<p>Attorneys are officers of the court and must act in good faith. Fabricating a defense on behalf of a client is in conflict with that duty and becomes extrinsic fraud on the court. Proving it is another matter.</p>
<p>While they’re not supposed to fabricate a defense, there’s little to stop them from doing so…especially after they’ve seen the evidence against their client.</p>
<p>The only person who could accuse them of the fabrication is the defendent. And, that would be a difficult situation to expose because of atty/client situation.</p>
<p>Since Baez let Casey sit in jail for 3 years without coming to the prosecution with the “Caylee drowned” story, it does appear that he created the story to fit the evidence. </p>
<p>No atty lets his client sit in jail for 3 years over an accident without speaking to the prosecution. What twenty-something wants to give up 3 years of their life over an accident? </p>
<p>In the case where the defendent is claiming complete lack of knowledge/involvement with the death/disappearance of the victim, then the defense is free to “speculate” and “offer theories” as to what “may” have happened…such as in the case of Scott Peterson who claimed to have no idea what happened to his wife, Laci. so, the defense offered some wild-haired stories of satanic worshippers who may have kidnapped Laci to get her fetus for some odd ritual. </p>
<p>However, in the case of Casey…the defense was not offering “theories”…they were presenting a supposedly “true story” that supposedly came out of Casey’s mouth. They weren’t saying “maybe Caylee drowned”…they said she DID drown. They didn’t say “maybe” George found the body in the pool…they said that he did.</p>