On February 18, 2011, defense attorney Jose Baez wrote an e-mail to Judge Perry’s assistant detailing the reasons he feels the defense is not in violation of a court order issued verbally during a hearing on February 4, 2011, and clarified in a written order on February 7, 2011. The order may be read at the following link.
Judge Perry: “By February 17, 2011 at 4:00pm, defense counsel shall submit to the Court and State in writing, the specific issues that will be objected to in accordance with Frye, including, but not limited to, those objections previously addressed in the motions.”
“defense counsel shall submit to the Court and State in writing” – The order specifies the “defense counsel” must (“shall”) “submit” by the imposed deadline.
“including, but not limited to, those objections previously addressed in the motions” – The defense must submit in writing “those objections previously addressed in the motion”. This means even if “those objections” were included in a motion, they must be resubmitted as part of an all-inclusive list of Frye objectionable issues.
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26942318/detail.html
Jose Baez: “We are a bit confused. Mr. Ashton just asked me about my objections to Frye. When I read order from the status hearing. I understood it to mean that if we were objecting to anything not in our motion that it should be in writing, that was also my understanding as to what was discussed at the status hearing. I have also discussed the matter with Mr. Mason and he is just as confused if not more. Our objections are clearly laid out in our motions. If I had any other objections I would raise them after reading the State’s response but they have not filed one yet. If the Court is requesting that we do something additional we would like to be heard in chambers to clear up the matter. Otherwise I think the logical choice would be to wait until the State files their response, so that we can be even more specific as to the issues to be heard.”
“We are a bit confused” – Who is “we”? Mr. Baez is writing an e-mail from himself to the judge’s assistant, presumably for the judge to also read, but distances himself immediately from his statements by using the vague pronoun “we”. Mr. Baez claims he is not solely responsible for violating a court order.
“Mr. Ashton just asked me about my objections to Frye” – Most likely, Mr. Ashton did not ask Mr. Baez about “my objections to Frye” as the court order addresses the defense objections to specific scientific evidence which will be resolved in a Frye hearing. Surely, Mr. Baez is not objecting to Frye as this will be a vital avenue to excluding evidence from trial.
“When I read order from the status hearing.” – Mr. Baez writes an incomplete sentence and leaves out the word “the” before “order”. Mr. Baez may have written this e-mail in a hurry.
“I understood it to mean that if we were objecting to anything not in our motion” – Mr. Baez addresses his understanding of “it” which we presume to refer to “order”. Mr. Baez switches from the vague “we” to the specific “I”. Mr. Baez is not speaking for Mr. Mason. This is not how Mr. Mason “understood” the “order”. Since the order clearly stated “including, but not limited to, those objections previously addressed in the motions”, it is difficult for anyone else to understand how Mr. Baez “understood it to mean” only “anything not in our motion”.
“that it should be in writing” – Mr. Baez distances himself from writing new objections with the word “that”.
“that was also my understanding as to what was discussed at the status hearing” – Mr. Baez distances himself from both his previous statement and his claim of “my understanding” with the word “that”.
“I have also discussed the matter with Mr. Mason” – When did Mr. Baez discuss “the matter with Mr. Mason”? Before or after Mr. Ashton contacted Mr. Baez? Was not filing as required by the court order part of a defense strategy?
“and he is just as confused if not more” – In what way is Mr. Mason “more” “confused” than Mr. Baez? What is the source of Mr. Mason’s confusion? Is Mr. Mason confused by the interpretation of Mr. Baez? Is Mr. Mason confused by his co-counsel’s determination to violate multiple court orders as the trial approaches? For Mr. Baez, there are levels of confusion. He is at a certain level of confusion and Mr. Mason is on the same level (“just as”) or he has progressed to a greater level of confusion.
“Our objections are clearly laid out in our motions” – This has nothing to do with the current court order which specified another submittal despite any pleadings in prior “motions”, no matter how “clearly laid out”. Mr. Baez has dropped the specific “I” for a “we” which includes the “more” confused Mr. Mason.
“If I had any other objections I would raise them after reading the State’s response but they have not filed one yet” – Mr. Baez made a similar remark during the hearing, to which Mr. Ashton replied he was unable to provide a response because the defense had not submitted all of the discovery, specifically several expert reports which Mr. Baez has delayed for almost three months. Mr. Baez attempts to blame the “State” for his refusal to submit the required list of objections.
“If the Court is requesting that we do something additional we would like to be heard in chambers to clear up the matter” – By requesting an in-chamber hearing, Mr. Baez is not only attempting to build in further delay, but to keep his discussions over his non-compliance private and away from the courtroom cameras. Mr. Baez shows “the Court” in this statement he does not accept the Court’s authority by referring to the order as a request.
“Otherwise I think the logical choice” – Mr. Baez admits his suggestion is probably not “the logical choice” as only he thinks it is. Others will question his thinking and logic.
“would be to wait until the State files their response” – Mr. Baez prefers this option because he controls the discovery which determines when “the State” will be able to file “their response”.
“so that we can be even more specific as to the issues to be heard” – Mr. Baez claims the defense cannot be “specific” until the State files a response. Why is this so? Does Mr. Baez not know the “specific” issues he wishes to address based upon evidence examination and expert opinions? Is Mr. Baez unable to pick out the “specific” issues from the discovery filed by the State over the last two years even though Mr. Ashton can? Is Mr. Baez admitting he is an inferior attorney when compared with Mr. Ashton?
We have learned Mr. Baez stuck with his long-term pattern of blaming the State for his personal failings in this e-mail.
We have learned Mr. Baez believes Mr. Mason is more confused than himself, indicating Mr. Mason may not have the ability to understand complex matters as clearly as Mr. Baez.
We have learned Mr. Baez continues to struggle with writing full sentences and utilizing proper grammar and punctuation.
Bull Stopper Stops Bull 