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

[The World According]

TWA, thank you--this is an excellent point. If the SA did not ask about the short time period in which DC could conceivably claim privilege (which would not include the time period during which he was poking around in the woods), then this whole privilege discussion is moot.

Yes, I get a kick out of Mrs. Drane Burdick, she does not posture around the courtroom, she knows her stuff, through and through and lions don't need to roar!!! I think it is funny how many times she has said the defense motions and arguments do not even come close to the legal requirements. "This..this a farce!!!" Linda Drane Burdick, doing a good job of holding back the church giggles, said to the judge regarding another one of the defense documents that was wrong on the facts, and wrong on the law.

You just can't make this stuff up!
www.myfloridalegal.com

 

[AZlawyer]

And that is to assume he is claiming privilege with Jb, but what if he is claiming privilege with Bc? How do we know who he is claiming privilege with? And I ask this because I am very curious. seriously

He isn't. He was never hired by BC and never claimed to have been hired by BC. He was hired by JB, CA & GA, and KC at different times.

 

[AZlawyer]

I will try to find it, but I think there was a motion stating that the investigation was finished. (not active anymore) thanks

I'm pretty sure that was after 12/09 when we believe DC was interviewed. In any event, the applicable provision of the rules that prevented his interview from being a deposition is Florida Rule of Crim. Proc. 3.220(d)(1)(A), which states, in part, "When the prosecutor subpoenas a witness whose name has been furnished by the defendant, the rules applicable to the taking of depositions shall apply."

Here, the defendant did not provide DC's name (i.e., did not include DC on their witness list).

 

[The World According]

What state subpoened deposition are you speaking of? I can't find it. Thank you

I am using state subpoenaed deposition for Mr. Baez since he does not understand , that is the term, among others, like hearing and inquiry he fumbled for in the hearing. I have posted the hearing for you many, many times.
I am referring to the state investigative subpoena that Judge Strickland instructed Mrs. Drane Burdick to issue for Dominic to come to her office to be questioned.
In any case, he was ordered to appear and testify. In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury. He was not invited to lunch!!!!
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OCDkXmQEAA[/ame]
At the very beginning of the tape, the ADA sets out the rules for the witness in a State Investigative Subpoena, the testimony is compelled, one is NOT allowed to refuse to answer questions. I don't know what could be a more serious time, save for being on the stand, whatever Baez calls it, is irrelevant!!!
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls_dUmQTgNM[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAuXZ3jqJ70[/ame] .www.myfloridalegal.com

 

[notthatsmart]

He isn't. He was never hired by BC and never claimed to have been hired by BC. He was hired by JB, CA & GA, and KC at different times.

Okay, but he is being represented by Bc. There is no privilege there?

 

[The World According]

And that is to assume he is claiming privilege with Jb, but what if he is claiming privilege with Bc? How do we know who he is claiming privilege with? And I ask this because I am very curious. seriously

If you are serious, forgive me, I always think you are trying to make us laugh and laugh until the tears stream down our cheeks, I will post it again for you, no worries.[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OCDkXmQEAA[/ame] In the beginning here, Ms. Drane-Burdick sets out the terms of the investigative subpoena.
.www.myfloridalegal.com

 

[RainyGirl]

The article linked below (from RHornsby's blog) contains some very good information. It is entitled "Casey Anthony gets a reality check".


Mr Hornsby does a great job highlighting the State Attorney’s investigative subpoena power.

In a nutshell:
If the State comes across a witness (such as DC) that really, really does NOT want to appear for a deposition (will not cooperate and fights it) and
is NOT LISTED AS A DEFENSE WITNESS (such as DC) then the State is allowed to issue an investigative subpoena.

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

 

[AZlawyer]

It appears to me that neither side is putting a very important witness on their list. I see appeal written all over that. The Judge will just have to sit back and watch it happen.

It does seem to me that Dc is like poison and there would be a strategic reason to keep him off your witness list. So I respectfully disagree with you there. If they put him on their list, the press will say the defenses star witness is an amatuer investigator. From the defense point of view, they would probably rather the state take him as a witness so they can cross examine him and get more info out.

I hope you can clarify the strategy thing. I have heard Jb on tv saying they are not going to give up their strategy. All in my opinion. thanks

Respectfully snipped...

When you say it will be an appeal issue, do you mean ineffective assistance of counsel? I suppose that depends on whether or not DC has anything to say that would be helpful to KC. If he does, then it might well be IAC to not list him. On the other hand, the defense has not simply overlooked listing him--they said they WOULD list him (in order to transform his interview into a deposition) and then apparently DECIDED not to list him. :waitasec: From this we can pretty safely conclude that they determined that he had nothing helpful to say for KC. In fact, they might not have listed him because they want to object to him being a witness if the state ever lists him--and they would waive that objection if they themselves have listed him.

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.

 

[notthatsmart]

I am using state subpoenaed deposition as a way of mocking Mr. Baez since he does not understand , that is the term, among others he fumbled for in the hearing. I have posted the hearing for you many, many times.I apologize, it is uncalled for since everyone knows here what and who he is and the limits of his legal prowess. Sorry. I always assume everyone knows when I use Baez's own words against him.
I am referring to the state subpoena that Judge Strickland instructed Mrs. Drane Burdick to issue for Dominic to come to her office to be questioned.

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

 

[AZlawyer]

Okay, but he is being represented by Bc. There is no privilege there?

Thank you for reminding me--I thought you meant privilege with BC because BC was representing his clients, the A family.

It appears that BC did represent DC for the limited purpose of his law enforcement interviews. There would be a privilege as to any communications between them regarding that representation. But the SA is not interested in and would never ask about those communications, so this is a red herring--DC has never mentioned this privilege and that is not what anyone in this case has meant when they talk about DC claiming privilege.

 

[Bittiness39]

I know this has already been addressed...but the real issue is: Who told DC to search the area where Caylee's remains were ultimately found? Who was DC working for at the time he searched the area where Caylee's remains were later found? If it can be proven that there was no privilege (ie attorney/client/preacher/confessor type privilege between DC and the party he was working for) AND if that same party directed him to the area the remains were later found...how will this impact the trial?

If say KC told JB where Caylee's body could be found (this communication between JB and KC would be privileged--attorney client) and if JB directed DC to this area (it has been argued that no privilege exists between JB and DC at this point...meaning DC cannot claim privilege as to WHO told him to look in the area where Caylee's remains were found) then the logical assumption is that KC told JB...because KC put Caylee where she was later found. You can't pierce the privilege between JB and KC...but the prosecution would be left with perhaps the notion that JB committed a crime (covering up a crime) but at trial, I am not sure this would pay off...in terms of getting rid of JB, maybe but I think the JAC is going to wind up with that honor...

 

[notthatsmart]

I know this has already been addressed...but the real issue is: Who told DC to search the area where Caylee's remains were ultimately found? Who was DC working for at the time he searched the area where Caylee's remains were later found? If it can be proven that there was no privilege (ie attorney/client/preacher/confessor type privilege between DC and the party he was working for) AND if that same party directed him to the area the remains were later found...how will this impact the trial?

If say KC told JB where Caylee's body could be found (this communication between JB and KC would be privileged--attorney client) and if JB directed DC to this area (it has been argued that no privilege exists between JB and DC at this point...meaning DC cannot claim privilege as to WHO told him to look in the area where Caylee's remains were found) then the logical assumption is that KC told JB...because KC put Caylee where she was later found. You can't pierce the privilege between JB and KC...but the prosecution would be left with perhaps the notion that JB committed a crime (covering up a crime) but at trial, I am not sure this would pay off...in terms of getting rid of JB, maybe but I think the JAC is going to wind up with that honor...

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

 

[The World According]

I know this has already been addressed...but the real issue is: Who told DC to search the area where Caylee's remains were ultimately found? Who was DC working for at the time he searched the area where Caylee's remains were later found? If it can be proven that there was no privilege (ie attorney/client/preacher/confessor type privilege between DC and the party he was working for) AND if that same party directed him to the area the remains were later found...how will this impact the trial?

If say KC told JB where Caylee's body could be found (this communication between JB and KC would be privileged--attorney client) and if JB directed DC to this area (it has been argued that no privilege exists between JB and DC at this point...meaning DC cannot claim privilege as to WHO told him to look in the area where Caylee's remains were found) then the logical assumption is that KC told JB...because KC put Caylee where she was later found. You can't pierce the privilege between JB and KC...but the prosecution would be left with perhaps the notion that JB committed a crime (covering up a crime) but at trial, I am not sure this would pay off...in terms of getting rid of JB, maybe but I think the JAC is going to wind up with that honor...

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!!! [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_sEh-hVZcA[/ame] 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!!!! www.myfloridalegal.com

 

[Bittiness39]

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

This one...I will let AZ Lawyer take...I am reasonably certain that I have the correct answer...but I am not a verified legal expert...and if I am not wrong I don't want to give incorrect information.

My guess would be no....they can't all work together to keep it privileged. But I will hold out on a response for AZ...I want to answer...I just want to be correct.

 

[notthatsmart]

Thank you for reminding me--I thought you meant privilege with BC because BC was representing his clients, the A family.

It appears that BC did represent DC for the limited purpose of his law enforcement interviews. There would be a privilege as to any communications between them regarding that representation. But the SA is not interested in and would never ask about those communications, so this is a red herring--DC has never mentioned this privilege and that is not what anyone in this case has meant when they talk about DC claiming privilege.

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.

 

[LambChop]

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

Why would DC need to keep it priviledged? It's not against the law to find a body if you are searching. What misdeed would DC have been instructed to do by BC and the A's that would require he have protection?? jmo

 

[AZlawyer]

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.

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.

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

 

[The World According]

Here you go. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAuXZ3jqJ70[/ame]

Ms. Tennis begins arguing privilege between Casey, mom and pop and Dom. If you read her motion she does not there, nor in this hearing mention anything about a claim of any relationship between Dom and Brad.
She switches to arguing a confidentiality agreement. If the defense or prosecution wants to add Dominic to their witness list, then of course Dominic will have to testify, it would be pretty much fair game, she continues. If any of the parties want to waive the confidentiality agreement, it is totally their prerogative.

Mrs. Drane- Burdick

" The only thing controlling the statements of a witness in refusing to answer is privilege. Contractual relationships, right to privacy, none of that prevents Mr. Casey from giving testimony in any particular proceeding. There is no privilege relationship between Dominic Casey. and George and Cindy Anthony. These issues of confidentiality have no bearing in this preceding. The only privilege recognized are those that are in the rules, by statue, or by order of the FL supreme court. The fact that they entered into some private contract does not extend privilege."

"We'd like to be present at this investigative hearing or deposition or inquiry..whatever you wanna call it," Jose Baez ".
"....We can add him to our witness list and make the matter moot," he continued.

Judge Strickland "Well, that is where we stand. Under 2704. It is their investigative power.That is their investigative power! I cannot over rule a statute."

So, no matter how you look at it, there was no privilege, and Jose himself announced the cure to the problem of him not being invited. No two ways about it....despite the frequent feigning of ignorance, Baez knew. If he didn't know before the hearing, Andrea whispered the clue to him when she kept saying..psst..Jose...Jose! www.myfloridalegal.com

 

[logicalgirl]

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.

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".

 

[Darla]

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!!!!

At the 2:02 mark BC says the A's want to bury this child with dignity and respect. :waitasec: So they knew at this point she was a 'dead Caylee' and in the woods where people toss their trash??

DC was looking in the woods for Caylee's remains. I think the A's must have been told it was an accident that snowballed out of control and wanted to bury her with dignity and respect.

JMO