Subornation of Perjury and Jose Baez

[ColdDayIn]

I have no complaint with this. I do have a problem with the many folks who seem unable or unwilling to separate the defendant from the people representing her, and all too willing to transfer or assign all the negative opinions they have of the defendant onto the defense team.

Baez devoted three years of his life to this case. He almost certainly knows ICA better than anyone on in the world, he likely has a very strong opinion on her guilt. But guilty or not, and however he might feel about her personally, Casey Anthony has a right the best most aggressive defense possible.

Someone has to do it, not for the guilty but for the innocent.

Baez knows this. He also knows that he is going to be hated and ridiculed for doing his job. He knows that if he wins or even does a decent job, in many people's minds he will be no better than ICA -- and if he loses his loss will be cheered and celebrated. Screw that.

I will stand up here and say the unpopular thing: Thank's Mr Baez, and all defense attorneys, for doing what you do. I think you did a good job of it and ICA got a fair trial and solid defense. I believe that when this is finished justice will have been served.

BBM

He knows a "version" of her. She puts on a different persona for different people. IMO Nobody will ever "know" ICA.

Also- I totally disagree with the opinion that "Someone has to do it, if not for the guilty but for the innocent.". NOBODY will ever be able to convince me that JB's intentions were anything more than self-serving. It doesn't matter how much trouble he gets in over this case, if he loses his license, goes to jail, etc. He will have what he was after...fame and fortune. If JB miraculously doesn't go after some type of media deal or any other money jackpot after this is over, I will eat my words.

 

[justthinkin]

I have no doubt that if convicted ICA will go after JB and said he made up the drowning and abuse. She will claim she was forced to go along with it. She will also claim he slept with her and threatened her. If I were JB I would protect myself and not be alone with her.

CA will say he made her testify as she did or set her up for perjury charges. She would throw him to the wolves in a second especially if daughter gets convicted. She needs to take personal accountability as well.

Remember the money ICA told lead counsel she had up front to hire him that turned out to be a lie? And remember the jail having a problem with him keeping his hands off his client? How did she pay him until she sold the photos of Caylee? Nothing would surprise me about either ICA or JB. Why was he so liberal with the use of a certain word in that courtroom during closing arguments to describe ICA? It seemed he was denigrating his client beyond her being charged with murder. That itself seems worthy of a mistrial to me. ICA had no choice, but to sit there and take it. I think she's a , but I thought JB went too far. What he said certainly wouldn't cause a jury to have the warm fuzzies for his client. It hurt her, even if she couldn't recognize it emotionally.

Absolutely CA would throw JB under the bus. Would bet they both have the goods on each other.

I have no problems with any other member of the defense team, but when it comes to JB, he's smokin, and where there's smoke, there's apt to be fire.

 

[100%Agave]

I kept waiting for either Cindy, George, or Lee to tell JB during questioning when ask why they are now changing their story, that they did what he told them to do back then but before a court is a totally different thing.

But then Cindy blatantly lied on the stand and somehow knew that if she covered herself by claiming that her previous medication made her forget things would be her out on perjury charges. Now I wonder who told her that?

 

[GennyMac]

I think CA offered to testify to this. She is smart and has been sitting in court listening to all this. Looking for a way off the 1st degree charge and thought this would do it. With CA's work records showing she was at work, and Baez not knowing what her company records might say, he should never have let her testify to that without checking it out first.

Real stupid move on his part. This hurt ICA's case more than if CA had just kept her mouth shut. It really puts the 1st degree up front now.

I had a real problem with this from the first utterance of her testimony because every single business dealing with healthcare records must have a retention policy and all HIPPA related subject matter must be kept on file for 7 years. Not only that but all medicaid records must be audited annually due to Sarbanes Oxly. Any manager would have known this - and I fully believe she knew they could check it out and find that she could not have been home -

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I have no complaint with this. I do have a problem with the many folks who seem unable or unwilling to separate the defendant from the people representing her, and all too willing to transfer or assign all the negative opinions they have of the defendant onto the defense team.

Baez devoted three years of his life to this case. He almost certainly knows ICA better than anyone on in the world, he likely has a very strong opinion on her guilt. But guilty or not, and however he might feel about her personally, Casey Anthony has a right the best most aggressive defense possible.

Someone has to do it, not for the guilty but for the innocent.

Baez knows this. He also knows that he is going to be hated and ridiculed for doing his job. He knows that if he wins or even does a decent job, in many people's minds he will be no better than ICA -- and if he loses his loss will be cheered and celebrated. Screw that.

I will stand up here and say the unpopular thing: Thank's Mr Baez, and all defense attorneys, for doing what you do. I think you did a good job of it and ICA got a fair trial and solid defense. I believe that when this is finished justice will have been served.

Somehow I just cannot see Jose Baez as the martyr for justice that is painted here. I prefer to judge him on his own morals, separate from Casey's. I find them severely lacking.

He disrespected the court so severely that he has already been fined. And yet he continued along the same path so flagrantly that HHJP has indicated that there will be a penalty to pay at the end of this trial. That doesn't sound like the "best" defense to me ~ maybe the most "aggressive" but certainly not the best. How many times did we hear HHJP tutoring him, i.e.; what motions he needed to file, how to write them, warning him that he shouldn't "open that door," etc, etc? Even the prosecution helped in his on the job training by supplying copies and documents he failed to bring to court. He whined and complained about everything, even the things he was guilty of himself.

You are right, imo, about his aggressiveness. He was so aggressive that he didn't think he should have to follow the rules (even those he understood). It was this belligerence that gave him the confidence to not only toe the line but to step over it several times. It may be that he got his entire foot over the lines of rules, court decorum and morals. We will find out shortly.

Casey did get a fair trial but I believe it was in spite of Mr Baez. It was because HHJP and the prosecution gave him so many breaks and help.

Sure, everyone needs a vigorous and legal representation; key word being legal. Defense and state both need to play by the same rules ~ ". . . not for the guilty but for the innocent." moo.

 

[rbrnmw2]

Somehow I just cannot see Jose Baez as the martyr for justice that is painted here. I prefer to judge him on his own morals, separate from Casey's. I find them severely lacking.

He disrespected the court so severely that he has already been fined. And yet he continued along the same path so flagrantly that HHJP has indicated that there will be a penalty to pay at the end of this trial. That doesn't sound like the "best" defense to me ~ maybe the most "aggressive" but certainly not the best. How many times did we hear HHJP tutoring him, i.e.; what motions he needed to file, how to write them, warning him that he shouldn't "open that door," etc, etc? Even the prosecution helped in his on the job training by supplying copies and documents he failed to bring to court. He whined and complained about everything, even the things he was guilty of himself.

You are right, imo, about his aggressiveness. He was so aggressive that he didn't think he should have to follow the rules (even those he understood). It was this belligerence that gave him the confidence to not only toe the line but to step over it several times. It may be that he got his entire foot over the lines of rules, court decorum and morals. We will find out shortly.

Casey did get a fair trial but I believe it was in spite of Mr Baez. It was because HHJP and the prosecution gave him so many breaks and help.

Sure, everyone needs a vigorous and legal representation; key word being legal. Defense and state both need to play by the same rules ~ ". . . not for the guilty but for the innocent." moo.

A defense attorney who uses the victims family to win a case, the way he used GA should be criminal, but it isn't. It takes a "special attorney" to do that.
CA got up there and of her own volition but JB admitted to knowing WHAT she was going to say before he put her on the witness stand, therefore he knew she was going to lie.
He had CA's work record all the computer record and the phone records from discovery.
IMO of the way I read the law that is subornation of perjury
He used CA's love for her child against her. He should have never put her up there even if it was her idea.

 

[LambChop]

Anyone else notice JB's co-counsel sitting on the sidelines with a great big smile on his face? Maybe much of JB's actions were by design. jmo

 

[JusticeSeeker1960]

Nope. Do not believe he HAD to 'induce' anyone to lie. Those who lied, did so on their own, albeit, to what he perceived to be to the DT's advantage.

The "liars" had their 'own' reasons/agendas ............. imo. I will say, I doubt he discouraged these 'acts.' jmo

possibly but, if he DID NOT KNOW then explain please how he knew exactly what questions to ask....the attorney will ask the questions they KNOW what they're getting answers to when they have their witness on the stand, right? :sick:

 

[JusticeSeeker1960]

Anyone else notice JB's co-counsel sitting on the sidelines with a great big smile on his face? Maybe much of JB's actions were by design. jmo

yep, saw CM with the big grin on his face, saw JB continually "yawn"....like their client, they don't learn!

 

[rbrnmw2]

Anyone else notice JB's co-counsel sitting on the sidelines with a great big smile on his face? Maybe much of JB's actions were by design. jmo

That scares me

 

[lorann]

The judge does not want a mistrial, however, he has enough instances of JB's disrespect for the court to administer punishment. I expect that to happen as a form of teaching JB how to be a lawyer and respect the bench. I have no link but didn't the judge make a comment that CA's testimony would be dealt with later? To me there is a big difference in I don't recalls than out and out telling lies.

The monies give to the defense team, has there ever been an audit?

 

[Beccaboo]

I have to disagree with those saying Jose was just doing his job and it isn't his fault the case has gone the way it has. With all due respect Jose Baez is absolutely the reason this case turned into a circus. He was ethically challenged long before he met ICA. That is the reason he was denied access to bar for so many years. Because he was a morally bankrupt individual who refused to support his children, wrote bad checks and was just all around slimy. Fast forward to meeting ICA. Do you really think all the attorneys who have left really left for money reasons? One of them had the guts to tell the truth. Can't remember his name but he wanted to go with mental health defense and Jose said no way. It was Jose, not ICA showing up on primetime news shows 3/4 times a week. It was Jose not ICA who repeatedly and intentionally disobey court orders. It was Jose who forgot to pay the taxes as he was the in control of the funds. It was Jose who spent $3000000 without actually accomplishing anything. Jose has a spanking coming. He deserves what ever he gets. JMHO

 

[rbrnmw2]

I have to disagree with those saying Jose was just doing his job and it isn't his fault the case has gone the way it has. With all due respect Jose Baez is absolutely the reason this case turned into a circus. He was ethically challenged long before he met ICA. That is the reason he was denied access to bar for so many years. Because he was a morally bankrupt individual who refused to support his children, wrote bad checks and was just all around slimy. Fast forward to meeting ICA. Do you really think all the attorneys who have left really left for money reasons? One of them had the guts to tell the truth. Can't remember his name but he wanted to go with mental health defense and Jose said no way. It was Jose, not ICA showing up on primetime news shows 3/4 times a week. It was Jose not ICA who repeatedly and intentionally disobey court orders. It was Jose who forgot to pay the taxes as he was the in control of the funds. It was Jose who spent $3000000 without actually accomplishing anything. Jose has a spanking coming. He deserves what ever he gets. JMHO

Great Post ITA

 

[MissJames]

I have to disagree with those saying Jose was just doing his job and it isn't his fault the case has gone the way it has. With all due respect Jose Baez is absolutely the reason this case turned into a circus. He was ethically challenged long before he met ICA. That is the reason he was denied access to bar for so many years. Because he was a morally bankrupt individual who refused to support his children, wrote bad checks and was just all around slimy. Fast forward to meeting ICA. Do you really think all the attorneys who have left really left for money reasons? One of them had the guts to tell the truth. Can't remember his name but he wanted to go with mental health defense and Jose said no way. It was Jose, not ICA showing up on primetime news shows 3/4 times a week. It was Jose not ICA who repeatedly and intentionally disobey court orders. It was Jose who forgot to pay the taxes as he was the in control of the funds. It was Jose who spent $3000000 without actually accomplishing anything. Jose has a spanking coming. He deserves what ever he gets. JMHO

You wrapped the issue up in a neat little package .Thank you. JB must not be allowed to continue his flagrant disrespect for the LAW.

 

[Donjeta]

I voted No because I think Cindy decided to perjure herself all on her own. No prodding was needed from anyone.

Maybe but JB and CA had to have agreed about the testimony beforehand because he knew what to ask and because he more or less said so.

BBM

Ok! This right here, IMO, covers JB's opening statement. I can't see how a REASONABLE attorney, knowing that their client was a constant liar, would hear the story that JB presented in his open and think that it was reasonable and true. JB knew that was a big pile of horse puckey, and yet he rolled with it! He slandered 2 people in furthering this lie by presenting it to the jury, and then trying to twist the facts to fit his story. Yes! He should be charged with suborning perjury and he should be disbarred, IMO.

IMO he slandered far more than two, including the sheriff's and the medical examiner's staff and several state witnesses.

didn't cindy keep saying that she had said the same thing about the searches during her deposition. I would guess thats why JB called her to the stand because she had already said it... if she had said no i didn't do it, then she would have been caught lying in the depo...either way it was cindy that lied, he didn't make her, so i don't think he can get in trouble for that one.

How much info of the computer searches was in public documents when Cindy made the statements in her deposition? Could she have found out about the need to lie about the searches on her own or would she have had to be advised by the defense team?

 

[LambChop]

You wrapped the issue up in a neat little package .Thank you. JB must not be allowed to continue his flagrant disrespect for the LAW.

My guess is that CM instructed JB on just how far he could go without crossing the line. CM seemed to be agreeable with everything JB did sitting there with a great big smile on his face. Sort of like the kid that instigates a fight, then stands back and watches. I believe CM did the same thing when Judge Strickland was reclused. Big joke. jmo

 

[LambChop]

Maybe but JB and CA had to have agreed about the testimony beforehand because he knew what to ask and because he more or less said so.



IMO he slandered far more than two, including the sheriff's and the medical examiner's staff and several state witnesses.

How much info of the computer searches was in public documents when Cindy made the statements in her deposition? Could she have found out about the need to lie about the searches on her own or would she have had to be advised by the defense team?

BBM: And don't forget the dogs, Gerus and Bones.

 

[mysteriew]

Someone said that in order to prove that JB suborned perjury that CA would have to roll on him, and says that won't happen.

Think about CA and her history when people working for her don't get her what she wants or when they try to walk away. And if/when KC gets convicted, and the A's already don't like him? LOL all it will take is for someone to ask her about it. She will roll in a heartbeat.

I think it is more likely that if they don't persue it it will be because of the cost and the fact that the state just wants to be done with this.

 

[msinformed]

possibly but, if he DID NOT KNOW then explain please how he knew exactly what questions to ask....the attorney will ask the questions they KNOW what they're getting answers to when they have their witness on the stand, right? :sick:

BBM

Intelligent, savvy attorneys, yes ............ JB, not so much. I saw many times where the answers he did illicit, backfired and were detrimental to the defense. I think he didn't KNOW the answers to nearly ALL of his questions. But, that's jmo.:seeya: Fellow Red Stick citizen!

 

[msinformed]

Someone said that in order to prove that JB suborned perjury that CA would have to roll on him, and says that won't happen.

Think about CA and her history when people working for her don't get her what she wants or when they try to walk away. And if/when KC gets convicted, and the A's already don't like him? LOL all it will take is for someone to ask her about it. She will roll in a heartbeat.

I think it is more likely that if they don't persue it it will be because of the cost and the fact that the state just wants to be done with this.

I think, the UNDERLYING PERJURY has to be proven first - meaning CA, or whomever lied, has to be tried AND convicted of perjury BEFORE JB could even be charged.


http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/fo...9/crm01752.htm

From the Statute ..............

To establish a case of subornation of perjury, a prosecutor must demonstrate that perjury was committed; that the defendant procured the perjury corruptly, knowing, believing or having reason to believe it to be false testimony; and that the defendant knew, believed or had reason to believe that the perjurer had knowledge of the falsity of his or her testimony.

To secure a conviction for subornation of perjury, the perjury sought must actually have been committed. United States v. Hairston, 46 F.3d 361, 376 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 124 (1995). The underlying perjury must be proved under the standards required by the applicable perjury statute.


That's just my take on it ............ of course, I'm NOT a chemist! :floorlaugh: