05-30-2011, 03:39 PM
this is from the blog of criminal lawyer Richard Hornsby:
it's right on point.
Mark Lippman’s Likely Motion? (george and cindy's lawyer, evidently lee's also)
FYI: It has been verified that Mr. Lippman is filing a motion on behalf of Lee Anthony for Lee to also be present during the trial.
I think the motion is one the state probably should have filed, which is a motion in limine to prohibit the defense team from insinuating George molested Casey in questioning until such time as someone has actually testified to it (i.e. Casey Anthony).
The state should have probably made the motion immediately after the opening statements, as it is improper for a lawyer to ask questions of witnesses that imply facts not in evidence or that the lawyer does not have a good faith belief will be established by the eventual evidence.
if argued correctly, Lippman’s motion would force Baez to proffer to the court how be believes in good faith he will establish George molested Casey to support his defense theory.
If his proffer does not involve him stating on the record that Casey (or someone else) will testify to it, the judge would likely prohibit him from pursuing the line of questioning or insinuating such scandalous allegations through his questioning. (That is, unless the Judge finds the Anthony’s don’t have standing for such a motion – in which case the State should adopt the motion.)
Speaking of Baez’s Scandalous Allegations
The general rule is that a defense attorney [any attorney actually] enjoys “absolute immunity [from law suit] in any act occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the act involves a defamatory statement or other tortious behavior . . . so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding.”
In this case, Jose Baez’s scandalous allegations were made in arguing a defense of his client and would therefore be considered rationally related to the proceeding. As such, he is entitled to absolute immunity for the allegations he made against George, no matter how damaging they are.
With that said, if it could be proven that he actually fabricated the allegations, he would likely be disciplined by the Florida Bar.
Additionally, while George could not pursue Baez if Baez was just restating what a witness told him, he could nonetheless sue the person who made the statement to Baez.
In this case, it would likely be Casey Anthony who would be the person making the defamatory statements, so George would most likely not pursue the matter.
it's right on point.
Mark Lippman’s Likely Motion? (george and cindy's lawyer, evidently lee's also)
FYI: It has been verified that Mr. Lippman is filing a motion on behalf of Lee Anthony for Lee to also be present during the trial.
I think the motion is one the state probably should have filed, which is a motion in limine to prohibit the defense team from insinuating George molested Casey in questioning until such time as someone has actually testified to it (i.e. Casey Anthony).
The state should have probably made the motion immediately after the opening statements, as it is improper for a lawyer to ask questions of witnesses that imply facts not in evidence or that the lawyer does not have a good faith belief will be established by the eventual evidence.
if argued correctly, Lippman’s motion would force Baez to proffer to the court how be believes in good faith he will establish George molested Casey to support his defense theory.
If his proffer does not involve him stating on the record that Casey (or someone else) will testify to it, the judge would likely prohibit him from pursuing the line of questioning or insinuating such scandalous allegations through his questioning. (That is, unless the Judge finds the Anthony’s don’t have standing for such a motion – in which case the State should adopt the motion.)
Speaking of Baez’s Scandalous Allegations
The general rule is that a defense attorney [any attorney actually] enjoys “absolute immunity [from law suit] in any act occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the act involves a defamatory statement or other tortious behavior . . . so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding.”
In this case, Jose Baez’s scandalous allegations were made in arguing a defense of his client and would therefore be considered rationally related to the proceeding. As such, he is entitled to absolute immunity for the allegations he made against George, no matter how damaging they are.
With that said, if it could be proven that he actually fabricated the allegations, he would likely be disciplined by the Florida Bar.
Additionally, while George could not pursue Baez if Baez was just restating what a witness told him, he could nonetheless sue the person who made the statement to Baez.
In this case, it would likely be Casey Anthony who would be the person making the defamatory statements, so George would most likely not pursue the matter.