The article says JB is filing a motion for sanctions. Usually, when an attorney doesn't want some evidence released, they will file a motion for supression, backed up by legal case law called points and authorities. Doesn't sound like the right motion to me. Sounds more like an attempt to intimidate the prosecution attorneys or the County employees.
I think Baez may have filed this motion for sanctions because he was taking a lead from a recent case in Broward County where prosecutors were actually removed from the proceedings.
A Broward County judge has halted a first-degree murder trial and ruled that two prosecutors engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by listening to taped jailhouse phone conversations between a murder defendant and his attorney... Miami Herald 1-6-09
In
Martinez, the Broward County Case, the defense successfully argued that misconduct occurred when the prosecutors listened to the jail's intercepted recordings of conversations between defendant and his attorney:
Under the facts of the case at bar the question then arises as to whether the defendant's use of the only telephone available to him while in custody could constitute a voluntary waiver of that privilege....
Does the agreement to recording of an attorney-client discussion rise to the level of a knowing and voluntary waiver of the privilege of the contents of the discussion under these facts? Must a defendant who remains in custody choose between waiving attorney-client privilege by using the only telephones available to him or not having any telephone communication with his lawyer? The answer to both these questions must be a resounding "no." Order in FL v. Martinez case discussed above.
The Martinez case seems different because the inmate/defendant had no alternative or "safe" phone line to use for atty-client communication. I think Baez could only hope to achieve a similar outcome if OCSD provided no secured areas where he and his client could communicate confidential information privately.
...
This is a red herring. This is a false complaint. It is going nowhere.
I think you're right!
----
my random thoughts:
Im assuming this taped interaction between Casey and JB occurred in a public area or an area outside of the area designated for the private meetings between attorney and client. If so, case law in FL indicates the interaction would not be privileged:
...defendant communicated with his lawyer in a prison cell where the defendant knew another inmate would overhear. The Florida Supreme Court concluded that the fact that the defendant knew his conversation would be overheard contradicted his contention that the conversation was confidential. The court held that because the defendant failed to take advantage of the jails private facilities for such meetings, he waived the privilege.... (Mobley v.FL, 1982)
It seems like JB files baby-step motions filing the wrong motion in hopes of ultimately achieving an outcome best achieved with another motion. I dont know if he does this out of ignorance or to make things seem more dramatic.
Most importantly, Baez is the only person talking about this alleged tape. So we dont know if prosecutors have even viewed the tape. It seems like Baez is also taking a lead from Casey and imagining that the proceedings are innately
personal-- The SA is mad at Casey:razz: because she refused to take an alleged plea deal. Baez is miffed because the State is seeking disclosure about fee arrangements and media deals he takes it personally:blushing: and decides to levy this oddly personal motion, attacking the SA for the conduct of OCSD.
IMO if the prosecution actually
has this alleged tape, theyll deal with it appropriately. If it seems to have been inadvertently or deliberately recorded in violation of attorney-client privilege, they probably wont watch it and/or use it as evidence.
I think this is just another case of Baez talking about and publicizing issues he purportedly doesn't want within the public purview. I guess this is why the defense needed Todd Black?? :waitasec:
