Kimberly Guilfoyle just said on O’Reilly that it was unethical what Baez did by throwing out drowning in opening statements without an ounce of evidence. It is already out there.
As a matter of fact, the alternate juror who called in said that is what happened to Caylee in their opinion WITHOUT one ounce of evidence. Unethical sleaze worked!
Baez knew who the jurors were and what tactic would work.
All he needed to do was confuse them and distract from the evidence.
Also of note, you talk about the alternate juror speaking for the group and what they thought. (I have read this elsewhere, also) UH OH. Apparently they did not adhere to the admonitions of Judge Perry about not speaking amongst themselves about the case.
This alternate juror was not involved in deliberations, so how is it that he can speak for the other jurors and what they thought????
It probably was unethical, but it was incumbent upon the prosecution to object to those statements and, if they anticipated them, to bring a motion in limine before trial. I didn’t watch the opening statements, but it doesn’t appear to me that they did so, and that’s unfortunate. Baez at least can say that he was fulfilling his duty to be a zealous advocate even if he was making an improper jury argument.
I’m not a big fan of how the judge conducted this trial, either, or how he handled that contempt hearing last week.