Dominic Casey: Motion to Strike Notice of Deposition & Motion for Protective Order#2

[cecybeans]

Hypothetical: What if Dc, Ca, Bc and Ga are all sitting in the house together (not that far fetched), and Ca tells Dc to go look in the woods? and what if at that point Bc says to Dc, if you find anything, you will need representation and I am your man. Can they all work together to keep everything privileged? And is there anything wrong with that? thanks

Gosh I hope this scenario isn't true for CA's sake. We have to remember that whoever directed DC to those woods had extremely specific information about where and what to look for - three pavers and black garbage bags. To send DC to that place, when thousands of TES volunteers were combing a multitude of other places and even LP was all over JBP, would indicate inside information only the killer could know.

So either ICA got the information out to DC somehow, or someone in the family could be considered a suspect. But maybe that's been their strategy of misdirection all along.

Seriously though, if that is their strategy, good luck with that. The Anthony family had no motive to kill Caylee and would certainly have rushed to get help if she had somehow had an accident. They would have never let Caylee die without reporting it until they were forced to. And they would certainly have never disrespected her poor little remains by throwing them in a trash bag down the block to be ravaged by animals and the elements.

The scenario is unrealistic also from the standpoint that BC, who aspires to be a judge someday, IIRC, would never have put up with an attempt to cover up a crime by any of the parties in the room.

 

[RainyGirl]

Hypothetical: What if Dc, Ca, Bc and Ga are all sitting in the house together (not that far fetched), and Ca tells Dc to go look in the woods? and what if at that point Bc says to Dc, if you find anything, you will need representation and I am your man. Can they all work together to keep everything privileged? And is there anything wrong with that? thanks

In my opinion, the following is what I believe has happened. It is mere speculation, but is based on very common practice on the part of a State Attorney's Office.
-In response to an Investigative Subpoena and given a GO from HHJS, DC appeared before the SAO to answer their questions.
-I believe that the State offered DC use immunity at this time and (if he was smart) DC took it! He would thus be immune from prosecution based upon discovery of any of the information garnered from this interview.-When use immunity is issued, the SAO can cut through any possible "protected information" (perhaps from George and Cindy) and require DC to tell what he knows. IMO, this is what most likely happened.
DC *may or may not* have revealed important information surrounding his treks through the woods and who was involved with it.

Just pondering some ideas.....thanks!

 

[LambChop]

Here you go friend, according to Brad here...Dominic was working for mom and pop, he protests that the tape is the property of Mr. and Mrs. Anthony. Funny claim since Dom told police he did not even know he was being taped by Hoover.
Brad says Dom was hired to find Caylee, "Dead or Alive!" Hold on to your seat, Geraldo says Dom was sent to those woods with MAPS AND GRAPHS AND SPECIFIC INFORMATION THAT LED HIM TO THIS AREA ( three minute mark).

You just can't make this stuff up!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_sEh-hVZcA Dominic told LE, under oath, that he was NOT working for Baez at the time. He further told them that he had been contracted with Casey all along and was at the time of this search. That is what is referred to as a bad fact for the defense. Casey's PI is in the woods twenty feet from where her little baby's bones would be found a month later ....that is tough to get past!
With your wildest imagination, thoroughly drunk, delusional ...one could not make this stuff up!!!!

This tape does not look so good for the A's considering what we now know with the release of the jailhouse letters. KC was writing to her parents through JB. If DC were to have acquired information about where Caylee's remains were located through the A's because of jailhouse letters DC may well feel the information is privileged because he still was technically employed by KC. No wonder JB does not want DC to talk. jmo

 

[RainyGirl]

I don't know how to tell what he is claiming privilege to. I think there may be some assumptions. I hope not. I think this man needs to be deposed with both sides present.

bbm. Then Baez should have placed DC on his witness list. This has been reiterated plenty 'o times here.

Also, remember that the defense team can talk to DC without the SAO present.

IMO, There is NO CONSPIRACY. The SAO have followed the letter of the law and continue to demonstrate why they have such an excellent reputation.

 

[Aedrys]

Respectfully snipped...

Regarding giving up "strategy": both sides are required to give up the names of their witnesses and the exhibits they plan to use at trial, in addition to a few other categories of evidence. The State is additionally required to give up information that is helpful to the defense, even if it is harmful to the prosecution. Both sides can keep secret their "strategies" in the sense of what they plan to say at trial about the evidence they have disclosed. But there is no real way to keep that secret in most cases--the other side will figure out your strategy based on the list of witnesses and exhibits or based on pretrial motions and arguments.

snipped and second bold by me. That's true unless you're the Casey Anthony defense team, apparently. There could be neon signs pointing to what they need, they still wouldn't get it, and then, as we've seen, they'll just whine to have it all down in writing. I swear, they are either using the worst defense tactic out there, or they are the densest bunch of people I have ever seen. I am still scratching my head at how the heck they don't know what the SA's strategy is!

And I do think SA has already dealt with DC. The man packed up and moved away, and hasn't exactly been advertising his business or talking in the media. I think he realized it was time to put up and then shut up. I doubt he's going to have a PI career after this case.

 

[marspiter]

Okay, so it is not an actual deposition. Thank you

NTS you really should go read the link that RainyGirl provided.

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2009/12/casey-anthony-gets-a-reality-check/

This blog by RH pretty much explains everything in rather plain english.

 

[AZlawyer]

I will stand corrected and I think we'd better get AZLawyer to jump into this but my understanding of an investigative interview is that it is a far different animal than a standard interview. I don't think you can decline an investigative interview, and there appears to be secrecy attached to the results as far as the Sunshine Laws. And I think an investigative interview is "on record".

You can't decline an investigative interview if you are subpoenaed to appear. Also, normally the information would be exempt from the Sunshine Laws, but not if there is a criminal case going on (which there is) and the information is covered by the discovery rules. So is it covered by the discovery rules? If it hasn't been transcribed, there's nothing to discover. So if the interview was done but not transcribed, nothing will be turned over to the defense or the public in connection with the interview. What if it has been transcribed? In that case, the transcript would fall under the discovery rules and would be produced, IF: (1) DC gets listed as a witness, OR (2) DC said something helpful to the defense.

 

[The World According]

I don't know how to tell what he is claiming privilege to. I think there may be some assumptions. I hope not. I think this man needs to be deposed with both sides present.

Then, please write to The Baez Law firm, straight away, often, with the same speed, insistence and enthusiasm and let him know of your outrage at his utter and complete incompetence in not making it so. You have my permission to use any of my quotes, links to hearings, videos, recordings or comments to illustrate your concern to him. We have done all we can to help you. Only the defense can rectify the problem. I say take the problem to the decision maker. It always works for me.

I am serious, have you ever written to ask what in the world? Of course, he will not respond, but maybe, just maybe it will plant a seed, or give a little clue. Kidding. Just kidding. www.myfloridalegal.com

 

[The World According]

This tape does not look so good for the A's considering what we now know with the release of the jailhouse letters. KC was writing to her parents through JB. If DC were to have acquired information about where Caylee's remains were located through the A's because of jailhouse letters DC may well feel the information is privileged because he still was technically employed by KC. No wonder JB does not want DC to talk. jmo

If I were a juror this alone would get me past reasonable doubt. He was not sent to look through local ponds, dumpsters, locations near her boy friend's home, he wasn't retracing her steps through the phone records Lee had obtained, he wasn't seeing if boxes or suitcases from the home were missing....out of all the places in all of Orlando he, by his own account, searched one place and one place only for a dead Caylee....while he was employed by the defendant and against all odds it just so happens that was the site the baby was dumped at. It would be, in my view, UN-reasonable to buy that as a coincidence.

I give up.

 

[marspiter]

Well it seems to me that if they did an investigative subpoena (and we don't know that they did, many assume), Dc would just do the same thing he did in the police interviews and cry privilege. He has to protect himself and that is okay with me. I understand privilege and support it. When he had the tape stopped for that long period of time, many speculate that was where he said Jb told him not to call 911, but none of us really know what happened while the tape was stopped.

Dc is amazing. He has managed to have several clients and two Lawyers. What a mess. lol .. His latest Lawyer has stepped down, but I do not know if Bc stepped down. Bc was there during the time the tape was stopped, so he knows what was said. I am sure he will keep secret due to Attorney client privilege. lol

I don't think Dominic is scared at all. He has many protections. Many think of him as an amatuer, however, he did come close to the body, much closer than any Ocso personel that we know of. He may hold some key things that pertain to this case, but they may not be inculpatory.

It is my opinion that he should be deposed with the defense present. The defense may object many times due to client privilege, but that is okay. We all support privilege as far as I know. There should be nothing to hide. It should all be out on the table come trial. Dc will likely be called as a witness for the defense, they just don't want to do it yet because they do not want to give up their strategy. I don't think it really matters who's witness list he is on other than the cross. I noted he was not on their deposition list the other day. What happens when both sides refuse to put a witness on their list? Does the Judge step in?

I am glad we now have a Judge that can see through all these smoke and mirrors and something will indeed come of this at some point. MOO

NTS you really seem to be over looking one important fact in your argument about the defense being present for DC's depo. This one fact has been pointed out numerous times by several posters. The defense has never placed DC or their witness list. There is a procedure for how things are done. That procedure has to be followed. The SA has every right to question DC with out the defense present as part of an investigative subpoena. So until the defense adds DC to its witness list the argument that the defense should be present holds absolutely no water.

Once again there is no grand conspiracy on the part of the state. The proper procedure is being followed and the defense has not done the work necessary to be present.

Can you just quote the quote instead of talking about things that I have never said. Please lets keep it on track. thanks

As you can see you were in fact quoted. If you go back and look at my post you will notice I highlighted a part of your post. Which is again highlighted. You have continued to express your opinion that the defense should be present. It has been pointed out numerous times what the procedure is for the defense to be present. My above quote was pointing out that there is a procedure for this and according to that procedure the defense would not need to be present until such a time that DC is listed as a witness for the defense.

Also RH has pretty much spelled out the entire thing on his blog. Once again links are provided in the thread.

Plain and simple if the defense wants to be there they need to get on the ball and add DC. So I see no point in trying to argue that the defense should have been present (if an interview did take place). Further until he (DC) is added I see no point in arguing that they (the defense) should be present for a future interview/depo. The rules are the rules so to speak despite what ever our opinion may be about the rules.

 

[The World According]

Regarding the state investigative subpoena interview, imo Baez missed his chance, months ago. Now, in the words of Mrs. King...."It's too late baby, it is too late!"
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb5MORLi8K0[/ame]
www.myfloridalegal.com

 

[marspiter]

Going to try to answer these questions (if I am wrong, hopefully the legal experts will correct me):
1. Yes. If only one party is questioning the subject (the other party is not present) and there is no transcript it is tantamount to an interview and not a deposition...
2. I believe that the SA's office has only met with DC one time (December 2009) in an informal capacity, ie...an informal interview, not a depo and the defense was not present. If the defense wants to be present, they can add DC to their witness list (which would make questioning him a deposition) or as AZ Lawyer suggested the defense could conduct their own informal interview with DC (meaning they haven't put him on their list) without the prosecution present...it just won't rise to the level of a deposition (ie...under oath).
3. No...he would not be...but in this one thing I am confused...when LE interviews a subject...and they make a written statement to police....the subject of the interview pretty much reviews the statement and swears it is correct/accurate/truthful...but no, in an interview, DC would not be under oath and it would not be transcribed for the other party not present.

Hope that helps. Again, to the legal experts, if I am wrong, feel free to correct me.

Bold is incorrect. DC would be under oath from a subpoena.

 

[notthatsmart]

Then, please write to The Baez Law firm, straight away, often, with the same speed, insistence and enthusiasm and let him know of your outrage at his utter and complete incompetence in not making it so. You have my permission to use any of my quotes, links to hearings, videos, recordings or comments to illustrate your concern to him. We have done all we can to help you. Only the defense can rectify the problem. I say take the problem to the decision maker. It always works for me.

I am serious, have you ever written to ask what in the world? Of course, he will not respond, but maybe, just maybe it will plant a seed, or give a little clue.

I have no outrage. I believe he is not putting Dc on the witness list for a very good reason. I just don't know what that is. I think the defense knows exactly what they are doing. I certainly understand many of the majority's assumption that Jb made a mistake here, but I just disagree. I think there is a good reason for it. Moo

Ps, I have no reason to write to the defense, and I would have no idea how to do so. thanks

 

[marspiter]

I have no outrage. I believe he is not putting Dc on the witness list for a very good reason. I just don't know what that is. I think the defense knows exactly what they are doing. I certainly understand many of the majority's assumption that Jb made a mistake here, but I just disagree. I think there is a good reason for it. Moo

Ps, I have no reason to write to the defense, and I would have no idea how to do so. thanks

So let me see if I can get this straight? On one hand: Your saying that the defense should have been/be present for a DC interview/depo even after repeatedly being told DC would have to be on the witness list according to procedure.

Then on the other hand: Your saying you believe DC was left off the witness list for a reason.

So knowing the procedure (its been hammered repeatedly) doesn't saying the defense is leaving DC off the witness list purposely, completely negate your argument that the defense should be present for a DC interview/depo?

:waitasec:

 

[notthatsmart]

As you can see you were in fact quoted. If you go back and look at my post you will notice I highlighted a part of your post. Which is again highlighted. You have continued to express your opinion that the defense should be present. It has been pointed out numerous times what the procedure is for the defense to be present. My above quote was pointing out that there is a procedure for this and according to that procedure the defense would not need to be present until such a time that DC is listed as a witness for the defense.

Also RH has pretty much spelled out the entire thing on his blog. Once again links are provided in the thread.

Plain and simple if the defense wants to be there they need to get on the ball and add DC. So I see no point in trying to argue that the defense should have been present (if an interview did take place). Further until he (DC) is added I see no point in arguing that they (the defense) should be present for a future interview/depo. The rules are the rules so to speak despite what ever our opinion may be about the rules.

I will say it again. The defense should be present if he is deposed. There is no need for the defense to be present if he is just interviewed. There is no argument, there is no confusion. It is simply deposition vs interview. I have read RH blog many times and he explains this same thing. I think some may be trying to interpret my understanding. Heck we can't read minds. lol

Thanks for quoting the quote. Makes it easier. IMO

 

[beach]

So let me see if I can get this straight? On one hand: Your saying that the defense should have been/be present for a DC interview/depo even after repeatedly being told DC would have to be on the witness list according to procedure.

Then on the other hand: Your saying you believe DC was left off the witness list for a reason.

So knowing the procedure (its been hammered repeatedly) doesn't saying the defense is leaving DC off the witness list purposely, completely negate your argument that the defense should be present for a DC interview/depo?

:waitasec:

Holy cow! I do believe you finally got to the bottom of it! :bowdown:

 

[AZlawyer]

I have no outrage. I believe he is not putting Dc on the witness list for a very good reason. I just don't know what that is. I think the defense knows exactly what they are doing. I certainly understand many of the majority's assumption that Jb made a mistake here, but I just disagree. I think there is a good reason for it. Moo

Ps, I have no reason to write to the defense, and I would have no idea how to do so. thanks

I agree that JB is leaving DC off his witness list for a very good reason. The reason IMO is that JB knows that DC has nothing to say that can possibly help KC's defense.

I will say it again. The defense should be present if he is deposed. There is no need for the defense to be present if he is just interviewed. There is no argument, there is no confusion. It is simply deposition vs interview. I have read RH blog many times and he explains this same thing. I think some may be trying to interpret my understanding. Heck we can't read minds. lol

Thanks for quoting the quote. Makes it easier. IMO

I can't believe we've been talking in circles for so long. :banghead: No one on this forum or anywhere else I have seen, least of all the SA, has ever suggested that the defense would not be present if an actual deposition of DC took place.

 

[marspiter]

I will say it again. The defense should be present if he is deposed. There is no need for the defense to be present if he is just interviewed. There is no argument, there is no confusion. It is simply deposition vs interview. I have read RH blog many times and he explains this same thing. I think some may be trying to interpret my understanding. Heck we can't read minds. lol

Thanks for quoting the quote. Makes it easier. IMO

Well it's not a "deposition" until the defense adds him to their witness list.

If he does list Dominic Casey as a witness, the State is required to notice the defense of the “interview,” which is now legally defined as a “deposition.”
Quoted from RH's blog: http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2009/12/casey-anthony-gets-a-reality-check/

In essence the interview is a deposition. The only difference is one is given to individuals not on the defense witness list the other is given to individuals on the defenses witness list.

So basically you are trying to have a circular argument about the semantics of the words "interview" and "deposition".

 

[notthatsmart]

So let me see if I can get this straight? On one hand: Your saying that the defense should have been/be present for a DC interview/depo even after repeatedly being told DC would have to be on the witness list according to procedure.

Then on the other hand: Your saying you believe DC was left off the witness list for a reason.

So knowing the procedure (its been hammered repeatedly) doesn't saying the defense is leaving DC off the witness list purposely, completely negate your argument that the defense should be present for a DC interview/depo?

:waitasec:

I think the problem is that sleuthers are putting the words interview/depo together as though they are the same. I think they have two complete different meanings. So, no, and there is no argument, it is just an attempt to find the truth. So if you could point out which one you are talking about , interview or deposition, then I could have a conversation about that. Hope this helps. MOO

 

[RainyGirl]

I will say it again. The defense should be present if he is deposed. There is no need for the defense to be present if he is just interviewed. There is no argument, there is no confusion. It is simply deposition vs interview. I have read RH blog many times and he explains this same thing. I think some may be trying to interpret my understanding. Heck we can't read minds. lol

Thanks for quoting the quote. Makes it easier. IMO

Just a quick tidbit you may not realize about the deposition vs. interview issue. If you are subpoenaed to appear before the SAO for an Investigative Interview (during an active criminal case), this is no small potatoes!! It carries weight very similar to a deposition. If DC was questioned (as I believe he has been), then he was answering questions under sworn oath. I can almost guarantee you this was no casual chat. JMO....