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

[The World According]

MDB: "A SUBPOENA FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, is A SUBPOENA regardless of whatever label you put on it! Mr. Baez will not be there, for that process" We are not doing anything other than playing musical
chairs. "


Judge Strickland "Is there really any difference? Keep the time set for next week. Go ahead and issue your State's Attorney Investigative Subpoena, for the record."

LDB:"I don't know that it would say anything different than it already says."
Judge: "It probably would not"
LDB:"The difference is Mr. Baez's entitlement to be there"
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls_dUmQTgNM[/ame]

Summing up...call it what you will....the judge ordered him to appear to answer questions, under oath and he was not allowed to refuse to answer questions.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAuXZ3jqJ70[/ame]
Here is the section where Mr. Baez is confused. This case has been mismanaged from jump. In my opinion, the defense is exactly as Mr. Nejame described.

 

[RR0004]

I certainly hope so. I'm surprised the A's aren't more worried about him. I'd love to see the look on Cindy's face if her lover boy PI is one of the ones that brings her and George down. Shoot, he brings down the whole dang family, he will gain mega points with me.

Do what's right, DC. Don't go down with this family!

This little fact seems to have gotten lost in the thread...lol. DC could very well be scared of Cindy.

 

[RR0004]

All kidding aside, if there's someone's interview/ deposition/whatever you want to call it I want to see...it's DC's.

 

[LambChop]

This little fact seems to have gotten lost in the thread...lol. DC could very well be scared of Cindy.

Now that.......I can believe!!!!! lol

 

[beach]

All kidding aside, if there's someone's interview/ deposition/whatever you want to call it I want to see...it's DC's.

It is ridiculous how obsessed I am over reading that transcript. :loser:


The day that comes out will be like Christmas morning around WS.

 

[Mamabear1963]

This little fact seems to have gotten lost in the thread...lol. DC could very well be scared of Cindy.

Who isn't afraid of her...

 

[The World According]

Friends, I am kidding, one hundred percent, kidding. Do not send any letters to Mr. Baez or his office. I was kidding NTS because he seems so frustrated with why didn't Mr. Baez go to the interview, and whose fault it is. We have all posted the hearings, the links, the documents, to no avail and they do not move the ball down the court. I have lost confidence that I can be of any help.

So I was kidding saying have you asked Baez why not. For the life of me...I cannot guess why he didn't add Dom to the witness list so he could attend. He said he would.

No, no, no guys do not ever write to Mr. Baez, or any other player in this case, (unless you do so as a individual). Do not introduce yourself as being a part of or any representative of Websleuths, under any circumstance if you do wish to opine to some one involved in the case. Please!! If he cannot take the advice of Andrea and Cheney, and Mr. Sheaffer and Mr. Hornsby...surely he will not pay attention to a letter writer. Moreover, I am sure it against the rules here.

You can tell him you just got a great deal on your car insurance by switching to Gieco if you ever speak to him in the court house. LOL!
Now..back to our case...

 

[faefrost]

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

But if he was technically employed directly by KC then no privilege existed ever. he is not a lawyer. The only time privilege can exist between a defendant and litigant and a direct employee is if that employee is a lawyer representing the defendant. In order to be covered by any privilege at all DC would have had to be employed exclusively and directly by JB, with no direct connection or alternate arrangement with KC. If he is JB's PI and only JB's PI than JB's privilege will cover him for direct work and conversations. But since he is KC's PI and GA and CA's PI than it is highly likely that not only does no privilege cover him, but that any conversations that he witnessed between JB and KC are not privileged (third party present), and he may be questioned about under oath.

Gee, I wonder why JB didn't want to add DC to his witness list thereby making the interview/deposition subject to sunshine law release?

 

[LambChop]

But if he was technically employed directly by KC then no privilege existed ever. he is not a lawyer. The only time privilege can exist between a defendant and litigant and a direct employee is if that employee is a lawyer representing the defendant. In order to be covered by any privilege at all DC would have had to be employed exclusively and directly by JB, with no direct connection or alternate arrangement with KC. If he is JB's PI and only JB's PI than JB's privilege will cover him for direct work and conversations. But since he is KC's PI and GA and CA's PI than it is highly likely that not only does no privilege cover him, but that any conversations that he witnessed between JB and KC are not privileged (third party present), and he may be questioned about under oath.

Gee, I wonder why JB didn't want to add DC to his witness list thereby making the interview/deposition subject to sunshine law release?

Oh I know that, faefrost, just saying obviously DC thinks otherwise. Even his attorney admitted DC just does not want to whole world to know what he has to say. So, now.......we really want to know. lol

 

[BeanE]

Well, I will look for it and I am sure it is in TWA's youtube stuff, but I do believe that LDB made a reference to deposing without the defense present and that is when Jb said well then we will just put him on our list. Then the Judge said just do an investigative subpoena. But I do believe LDB did make reference to it. I may be wrong, but there is something in reference to it by the state. IMO

You are correct, NTS. I remember it as well.

See TWA's hearing video above.

After the hearing, a reporter, I believe Kathy B, asked Baez what he was going to do, if he would put DC on the defense witness list. Baez was wetting his pants at that point because he knew it was either he put DC on his witness list, or there would be the special subpoena where the defense could not be there, and Baez responded to the reporter that he would, after all, put DC on the witness list.

This whole thing was discussed extensively in this forum. I'm surprised more people don't remember it as you and I do.

If you can't find the video of the interview outside the courthouse afterwards, holler at me and I'll help you find it. It was as interesting as the hearing itself, and well worth taking another peek.

Take care -
BeanE

 

[BeanE]

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

That's a good question. It's obvious that the defense and BC have worked together to attempt to construct a shelter of privilege for DC, not only for the time period in which DC worked for Baez, but extending beyond that into the period of time in which DC worked for KC, the period of time in which DC worked for CA and GA, and even explicitly extending beyond that.

This claimed privilege has come up at several hearings.

Remember when BC said in a news interview something along the lines of, "DC works for CA/GA, and by extension, for me."? I've always found that an interesting tact. It was unexpected to me, and to many.

 

[BeanE]

A state subpoenaed investigative subpoena is for a deposition, or not?

Maybe I need to ask this in the Legal Questions thread.

Sorry, guys - haven't had my coffee yet, and I'm just trying to catch up.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS

Investigative subpoenas are usually issued prior to the filing of any criminal charge, allowing prosecutors to gather information before making a decision whether to charge someone with a crime. Generally, they require people to submit to an interview and answer a prosecutor's questions, provide documentary materials, or both. States with statutes authorizing their use are: Arkansas (Ark. Code Ann. § 16-43-212), Delaware (Del. Code Ann., Tit. 29 § 2508), Florida (Fl. Stat. Ann. § 2704), Hawaii (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 28.2.5), Indiana (Ind. Code § 33.14.1-3), Iowa (Iowa Code Ann. § 813.2, Rule 5, subd. 6), Kansas (Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3101), Louisiana (La. Code. Crim. Proc. Ann, Art. 66), Michigan (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 767A), Missouri (Mo. Stat. Ann. § 56.085), Montana (Mont. Code Ann. § 46-4-301), Oregon (Or. Rev. Stat. § 180.073), and Utah (Ut. Code Ann. § 77-22-2). We have enclosed copies of these statutes.

A witness appearing in response to an investigative subpoena may assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in the same way that a grand jury witness can. He may also file a court motion to quash (void) or modify the subpoena. Grounds for objecting include relevance, overbreadth, burdensomeness, and that compliance would force the person being questioned to disclose information that is protected by a statutory privilege (such as attorney-client or physician-patient communications).

more at the link:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/olr/htm/2001-r-0201.htm

http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/E6EF8EE8AEAF4E0E852562450057458C




http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/files/09.pdf

 

[marspiter]

A state subpoenaed investigative subpoena is for a deposition, or not?

Maybe I need to ask this in the Legal Questions thread.

Sorry, guys - haven't had my coffee yet, and I'm just trying to catch up.

Richard Hornsby outlines the whole thing on his blog as it relates to this case and to this particular question.

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

In plain general terms. When one (investigative subpoena duces tecum) is issued it calls the person in for an "interview". If that person is on the defense witness list it becomes a "deposition". However if that person is never added to the witness list it stays as an "interview". Under both circumstances the person is required to answer questions under oath. The only difference between the two is one is done with the defense present the other is not.

That's it in a nutshell. I'm sure there is some legalese that can be tossed in but that's the basic gist of it.

It should also be noted that the attorneys in this case have used the two words interchangeable as well.

 

[KeyboardCat]

Hello again!

I do believe that an interview has taken place, as many others pointed out, because there have been no further motions to compel him to give the interview. And with his lawyer filing her withdrawal indicating her services were complete, I think to many reaffirms it.

Now to my understanding, an investigative subpoena has a purpose of basically making the person answer questions, under oath. The term "investigative" says to me that they want to see what he knows, to see if there is more to investigate. Also to my understanding, things regarding an ongoing investigation aren't subject to the sunshine laws. Maybe that's why we haven't seen a recording, or a transcript released in the discovery process so far.

From the hearing youtube video, it seems as though the state doesn't care either way, if its a formal deposition or an interview due to issuing the subpoena. Seems as though they just want what him to answer certain questions under oath. The judge then says lets just issue an investigative subpoena. So then (of course assuming with all common sense) this interview has taken place, why haven't we seen it? Hasn't enough time passed for the state to conclude investigations concerning all matters Dominic Casey? Once the investigative part is over, its subject to sunshine laws, no?

Another explanation is that he didn't have much to offer, so there was nothing to release?
Except according to http://www.myflsunshine.com/sun.nsf/pages/Law it says, "This law provides that any records made or received by any public agency in the course of its official business are available for inspection, unless specifically exempted by the Flordia Legislature." I would think that even if there is nothing of substance to come from an interview with Dominic Casey, it would still be subject to these laws.

 

[marspiter]

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

No privilege would arise from the circumstances you describe.



No. He and his lawyer have explained what they think the privilege is.

That's a good question. It's obvious that the defense and BC have worked together to attempt to construct a shelter of privilege for DC, not only for the time period in which DC worked for Baez, but extending beyond that into the period of time in which DC worked for KC, the period of time in which DC worked for CA and GA, and even explicitly extending beyond that.

This claimed privilege has come up at several hearings.

Remember when BC said in a news interview something along the lines of, "DC works for CA/GA, and by extension, for me."? I've always found that an interesting tact. It was unexpected to me, and to many.

This question was basically answered by AZlawyer already I believe.

 

[The World According]

A state subpoenaed investigative subpoena is for a deposition, or not?

Maybe I need to ask this in the Legal Questions thread.

Sorry, guys - haven't had my coffee yet, and I'm just trying to catch up.

Mrs. Drane-Burdick said in the hearing " A subpoena by the state of FL is a subpoena...regardless of what name you put on it. The only difference is Mr. Baez will not be there." The testimony is compelled ( forced), under oath and memorialized. It was no tea party. I honestly believe Mr. Baez did not fully understand the rules; because, AFTER the judge had ruled that Mrs. Drane-Burdick could go ahead and issue this in lieu of her subpoena for a depo, he stood up, asked to be heard and said he would like to attend. The judge quickly informed him that according to FL STATUTE the state has this investigative power, and he will not, cannot overrule a statute. Andrea kept whispering to him little clues, then he said we can add him to our witness list and make the entire matter moot. The judge and Mrs. Drane Burdick should be applauded for keeping a straight face and not saying...wow..now that is a fresh idea. I am certain Dominic and Ms. Tennis did indeed show up for the interview with the state, and it was made clear to them ( because the judge instructed the parties to call him, literally, if there were questions during the interview), that Dominic's private confidentiality agreements with anyone do NOT extend privilege. Ms. Tennis is a very experienced lawyer. She went to bat for him, in the hearing, but no way in hell was she going to try to go against the judge's orders. I trust she was gracious and professional in the interview, and helped Dom be resigned to his fate that he must answer the questions. Long before and long after Dominic, she has to practice law in that courthouse , and her credibility with the judges is imperative. The only one it is lost on is Jose from what I can see. If for some ungodly reason Dom would not have showed up...we would have seen a motion to compel filed for the record and a very , very swift order from the judge. We did not, so no news is good news.
As much as I like Judge Strickland, it was clear to me, in this and so many other incidents, the defense did not respect him. The concept of a judge's order or ruling went over them as if it were some sort of suggestion and in the end they ( defense ) got to ignore them if they ever wished. Thus the TES documents debacle. How else do you explain Jose standing up AFTER THE RULING and arguing some more. My very, very favorite ( and there is much to chose from ) is Jose coming out of the fraud trial, on the courthouse steps and saying Casey misses her friend, he would be happy to facilitate it if Amy would like to correspond with Casey ( paraphrasing). This is after everyone including national and international media just heard the judge set out the terms of her probation ( all of which are standard), one of them being that she has NO CONTACT WHATSOEVER WITH THE VICTIM!!! Even for Jose...that was shocking. It was beyond misguided. Even now..I cannot put a name on how foolish it was. In the words of Judge Stan Strickland, "This is where posturing can get you into trouble!"
Good news...Baez is going to find out in a hurry that this judge is not , not going to be as overly generous about Jose's need to learn on the job and kibitz with Andrea. Those days are gone. Jose is going to be made to step up and play within the rules and respect the judge's orders. So..as the teenagers say...IT'S ON!! [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAuXZ3jqJ70[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls_dUmQTgNM[/ame]

You just can't make this stuff up!!

 

[The World According]

That's a good question. It's obvious that the defense and BC have worked together to attempt to construct a shelter of privilege for DC, not only for the time period in which DC worked for Baez, but extending beyond that into the period of time in which DC worked for KC, the period of time in which DC worked for CA and GA, and even explicitly extending beyond that.

This claimed privilege has come up at several hearings.

Remember when BC said in a news interview something along the lines of, "DC works for CA/GA, and by extension, for me."? I've always found that an interesting tact. It was unexpected to me, and to many.

What you are remembering ( I believe ) was Brad on the Geraldo show saying that the tape of Dominic in the woods was the Anthony's work product, that he worked for them at the time it was taped. Unless there is some proof to that idea happening, this scene that NTS theorized on, is irrelevant to me. If we can't prove it, chances are it did not happen. To my memory, never, ever in any document, or hearing did Dom ever state their was any relationship between he and Brad, save for the time Brad sat in with him for the LE questioning. I could be wrong, so if you do find a document or mention of it in a hearing, I would be very interested to see the time frame. Dom was asked very specific questions by LE about listing who and from what time periods he had relationships with. He testified under oath to LE the people he had a relationship with and letters of engagement with, without a mention of Brad. He said Jose, up until that terminated in October 2008, mom and pop and Casey that is ongoing, he never mentioned one with Brad that I recall, but I could have misunderstood him. He seemed quite nervous,he talks in circles, they busted him lying in the interview, and , imo he mumbles. Lord, help me, Jesus.

So, NTS proposing a what if may be interesting for first year law students, but is not relevant to this case, number one because it never happened and number two, the lawyers here have already opined ..if it had happened the answer would be no..no privilege.

Do not worry. He has no where to hide with this imaginary privilege. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_sEh-hVZcA[/ame]

 

[marspiter]

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.

Hello again!

I do believe that an interview has taken place, as many others pointed out, because there have been no further motions to compel him to give the interview. And with his lawyer filing her withdrawal indicating her services were complete, I think to many reaffirms it.

Now to my understanding, an investigative subpoena has a purpose of basically making the person answer questions, under oath. The term "investigative" says to me that they want to see what he knows, to see if there is more to investigate. Also to my understanding, things regarding an ongoing investigation aren't subject to the sunshine laws. Maybe that's why we haven't seen a recording, or a transcript released in the discovery process so far.

From the hearing youtube video, it seems as though the state doesn't care either way, if its a formal deposition or an interview due to issuing the subpoena. Seems as though they just want what him to answer certain questions under oath. The judge then says lets just issue an investigative subpoena. So then (of course assuming with all common sense) this interview has taken place, why haven't we seen it? Hasn't enough time passed for the state to conclude investigations concerning all matters Dominic Casey? Once the investigative part is over, its subject to sunshine laws, no?

Another explanation is that he didn't have much to offer, so there was nothing to release?
Except according to http://www.myflsunshine.com/sun.nsf/pages/Law it says, "This law provides that any records made or received by any public agency in the course of its official business are available for inspection, unless specifically exempted by the Flordia Legislature." I would think that even if there is nothing of substance to come from an interview with Dominic Casey, it would still be subject to these laws.

Your question was answered by AZlawyer a couple pages back on this thread.

 

[KeyboardCat]

Your question was answered by AZlawyer a couple pages back on this thread.

I'm sorry I should have been more precise and to the point. I tend to free associate when I post, and perhaps it seemed I was redundant and that I'd beat the dead horse on the issue of investigative subpoenas one more time. (Or I should say: put the bus in reverse.)

What I meant was, there is reason we haven't seen the result of Dominic Casey's interview. Its not because the interview didn't occur. Its not because he had nothing of value to say. It has to be because there is still an ongoing investigation. (Or the I's are still being dotted, and T's still being crossed and we will see it in the next doc dump.)

I'm holding out hope he spilled the beans.

But my fear is he simply stuck to "the psychic made me do it" story, and without real proof that he is lying, there will be no repercussions for him or anyone else. And to me, as an observer, that does not just mean one less thing absolutely linking Casey to the crime scene. It means that perhaps a criminally punishable cover up by George and Cindy Anthony flies out the window.

I read not to long ago, although I can't remember where, that the psychic and Cindy had been in contact for a while prior to Dominic searching the woods. I believe there has to be a bigger connection between Ginnette Lucas and Cindy Anthony. Maybe I've lost ALL objectivity, but I am beginning to believe there was a conversation that went along these lines: Hi hun! I just wanted to reach out and see how you are doing!! ::huggless:: Thank you for all your help and insight! Oh yeah, you want nationwide exposure as a legitimate psychic? Well then you get to be the one who finds our granddaughter. You call this man at this number and you give him these directions. /endfakequote. Am I going crazy to believe this is possible??????