Yesterday a poster on the Garcia thread stated that there are no Florida statutes to keep Baez from representing Casey based on his level of experience ... that those standards only apply to appointed counsel ... not privately retained counsel.
I thought that I would post what I found on that subject here since it deals as much with Baez as Garcia. I also included some case law that I find very interesting, as it shows precedence. And what might happen if Casey seeks a waiver from this Rule of Criminal Procedure (3.112)
Originally Posted by impatientredhead
After digging through Fl statutes the only things I can find that refer to the 5 years experience rule are all directly related to court appointed attorneys which Baez is not. There are rules in place in most states to make sure people facing the death penalty are not inadequately defended by a state appointed attorney (which use to happen all the time).
Can't find a thing about a privately paid for attorney needing to meet this standard. Everyone has to have their first capital case somewhere along the line, the state isn't willing to foot the bill though or risk the appeal.
Well you need to read Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure
Specifically, In re Amend. to Fla. Rules of Crim. P. – Rule 3.112 Minimum Standards for Attorneys in Capital Cases, 820 So. 2d 185, 194
(Fla. 2002) (amending rule 3.112 to apply to privately retained attorneys).
The same standard applies to both appointed and retained attorneys.
As evidenced by the following case ... Casey may be able to seek a waiver from the court to allow representation by an unqualified attorney ~ one that does not meet the standards of Rule 3.112 ... but in doing so she will likely lose her grounds for appeal based on ineffective counsel or ineffective assistance of counsel.
See (Nukarri k) Williams v. State of Florida
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.112(f) establishes minimum standards for attorneys in capital cases. Under the rule, attorneys acting as lead counsel in such cases must meet the following criteria:
(1) are members of the bar admitted to practice in the jurisdiction or
admitted to practice pro hac vice; and
(2) are experienced and active trial practitioners with at least five
years of litigation experience in the field of criminal law; and
(3) have prior experience as lead counsel in no fewer than nine state
or federal jury trials of serious and complex cases which were tried
to completion, as well as prior experience as lead defense counsel or
cocounsel in at least two state or federal cases tried to completion in
which the death penalty was sought. In addition, of the nine jury trials
which were tried to completion, the attorney should have been lead
counsel in at least three cases in which the charge was murder; or
alternatively, of the nine jury trials, at least one was a murder trial and
an additional five were felony jury trials; and
(4) are familiar with the practice and procedure of the criminal courts
of the jurisdiction; and
(5) are familiar with and experienced in the utilization of expert
witnesses and evidence, including but not limited to psychiatric and
forensic evidence; and
(6) have demonstrated the necessary proficiency and commitment
which exemplify the quality of representation appropriate to capital
cases, including but not limited to the investigation and presentation
of evidence in mitigation of the death penalty; and
(7) have attended within the last two years a continuing legal 5
education program of at least twelve hours' duration devoted
specifically to the defense of capital cases. Attorneys who do not
meet the continuing legal education requirement on July 1, 2002,
shall have until March 1, 2003, in which to satisfy the continuing
legal education requirement.