The Constitution is written to favor the defendant. Because of the role public opinion plays in and out of court, that is the way it must be, in American justice. Our Founding Fathers wanted to be sure that future Americans were never the victims of a predatory justice system. It is something for which we should all be grateful. As for Baez, he has received a lot of bad press, but aside from the fact that he is a defense attorney, what is actually known about him? Every defendant has a right to representation, and without defense attorneys, we could not try these cases. Once again, all the circumstantial evidence surrounding a case may point one direction, and the truth could be something completely different. It's happened before.
I'm getting sick of being lectured on the Constitution. It seems that we don't interpret it the same way, but it doesn't make you right and me wrong or vice versa. So while I do not feel that I need to agree to disagree with the Constitution, I do think that I need to agree to disagree with you.
Especially about all the evidence pointing one way, but letting someone off because "the truth could be something totally different." IMO, that's a speculative, imagined, or insinuated doubt, not a reasonable one. But that's all I'll say about that.
Moving on, nothing anyone says will make this win okay with me. It seems to me that people are way too scared to put anyone in jail anymore. Forensic evidence isn't enough, eyewitness evidence isn't enough, circumstantial evidence isn't enough. People are too afraid to trust their eyes and their ears and most of all
their own common sense. Nowadays people want a video tape and if you look at Dalia Dippolito's recent trial which ended in a hung jury, sometimes that isn't even enough.
Then they turn to the general public for sympathy or applause or because they think their actions were somehow noble.
I think the jury was wishy-washy and they let a dangerous person off with a slap on the wrist. Baez is already bragging that he's going to appeal and clear him of the Odin Lloyd murder. This trial is, of course, not going to happen for awhile if it happens at all, but it's annoying.
I don't really have a problem with all defense attorneys, but I have a huge problem with this one.
What is actually known about him?
1) He wasn't passed by the bar for 8 years because they wrote that his overall behavior showed, "a total lack of respect for the rights of others and a total lack of respect for the legal system..."
2) He sold bikinis and went bankrupt.
3) He owed 12,000 dollars in back child support.
4) He defaulted on a student loan.
5) He tried to hide the fact that he wrote a bad check from the Bar.
6) He had a bar complaint filed against him for telling a private detective that if they found the body of the person who had gone missing, they were to walk away from it and then call him immediately instead of calling law enforcement.
7) He was investigated for witness tampering.
8) A private detective who was working for him claimed one of his clients was paying him in sex. He was repeatedly asked to stop hugging and touching his client during jail visits. During such jail visits, he smuggled contraband into the jail.
9) In one of the cases he tried, he accused the father of the defendant of sexually abusing her and then failed to back it up with a shred of proof.
10) He wrote a book in which he published even more inconsistent lies about the father of the defendant and profited off of it.
11) He likes to leak stuff to the media and then whine to the media about how the media is unfairly "trying his clients in the media."
Which one of these things should I find admirable again? All I see is a con artist and a big fat liar.