Personalities of the lawyers

[cecybeans]

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?

ITA - I can't speak from personal experience but my sister was foreman for a murder trial and she said that being cut off made them tend to be impatient during deliberation if there was a general consensus with only one person holding out. I know that the defense banks on that one juror who may not agree with the others on the verdict, but I imagine that the one juror holding out is subject to pressure to agree with the others and that they give very cogent arguments to convince that person in an effort to reach unanimity. I am not saying that sequestered juries are in a hurry to decide, they appear to take the job very seriously and are painstaking about their review of the evidence. But I'm imagining that in a long, drawn out trial if all but one of the jurors agree, that person is going to be subject to a real persuasive argument from the others to reach a common vote. And that's with the consideration there even may be a juror in this case who is not thoroughly convinced.

Also, a friend of mine in the Orlando area who has spoken with Mason's old law partner says he has a sterling reputation (regardless of the ego factor, and I'm sure criminal trial attorneys almost have to overcompensate with flamboyance and bravado, they are so reviled by the public for what they do) and is said to be excellent on cross. Of course that is providing there is actually something of substance to cross examine...

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Seems Jose has a very, very vengeful part to his personality. If he perceives someone to have bested him, he MUST get "revenge" in some way. We see it in almost every hearing and the especially bizarre "Your name used to be Gallagher...who are you, Todd Black?". This very odd and potentially dangerous lacking in his development as an adult should definitely be enough to preclude him from practicing law. I'm praying that some legislators take note of this fiasco and start making inquiries about the Bar and who they license to practice law. Society cannot have these types in positions where they can ruin peoples' lives.

I mean, yes, Jose, sometimes people get divorced and remarried or change their name for other reasons. It is nothing to be astonished about - it's not unusual and it's certainly not indicative of anything sinister or relating to a person's credibility. It's also not something you should throw at someone in an attempt to intimidate or embarrass them.

(side note - he just can't seem to stop embarrassing himself...bringing up Todd Black?? Really - is that something he wants to do?)

 

[beach]

ITA - I can't speak from personal experience but my sister was foreman for a murder trial and she said that being cut off made them tend to be impatient during deliberation if there was a general consensus with only one person holding out. I know that the defense banks on that one juror who may not agree with the others on the verdict, but I imagine that the one juror holding out is subject to pressure to agree with the others and that they give very cogent arguments to convince that person in an effort to reach unanimity. I am not saying that sequestered juries are in a hurry to decide, they appear to take the job very seriously and are painstaking about their review of the evidence. But I'm imagining that in a long, drawn out trial if all but one of the jurors agree, that person is going to be subject to a real persuasive argument from the others to reach a common vote. And that's with the consideration there even may be a juror in this case who is not thoroughly convinced.

<snip>

I agree. One thing about juries like this who spend a long time together under stressful conditions is they take on a dynamic of their own. Some are more friendly than others. To this day I am grateful to everyone of my fellow jurors for being respectful. Fortunately, we didn't have any rogue jerks amongst us. We were from all different age groups and walks of life, but we treated each other with great respect. By the time we got to finally deliberate, I believe we all felt like we could see the light at the end of the tunnel. We immediately took a vote to see where we all stood. The first one was 5 guilty, 7 not guilty. (I had voted guilty and I knew I wasn't changing my mind. I wanted to cry thinking we would never get there.) By the morning of the 2nd day we were at 9 guilty, 3 not guilty. (Who knows what happens when one is alone with one's thoughts. :dunno: I started to have hope. ) At close of the 2nd day we ended at 10 - 2. The morning of the 3rd day we immediately took a vote and it was 11 - 1. We were almost there. I remember the woman who had the lone not guilty vote and I felt for her. I think we all did. Not a single one of us attempted to influence her. Although I can easily see that happening with a jury with a different dynamic - ones where they argued over petty stuff all the time and didn't treat each other's opinions with respect. After lunch on the 3rd day the woman started crying and she kept saying, "I KNOW he is guilty. I KNOW IT. I just can't handle living with myself knowing I sent a 22 yr. old kid to prison for such a long time." She was nearly hysterical. My heart went out to her. It was a LOT of pressure. However, juries are not supposed to consider sentencing. In fact, we had no idea what his sentence might be. We weren't stupid and we knew it wasn't going to be 1-2 yrs...we knew it would probably be lengthy, but we were not supposed to even consider it. We all let her just be, several of us tried to comfort her and no one acted ill with her. She finally asked what she should do...how she could get herself to handle living with it. I remember telling her, "Well if you truly believe he is guilty, ask yourself how you can handle it if you read in the paper next year that he has been arrested for molesting another child." Others offered similar suggestions, but we were all very, very clear that it was her decision and she should vote with her heart. In fact, we told her to not worry about the rest of us. That if we had to go to the judge and tell him we were hung up, then that is what we would do. No hard feelings.

Funny thing is - she was one of the few of us who was not crying when we finally reached a verdict and right before we went back in to the courtroom for the reading of the verdict.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Seems Jose has a very, very vengeful part to his personality. If he perceives someone to have bested him, he MUST get "revenge" in some way. We see it in almost every hearing and the especially bizarre "Your name used to be Gallagher...who are you, Todd Black?". This very odd and potentially dangerous lacking in his development as an adult should definitely be enough to preclude him from practicing law. I'm praying that some legislators take note of this fiasco and start making inquiries about the Bar and who they license to practice law. Society cannot have these types in positions where they can ruin peoples' lives.

I mean, yes, Jose, sometimes people get divorced and remarried or change their name for other reasons. It is nothing to be astonished about - it's not unusual and it's certainly not indicative of anything sinister or relating to a person's credibility. It's also not something you should throw at someone in an attempt to intimidate or embarrass them.

(side note - he just can't seem to stop embarrassing himself...bringing up Todd Black?? Really - is that something he wants to do?)

I agree with you, Horace...It does appear as if he is very vengeful, holds grudges. It also appears he doesn't possess the ability of feeling embarassed or humiliation...

He did it with the prosecution, he wanted them off the case. He did it with His Honor SStrickland, I believe this was about His Honor putting in that Florida Bar complaint on his allegedly telling DC not to call authorities if he found Caylee's remains..so this was his payback to His Honor, to have him recuse himself...oh but how that move bit him in his arse, actually bit ICA in her arse, for she now has a no nonsense judge...I call it Karma.

Usually does have the opposite effect, when you hold on to grudges, it comes back to you 10 fold...but, this is not how an attorney should conduct themselves...I see lots of criminality at work here, if only the FBA takes notice of it and puts Baez in limbo....he still is that attorney who was kept from practicing law those long eight years...What is it they say about future behaviors???? It holds true...for his past behaviors are still there...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[Scamperoo]

But for her attorney's, Casey Anthony may have been facing much lesser charges. She could have made a plea deal and declared an unfortunate accident, in all probability with good behavior she would have served about 8 years maybe.
Now, thanks to one of the most inefficient and alienating defenses ever seen on web and tv, Casey is facing LWOP or DP.

In the grand scheme of things there are people just as bad out there, or worse, that deserve these harsh penalties, yet they seem to find their way back into the general population, how does that happen? Halfway decent representation maybe?

Here we have a seemingly soulless human being who deserves to be put away for a very long time, but would her sentence have been so harsh without the help and advice of her parents and attorneys? Without their help in forging such a weighty chain for her to drag around with her, she would have had some expectation of seeing the light of day, eventually!!

I don't think there is any question who's responsible for the tediousness of the proceedings thus far, by boorish behavior and stalling the defense has painted itself into a corner where the only change of venue that will help is one where no prospective juror has heard of the so called dream team. Good luck with that one...JB

 

[Macushla]

Seems Jose has a very, very vengeful part to his personality. If he perceives someone to have bested him, he MUST get "revenge" in some way. We see it in almost every hearing and the especially bizarre "Your name used to be Gallagher...who are you, Todd Black?". This very odd and potentially dangerous lacking in his development as an adult should definitely be enough to preclude him from practicing law. I'm praying that some legislators take note of this fiasco and start making inquiries about the Bar and who they license to practice law. Society cannot have these types in positions where they can ruin peoples' lives.

snip

BBM: I am not sure how many other cases you have followed or how familiar you are with the law, etc., but I think I can safely say that while JB drives us all crazy, he is not the only ethically challenged lawyer out there or even the worst one. I am sure all of the posters who are involved in the legal profession is some way can attest to this. It is a fact of life that there are lawyers who will do and say anything. But there are also lawyers, both prosecution and defense who are ethical. We are seeing one of the bad apples in the barrel. This is a particularly bad apple, yes, but only because we are paying such close attention.

The local and state legislators aren't paying the least attention to ths case, unless it is to follow the $$$ that is being spent. IF JB is called before the bar after all this, it will be a surprise to me. There are too many other things going on in FL right now and as annoying as JB is, and I for one hope he gets exactly what he deserves when this case is over, he is not even a blip on the radar of most of the influential people in FL. Sad but true.

 

[faefrost]

Am I wrong in thinking that todays "Motion to Show Cause" from the State asking that JB be held in contempt is yet another one of those little ways that the attorneys personality enters into the equation?

Unless I am mistaken todays motion basically unleashed a full broadside on JB not so politely informing him that the state will NOT be doing business with him any longer. That they expect anything and everything going through the courts motion process and that they are no longer playing nice. Phone calls and e-mails are no longer sufficient, nor are they trusted by JB's opposing council. Every i that is not dotted and every t that is not crossed from here on out will be eating up further defense resources as the prosecution will no longer be in any way shape or form extending forgiveness or professional courtesy to at least some select members of the defense team.

This is the price for not behaving on a reasonable professional manner. And it is ultimately a price that will be paid by his client.