Do Any of the Defense Attorneys for Casey Anthony Understand the Purpose of the Various Hearings of a Capital Case or When and Why to File a Motion?

On March 23, 2011, a Frye hearing dealing with a single hair which exhibited a dark band consistent with decomposition and found in the trunk of the Pontiac Sunbird driven and abandoned by the defendant was held to determine the general acceptance of the findings in the scientific community.  Defense attorney Dorothy Sims asked a series during cross-examination which significantly veered away from the purpose of the hearing.  An exchange between Ms. Sims and the court may be seen and heard at the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/user/S0meRand0mName#p/c/9E897E4FDA84A473/2/-b6JMPNVnFY

Dorothy Sims: “Alright.  Your Honor, if I may just briefly respond that this motion isn’t just a Frye hearing, there are other areas that we’re seeking to have this testimony excluded which includes… ”

After another sustained prosecution objection in a series of objections to irrelevant questions by the defense, Ms. Sims attempts to persuade the court the purpose of the Frye hearing is also to provide the defense an opportunity to exclude testimony from this witness from “other areas” which are not part of a Frye hearing.

“This motion isn’t just a Frye hearing” – Ms. Sims states “this motion”, a defense motion and one which she is close to, one which she is comfortable with as shown by the use of “this”, is not “just a Frye hearing”.  This is a true statement.  A “motion” is not a “hearing”, Frye or otherwise.  A “motion” is a “motion”.  A “motion” is a written pleading by either side in a case.  A “hearing” is a structured event which allows both sides to verbally plea their side of the issue to the court and which may or may not include relevant witness testimony.

Within her statement, Ms. Sims reveals two items with which she is not comfortable and verbally distances herself from with the use of the distancing word “that”.  She distances herself from the defense motion not being “just a Frye hearing”.  Although, as discussed, a motion is not a hearing and the statement is true, the distancing by Ms. Sims indicates she is aware she is trying to move beyond the scope of a Frye hearing as the underlying assumption the hearing should conform to the motion is flawed.  Ms. Sims is also disturbed by the fact “this testimony” will be used in “other areas” during trial.

Judge Perry: “Then you need to file another motion and we’ll hear it, but the purpose of these hearings which I set many, many months ago was to deal with a Frye hearing.  And I don’t know how many times I can say that.  These are Frye hearings.”

The judge again offers legal advice to the defense, just as he has on many occasions in the past.  It is apparent from the fact the court must instruct the defense when they need to file a motion, the defense is not aware of this on their own.  A lack of understanding about routine court matters such as when and why to file a motion demonstrates a frightening lack of legal knowledge on the part of the defense.

It is also apparent from the string of sustained objections and the court’s statement, “I don’t know how many times I can say that”, the defense does not understand the purpose or scope of a Frye hearing.  Such a lack of understanding significantly reduces their chances of a successful bid to suppress the findings of the expert in regards to hair banding indicating the presence of a dead body in the trunk of the car routinely driven by only the defendant during the time frame Caylee Anthony was missing, but unreported as missing to authorities.

We have learned understanding the purpose and need for motions, as well as the purpose and scope of various types of hearings, are not the particular strength of any member of the current defense team for Casey Anthony.  Since motions and hearings are extremely significant parts of the overall trial procedure, we cannot be sure exactly why any defendant would choose to use such a team as such a lack of understanding about basic court matters will most likely result in failure to defend the client from the charges.

We have learned we as spectators of the court proceedings are learning exactly as much about the law and legal procedures and at exactly the same speed as the defense team.

We have learned any average blogger may be able to defend Casey Anthony at least as successfully, if not more so, than the defense team led by Jose Baez simply by listening to the instructions and advice offered by the court.

Does Jose Baez Understand How to Legally Establish a Witness is Hostile?

During a court hearing on March 24, 2011, while questioning a police officer who worked with a cadaver locating canine in the search for Caylee Anthony in 2008, Mr. Baez attempted to declare the witness as adverse.  Ms. Burdick, the prosecutor, kindly interpreted Mr. Baez’s incorrect terminology to assume he was trying to establish the officer as a hostile witness, an declaration to which she objected.

A verbal exchange between Mr. Baez and the court, who requested Mr. Baez to explain the legal reasoning behind his request, may be heard and seen at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/video/27307453/index.html

Jose Baez: “I think the requirement would be that this witness may be called by the opposing party and is a witness of the opposing party, he’s on the opposing party’s witness list and should be considered an adverse slash hostile witness.”

The word “witness” appears four times in this short statement.  Mr. Baez is sensitive about this officer being a “witness”.  Although Mr. Baez is in the middle of a hearing in which the defense is trying to suppress the findings of the canine, a ruling which would result in this “witness” most likely not being called at trial, Mr. Baez states, “this witness may be called by the opposing party”.  Mr. Baez is stating he believes this “witness” will testify at trial, indicating Mr. Baez does not believe his bid to suppress will be successful.  Mr. Baez is contemplating a future, even as he continues to question the “witness”, in which this officer will deliver testimony devastating to the defense in trial.

The phrase “adverse slash hostile witness” indicates Mr. Baez is unwilling to accept the kindness of the prosecutor who attempted to assist him in his use of flawed legal terminology, much as Mr. Baez refuses the kindness of Bullstopper in regards to advice concerning the proper use of the English language.  According to Wikipedia, “A hostile witness is sometimes known as an adverse witness or an unfavorable witness.”  So, while it seems it may be acceptable to “sometimes” refer to a hostile witness as an “adverse witness”, it seems clear from Ms. Burdick’s attempt to preclude any confusion, the term “hostile” is more appropriate.  An attorney should understand the use and importance of specific words, especially those involved in his profession, as an attorney’s job revolves around the meaning behind each word.

Judge Perry: “Well, you haven’t established anything that shows he’s hostile.”

Again referencing Wikipedia, “A witness called by the opposing party is presumed hostile. A witness called by the direct examiner can be declared hostile by a judge, at the request of the examiner, when the witness’ testimony is openly antagonistic or clearly prejudiced to the opposing party.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_witness

In this instance, Mr. Baez is the direct examiner.  Mr. Baez called the witness.  Therefore, the witness is not “presumed hostile.”  Mr. Baez must show the officer’s testimony is “openly antagonistic or clearly prejudiced”.  Instead, Mr. Baez attempted to declare the witness hostile because he appears on the prosecution’s witness list.  Mr. Baez may not understand the legal ramifications of the defense calling a witness, no matter whose trial witness list on which they may appear, during a hearing.

Why would Mr. Baez wish to declare the witness hostile?

Again from Wikipedia, “A party examining a hostile witness may question the witness as if in cross-examination, thus permitting the use of leading questions.”

Mr. Baez does not possess the skill as a direct examiner to obtain the answers he wishes to be stated for the court record through the phrasing of his questions.  Mr. Baez feels he must lead the witness in order to accomplish his goals.

Jose Baez: “Oooookaaaaay… uhhh… now…”

Mr. Baez’s long, slow “Oooookaaaaay”, as well as his smirk and nervous laugh, indicates he does not understand why the judge is stating Mr. Baez did not establish “anything that shows he’s hostile”.  This points to a fundamental lack of knowledge on the part of Mr. Baez concerning the difference between direct and cross-examination.

Judge Perry: “So, objection will be sustained.”

Another loss for the defense due to the inexperience of lead counsel.

Jose Baez: “Can you read the last question back for me, please?”

Mr. Baez is so flustered by his loss, he has lost track of line of questioning, another sign of inexperience and poor planning.

We have learned Mr. Baez may not understand the legal subtleties involved when acting as the direct examiner as opposed to cross-examination, a lack of understanding which may cost Ms. Anthony her life.

We have learned Mr. Baez is terrified of the alerts of the canine to various evidence and locations throughout this investigation and believes they will be extremely damaging to his bid to win the freedom of Ms. Anthony, but does not believe he will be able to suppress the officer’s reports from trial.

We have learned anyone can learn what Mr. Baez doesn’t know from a one-minute trip to Wikipedia.

Does Jose Baez Ever Prepare for Court Proceedings?

Defense attorney Dorothy Sims found herself unprepared for the deposition of a defense expert witness on December 21, 2010.  An exchange between herself and prosecutor Jeff Ashton which revealed Ms. Sims had not been supplied with photographs taken by the expert and critical to the expert’s deposition testimony may be found at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27085544/detail.html

Dorothy Sims: “I don’t have those photos.  Is there any way I can get an e-mail of them?”

Jeff Ashton: “It’s a huge file.  I’m surprised Jose didn’t give them to you for this.  But no, it’s too big a file.”

We have learned lead defense counsel Jose Baez did not send his co-counsel the defense photographs which had been entered as evidence and around which the testimony of the deposition revolved.

We have learned even though Mr. Baez feels Ms. Sims’ participation is critical to a victory for the defense, he did not supply her with the bare minimum of material needed for her to succeed in her efforts.

We have learned Mr. Baez, the only defense attorney who made money from this case, left his pro-bono co-counsel out to dry.  Will he do the same for his client?

What Do the Stone Pavers Mean to Jose Baez?

During a deposition of botanist Jane Bock on February 12, 2011, defense attorney Jose Baez brought up the issue of stone pavers even though they had never been mentioned by the witness in response to any questions by the prosecution.  The statements of Mr. Baez may be read at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27085571/detail.html

Jeff Ashton: “I mean, I wasn’t there, but it appears from this photograph that the log was slightly raised above the ground, which you can’t really appreciate in the other photographs, but –”

It appears the remains of murdered Caylee Anthony were found in the vicinity of a fallen log, which the prosecution believes to have been at a higher elevation than the plastic bag full of human remains.  Part of the log appears in the photographs and by the statements of forensic investigators to have been raised off the ground.  Mr. Ashton’s statement is weak because of his admission he “wasn’t there”, but he clarifies he is relying upon the photographic evidence.

Jose Baez: “I think for clarification purposes, we should just make sure that the record’s clear that only a small portion of the tree or log is shown.  We don’t know if it’s propped up against something to make it in the air or –”

For some reason, Mr. Baez feels it is important to establish the log does not rise above the ground because of the slope of the land, but because it is “propped”.  He does this by introducing the the possibility it may be “propped up against something to make it in the air” and limiting his statement to only the photograph being shown at the time of the question, even though it was established hundreds to thousands of photographs of the crime scene exist as part of the evidence record.

Jeff Ashton: “My understanding… first of all, let me say this photograph is 196008.  My understanding from the crime scene technician is it’s not.  This is how it appeared.  The log is slightly above the ground at that particular point, I believe.”

Mr. Ashton catches on to the limiting of Mr. Baez’s statement to this particular photograph and states the number of the photo for the court record.

Jose Baez: “But if you can see on the very left, there are those stone pavers, the famous stone pavers there.”

Mr. Baez now introduces the “stone pavers, the famous stone pavers”.  Why does Mr. Baez believe the “stone pavers” are “famous”?  The pavers are only famous because the private investigator, Dominic Casey, searched the wooded area near the vicinity of the discovery site prior to the discovery looking for “stone pavers”.  Mr. Casey claimed he was told by a psychic the body would be found near “stone pavers”.  Now, Mr. Baez points out “stone pavers” were, in fact, near the body.

To review, Mr. Baez is telling the court “stone pavers”, the very “stone pavers” which his private investigator sought in the months prior to Caylee Anthony’s discovery, the “stone pavers” made famous by the release of the video of Mr. Casey’s search and his subsequent police interview, were found near the remains.  Mr. Baez is telling the court in no uncertain terms his private investigator did have knowledge of both the location of the body and the items in the immediate vicinity.  Does Mr. Baez believe his revelation will be helpful to the defense?  Does it not seem to verify Mr. Casey had knowledge about the crime scene he could only have obtained either directly or indirectly, perhaps through a defendant’s trusted attorney, from the person who placed the body at the location?

Jeff Ashton: “I’m not sure what that is.”

Mr. Ashton placed no significance on the “stone pavers” until they were brought up by Mr.Baez.  This may have been an official Jose Baez Moment of D’uh (my thanks to regular reader Zoe for this elegant turn of phrase).

Jose Baez: “I believe that’s what it is, from my review of the evidence.”

Mr. Baez insists these are the “famous stone pavers”, but qualifies his conclusion is based upon “my review of the evidence”, not his personal knowledge of items in the area gleaned from his client.  Oddly, Mr. Baez distances himself from the pavers with “that”, even though he broached this subject.

Jeff Ashton: “Okay.  Why are you saying this right now?”

Mr. Ashton is now intrigued by the reasoning behind Mr. Baez speaking about the “famous stone pavers” during a deposition revolving around plant life at the discovery site.  Mr. Ashton is most likely confused as to the botanical relevance of the “famous stone pavers”.  Is Mr. Baez trying to say the “famous stone pavers” were holding the log off the ground?

Jose Baez: “The reason is that you’re asking the witness to make a conclusion that the skull is underneath the tree or the log.”

Mr. Baez reveals he has no idea where Mr. Ashton is going with this line of questioning concerning the log.  Mr. Baez is attempting to refute a conclusion Mr. Ashton has not stated and does not plan to state.

Jeff Ashton: “No, no, no.  I wasn’t asking that at all.”

Jose Baez: “Let me finish for the court reporter.  And you’re making the assertion based on your research of the evidence that there is nothing propping up the tree or the log, and that’s all I want to make clear.  Of course, you’re free to ask the question however you want, but I don’t think that conclusion could be made by that photograph.”

Mr. Baez, the great interrupter, chides Mr. Ashton for not allowing him to “finish”.  It is of great importance to Mr. Baez to demonstrate something was propping up the log.  Why?  Again, Mr. Baez limits his statement to “that photograph”, a photo Mr. Baez distances himself from, a photo he does not like.  However, he also admits a conclusion the log is not propped up is “based on your research of the evidence”, not a single photograph.

Jeff Ashton: “No, no.  And I was indicating the evidence indicated, if I recall it correctly, is that, I believe, that the log is not moved here, that it is actually… I don’t want… it’s not under the log as if the log came down.  It’s just, it’s lower than the log was my understanding.  And I didn’t know if that was…”

In order for Mr. Baez to follow the course of the deposition, Mr. Ashton must break down his objective into simple terms.  “The log is not moved here”.  The log is in this position because this is where it came to rest in the course of it’s natural life cycle, not due to human interference.  There is a slope to the land which places the remains at a lower elevation than the log.

We have learned Mr. Baez is not able to perceive the direction or objective of a line of questioning by the prosecution, a professional failing also demonstrated during the most recent hearings.

We have learned Mr. Baez wants a jury to believe the log is propped up, perhaps to later argue the bag was not underwater.

We have learned the “famous stone pavers” are so important to Mr. Baez, he felt a need to point them out during a botanical evidence deposition even though they had nothing to do with either plants or propping up the log.

We have learned the private investigator employed by Mr. Baez sought the “famous stone pavers” and such pavers do exist, at least in the mind of Mr. Baez, near the site of the discovery of two-year-old Caylee Anthony’s earthly remains.

Does Jose Baez Think Before He Speaks?

During a hearing on March 3, 2011, defense attorney Jose Baez called to the stand an attorney who had worked at his firm and had interaction with Casey Anthony which is protected by the attorney-client privilege.  The questions of Mr. Baez for his employee can be heard at the following link.

http://www.youtube.com/user/S0meRand0mName#p/c/F7E3498AE219FD95/16/wKx-OT6XY0Q

Jose Baez: “Do you know if it revolved around a meeting with George Anthony and Casey Anthony?”

Gabriel Adam: “That sounds familiar.”

This is not an affirmative answer.  “That” distances Mr. Adam from his statement.  The word “familiar” is not an affirmation Mr. Baez’s question reflects reality.  Mr. Adam did not answer the question.

Jose Baez: “OK.  And on August 14, 2008, did Casey Anthony have a visit with George and Cindy Anthony?”

Gabriel Adam: “I believe there was one scheduled.  I… I cannot remember if it actually happened.”

Another song and dance resulting in a non-answer.  The word “believe” indicates this may or may not be true and is still open to question.  The word “actually” demonstrates a sensitivity to “happened”.  Mr. Adam does not want to state if the “visit” occured or not.

Jose Baez: “Do you recall if prior to that date that… we… that uhhh… that we had instructed Ms. Anthony to stop recieving visits from her family?”

Mr. Baez asks a question violating the attorney-client privilege of both his employee and Casey Anthony.  Mr. Baez is almost unable to verbalize this question.  The excessive use of the word “that” indicates a distancing from the instruction to Ms. Anthony to “stop receiving visits”.  A careful listener must ask if such an instruction had been given “prior to that date”, a “date” which is Mr. Baez again distances himself from with “that”, a sensitive “date”.

We have often seen Mr. Baez stutter and stammer on national television and in local news interviews.  It is understandable in a setting in which Mr. Baez is being asked questions for which he may not have been prepared for him to stumble and rephrase answers on the fly.  However, this is a court hearing.  Mr. Baez called this witness.  Mr. Baez had opportunity to plan his line of questioning in advance.  Mr. Baez could have written his question in the best possible format prior to entering the courtroom.  In other words, Mr. Baez could have adequately prepared for this hearing, but from the verbalization of this question, it is clear he did not.  Mr. Baez’s client and all defendants in the United States deserve an attorney who prepares their cases, strategies, and questioning in advance of the moment of truth.  Mr. Baez’s client does not have such an attorney.

Gabriel Adam: “I’m not really…”

Jose Baez: “If you recall.”

Gabriel Adam: “This is a tricky situation because I’m not really comfortable with answering questions that I… of things that I said to my client at the time.”

Mr. Adam demonstrates through his answer he is a superior attorney to Mr. Baez as Mr. Adam immediately recognizes the danger inherent for the client in this line of questioning.

Judge Perry: “Mr. Baez.”

Jose Baez: “We’re talking specifically about that.”

Mr. Baez verifies he also recognizes the danger to his client from his question and attempts to assure the court he knows what he is doing, even though he planned poorly for this moment.

Judge Perry: “You represented to the court that you were talking about a visit him being there with law enforcement and that’s where you were going.”

Jose Baez: “I am going there.”

Judge Perry: “Now what you are about to do and you need to think about it is you are asking questions about conversation between attorney client.  Remember the following.  You cannot use the attorney client privilege as a shield then turn around and open it up and use it as a sword.  Once you open it, it’s open.  So, you need to think long and hard about the questions you’re asking.”

Judge Perry is also concerned for the best interest of the defendant, going so far as to offer advice to Mr. Baez.

We have learned not only does Mr. Baez not think before he speaks, he does not prepare for court even when his desired line of questioning will open his client’s attorneys to questioning by the state about confidential defense matters.

We have learned Mr. Baez is not qualified to handle a defense of this magnitude, especially with the life of his client hanging in the balance.

Is Jose Baez the Stuttering Attorney Qualified to Insult the Verbalizations of Other Lawyers?

During a deposition in September 2010, defense attorney Jose Baez, a man who has proven himself time and again on national television and in court to be one of the worst public speakers in the Florida legal system, insulted the verbal choices of prosecutor Jeff Ashton.  The insult by Mr. Baez may be read at the following link.

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/march/219182/Heated-arguments,-insults-hurled-in-Case-against-Casey

Jose Baez: “Why must you scream in front of everyone, including the witness, who…”

Jeff Ashton: “Because you keep talking over me.”

Jose Baez: “No one is talking over you. You just screamed. You screamed like a little girl.”

“You just screamed” – Mr. Baez asserts Mr. Ashton “just screamed” which would indicate no words issued from the throat of Mr. Ashton.  “Just” appears to be a reference to time suggesting Mr. Ashton “screamed” directly before Mr. Baez question of “Why must you scream”.  Can “just” have both the meaning of “only” and specify a time frame?  Or is this double talk from Bullstopper?

The purpose of looking at the specific words and the multiple meanings behind each word is to understand words do have many meanings and our initial comprehension of a statement may not be correct.  We choose our spoken words in fractions of a second, with no time for reflection on the connotations of all the meanings of the word.  But we do know all the meanings when we subconsciously choose to verbalize the word.  So the question becomes, why this particular word with its specific set of multiple meanings instead of another synonym which would have a differing set of alternate meanings?

In this instance, why include the word “just” at all?  Were not all parties present at the time Mr. Ashton “screamed”?  Would there have been any confusion as to the time frame if Mr. Baez had not included the word “just”?  Would the impact of the statement “you screamed” be lessened by not inserting “just”?

“You screamed like a little girl” – Mr. Baez is not satisfied with his previous statement and must repeat himself.  However, he now leaves out the word “just”.  He must leave out “just” because he now asserts Mr. Ashton did not “just” scream, but “screamed like a little girl”.  Mr. Baez believes comparing the verbalization of Mr. Ashton to the verbalization of a “little girl” will embarrass Mr. Ashton.

We have learned Mr. Baez feels a need to respond to Mr. Ashton with insults and childish taunts rather than to remain on a professional level, most likely because Mr. Baez, as seen in his written motions, is unable to compete with Mr. Ashton within their chosen profession.

We have learned Mr. Baez would feel insulted if someone were to refer to him as a “little girl”.  Mr. Baez is sensitive about both his height, “little”, and his manliness, “girl”.

We have learned Mr. Baez does not mind making insincere statements in open court such as “I have a great deal of amount of respect for these prosecutors who sit here”.  Mr. Baez has such respect for “these prosecutors” he is able to refer to one of them as a “little girl” during a court recorded deposition.

Why Did Jose Baez Make George Anthony Cry?

In a hearing on March 3, 2011, defense attorney Jose Baez asked George Anthony a series of questions.  The exchange between Mr. Baez and Mr. Anthony may be heard and seen at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/video/27068800/index.html

Jose Baez: “Mr. Anthony, you loved your granddaughter more than anything in the world?”

George Anthony: “Yes.”

Jose Baez: “And you would have done anything to help find her?”

George Anthony: “Yes.”

Jose Baez: “And you love your daughter more than anything in the world?”

George Anthony: “Yes.”

Jose Baez: “And you would do anything to protect her?”

George Anthony: “Yes.”

Jose Baez: “She is your baby?”

George Anthony: “Yes.”

During this series of questions, Mr. Anthony visibly has an emotional breakdown and begins weeping as he answers.  Mr. Baez pounces on this emotional reaction by adding the extra question about Casey Anthony being his “baby”, which elicits further tears.

Despite his many poor choices which may have contributed to the ease with which Caylee Anthony went missing for more than a month with no one noticing and which have him vacillating from story to story, viewpoint to viewpoint, as he is asked identical questions over and over in court and interviews, the pain George Anthony feels is real.  Mr. Anthony’s tears are real.  Mr. Anthony agonizes over the events of the last two years and the upcoming trial.  Mr. Anthony feels helpless and adrift.  Although his decisions and actions may be debatable, the depth of his feelings and intensity of his pain cannot be questioned.  Anyone in Mr. Anthony’s position would be suffering through depression, anxiety, despair, and guilt beyond the scope of what many would even want to imagine.  It is important our opinions about Mr. Anthony’s behavior never be allowed to affect our compassion for his feelings.

The questions asked by Mr. Baez are spoken with few verbal stutters as he appears to be reading them, with the exception of the “baby” reference”, from a list of prepared queries.  Did Mr. Baez expect the emotional reaction he elicited from Mr. Anthony?

Once Mr. Anthony began to shed tears, Mr. Baez appears to approve of the reaction by continuing with the line of questioning.  The purpose of the defense seems to be to demonstrate if given an opportunity to become an agent of the state and given doing so would save Caylee Anthony’s life, Mr. Anthony would take the opportunity.

It is not clear how this helps the defense more than the prosecution as it also proves the state’s position Mr. Anthony would have done anything to save the life of Caylee Anthony including speaking to his daughter without the knowledge of Jose Baez.

We have learned Mr. Anthony would have done anything, other than call his daughter and check-up with her about the well-being of his granddaughter or contact the police after driving home his missing daughter’s car with the smell of death emanating from the trunk, to save the life of Caylee Anthony, whether those actions be as an agent of the state or as a private citizen.

We have learned Mr. Baez believes Mr. Anthony’s tears helped the defense in the decision to be made by the judge regarding striking statements Ms. Anthony made to Mr. Anthony in the early days of her incarceration.

How Much Sincerity Did Jose Baez Muster?

This article is the second to examine the apology offered by Jose Baez to Jeff Ashton in open court on Friday, March 4, 2011.  Mr. Baez may be seen and heard at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/video/27081023/index.html

Jose Baez: “I apologize directly to Mr. Ashton for any personal attacks I may have spoken to him both privately and publicly.  And because none of which… I think this an easy thing to do because it is something I agree with and believe and not because of prompting needed from anyone.  I have a great deal of amount of respect for these prosecutors who sit here.  I… I also admire their passion for their cause.  And I respect their intelligence and dedication to their work.  And many times over the last several years we have all butt heads privately and we’ve all agreed on many things privately and I just wanted to make it clear that unfortunate sometimes and… unfortunately because of the magnification of a case like this, the attention that these things get speculated on and dragged on and it is an ugly reflection of what we do in our profession and I think it’s my obligation to clear that up.  And I want the court to know with all the sincerity that I can muster, that this is truly what I believe and it is truly what I aspire to do each and every day that I carry out in this honorable profession of being a defense lawyer.  Thank you.”

“I apologize directly to Mr. Ashton for any personal attacks I may have spoken to him both privately and publicly” – Mr. Baez offers a limited apology to Mr. Ashton.  Mr. Baez does not apologize for any written “personal attacks”, only those “spoken”.  His listeners, including Judge Perry, may be aware the written retort from Mr. Baez in response to the prosecution’s filed objection to the defense’s most recent disregard for court orders were peppered with many insults to Mr. Ashton.  “Attacks” is limited to only those which were “personal”, professional attacks are not up for apology.  Even those these “attacks” were “personal”, they were “spoken” “both privately and publicly”.  What is the definition of “both privately and publicly”?  Is Mr. Baez saying he and Mr. Ashton spend time together “privately” and not connected to this case?  Or does “privately” refer to unrecorded phone calls?  Does “publicly” mean in front of other people or in the courthouse or on television?  The phrase “I may have spoken” is a sure sign of insincerity.  Mr. Baez offers an apology, yet denies knowledge of his actions which necessitated the need for the apology.  If Mr. Baez does not know for what he apologizes, how can anyone else?  “Spoken to him” limits the apology to only those “attacks” Mr. Baez verbalized directly to Mr. Ashton, therefore no apology is offered for anything Mr. Baez said about Mr. Ashton to the press or anyone else, either privately or publicly.  Much like a four-year-old who is sorry he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, but not sorry about the three cookies he wolfed down before being stopped, Mr. Baez seems far more contrite Mr. Ashton heard any “attacks” than he is about actually making the “attacks”.  Mr. Baez does not understand why he should be apologizing or the purpose of an apology.

“And because none of which…” – Mr. Baez begins to minimize the effect of any “attacks” which he may or may not have said directly to Mr. Ashton, but stops himself, visibly tripping over his words as he switches topics.

“I think this an easy thing to do because it is something I agree with and believe and not because of prompting needed from anyone” – Mr. Baez believes it is “easy” to apologize to Mr. Ashton for three reasons, listed in the order of importance to Mr. Baez.  First, Mr. Baez agrees with his own course of action.  It is most important to Mr. Baez for the court to understand Mr. Baez agrees with himself.  If there is anyone in the world who Mr. Baez is not in disagreement with over his treatment of Mr. Ashton, it is himself.  Mr. Baez is his own cheerleader.  Of next most importance is reason number two, Mr. Baez believes in apologizing to Mr. Ashton.  Did Mr. Baez also “believe” the best course of action earlier was to insult Mr. Ashton “both privately and publicly”?  Finally, Mr. Baez apologizes to Mr. Ashton “not because of prompting” from another party who shall remain naMASONless.

“I have a great deal of amount of respect for these prosecutors who sit here” – Mr. Baez has “a great deal of amount of” something which causes him so much verbal consternation he mangles a simple phrase like “a great deal of” by mixing in additional unneeded words.  Somebody is sensitive to stating aloud his alleged “respect” for “these prosecutors”.  Mr. Baez sees “these prosecutors” as people “who sit here”, not as “these prosecutors” who have done admirable work for the state in preparing this case in a professional manner.

“And many times over the last several years we have all butt heads privately and we’ve all agreed on many things privately” – Mr. Baez wants the court to know he and the prosecutors do a lot of things “privately”, a word which now appears three times in the course of a few sentences.

“it is an ugly reflection of what we do” – Mr. Baez states what “we do” is to speculate and drag things on.  Although Mr. Baez contends the media mirrors this in their reporting and in so doing make it “ugly”, the news reports are a “reflection” of the business of a defense attorney, specifically Mr. Baez.

“And I want the court to know with all the sincerity that I can muster” – Mr. Baez states he is not sincere, so he must “muster” “sincerity”.  One either is or is not sincere, one cannot “muster” “sincerity”.

“that this is truly what I believe and it is truly what I aspire to do each and every day that I carry out in this honorable profession of being a defense lawyer” – Mr. Baez ends with a sentence of such jumbled references, no one can be sure what he is saying.  What is it Mr. Baez “truly” believes and is “truly” aspiring to do?  From the grammatical construction of the paragraph, the most likely reference is Mr. Baez’s obligation to clear up the ugly media reflection of his own life.

We have learned Mr. Baez should leave mustering to military professionals and stick to mustarding his baloney sandwiches while he ruminates on methods of clearing up the ugly media coverage of his personal foreclosures and failures to pay invoices.

Is the Defense’s Disregard of a Court Order a Misunderstanding?

In open court on March 4, 2011, the defense team for Casey Anthony acknowledged their decision to comply with a recent court order.  Lead defense attorney Jose Baez spoke at length to the court.  His comments may be seen and heard at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/video/27081023/index.html

Jose Baez: “I want to clear up any possible misunderstandings which may have arisen as a result of this issue.  And I do so before this court, this honorable court, as a lawyer.  That I would never disregard an order that your honor would issue in a case like this, or any case for that matter.  While I have been before your honor several times, I think the court has had sufficient opportunity to see I’m an advocate and I believe in what I’m doing as a defense lawyer.  And I am an officer of the court.  Many times in the course of a lawyer fulfilling his passion and that which I believe you cannot do this job unless you have.  Sometimes a lawyer’s advocacy takes over for his professional judgment.  I apologize directly to Mr. Ashton for any personal attacks I may have spoken to him both privately and publicly.  And because none of which… I think this an easy thing to do because it is something I agree with and believe and not because of prompting needed from anyone.  I have a great deal of amount of respect for these prosecutors who sit here.  I… I also admire their passion for their cause.  And I respect their intelligence and dedication to their work.  And many times over the last several years we have all butt heads privately and we’ve all agreed on many things privately and I just wanted to make it clear that unfortunate sometimes and… unfortunately because of the magnification of a case like this, the attention that these things get speculated on and dragged on and it is an ugly reflection of what we do in our profession and I think it’s my obligation to clear that up.  And I want the court to know with all the sincerity that I can muster, that this is truly what I believe and it is truly what I aspire to do each and every day that I carry out in this honorable profession of being a defense lawyer.  Thank you.”

Jeff Ashton: “I accept your apology.”

“I want to clear up any possible misunderstandings which may have arisen as a result of this issue” – Mr. Baez acknowledges “misunderstandings” which are sensitive to him as marked by the extra words “any possible”.  Mr. Baez states more “misunderstandings” may exist than those which are readily apparent as he addresses all “possible”.  Mr. Baez does not want to apologize for any misunderstandings, just “clear” them “up”.  Mr. Baez is addressing a higher power, the judge of the court, and is asking he who is “up”, of a greater authority than Mr. Baez, to “clear” him for his actions.

“And I do so before this court, this honorable court, as a lawyer” – Mr. Baez states he is clearing “up” “before this court”, which is the higher power, “up” from Mr. Baez, who does not feel it important to state he is clearing “up” anything in front of Mr. Ashton, even though it is Mr. Ashton who has been insulted by the defense.  Mr. Baez indicates he is a “lawyer”, implying his declarations are of greater worth than statements by someone not a “lawyer”.  Mr. Baez feels his position confers respect upon him, he does not need to earn it through his actions.

“That I would never disregard an order that your honor would issue in a case like this” – Mr. Baez employs tricky language to avoid stating what he has done in this “case”.  This is not a statement of Mr. Baez’s past actions or a denial for anything previously done.  Mr. Baez states he “would never”, not he has never.  A double use of “that” distances Mr. Baez from both his ability to “disregard an order” and the issuance of an order by “your honor”.  Mr. Baez limits his statement to “a case like this”, specifically excluding this case and what he has done in this case.

“or any case for that matter” – Mr. Baez understands his previous statement is so limited, no one can believe he refers to the case at hand, so he attempts to broaden his declaration to “any case”, which is sensitive as marked by the meaningless phrase “for that matter”.

“While I have been before your honor several times” – The use of “while” is interesting because it denotes a conflict between it’s internal declaration and the statement preceding or following.  Here, Mr. Baez is stating he has “been before your honor” more than once with “while” noting it was not connected to either his claimed unwillingness to “disregard an order” or the court perceiving he believes in what he is “doing as a defense lawyer”.  The “several times” Mr. Baez references he was “before your honor” seems to refer to previous “times” Mr. Baez has stood before the court for chastisement over his disregard for court orders, even though such disregard is something he would “never” do.

“I think the court has had sufficient opportunity to see I’m an advocate” – Suddenly, Mr. Baez is no longer a “lawyer”, he is an “advocate”.  Why does Mr. Baez make a specific statement about addressing the court as a “lawyer”, only to change his occupation a few sentences later?  Is Mr. Baez considering and training for alternate career options?  It is extremely confusing for “the court” who Mr. Baez wants to view him as both a lawyer and an advocate.

“and I believe in what I’m doing as a defense lawyer” – This is not a statement about Mr. Baez’s belief system, instead it is how Mr. Baez desires “the court” “to see” in him.  This is not a statement Mr. Baez believes in what he is “doing”.  This is a statement Mr. Baez hopes Judge Perry perceives his motives to be pure, a hope Judge Perry states is granted during his post-defense apology wrap-up.  The identity crisis continues as Mr. Baez is now doing things as a “defense lawyer”, but he does these things because he is an “advocate”.

“And I am an officer of the court” – Mr. Baez forms a third personality, this one “an officer of the court”.  Mr. Baez wears different hats, some may fit a wee bit too tight.  Mr. Baez implies his actions may be beyond reproach due to his station.

“Many times in the course of a lawyer fulfilling his passion” – Mr. Baez verbalizes the second of two sentence fragments, unable to complete an entire thought for unknown reasons.  For Mr. Baez, a “lawyer” does not fulfill his duties, but his “passion”.  “Passion” is an extremely interesting word for Mr. Baez, the “lawyer” for a woman he has been publicly scolded for excessive physical contact in official settings as well as seen cuddling on television, to use when referring to his pure motives for working on a case for which he no longer receives financial reward.

“and that which I believe you cannot do this job unless you have” – Another sentence fragment, another partial thought.  The word “that” distances Mr. Baez from his statement of belief in the necessity of “passion” to “do” a “job” which is close to Mr. Baez as seen by the use of “this”.  Most likely, Mr. Baez has completed during his career at least some of his non-Anthony related work without “passion”.

“Sometimes a lawyer’s advocacy takes over for his professional judgment” – This statement is an admission by Mr. Baez some of his actions in connection to the matter at hand, Mr. Baez’s failure to follow a court order and his later childish statements insulting Mr. Ashton and submitted in a court document, were not made with “professional judgment”.  In other words, the actions of Mr. Baez were unprofessional.  The first part of the sentence is a rationalization meant to justify his unprofessional behavior, which calls into question the sincerity of any apology to follow.

We have learned Mr. Baez has expectations and desires for how the court should view him.

We have learned Mr. Baez does not deny he ignored a court order.

We have learned Mr. Baez may be confused as to his profession.

Did Jose Baez Have Any Intention of Cooperating with the Prosecution?

On February 20, 2011, Mr. Baez sent an e-mail to the prosecution detailing his intent in regards to cooperation.  His e-mail may be read at the following link as part of a motion Mr. Baez later filed.

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/High-Profile-Cases/Anthony/Downloads/Motion%20to%20Strike%20the%20State%20of%20Floridas%20Motion%20For%20Rule%20To%20Show%20Cause.pdf

“Mr. Ashton:
I have attached a Notice of objection to assist you.  Should you have any further questions please email them to me and we will do our best to answer them.  It is my intent to attempt to work with you as best as possible, so that all hearings can proceed smoothly and be decided on the law and not on any posturing done by either side.
Sincerely,
Jose A. Baez”

“I have attached a Notice of objection to assist you” – Mr. Baez implies the defense has complied with the order of the court in regards to the submittal of possible Frye issues and any further complaints Mr. Ashton may have should be settled by the prosecution filing a Notice of Objection.

“to assist you” – Mr. Ashton began this exchange with a phone call inquiring if the defense planned to comply with the court’s order, in effect assisting Mr. Baez.  It seems Mr. Baez is unappreciative of any assistance from the State as he implies the State needs his assistance.

“Should you have any further questions please email them to me” – Mr. Baez is obsessed with his belief the State is required to contact him through various electronic methods, such as telephones or e-mail.  Mr. Baez consistently makes reference in written motions and verbal statements to his belief the State must contact him regarding various filings and points of law, as well as law enforcement procedures.

“and we will do our best to answer them” – Mr. Baez switches from speaking for himself, “I” and “me”, to speaking for a group, “we”.  Who is “we”?  Mr. Baez and Mr. Mason?  Mr. Baez and his office staff?  Mr. Baez and Ms. Anthony?  We do not know, but we do know by switching to “we”, Mr. Baez is distancing himself from this statement, increasing doubt as to his doing his “best to answer”.

“It is my intent to attempt to work with you as best as possible” – Mr. Baez switches back to speaking for himself, “my”.  Mr. Baez has an “intent”.  Is the “intent” to work with Mr. Ashton?  No.  The “intent” is “to attempt”.  Mr. Baez plans “to attempt”, but not to succeed.  Mr. Baez is stating he will not be working with Mr. Ashton.  The phrase “as best as possible” limits the phrase “to work”.  Why is it not “possible” to for Mr. Baez “to work with” Mr. Ashton?

“so that all hearings can proceed smoothly” – Why is Mr. Baez concerned with “hearings” proceeding “smoothly”?  Mr. Baez is indicating he believes “hearings” have not proceeded “smoothly” and this has something to do with the prosecution.

“and be decided on the law” – Mr. Baez implies previous “hearings” may not have been “decided on the law”, but on something else.  Mr. Baez is stating Judge Perry may have allowed courtroom actions determine his legal decisions.  Would Judge Perry agree?

“and not on any posturing done by either side” – Mr. Baez believes there is “posturing” being “done” in the courtroom.  Mr. Baez admits with “by either side” the defense is “posturing” at times.  Mr. Baez believes “posturing” is capable of affecting the legal rulings of the court.

We have learned Mr. Baez thinks the judiciary of Orange County makes legal decisions based upon the actions of the attorneys observed by the judge in the courtroom.

We have learned Mr. Baez does not believe past hearings have been smooth, indicating he believes they have been rough.

We have learned the intent of Mr. Baez was never to work with the prosecution, only to attempt to do so.

We have learned Mr. Baez, whether it be in official court motions or casual e-mail correspondence, does not believe grammar, punctuation, or internally consistent capitalization to be of importance.