| ► Ethics Complaint v Casey Anthony Attorneys Jose Baez & James Mason |
 |
 |
|
Ethics Complaint v Casey Anthony Attorneys Jose Baez & James Mason
The Florida Bar
Inquiry/Complaint Form
Name: David Palmer Attorney: Jose Baez (No. 13232
Organization: Committee to Expose Dishonest/ 522 Simpson Rd.
Incompetent Attorneys/Judges/Public Officials Kissimmee, FL 34744
URL: www.noethics.net
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Email:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Attorney: James Cheney Mason
Folsom, CA 95630 390 N. Orange Ave. Ste 2100
Orlando, FL 32801
The Florida Bar
Grievance Committee
651 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
July 14, 2011
To Whom It May Concern:
Below are facts that I believe will lead you to conclude that the aforementioned attorneys have engaged in egregious misconduct. If you require any additional information please feel free to drop me a line.
Part II: Facts/Allegations re: Violation of Rule 3-4 Rules of Professional Conduct
The following facts deal with the conduct of attorneys Baez and Mason relative to the recently concluded trail of Casey Anthony. That conduct would I believe include the following:
a) Assisting or permitting a witness to testify falsely
b) Offering testimony or other proof lawyer reasonably believes is false
c) Conduct aimed at deceiving the triers (jury) of fact
d) Conduct involving fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation
First and foremost it should be understood that this ethics complaint has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion as to correctness and/or incorrectness of the acquittal of Casey Anthony. Put simply, the jury’s verdict is irrelevant to the misconduct of Baez and Mason.
False testimony of Cindy Anthony
During opening statements, the Prosecution claimed that Casey Anthony had looked up chloroform and how to make chloroform at least 84 times. On June 8, and in order to prove this fact, the Prosecutor put forth the testimony of John Bradley who develops software for computer investigations. Bradley testified that he recovered deleted searches on the Anthony family desktop computer and that someone searched the website Sci-spot.com for the word “chloroform” 84 times.
As you well know, this testimony was devastating to the defense since prosecution witnesses testified that they discovered chloroform in Casey Anthony’s trunk where the baby was claimed to have been stored for a short period of time after her death.
On June 23, fifteen (15) days after Bradley’s testimony, Baez and Mason called Cindy Anthony to testify for the defense. During her sworn testimony, Cindy claimed it was she that carried out the multiple chloroform searches on the family computer at her home.
Subsequently, Cindy’s testimony was proven false when testimony from her employer proved she was at work when the chloroform searches were performed.
Did Baez and Mason suborn Cindy Anthony’s Perjured Testimony?
It cannot be disputed that Baez and Mason had 15 days to discover whether Cindy’s testimony that she performed the chloroform searches was believable or a fabrication. Clearly Baez and Mason absolutely knew that Cindy was employed as a nurse at a local hospital. Therefore, prior to calling her to testify on June 23 all they needed to do was to call her the hospital to determine if she was actually working when the chloroform searches took place.
Any reasonably competent and/or ethical criminal defense attorney would surely have made the call to Cindy’s employer before being duped into eliciting false testimony from her. If either of them had done so they would have immediately recognized that her anticipated testimony would be fabricated.
Did Baez and Mason act reasonable re: Cindy Anthony’s testimony?
The Code of Conduct provides the following definitions:
Would any reasonably prudent and competent attorney have the chutzpah to assert that he/she had no duty to determine if a potential witness was about to give perjured testimony. This is especially true when all that was required was a single phone call to the hospital where Cindy Anthony was employed. To argue otherwise wouldn’t pass the involuntary laugh test!
On his website, attorney Mason promotes himself by making the following claims:
1) Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer
2) News media, on all levels often invite him to produce expert commentary on legal issues involving criminal law…
3) Publisher of numerous legal articles
4) Teaches trial techniques to Prosecutors/Public Defenders at Univ. of Florida
Mason obtained his law license forty (40) years ago in 1971. He was board certified in criminal law 24-years ago in 1987. It would be frivolous to the nth degree for Mason to claim incompetence in failing to perform a modicum of due diligence (calling the hospital) before putting Cindy Anthony on trial.
It can safely be assumed that a first year law student would have determined if Cindy was actually at home or work when the chloroform searches were performed. In fact, anyone with an I.Q. just a tad north of the legal speed limit in a school zone would have so acted.
What is truly distressing is the fact that 15-days passed before Baez and Mason called Cindy to the witness stand for the sole purpose of destroying the prosecution’s evidence that it was Casey who did the chloroform searches. Yet, these self-proclaimed stalwarts of the defense bar were so incompetent that they never did so.
Conclusion
Sadly, it appears that Baez and Mason were more concerned with self-promotion in defending a high-profile case then they were in conducting themselves in accordance with their oaths as Officers of the Court.
I’m not suggesting that Baez and Mason were obligated to spill the beans on Cindy regarding what turned out to be her false testimony. However, the Rules of Conduct clearly prohibited them from placing her on the stand when they had to know her testimony would be patently false. Any claim by Baez and Mason to the contrary should be treated with the same contempt they displayed for complying with the Professional Rules of Conduct.
Something must be done to reign in this “win at all cost” mentality that is much too prevalent among some members of the bar. Is it any wonder that the vast majority of Americans have absolutely no respect for the legal profession?
Clearly these are self-inflicted wounds by unethical members of the Florida Bar. If the Bar gives Baez and Mason the proverbial wink and a nod, then they are merely inviting even more egregious misconduct in the future.
Please provide me with a copy of any responses to this complaint that you receive from Mr. Baez and/or Mr. Mason.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.
___________________
Dave Palmer
July 14, 2011
|