Thursday, February 05, 2009

There has to be something Rebecca Musser knows, Piccarreta insists he wants to Depose. (UPDATED, in a DEPOSTION, she would have taken the 5th)

Hot off the wire. Becky Musser was NOT cooperative the first time. Now Piccarreta wants the force of law.
Located HERE.
"The defendant, Warren Jeffs, by and through his counsel undersigned, pursuant to Rule 15.3 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, respectfully requests this Court to order the deposition of witness Rebecca Musser.

Rebecca Musser is listed as a witness for the State in the above-captioned matter. She was at one time married to Rulon Jeffs, the father of the defendant. She is (REDACTED - the sister of Elissa Wall?) an accuer (accuser?) in one of the proceedings. She testified in the state of Utah about the same events involving the defendant and (REDACTED NAME) that form the basis of the current charges. She is obviously a material witness regarding the offenses charged against the defendant. In addition, the State intends to have Ms. Musser testify, as an expert, about the practices and culture of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) in both cases.

She is also a material witness regarding the search of the FLDS property in Texas, which is the subject of the defendant's motion to suppress. Ms. Musser was present on the church property while the search was being conducted and as a witness to the execution of the search. Ms. Musser is also listed as (an) informant in one of the Texas search warrant affidavits. Moreover, it is the defendant's understanding that Ms. Musser was also provided a guided tour of the Yearning For Zion church property in Texas by Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran.

However, in her interview on December 11th, 2008, Ms. Musser refused to answer any questions having to do with any sort of connection to law enforcement officers and/or activities in the state of Texas. Texas law enforcement authorities (with the acquiescence of the State of Arizona) have ordered Ms. Musser not to provide any information about any law enforcement activities in the state of Texas including but not limited to the raid of the YFZ church property. In her interview, Ms. Musser repeatedly state "I am not at liberty to discuss anything about Texas." [Interview of Rebecca "Becky" Musser, December 11, 2008, p. 7].

At the interview, Assistant Arizona Attorney General Timothy Linnins injected: "She is legally prohibited from talking about her - any involvement she's had with any investigation in Texas by statute." [Id., p. 6]. However, despite numerous requests from counsel for the defendant, no such statutory authority has ever been provided to the defendant. Counsel for the defendant attempted to explore the matter further:

Mr. Piccarreta: what is the basis for this refusal? In other words -

Ms. Musser: I am not at liberty to discuss any of that with you, sir.

Mr. Piccarreta: What I'm trying to figure out is if there is an individual or entities who have requested you to do this, you know, or told you to do this or recommended you to do this.

Ms. Musser: Can we just say - do you not understand that you can't - I'm not at liberty to say?

Mr. Linnins: If I can just clarify. I will go ahead and take the rap on that and say under - that we are taking the position that she is not discussing any of that today. She cannot discuss any of that today and - I mean, you can keep going on, but she can't tell you who, what, where, when why, anything. I mean, she is prohibited from doing that."
Translation? This is Rebecca Musser taking the 5th, but since it's an interview, she, and Arizona conspire to cite this unnamed law or agreement that prevents her from speaking about a subject. So Piccarreta wants a deposition, so he can compel her to testify, or give the reason why, or take the 5th.
[Id., p.9]. (footnote - Mohave County Attorney Matt Smith, who was also present at the interview, indicated that ms. Musser might answer questions about the events in Texas at some point in the future, but that has not occurred. [Id., p. 10].)

Rule 15.3 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizes the court to order the deposition of any material witness who "will not cooperate in granting a personal interview." "Where the witness attaches such conditions to an interview that makes the situation untenable for defense counsel to discover needed material, the witness is being uncooperative within the meaning of the rule." Kirkendall v. Fisher, 27 Ariz. App. 210,212,553,P.2d 243, 245 (1976). Ms Musser's refusal "to discuss anything about Texas" clearly renders her uncooperative within the meaning of the rule. Indeed, there seems to be a pattern arising out of the actions of the Texas authorities to keep pertinent, relevant, and exculpatory information from the accused in this case.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the defendant, Warren Jeffs, by and through counsel undersigned, hereby respectfully requests this Court, pursuant to Rule 15.3 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, to order the deposition of Ms. Musser to take place at a date and time convenient to the defendant, considering that counsel for the defendant has already taken the time and expense to travel to Salt Lake City, Utah to interview Ms. Musser (and others).
You can see that while Becky is portrayed as being "cooperative" in Arizona's previous motion complaining only an interview was necessary, she was in fact not cooperative, and Piccarreta doesn't want to play that game anymore. So, she will, assuming he gets this motion, as I assume he will, have to travel to a place at a time, that works for Piccarreta, not Becky.

We also get a glimpse into other depositions. It appears that in general, Piccarreta is not getting answers to his questions from Long, Doran and Connor, and others. So he's going to haul them into court, and into other depositions and he's going to get his answers.

Sphere: Related Content


TxBluesMan said...

Someone ought to show Piccarreta how to read the law.

Tex. C.C.P. Art. 2.16 covers what happens to witnesses that discuss their grand jury testimony, and the requirement to keep their testimony secret.

The Pharisee said...

You?! His record is pretty sterling so far Blues. When compared to you I don't know if there is an adjective sufficient to describe the difference.

The Pharisee said...

BTW Blues, then that means they could have cited that law to him, but did not. How odd.

ztgstmv said...

LOL, Blues at it again. It wasn't the grand jury testimony that Musser was concealing, it was her part in the raid! The grand jury has nothing to do with it!

duaneh1 said...

Tex. C.C.P. Art. 2.16 covers what happens to witnesses that discuss their grand jury testimony, and the requirement to keep their testimony secret.

Blues, I didn't read anything here that indicates Piccarreta is going to question her about what testimony she gave to the Grand Jury.

The Pharisee said...

Blues does not have a good track record of predicting what will happen or stating what law applies.

My current position is to believe that if Blues names a law as applicable, it's a good idea not to look there because it would be a waste of time. Blues citing the law is almost certain proof that it does not apply.

kbp said...

That last statement is inaccurate. I love TBM's predictions, they provide a great track record for all that know the simple way to decipher them and I will bet the farm every time he gives me a prediction!