Today’s hearing before Judge Stan Strickland was relatively brief and to the point. State’s Assistant Attorney Jeffrey Ashton argued his motion and Jose Baez argued his. Casey Anthony swore to the truthfulness of her affidavit. The parties went in camera for more detailed questioning by the judge. After a short break, the parties resumed their seats. Judge Strickland ruled he found no conflict of interest. Case closed. Baez won!
The question here is: What has attorney Baez won? Mainly, the State’s representative will be off of his back about the source of Casey’s funding for her "Dream Team."
On the other hand, this victory will more than likely preclude any future, post-conviction argument by Casey Anthony that her attorney had any conflict of interest. Thus, this pre-trial victory could lead to a post-trial loss. Did Baez really win anything?
What did bother me personally during the hearing was Baez’s off-topic comment that the defense was learning more and more that Casey is innocent.
Ashton objected strongly to this statement, saying that Baez was clearly speaking to the cameras (surprise) and that it had nothing to do with the case at hand. Judge Strickland agreed and put an end to the situation.
The very end of the hearing was one for the books. As the judge was asking if there was anything else, Baez (I always have to have the last word) stated that due all the "leaks" in the case, that the Court should advise the State that what happens in camera stays in camera. The judge politely did so and Ashton stood, with his hands in the air and said, "We don’t need to be reminded of our ethical obligations." It was obvious that he was very upset by this and that such commentary was getting tired. The judge agreed and the session broke up. Click HERE to see the exchange for yourself!
I would suppose that Jose Baez believes this was a second "win" for him today. He looked over at an angry Ashton with one of his more incredible smirks on his face. "Are you alright?, "he asks. Ashton answers, "NO." The smirk on Baez's face grew.
But did Jose Baez "score" in that little skirmish? I don’t think so.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
"What has attorney Baez won?"
The right to represent an unappreciative client for "the glory" i.e., without being paid and with no hope of ever being paid.
I am reminded of the aphorism "be careful what you wish for".
Actually, Mr. Baez has stated on a number of occasions that he is being paid. Naturally, he doesn't disclose who is paying him.
I think it's obvious that George & Cindy Anthony are the financial backers of the defense, otherwise the judge wouldn't have stated so quickly that he was convinced there was no conflict of interest. I believe the A's sham foundation will fraudulently pay for the defense, in addition to any deals they make with Lifetime for a movie & licensing agreements for Caylee's images. These people are cretins, how sickening to use the murdered Caylee to support themselves & defend her killer.
Casey SWORE TO THE TRUTHFULNESS of her affidavit???????? Talk about an oxymoron. This woman and the truth are complete strangers. Anon, you are probably correct. The Anthonys are the ones making the "deals for Caylee's story" and paying the defense. This family knows NO shame or boundaries. Baez is such an idiot he thinks he has scored points. Stephen is right..."be careful what you wish for"
OMG. What is the deal with Baez? Smirk?? My A$$! He was giddy!! I would sure like to have seen what happened in camera. The judge reminds me of Judge Fidler. Mr. Baez better watch out. I don't think the judge was speaking with the DA, he meant Baez. That whole exchange was like high school. I can't put my finger on it but something doesn't feel quite right... He is beginning to become totally enmeshed with Casey.
Baez's behavior at the end of today's hearing was ridiculous. I was almost expecting him to put his thumbs in his ears and waggle his fingers saying "Neener Neener" at the prosecutors.
As far as the financial stuff goes, if the judge is satisfied by what was said in the "in camera" meeting it's fine by me. It just removed any possibility of an appeal on any grounds pertaining to how the defense "team" was paid. I don't think that is a true "win" for Jose or for Casey.
Baez's constant smirks (he can't seem to help himself; he looks like he's about to smirk even in repose) are annoying enough in these hearings -- they aren't going to go over well at ALL with a jury, particularly with such a repulsive and immature client.
Thanks for the comments!
I think that Baez gets off on pushing Ashton's buttons. Actually, he gets off on pushing lots of people's buttons.
With nastiness like that, it's better to ignore it and move on. Mr. Ashton needs to get that temper of his under control and ignore Baez's bad manners.
I think that in the end, his juvenile behavior in court is going to come back and kick him where the sun don't shine!
I remember working on a murder case - years ago where the client brought in a ton of money in a Ralph's discount bag - enough to fill a conference table with stacks of money. I counted it - we filled out the forms to declare it and it was deposited in the bank. During the trial the prosecution was not allowed to ask where from and how much, but a year after the trial in came the federales, ascertained how much the fee was and tapped the client for tax evasion. Funny how those things work. It was sweet - some clients are just not at all likeable.
Suzanne
Post a Comment