After reading today at Examiner.Com that Jose Baez's past experience involves winning 32 out of 34 trials while working as an intern at a Public Defender's Office as well as doing internet training at Lexis-Nexis, I was shocked.
How did this guy get to be the lead counsel on the biggest case of the year? And however snooty this may sound, Casey Anthony BETTER have a dream team if this is the type of experience we're talking about here.
Most defense attorneys work years before they take on felony cases of this magnitude, where the death penalty is involved. And that's before you add in all the media hoopla. What gives?
Here's what I found out about Jose Baez.
1. First of all, his website doesn't allow you to read his bio page - it just clicks back to the home page when you attempt to go there. Nice, expensive website.
2. WESH-TV in Orlando reports that it has checked out his recent past experience in their records; however when you compare this to the Baez site with its four "success stories," it's duplicative.
Plus, there's only FOUR and they are the kind of wins you'd expect an aggressive, Young-Turk type of defense attorney to have on his site at this point. NOTHING near to the complexity of the Anthony matter.
3. You can't pull up his information at Martindale, when is a site owned by Lexis - purportedly, his former employer. He's not in Martindale???? What??????
4. The Florida Bar Association shows Jose Angel Baez to be in good standing with them, with offices in Kissamee, Florida. He was admitted to practice in September 2005.
5. I found a site, avvo.com, that reports Jose Baez got his law degree from St. Thomas School of Law - while Investigation Discovery quotes Baez's web site as Baez having a Bachelor's of Science Degree in Criminology from Florida State University. Same source also quotes the Baez site as Baez working for the Public Defender's Office since 1995.
Okay.
We know that he's been licensed to practice for around 3 years when he takes the Casey Anthony case.
We know that he's got an office in Kissimmee, and he's paid for a very nice website.
We know he's not listed in Martindale (a real red flag to lawyers out there).
Today, I can't get anything off the website. However, it appears that those seeking information about Baez have had access to it, and it's been from his own website that they've reported his "success stories" as well as his background and experience.
Personally, I'll give Jose Baez this: as a trial lawyer, you go into a courtroom and take responsibility for another human being.
It takes a whole lot of chutzpah to do that job. Courage, huevos, whatever you want to call it.
And it's clear that Jose Baez has that in spades.
What's not clear is what the heck Jose Baez thinks he's doing, representing Casey Anthony. Her defense is something that even the most seasoned of advocates would find challenging.
He's gone out and got himself some co-counsel. Good. Great.
Because there's a thing called "ineffective assistance of counsel" that every jailhouse lawyer can chant like a mantra upon appeal and if my search of the web is all we've got to put in an appellate brief here, well - Katie Bar the Door.
Point of Error comin'.
Unless, of course, on the first day of trial we get a Surprise Change in Lead Counsel -- a Mystery Lawyer who reveals himself or herself as things tee up (wouldn't that make a great Nancy Grace Bombshell?)....
Update: After a self-imposed gag order on posting regarding the Casey Anthony Case, I have begun posting again beginning June 3, 2011. For reasons on the gag, and why I decided to lift it, you can read my June 3d post.
You May Also Be Interested in Elements State Must Prove to Win - Three Prongs to First Degree Murder in Florida and Circumstantial Evidence vs. Direct Evidence.
1/15/2009
1/14/2009
ABA's Latest Ethics Opinion on Contract Attorneys or Outsourcing Lawyers
The American Bar Association has issued a new ethics opinion dealing with outsourcing lawyers as well as freelancing lawyers aka contract attorneys (not the agency temps). To read the full document, you can see it as either html or pdf at the ABA site. To read what the talking heads are telling you that ABA Ethics Opinion 08-451 means, check out:
The Long View
Criminal Lawyer Library Blog
Legal Ethics Forum
Bottom Line: As shocking as it may be, the American Bar Association is giving its okey-dokey to outsourcing legal services (read that, INDIA) as well as giving a big thumbs-up to contract attorneys, or freelance lawyers. As someone who has been a freelance attorney for many years, it's about time. This outsourcing thing, though: scary stuff - on so many levels. Stupid, really.
The Long View
Criminal Lawyer Library Blog
Legal Ethics Forum
Bottom Line: As shocking as it may be, the American Bar Association is giving its okey-dokey to outsourcing legal services (read that, INDIA) as well as giving a big thumbs-up to contract attorneys, or freelance lawyers. As someone who has been a freelance attorney for many years, it's about time. This outsourcing thing, though: scary stuff - on so many levels. Stupid, really.
12/29/2008
Will Casey Anthony's Brother Lee Anthony Be Charged?
My Fox Orlando is reporting today that there's talk Lee Anthony may face criminal charges as well as his sister, Casey Anthony: "Casey Anthony's Brother Could Also Face Charges." They are reporting it's gonna be "aiding and abetting" or "obstruction of justice."
Personally, I think this is just rumor right now. And, while there are folk that think Casey Anthony had to have an accomplice, I don't know that Lee Anthony would fit that role.
From the videos and interviews that I've seen, it looked like Lee Anthony was undertaking his own informal investigation into Caylee's whereabouts -- and if there's anything to this rumor, I'm betting it has something to do with Lee acting as an "investigator" in this case and getting in the way of the law enforcement authorities.
Personally, I think this is just rumor right now. And, while there are folk that think Casey Anthony had to have an accomplice, I don't know that Lee Anthony would fit that role.
From the videos and interviews that I've seen, it looked like Lee Anthony was undertaking his own informal investigation into Caylee's whereabouts -- and if there's anything to this rumor, I'm betting it has something to do with Lee acting as an "investigator" in this case and getting in the way of the law enforcement authorities.
12/28/2008
Caroline Kennedy: Check out the Comments in the NY Daily News and Then Go Read Matt LaBash on Detroit Today
There's an interview of Caroline Kennedy in the New York Daily News today, where she pushes the idea that she won't owe any political favors to anyone because she hasn't made any significant campaign donations.
I found three things of interest here:
1. the snide and subtle dig at Caroline's overuse of the phrase "you know" (she's not the only public figure to do this, but usually those "you knows" and "likes" get edited out of the copy);
2. conspicuous by its absence is the use of her married surname, Schlossberg, and the fact that she's a Catholic married to the grandson of Jewish immigrants with whom she's had two girls and a boy; and
3. all the comments coming into the online commentary for this Daily News article. Wow. Those readers hate her, don't they?
Me? It's a time of crisis in our country, and while I'm not a New Yorker, I'm thinking that every seat in the US Senate needs to be filled with the best and the brightest our country has to offer.
Take away her surname, and I'm not feeling confident here.
And, if you want to read about how bad it could get for all of us, go check out this great piece by Matt LaBash about how Detroit is doing. (thanks to Will Collier over at Vodkapundit for the heads up here.)
In fact, just stop everything and go read LaBash's piece right now. It's one of the great ones.
I found three things of interest here:
1. the snide and subtle dig at Caroline's overuse of the phrase "you know" (she's not the only public figure to do this, but usually those "you knows" and "likes" get edited out of the copy);
2. conspicuous by its absence is the use of her married surname, Schlossberg, and the fact that she's a Catholic married to the grandson of Jewish immigrants with whom she's had two girls and a boy; and
3. all the comments coming into the online commentary for this Daily News article. Wow. Those readers hate her, don't they?
Me? It's a time of crisis in our country, and while I'm not a New Yorker, I'm thinking that every seat in the US Senate needs to be filled with the best and the brightest our country has to offer.
Take away her surname, and I'm not feeling confident here.
And, if you want to read about how bad it could get for all of us, go check out this great piece by Matt LaBash about how Detroit is doing. (thanks to Will Collier over at Vodkapundit for the heads up here.)
In fact, just stop everything and go read LaBash's piece right now. It's one of the great ones.
12/23/2008
Expert Challenges Should Be Considered Long Before the Courtroom
In today's Wall Street Journal, there's an opinion piece discussing how many believe that lots of plaintiffs' lawyers are pursuing baseless claims based upon asbestos toxicity (assumedly, mesothelioma cases), entitled Colombo the Asbestos Sleuth.
Pointedly, the article describes the following - which any civil trial lawyer will quickly recognize as a Daubert challenge advanced by the defense in this case:
"Judge Colombo has been overseeing asbestos cases in which defendants were trying to disqualify Michael Kelly, a physician who had diagnosed thousands of people with asbestos-related disease on dubious grounds. The judge made clear in court that he didn't appreciate the national attention of our editorial, to put it mildly. But in the end he did the right thing by granting a hearing into Dr. Kelly's diagnoses. Tellingly, the plaintiff attorneys immediately withdrew all but one of their suits.
"The judge plowed ahead anyway, helping to expose another asbestos scam. Defendants presented evidence that Dr. Kelly was neither a radiologist nor a pulmonologist and had failed the test that certifies doctors to read X-rays for lung disease. They also showed that the overwhelming majority of hospital radiologists who had reviewed Dr. Kelly's patients found no evidence of disease. An outside panel of radiologists who looked at Dr. Kelly's work found abnormalities in only 6 of 68 patients; Dr. Kelly had found abnormalities in 60 of those 68.
"More than 90% of the lung function tests Dr. Kelly performed failed to meet basic standards. The defendants also showed that Dr. Kelly submitted nearly identical reports for every patient he saw, yet he failed to note that some of his patients also had heart disease or renal failure. Asbestos attorneys apparently don't pay for doctors to observe the Hippocratic Oath.
"In his ruling, Judge Colombo laid out the facts and found that "the only conclusion in the face of such overwhelming medical evidence is that the opinions of Dr. Kelly are not reliable." He then disqualified him from the case. The effects will be dramatic -- and salutary to the cause of justice. According to Michigan records, Dr. Kelly has been responsible for reporting more than 7,300 cases of asbestos disease. It is unclear how many of those cases have already been adjudicated, but what is clear is that no new suits bearing the doctor's name will see the legal light of day. Some 95% of Michigan asbestos cases are filed in Wayne County and come to Judge Columbo."
Here's My Question
Over my 20 years in practice, I've seen some silly stuff regarding experts. For instance, I've seen lazy or cheap lawyers in both the plaintiff and defense bar thinking they'll settle out, so why spend the cash on top-flight, expensive experts -- and of course, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here.
I know that it's true, sometimes lawyers are just plain stupid when it comes to picking experts. Heck, I've seen them delegate the chore to some pretty little paralegal who got promoted from legal secretary two years back, and doesn't understand the gates anymore than she can speak Swahili.
She picks someone off the web who is nice to her. Someone whose advanced degree is from DeVry University or better yet, one of those online, unaccredited, pay for the degree places. Stupid, stupid, and no I'm not kidding here. True story. True, true, true.
But from the Columbo piece, I'm wondering why the heck a plaintiffs' firm would actually pin its pocketbook on this guy -- good old Dr. Kelly doesn't seem to have hidden the ball here. Dr. Kelly hasn't been exposed by the FBI or Geraldo Rivera -- his credentials (or lack thereof) have been there, for all to see ....
I'm wondering why they didn't submit their expert to their own internal Daubert challenge long before they revealed him as a testifying expert and starting depending upon him to help win their case at trial.
Lesson learned. Do your own Daubert review before you reveal your expert.
Pointedly, the article describes the following - which any civil trial lawyer will quickly recognize as a Daubert challenge advanced by the defense in this case:
"Judge Colombo has been overseeing asbestos cases in which defendants were trying to disqualify Michael Kelly, a physician who had diagnosed thousands of people with asbestos-related disease on dubious grounds. The judge made clear in court that he didn't appreciate the national attention of our editorial, to put it mildly. But in the end he did the right thing by granting a hearing into Dr. Kelly's diagnoses. Tellingly, the plaintiff attorneys immediately withdrew all but one of their suits.
"The judge plowed ahead anyway, helping to expose another asbestos scam. Defendants presented evidence that Dr. Kelly was neither a radiologist nor a pulmonologist and had failed the test that certifies doctors to read X-rays for lung disease. They also showed that the overwhelming majority of hospital radiologists who had reviewed Dr. Kelly's patients found no evidence of disease. An outside panel of radiologists who looked at Dr. Kelly's work found abnormalities in only 6 of 68 patients; Dr. Kelly had found abnormalities in 60 of those 68.
"More than 90% of the lung function tests Dr. Kelly performed failed to meet basic standards. The defendants also showed that Dr. Kelly submitted nearly identical reports for every patient he saw, yet he failed to note that some of his patients also had heart disease or renal failure. Asbestos attorneys apparently don't pay for doctors to observe the Hippocratic Oath.
"In his ruling, Judge Colombo laid out the facts and found that "the only conclusion in the face of such overwhelming medical evidence is that the opinions of Dr. Kelly are not reliable." He then disqualified him from the case. The effects will be dramatic -- and salutary to the cause of justice. According to Michigan records, Dr. Kelly has been responsible for reporting more than 7,300 cases of asbestos disease. It is unclear how many of those cases have already been adjudicated, but what is clear is that no new suits bearing the doctor's name will see the legal light of day. Some 95% of Michigan asbestos cases are filed in Wayne County and come to Judge Columbo."
Here's My Question
Over my 20 years in practice, I've seen some silly stuff regarding experts. For instance, I've seen lazy or cheap lawyers in both the plaintiff and defense bar thinking they'll settle out, so why spend the cash on top-flight, expensive experts -- and of course, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here.
I know that it's true, sometimes lawyers are just plain stupid when it comes to picking experts. Heck, I've seen them delegate the chore to some pretty little paralegal who got promoted from legal secretary two years back, and doesn't understand the gates anymore than she can speak Swahili.
She picks someone off the web who is nice to her. Someone whose advanced degree is from DeVry University or better yet, one of those online, unaccredited, pay for the degree places. Stupid, stupid, and no I'm not kidding here. True story. True, true, true.
But from the Columbo piece, I'm wondering why the heck a plaintiffs' firm would actually pin its pocketbook on this guy -- good old Dr. Kelly doesn't seem to have hidden the ball here. Dr. Kelly hasn't been exposed by the FBI or Geraldo Rivera -- his credentials (or lack thereof) have been there, for all to see ....
I'm wondering why they didn't submit their expert to their own internal Daubert challenge long before they revealed him as a testifying expert and starting depending upon him to help win their case at trial.
Lesson learned. Do your own Daubert review before you reveal your expert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)