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

[BondJamesBond]

Yes - that volley has been played.

Move on please.

 

[logicalgirl]

BBM

I'm not AZ, but I can tell you that a depo is NOT a legal requirement before a witness may testify at trial, even considering the DP. Rarely, but sometimes, it happens that a witness is discovered through testimony elicited during a trial. (one that immediately comes to mind is Mark Furman and the lady who had to authentiate the recorded tapes). However, your second sentence I bolded is very, very true. That is one of the most important advantages to depos. A good attorney avoids at all costs opening a door w/o knowing exactly what is behind it.

No you aren't AZLawyer, but thanks for answering. It looks like nts is getting mixed up between an investigative subpoena and a deposition.

Maybe we could have AZ explain the difference again - I'm including her comments from many pages ago, and tell us why you can't decline. As in what it is from a legal point of view.

"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."
__________________

 

[Amil]

Just a reminder to prevent circular thinking.

Your Ignore List

 

[notthatsmart]

Yeah Yeah Yeah, we've been through all that and I was right. lol But now I have learned something new. It is possible for a witness to hold out until trial. I mean think about it. What if the witness is on neither side and doesn't trust either side? Why can't he just get on the stand in front of everyone and answer questions. Prolly a nightmare for both sides. At this point as far as I know, he is on neither witness list which prolly means he has nothing to offer either side. lol

 

[Trapshooter]

BBM



Bumping AZ's answer to this from wayyyy back on PAGE 4!

That was 9 pages ago!!!

:banghead:

Yeah Yeah Yeah, we've been through all that and I was right. lol But now I have learned something new. It is possible for a witness to hold out until trial. I mean think about it. What if the witness is on neither side and doesn't trust either side? Why can't he just get on the stand in front of everyone and answer questions. Prolly a nightmare for both sides. At this point as far as I know, he is on neither witness list which prolly means he has nothing to offer either side. lol

With all due respect NTS, HOW in God's name can you say you are right? :banghead::banghead::banghead: Right about what? That DC has hidden from his deposition for over a year now or that DC was sent by CA to the woods to find Caylee? What is so hard to understand? The Defense and the SA will be present if and when DC is ever deposed! :banghead::banghead:

BTW, what does "prolly" mean? Is that short for probably???????

 

[BondJamesBond]

BTW, what does "prolly" mean? Is that short for probably???????

*snipped*

Yes.

 

[Trapshooter]

*snipped*

Yes.

Thanks BondJamesBond! I must be behind the times! LOL

 

[Soju]

Thanks BondJamesBond! I must be behind the times! LOL

Don't feel bad. I didn't get it either. Off Topic: today I was talking in real life to a friend about the north korean torpedo attack on a south korean ship, and I ended a sentence by saying "Jay Em Oh". (JMO).

 

[AZlawyer]

I wonder if there is anything wrong with a witness just not wanting to be deposed but is willing to get on the stand in front of the jury. Has it ever happened? I think a controlled deposition with both sides there would be the safe route. I think his attorney agreed to that. It appears to me that he thinks he is being accused of obstruction of justice here. He has to protect himself in anyway possible. I am not sure why police go from interview mode to intterogation mode, but when they do, the witness clams up. It is better to do it in an deposition style with both sides there. The intterogation mode yields more questions than answers. IMO

Yeah but they wanted to depose without the defense present and that is something of a different color. I can the concern from the witness. As long as both sides are there, everything is on the up and up. I agree, but if only one side is there and the other side is not allowed, I think a witness could hold out until trial... Moo

BBM

Yes, there is something wrong with a witness not "wanting" to be deposed if the witness refuses to comply with a subpoena for the deposition.

Just so that this is crystal clear, the SA noticed DC for a normal deposition with both sides present. DC's attorney did not agree to this--DC refused to appear because he was not on any witness list and therefore was not technically required to permit a deposition. The SA agreed that DC's argument was correct and announced that it would have to do an investigative subpoena instead. The SA then helped JB out by saying that the defense, unlike the SA, was permitted to notice DC's deposition (with both sides present). JB failed to notice this helpful hint, but did figure out that he could get an invite to the investigative interview by putting DC on his witness list.

Then, for some reason, the defense did NOT either (1) notice DC's depo themselves so that it could be a normal depo with both sides present, or (2) put DC on the defense witness list so the SA's normal depo with both sides present could move forward. :waitasec:

Yeah Yeah Yeah, we've been through all that and I was right. lol But now I have learned something new. It is possible for a witness to hold out until trial. I mean think about it. What if the witness is on neither side and doesn't trust either side? Why can't he just get on the stand in front of everyone and answer questions. Prolly a nightmare for both sides. At this point as far as I know, he is on neither witness list which prolly means he has nothing to offer either side. lol

It is impossible for a witness to get on the stand at trial without being called to the stand by one side or the other.

 

[RR0004]

BBM

Yes, there is something wrong with a witness not "wanting" to be deposed if the witness refuses to comply with a subpoena for the deposition.

Just so that this is crystal clear, the SA noticed DC for a normal deposition with both sides present. DC's attorney did not agree to this--DC refused to appear because he was not on any witness list and therefore was not technically required to permit a deposition. The SA agreed that DC's argument was correct and announced that it would have to do an investigative subpoena instead. The SA then helped JB out by saying that the defense, unlike the SA, was permitted to notice DC's deposition (with both sides present). JB failed to notice this helpful hint, but did figure out that he could get an invite to the investigative interview by putting DC on his witness list.

Then, for some reason, the defense did NOT either (1) notice DC's depo themselves so that it could be a normal depo with both sides present, or (2) put DC on the defense witness list so the SA's normal depo with both sides present could move forward. :waitasec:




It is impossible for a witness to get on the stand at trial without being called to the stand by one side or the other.

BBM in red- Duh! Now why didn't I think of that?! Thanks AZ for stating the obvious...and for always being there making sure there's no confusion.

 

[The World According]

Yes thank you, thank you, THANK YOU AZ lawyer for all you do here. You have a lot of teaching moments with us and I sure appreciate it.

 

[TorisMom003]

How do we know that D Casey is not on the defense witness list (or will eventually be) when they haven't filed a witness list yet? It is my understanding that just because someone was deposed it does not mean that they will definately be on either sides witness list. I'm sure that if I am incorrect in this thinking one of our wonderful legal minds will set me straight (and if I'm wrong please do!). I remember talk of depositions that needed to be done on Kronk's exs and son. As far as I know there has been no ruling as to if that information will even be allowed during the trial. Doesn't a deposition give either/both sides a chance to see what that person knows about the case so that either/both sides can have a chance to decide if that person should be a witness during the trial? If so then there may very well be depositions of people that will never appear on either sides witness list.

 

[beach]

Yes thank you, thank you, THANK YOU AZ lawyer for all you do here. You have a lot of teaching moments with us and I sure appreciate it.

Not to mention, the PATIENCE of a freakin' SAINT! :angel:

 

[AZlawyer]

How do we know that D Casey is not on the defense witness list (or will eventually be) when they haven't filed a witness list yet? It is my understanding that just because someone was deposed it does not mean that they will definately be on either sides witness list. I'm sure that if I am incorrect in this thinking one of our wonderful legal minds will set me straight (and if I'm wrong please do!). I remember talk of depositions that needed to be done on Kronk's exs and son. As far as I know there has been no ruling as to if that information will even be allowed during the trial. Doesn't a deposition give either/both sides a chance to see what that person knows about the case so that either/both sides can have a chance to decide if that person should be a witness during the trial? If so then there may very well be depositions of people that will never appear on either sides witness list.

You're right--someone could add DC to their witness list later. And just because someone is deposed by the defense doesn't mean they will ever be on anyone's witness list. If someone is deposed by the SA, though, it means they are already on a witness list (or everyone agreed to the depo).

And last but not least, the fact that someone is on a witness list does not mean that anyone actually intends to call that person as a witness at trial.

 

[BondJamesBond]

Not to mention, the PATIENCE of a freakin' SAINT! :angel:

*bbm*

OT: Yes, few people realize in the hierarchy it progresses:

• Run-o-the-mill Saints
• Saints
• Freakin' Saints

AZ is defin' a higher-order variety

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

AZLawyer...I appreciate you so very much...You are the bees knees..LOL :woohoo:

I feel like you are beating a dead horse, for there are none as blind who will not see! :banghead:

The Anthony family have no support, I don't see any other family members standing behind this duo, none..this to me is also a strong indicator of how they have alientated themselves for the sake of ICA. They look and act so suspicious, they, IMO, have sabotaged this from day 32! I look forward to seeing this trial in action, for perjury will be first and foremost for me and I won't be shocked to see someone being held in contempt, or worse, arrested for their untruths, mistruths, halftruths, no truth will be told on that end, IMO..we saw this family in action in the Morgan depos. As you say, if future behavior is based on past behaviors...we will see the fireworks, then..

DC has much to hide if he too has obstructed justice, which IMO, is why he fought this investigative depo so hard and furious.


Here is the motion for compelling DC appearance at deposition and motion for sanctions (for the civil hearing with ZFG)..On page 2, paragraph 2, DC's transcript was reviewed on February 18,2009, in camera and concluded, "the statement contains no matter which this court views as privledge"!
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/09/16/new.motion.to.compel.pdf

This entire motion, IMO, shows DC and his counsel misrepresented his role in this as you read the rest of this motion from paragraph 3 on...

Paragraph 4 Compounding these assertions, which are inaccurate, DC testified at the hearing as follows.

Paragraph 5 They went out of their way to make it a point they had a joint defense which included Bradley A. Conway...

Paragraph 6 These false representations as to never having been authorized to speak about matters were made to the court in an effort to avoid being deposed!

Paragraph 7 To make matters worse, DC and his counsel convinced the court that he was working for JB and KCAnthony at all times (in addition to George and Cindy Anthony). To the contrary, the interview included discussions of a December 9th email from DC which was read to him by Det. Allen...basically states from Oct 12, he has not provided services for ICA since that date forward...

Me thinks DC has lots to hide from, unless he asks and receives partial immunity for misleading, mistruth, untruths, whatever word they want to use which represents, he out and out LIED...

Seems no one involved with the A's, ICA are willing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...as always. JMHO


Justice for Caylee!

 

[notthatsmart]

I wonder if he can still cry privilege after the state gives him immunity. Doesn't Attorney client privilege still apply? I am thinking some may be right, even though we have no evidence of an investigative subpoena, that they did an investigative subpoena and still yielded zero. Can't he plead the fifth? If I were the state, I would consider giving him immunity. Moo

 

[The World According]

AZLawyer...I appreciate you so very much...You are the bees knees..LOL :woohoo:

I feel like you are beating a dead horse, for there are none as blind who will not see! :banghead:

The Anthony family have no support, I don't see any other family members standing behind this duo, none..this to me is also a strong indicator of how they have alientated themselves for the sake of ICA. They look and act so suspicious, they, IMO, have sabotaged this from day 32! I look forward to seeing this trial in action, for perjury will be first and foremost for me and I won't be shocked to see someone being held in contempt, or worse, arrested for their untruths, mistruths, halftruths, no truth will be told on that end, IMO..we saw this family in action in the Morgan depos. As you say, if future behavior is based on past behaviors...we will see the fireworks, then..

DC has much to hide if he too has obstructed justice, which IMO, is why he fought this investigative depo so hard and furious.


Here is the motion for compelling DC appearance at deposition and motion for sanctions (for the civil hearing with ZFG)..On page 2, paragraph 2, DC's transcript was reviewed on February 18,2009, in camera and concluded, "the statement contains no matter which this court views as privledge"!
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/09/16/new.motion.to.compel.pdf

This entire motion, IMO, shows DC and his counsel misrepresented his role in this as you read the rest of this motion from paragraph 3 on...

Paragraph 4 Compounding these assertions, which are inaccurate, DC testified at the hearing as follows.

Paragraph 5 They went out of their way to make it a point they had a joint defense which included Bradley A. Conway...

Paragraph 6 These false representations as to never having been authorized to speak about matters were made to the court in an effort to avoid being deposed!

Paragraph 7 To make matters worse, DC and his counsel convinced the court that he was working for JB and KCAnthony at all times (in addition to George and Cindy Anthony). To the contrary, the interview included discussions of a December 9th email from DC which was read to him by Det. Allen...basically states from Oct 12, he has not provided services for ICA since that date forward...

Me thinks DC has lots to hide from, unless he asks and receives partial immunity for misleading, mistruth, untruths, whatever word they want to use which represents, he out and out LIED...

Seems no one involved with the A's, ICA are willing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...as always. JMHO


Justice for Caylee!

You had me at "Day 32!!!" Thank you, there are no two ways to interpret that sequence of events. He did not misspeak or misunderstand. He lied. Great post!!!!

 

[notthatsmart]

I just wonder if and I mean "if" he out and out lied to a federal agent, why he is not being charged for doing so? Perhaps one of the lawyers could answer this.

 

[LambChop]

I wonder if he can still cry privilege after the state gives him immunity. Doesn't Attorney client privilege still apply? I am thinking some may be right, even though we have no evidence of an investigative subpoena, that they did an investigative subpoena and still yielded zero. Can't he plead the fifth? If I were the state, I would consider giving him immunity. Moo

I'm sure AZlawyer can answer this but from what I understand Attorney/client privilege is between the attorney and the client. Also included would be JB legal staff, I believe. But when you start mixing in the parents there is no privilege. DC is not an attorney and he was not working for JB in November of 2008. JB was not DC's attorney in November of 2008. DC is not a member of JB's legal staff he was hired as a private contractor and that contract ended in October when he started working for the A's. So essentially he was working for the A's and KC but anything DC learned at that time is not attorney/client privileged because DC is not an attorney.

When it comes to a criminal investigation DC can't hide behind privilege, confidentiality, etc. He has to cooperate with the State. He can't claim the fifth when it involves someone else. I do not see SA questioning him on what he was doing only, but how and why someone else was directing him and what were his instructions should he find the body.

If you have done nothing wrong there is no reason not to answer questions. If he is trying to protect someone it will go against him in the end as he will suffer as well as the other person involved. You just don't fight something like this for a year without something to hide. It's information he just does not want to come from his mouth.

FYI, there is evidence of an investigative subpoena as HHJS mentions it in court and tells SA to go forward with it. Pretty much when a judge tells you to go ahead, you go ahead. DC's attorney has notified the court she is no longer his attorney so I would guess it took place as scheduled. Then there is the fact that DC has stayed way out of the media's path. So there is a reason. jmo