Judge Perry admonishes Jose Baez

[TiaM]

I understand why Baez was chastised by HHJP today due to questioning DS on something not in his report and therefore not disclosed to the SA. But can someone with a legal background explain to me how the SA got away with introducing the duct tape superimposition on Caylee's face if that was not disclosed to the defense ahead of time ?

BBM

It had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Spitz whatsoever.

It was the previous witness, Rodriguez. Not in his report. No depo ever taken by the defense.

 

[websurfer]

Judge Perry is a fine judge.

 

[TiaM]

I think Baez will be back to selling bathing suits in no time. jmo

You know if he tried selling them in person instead of online, he might make a heck of a salesman.

Because he sure doesn't ever take "NO" for an answer. :loser:

 

[Steely Dan]

I don't think it's just JB,either. Do you recall when HH gave deadlines for completeing depos (I think it was depos,but maybe a witness list), LDB stated in court that CM was basically not cooperating and said he could do them anytime he damned please. It was a clear thumbing the nose at the Judge.
I really believe it's part of their strategy.

I pray the State stays above this game playing garbage....or is it trash :waitasec:

Does anyone know if the state did in fact depose Rodriquez yesterday?

 

[katydid23]

ITA-I was not sure why HHJP lumped the state in with JB, I do not remember them violating his motions....wait, maybe on one occasion but I can't remember the details.
At any rate, what really got me was that JB got kind of sassy and indignant. No contrition whatsoever.

BBM

I am pretty sure of the reason Judge P always lumps them together when he admonishes JB. The judge wants the record to show that he was fair and impartial. If he was on record calling out the DT all of the time then it would be grounds for appeal. BUT if he takes care to admonish both of them, then when it comes to the review by higher courts, the judge looks unbiased and impartial.

That is why the SA do not take it too hard when they get lumped in. They do not want it to be turned over on appeal either. That is also why I think he slams JA so hard when he raises his voice or gets impatient. I think the Judge wants it in the transcripts that he called out the state as well as the DT.

 

[Serjen]

I understand why Baez was chastised by HHJP today due to questioning DS on something not in his report and therefore not disclosed to the SA. But can someone with a legal background explain to me how the SA got away with introducing the duct tape superimposition on Caylee's face if that was not disclosed to the defense ahead of time ?

I can't speak for certain, but I think it WAS disclosed to defense beforehand and they objected to it. I read somewhere that Dr. Warren was deposed by Defense in September of 2010. So they had full knowledge of what he was going to testify too. I think, and again I am not a lawyer so I don't understand it all, but I think Defense assumed the video would not be allowed (just testimony about it) in court and I guess they were surprised when the judge allowed it in? I'm not sure. But they certainly knew of it before hand otherwise it would have been a big deal. Probably the same as State knowing what Dr. Spitz would testify to, but probably weren't aware that he would bring a skull model to show.

 

[grandmaj]

The State disclosed this CD to the court. Baez was allowed time to proffer. It wasn't the same because the State did in fact disclose the existence of this new evidence, took it to the court in proper form and Baez was allowed to see it and voice his objections in a proffer without the jury present. I also believe this witness disclosed his opinions about the duct tape in his report which was shared with the defense. So he knew what this witness was going to say before he said it.

What Baez did was knowingly elicit the testimony in front of the jury about duct tape when this witness never disclosed in his report that he had an opinion about it. And Baez knew that this witness had an opinion but didn't share it during the sharing of discovery, that this witness would testify to the location of the duct tape.

The severity is that the jury heard this testimony.

The attorneys at the beginning of trial entered into an agreement to proffer any new information that might have come out and hadn't been shared in discovery. All Baez had to do is file a supplemental discovery motion, the Judge probably would have ordered a deposition but the jury would not get the impression that the State is trying to hide something by this objection. What Baez did is sandbagging effectively.

 

[watcher9]

1) If HHJP finds JB to be in contempt and sentences him to whatever jail time, would that mean that JB will have a record against him? Is contempt considered a misdemeanor or a felony? Can an attorney still keep his license if he has a record?

2) If HHJP just turns it over to the Bar, would anything happen? So far, the Bar has not went against JB.

3) I think any contempt charges brought against JB should apply to all attorneys on the DT, including fines and jail time.

 

[1tasha]

I'm still munching on crow. I gave the Defense too much credit and said they wouldn't put on a defense. I blabbed it everywhere. Eating crow is not what I like to do...darn Baez!

Although technically? You're good.

 

[watcher9]

CM, DS and AF have had enough experience to lead JB or at least assist him in trying this case the right way. How can they sit back and let JB do the things he does?

CM has already made comments about this case being different because it is a death penalty case and feels that the the DT can make their own rules in defending their client, threatening to go to the Supreme Court if necessary. Is he encouraging JB to do whatever because he feels the judge can't do anything to the DT on threat of an appeal?

 

[joedotnet]

somewhat new to the trial, i went searching for more info on Baez...I came across this link...hopefully helpful if you are like me and trying to get up to speed.

http://www.ponderingtheessence.com/?p=896