"It must be remembered that authorities from the state of Texas caused all of these problems to begin with through their voluntary decision to provide evidence from the Texas searches to officials in the state of Arizona who were in the midst of prosecuting Mr. Jeffs, when Texas officials were under no obligation to do so, and when the defendant had specifically advised officials from the state of Arizona of the serious potential problems any such exposure would generate. Texas law enforcement authorities then compounded these problems when they instructed Ms. Musser not to answer relevant questions relating to the defense, thus necessitating the motion to depose Ms. Musser. It does not take a genius to figure out that the idea of holing Ms. Musser's in Austin, Texas, presumably did not originate with her. This is part of the difficulty when you have a listed witness who is also an informant for law enforcement in another state. Given the machinations of the Texas authorities thus far, the defendant submits that the court should not be inclined to do them any favors by ordering Ms. Musser's deposition to take place at their convenience.From the latest court filing in Mohave County.
The defendant disputes the State's contention that "Becky is cooperative." [Response, p.4]. Defense counsel has made numerous requests over the summer for Ms. Musser to name a date and time at which she would comply with this Court's ordered deposition even telephonically if Texas law enforcement was not present in the room while all other counsel were on the telephone. Although it is true that the undersigned counsel Michael Piccarreta was spending most of the summer months in Oregon, during that period of time he was trying to arrange for either a telephonic deposition of Ms. Musser or for travel to Boise, Idaho, specifically to accommodate Ms. Musser so that she would not have to travel at all. Indeed, even while in Oregon, counsel works daily on his cases and returns to Arizona for a week each month. Yet Ms. Musser refused to provide parties with a firm date for her deposition. Apparently, Ms. Musser acquiesced to the Texas law enforcement authorities that they be present in person for her deposition. It is no the presence of Texas law enforcement officials that requires Ms. Musser, counsel for the defendant, and counsel for the State to travel, despite the fact that the State of Texas is not a party to these proceedings. Defense counsel submits that all the above facts show that Ms. Musser has not been cooperative and her request to be deposed in Austin, Texas, at the request of Texas authorities, is simply unreasonable and renders her uncooperative within the meaning of Rule 15.3 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure."
Sphere: Related Content