Here is something that is puzzling me and maybe someone knows the answer for certain. A lawyer once told me that when in court a lawyer is always considered to be “sworn in” when speaking to the court, jury, etc. Because lawyers are officers of the court they do not have to be formally sworn in like witnesses are.
Jose said in open court that Casey was molested by her father and brother. That is fine in an opening statement so far as it went but wasn’t he obligated to put up some proof of that? Since he didn’t prove it at all weren’t those statements something akin to lying under oath?
The jury certainly took his words as true, honest, and factual and a large part of that is because he is a lawyer...an officer of the court. I’m wondering if he couldn’t be brought up by the bar on charges for this, too.
I’m not sure about that. Various commentators have indicated that he should not have done that, but no one mentioned anything about any legal problems over it. Maybe someone who knows more about the law could comment?
What seems more disturbing to me is, Baez might well have known not only that Caylee was dead, but where she was, connecting a few of my own dots. Leonard Padilla was just on HLN talking about the same thing, and he reached the same conclusion. I don’t know if anyone can ever prove that he knew, but if he knew, wasn’t he obligated to report it to the police?