Judge Perry Threatens Baez With Contempt (Update)

That’ll be good for a few headlines.

Truth is, it’s common for judges to threaten defense attorneys – never prosecutors, but defense attorneys – with contempt and other sanctions.  Particularly when the defense attorneys are not following the unstated rules, and are instead trying to actually win an acquittal.

What is the stated reason for this seemingly indignant chastisement in open court?

Rodriquez [a defense expert witness] was making opinions to the jury that were not found in his final report, violating the Judge’s orders that all opinions made in court must be contained in a report provided to all parties to the trial. The Judge’s intention was to prevent trial “by ambush” where one side would be surprised by unanticipated questioning of witnesses.

That’s the stated reason.  Of course it is bullshit.  The real reason is that the

testimony of the expert was extremely damaging not only to the prosecution’s “duct tape” idiocy, but if understood and accepted could lead the jury to wonder why Judge Perry ever signed off on that ridiculous and now obviously inflammatory video.  That is a double whammy:  it not only dramatically undermines the prosecution’s case, it also leads to questions about the judge’s impartiality.

So the judge is mad, and he’s using his position to retaliate.  The prosecution had more than a free hand in presenting evidence to the jury that the “placement of the duct tape” was a vitally important issue in the case, including showing that stupid video.  By admitting that video into evidence, and I’m sure other subtler words, expressions and actions, Judge Perry signaled to the jury his credulity of the prosecution’s claims.

Now comes along an expert who says by implication that the prosecution and Judge Perry must be morons.  Which is at least half true.  And Judge Perry doesn’t like it.  And so he’s going to punish the perpetrator by threatening him with jail, which is what judges do.  It’s their trump card.

Also, very importantly, he’s trying to throw off Baez’ rhythm and prevent any “momentum” in favor of the defense from developing.  This momentum is an intangible thing, but it’s part of the dynamic at a trial.  Trial attorneys will know what I am talking about.  Judges certainly do.

When you represent the disfavored litigant, your main adversary is the judge.

Update:  Look how terrible the judge’s conduct really was (from CNN account):

The judge in the Casey Anthony murder trial ordered a defense witness off the stand Saturday and threatened attorney Jose Baez with contempt proceedings for failing to tell prosecutors about the witness’ planned testimony.

Forensic anthropologist William Rodriguez told Judge Belvin Perry after the jury had been excused that he was preparing to tell jurors that no conclusions can be drawn from duct tape found near 2-year-old Caylee Anthony’s body because of decomposition and movement of the bones by animals…Perry did not explain Rodriguez’ sudden absence after jurors were brought back into the room…

So imagine this from the jurors’ point of view.  The witness starts to testify, the judge halts his testimony and orders him off the stand.  The jury comes back and the witness isn’t there.  If the juror is inclined to respect authority, which in a trial is the judge, then he would naturally conclude that there was something wrong with the witness’s testimony in the opinion of the judge, who is supposedly neutral.

The only way a juror sees through that is if he is willing to entertain the idea that the judge favors the prosecution.  Tellingly, he apparently didn’t even wait for an objection by the prosecution.

What a terrible and unconscionably biased act on the part of the judge.  Baez should move for a mistrial again and dress down the judge as publicly as the judge dressed him down.  Only this time the dressing down would be justified.

42 Comments

Filed under wrongful convictions

42 responses to “Judge Perry Threatens Baez With Contempt (Update)

  1. phillygirl

    You’re just wrong here! The judge has put up with Baez’ bullshit this whole trial, beginning with his disgusting opening statement. The defense entire scenario is a joke. Casey is lying to him and he’s just going with it. Anyone who would believe that Kronk found the body, duct taped the skull and then put it back is an idiot, and that’s what Baez is trying to do. He’s been trying to get evidence in by the back door all along, vis a vis his questioning of the blood evidence when blood isn’t even an issue here just so he could ask about a paternity test on Lee Anthony. He did this so he can avoid putting Casey on the stand. Any idiot can see that, you don’t have to be a lawyer or even a career legal secretary as I was. Baez has broken and ignored the rules so many times it’s amazing he hasn’t already been tossed in the slammer for contempt.

    Like

    • I love Philly.

      Baez may be trying to avoid putting Casey on the stand. She may be guilty of a homicide, though I highly doubt it would have been murder. I do not know. Baez may know, but he doesn’t necessarily know.

      And even if you’re right that Baez has been breaking the rules – a point I’m not conceding – in context, to be fair, you’d have to take into account that Judge Perry has broken the rules flagrantly, egregiously and repeatedly and all to favor the prosecution. That this is common doesn’t make it right. And Baez has an obligation to see to it his client gets a fair trial, even if he knows she is guilty (which obviously I am not conceding) and it might well be that the only way he can do that under the circumstances is to play fast and loose with the rules himself.

      The judge is overwhelmingly at fault for any dishonesty going on in this trial whether by the prosecution or the defense, because he is so dishonest himself.

      Even a career legal secretary that worked in a prosecutor’s office should be able to see that.

      Like

      • I too have a hard time believing she actually purposely killed the child, but I do think she knocked her out so she could go out and party and accidently overdosed her. That’s felony child abuse. That being said, Baez put out unfounded accusations in his opening statement and while the defense has no burden of proof, they’ve given the jury a false impression of what happened. His inexperience showed by even doing that, he just should have said that the state has no evidence. The state, on the other hand, made a big mistake making this a first degree murder case. I don’t think anyone believes she purposely killed the child.

        I disagree that the judge is pro-prosecution. I’ve disagreed with several of his rulings against them. What Baez did today was blatantly disregard a ruling that witnesses must provide in a report what they are going to testify to. He’s the reason that order was entered, back in January, when he was sanctioned for failing to provide discovery. And Perry went above and beyond the call of duty by allowing Rodriguez to return Monday after being deposed by the prosecution in an attempt not to punish Casey for her lawyer’s actions.

        The only mistake I will accede Perry made was permitting that video with the duct tape with Caylee AND Casey’s face in it. I knew that was an appeal issue immediately. It wasn’t necessary to have Casey’s face in it, and upon reflection, don’t think it wasn’t necessary at all.

        As to the “paternity test,” that was not really what it was. Law enforcement merely wanted to rule out the father and brother to end the public speculation. The way Baez put it, law enforcement had some reason for “asking” for the test, which is bull. Casey’s word is the only testimony to this, and she’s going to have to get up there and actually say it. Otherwise, it shouldn’t even be considered.

        I want to know why the fight between Cindy and Casey wasn’t brought up. There is allegedly a police report mentioning it, so why can’t the prosecution bring that in? And why in God’s name didn’t they enter the syringe with remnants of chloroform in it found near the body? And with all this bug testimony, why hasn’t the prosecution countered with the tow yard operator’s statement that when he opened the trunk when George picked it up, that 100s of flies flew out? So much here doesn’t make sense.

        Finally, I actually felt sorry for that old guy today. I know the prosecutor had to shoot him down, but I felt he should have been gentler about it. But, when you put yourself out there, well, ….. (Also, if he was one of those that bought the JFK magic bullet theory, can he even be believed?)

        I’m not mad, I’m just from Philly! :)

        Like

        • The state, on the other hand, made a big mistake making this a first degree murder case. I don’t think anyone believes she purposely killed the child.

          Nobody with a cooler head believes that. Whether cooler heads will prevail, however…

          West Philly? Narberth? Ardmore? Conshohocken?

          Like

          • She is still guilty of manslaughter, IMO, however, and needs to go to jail. I have a major problem with the death penalty now that DNA has proven so many people innocent. I am absolutely convinced that that coal minor from Virginia who was executed years ago was innocent.

            Grew up in Mayfair, now in Fox Chase.

            Like

  2. leukosxpsephos

    i hope that she gets off, not to justify careless manslaughter, but solely as a testimony against the injustices of the trial. honestly, i hope that she repents, and is born again. JESUS did not die so that people should fry—a real day of Judgment is coming.

    Like

    • The only injustice I see is Jose Baez being permitted to get up and give that disgusting opening statement and then not having to prove it! She can repent all she wants, she still deserves at least 20 years in jail.

      Like

      • What about the prosecution claiming that “duct tape” was the murder weapon? They can never prove that. Why isn’t that “disgusting”?

        Like

        • Of course they can’t prove it, the body was skeletonized. But what difference would it make if Kronk or someone else DID find the body and tape the skull? Does that mean Casey didn’t kill her?

          Like

          • No. But who has the burden of proof here? Casey could possibly have killed her. Therefore, guilty?

            Like

            • Do you REALLY believe Casey didn’t kill her somehow? She leaves her house at 1 pm on Monday with the baby, is tracked to be still in the area until 4 pm by cell phone records, lies about it of course, and then goes to her boyfriend’s house without Caylee to screw all day and night, and Caylee is never seen again. Come on. People have been convicted on less, and with no body.

              Like

  3. bluebird

    I thought both experts for the defense were good, especially the “renowned” forensic Doctor today. I always thought the duck tape theory the prosecution theory of the duck tape was hokey, but with the Dr. today, it really looked like a ridiculous theory for murder.

    I hope Casey is found innocent on all felony counts except the ones for lying to the police and not reporting the death.

    Like

  4. TiffNaum

    I have followed this story from day 1 (I inherited the habit of watching Nancy Grace from my Mother. I have since come to my senses and now detest her but I digress) and maintained a neutral position with regard to Casey Anthony’s guilt UNTIL the state rested it’s case. At that point I realized the possibility of an innocent person being railroaded.
    Since this trial began, I have watched religiously every day and have continuously found that my opinions toward the effectiveness of certain testimony, fairness of judge’s rulings, etc seem to be in the vast minority. I find this SHOCKING!!! I have searched the Internet looking to find ANYONE who thinks she’s not guilty or, at the very least, still hasn’t formed an opinion but had not until TODAY (day 22 of the trial) when i found your site. I have been brought to the point of even questioning my own character since I obviously was defending a ‘murderer’.
    I’ve spent quite a bit of time reading your posts and I now get it. I’m not crazy, or of questionable character, I simply refused to be brainwashed. Thank you for showing me the light!

    Like

    • Well, to be fair: Casey lied to the police. They were easily discovered lies, silly except for the context, but the police go into adversarial mode really hard when they are lied to. It’s like an instinct. They always feel like there’s some big crime underlying it, and while that is often true it sometimes isn’t true. Then you wind up with a problem like this. And this is another reason this case is so interesting to me, and so illustrative. It shows how little scrutiny the police conclusions ever really get. The prosecution’s case is little more than what I just described, dressed up with a little questionable forensic “expert” this and that. The prosecution didn’t screen the police contentions at all. And of course neither does the judge. You hardly needed an expert to tell you that the “duct tape” contentions are ridiculous – how would duct tape stay adhered to the skull through the decomposition process? – but Judge Perry has declared that this is an extremely important issue. And maybe it is, but not in the way he implies.

      Sometimes people lie to the police and give them false confessions. Sometimes people lie to the police because they lie to everyone, all the time. When you investigate things, you have to contend with people lying to you and try to get to the truth anyway. It is mentally lazy to jump from “the suspect lied” to “the suspect is guilty of murder”. What’s pathetic is that the mental sloth prevails, gather’s institutional momentum and just steamrolls everyone in its path unless some poor defense attorney tries to derail the train. Then everyone hates him for spoiling the fun: mocks him, threatens him with jail or contempt. It’s all too familiar to me.

      And then there’s the media. What a disappointing institution. Far from casting a critical eye on government assertions it’s merely a cheerleader with a giant megaphone and there are no cheerleaders on the other side. To some extent they are simply participating in the mental laziness that attends the whole thing. They are reflexively pro-prosecution because they rely on police and prosecutors for their routine, everyday “if it bleeds, it leads” stories. For just one example, how many times have you read that the defense “overreached” or “went too far” in its opening statement? Yet the prosecution went way out on a limb by saying that duct tape was the murder weapon, something they will never be able to prove and which moreover doesn’t really make any sense. But nowhere have I read any criticism of the prosecution for that.

      I have to say this is not a good system. This case should never have been charged as a murder. The circus that this has become is largely the prosecution’s fault.

      Like

  5. Couldn’t agree more with you Atticus.

    Like

  6. No one said the duct tape was adhered to the skull. What they said was, it was found in a position that suggested it had originally been stuck to her face. Either way, why would duct tape be present at all? She should have been charged with first degree manslaughter because I do think she did something that killed the child. Way to get away with murder or manslaughter — dump the body until it rots. Saying the police have no basis for their opinion is untrue. And many people have been found guilty of murder without a body even being found. This girl is guilty as sin of causing that baby’s death. Of c ourse they can’t prove the cause of death, the body was skelentonized. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to a theory. A theory is not an outrigh tlie, which is what Baez is putting out there — an outright lie as to how this kid died, plus throwing the parents and brother under the bus. The prosecution might be mistaken, but they believe what they’re saying, they’re not lying, like Baez and Casey. And they he tries this crap with that poor Vasco guy this week. How much effort would it have taken to find out WHEN that guy got that phone number from the phone company? He’s an idiot. I hope he’s disbarred after this trial.

    Like

    • bluebird

      I’m dizzy now.

      Like

    • Either way, why would duct tape be present at all?

      Who put it there? When did they put it there? Why did they put it there? To hold the jaw shut post mortem? Then how does that imply a murder by anyone, including Casey?

      Way to get away with murder or manslaughter — dump the body until it rots.

      Who “dumped” the body? Was it Casey? Was it someone else? Do you have any answers to that?

      Saying the police have no basis for their opinion is untrue.

      I have said repeatedly that the police do have a basis to believe Casey killed her daughter. So does anyone else. The problem is there is also a basis to believe that George killed the little girl. And there is less of a basis, but still some reason, to believe that someone else did. And there is a basis to believe that the the girl died accidentally. With multiple plausible scenarios you don’t just play eeny meeny miney moe.

      This girl is guilty as sin of causing that baby’s death.

      Maybe. Are you comfortable finding someone guilty because they may be?

      A theory is not an outright lie, which is what Baez is putting out there — an outright lie as to how this kid died, plus throwing the parents and brother under the bus. The prosecution might be mistaken, but they believe what they’re saying, they’re not lying, like Baez and Casey.

      How do you know it’s a lie? How do you know the prosecution really believes what they are saying? How does any sensible person believe that duct tape was a murder weapon?

      And, maybe they wouldn’t have listed Vasco at all if the guy had just talked to them, but he wouldn’t. If it had been the police that were trying to question Vasco and he refused to talk to them, “lawyered up”, and held a press conference wouldn’t you find that suspicious?

      There’s a dead little girl here and someone’s got to pay, and the government has picked Casey Anthony, and that’s good enough for you. Is that about it?

      Like

  7. “The problem is there is also a basis to believe that George killed the little girl. ”

    WHAT basis? Casey-the-pathological-liar’s say so? Please.

    Like

    • Actually, so far as I know, Casey has not alleged that her father killed the little girl. But there is a lot of discussion on this blog about how and why George is a proper suspect, not based solely on anything Casey or even her attorney may have said. Feel free to review.

      Like

  8. Baez should have checked with the phone company before he contacted Vasco. And it’s perfectly understandable why Vasco didn’t want to talk to them or the police. He had a domestic dispute railroaded into a kidnapping charge. No ex-con wants anything to do with the police, especially when they’ve gone straight.

    If Baez’ people came to my door, I wouldn’t talk to them either without a subpoena and they didn’t have one because they had NO basis to question him. And they’d have known that if they’d done their job!

    Like

    • You’re so hard on Baez. This is a tough job, you know, defending someone in the face of all this. If an ex-con wants nothing to do with the police, why did Vasco call them when he was contacted?

      Listing witnesses is done to preserve the right to call them, even if it later turns out you don’t want or need them. There are plenty of witnesses on both sides that were listed and not used. James Thompson was one for the prosecution. As was Ray Kronk, I believe.

      Like

      • You’re right, I forgot Vasco DID call the police. So what’s THAT tell you? Not even an ex con wants anything to do with Baez and his minions! :) Hey, that means Baez can list any old person off the street with no real basis for listing them? Don’t you have to have a valid reason for listing someone? At least Kronk actually had something to do with the case! He’s so hell bent on taking down George, and for what purpose? To direct the public’s venom away from Casey?

        As for being hard on Baez, with only three years real experience, he only took this case to make a name for himself. (And he and Casey are creepily staring to look like each other – check out the ears tomorrow!)

        Like

  9. And BTW, what do YOU think was the murder weapon?

    Like

    • I’m not even sure there was a murder, let alone a murder weapon.

      Like

      • So you believe the accidental drowning story?

        Like

        • I really don’t know. Since there is very little evidence of a murder you would go with the far more likely scenario, which is an accidental death. Whether that was by drowning in the pool, which might leave no one criminally liable, or a different kind of accident that might amount to manslaughter in which case someone would be criminally liable, is not clear either. And it specifically isn’t clear whether the liable party, if any, would be the defendant or someone else like George or Cindy. And nothing the prosecution has put forward really resolves any of that.

          Like

  10. So, what, you think Casey is protecting George? Hell of a way to protect him, calling him a child molester.

    Like

  11. “How do you know she left her house at 1 PM? George’s say so?

    Is there no reason whatever in your mind to question that?”

    I believe George more than I believe Casey. And again, are you suggesting she’s protecting HIM?

    (BTW, I’m Phillygirl, don’t know how it got changed back to my real name!)

    Like

    • There are certainly reasons to disbelieve Casey. There are also reasons to disbelieve George, many of which have been described elsewhere on the blog here. Credibility issues are not easy, but it wouldn’t be proper to ignore objective criteria in favor of subjective impressions. Your subjective impression may well be that George is credible and Casey is not. But objectively, you would have to concede that there are reasons why someone else could legitimately suspect George’s credibility as well. And when the credibility contest is a stalemate, what are you left with?

      That you don’t know what happened, or who did what to who, or when, or how. And after the prosecution’s case in chief has been set forth in its entirety, that’s where we are. Plenty of reason to suspect any number of things. Virtually no reason to settle on one versus the other.

      Like

  12. Debbie

    Being another member of the tv viewing audience I see Judge Perry showing much favortism to the Prosecution rather than to the Defense…Judge Perry has not been fair in his rulings against the Defense either…

    At first I thought that Judge Perry was going to be a fair minded judge…but as the days have gone on there seems to be more and more irritation from the judge to the Defense…some of which has been unfair prejudice toward the Defense…

    While the Defense has spoken in a nice sort of way to the Prosecution’s witnesses…the Prosecution has raised their voices in an irritated manner…spoken harshly and seemed to badger the Defense witnesses for an answer…and when the anwer from the Defense’s witnesses wasn’t the answer that the Prosecution wanted to hear…it seemed to infuriate the Prosecution more…

    Like

    • bluebird

      I agree. But I also noticed with chemist who worked at National Lab, that he was unresponsive to the defense’s questions and he seemed hostile. Defense brought this “unresponsiveness” up a couple of times, it was like Perry was asleep today. But, boy, everytime the Prosecution wants a side bar, they get it. Can the prosecution slow this trial down any more, or interrupt important evidence that debunks their theory more obviously. I hope the jury gets it. What a crime.

      Like

    • Another trial practice rule, Debbie: the prosecution can bully witnesses; the defense cannot. Some people – like you, apparently – will be alienated by bullying even if the prosecution does it, but most people, especially men, will actually be favorably impressed by it. But if the defense does the same thing you risk losing the members of the jury who might side with you because they are more reasonable, and reasoning. Bullying a witness is actually a sign of a weak position, not a strong one. But it takes an exceptional person to perceive that coming from the state.

      Like

  13. Debbie

    My friends and I have discussed this case in detail…and we are of the same opinions that the television news media has publicized so much about Casey Anthony 3 years ago on national tv news to the point that it seems that many of the television viewing audience have all but pushed the button to electrocute Ms. Anthony for murdering her daughter, Caylee…

    Yet…to find out if this is true or not that Ms. Anthony murdered her daughter, Caylee…the only way that we are going to know the answers is to listen to both the Prosecution and the Defense witnesses…

    Right now most of the tv viewing audiences has been swayed toward the Prosecution by the Sensationalism of the television news media…and the two networks in our area that have exclusively aired this case for many hours of the day…day after day…week after week…month after month…and year after year…has ingrained into our heads that Casey murdered her daughter, Caylee…and they have left no room in our thinking that it could have been any other way but their way of thinking…

    I have personally heard many people say that they ought to go ahead and electrocute Casey Anthony for murdering her daughter and to save the state a lot of money…

    When I asked them what do they base their feelings of belief on that Ms. Anthony murdered her daughter…they said that they heard it on NG and CNN…

    It becomes really sad when our way of thinking that another person should die is based on what some tv person’s opinion about Ms. Anthony has fed us to believe that that person is guilty…

    Why not for the sake of giving a person a fair trial be based on unbiased feelings toward the person on trial and her attorneys…

    Why are so many people against hearing what the other side has to say?…are some people afraid that the end might be different than what they have believed for the past three years?…

    Like

  14. I do think Aston needs to tone it down a bit, but sometimes I think he’s just excited and nervous. That being said, Baez may be being “nice” as people are saying here, but his opening statement was disgusting. I was waiting for the Judge to make him stop!

    It’s not that people are afraid of what Baez has to say, Debbie, it’s that there are certain rules and they exist for a reason, and Atticus knows this. If Baez is allowed to present evidence of which the prosecution hasn’t been informed, they have no way to refute it, disprove it or prepare themselves for cross. That’s what expert reports are all about, so each side can do their own investigation on the opposition evidence. Real trials don’t contain “ah-ha Perry Mason moments” where the real killer is revealed. If Baez is permitted to continue to flout the Judge’s discovery order, well, he deserves what he gets.

    I did see the Judge overruling a lot of state objections today, however.

    And i do agree that people like Nancy Grace and Vinnie Politano often exaggerate, when talking about Casey’s reactions, e.g. When Cindy Anthony mouthed “I love you” to her last week, what I saw was a slight downturn of the eyes and what might have been a person trying not to cry. What Grace said she saw was Casey rolling her eyes and shaking her head. She didn’t.

    Another comment on “being nice.” Baez has called famous people like Spitz and that sweet botanist, who didn’t even KNOW the facts of the case, only what they were asked to testify on. Bock didn’t even know the hip bone had been found buried down 4 inches some distance away from the skull. Come on, she didn’t do her homework and Baez didn’t provide her with info she should have known. Her whole testimony was an insult to our intelligence and a waste of time and money.

    Spitz also didn’t know the facts of the case, that was just unacceptable, IMO. Spitz got ticked off not because Ashton was rude, but because he had the temerity to question his findings. Spits calling Dr. G’s autopsy “shoddy” was insulting, and just a way to bolster his opinion. Often skulls are not opened in autopsies when the body is a skeleton. And he should know that. (And since he is evidently one of the authors of the “magic bullet” theory, that should tell you something, as well!)

    Like

    • Patricia: it’s the prosecution that is engaged in discovery abuse. I don’t do Florida, but apparently they have rules in criminal cases that mirror federal civil practice, where you get an expert report and the other side can depose the expert before the trial. Or maybe that’s just how this trial is being done. In any case, while it is true that these rules are designed to limit “surprise” at trial (yet if a trial is entirely scripted down to the last detail, why have them? But that’s another subject) no discovery procedure, however extensive, can eliminate every single unknown. At some point you try the case and deal with what comes up.

      Now, one way of “dealing” is to bluster and pound the table and get red in the face and complain to the judge and accuse the other guy of “ambushing” you. And this only works for favored litigants. Disfavored litigants, if they have the temerity to even try such a thing, are told to sit down and shut up.

      And this disparity in treatment is just one minor example of the way trials are more or less rigged, or at least judges try to rig them. And so the defense has to take that into account when trying the case. You have to assume the judge is going to screw you over as much as he can without seeming to (because that could backfire) and figure a way around it. Often you can’t think of a way, because maybe there isn’t one.

      But sometimes you can.

      Bottom line is that it’s a completely different, and much more difficult game for the disfavored litigant. There’s really no comparison.

      Like

      • Every trial I ever worked on (civil cases in PA), the expert report was received and then the expert was deposed. Perhaps the state should have deposed every witness Baez listed, but when they get a report that says nothing, what’s the point.

        That’s why the expert report is so important. I don’t see where Ashton is wrong here. These weren’t minor issues Baez’ witnesses were popping out with. They were major issues that should have been in their report.

        When you’re dealing with forensic evidence witnesses, the other side must be able to produce a rebuttal witness and you can’t do that unless you know what their expert is going to say.

        JMHO.

        Like

        • Yes, well, civil (insurance) defense and criminal prosecution are similar that way. No budget constraints, which translate into time constraints. The whole “expert” thing is a ploy to give advantage to the more well heeled litigant, who is also the favored litigant.

          For insurance defense counsel, or the state when prosecuting for that matter, expert fees are not a problem, transcript costs are not a problem, paying the mortgage is not a problem. Not so for their opponents. What’s terrible about it is that these financial advantages are compounded by judicial favoritism.

          It’s hard, I guess, for the other side to fathom: that you can send a bill and it isn’t paid. And there’s no one else to collect it from.

          Some commentators have talked about $200K that was apparently paid to the defendant a couple of years ago by ABC news, speculating whether this was used for legal fees or expenses or whatever. $200K wouldn’t cover the first two weeks of the trial. I imagine the defense is pretty much sucking wind at this point.

          Getting bogged down in discovery disputes is a luxury the favored litigant can indulge in; the disfavored litigant can’t afford it. Expert testimony, reports, blah blah are a great mechanism for accomplishing just that: bogging down the disfavored litigant. Any judge with a lick of sense would see it right away; indulging this nonsense from the prosecution either means Judge Perry doesn’t have a lick of sense or that he favors the prosecution. Take your pick.

          Like

          • It sounds like you think just because Casey isn’t the “favored litigant” that her lawyer can break rules he knows the judge won’t punish him for by excluding the evidence for fear of reversal on appeal. That’s what this is all about. Baez breaking the rules.

            Also, Baez wants to use an expert that uses “cutting edge” or experimental devices or procedures, when he skewered Dr. Vass for this very thing. Can you spell hypocrite?

            These aren’t just discovery disputes, they’re attempts to get evidence in without putting Casey on the stand to prove his ridiculous lies. That’s the only reason he called that FBI blood expert, to get in about the “paternity” test on her brother. There was no other reason because blood evidence isn’t an issue in this death. And everyone knows that Casey accused him of molestation, so of course the test was done. Plus, whenever a kid is killed and molestation comes up, whether on the victim or the accused, all the male relatives are DNA tested. It’s routine. Baez attempted to make the jury believe this was a big deal and had something to do with the child’s death, when it didn’t.

            Plus they’re deliberate and on MAJOR issues, not sub-issues, as Perry pointed out.

            How can you say Perry favors the prosecution when he hasn’t excluded any of the expert evidence that wasn’t properly noticed to the state by Baez? He’s bending over backwards to be fair to Casey, even tho her lawyer is way out of his league here, and a “rectum” to boot.

            And FYI, tonight on TV they said this case has already cost the state over $350,000. I don’t exactly know on what.

            Like

            • I should think the case has cost way more than $350K already.

              And Perry basically told the jury to disbelieve a defense witness. This is much more damaging than simple preclusion.

              All of the prosecution whining about discovery issues is a chicken shit smokescreen that wouldn’t be tolerated if the shoe was on the other foot, and Perry invites it by taking it seriously and making as big a deal out of it as the prosecution wants. Perry’s characterizations of what are “major” issues are typified by his claim that the “positioning of the duct tape” was a major issue.

              Like

              • Uh, “positioning the duct tape” goes to the heart of the state’s claim that Casey killed her with the duct tape,so where it’s positioned is a huge deal. (Not saying I buy that that’s how she was killed, mind you.)

                I don’t know why you think discovery violations are “chickenshit.”

                Maybe the judge SHOULD just let Baez do whatever he wants, he’s doing a good job of shooting himself in the foot. Today, he put a guy up there to discredit the “Oak Ridge Boys” lab, and I’m sure he will try to dispute their odor testimony, which is chemical testimony. Problem was, the guy was not certified as a chemist, the bulk of his work is toxicology, and his sole experience with cryotrapping was participation in one experiment as a grad student 20 years ago..

                The judge only allowed him to be qualified as a toxicologist. Once again, Baez tried to pull a fast one, putting up a very qualified, credential person (from Willow Grove, no less, LOL) just NOT in what the defense wanted him to testify in! I felt sorry for the guy today, as Ashton objected to virtually EVERY question the defense asked and was sustained in 90% of them.

                But like I said, the jury isn’t stupid, maybe the judge should just let Baez’ team make fools of themselves and let Ashton discredit them on redirect.

                Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s