Subornation of Perjury and Jose Baez

[DairyGirl]

And what's worse, I feel he knowingly did this, knowing that he couldn't substantiate these claims and that the jury would expect him to. He made a "mistake" that many people not trained in any legal fashion know: you never, ever say or do anything to place the burden of proof on the defense as it originally lies with the prosecution.

Agreed. Sometimes I almost wonder if he is doing such a terrible job on purpose because he knows she is guilty. I know, that would imply that he has a conscious, which I haven't seen any evidence of. I really do feel there will be an appeal on ineffective counsel, which I don't see getting anywhere given the other attorneys on the case. I think from here on out whenever someone has ineffective counsel they will say they have been "Baezed".

 

[deelytful1]

I don't know the legal aspects of it all, but like other posters mentioned, I dont think he had to persuade anyone to lie or commit perjury. Do I think he KNOWS what was a lie? Yes. Do I think he based his theory of defense based on a lie? Yes. Do I think he knew it was a lie at the time and now? Yes. Can a court prove it??? Unless some other circumstances come to light, NO.
:twocents:
So, I voted "Maybe"

 

[Mandy113]

I voted yes because I do think he should be charged BUT I don't think JB will be charged with anything. I don't even think he'll be disbarred. It would seem very difficult to prove JB knows anything. Nothing to back it up other than my opinion.

I do think he'll be co-hosting a show with Geraldo though. Again, JMO

 

[Boytwnmom]

if I understand, the attorneys had stipulated to the work records, i.e., that means they agreed that those records were accurate. Now I haven't seen the actual wording of the stipulation but that is normally what a stipulation would contain. So, JB agrees with the SDA that these records are true and accurate reflections of CA's work days and hours. Then he tells HHJP that he KNEW CA was going to dispute their accuracy on the witness stand thus essentially violating the stipulation. If JB already said they were accurate and also that he knew CA would lie and say they weren't what does that leave the court with?

I agree and further if he were charged it would have to be proven in a court of law that he knew that the witness was going to lie and put her on the stand anyway or that he asked her to lie or that he....a lot to prove in a court of law. Proving this would be very difficult. JMHO.

 

[rbrnmw2]

I voted yes because I do think he should be charged BUT I don't think JB will be charged with anything. I don't even think he'll be disbarred. It would seem very difficult to prove JB knows anything. Nothing to back it up other than my opinion.

I do think he'll be co-hosting a show with Geraldo though. Again, JMO

I think he crossed HHJP one too many times so I'm not so sure he won't at least be held in contempt HHJP knows his case law and he doesn't appear to be a judge i'd want to cross MOO

 

[rossva]

No one can prove what JB said in his opening statement is untrue. And even if some one could prove it was untrue, no one could prove JB knew it to be untrue.

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.

 

[rbrnmw2]

if I understand, the attorneys had stipulated to the work records, i.e., that means they agreed that those records were accurate. Now I haven't seen the actual wording of the stipulation but that is normally what a stipulation would contain. So, JB agrees with the SDA that these records are true and accurate reflections of CA's work days and hours. Then he tells HHJP that he KNEW CA was going to dispute their accuracy on the witness stand thus essentially violating the stipulation. If JB already said they were accurate and also that he knew CA would lie and say they weren't what does that leave the court with?

You are right and I think this is why HHJP specifically asked him If he KNEW what Cindy was going to testify to and it's on the record now so who knows what JB's future holds after HHJP is done with him

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I agree and further if he were charged it would have to be proven in a court of law that he knew that the witness was going to lie and put her on the stand anyway or that he asked her to lie or that he....a lot to prove in a court of law. Proving this would be very difficult. JMHO.

Not if Cindy said "he told me what to say, and I said it.."

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I have another question which may or may not play into this thread. What was the deal with Lee going to JB with something he heard his mother and father discussing? I have always thought that Lee heard Cindy and George talking about the "new" defense theory that Caylee drowned in the family pool, and that he was going to put the molestation stuff out there.
Did Lee go to JB and say ... "If you do that, I will let all your dirty little secrets out"...and hence JB NEVER EVEN ASKED LEE ABOUT MOLESTATION ON THE STAND? I would LOVE to know what all that was about. Some very sleazy stuff going on, if you ask me. And it didn't just start 6 weeks before the trial began.
That's neither here nor there, however. Casey killed her daughter, nobody else. I just think there was a lot of shenanigans going on for the past 3 years.

 

[rbrnmw2]

I have another question which may or may not play into this thread. What was the deal with Lee going to JB with something he heard his mother and father discussing? I have always thought that Lee heard Cindy and George talking about the "new" defense theory that Caylee drowned in the family pool, and that he was going to put the molestation stuff out there.
Did Lee go to JB and say ... "If you do that, I will let all your dirty little secrets out"...and hence JB NEVER EVEN ASKED LEE ABOUT MOLESTATION ON THE STAND? I would LOVE to know what all that was about. Some very sleazy stuff going on, if you ask me. And it didn't just start 6 weeks before the trial began.
That's neither here nor there, however. Casey killed her daughter, nobody else. I just think there was a lot of shenanigans going on for the past 3 years.

Oh to have been a fly on the wall when Lee and JB had that meeting JMO

JB's "lawyering" style IMO is at best questionable MOO

 

[rbrnmw2]

But here's the thing. JB would have just had to know that Cindy's testimony was pure unadulterated bullplop and still choose to elicit it on the stand. It doesn't have to originate with him. He just has to knowingly present the falsehood. He danced dangerously close to that when HHJP was grilling him concerning the states rebuttal. HHJP knows he crossed the line and brought a lie before the court. It's just a matter of whether it is borderline enough to prove.

But even then, HHJP really doesn't have to prove anything to deal with it in his own way. he already has JB dead to rights on several instances of willful contempt. It's just a matter of how hard HHJP decides to nail him. This just increases the size of the hammer the judge will use.

JB admitted he knew what her testimony was going to be 3 times when Judge Perry asked him when they were talking about the State's rebuttal

 

[Mulegirl]

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.

ITA. While she was saying this stuff on the stand, as a former computer tech, I was shouting and gesturing and being gobsmacked (one of my favorite British sayings!) that JB and team didn't stop her. Wouldn't you think that someone would've had enough brain cells to know that, working for a health care company, this would be shooting fish in a barrel for the SA??!!

I also agree that CA wound up hurting ICA's case much, much more than helping. What's that old saying about honesty being the best policy? And the other one about the tangled webs... Yipes!

:banghead:

 

[Mulegirl]

But even then, HHJP really doesn't have to prove anything to deal with it in his own way. he already has JB dead to rights on several instances of willful contempt. It's just a matter of how hard HHJP decides to nail him. This just increases the size of the hammer the judge will use.

I've started to watch HHJP when JB is doing his whining or lying or whatever and am thinking I see a ticker going in his head of items that grow that hammer. In the last couple of days I believe that ticker has been spinning like a speedometer in a Ferrari.
:cow:

 

[faefrost]

JB admitted he knew what her testimony was going to be 3 times when Judge Perry asked him when they were talking about the State's rebuttal

Yes, but the question is given the conflicting evidence (stipulated to by the defense I believe) of CA's time sheets and such, should JB have reached the reasonable and clear conclusion that the witness was going to lie on the stand.?

 

[Nana46]

Casey was asked on two separate occasions (that we know of) if she was happy with her representation. Her parents said they didn't care for Baez. Let's not forget Mason, Simms and Finnell are on her DT. Also, Linda Kenney Baden, Terrence Lenamon (sp) and Andrea Lyon have been members of the team at one time or another. IIRC, she was locked up when she first heard of Baez. Don't know if someone specifically gave her his name or she overheard someone mentioning him. IMO, there is only so much the courts can do. The 6th amendment guarantees a right to counsel - not the perfect counsel.

Yup she picked him and she has kept him....the only thumbs up I will give to JB is this.......he has been able to keep her silent for 3 years...how in Hades he managed to do that is beyond me....but, that does not make him a good lawyer IMO,lol.

 

[Melanie]

I wrote "maybe".

1 - CA or any other DT witness would have to give up Jose.
2 - as hard as it is, I don't care how much I've been nudged, coerced, threatened - who lies on the stand in a DP case?

He can lead them to water, but he can't make them drink. It's ultimately up to the witness to open their mouth and spew the vomit.

Trust me - I don't like JB one bit. But he can't make anyone do anything!

MOO

Mel

 

[Stargazer7]

Another thing, I feel in my gut Jose Baez was expecting Lee to say something truly scandalous when Lee was on the stand and started crying. They had certainly agreed to it beforehand and Ashton as well as Judge Perry saw it coming. I think their caution unnerved Lee or maybe it's because unlike Casey herself, Lee has a conscience and simply could not finish destroying his family to help Casey. I really do not give Jose the benefit of the doubt at all. He's as corrupt as they come, imo.

 

[Justin Tyme]

Their lawyer on Greta was talking about how ICA didn't say he abused her that JB did. Greta called him out saying he can only say what client tells him and his allegation is a big one and would make JB completely unethical. They are in such denial they will put the sexual abuse claims on JB not ICA. ICA is never held accountable.

Do I think CA would throw JB under the bus if need be? No doubt about it. CA however knowingly got on that stand and lied. JB knew it and it came back to bite him in the butt. I do think this could be reported to the Bar.

That first sentence reminds me of what CA's attorney stated after the court session Friday where CA was clearly caught lying about her work records. She was caught lying and he states that she still stands by her testimony that she was in fact home that day doing the searches. (We see where ICA has learned lie and deny) He too, is only saying what his client has told him to say.
I can see ICA and CA trying to drag JB under the bus with them especially if ICA gets the DP. I do think that the court will deal with JB for any and all infractions in this case without any prodding from anyone.

 

[txsvicki]

I think there's something fishy about the whole defense, and surely the judge can see the pattern. Is it illegal though? IMO, everything may be setup and played out like some novella. The mistress, her sister being in jail at the same time, the jailhouse letters, even down to that hysterical woman during jury selection and the waiter giving the finger. The testimony of the family and even their dress seems staged. I'm not sure about George, but don't trust it all, not even the suicide attempt. I could be wrong about George and feel bad for the whole family who loved Caylee, but something seems very unreal about the trial.

 

[Spangle]

I voted Yes.

CA was married to that statement. JB knew it.

So he didn't have to make her do it. But I do believe the Judge got him to admit he knew she was going to lie. And that is why I voted yes.