Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Steven Conn to Rebecca Musser: Oh yes you WILL comply with the order of this Court.

The Judge sounds a bit miffed:
"How the issue got to this point is not real clear to the Court, although it is probably better understood by counsel. Some of the conclusions the Court reaches are based upon the following assessment of the court files. On February 3, 2009, defense counsel filed in both cases a Motion for Deposition of Witness Rebecca Musser, asserting that she was a material witness who had agreed to a personal interview but had refused in that interview to answer certain questions. The state filed on February 2, 2009, a Response which for some reason the Court can only find in CR-2007-0743 and not in CR-2007-0953. In the Response the State agreed that Ms. Musser was a material witness but asserted that she was now willing to answer questions that she would not answer previously. The defense filed a Reply in both cases on February 9, 2009, indicating that counsel would attempt to set up another personal interview and that motion could be held in abeyance. The Court entered a Minute Order dated February 12, 2009, deferring ruling in the defense motion unless requested in writing to do so.

At a hearing on March 30, 2009, according to the Minute Order from that hearing, there was discussion about a Deposition Order that had been submitted for Ms. Musser and an apparent acknowledgment that the Court had not yet ruled on the prior request for a deposition. The discussion at that hearing, however, appeared to focus not on the question of whether she would be deposed but when she would be deposed. It appears that the State had no objection to changing the date on the Deposition Order and that the Court did so and signed the Order. Inherent in that discussion would seem to be an acknoweldgement by the State that a deposition was appropriate under the rules and under the circumstances of Ms. Musser's participation in the interview process. For reasons wich the Court cannot explain, other than the fact that it bore only one cause number, that Deposition Order with amended date was filed only in CR-2007-0743 amd mpt om CR-2007-0953.

The date by which Ms. Musser was to have been deposed, April 30, 2009, has now come and gone. Although consel may disagree oin their respective assessments as to how this came to be, they seem to agree on 2 things. Ms. Musser has not participated in a further personal interview and she has not been deposed. She appears to be no closer to doing any one of these things that she was 5 months ago. The Court never amended its Order directing her to be deposed April 30, 2009 and does not recall ever being asked to do so.

IT IS ORDERED granting the Defendant's Renewed Motion for Deposition of State's Witness Rebecca Musser.

The Court will sign the appropriate Order upon presentation by defense counsel. The Court will not address in the defense counsel's Reply the request that the State be ordered to pay expenses to go to Texas to depose Ms. Musser because the deposition will take place at a time and place of his choosing. If he chooses to do the deposition in Texas, then that is his problem. The Court will address any further request for sanctions only in the event that Ms. Musser fails to appear for the deposition at the time and place tha the Court will dictate on the Order prepared by defense counsel."
Rebecca is ordered to comply.

I'd say Rebecca, has been spanked. Time and place of Piccarreta's choosing.

Sphere: Related Content


CSurge said...

Something tells me this judge has a good sense of humor. :)

The Pharisee said...

Yeah, he does. Very dry.