You know for a very long time I have been confident that HHJS and following him HHJP had placed enough buffers in place to shield against any appellate issue of infective council. KC had to watch each hearing and make informed choices about her representation. The judges and the SA have been careful to nudge the defense to prevent outright shocking incompetence. Plus the defense has had what, a dozen lawyers? So no one should be able to effect the outcome to that degree.
But then we come to JB's performance in open court while examining and cross examining witnesses.
- He put an associate law partner from his office under oath, and while there attempted to pierce his own clients Attorney Client Privilege. Luckily caught and stopped by the Judge.
- He put a LE officer under oath for deposition, and while under oath attempted to pierce a separate LE case and investigation regarding himself.
- He put an LE officer under oath on the stand, and attempted to pierce Grand Jury secrecy through questioning. Once again luckily shut down by the Judge.
- He put the self same LE officer on the stand and got him to present previously unrealized testimony, above and beyond the officers dog testimony, that yes he was fully qualified to recognize the smell of death/human decomposition, and yes he had smelled it in that vehicle.
- While under the same witness cross he also questioned the witness into presenting a clear backing for the prosecutions theory of the crime Q"Well what could cause the false positive in the backyard?" A"well if someone had rested a dead body on the surface there and then took it elsewhere"
- With the state expert witness Dr. Vass on the stand, he managed to elicit not just the scientific information, but he interrogated Dr. Vass into providing some very human witness direct observations concerning the smell on the samples from the car. Then followed it up stressing that the edipocere found also contained THC. (ie Marijuana!) This is just bumbling questionable actions with witnesses above and beyond the badgering, combative approach to opposing council and the judge. "No judge you're wrong!" Ummmm? Plus I think it is pretty clear to everyone that has been observing, even those that have been trying to keep Mr. Baez within the lines for trial, that he has very very clearly acted in bad faith before the court and his fellow attorneys. And this is one of the worst things that he can do as an officer of the court. (I am betting that the Florida Bar receives several letters today, including one from JA, one from HHJP, one or more from witnesses and a few from the knowledgeable journalists watching).
So now given this pattern of activity. Are we getting closer to the threshold where an Appeals court might more closely examine the situation? Or even in the near term is there a way for HHJP to more cleanly separate issues regarding the defendant from issues regarding the representation?
