Personalities of the lawyers

I see baez as arrogant, slick and stupid, a dangerous combination, imo.

mason has the experience, but his "good ole boy" facade is sure to grate on some juror's nerves, imo.

Both of them imo, will underestimate the common sense of any jury and will promise things in their opening remarks that they will never produce in the case in chief.

imo.
 
I am thinking we will see an entirely different CM once the trial begins. He has been around long enogh to know that he needs the jury on his side. The judge already knows him, so he doesn't think he needs to be impressing anyone yet, imo. As far as JB goes, imo, he thinks he can act like he has been litigating forever because that good old boy attitude is what he aspires to. But you have to be able to walk the walk before you can talk the talk. Good luck JB. I don't think you are going to be able to change your spots once the trial starts.

This girl has really impacted so many lives, most of all little Caylee, when will her destruction stop?
 
So glad to see this thread. I saw Mac's question on the Atty. thread and thought, "We need a thread to expound on this!" Thanks to AlwaysShocked for opening it.

Personal story - My interest in law was piqued about 20 yrs. ago when I received a summons for jury duty. I was seated on a jury to hear a high profile child molestation case. We were sequestered for the trial which took 2 weeks. The defendant was a 22 yr. old male from a very prominent and well known family in the area. His attorney was a carbon copy of Cheney Mason. Older man, nearing retirement, captain of the local “good ol’ boys club”. His reputation preceded him. In the 2nd largest county in AL, he was known as the “go-to” guy for securing an acquittal if you were guilty and had the big bucks to hire him. I imagine his retainer was more than the down payment on my house. CM even looks eerily similar to him.

I loathed him during that trial. He was full of himself and he rubbed me the wrong way the way he talked down to us. He was constantly insulting our intelligence. Like CM, he had a very large ego and more than a touch of male chauvinism. Attorneys’ personalities DO come through and they DO affect the jurors. He relentlessly grilled the victim, a precious 5 yr. old boy, on the stand for 2 days and never once broke him. All he managed to do was make jurors detest him for it. That said, several jurors were intimidated and his smoke & mirrors campaign did manage to confuse a few. I wasn’t one of them, but it made deliberations difficult and long. 3 days of deliberations. The first vote was 5 guilty, 7 not guilty. By the end of the 3rd day we had a guilty verdict. The biggest problem I had was putting my personal dislike of the man aside to vote fairly. From what we were told later, we handed him only the 2nd loss of his career. He retired afterwards. It was the last case he took to trial.

Jurors are going to go ballistic if JB doesn’t get more organized and succinct. When you are sequestered, you have little patience for silly antics and disorganization. A trial with such high stakes is extremely emotionally draining on jurors. You are acutely aware that you are holding someone’s life in your hands. It is a huge responsibility. You literally dream about it. They are going to want things moving along. Like HHJP, they just want the pearls, not the whole bushel of oysters.

I predict the jurors will LOVE Judge Perry, adore & respect LDB, like JA very much and, if things don’t change, they are gonna want to throw JB off the nearest bridge.
 
Well I hate to say it but the reputation that preceded CM? So far I am not impressed. He doesn't strike me as clever, highly intelligent or charismatic. He seems of average intelligence, somewhat conceited, ordinary lawyer. Baez? Not even going there.

I am most impressed with LDB. She seems to be highly organized, business-like but not cold, unresponsive to the petty barbs lobbed at her by JB/CM in an attempt to throw her off her game, penetrating in her questing of witnesses while at the same time disarming them. Soft/likable in the way she presents to observers (& jury in future). I loved the way she questioned CA on the stand, each question seemed a harmless statement in and of itself and she got CA to anwer yes, yet the questions all flowed together to present a clear picture, from beginning to end, taking the witness (and later the jury) where she wanted them to go. It was really quite effective.

Caylee is in very good hands with LDB IMO.

MOO
 
So glad to see this thread. I saw Mac's question on the Atty. thread and thought, "We need a thread to expound on this!" Thanks to AlwaysShocked for opening it.

Personal story - My interest in law was piqued about 20 yrs. ago when I received a summons for jury duty. I was seated on a jury to hear a high profile child molestation case. We were sequestered for the trial which took 2 weeks. The defendant was a 22 yr. old male from a very prominent and well known family in the area. His attorney was a carbon copy of Cheney Mason. Older man, nearing retirement, captain of the local “good ol’ boys club”. His reputation preceded him. In the 2nd largest county in AL, he was known as the “go-to” guy for securing an acquittal if you were guilty and had the big bucks to hire him. I imagine his retainer was more than the down payment on my house. CM even looks eerily similar to him.

I loathed him during that trial. He was full of himself and he rubbed me the wrong way the way he talked down to us. He was constantly insulting our intelligence. Like CM, he had a very large ego and more than a touch of male chauvinism. Attorneys’ personalities DO come through and they DO affect the jurors. He relentlessly grilled the victim, a precious 5 yr. old boy, on the stand for 2 days and never once broke him. All he managed to do was make jurors detest him for it. That said, several jurors were intimidated and his smoke & mirrors campaign did manage to confuse a few. I wasn’t one of them, but it made deliberations difficult and long. 3 days of deliberations. The first vote was 5 guilty, 7 not guilty. By the end of the 3rd day we had a guilty verdict. The biggest problem I had was putting my personal dislike of the man aside to vote fairly. From what we were told later, we handed him only the 2nd loss of his career. He retired afterwards. It was the last case he took to trial.

Jurors are going to go ballistic if JB doesn’t get more organized and succinct. When you are sequestered, you have little patience for silly antics and disorganization. A trial with such high stakes is extremely emotionally draining on jurors. You are acutely aware that you are holding someone’s life in your hands. It is a huge responsibility. You literally dream about it. They are going to want things moving along. Like HHJP, they just want the pearls, not the whole bushel of oysters.

I predict the jurors will LOVE Judge Perry, adore & respect LDB, like JA very much and, if things don’t change, they are gonna want to throw JB off the nearest bridge.

Bravo! And welcome back to posting! Have never served on that kind of case - love the perspective. I was called to serve in a murder trial a couple of years ago, but had shingles on my scalp and one side of my face - for some reason they didn't want me after they knew that. :waitasec: My brief letter said "Excused" even though I explained I was past the "catching it" stage. :great:
 
Well I hate to say it but the reputation that preceded CM? So far I am not impressed. He doesn't strike me as clever, highly intelligent or charismatic. He seems of average intelligence, somewhat conceited, ordinary lawyer. Baez? Not even going there.

I am most impressed with LDB. She seems to be highly organized, business-like but not cold, unresponsive to the petty barbs lobbed at her by JB/CM in an attempt to throw her off her game, penetrating in her questing of witnesses while at the same time disarming them. Soft/likable in the way she presents to observers (& jury in future). I loved the way she questioned CA on the stand, each question seemed a harmless statement in and of itself and she got CA to anwer yes, yet the questions all flowed together to present a clear picture, from beginning to end, taking the witness (and later the jury) where she wanted them to go. It was really quite effective.

Caylee is in very good hands with LDB IMO.

MOO

ITA. Linda Drane-Burdick is brilliant. One of the best prosecutors I have ever seen. She knows exactly what she wants out of a witness and how to get it without offending jurors.
 
Good point about the jurors liking Judge Perry, I agree.

Linda Drane Burdick is wonderful in addressing the court and witnesses imo. I love how she enunciates even more then she usually does, when certain witnesses (george/cynthia) attempt to be less then forthcoming. God help them if they choose to lie on the stand. Linda will decimate them, imo.

In addition she is super organized and will show this desperate and incompetent defense team up, imo.
 
Personalities of the lawyers? What personalities? They have none, IMO.

Anyone could tell as early as Casey's arraignment that Baez had no idea what he was doing. The judge had to get him back on track. Whatever Baez' calling was in life, being a lawyer was not it. Baez is just not a likeable person as far as I am concerned, and the jurors, LDB, JA, and the witnesses at trial have my deepest sympathy. IMO, Baez is not only a[n unusual person], but is [unusual] as well. I really think Baez believed he could bluff his way through this trial. WRONG. His bluff has now been called, so what next?

As far as Mason goes, he lost any respect he may have had from me when he stated he was involved in this case for 'FUN'. His good old boy attitude grates on my nerves as does his mumbling. How can he hear as side bar? How can he hear Baez' whispering at the defense table? IMO, his hearing loss is an act, or either he purchased his hearing aids at Walmart. He bumped Cathy Beleich' leg outside the courtroom after the last hearing. Southern gentleman? I think not. Nothing to like about this man as far as I am concerned.

The jurors will not let personalities sway them in any way, IMO, but they certainly have my sympathy for having to listen to the gruesome twosome for the length of the trial.

Personalty of the defense lawyers ? Big fat ZERO, IMO. I cannot bear any of them and that includes the whole team! Thank God for LDB, JA, and Hon. Judge Perry. THEY are the ones who will ensure that little Caylee has justice.
 
Re: Cheney Mason - I think things looked very different at the time he made the decision to "join the fun" than they do now. There were all those other high profile attorneys and experts associated with the case at the time. Andrea Lyon, Linda Kenney Baden, Dr. Henry Lee, etc.

Stepping in and becoming a member of this "Dream Team" may have then seemed to be the capstone of a long career. Perhaps it would even lend itself to a memoir when all was said and done. And perhaps it still will, who knows?

I wonder if TrueTV's "In Session" has any coverage of a Cheney trial anywhere in its archives? I'd love to see some of it if they do. (Hint, hint if any TrueTV folks read here!)

I wonder if Mason ever bothered to read any of Baez's motions prior to joining the case. That should have been a tip-off as to what he was getting into!

A snippet of a TV show that shows Mason in action:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2e1bDwE3M0&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2e1bDwE3M0&feature=related[/ame]

ETA: No link, but I do remember when Mason first came aboard. Hornsby said he looked up Mason's "famous," "high profile," "big" cases, and found he had lost every one of them. I have faith that he will carry on that tradition in this case.
 
A question was asked on the "Verified lawyers" thread about how much the personalities of the attorneys influences the jury. (No answer as of yet)

BUT, the question sure got me to thinking! We've all seen the whining and continuous excuses of Mr. Baez during the pretirial hearings. The finger pointing and sarcasm aimed at the Prosecutors. Attorney Hornsby has indicated in his Blawg postings there is likely to be far less tolerance for Mr. Baez's antics once the actual trial begins.

Mr. Chebey Mason's speech pattern is often simply not understandable to me. Perhaps it is because I'm from the northeast? But then I see others saying the same thing. Is it only those of us who are not used to southern accents who are having a problem understanding Mr. Mason?

I understand Mason comes to court with a fine and longstanding reputation. And while this may be true, in his out of court behaviors he has shown himself to be quite mean spirited at times. On camera, at times, no less. I think that meanspiritedness will come through during a long trial, as this one surely will be.

As for the Prosecutors, both come off as very organized and highly intelligent. Mr. Ashton stikes me as having a temper in there somewhere, of which I am sure he has learned to keep watch.

Ms. Drane-Burdick comes across as a very calm and intelligent lady.

All of these are my own opinion of course.

I am wondering how others here see these folks.

-----------------
My mother always said still waters run deep.Mr.Ashton and Mrs.Burdick
are peaceful quiet people. If they get angry,get out of their way.IMO.
Baez and Mason on the other hand are adept at moaning but masters
of nothing (if that makes sense).If push comes to shove,they will "cry".
They never heard walk softly and carry a big stick.
 
Didn't you just love it in CA deposition where CA says, "I just hate it when people lie to me" and LDB says, "Me, too." I can just visualize LDB saying that in a very soft voice.
 
I've heard cm speak where it's not all mumbly jumbley in press confrences.
I don't know what the issue in the courtroom is. Strange.
imo

---------------
Yes! I heard a tape he made about this case before he was on it.He spoke clear as a bell.Reminds me of Jackies"royal boyfriend"on Roseanne.:floorlaugh:
 
Didn't you just love it in CA deposition where CA says, "I just hate it when people lie to me" and LDB says, "Me, too." I can just visualize LDB saying that in a very soft voice.

I'm sure LDB's reply went over Cindy's head.
 
I realized I had spelled Kathi Belich' name wrong after it was too late to edit. I had a senior moment there. I do so love Ms. Belich!
 
Personalities of the lawyers? What personalities? They have none, IMO.

Anyone could tell as early as Casey's arraignment that Baez had no idea what he was doing. The judge had to get him back on track. Whatever Baez' calling was in life, being a lawyer was not it. Baez is just not a likeable person as far as I am concerned, and the jurors, LDB, JA, and the witnesses at trial have my deepest sympathy. IMO, Baez is not only a liar, but is lazy as well. I really think Baez believed he could bluff his way through this trial. WRONG. His bluff has now been called, so what next?

As far as Mason goes, he lost any respect he may have had from me when he stated he was involved in this case for 'FUN'. His good old boy attitude grates on my nerves as does his mumbling. How can he hear as side bar? How can he hear Baez' whispering at the defense table? IMO, his hearing loss is an act, or either he purchased his hearing aids at Walmart. He bumped Cathy Beleich' leg outside the courtroom after the last hearing. Southern gentleman? I think not. Nothing to like about this man as far as I am concerned.

The jurors will not let personalities sway them in any way, IMO, but they certainly have my sympathy for having to listen to the gruesome twosome for the length of the trial.

Personalty of the defense lawyers ? Big fat ZERO, IMO. I cannot bear any of them and that includes the whole team! Thank God for LDB, JA, and Hon. Judge Perry. THEY are the ones who will ensure that little Caylee has justice.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

What personalities, they have none...:floorlaugh: And you're right, being a defense attorney was NOT his calling...he missed it big time...I don't even know WHY he went to law school, he hasn't retained a thing. Nor has he learned a thing since being held back those long eight years...Hope his Brazilian Bikini business has been kept up to date...JMHO


If Baez keeps this smug, arrogant, insulant attitude, he will not be liked by those jurors. If he comes off as obstinate or anyway negative about the authorities, he will not be liked at all. He's done nothing but accuse everyone from the detectives, the prosecutors, the judge as having a conspiracy to arrest ICA without good cause. It's all hooey, IMO...JMHO

He stammers for words, his thoughts are all over the place, he has no organization skills at all, he found it hard to even follow his own color coded papers...He's definately in the wrong business...JMHO


Justice for Caylee
 


snip

Jurors are going to go ballistic if JB doesn’t get more organized and succinct. When you are sequestered, you have little patience for silly antics and disorganization. A trial with such high stakes is extremely emotionally draining on jurors. You are acutely aware that you are holding someone’s life in your hands. It is a huge responsibility. You literally dream about it. They are going to want things moving along. Like HHJP, they just want the pearls, not the whole bushel of oysters.



First, thanks for putting a child molester where he belongs!

BBM: Now on to this very interesting comment you made. You said you were sequestered, had you ever also served on a jury where you weren't? I am wondering how much sequestering plays a part in a jury's deliberations? It is an interesting thought and one I would love to get other posters opinions on. Does the State and the Defense tailor their case to the fact that jurors are sequestered? Do they do/say anything differently then they would if the jury went home every day?

For some reason this just fascinates me. We all agree that the personalities of the attorneys make a difference. Does sequestering a jury make a difference too?
 
Reminder. No namecalling or bashing case players. Doing either is the fastest way to (1) close this thread, and/or (2) earn a time out.

Thanks for your cooperation. Interesting topic.
 
First, thanks for putting a child molester where he belongs!

BBM: Now on to this very interesting comment you made. You said you were sequestered, had you ever also served on a jury where you weren't? I am wondering how much sequestering plays a part in a jury's deliberations? It is an interesting thought and one I would love to get other posters opinions on. Does the State and the Defense tailor their case to the fact that jurors are sequestered? Do they do/say anything differently then they would if the jury went home every day?

For some reason this just fascinates me. We all agree that the personalities of the attorneys make a difference. Does sequestering a jury make a difference too?

Yes, I have served one other time, prior to that criminal case. It was a civil case and only lasted 3 days. Determining money damages is not near as stressful as knowing you are sending someone to prison for an extended period of time. Even if you detest the defendant, it is an overwhelming feeling of responsibility. I bawled my eyes out when we finally reached a verdict. Mostly a sense of relief, while still praying to God we made the right decision. The DA spoke with me afterwards and told me that he had been arrested 4 previous times, but when the families found out who the defense attorney was they refused to put their kids through the rigors of testifying, so charges were dropped. That gave me a tremendous sense of relief.

For me, sequestration was harder than I expected. I got more than a little stir-crazy. We were in the same town and housed in a nearby hotel. We were not allowed to listen to any radio or news. IIRC, we had basic channels (NBC, CBS and ABC) on our televisions and could only turn them on between 7p-10p, when it was sure that no local news would be broadcast. The tvs would default to the hotel info channel at all other times. We were allowed lots of pre-approved books, magazines and VHS movies. We ate every meal together, accompanied by security. I remember we were able to order room service if we chose, because I did that most mornings for breakfast. We were allowed phone calls once a night. Our phones were set for only out-going calls and only for a specific time frame (like an hour every night). I don't recall any other restrictions because I only talked to my kids and husband every night. I know in some cases, calls are monitored, but that didn't happen for me. They did allow us that privacy. I can honestly say I never once spoke about the case to anyone, not even my husband or my in-laws who were helping care for my kids. And, thankfully, they respected me enough not to ask.

I think sequestration affects people differently, although I don't think anyone liked it and we were all thrilled to go home. I was probably the youngest person on that jury and I had 3 kids (9, 11 & 13 yrs) that I had left in the care of my husband and in-laws. That was hard. I think it was probably a little easier for some who were older, retired or single. It also depends on your personality. I did okay for the most part, but the hardest part of all was listening and digesting such emotional testimony and having absolutely no one to talk about it with. No one to vent to. Jurors are not allowed to discuss anything amongst themselves at all until deliberations. So, you just replay all that in your mind. At least I did. I meant it when I said I dreamed about it. I still think about it from time to time and it has been over 20 years.

During the trial, one of the things that would tick me off the most seems very minor, but it wasn't to us considering we were sequestered. When we would be excused from the courtroom so something could be discussed outside of our presence, I would get so mad! lol Actually, everybody did. I remember we all said, "WTH couldn't they take care of this before they brought us in here!!" :maddening: You don't mind doing your duty, but dammit all - get to the point and don't waste our time! You really don't have any patience for that kind of stuff AT ALL. So, they better get their ducks in a row and be ready to roll. Jurors will be more than happy to work Saturdays if it means things will be moving at a faster pace. It is not like they have anything else to do.

One other thing - the longer it went on, the more I looked at the judge almost as a father figure. I counted on him to keep the attorneys in line and keep the trial moving along. I think jurors expect the judge to look out for them, to some extent. We were fortunate enough to have a terrific judge. Sidenote - I got to know him later. I stopped by a small, hole-in-the-wall bar for happy hour one night and there he was. He recognized me and we struck up a friendship. He even fessed up that he went through the trash can in our deliberation room to read the vote counts at the end of each day! :floorlaugh: We ended up meeting for cocktails at the same bar that he frequented for years. He is the one who helped me land my first job in law. I guess some things are just meant to be. :) I divorced and moved several years later. I haven't seen him in years now. After going down this memory lane, I need to look him up and touch base with him.

eta: Keep in mind I was only sequestered for 2 weeks! Nothing like 2 months. God bless those jurors. whew
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
165
Guests online
4,324
Total visitors
4,489

Forum statistics

Threads
592,601
Messages
17,971,626
Members
228,840
Latest member
WhatHappenedToJAB
Back
Top