During a hearing on February 4, 2011, defense attorney Jose Baez defended his blatant refusal to follow court orders in a long-winded, rambling, verbal assault against the prosecution and the futility of the orders previously entered by the court in regards to deadlines for the submission of expert reports. The verbal nonsense of Mr. Baez may be heard at the following link.
http://www.wftv.com/video/26750720/index.html
Jose Baez: “Well, I… I can answer the court’s questions. I’m really not concerned with Ms. Reich’s tweets. Counsel can keep that. Uhh… she is traveling out of the country. I cannot control if she travels and goes out of the country. Now, as far as the times she was present, I made multiple attempts and I did reach her and I did speak with her. But, upon speaking with her, and I’ve spoken with a couple of experts as we’ve been preparing these reports and I’ve been working with getting them information, I have information that I would like to share with these experts because the state is attempting to, and this has been shown through some of the depositions the state is taking, is they are trying to get experts from one field, one forensic area, to accept those opinions from another state expert in another area. And there’s been a conflict as to whether that’s a proper thing to do or not. And these are the things I’d like to be able to get with the experts together so we can actually discuss it. If… if Professor, I’m sorry, if… uhhh… Kathi Reichs… Dr. Reichs is an issue, I will make all efforts to contact her in… in Tahiti and to ensure that she… that she puts something quickly together as some of the state’s experts have. It’s… it’s not an issue of a comprehensive report because many of the reports that the state’s given us is, for example one is a one-line… a one sentence e-mail and… and Mr. Ashton considers that a report. So, I… I can certainly ask her to put a one sentence or two sentence e-mail, but however if she comes up with new opinions upon meeting with her and which I plan to do with other experts, it… we’re going to have an issue where I want to be able to give that discovery to the state and why go through it twice. And that’s the only reason I ask for the additional time. I think it would be redundant to do it otherwise. But if the court prefers that, I’ll get on the phone, I’ll have her send me an e-mail with… with some outlines of her current opinions pending future… uhhh… future information and we’ll take it that way. Again, this is all… this is all for naught because I… I certainly believe that upon having additional information she’s going to have other opinions. So why do this twice? And that’s the only reason I asked for those limited experts, and we’re talking about three experts here.”
“I’m really not concerned with Ms. Reich’s tweets.” – Just prior to these remarks, the prosecution submitted a print-out of Kathi Reich’s tweets in support of their position she was available prior to the deadline for report submissions, therefore she could have produced her report before she left the country on vacation. Mr. Baez states he is “not concerned”, but adds the extra word “really” which indicates he is attempting to minimize the concern he feels about the prosecution going to such levels to research his possible excuses they arrive at court prepared with documentation his expert was available.
“Counsel can keep that” – Mr. Baez returns his copy of his expert’s tweets to the prosecution in a theatrical attempt to demonstrate he is “really not concerned”.
“Now, as far as the times she was present, I made multiple attempts and I did reach her and I did speak with her.” – Mr. Baez spoke with his expert prior to her leaving the country, but what did he say to her? Did he tell her to prepare a report? Or did he tell her not to?
“But, upon speaking with her, and I’ve spoken with a couple of experts as we’ve been preparing these reports and I’ve been working with getting them information, I have information that I would like to share with these experts” – Mr. Baez changes the topic from the report which has not been submitted by Ms. Reichs by speaking about his conversations with “a couple of experts” which we assume refers to experts other than Ms. Reichs. Mr. Baez has been “working with getting them information”, but has not gotten them the information. Mr. Baez still has “information that I would like to share”, indicating he has not shared it yet. Mr. Baez has been speaking to experts about his desires to share information with them, but has not shared any information with them. Mr. Baez was ordered by the court to submit reports for all experts in December 2010, but after the deadlines for submittal in January 2011 have passed, and as late as early February 2011, Mr. Baez has not shared what he believes to be critical information needed by the experts to form their opinions. Mr. Baez, by his own admission in this statement, has made no efforts to secure the reports required by the court.
“because the state is attempting to, and this has been shown through some of the depositions the state is taking, is they are trying to get experts from one field, one forensic area, to accept those opinions from another state expert in another area.” – Mr. Baez blames “the state” for the fact he has not related the information he deems so important to his experts. Mr. Baez claims the state’s relationship with state contracted experts interferes with his ability to communicate with defense experts. Mr. Baez has learned through state “depositions” some state experts may accept the opinions of experts in another field, much as a jury may accept opinions of state or defense experts in various fields. For instance, the state’s botanic expert may accept the opinion of the state medical examiner the duct tape was applied around Caylee Anthony’s head and jaw prior to the her death.
“And there’s been a conflict as to whether that’s a proper thing to do or not.” – If there has been a “conflict”, what are the sides and who are the opponents? Does Mr. Baez have a conflict with Mr. Mason about whether the defense should attack the state for state experts accepting the opinion of experts in another field? Since Mr. Baez is making this statement in open court, he would appear to be referring to a “conflict” between the defense and the prosecution. Since the conflict “has been”, a verb in the past tense, there is no current “conflict” about this issue. The “conflict” has been resolved. Since the “conflict” is in the past in the words of Mr. Baez, this “conflict” cannot be currently preventing him from communicating information to defense experts. The “conflict” is irrelevant at the time Mr. Baez makes this statement, which brings into question why Mr. Baez felt it necessary to mention. Most likely, Mr. Baez lost the “conflict” as he brings up an irrelevant topic, but does not crow about a personal win. It is possible Mr. Baez is telling the court none of the defense experts will agree with each other because to do so would be improper.
“And these are the things I’d like to be able to get with the experts together so we can actually discuss it.” – Mr. Baez explains he has ignored the deadlines imposed by the court because he desires to “actually discuss” the propriety of an expert in a specific field accepting the opinion of an expert in a different specific field, presumably about the different specific field in which the first expert is not an expert. “Discuss” is marked as sensitive by the extra word “actually” as there would be no other way to “discuss”. Mr. Baez feels physical proximity is required for discussion.
“If… if Professor, I’m sorry, if… uhhh… Kathi Reichs… Dr. Reichs is an issue” – Mr. Baez stumbles around a statement of his lack of submittal of a report by Ms. Reichs being “an issue”. Mr. Baez is aware “Dr. Reichs is an issue” as he is addressing the court which brought this “issue” to his attention and asked him to explain why it remained an “issue”. Mr. Baez suggests his non-compliance with a court order is a non-issue. Not only does Mr. Baez trip over the correct form of address for Ms. Reichs in this sentence, he changes from his earlier reference to her as “Ms. Reichs”.
“I will make all efforts to contact her in… in Tahiti” – Notice this is not a declaration or promise Mr. Baez will contact Ms. Reichs, instead he speaks only of “efforts to contact”, implying he will not be able to “contact” her and does not accept responsibility should he fail in his “efforts”.
“and to ensure that she… that she puts something quickly together as some of the state’s experts have” – Mr. Baez again attempts to shift responsibility for not submitting expert reports in accordance with the court’s order to the prosecution. The word “quickly” is a reference to haste, a concept with which Mr. Baez is closely acquainted. Mr. Baez claims the court is forcing his expert to act with haste despite the more than two months during which Mr. Baez failed to provide his expert with the information he feels she requires and the state’s experts acted with haste in the preparation of their reports.
“It’s… it’s not an issue of a comprehensive report” – Mr. Baez stumbles at the beginning, but this statement is true. Mr. Baez is correct in stating the “issue” is not a “comprehensive report”. The issue is Mr. Baez’s refusal to comply with the court’s mandate he submit all of his experts’ reports prior to the date of this hearing. The issue is also the motion Mr. Baez filed requesting an extension of the deadline, a motion he failed to calendar, then truthfully told the judge he did not believe it was calendared when the judge asked Mr. Baez to explain the reasoning for his request. Mr. Baez is capable of telling the truth when he feels it will suit his purposes.
“because many of the reports that the state’s given us is, for example one is a one-line… a one sentence e-mail and… and Mr. Ashton considers that a report” – Mr. Baez makes his own case worse by implying a one sentence e-mail from Ms. Reichs would have prevented this ridiculous assertion the reason Mr. Baez did not file a report from Ms. Reichs is because he was unable to convince her to send him a one sentence e-mail. Mr. Baez appears to be giving the reason “a comprehensive report” is not the “issue”, but is presenting reasons he feels it should be an “issue”.
“So, I… I can certainly ask her to put a one sentence or two sentence e-mail” – Mr. Baez does not promise to deliver an e-mail from Ms. Reichs, only “ask her”. He will not ask her to send him the e-mail, just to “put” it.
“but however if she comes up with new opinions upon meeting with her and which I plan to do with other experts” – This sentence fragment is exceptionally sensitive to Mr. Baez as he uses two words in a row which mean the same thing, “but” and “however”. Even though Ms. Reichs has examined the evidence, Mr. Baez feels her opinions will change and become “new” if he meets with her in person. Mr. Baez also plans to meet “with other experts”. Mr. Baez is telling the court the opinions of the defense experts, opinions which have been submitted in writing to the court, will change after he meets physically with each expert.
“we’re going to have an issue where I want to be able to give that discovery to the state and why go through it twice” – This is the first sentence in which Mr. Baez hints he may have a valid understanding of the consequences the defense will face by Mr. Baez’s refusal to comply with court orders. Mr. Baez anticipates “an issue” arising after he meets with his experts. The “issue” will be if the defense experts change their opinion based upon information which Mr. Baez may only convey in person, the court will not accept a change in their testimony despite Mr. Baez wanting “to be able to give that discovery to the state” due to the fact the deadlines for submission of such testimony will have passed. Mr. Baez has put himself into a position where he does not have the time to convince his experts their submitted opinions are incorrect. Mr. Baez attempts to state the problem is he does not wish to “go through it twice” with Ms. Reichs, yet he will be going through it twice with the other experts he plans to meet with in the near future.
“And that’s the only reason I ask for the additional time” – There are several indicators this sentence is a lie. “That’s” distances Mr. Baez from the claim of “the only reason”. “Reason” must be questioned because it is preceded by the extra word “only”. If it truly was the “only” reason, there would be no need to assure the court it is the “only” reason. The biggest indicator this sentence is a lie is we cannot be sure to what “only reason” Mr. Baez is referencing since he has spent the last several minutes describing several including his desire to meet with all the experts in person, his expectation the opinions of the experts will change once they hear the information he has not given them, his knowledge there will be an “issue” when he tries to introduce changed expert testimony, and his unwillingness to “go through it twice”. Which of these is the “only reason”? We do not know, but we do know this sentence is a lie. Mr. Baez has multiple reasons for asking for additional time. In addition to the lengthy list he has provided the court, he may have more.
“I think it would be redundant to do it otherwise” – Mr. Baez believes following the court’s order to submit expert reports “would be redundant”. Mr. Baez believes he has the power to determine which court orders must be obeyed and which can be ignored due to redundancy. Mr. Baez does not know if this is true, he “thinks” it is. Others, including Judge Perry, do not think the same.
“But if the court prefers that” – Mr. Baez acts as if he is waiting for the court to confirm the preference despite multiple court orders defining the deadline for submittal of Ms. Reich’s report as a date prior to the date of this hearing.
“I’ll get on the phone, I’ll have her send me an e-mail with… with some outlines of her current opinions pending future… uhhh… future information and we’ll take it that way” – Mr. Baez believes he can submit expert reports, write a sentence about “pending future information”, and change expert opinion testimony closer to or during trial. What does Mr. Baez mean by “future pending information”? According to his earlier statement, he is in possession of information which he has not communicated to his experts. There is nothing either “pending” or “future” about such information. If Mr. Baez withholds vital information from his experts so they were unable to include it in the submittal of their planned testimony, he cannot seriously expect the court to accept his determination to delay communications as a valid reason for a change of testimony after depositions by the prosecution have been conducted.
“Again, this is all… this is all for naught” – Mr. Baez believes the efforts of the court and the prosecution to convince him to comply with court orders “is all for naught”. Whether he complies or does not, Mr. Baez has announced he plans to change the testimony of his experts closer to trial and he does not stand by the reports he has filed to date, therefore all of the hearings and orders have been “for naught”.
“because I… I certainly believe that upon having additional information she’s going to have other opinions” – Mr. Baez stands by his belief his experts will be allowed to change their opinions despite a written report filed with the court.
“So why do this twice?” – This is Mr. Baez’s reasoning for not complying with court orders. He sees no reason to “do this twice”. He appears to have convinced himself the once he does it will be enough even if he misses all the deadlines.
“And that’s the only reason I asked for those limited experts” – The only reason Mr. Baez filed a request for additional time is because he personally does not want to have to “do this twice”.
“and we’re talking about three experts here” – Mr. Baez is sensitive about the number of experts in question as he refers to “limited” in the previous phrase, now defines the number as “three”. Mr. Baez feels he should be allowed to not comply with court deadlines if he complies with the majority of an order.
We have learned Mr. Baez feels court orders are merely suggestions, they do not need to be followed, and even if he follows them, he will introduce changed testimony after all deadlines have passed.
We have learned Mr. Baez believes by not communicating with his experts, he will be able to build additional delays into this trial.
We have learned Mr. Baez thinks he will be able to successfully blame the prosecution for his personal decisions and failures.
Bull Stopper Stops Bull 