2011.01.06 Baez Slapped with Formal Sanction

[seeing_eye]

As for CM, a friend of mine recently saw him on a program defending in a trial from at least a decade ago. She recognized his voice immediately, but was stunned at how sharp he was. She said it was as if she were watching a different person.

I haven't seen him in his hey-day, but that is just as I suspected.

 

[sleutherontheside]

http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/standards/trialjudge.html#6-4.1

Standard 6-4.1. Power to impose sanctions

The court has the inherent power to protect the integrity and fair administration of the criminal justice process by imposing sanctions. The trial judge has the power to cite and, if necessary, punish summarily anyone who, in the judge's presence in open court, willfully obstructs the course of criminal proceedings.

Standard 6-4.2. Imposition of sanctions

If the judge determines to impose sanctions for misconduct affecting the trial, the judge should ordinarily impose the least severe sanction appropriate to correct the abuse and deter repetition and should do so outside the presence of the jury, if possible. In weighing the severity of a possible sanction for disruptive courtroom conduct to be applied during the trial, the judge should consider the risk of further disruption, delay, or prejudice that might result from the character of the sanction or the time of its imposition.

Standard 6-4.3. The sanction of contempt

The sanction of contempt should not be imposed by the trial judge unless:

(a) it is clear from the identity of the offender and the character of his or her acts that the disruptive conduct was willfully contemptuous; or
(b) the conduct warranting the sanction was preceded by a clear warning that such conduct was impermissible and that specified sanctions might be imposed for its repetition.

 

[The World According]

Would love to know how many hours were billed against the Galloways for
so called investigative work. How in perdition were these people offered up as potential defense witnesses. :floorlaugh:

Let me count the ways Kathi is going to ask that to Baez and Cheney. Who needs TV shows or the movies, put your cokes in the ice box and popcorn on the table, when she gets that mic ready.....It's ON!!!!
She lives for moments like this. MOO

"The Prosecutors called your motion a farce, what do you have to say to that?, Kathy asked him. She goes on to demand to know what evidence, wouldn't this secret witness Todd speaks of be the first witness listed she asks him. If you listen closely....it is downright hysterical. "Is there a bombshell going to be dropped on February first ?"(That day, of course we know came and went with crickets ....the deadline Judge Strickland gave to produce the TES witnesses that prove she was not in those woods until after Casey was jailed . Februaruy 1st of LAST YEAR!) She does not let him ignore her, she asks and asks.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvn-UzhSNiM[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7lMC6X4kDY[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLn8AkfkgdQ[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHP2pL56T7g[/ame]

http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/19372139/detail.html

 

[rhornsby]

This is just a general response to those who believe that the fact my opinions turn our right or wrong reflect on my knowledge of law or the correctness of my opinions.

The very fact I am giving my opinion always means that someone else can completely disagree with me. At the same time, when I make an opinion that is contrary to a position of a judge or attorney means exactly that - I disagree with their position.

While a judge, prosecutor, or attorney may prevail on a position that I disagreed with in my blog does not necessarily mean they were correct (or that my opinion was correct for that matter) it just means that it is correct unless it is appealed AND the appellate court upholds the opinion/ruling.

My opinion is that while Judge Perry's "fine" (or whatever you want to call it) was warranted, it was not imposed legally. Just because Judge Perry "upholds" his own fine does not mean it was properly imposed, it just means that it was imposed and not challenged.

Now if it was imposed, Jose Baez appealed, and the appellate courts upheld the imposition of the "fine" under Rule 3.220(n) as Judge Perry cites, then I would happily admit I was mistaken in my analysis and move on. But it was not appealed and more frustrating to me, the defense did not even challenge it on the proper legal grounds.

So of course judge Perry is not going to reverse himself just because I posted a blog which (according to his admitted lack of internet reading) he would never read, he would only reverse himself IF he was presented with proper legal argument from the attorneys in the case raising the appropriate case law.

 

[The World According]

"I've still got plenty of fight in me!", Jose Baez said.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riUxjPv5N38[/ame]

Here Jose answers why it took him 8 years to begin practicing law eight years after he took the bar exam, once, and passed it. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3MZHB2IDc4[/ame]

"I am solicitng anyone and everyone's help who will come and help me. I am not all knowing!!!"

"There is so much that I don't know. I want to learn. I want to solicit help from others that do know. I think that is smart", Jose continued. The reporter asks him about making misleading statements and what the bar says on the matter.

O/T We are delighted to have you posting Richard Hornsby.

 

[AZlawyer]

I like when Judge's use footnotes. That footnote is ALMOST as good as the ones JS used in his last humdinger of an order.

Attached is another humdinger from a federal judge in Flordia. This order was passed around my firm for laughs. The back story is apparently the parties were arguing about the location of a 30(b)(6) deposition. So this is what the Judge issued in response to the parties request that the Court intervene.

Absolutely CLASSIC!!!!!!!!

**Note again, my firm did not represent any party in regards to the attached Order. But as I've said many times, the legal community is VERY small. And when entertaining things happen in the legal field, word spreads quickly, very quickly. If I had to guess I would wager that JB is literally the laughing stock of the local Florida legal community.

I love it. OT, here's a great order from one of our Maricopa County judges, Penny Gaines, who just passed away leaving a gaping hole in the humor department of the MC Superior Court:

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Acceptance of Lunch Invitation

The Court has rarely seen a motion with more merit. The motion will be granted.

The Court has searched in vain in the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure and cases, as well as the leading treatises on federal and Arizona procedure, to find specific support for Plaintiff’s motion. Finding none, the Court concludes that motions of this type are so clearly within the inherent powers of the Court and have been so routinely granted that they are non-controversial and require no precedential support.

The writers support the concept. Conversation has been called “the socializing instrument par excellence” (Jose Ortega y Gasset, Invertebrate Spain) and “one of the greatest pleasures in life” (Somerset Maugham, The Moon and Sixpence). John Dryden referred to “Sweet discourse, the banquet of the mind” (The Flower and the Leaf).

Plaintiff’s counsel extended a lunch invitation to Defendant’s counsel “to have a discussion regarding discovery and other matters.” Plaintiff’s counsel offered to “pay for lunch.” Defendant’s counsel failed to respond until the motion was filed.

Defendant’s counsel distrusts Plaintiff’s counsel’s motives and fears that Plaintiff’s counsel’s purpose is to persuade Defendant’s counsel of the lack of merit in the defense case. The Court has no doubt of Defendant’s counsel’s ability to withstand Plaintiff’s counsel’s blandishments and to respond sally for sally and barb for barb. Defendant’s counsel now makes what may be an illusory acceptance of Plaintiff’s counsel’s invitation by saying, “We would love to have lunch at Ruth’s Chris with/on . . .” Plaintiff’s counsel.1

[FN1: Everyone knows that Ruth’s Chris, while open for dinner, is not open for lunch. This is a matter of which the Court may take judicial notice.]

Plaintiff’s counsel replies somewhat petulantly, criticizing Defendant’s counsel’s acceptance of the lunch invitation on the grounds that Defendant’s counsel is “now attempting to choose the location” and saying that he “will oblige,” but Defendant’s counsel “will pay for its own meal.”

There are a number of fine restaurants within easy driving distance of both counsel’s offices, e.g., Christopher’s, Vincent’s, Morton’s, Donovan’s, Bistro 24 at the Ritz-Carlton, The Arizona Biltmore Grill, Sam’s Café (Biltmore location), Alexi’s, Sophie’s and, if either counsel has a membership, the Phoenix Country Club and the University Club. Counsel may select their own venue or, if unable to agree, shall select from this list in order. The time will be noon during a normal business day. The lunch must be conducted and concluded not later than August 18, 2006.2

[FN2: The Court is aware of the penchant of Plaintiff’s counsel to take extended cruises during the summer months.]

Each side may be represented by no more than two (2) lawyers of its own choosing, but the principal counsel on the pending motions must personally appear.

The cost of the lunch will be paid as follows: Total cost will be calculated by the amount of the bill including appetizers, salads, entrees and one non-alcoholic beverage per participant.3 A twenty percent (20%) tip will be added to the bill (which will include tax). Each side will pay its pro rata share according to number of participants. The Court may reapportion the cost on application for good cause or may treat it as a taxable cost under ARS § 12-331(5).

[FN3: Alcoholic beverages may be consumed, but at the personal expense of the consumer.]

During lunch, counsel will confer regarding the disputes identified in Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s discovery motion and Defendant’s motions to quash, for protective order and for commission authorizing out-of-state depositions.4 At the initiative of Plaintiff’s counsel, a brief joint report detailing the parties’ agreements and disagreements regarding these motions will be filed with the Court not later than one week following the lunch and, in any event, not later than noon, Wednesday, August 23, 2006.

[FN4: The Court suggests that serious discussion occur after counsel have eaten. The temperaments of the Court’s children always improved after a meal.]

 

[Aedrys]

Jose is just asking for it... he reminds me of a three year old, who, when you tell them not to touch something, they look at you with those wide eyes and inch closer and closer to what they want to touch and you just stare at them... DARING them to touch it. Too bad Jose isn't a three year old who can get away with such cuteness.

Caylee so would have been, if it wasn't for Baez's client...no offense, but reading this was like a punch to my gut. It reminded me of Caylee so much for some reason. And it makes me even angrier at Baez's shenanigans. He can't even act his age and properly defend Casey. It's just disgusting. I'm glad HHJP spelled out things for him since apparently kindergarten is the only way Baez understands things.

*sigh* I'd do anything to have Caylee alive and being that three year old. Justice for her can't come fast enough...

 

[The World According]

Mr. Hornsby, in your Florida criminal law cases have you encountered any problems like this, where do you stand on the defense being required to have the experts produce reports? If you don't mind telling us, is that just SOP and you do it in your trials routinely?

I am asking because Mr. Mason must have had to follow the local rules for many years, he would know them backwrds and forward by now, but he acts like he has never heard of any such thing!

Also, although Baez cannot resign his post, Mason can if as and when he likes, so long as there is Ann Finnell or some dp qualified lawyer is on the case, is that right or wrong?

Isn't the dp qualified lawyer lead counsel? I remember Andrea saying she was, technically, but she considers herself part of the team. If they are a team, why was the sanction only against Jose and not the pair of them?

What did you make of Mr. Ashton being asked by Cheney not to cash the check?
What was Cheney having the retired judge come to sit in on the hearing for the other day , if you will venture a guess?
What did you make of Judge Perry telling the defense that there are lawyers out there now that do things like sue defense attorneys to recover money for the JAC?

 

[sleutherontheside]

Mr. Hornsby, in your Florida criminal law cases have you encountered any problems like this, where do you stand on the defense being required to have the experts produce reports? If you don't mind telling us, is that just SOP and you do it in your trials routinely?

I am asking because Mr. Mason must have had to follow the local rules for many years, he would know them backwrds and forward by now, but he acts like he has never heard of any such thing!

Bold / Red by me...


I doubt he'd be nominated for an Academy Award. There are "standards" to consider.

Chameleons / Charlatans....... "Semantics". :innocent:

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Oh AZLawyer - what a gem!

:floorlaugh: "The temperaments of the Court’s children always improved after a meal." :floorlaugh:

OT - but, we should have a downstairs thread for all the funny rulings by judges. I love reading these!

 

[The World According]

Oh AZLawyer - what a gem!

:floorlaugh: "The temperaments of the Court’s children always improved after a meal." :floorlaugh:

Well then, this explains in its entirety why Judge Perry continues to tell the lawyers "You might wanna get you some lunch"!
http://www.youtube.com/user/hornsbylaw

 

[Psmith]

OMG toooo funny...they didn't even know what was being done to him and called it the wrong thing on appeal. :floorlaugh:

I'm just seeing the news now--it's marvellous. Yes, the order needs to hold!

And it is hilariously funny! I wonder if Judge Perry had trouble cleaning the coffee he had spewed all over his keyboard as he composed the wording?

"Counsel [for the defense] argues a determination of civil contempt is unnecessary to ensure compliance with the court's order regarding discovery," Perry wrote. "However, as the record will clearly reflect, the court did not hold counsel in contempt."

*cough* *cough*


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-casey-anthony-baez-denied-20110120,0,656597.story

 

[LancelotLink]

I'm just seeing the news now--it's marvellous. Yes, the order needs to hold!

And it is hilariously funny! I wonder if Judge Perry had trouble cleaning the coffee he had spewed all over his keyboard as he composed the wording?

*cough* *cough*


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-casey-anthony-baez-denied-20110120,0,656597.story

:floorlaugh:

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I think he did.
<Snipped From his blog>
http://blog.richardhornsby.com/

If Judge Perry wanted to legally fine Jose Baez, he would have had to hold him in contempt and hold a contempt hearing. See State v. Shelton, 584 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (“Only through the use of criminal contempt procedures, direct or indirect, can a trial court assess fines or costs against an attorney in a criminal case.”). However Judge Perry specifically stated that he was not finding Jose Baez in contempt – for now. Thus his order requiring Jose Baez to pay the State Attorney’s office $583.73 was illegal.

But I still can't help doing a happy dance!!:crazy::woohoo::great:

Oh please. I think Perry knows what he's doing.

 

[Psmith]

And JB's bad 2011 continues rolling along.

Is anyone else betting that JA is waiting until next week, when all of the dealines have been missed before firing off his next well worded request for further sanctions? I mean at this point the SA's have to be sitting there watching this all in rapt fascination, wondering just how far the defense will go. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. They just can't look away. I mean they don't want to file anything now for the one missed report. That would spoil or ruin the big surprise next week when they get to see what sort of half assed lame filing they dump in at absolutely the last minute with no basis in law, reality or the english language. It's sort of the same reason that people watch the Jersey Shore. It's such a horribly bad example of humanity at its dumbest that you just can't look away.

Yes. Absolutely!

I think, though, that one cannot expect too much of Mr. Ashton's patience--even he can take only so much. So, let's say 15 required docs miss the deadlines then down comes the Sanctions Motion hammer.

 

[sumbunny]

At $500.00 a day, Baez will need to take out a personal loan.

Hope it's worth his $3.00 an hour.

 

[Soju]

At $500.00 a day, Baez will need to take out a personal loan.

Hope it's worth his $3.00 an hour.

Yowza! He'll need to work over 166 hours/day to make it. LOL (lots of labor), Jose!

 

[Baxter]

Oh please. I think Perry knows what he's doing.

I found the following on the Florida Bar site, regarding rule 3.220 that Judge Perry used in his order.

"Renumbered (n)(2) is amended to provide that sanctions are mandatory if the court finds willful abuse of discovery. Although the amount of sanction is discretionary, some sanction must be imposed".



[ame="http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=florida+rules+of+criminal+procedure+3.220&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8"]florida rules of criminal procedure 3.220 - Google Search[/ame]

 

[The World According]

He doesn't follow any rules. Wow!!!!!
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GUw0PIjI5E[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycsdDgAqg1Q[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOcTBNRRsSQ[/ame]

 

[faefrost]

At $500.00 a day, Baez will need to take out a personal loan.

Hope it's worth his $3.00 an hour.

I wonder if that $500/day would be considered per incident/report/expert. So would they get nailed for $500/day for EACH outstanding report or summary?