State wants answers from Baez

Leila

Active Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
12,378
Reaction score
25
Mason made it clear to the judge he's "not going to let it happen" with regard to (I think both) sanctions or contempt. I hope HHJP makes it happen.

I've watched trials in other states, and as a rule all court orders are directed at the defense team or prosecution team, no matter how many attorneys might be on either side.

This is why I question why JB is singled out, and his co-council isn't also subject to contempt for not seeing to it that the deadline was met.
 

Intermezzo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
10,623
Reaction score
1,675
The thing is, IMO, is that Casey does not know what is really going on with her case.
From recent jail visitation logs, neither Baez or Mason are keeping her company.
Maybe she has contact with them via the phone? That info wouldn't be released.

He has kept her isolated - he blows smoke up her arse when he has to.

In the end, even with her being asked if she is happy with her team, and even agreeing to it, when this is all said and done, she'll be able to get her hands on the same info that we have seen I would imagine.

As far as Baez goes - I don't think he cares one way or another about his "Law Career" or his liciense to practice.
When this fell into his lap, he let his mind fly with all kinds of possibilities of new and exciting things for his future.
Those slipped out of his grasp a long time ago, also, IMO.
But, he still is probably holding out hope for something to come along.
He'll still his books and movies, etc.

He, much like his client, will get by ~ and, like his client, he doesn't care what that avenue is as long as there is a dollar sign at the end, and, not a stop sign.

I respectfully disagree, I believe Casey does know what is going on with her case...
I will have to go back and check but I thought Baez Law Firm Lawyer (and also listed on the Motions with Baez) Michelle Medina was visiting Casey more often.
From what I remember of the visitation logs..Mason has not been to see her in jail since August..and Baez was December..but I have not seen an up to date list yet for January and February 2011.
 

Intermezzo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
10,623
Reaction score
1,675
IMHO... It's about the Frye Hearing coming up. JB wants to hold it by "ambush". Which isn't allowed in Florida. He was required to state what his experts was going to talk about, what their objection was (reason for the hearing). Using evidence, etc. JB only stated very little. The State requested more detail, the Judge set a deadline for when JB had to comply with giving MORE detail. JB ignored the Judge's order for more info by claiming he was 'confussed', since he considered he gave enough info in the first place. so he had nothing new/reason to file anything else. Hence, missed the deadline. <wink>

To me, this is more then just missing a simple hearing. He is bluntly ignoring the Judge and the State of Florida's rules. He doesn't think he should comply, and he isn't.

I agree!!!!!
Plus it also gave him the time for his "unique opportunity" travels
 

Intermezzo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
10,623
Reaction score
1,675
when u pay for an imaginary nanny with imaginary money from an imaginary job, what would u expect when u pay for a lawyer with imaginary money?? an imaginary lawyer. all imo

Imagine That!!!! :floorlaugh:
 

Leila

Active Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
12,378
Reaction score
25
Well, Baez and Mason did miss another deadline and the State filed their motion asking that the defense to be held in contempt. This motion will have to be addressed. I hope that the Honorable Judge Perry addresses this in the March 2nd hearing and gives Baez (and Mason) a good dressing down at that hearing, and then fines them both. Casey will be sitting front and center to hear it all, and she needs to, IMO.

There is all of this drama Baez has created from the very beginning of this case and somehow little Caylee's name has fallen by the wayside. I do feel Caylee will have justice in the long run, but the 'when' is my question. The Honorable Judge Perry has tried to keep the trial on track, but will it really stay on track despite Baez and Mason's drama? I do not want any more delays.

MOO

HHMP made it a point a couple of hearings ago to mention the jury procedure. He said it was necessary to set in motion all that was going to be needed........lodging, medical, meals, security, etc. He said that in order to secure lodging that a portion of the money had to be on deposit by a certain date. He then paused and looked around, then concluded with words to the effect of "just to let you know."

I had the feeling that at that point he was letting both the prosecution and defense know that once deposits and arrangements made, there would be no delays in the trial date. If either side felt they wouldn't be ready in time it was sort of "speak now or forever hold your peace" type of thing.
 

Intermezzo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
10,623
Reaction score
1,675
Why is Richard Hornsby stating he is surprised at the Prosecution's request for something to be done about all these missed deadlines?

Exactly.
Baez was already found in Willfulll Violation of a Court Order and he has now missed another Court Ordered Deadline...I don't care how minor it is said to be..Baez had a Court Ordered deadline to obey, he did not meet the deadline..AT ALL..did not even try...he was too busy getting ready for his "unique opportunity"...in Chicago...
 

Leila

Active Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
12,378
Reaction score
25
I think Baez knows exactly what he's doing. Look at it this way......Baez knows he can't get his client off, so with a mistrial he can say he didn't really loose the case. He can't win but because of the high profile of this case he doesn't want to loose it. For him it would be sort of a win\win because we know all he cares about is himself, not his client or justice. what a Doofus!

If a mistrial was declared due to the incompetence of the defense, am I correct that because Casey has been declared indigent a public defender would be appointed to be her defense attorney? Are there public defenders that are death penalty qualified? Would CM stay on or because of a mistrial being declared, his obligation is terminated too?

I would assume that a mistrial would delay a retrial by at least another year.
 

rhornsby

Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
783
Reaction score
1
Website
www.richardhornsby.com
Why is Richard Hornsby stating he is surprised at the Prosecution's request for something to be done about all these missed deadlines?

I did not base my opinion on "all these missed deadlines," I based my opinion that Ashton's request was extreme given that Baez had sent an email to the Court and Ashton (which is technically writing) that essentially asked if the Court wanted him to regurgitate his previous objections to the Trunk Air evidence if those were the only ones he was going to go forward with.

That by itself is not a basis to hold someone in contempt, which is why I found Ashton's request extreme.

My opinion would have been different if Ashton had listed the litany of deadlines Baez had missed and then requested Baez be held in contempt. But Ashton did not, so I believe his response was a lot.

Finally, the context of my opinion was that Ashton's motion highlights a clear difference of opinion about the two parties ability to work informally to meet judge Perry's deadlines; Baez thinks it is fine and the State does not.
 

Intermezzo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
10,623
Reaction score
1,675
I did not base my opinion on "all these missed deadlines," I based my opinion that Ashton's request was extreme given that Baez had sent an email to the Court and Ashton (which is technically writing) that essentially asked if the Court wanted him to regurgitate his previous objections to the Trunk Air evidence if those were the only ones he was going to go forward with.

That by itself is not a basis to hold someone in contempt, which is why I found Ashton's request extreme.

My opinion would have been different if Ashton had listed the litany of deadlines Baez had missed and then requested Baez be held in contempt. But Ashton did not, so I believe his response was a lot.

Finally, the context of my opinion was that Ashton's motion highlights a clear difference of opinion about the two parties ability to work informally to meet judge Perry's deadlines; Baez thinks it is fine and the State does not.

Thank you for explaining what you based your opinion on.
 

rhornsby

Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
783
Reaction score
1
Website
www.richardhornsby.com
If a mistrial was declared due to the incompetence of the defense, am I correct that because Casey has been declared indigent a public defender would be appointed to be her defense attorney? Are there public defenders that are death penalty qualified? Would CM stay on or because of a mistrial being declared, his obligation is terminated too?

I would assume that a mistrial would delay a retrial by at least another year.

Actually no, Baez would still be the attorney of record. And a retrial could -technically - begin the same day the mistrial was declared (although this is usually only done in less serious cases).
 

MD MOMMY

Active Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Messages
5,303
Reaction score
1
I did not base my opinion on "all these missed deadlines," I based my opinion that Ashton's request was extreme given that Baez had sent an email to the Court and Ashton (which is technically writing) that essentially asked if the Court wanted him to regurgitate his previous objections to the Trunk Air evidence if those were the only ones he was going to go forward with.

That by itself is not a basis to hold someone in contempt, which is why I found Ashton's request extreme.

My opinion would have been different if Ashton had listed the litany of deadlines Baez had missed and then requested Baez be held in contempt. But Ashton did not, so I believe his response was a lot. Finally, the context of my opinion was that Ashton's motion highlights a clear difference of opinion about the two parties ability to work informally to meet judge Perry's deadlines; Baez thinks it is fine and the State does not.


Respectfully, I have seen many emails of JA attempting to work with Baez. Take a look at the expert witnesses emails that went back and forth between the two of them. JA IMO is straight up, fed up. He has tried the route of communicating with JB before going in front of HHJP. It got him absolutely no where fast. It's quite obvious to me, JA is frustrated and nothing is working to get JB off his arse. I think JB could clearly use the list serve he used in the very beginning of this case to clarify his confusion. He needs one thing and that is HELP, he is in the land of the lost. Has CM ever dealt with Frye hearings before or what? I'm not impressed with his knowledge either.

ETA: Not to mention JB was ordered to submit the issues he was objecting to for the Frye hearing by 2/17. JA contacted JB on 2/18 in regards to this. IF JB was confused fine, then figure out what you need to do by the deadline. NOPE he waits for JA to contact him first. Then JB writes to Jill. JA didn't file his motion until 2/20 two days later. JB at the very least should have contacted JA to update him on the status. I will bet a cool million that never happened. Cooperation is a two way street.
 

ynotdivein

Retired WS Staff
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
11,425
Reaction score
53
RH, thank you for clarifying. Always good to see you here.

As for the difference of opinion between the two parties in regard to their ability to work informally together... I am 100% a legal layperson, but what I am reading between the lines here is that the SA absolutely distrusts the defense to work in good faith in any informal system. (In fact, it's not clear to me that the defense will work in good faith in a very formal system either.) And having observed the defense team's machinations over the past 2+ years, this layperson can completely understand why the SA is fed up to the point of moving for contempt.
 

Omachka

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
771
Reaction score
0
I did not base my opinion on "all these missed deadlines," I based my opinion that Ashton's request was extreme given that Baez had sent an email to the Court and Ashton (which is technically writing) that essentially asked if the Court wanted him to regurgitate his previous objections to the Trunk Air evidence if those were the only ones he was going to go forward with.

That by itself is not a basis to hold someone in contempt, which is why I found Ashton's request extreme.

My opinion would have been different if Ashton had listed the litany of deadlines Baez had missed and then requested Baez be held in contempt. But Ashton did not, so I believe his response was a lot.

Finally, the context of my opinion was that Ashton's motion highlights a clear difference of opinion about the two parties ability to work informally to meet judge Perry's deadlines; Baez thinks it is fine and the State does not.


Hi Richard, it's good to see you here. Maybe I have it wrong but I thought that Baez wrote the email after Ashton called him asking why the deadline was missed. The email was therefore after the deadline had passed. If Ashton hadn't prodded him, there would have been no email I betcha. :innocent: I think the problem is that Baez is bound and determined to have a "Perry Mason" moment and if the judge won't allow it at trial, Baez will try it at the Frye hearing. I believe Ashton is having none of that and that's why he filed his Rule to Show Cause.
 

MommaD

The Stars Do Not Lie..People Lie
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
0
The thing is, IMO, is that Casey does not know what is really going on with her case.
From recent jail visitation logs, neither Baez or Mason are keeping her company.
Maybe she has contact with them via the phone? That info wouldn't be released.

He has kept her isolated - he blows smoke up her arse when he has to.

In the end, even with her being asked if she is happy with her team, and even agreeing to it, when this is all said and done, she'll be able to get her hands on the same info that we have seen I would imagine.

As far as Baez goes - I don't think he cares one way or another about his "Law Career" or his liciense to practice.
When this fell into his lap, he let his mind fly with all kinds of possibilities of new and exciting things for his future.
Those slipped out of his grasp a long time ago, also, IMO.
But, he still is probably holding out hope for something to come along.
He'll still his books and movies, etc.

He, much like his client, will get by ~ and, like his client, he doesn't care what that avenue is as long as there is a dollar sign at the end, and, not a stop sign.



Purple Iris I just thought of something when you put about Baez and Cm talking on the phone since no records of visiting at jail.. I just wonder if CA is visiting Baez's law office much lately? CA and ICA are to chummy at court have to be in contact somehow... Since its her lawyer then I could see him doing this after all the other underhanded things he has pulled. and when CA and ICA do not make contact at court makes me wonder more. like guilt or something nahhh forgot neither feel guilt..
sorry if o/t but have seen the phone call thing so much just had that thought and put it out there..

Great job everyone and love reading all the posts..
 

kaRN

Verified Health Professional - Registered Nurse
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
4,755
Reaction score
9
I've watched trials in other states, and as a rule all court orders are directed at the defense team or prosecution team, no matter how many attorneys might be on either side.

This is why I question why JB is singled out, and his co-council isn't also subject to contempt for not seeing to it that the deadline was met.

JB is lead counsel so he's supposed to be leading his co-counsel, keeping them on track with deadlines etc. Problem is, he has ADD IMO. :)
 

TimesPast

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Hi Richard, it's good to see you here. Maybe I have it wrong but I thought that Baez wrote the email after Ashton called him asking why the deadline was missed. The email was therefore after the deadline had passed. If Ashton hadn't prodded him, there would have been no email I betcha. :innocent: I think the problem is that Baez is bound and determined to have a "Perry Mason" moment and if the judge won't allow it at trial, Baez will try it at the Frye hearing. I believe Ashton is having none of that and that's why he filed his Rule to Show Cause.

bbm

I agree, as per the motion from Mr Ashton
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26942318/detail.html

2. having received nothing ... on Feb 18, 2011 (I) spoke to Mr Baez ....
3. Mr Baez expressed some "confusion" as to the order
4. Mr Baez followed with an e-mail to the court's judicial assistant (attached)

Also - the beginning of the email says

"Mr Ashton just asked me about my objections to Frye" confirming the email was written after the call from Mr Ashton.

And to reword that email in regards to what Mr Ashton would have discussed .... Mr Ashton asked me about the specific issues that will be objected to in accordance with Frye.

I certainly agree - Mr Baez is confused, not only about the very clear order from the Judge, but also as to what is meant by Frye.

jmo
 

zoey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
17,162
Reaction score
160
bbm

I agree, as per the motion from Mr Ashton
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26942318/detail.html

2. having received nothing ... on Feb 18, 2011 (I) spoke to Mr Baez ....
3. Mr Baez expressed some "confusion" as to the order
4. Mr Baez followed with an e-mail to the court's judicial assistant (attached)

Also - the beginning of the email says

"Mr Ashton just asked me about my objections to Frye" confirming the email was written after the call from Mr Ashton.

And to reword that email in regards to what Mr Ashton would have discussed .... Mr Ashton asked me about the specific issues that will be objected to in accordance with Frye.

I certainly agree - Mr Baez is confused, not only about the very clear order from the Judge, but also as to what is meant by Frye.

jmo

Didn't HHJP talk about actually phoning in quesitons and such?---I thought the last hearing (perhaps another one that covered jb missing a deadline and failing to submit something)---he encouraged phone calls or something just to keep things movin along smoothly?--Seems like jb wants something to screw up every chance he gets!---
Can anyone imagine him at that forensics conference if he can't even get the the little legal things correct???????:waitasec:
 

Jomo

New Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
I agree with others about the ball being dropped by the DREAM TEAM.

I think that the only way to get this team ready for trial is if HHBPJ sanctions every single attorney on the team...Then you would finally see them work together to ensure that there are no more deadlines missed and the the trial proceeds on time and professionally.

I vote for sanctioning them ALL!
 

bunchy

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
I did not base my opinion on "all these missed deadlines," I based my opinion that Ashton's request was extreme given that Baez had sent an email to the Court and Ashton (which is technically writing) that essentially asked if the Court wanted him to regurgitate his previous objections to the Trunk Air evidence if those were the only ones he was going to go forward with.

That by itself is not a basis to hold someone in contempt, which is why I found Ashton's request extreme.

My opinion would have been different if Ashton had listed the litany of deadlines Baez had missed and then requested Baez be held in contempt. But Ashton did not, so I believe his response was a lot.

Finally, the context of my opinion was that Ashton's motion highlights a clear difference of opinion about the two parties ability to work informally to meet judge Perry's deadlines; Baez thinks it is fine and the State does not.

Perhaps you shouldn't make public comments on a case that you're, admittedly, not following closely. Any chance of publicly stating that, having learned of all the missed deadlines by the defense, the state did what was right?
 

Aedrys

If justice doesn't get you, karma will.
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
6,719
Reaction score
17
JB is lead counsel so he's supposed to be leading his co-counsel, keeping them on track with deadlines etc. Problem is, he has ADD IMO. :)

With this defense team, it's more like the blind leading the blind, or more accurately, the dumb leading the deaf. LOL.
 
Top