That’s rich. The defense moves for a mistrial a hundred times and it’s denied, denied, denied. Then the defense scores a few points, putting the expected conviction in jeopardy, and all of a sudden it’s time to start thinking about a mistrial.
Because if the conviction is in doubt, a mistrial favors the prosecution.
You see how this works?
In the meantime, read this. The defense attorney not only has to contend with the state trying to kill his client – murder, really, if she’s innocent – but of course for months many among the police and legal establishment, including some attorneys on the periphery of the case, have been attacking Baez through “ethics” probes. The linked article describes some of the antics going on.
When you’re in a fight like this, against the state, you’re at a severe disadvantage. The state quite frankly intimidates and tampers with witnesses all the time. They assume that the defense does the same thing, but not only is that psychological projection; it isn’t really possible. The defense can’t threaten anyone with prosecution. They have virtually no ability to intimidate anyone.
Yet every time a witness is interviewed by the defense and says something the prosecution doesn’t like there is a potential allegation by law enforcement and prosecutors that the defense “tampered” with the witness, or bribed the witness or some such. The prosecution, of course, is constantly bribing witnesses by offering them such things as immunity from prosecution and time off of sentences. But we don’t call that bribery. Although not that long ago one judge finally did (I’ll try to find a link later)(Update 2: It was Judge Paul Kelly of the 10th Circuit US Court of Appeals in 1998 – story about it is here).
In many ways this is no longer about a dead little girl and her messed up mother or the messed up family surrounding the tragedy; this is about careers. The careers of prosecutors and police and judges, on the one hand; and the career of Jose Baez, on the other.
Notice that Baez is all by himself.
He called the prosecution’s efforts to smear him “repulsive”, and he didn’t say it but for my money you can throw the judge in for that, too. He is 100% correct, and I can’t help but admire the strength and resolve he has shown in the face of this torrent of venom and injustice. His representation of Casey Anthony has been truly heroic and comes at a terrible price.
Even if he wins, neither her life nor his will ever be the same.
Update: Check this out, too, concerning the so-called “tampered with” witness, one Laura Buchanan. A fair assessment of the facts is that this witness had information that undercut the prosecution’s contentions regarding the “dumping” of the body. The cops swarmed all over her to get her to change her story and threatened her with “falsifying records”, for writing a date or dates on some sort of record kept by a volunteer search group. Ridiculous, but this is what happens.
Then, of course, there is an accusation that it is the defense, not the government, which is tampering with the witness! And who is going to investigate this accusation? Why, the government, of course!
And off to the “ethics” committee again for the beleaguered Baez. As if he didn’t have enough to worry about. And many of his “fellow” lawyers in the Orlando area are aiding and abetting the government here. Which is professionally disgraceful and revolting. Or, as Baez might say, “repulsive”.
Lawyers on Strike 
This has to do with only ONE thing — Baez’ noncompliance with discovery orders. And Perry is bending over backwards in order not to have Casey suffer for her lawyer’s misconduct. Baez’ own witness, Rodriguez, told Perry that he and Baez talked about the disputed evidence months ago, contradicting Baez. Baez’ ego will not let the more experienced lawyers on his team guide him. If he goes down, it’s his own fault. I’m starting to wonder if Baez is purposely trying to prompt a mistrial himself!
LikeLike
Discovery compliance is always fertile ground for attorney disagreement and bickering. But some attorneys, especially those for favored litigants like the government, are much more likely to complain in the first instance. To them, a trial is a mere formality, a staged event in which nothing outside of their expectations – which is always that they will win – occurs. When things start going south they look for a scapegoat and often focus on the opposing attorney who, representing the disfavored litigant, is always an easy target.
In practice the prosecution is much more likely to “ambush” the defense than the other way around. And if the defense complains they are accused of “whining”.
The double standard is so pervasive it makes little sense to talk about “fair” trials; the reality is that you’re doing well if you get a trial that is less unfair than usual. No disfavored litigant really gets a fair trial. That at least is the general rule.
LikeLike
First, thank you for taking the time to share your insight and knowledge with us. I’ve gained a lot of insight into our justice system and you have confirmed for me what I had thought but was hoping wasn’t true. The media is asking why we are all obsessed with this case. For me, it’s more about our justice system than Casey Anthony. I feel foolish that I had ever believed that you were innocent until proven guilty. It sounds great, like the fairy tales we are told as children, but the reality is much darker.
It’s not that I’m hoping Casey Anthony is innocent, i don’t know if she is or isn’t. It’s that I believe you should not be put to death or convicted of murder without sound reliable evidence. Emotion and anger over the behavior of Casey Anthony seems to be the only real evidence I have seen in the media and many who follow the case. I am the mom of a 9 year old girl so I understand the anger and emotion, but that does not effect how i feel about evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. Behavior, disgusting as it maybe, is not evidence.
As far as this judge goes, if you can not see the bias shown to the prosecution you’re blind. I had not thought about how difficult it must be to be a defense attorney until this case. This blog also help me to see the difficulties a defense attorney must go through. I give huge props to Baez. He has a very difficult job and he’s getting hit from all sides. In addition to that he is defending a client that has been declared indigent status. Not that money is the most important factor here, but it can’t be easy to go through all this and really not be compensated.
Sorry I had no questions for you…..just wanted to throw my thoughts out there. Thanks again for sharing.
LikeLike
Yes, the much touted but largely mythological “presumption of innocence”. This is actually not in the constitution; it’s more of a British tradition, specifically thought to contrast with the presumption of guilt that was part of the inquisitorial practices of continental Europe. It has never really been true. The nature of the beast, whether inquisitorial or not, is hostile scrutiny of the accused person. You just have to accept that and work with it.
In addition, the “beyond a reasonable doubt” bromide is just that. Very little actual proof is required to convict someone of a crime. A huge presumption in favor of the official accusation prevails, and this is well illustrated by the reaction to the defense opening statement in this case. The abuse accusation has been ridiculed even though it can be sufficiently established by the defendant’s testimony alone, and in fact that is the usual quantum of proof when people are convicted of such acts after being criminally charged. The only difference here is that the defense made the accusation instead of the government. Meanwhile the government’s accusations against the defendant, although they are highly unlikely and not supported by any direct proof, are regarded as convincing enough that most people have concluded that the defendant is guilty of the worst possible thing: murdering her own child for the most trivial and lurid of reasons.
The madness of crowds is a terrifying phenomenon when you’re on the receiving end. And that is where the defense attorney plants his feet. It takes a lot of guts.
LikeLike
i hope casey anthony rots in hell or in a death penelty chair she is a murderer a bitch lier a good one to li she deserves to die for what she did to caylee anthony she was a beautifullittle girl full of life she did not deserve to die from her moms hands hope they find her guilty and kill her the same way
LikeLike
Caylee was in fact a beautiful little girl.
LikeLike
What are you talking about?? Baez is deserving what he is getting. How dare he make those statements in his opening regarding Lee and George Anthony and Roy Kronk. To date, nothing to back it up. He is by himself because NO ONE wants to work with him. I suspect today, was Cheney Mason concerned with Baez’s again disregarding the judge’s order. He is bringing the administration of justice in dispute!
LikeLike
There is a ways to go in the defense case, apparently. So whether there is anything to “back up” some thing or other that was said in the opening statement is yet to be seen.
As far as Cheney Mason goes, I suppose there are reasons you might have to leave a client in the middle of a trial for her life. If the client fires you, for example, because they always have the right to do that. But to leave for some other reason, such as you don’t like the way co-counsel is behaving? Not really possible.
Maybe it’s just me, but to leave a client under these circumstances, knowing what would be made of it? I’d rather be dead. Literally. I can’t imagine Cheney Mason feels any differently.
LikeLike