Does Baez Actually Believe Casey is Innocent? - A Philosophical Discussion

[Cailin Rua]

If nobody was willing to defend the guilty they would all walk free because they wouldn't get a trial. And every defendant is entitled to a real defense, not just a show defense. That being said, I think JB is behaving in an unethical and unprofessional manner also not being very effective as an attorney. If the jury is looking at you and thinking "look at that clown with his wrinkled pad of paper," it doesn't reflect well on the client.

 

[missm]

My Father, may he rest in peace, was a very honorable man. He was a well respected defense attorney for 40 years. He never did represent any rapists or child killers because he was not comfortable with that. But he did try some murder cases. And he also represented many clients accused of extortion, robbery and other criminal offenses.

When I was a child I was sometimes embarrassed by that while growing up.
I was a little ashamed of what some people said, that my father was defending evil people. I used to lie about his job. Then when I was in college I worked in his office in exchange for my tuition. And my eyes were opened to my own ignorance. There are a whole lot of innocent, needy people who get dragged into the legal system. Just because an ex-wife accuses a father of touching his daughter does not make it so. These are the people who need a good, powerful attorney.

And besides all of that, even 'guilty' people need representation. That is how our Justice system works, and if there were no lawyers willing to help the accused, it would simply fall apart. So I felt the need to say a good word for my father, maybe because of all those years that I was ashamed of his noble career.

ETA: My dad was on a very friendly basis with some state attorneys and members of the prosecution. He used to make a habit of having a steak dinner with opposing counsel after a big trial--loser picks up the tab. I went on a few of those dinners and things were always cordial and upbeat. These attorneys need good working relationships with each other. Most of the cases were dealt with by pleading things out and that takes cooperation.

Defense Attorneys are not evil people. They are part of the process.

Thanks Katy for your perspective on this. Especially as you spoke about genuinely innocent people needing a defense from wrongdoing and the example you gave.

A new thought popped I to my head as I read your words- perhaps the most noble thing about being a defense attorney is that you must work above and beyond a sense of personal judgement. You need to be stronger than your gut reaction, and have the discipline to only address aspects of the law when serving a client to ensure fairness. It sounds like your father was exactly that type of an honorable man. I'm so happy you shared that story with us. It has made a difference in how I understand the work involved.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I think he has been looking for an "alternate theory of the crime" to put against the state's case. What they've settled on is that it is an accident vs. premeditated murder, which is intended to keep Casey off death row. They threw George under the bus to create doubt about who did the duct-taping and body disposal. Roy K's "role" is to create doubt about the major crime scene, the disposal site. It's all about reasonable doubt and avoiding the death penalty. Of course JB knows that Casey did it--he's seen everything we have seen, including the jail tapes. And he's talked to her parents and Lee and probably knows things from them that we do not know.

Defense attorneys do not want to know everything from their clients because that would prevent them from putting on a defense. You can defend a client by looking at the state's evidence and their argument, even if the client is guilty. If the DA knows the client is innocent, that's what they show--so you get alibi witnesses, forensic testimony, video tape, cell pings, payroll records (etc.) that exclude the client, and evidence that shows the presence/opportunity/guilt of someone else. Here they are arguing about pig decomposition and the absence of flies, when all it will take for the state to rebut is to put the tow yard guy back on to say that flies flew out of the trunk. And so on. Once JB and the DT admitted that Casey lied for 31 days to cover up Caylee's death, they were giving up any shot of the jury seeing her as "innocent." This is all about keeping her off death row and maybe giving her a chance to get out of prison before she is 50. That tells me he knows because he isn't fighting to keep her out of prison altogether. If he really though it was an accident, they could have plea bargained.

I think JB might well feel some sympathy for Casey. She's young and looking at the death penalty. He's responsible for defending her. He's pretty much the only human being she has seen and talked to outside of her jailers. He knows what's coming for her. And I think, at least in the beginning, he got the full impact of her desperate neediness, always there, but amplified by isolation and the spectre of the death penalty.

 

[kimonomyhouse]

Defense Attorneys are not evil people. They are part of the process.

I couldn't agree more. Not speaking specifically of JB - I haven't watched enough to form an opinion - but I believe some defense attorneys believe more in the Constitution, in the justice system, in the right of every defendant to receive a fair trial, than they believe in their client's innocence. Innocent and not guilty are two very distinct things, and the goal of the defense attorney is to get a not guilty verdict...through legal means.

As to JB, my impression is that he is fighting to keep ICA from getting the death penalty, not to get an overall not guilty verdict...though that would certainly boost his career. JMHO

 

[Wishbone]

Don't you think when this case is over... CASEY will throw Jose under the bus? She'll claim he touched her (I swear she's going to tell us they had an affair)..plus she'll use the ineffective council bit..., Casey will tell us that this defense about molestation etc was all Jose's idea... Unfortunately I think we're going to have to hear from Casey for the rest of our lives. Just like the Manson people every now and then you hear about them from jail. Hopefully she won't be on death row so there will be more of a chance someone in prison will get her and take care of her for good.

IMO there’s a steam roller coming for JB after the trial is over. I can’t help but believe he and others have been involved in some very underhanded plots and the powers that be are very aware of it. I’ve seen him misuse the indigent funding, pervert the sunshine law and a myriad of things too numerous to list without writing a book. Come to think of it, the things I think about this case would make a good fiction novel. Anyway, I don’t think it is a coincidence that CM joined the DT during the time the jailhouse letters and GA’s affair came to light. Is it possible CM is now a part of the defense team to give it some legitimacy? I don’t see him doing much else except letting JB keep burying himself deeper and deeper. My thinking may be corrupted but it makes sense to me.

 

[missm]

...The classical scope of work of a defense attorney in the English justice system, all the way back to the days of the Magna Carta, is to insure that fair, and now constitutional, rights are not infringed by any king or government. I know we have come many centuries beyond that and the whole thing has morphed into putting on a spectacular case-But in my literal mind, all JB is obligated to do is to make sure that KC is not being oppressed by the government or wrongly accused by the people because of handicap, race, sex, or class-think Salem Witch burnings.

...Americans are not cave people, we are not uncivilized, we are not riotous-for the most part. We are a people who are bound by rule of law and honestly, trust. Do we run red lights when no one is around to see it? Not most of us. Do we accuse innocent people of murder on the daily? Not most of us.

...I am not in the hate Americans crowd, I believe my countrymen are fair and most especially when they are vetted by both the defense and the state.
When the evidence is so stinkin overwhelming, it is maddening that an attorrney would go to these lengths to cover up what I believe he knew whether or not KC told him. As if she is persecuted.

All JB was obligated to do was to protect her rights. He was in no way obligated to lie for her and he is, and it burns my butt.

JJ, your first paragraph sums up everything perfectly, much the same as Katy. I guess what makes a truly ethical lawyer is one who removes personal bias, and focuses only on protecting rights under the guidelines of the law to ensure a fair trial with the facts at hand, even when the facts are hard to stomach.

 

[crucibelle]

And Johnny paid the ultimate price- according to other members of the defense team, they all knew the truth- the stress of it caused Johnny to die of cancer, and he took his secret to his grave!

Wow, I didn't know this!! I knew Johnny died of cancer, but not the other part. So the rest of the defense team said that they all knew that OJ was guilty?? Sorry for the OT, but I am highly interested in this.

 

[missm]

What I was really hoping for here was not just more rehashing the "JB is a jerk," comments. I really wanted a discussion on why he is able to do the things he is doing; what could motivate a person to do his work in the way that he does it... because it just seems so wrong on so many levels. To me anyways, he is almost as "interesting" (for lack of a better term) as the inmate, for what could be going on inside his head.

Some of the comments offered about what it means to be a defense attorney have been terrific. But I still have a question that nobody has offered any insight towards: if the end result of a "successful" defense attorney is a not-guilty verdict, where does the buck stop in effort to obtain that result? Are we saying that it is OK somehow to do the "wrong" thing (stretching the evidence or twisting it around on it's head, using unsubstantiated claims that potentially ruin other lives in the process) for the "right" reason ( to ultimately get a win for the defense)?

How does an ethical defense attorney square this away with themselves? Or is this the very thing that separates the cream from the crop? The good defense attorneys concentrate on loopholes and violations of rights or procedure, while the unethical ones just throw everything plus the kitchen sink out there in hopes that something will stick?

 

[stephr]

I believe the entire DT knows she's guilty as homemade sin. How could you not ? I feel as though they ( the DT ) are in it only for the fame and notorioty and to be a TH on T.V. It's one thing to be a defense lawyer for people who truly are innocent ( I mean come on they know she's guilty ...just use some common sense here ) but to throw everyone under the bus is just plain wrong and evil in my opinion. Sometimes I believe people get their license out of a cracker jack box...JMHO

:twocents: :saythat:

 

[missm]

I'm a lawyer. Let me say, first, that I consider JB is an embarassment to my profession. In my experience, he is also, thank goodness, an aberration.

I understand that the public perceives the goal of the defense lawyer is to get the client off. A lawyer doing his work, on a day to day business, may not disagree. When the client is innocent, the lawyer achieves his or her goal by seeking the truth. When the client is guilty, the lawyer looks for loopholes in statutes, misconduct by police, prosecutors, and jurors, or errors by judges, and seeks to exploit those things for the client's benefit.

But when we stop to philosophize, we see it from a different perspective. We say that there is a social contract among us by which, for our mutual benefit, we consent to live by certain rules. To accomplish this, we create a government to determine what those rules are, and to enforce them. And we empower our government -- and provide it with enormous resources -- to determine who has violated the rules, and to punish them by depriving them of property, liberty, or -- as in this case -- life, itself.

It is the government, not the lawyer, that has the responsibility of deciding who is deserving of punishment. The lawyer's role is to ensure that the government exercises its power to punish correctly.

Whether innocent or guilty, a client's objective is to avoid being punished. So, when the guilty client is convicted and sentenced, the lawyer "loses". But, despite the loss, the lawyer who did his or her job well achieves the important goal of protecting those of us who are innocent by ensuring that the prosecutor's "win" was fair and square.

I forgot to thank you for your thoughtful & enlightening post, BG4pip. The last sentence especially- brilliantly said.

Also your quote about the lawyer's role to ensure the government exercises it's power correctly. That was a huge "aha!" for me, too.

 

[TiaM]

In answer to the question posed by this thread -

Of course not.

ICA is just a "Golden Ticket" to Baez.

A way to go out in "a blaze of glory" (cough, cough) for CM.

A way to bolster a resume for DCS.

Just part of their jobs and internships to William Slabaugh, Lisabeth Frye, Michelle Medina and the multitudes of interns and employees of the Baez and Mason Law Firms.

A fresh chance to get her name/face in the news for Rosalie Bolin.

And just another infamous feather in the caps of LKB, AL, TM, TL et al. A way to boost book sales and bolster paid TV appearances.

Hilariously - she thinks they actually care about her and are her friends. Once her sentence comes down, she will be stunned to see how fast the remaining rats jump off her ship - never to have contact with her again.

I can't wait to hear how she deals with THAT reality.

 

[Peepers]

JB is a defense lawyer,a career path he chose, I believe because he wants to protect the innocent from the system that will sometimes railroad people. He cannot be a stupid man..law school is no cake walk. Being a defense lawyer is highly competitive and JB is using this to bolster his career, he does not have to believe shes innocent to defend her..thats the way our system works. I dont blame JB for trying to enhance his career, he wants to be successful. I do have a hard time with slandering George as he has done, Im a little disappointed with JB for the way he has handled things, I think he could have done a better job and not destroyed everyone else in his process. Im surprised at times how ill prepared he is, I dont get that. I would think he would do the best he can since this is his "moment". Hopefully he learns alot from this experience, he probably will write a book and is hoping to be famous. I dont blame him for that. I actually look forward to hearing from him after the case so I can get a better grasp of his thought process and such. I do think how he handles things after this case will determine his career success.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

What I was really hoping for here was not just more rehashing the "JB is a jerk," comments. I really wanted a discussion on why he is able to do the things he is doing; what could motivate a person to do his work in the way that he does it... because it just seems so wrong on so many levels. To me anyways, he is almost as "interesting" (for lack of a better term) as the inmate, for what could be going on inside his head.

Some of the comments offered about what it means to be a defense attorney have been terrific. But I still have a question that nobody has offered any insight towards: if the end result of a "successful" defense attorney is a not-guilty verdict, where does the buck stop in effort to obtain that result? Are we saying that it is OK somehow to do the "wrong" thing (stretching the evidence or twisting it around on it's head, using unsubstantiated claims that potentially ruin other lives in the process) for the "right" reason ( to ultimately get a win for the defense)?

How does an ethical defense attorney square this away with themselves? Or is this the very thing that separates the cream from the crop? The good defense attorneys concentrate on loopholes and violations of rights or procedure, while the unethical ones just throw everything plus the kitchen sink out there in hopes that something will stick?

I think your answer lies in the process, which we are all seeing played out in front of us. Both defense and prosecution do some twisting--or there would not be so many innocent people in prison exonerated or soon to be exonerated as a result of DNA that eliminates them as the perpetrator. It's the job of the prosecutor to put on evidence against the accused, and we all know that some prosecutors (unlike the ones we see in the ICA trial) are willing to bend the rules. It's the job of the defense to put on a counter-argument, that either points the finger at others or shows that the accused could not have done the crime. It's the job of the judge to make sure they play by the rules of evidence, so that what is admitted is not tainted and is fair to both sides, based on law, precedent and the Constitution. So a defense attorney can defend his or her client zealously, but the prosecutor can object, cross-examine and counter the defense witnesses--and vice versa. The judge (as Judge Perry does so well) can make both sides adhere to the rules. So I have no complaint with whatever a defense attorney does, so long as the prosecutor and the judge are vigilant. In the end, most defendants are convicted. That, however, means it is much more problematic when a prosecutor withholds discovery, twists evidence or fails to interview witnesses that can exonerate a suspect or defendant.

The defendant has the whole weight of the legal system against him or her. So it doesn't matter so much to me if a defense attorney is theatrical or bombastic or even sleazy--so long as the defendant gets his or her fair trial.

In this case, common sense tells observers that the defendant is not only guilty but very hard to sympathize with, so all the DT has is smoke and mirrors. So that is what they are going with. But even those smoke and mirrors mean that the prosecutor has to put on a fair case against the accused.

 

[Jack]

I heard one of the talking heads on one of the tabloid shows on HLN (pardon me, I don't remember who or which show) describe JB as possibly being in love with the part of Casey Anthony that makes him famous. Its about the only memorable thing I've heard on one of those shows. I think it stuck out to me because it is my belief that JB sees this case as his chance at being a big shot. By CA's own admision she chose him because she overheard someone talking about him after she was arrested. I think she's guilty IMO, but she is also a small cog in a big wheel and her inexperience at choosing someone to defend her in a murder trial definately shows. That said, I think her defense thinks she is guilty but don't know for sure. Regardless, their job is to defend her and so it doesn't matter what they think or believe. I think if they were better at their job they might recognize that at least some of them don't have the skill to defend this particular case and if it weren't for that chance at being a big shot they may have recommended this particular client find someone who did.

 

[celticthyme]

I gave this more thought...and I hope this is not senseless...

Maybe JB did not know to start with. Likely he did not.
Then, after the Zenaida thing proved to be a lie, maybe he knew more. Then more, then more.
I have thought for a long time that KC admitted she killed Caylee to him. BUT, and here's what I've been pondering today...did she tell him why? Did she tell him (get ready, folks, this is MOO) that she hated the brat (her thoughts), only enjoyed her when it was easy but could not stand it when Caylee whined, could not stand that CA loved her so much, could not stand it when Caylee nooky-blocked her? So she killed her mercilessly and in cold blood?
I am hard pressed to believe that a father, JB, could be in the same room with her for hours, flirt with her, play courtroom games with her, if she told him the cold hard facts. Remember when it dawned on Shapiro and Kardashian that OJ was guilty of such a vile act and felt no remorse? You could see the disgust on their faces and they did not go out of their way for him, they did not play with him in court or do a lot of back slapping. They did just enough for him.
Now, Westefields's attorney did know, but even in that case, I think the attorney probably chalked it up to Westerfield being a sick person (and the attorney was pretty sick, too, IMO), and I think when Westerfield revealed where Danielle's body was that there was some shade of remorse and shame. None with KC.

Is it possible that JB does know that KC hated Caylee and killed her out of pure, unabashed and remorseless hate? Or does he think she is only acting remorseless because she's "wierd?"

To suggest that he knows she is that calculated would be suggesting that JB is like Wayne Gayle in Natural Born Killers. That he is feeding off of her blood lust. Otherwise, how could he bring himself to be so unaffected? That is so hard for me to accept, even from JB.

Very well put Just Jayla! I agree Baez came to know the truth very early on, but I am not sure Casey is capable of admitting her "true feelings." I agree, I think she really resented and despised Caylee for several reasons. Obviously she ruined her "life." But what was worse is that anyone who knew Caylee loved her because she was such a wonderful child. That really increased these feelings of resentment toward her daughter. She broke up with Jesse because she thought he cared more for Caylee than for her. She saw her parents immediate love and bonding to Caylee, and I think in her mind she felt she had been replaced. For a narcissist this is huge. JB comes along and gives her all kinds of attention. Initially, I think there might have been some hinky puppy love stuff going on between them. As time has gone on however, I think even Baez has learned what a truly vile person she is. MOO

 

[Peepers]

I also think that in the beginning, JB was a little infatuated with the young lady ICA , but I dont think he still is. I think he sees her for the nutjob whacko she is and I bet he cant wait to be done with this.

 

[Emeralgem]

I cannot imagine JB or anyone else on the DT believing for a second she is not guilty..JMHO

 

[21merc7]

He knows she did it, he is just capitalizing. Every lawyer hopes for that million dollar case.

His lack of passion about his job is clear, he is just going through the motions. He makes it very clear when he whines about how long anything takes to get done, how little he is paid, and his inability to step aside when he knows he is incapable of handling a case where a life needs to be saved. It is about him to be at the podium in the Courtroom, not about the defendant, not about anti death penalty, not about rules, regulations and laws.

It cuts into his own play time, much like KC thought Caylee did to her.

 

[angeldust]

ABSOLUTELY HE KNOWS CASEY DID THIS! However, JB does blame the parents in the big scheme of things. Here was a young lady that could have very well, BEEN a successful woman, parent, daughter. But perhaps in JB's mind Cindy and George should have forced "the spoiled little 2 yr old" to grow up and take responsibility for her actions. I have no doubt, that JB believes with all his heart, that if she was "raised" better, Casey would be a different person.

He even says it in his cross to Cindy, "You raised her to tell the truth right?"

Casey is so unbalanced that she agrees with JB that it's all CA and GA's fault.

and that coming from a man who had to be chased for child maintanence is rich x a

 

[Sabrina2011]

He knows she is a cold blooded murderer.

MOO