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

Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by The World According, Dec 2, 2009.

  1. The World According

    The World According Inactive

    Messages:
    3,722
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dominick's lawyer filed a Motion to Strike Notice of Deposition and Motion for Protective Order



    It is a motion that Dominick Casey wants a protective order so he does not have to be deposed, not now, not ever. He isn't facing charges that I know of, he has no grounds to ask for this that I can imagine.. I don't understand. LE already called him on this when they showed him his own email he sent to them stating he was not working for the defense at the time he was in the woods.

    __________________
    __________________
     
  2. Loading...


  3. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let's try it again and please stay on topic.
     
  4. notthatsmart

    notthatsmart Former Member

    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just want to be clear that I used that name in the context of the statement. I did not mean to be derogatory in any way. I do not use it to be snarky. Help me find a way to get my point across.

    I wanted to get the point across that part of the interview had been sealed by a Judge that recused himself for the appearance of being biased. So I ask what is the big secret? Why not depose him in front of the defense? what is there to hide? In that context. I did not mean to be snarky..... I think it is important that people understand that is a self recused Judge who sealed that record. We speculate what was in there, but don't really know.

    I have much respect for the Honorable Judge Strickland's Kindness and experience. However, I am very concerned that many of the important motions in this case were ruled on by a self recused Judge that had the appearance of being biased. I feel it reasonble to point it out for the record, but I will agree to stop using it if you feel too uncomfortable with it. thanks
     
  5. AZlawyer

    AZlawyer Verified Attorney

    Messages:
    7,778
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Wait...wasn't it the DEFENSE who wanted part of DC's interview sealed because the DEFENSE claimed there was some privileged information in there?? :waitasec:
     
  6. LambChop

    LambChop Former Member

    Messages:
    21,160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you are under the mistaken impression that JS was biased and there is no proof that he ever was, there is only proof that KC and her defense team thought he was. JS reclused himself because he felt KC feelings were more important than continuing on as the judge in this case. The opinions of many now are KC may regret doing so. JS was, indeed, a fair judge and I do not believe he would have let KC "go to the end of the hall" if DP was her sentence, as I believe he would have changed it to LWOP. It is now a whole new ballgame.

    There is no secret as SA has the right to investigate prior to releasing discovery. Obviously if DC had anything to hide defense would know about it as he was clearly in their camp. This may be why JB did not feel he needed to attend. If there is a bombshell JB may feel he is powerless to prohibit the truth from coming out. He is obligated to defend KC to the best of his ability and somethings are just beyond his control. Hope we get to hear soon as all we can do now is speculate. jmo
     
  7. notthatsmart

    notthatsmart Former Member

    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was under the assumption that it was the part where Dc told them to stop the tape and go off the record. Since it is sealed, do we get to know why or what was sealed? or are we all just speculating? And if it is privleged information, is the defense required to make a motion to seal? Is that not part of their responsibility? thanks
     
  8. faefrost

    faefrost New Member

    Messages:
    2,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There was originally a motion to seal because there was some confusion and claim that part or all of DC's testimony fell under KC's attorney client privilege with JB. DC provided alot of conflicting information about who he actually was working for when. After examining it the judge in question ruled that no privilege existed. I believe this was part of the deposition in the civil trial, so it wasn't JS that made the ruling, or at least not the first ruling regarding DC's status in regard to privilege.

    As far as JB not being present for the prosecutors deposition of DC. That is his own doing. He knew up front that DC had to be added to his witness list in order for him to be present at that deposition. Otherwise it is simply DC's lawyer and the SA's. JB publicly stated in a news conference that he would be adding DC to his witness list. He never did. hence he does not get to play.

    We do not know if any part of DC's actual deposition in the criminal case has been sealed, because we have never seen it. (we actually do not even know if it has occured at this time) Since DC is not on the defense witness list the SA's investigative deposition (is that the right term, I forget what it was they called it) is not covered by the Sunshine Laws, is not part of the required discovery to the defense, and is not part of the public document dumps. (if the defense wants to ask him anything they can add him to their list and depose him themselves).

    So I am not sure where these farfetched hints of bias by JS in this matter, or the claims that anything DC has said were sealed by JS comes from?
     
  9. Anais

    Anais New Member

    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BBM

    NTS for the record HHJS actualy recused himself not because of anything related to bias. It is because of any possible appearance of impropriety in his exchanges with a blogger. This relationship was taken way off the charts in terms of it's context. He simply thanked the man for being fair in his reporting towards Casey & her family to their benefit, and also wished an ill man well. It really doesn't qualify as bias, nor friendship with said blogger.

    Oddly enough he was reading these blogs etc. on ICA's behalf in order to make a determination as to whether or not a COV was indeed necessary. Again not one motion ruled on by HHJS was in any way, shape or fashion based on a biased opinion. They are all concretely based on the law. Ask any lawyer and they will tell you this. IMO you are going to find this out when HHJP once again will issue the same opinions on these motions.

    For the record it has NOTHING to do with BIAS or discomfort. It has to do with the simple truth and facts. Fact:HHJS did not recuse due to bias, nor did he recuse for anything improper. He did so that there would be absolutely no appellate issue down the line and to satisfy Casey & attorneys who IMO are growing daily to regret this action!!!

    This is the truth. Take it or leave it.
     
  10. AZlawyer

    AZlawyer Verified Attorney

    Messages:
    7,778
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Can we stop talking about HHJS and the disqualification/recusal due to bias/appearance of bias/desire to avoid appeal based on argument that there was an appearance of bias? That is OT for this thread and is the reason the other thread was closed.

    Can anyone confirm that some part of DC's interview with LE was sealed? I thought that the part of the interview where DC told who instructed him not to call 911 was sealed, but that there certainly has been no motion or order regarding sealing the later interview that was supposedly done by the SA in December 2009.

    I'm operating on the assumption that the SA did interview DC, but that it was an informal interview and not a "deposition" because JB did not put DC on his witness list. If JB had put DC on his witness list, the SA would have had to do a deposition rather than an interview, and JB would have been invited. This is all set out in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure--it was not some special arrangement for this case.

    The fact that we haven't seen a transcript does not indicate that anything has been sealed. There is no requirement that the SA transcribe its investigational interviews.
     
  11. Leila

    Leila Active Member

    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Simply hitting the "thanks" button wasn't enough. Thank you!
     
  12. beach

    beach Administrator Staff Member Administrator Moderator

    Messages:
    17,931
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I asked you this on the Atty. thread and I thought your answer made sense. I don't think the supposed/probable SA interview has been 'sealed', I got the impression that it just hasn't been released....along with a whole bunch of other depos. :waitasec:
     
  13. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    is this thread for real?
    come on.

    where this post lands is random but you guys are making me nutsy :)
     
  14. LambChop

    LambChop Former Member

    Messages:
    21,160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    AZlawyer. I think DC was giving a statement to LE when they went off record. Now I'm going to have to go back and take a look. But I was pretty sure it was LE. jmo


    I could not link the document but it is on page 6 of the Official Documents that Angel posted. The statement was from January 7, 2009.
     
  15. beach

    beach Administrator Staff Member Administrator Moderator

    Messages:
    17,931
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You're not thinking of the Jim Hoover depo when they went off the record, are ya? Not positive, but I think they went off the record when the questioning started getting into the whole issue of what Hoover knew in re. Baez possibly instructing DC to call him directly instead of 911? :waitasec:
     
  16. The World According

    The World According Inactive

    Messages:
    3,722
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, the state may have asked for part of his LE interview to be sealed, the part that inspired the bar complaints made against Baez, it was...temporarily, iirc. However, the defense fought hard for Dom not to have to give sworn testimony, and so did Dominic's lawyer, Ms. Tennis.

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAuXZ3jqJ70[/ame] ( minute 5:59 )

    Ms. Tennis and the state argued the matter in front of Mr. Baez although Mr. Baez was rather confused indeed. He was asking the judge to ignore statutes. Even Ms. Tennis conceded that of course the state had every right to interview him under a state subpoena. The difference between that and a normal depo was that the defense lawyer would not be present. She was concerned about a transcript of his depo being released in discovery. Andrea was whispering "Jose,... Jose", trying to give him clues at that hearing, but I honestly do not think he understood the rules. Ms. Tennis argued that he should not have to testify period, due to privilege issues. Of course the state argued that none exist and they are not bound by any would be private confidentiality agreement. The judge concurred and told the state to go ahead with his depo with the time they had already scheduled.

    Mrs. Drane Burdick had even called Baez in advance to inquire if he wanted to add Dom to his witness list. Everyone went above and beyond to try to give him clues. If one doesn't understand the rules, that is what the law library is for. When he shows up at hearings thoroughly unprepared, the judge cannot be blamed. The blame can be laid directly where the fault lies, the guy that spent two hundred seventy five thousand dollars without deposing Dominic, LE or FBI agents. You just can't make this stuff up!
     
  17. Leila

    Leila Active Member

    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    The way I understand it, DC was to be disposed on Dec. 16, 2009, and he was reluctant to do the deposition, citing privileged information. On Dec. 15, 2009 HHJS ordered that DC do an "investigative interview" with the state. JB was welcome to attend that interview if he put DC on his witness list. But JB failed to put DC on his witness list, and therefore would not be attending the interview.

    Since HHJS ordered the investigative interview, I think we have to assume that the interview took place, without the presence of JB. The issue of DC's investigative interview has not come up in any subsequent hearings in the case, and if there were any issues regarding the investigative interview, I would think there would be motions pertaining to that issue.

    Since the December hearing, DC has made himself scarce. He evidently has had some personal legal issues involving foreclosure, and has moved his office.

    This is just my own speculation, but I suspect that in his investigative interview with the state, DC may have revealed information that will be damaging to the defense. He's keeping a low profile, perhaps at the state's suggestion, until trial.

    Since DC's investigative interview is not a deposition, but part of an investigation, it may not be subject to disclosure under the Florida Sunshine Law.
     
  18. ThinkTank

    ThinkTank New Member

    Messages:
    3,582
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    2/23/2009 A ORDER REGARDING STATE'S REQUEST FOR IN-CAMERA INSPECTION OF STATEMENTS BY DOMINIC CASEY
    http://www.myorangeclerk.com/myclerk...f-2e81cf21a64a

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Filed Feb 23, 2009

    Exhibit B: Request for In-Camera Inspection: http://www.forthepeople.com/Exhibit_B.pdf
    ORDER REGARDING STATE’S REQUEST FOR IN-CAMERA INSPECTION OF STATEMENTS BY DOMINIC CASEY

    Being duly advised in the premises, this Court is releasing the taped transcript of the first statement/interview of Dominic Casey with law enforcement. The statement contains no matter which this Court views as privileged.
    A second interview was also conducted with Mr. Casey on January 7th, 2009. Having now read the second statement, the Court is taking the matter under advisement to further assess whether privilege applies to this statement of Mr. Casey.
    The Court will issue a second order relative to Mr. Casey’s second statement on January 7th, 2009, at a later. date.

    February 18, 2009.
     
  19. The World According

    The World According Inactive

    Messages:
    3,722
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6x__8rtj7U[/ame]
    2:45 minute mark Jean Cezarez explains
     
  20. ThinkTank

    ThinkTank New Member

    Messages:
    3,582
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    tips on "maybe" why Dominic's attorney has "concluded her obligation under the contract" ... ???

    Zenaida files New Motion to Compel Dominic Casey’s Appearance at Deposition and Motion for Sanctions :
    http://www.forthepeople.com/New_Motion_to_Compel.pdf

    PLAINTIFF’S NEW MOTION TO COMPEL DOMINIC CASEY’S APPEARANCE AT DEPOSITION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
    Sept. 11, 2009

    1. .......It appears that this Court has been misinformed as to the existence of privilege.

    2. .......Additionally on February 18, 2009 Judge Stan Strickland reviewed the transcript of the interview with Dominic Casey in-camera, and concluded “the statement contains no matter which this Court views as privileged.”

    3. Particularly troubling are Mr. Casey’s counsel’s representations to the Court both in writing and at the hearing .....................

    4. Compounding these assertions, which are inaccurate, .....................

    5. Remember, Dominic Casey and his attorney, Diana Tennis went out of their way to make the point there was a joint defense which included Bradley A. Conway....................

    6. These false representations .............

    7. To make matters worse, Dominic Casey and his counsel convinced the Court that he was working for Jose Baez and Casey Anthony at all times (in addition to George and Cindy Anthony). To the contrary.......................

    8. Counsel for the Plaintiff called opposing counsel immediately upon learning of this 80 page statement, asking that Dominic Casey be produced for deposition without the need for further Court intervention. ...................
     
  21. The World According

    The World According Inactive

    Messages:
    3,722
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here is Dom's interview with the police . This interview is when they ask for the tape to be stopped, I believe that part was sealed temporarily, a bar investigation was opened after Dom made a complaint.
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhzHBImdRrY[/ame]
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsEUHs5HdtU[/ame]
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTNP-5Z0JT0[/ame]
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9AIov6MQ2k[/ame]


    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhnB-Vak0xg[/ame]



    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFwxZ2mbjlI[/ame]

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVw8X5jo2WI[/ame]

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VWLPKCmBJc[/ame]

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gk2OxnxZJs[/ame]

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a0uIfJEKYk[/ame]
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice