is clear that, at this point, the defense was in, not just substantial, but full compliance with that which had previously been ordered by this Court.”

“Not withstanding the foregoing obvious confusion as to this Court’s Order” – Mr. Mason is of the school of thought more words equals better motions.  This phrase is meaningless, but attempts to convince the Court there was “obvious confusion”.  If the “confusion” was truly “obvious”, there would be no need to describe it as such, indicating “confusion” is sensitive.  The “confusion” existed only on the side of the defense as the prosecution and Court were clear as the to the intent of the order.

“Not withstanding” – A confusing word choice, at best.  “Withstanding” means to offer resistance or to remain unaffected.  Therefore, “not withstanding” means to offer no resistance or to be affected.

“and the invitation by the defense (Mr. Baez) to call with any questions” – This is another item Mr. Mason claims the prosecution is “not withstanding”.  Mr. Mason finds it important to define “the defense” as “Mr. Baez”.  Mr. Mason extended no “invitation” to the prosecution to “call with any questions”.  Only Mr. Baez invited, not Mr. Mason.

“the prosecution failed to make any further inquiry” – The crux of this sentence is “the prosecution failed”, insinuating the prosecution had a duty to “call” the defense “with any questions”, a duty which they “failed” to perform.  The prosecution is not and has never been required to call the defense about their non-compliance with court orders.  This is a lie first spouted by Jose Baez during his long wail during a recent court hearing and now disseminated by Mr. Mason in an official court document.  The prosecution did not fail.  If the prosecution had failed, why was the court ordered sanction against the defense?

“any further inquiry, whatsoever” – The words “any further”, beyond indicating sensitivity to “inquiry”, define the fact there were prosecution inquiries made to the defense.  In other words, the prosecution did “call with any questions” or sent follow-up e-mails or communicated with the defense in another manner.  There cannot be “further” inquiries unless there were initial inquiries.  “Whatsoever” is the third unneeded word used to describe the extremely sensitive “inquiry”.  How many inquiries does Mr. Mason feel the prosecution is required to make of the defense before they have “failed to make any further inquiry”?

“Not withstanding the foregoing obvious confusion as to this Court’s Order, and the invitation by the defense (Mr. Baez) to call with any questions, the prosecution failed to make any further inquiry, whatsoever,” – This entire passage states the prosecution failed because they did not withstand the “obvious confusion” or the “invitation by the defense”.  In other words, the prosecution did not call the defense with “any further inquires” because they were both confused and invited to do so.  If this does not make sense, please take it up with Cheney Mason.

“the defense was in” “full compliance” – This is the claim conveyed by Mr. Mason in the next sentence.  All else is smoke and mirrors designed to draw attention away from the deception of this claim.

“It is clear that” – If it truly “is clear”, would it be necessary to state such?  “That” distances Mr. Mason from the claim “the defense was in” “full compliance”.

“at this point” – Mr. Mason limits his claim of “full compliance” to a single “point” in time, a “point” which is comfortable for Mr. Mason.

“not just substantial” – The defense was in something other than “just substantial” compliance, something which could be less or more than “substantial” as “just” is meaningless, an extra word indicating the sensitivity of “substantial”.

“but full compliance with” – Mr. Mason weakens his assertion of “full compliance” by going on to further limit exactly “with” what the defense was in “full compliance”.

“that which had previously been ordered by this Court” – “That” distances Mr. Mason from this claim.  “Previously been ordered” indicates a specific order prior to the current order.  If Mr. Mason and Mr. Baez were in full compliance, why did Judge Perry find they did not fulfill the intent of the first order and clarify with a second?  Did not Judge Perry grant the defense the benefit of the doubt as to “confusion” and offer them not only a clarification, but an extended deadline to comply?  Why is Mr. Mason addressing the first order when he is asking for sanctions to be lifted in conjunction with the second order?

We have learned Mr. Mason uses extra words which he believes sound professional, but which actually define his areas of sensitivity.

We have learned Mr. Mason does not want anyone to believe he invited the prosecution to call with any questions.

We have learned Mr. Mason is liberal in his use of the term “full compliance”.

We have learned Mr. Mason wishes to confuse the issue of the sanction and the order from which it originated with other orders which no longer apply as they have been clarified.