Post-Verdict:Jose Baez-Sanctions? Florida Bar Investigation!

[bayouland]

Ok, now I know where you are for sure. I think the decision not to have FCA testify was decided early on. Think about this...FCA dug herself a hole she couldn't possibly climb out of that first day at Universal before JB ever entered the picture. At that moment in time she had locked herself into a story that was easily disproved. I think her not testifying was a no brainer for CM. Can you imagine how many charges of perjury she would have after Jeff and Linda got done with her. She may think she's a good liar but shes not and JB is not a good lawyer. That she proved in the jailhouse videos and he has proven over and over again.
But in order for JB to present his OS, it had to appear she would testify. I think FCA knew the game plan way back when CA brought up the media yelling match between GA. CA told FCA they were saying that Caylee drown in the pool and FCA put her head down and mumbled surprise..surprise..Of course it can't be proven unless FCA admits it but thats what her hand on her face moment was about. I'm not totally sure about the timeline so it might not support the theory. Now I have to go watch the video again with fresh eyes.

Thanks for your take on this. The "suprise suprise" looked weird to me too but after the trial when I watched it again I asked myself "well did she look like this because Caylee really drown". Of course the answer in my mind was no - but I never could figure our why she looked weird like that. There was somehting in that look.

 

[bayouland]

I'm not sure if anyone has suggested this but if we could find out when the first time JB said...something like when you hear my OS..everyone will understand. We know from that date the game plan had already been set. Seems to me he was saying this early on but I could be wrong.

Do you really think so? Wasn't he still saying Caylee was missing up until a day or so before the remains were found. To me it sounds like he had one plan and when the remains were found, another was invented.

In that jail meeting with FCA, something was going on. He is very upset in that video.

 

[bayouland]

You cannot state whatever you want in your opening statement - you may only argue positions which, in good faith, you believe you can back up with evidence during your case. It's up to opposing counsel to object to a questionable argument, and then a sidebar discussion will ensue where the judge will decide whether it's permissible.

So, if what you say is true (and I don't doubt you), could they go after Baez for making those allegations?

 

[AnaTeresa]

You cannot state whatever you want in your opening statement - you may only argue positions which, in good faith, you believe you can back up with evidence during your case. It's up to opposing counsel to object to a questionable argument, and then a sidebar discussion will ensue where the judge will decide whether it's permissible.

Was the state aware that drowning would be in JB's opening statement and the part about GA? Was HHJP aware? jmo

I was talking more about molestation - however that would also apply to drowning. There are rules of reciprocal discovery - the defense is required to turn over the materials it has uncovered in putting together its case that they intend to use in the trial. Things like expert witness reports, witness lists, photographs, etc. So if they had any evidence pointing to the drowning theory in its reciprocal discovery, the state would be considered on notice of the issue. HHJP receives copies of the filings as well, so he would be able to rule. If it wasn't self-evident that they intended to advocate the drowning theory, then the state would have had to object if they thought it was an egregious argument, and then they were argue over it during sidebar. Baez would have to convince HHJP that during direct or cross of a certain witness, he would be drawing out evidence to back up the theory. Generally, you wouldn't object to the drowning theory, because it doesn't violate the rules. The molestation argument, however, was definitely something to object to.

Sorry,I guess I was being a bit broad in my post. Ok,good faith in regards to JB's OS. How to we know if KC told him about this so called molestation or not. Attorney client privilege prevents anyone from asking right? Although the prosecution could have objected during JB's OS, maybe they felt that letting him dig in deeper with his BS would work out better for their case. I feel that unsupported statements by consul will usually anger a jury. It's a shame it didn't in this case. MOO.

Whether KC told him or not, he could only raise it in good faith if he had evidence that was going to come out in trial about it. He could only state that in his opening if he was going to put a witness on the stand who would testify to it, or he had a photo, etc. Just having your client tell you something isn't enough to address it on the opening - you have to back it up.

There's also a strategy to objecting during opening - it can make the attorney look bad for interrupting, which is why many won't interrupt an opening or closing unless the infraction is really bad. Normally, juries do react unfavorably to claims that an attorney can't back up, but there was so much going on with this case that I think the opening statement allegations was just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[LambChop]

Do you really think so? Wasn't he still saying Caylee was missing up until a day or so before the remains were found. To me it sounds like he had one plan and when the remains were found, another was invented.

In that jail meeting with FCA, something was going on. He is very upset in that video.

I still think JB told KC he had sent DC out there to look for the remains and that DC could not find anything where KC said the remains would be and they figured the remains had been carried off by animals, never to be found. So, as per usual one of her "boys" did not do their job and the remains were found which now makes her look bad. She is making him suffer in that video from the body language. It's as if it is all his fault. Isn't that typical KC behavior?????? jmo

 

[AnaTeresa]

So, if what you say is true (and I don't doubt you), could they go after Baez for making those allegations?

Well, it depends. As far as the state's case goes, they would have had to object during the opening. If they argued in front of HHJP, and he allowed Baez's statement to stay in, they would need to preserve their objection for an appeal. The appellate level would have to address the issue and find Baez in the wrong. If HHJP sustained the state's objection, then that could qualify for a mistrial, or at the least, a jury instruction to ignore. I think a complaint would have to show that Baez made his allegation in bad faith to really have any bite, but from what I can tell about things in Ohio, either HHJP or the attorneys for the state could complain about it.

This is all with a great big caveat - I'm still a law student and in another state. A verified attorney, preferably in Florida, would know better/more details.

 

[Purple Iris]

Do you really think so? Wasn't he still saying Caylee was missing up until a day or so before the remains were found. To me it sounds like he had one plan and when the remains were found, another was invented.

In that jail meeting with FCA, something was going on. He is very upset in that video.

He was angry cause #1, his PI didn't find Caylee first, and, #2, that there was probably "private rumblings" of the duct tape on her little face that they had hoped the animals would have carted off for ever, never to have been found so that they wouldn't have to explain it; and could pull off their SOD story if they still needed to, IMO.

 

[bayouland]

He was angry cause #1, his PI didn't find Caylee first, and, #2, that there was probably "private rumblings" of the duct tape on her little face that they had hoped the animals would have carted off for ever, never to have been found so that they wouldn't have to explain it; and could pull off their SOD story if they still needed to, IMO.

Somebody is going to spill the beans one of these days.......

 

[RANCH]

I was talking more about molestation - however that would also apply to drowning. There are rules of reciprocal discovery - the defense is required to turn over the materials it has uncovered in putting together its case that they intend to use in the trial. Things like expert witness reports, witness lists, photographs, etc. So if they had any evidence pointing to the drowning theory in its reciprocal discovery, the state would be considered on notice of the issue. HHJP receives copies of the filings as well, so he would be able to rule. If it wasn't self-evident that they intended to advocate the drowning theory, then the state would have had to object if they thought it was an egregious argument, and then they were argue over it during sidebar. Baez would have to convince HHJP that during direct or cross of a certain witness, he would be drawing out evidence to back up the theory. Generally, you wouldn't object to the drowning theory, because it doesn't violate the rules. The molestation argument, however, was definitely something to object to.



Whether KC told him or not, he could only raise it in good faith if he had evidence that was going to come out in trial about it. He could only state that in his opening if he was going to put a witness on the stand who would testify to it, or he had a photo, etc. Just having your client tell you something isn't enough to address it on the opening - you have to back it up.

There's also a strategy to objecting during opening - it can make the attorney look bad for interrupting, which is why many won't interrupt an opening or closing unless the infraction is really bad. Normally, juries do react unfavorably to claims that an attorney can't back up, but there was so much going on with this case that I think the opening statement allegations was just the tip of the iceberg.

So your saying he could have intended to put KC on the stand to back up his OS claims but later changed his mind? Or are you saying his is in trouble for statements made in his OS that he never backed up with evidence?

 

[MsMacGyver]

Had they gotten rid of the duct tape they would have claimed Caylee drowned at that point because there was no proof to prove otherwise. jmo

LambChop...They could have gotten rid of the blanket and anything else that would have tied the dump site to the A house..

Do you think LE might have never found the body? Extreme I know even for me but just wanted to know what you think...:dunno:

 

[Concerned Papa]

It wouldn't surprise me to find that information from Dominic Casey has some relevance in Mr. Baez's problems with the Florida Bar.

DC doesn't strike me as the sharpest tack in the box, and I will NEVER believe that a PI supposedly working for an accused murderer's parents, who was in the employ of the same accused murderer's attorney 30 days prior, was bumbling around in the same wooded swamp, within a few feet of where this child's remains were tossed because of some physic's phone call.

IMO, someone with SPECIFIC knowledge, not just a good vibe or two, directed him there.

 

[strawberry]

It wouldn't surprise me to find that information from Dominic Casey has some relevance in Mr. Baez's problems with the Florida Bar.

DC doesn't strike me as the sharpest tack in the box, and I will NEVER believe that a PI supposedly working for an accused murderer's parents, who was in the employ of the same accused murderer's attorney 30 days prior, was bumbling around in the same wooded swamp, within a few feet of where this child's remains were tossed because of some physic's phone call.

IMO, someone with SPECIFIC knowledge, not just a good vibe or two, directed him there.

That would be AWESOME

 

[strawberry]

LambChop...They could have gotten rid of the blanket and anything else that would have tied the dump site to the A house..

Do you think LE might have never found the body? Extreme I know even for me but just wanted to know what you think...:dunno:

FWIW I do. I think if JB and Co found Caylee we would not know to this day where she was. He instructed DC to let him know and not call LE.

 

[MissJames]

I'm not sure if anyone has suggested this but if we could find out when the first time JB said...something like when you hear my OS..everyone will understand. We know from that date the game plan had already been set. Seems to me he was saying this early on but I could be wrong.

They tried really hard to pin this on someone else.
They wanted to get RK's ex wife to claim he duct taped her .( Oh,maybe that's what LG was remembering :waitasec: The PI was very hinky)

Maybe they had several scenario's they were working on ,and this was the only one that worked in the end. I would have bet against it ,but what do I know :crazy:

IMO JB and company should be under investigation for a lot of things.

 

[AnaTeresa]

So your saying he could have intended to put KC on the stand to back up his OS claims but later changed his mind? Or are you saying his is in trouble for statements made in his OS that he never backed up with evidence?

Yes - if he intended to put KC on the stand and produce evidence pointing to the molestation theory, but then later changed his mind, the opening statement assertion would be okay. I don't think he can get in trouble for his statements now, since there wasn't an objection preserving the issue for review post-trial - the only way that Baez could get in trouble for it is if one of the state's attorneys had evidence proving he introduced the molestation issue as pure slander, with no evidence to support it. Then that would be grounds for a complaint. If, however, he simply made the assertion, but wasn't able to back it up because of natural changes in trial strategy as the trial went on, that's not bad faith, so you wouldn't have much to stand on complaint-wise, despite how sleazy it was.

Things may differ in Florida as far as their ethics rules regarding trial conduct, but that's my understanding of the issue in Ohio.

 

[Purple Iris]

FWIW I do. I think if JB and Co found Caylee we would not know to this day where she was. He instructed DC to let him know and not call LE.

I agree with you also, and will take it a step further by saying that had DC found Caylee's remains, that "someone" would have been employed to go to that site and not only remove the infamous duct tape, but, to take the skull right along with it.

Her little bones were already well on their way to being torn apart and scattered by animals.
Look how long it took CSI to plot and grid that area, inch by inch to retrieve what they did.

Small bones would not have stood out to anyone had they ever came across them in time, with the wild life, etc.
But, most certainly a skull would stand out and make you stop in your tracks.
The skull and blanket would have been gone for sure.

Not sure who would have gone to swampy area to do the final deed, but I firmly believe that there would have been a clean up job on someones to-do list; IMO.

And, that, would certainly call for someone to have their head on a plate before the Florida State Bar if that info got out.
Like others have said, someone is gonna talk, and oh boy, when they do.

Baez and team, for being so smug in the beginning, are sure being very quiet these days for some reason.

 

[MissJames]

CA made false statements about her work schedule in relationship to the chloroform searches.
Her work records were produced that showed it wasn't true.
IIRC ,HHJP questioned JB about what he knew .I don't recall exactly how,but do remember JB telling HH that he took CA at her word and didn't feel he needed to verify her story by looking up the records.
HH was pizzed. She was his witness
Could that result in a bar complaint?

 

[AnaTeresa]

CA made false statements about her work schedule in relationship to the chloroform searches.
Her work records were produced that showed it wasn't true.
IIRC ,HHJP questioned JB about what he knew .I don't recall exactly how,but do remember JB telling HH that he took CA at her word and didn't feel he needed to verify her story by looking up the records.
HH was pizzed. She was his witness
Could that result in a bar complaint?

I'm not sure. Maybe? It sounds like he didn't follow through with the basic duties an attorney must do in a case. I'm not sure if it's a big enough violation of the standard of care that would count as a complaint. Anyone else know?

 

[LambChop]

CA made false statements about her work schedule in relationship to the chloroform searches.
Her work records were produced that showed it wasn't true.
IIRC ,HHJP questioned JB about what he knew .I don't recall exactly how,but do remember JB telling HH that he took CA at her word and didn't feel he needed to verify her story by looking up the records.
HH was pizzed. She was his witness
Could that result in a bar complaint?

You would think so because we already know from the hearing where CA lied about the searches that LDB called her out on it. If JB continued to encourage CA to testify knowing she was lying I would think that would be trouble for him. The fact that all he had to do was get a copy of her work records to verify if she were there or not is his responsibility. Sloppy work or an intent to deceive? I think we know the answer. jmo

 

[Purple Iris]

You would think so because we already know from the hearing where CA lied about the searches that LDB called her out on it. If JB continued to encourage CA to testify knowing she was lying I would think that would be trouble for him. The fact that all he had to do was get a copy of her work records to verify if she were there or not is his responsibility. Sloppy work or an intent to deceive? I think we know the answer. jmo

What's that old saing, "If you're not gonna like the answer to the question, don't ask it".

Seems Baez lives by that rule.