Not really. He's doing a terrible job.
IMO, he sunk his opening statement when he tossed in Kronk, because Baez can't explain how Kronk "got" Caylee.
If I didn't know anything about this case, I would think this opening argument is full of fail, because he's tossing out all this disjointed "could have"; he can't string it together into something coherent, which makes him look desperate and silly.
Apparently though there are at least a few people watching this who are buying it. All Baez needs on the jury is 1.
Just my opinion...
I wasn't going to post during Baez's opening statement, but it's pretty lame as far as powerful opening statements go. I'm not really worried. Once the evidence is presented, hopefully the facts will clear up Baez's mess.