The Baez Effect: Should Attorneys Be Permitted to Lie? - Statement Analysis

Wednesday, September 21, 2011
The Baez Effect: Should Attorneys Be Permitted to Lie?

Excerpt:

American justice does not consist of attorneys for defendant and state working together to uncover the truth of a crime, and coming to an agreement upon a punishment, ensuring the guilty against malicious prosecution.

It has become a game between two combatants: the State and the Defense, with the panel of jurors as the target of truth or propaganda.

After almost 3 years of being unable to come up with a defense strategy that may hold up, the Casey Anthony defense team settled upon the lie of "accidental death", even though this would look foolish knowing that no client nor attorney would sit in jail for 3 years over an accident. However, the defense theory would not be one of clarity, rather, it would be that to make the scenario as confusing as possible, including vilifying the grandfather, George Anthony, and making him a co-conspiritor in the case. They placed all of their bets on the least common denominator: a jury unable or unwilling to patiently sift through lie after lie.

Should a defense attorney be bound to truth? Can a defense attorney simply walk before a microphone and say "4 sex partners in 3 days?" as a question in a rape case; only to later say "I never claimed the woman (victim) had multiple sex partners; I merely asked a question" destroying the reputation of the victim. Should an attorney be subject to escalating penalty, up to, and including loss of license, due to lying? Or, should the game continue: win at all costs?

More: http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2011/09/baez-effect-should-attorneys-be.html