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

[strawberry]

I have barely been able to watch HLN since the verdict. Vinnie is fine, but the others...

Oh sure, someone is expecting me to believe that JVM is going to discuss Baez and ethics in the same breath? Ha!:loser:

Yes, I meant Vinnie on HLN not those other ones!:crazy:

 

[strawberry]

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/18/jose-...laint-hiding-information-ethics/#.Tk1abc9rv20

 

[Baily]

Attorneys can say whatever they want in "Opening Statements", and they do all the time - whether it is true or not. Their job is to raise a reasonable doubt and save their client. The jury does not have to accept it, and they did not accept the sexual abuse allegations in this case and that is it.

Call me a purist, I believe an attorney's job is to protect the rights of their client, not to tell stories "whether true or not".

 

[strawberry]

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/18/jose-...laint-hiding-information-ethics/#.Tk1abc9rv20

Quoting myself: I love this part:

Jose tells us, he's "looking forward to the bar completing its investigation, so that it can be dismissed just like the 20 previous complaints."
:waitasec:

 

[manatee]

wow, only 150 people viewing this site...interest is dying fast

 

[IfIMay]

Quoting myself: I love this part:

Jose tells us, he's "looking forward to the bar completing its investigation, so that it can be dismissed just like the 20 previous complaints."
:waitasec:

How badly must the Florida Bar be viewed if what Baez says happens.. Even Baez thinks it's a riot you can have 20 complaints and nothing's done... :loser:

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Quoting myself: I love this part:

Jose tells us, he's "looking forward to the bar completing its investigation, so that it can be dismissed just like the 20 previous complaints."
:waitasec:

I'm sure in his world it's a badge of honor in a backwards sort of way. I bet to him it is due to fighting all those meanies who hate him for doing so well for his precious clients.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Quoting myself: I love this part:

Jose tells us, he's "looking forward to the bar completing its investigation, so that it can be dismissed just like the 20 previous complaints."
:waitasec:

That's outrageous! What profession ignores 20 complaints?

 

[logicalgirl]

Quoting myself: I love this part:

Jose tells us, he's "looking forward to the bar completing its investigation, so that it can be dismissed just like the 20 previous complaints."
:waitasec:

Wow - I sure did a double take at that - TWENTY????

What is this - he's portraying himself as some kind of legal Robin Hood now? :waitasec: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[whiteangora]

Wow - I sure did a double take at that - TWENTY????

What is this - he's portraying himself as some kind of legal Robin Hood now? :waitasec: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I guess when you think about it, he is some kind of Robin Hood in a perverted way. He steals from the rich (The State) and gives to the poor (himself and Casey)

 

[Emma Peel]

I don't have time to read through this whole thread. It occurred to me that I could express my thoughts after reading thread title in an acceptable and expedient manner:

:saber:

:whip: :whip: :whip: :whip:


:whip: :whip: :whip:


:whip: :whip:


:whip:

:bud:

:cowboy:​

oh, and :cow:

 

[logicalgirl]

I guess when you think about it, he is some kind of Robin Hood in a perverted way. He steals from the rich (The State) and gives to the poor (himself and Casey)

Oh Grrr - I'm sorry I ever wrote that post - now we'll see that name to describe him popping up in some darned "social mediaized" site....ugh!

 

[Solace]

Attorneys cannot say whatever they want in their opening statements. You cannot assert unprovable facts or interject an inadmissable matter. There are rules governing this. With some statements, opposing counsel must object, in others, it can be grounds for a mistrial. Opening statements are not a free for all.

Ana,

Attorneys can say whatever they want in opening statements and do not have to prove it. It is up to the state to prove everything. Baez did not have to prove his assertion of sexual abuse and he did not. Never mentioned it again. As I have said before, I have seen many an ID show where the lawyers stood up and blamed other family members for murders and had no proof whatsoever. He blamed Roy Kronk and said he moved the body.

Can't get much worse than those two lies, sexual abuse and unproven allegation of moving a body. It is an opening statement, NOT EVIDENCE. This was said over and over again during this trial by Judge Perry.

 

[Solace]

BBM From my readings, attorneys have great latitude in their opening comments BUT, they are limited to the things they plan to "prove" duing the course of the trial.

The allegations against George are obscured since the "proof" would depend on Casey testifying. Ethically, I believe, JB could not have made the comments about the sexual abuse unless he intended to call Casey. He can "claim" this was his intent and how can anyone possibly say this wasn't an "intent."

In other words, JB was close to unethical behavior again, but how can anyone prove it. I find this very frustrating. :banghead::banghead: Very few defense attorneys would call a defendent to the stand during a jury trial. JB, IMO, stretches the intent of the law too often. :maddening:

The key word is "plan" to prove. I recently saw a case where a son was accused of killing his mother and tryng to murder his father and was on trial for it. His defense lawyer said he didn't do it but his friend did and proceeded to tell why he thought that. He proved nothing, and used it at trial. He also used it in his closing statement. The son was found guilty. But the defense used what it wanted.

 

[21merc7]

20+ complaints in the short amount of time JB has been practicing is really bad. That amount would make sense if he had been practicing for 20+ years.

Wonder how many there really are?

 

[AnaTeresa]

How badly must the Florida Bar be viewed if what Baez says happens.. Even Baez thinks it's a riot you can have 20 complaints and nothing's done... :loser:

That's outrageous! What profession ignores 20 complaints?

Some professions do tend to attract a ton of complaints, often without merit. You should see the amount of complaints that police officers get - a good amount are without merit.

Also, the complaints have to be investigated. They can be withdrawn, and sometimes, the complainants do not forwarding contact information. The Bar could try to follow up with a person, but they are gone. The Bar investigates, but they are dependent on the complainant to get the ball rolling, so to speak.

Sometimes, disgruntled clients will complain without merit, as will other attorneys who do not like someone. It's possible that, given Baez's personality, which can be abrasive, that he had complaints filed that did not have merit under the rules and regulations.

Or, he's exaggerating the amount, trying to make himself look good. Or, the Bar is negligent, but I'm thinking they would be more vigilant with him, given how many tries it took for them to approve him to even sit the bar exam. I'm thinking exaggeration or unable to substantiate.

Ana,

Attorneys can say whatever they want in opening statements and do not have to prove it. It is up to the state to prove everything. Baez did not have to prove his assertion of sexual abuse and he did not. Never mentioned it again. As I have said before, I have seen many an ID show where the lawyers stood up and blamed other family members for murders and had no proof whatsoever. He blamed Roy Kronk and said he moved the body.

Can't get much worse than those two lies, sexual abuse and unproven allegation of moving a body. It is an opening statement, NOT EVIDENCE. This was said over and over again during this trial by Judge Perry.

While you are correct that opening statements cannot be taken by the jury as evidence, I disagree. We are taught in school that you may only assert theories, defenses, or statements that will be supported by admissible evidence. It is up to opposing counsel to object if the attorney asserts something which cannot be proven. This will generally lead to a sidebar of some sort with the judge, discussing how the assertion will be proven.

Furthermore, even if you assert something and the opposing counsel does not object, it looks bad to the jury if you don't back up your assertion with evidence. You leave them hanging, and then they begin to doubt the rest of what you have presented, because now you are less than truthful in their eyes.

Not my law school, but a good PDF of a trial advocacy textbook discusses this from Indiana Law School:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/instruction/tanford/web/reference/04open.pdf

I also know that there was more in depth discussion of this issue while the trial was ongoing, with verified lawyers weighing in on what can and cannot be discussed during trial. If you go back and check those threads out, there's a more nuanced discussion of the issue of Baez's opening, as well as the boundaries of opening statements in general.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Furthermore, even if you assert something and the opposing counsel does not object, it looks bad to the jury if you don't back up your assertion with evidence. You leave them hanging, and then they begin to doubt the rest of what you have presented, because now you are less than truthful in their eyes.

Thanks for your post.I agree with your comment here in principal,but the jury in this case sure didn't see it that way.MOO.

 

[LyndyLoo]

That's outrageous! What profession ignores 20 complaints?

:floorlaugh: Call me silly..but when one lone lawyer (JB)has this many complaints, there should be HUGE 'RED FLAGS"?? JB will never survive a 20 years career in LAW..so guess what??? He already appears to be in the " Entertainment and Promotional" mode already :banghead:

Ms. KC has "Horseshoes" You know where..and I have to believe her luck is going to run out right along with HER ENABLERS"!! Let the Chips fall where they may :truce:

 

[Baznme]

Ana,

Attorneys can say whatever they want in opening statements and do not have to prove it. It is up to the state to prove everything. Baez did not have to prove his assertion of sexual abuse and he did not. Never mentioned it again. As I have said before, I have seen many an ID show where the lawyers stood up and blamed other family members for murders and had no proof whatsoever. He blamed Roy Kronk and said he moved the body.

Can't get much worse than those two lies, sexual abuse and unproven allegation of moving a body. It is an opening statement, NOT EVIDENCE. This was said over and over again during this trial by Judge Perry.

I seem to remember JB being warned by the Judge that if he was going to go down that path, he'd better have evidence to back it up. THAT's why he didn't prove his assertion of sexual abuse. He had none but, he didn't have to at that point, all he really wanted to do was plant the seed of thought in the juries minds. It worked.

Roy Kronk moved a "piece" of the body when probing the bag with a stick and admitted so on the stand but JB's intent was to make the jury believe he had "moved" the entire body. It didn't work however.

 

[strawberry]

@MarkEiglarsh
Mark Eiglarsh
FL Bar is investigating defense atty Jose Baez re Casey Anthony's probation issue. I provide analysis with JVM tonite at 7:30 p.m. on HLN.