Although I have not had the time to post my regular series of articles chronicling the grammatical misadventures of defense attorney Jose Baez and his cast of crazed cronies, I have been watching the trial with interest.
At first only irritating as a result of his lack of legal knowledge, the courtroom efforts of Mr. Baez have been elevated to the level of excruciating to witness since the prosecution rested their case in chief.
Much like the regular character Norm on the sitcom Cheers or a WWE wrestler entering the ring, a catchphrase is heard when Mr. Baez takes to the podium. “Objection Sustained” rings from the bench after many of the questions of the defense.
If preparation and forethought are the hallmarks of excellent attorneys, woe is the defense. If Mr. Baez thought ahead or prepared for the witnesses being called by the defense, would he ever tell the court he is searching for the correct phrasing of his queries as he has done countless times? If Mr. Mason has prepared for the motion to move for mistrial based on insufficient evidence, would he have needed to rely on the state’s submittal of case research with his weak assertion all cases supported his request? If Ms. Sims had prepared, would she have repeatedly referred to numbered pictures the forensic technician witness stated were not in her report or taken by her?
Does Mr. Baez even understand how discovery works? This week he argued by being given the entirety of evidence held by the state in the form of a copy of the data from the hard drive of the Anthony home computer, the state had pursued a strategy of overwhelming the defense with an abundance of evidence. In other words, Mr. Baez, the same attorney who has complained repeatedly the state withheld evidence, is now claiming the state gave him too much evidence.
Ms. Burdick pointed out in open court the hard drive contains data which can be used to disprove much of the opening statement delivered by Mr. Baez. She left it to the court and the onlookers to surmise Mr. Baez never bothered to analyze the hard drive to discover if there was anything to disprove his opening statement. However, we should also infer he never searched the hard drive for exculpatory evidence. Why not? Because he did not need to search for what he knew was not there to be found.
Does Mr. Baez really believe he is winning points with the jury by ridiculing the accomplishments and careers of expert witnesses? In the past week, Mr. Baez has insulted an expert witness by stating his scientific methods were open to contamination and lacked quality control. He then went on to ridicule a personal friend of the witness. Mr. Baez later asked an expert witness the number of “meaningless” jobs she performed for the FBI.
Beyond bad manners, the strategic wisdom of recalling state expert witnesses to give the additional time to explain their scientific analysis of the evidence is questionable. Mr. Baez is so audacious he believes he can manipulate an expert in their own field of testimony even though some of the experts have been giving testimony longer than Mr. Baez has practiced law, attended law school, and stayed current on child support combined.
Why does Mr. Baez need to address the forensic evidence at all? He has already admitted the death of the child and the presence of his client at the scene. What does it matter if the body was in the trunk? Is that not as plausible as not reporting the death for 31 days? Does it change an accident to a murder if she put the body in the trunk?
I’ve heard a lot of praise for Mr. Baez on talking head shows and in the media. Some say he is dismantling the prosecution’s case, usually the same ones who believe the prosecution’s case was weak. I’ve been scoring this event since the first bell and I have yet to show a single point for the defense.
I’m two days behind on court proceedings, so it’s back to the web reruns for me.
Bull Stopper Stops Bull 