<p>
</p>
<p>It is a complete waste of time and would be a huge blunder for any attorney to go to the prosecution with the client’s “story” unless there was ironclad, irrefutable evidence to back it up. Otherwise it’s just cluing the prosecution into the defense strategy so they can use that information to further bolster their own case.</p>
<p>I know of cases where defense attorneys could find that sort of hard evidence – but you need something that is so convincing that the prosecutor is going to accept it, rather than look for ways to rebut or undermine it. Since there is no evidence of how Kaylee died, there would be no way to prove one way or another that she drowned, so Baez could not possibly have had anything to go to the prosecutor with.</p>
<p>I’d note that if the story Baez told in his opening statement is based on what his client told him, then it wouldn’t be “bad faith” to present that, if he had a reasonable expectation at the beginning of trial that his client was likely to testify. That does’t obligate his client to testify – it just means that as of the time Baez made the statement, he would have done so with the knowledge that he had witness available who would testify to those facts. </p>
<p>I kind of doubt that he ever expected Casey to testify, but there would be no way to prove what his intent was in any case. Sometimes lawyers have stubborn clients who insist that they be allowed to testify, and the lawyers spend every day of the trial trying to convince their client that they shouldn’t – maybe that’s what happened in this case.</p>