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.
Bull Stopper Stops Bull 