Re: Situs and Dep

[Neal Puckett <neal@puckettfaraj.com>]

Jason,
It is patently unfair to demand and no rule requires that we agree to  
or oppose the admissibility of evidence not yet in existence. That  
determination cannot be made without examining it. We are not taking  
the position that a deposition is inadmissible per se, because the  
rules permit its use. Our team will participate in the taking of the  
deposition, but we have no way of knowing now whether or not it can  
qualify under the rules.  We may decide it is exactly what we want. I  
will be happy to examine it after it comes into existence and tell you  
whether we will object to it in whole or in part.
V/r,
Neal

Neal A. Puckett
LtCol, USMC (Ret)
Puckett & Faraj, PC

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 22, 2010, at 6:09 AM, "Grover, Jason S LCDR RLSO MIDLANT,  
NORFOLK" <jason.grover@navy.mil> wrote:

> Neal,
>
>    As you are well aware, we have a problem with the detainee.  I  
> have gone back and forth on the best way to handle it.  I understand  
> your objections to moving the situs of the trial and also understand  
> that you are likely to object to use of a deposition at trial for  
> the detainee.  But I would not be doing my best in my job if I did  
> not make every effort to secure all the relevant and potentially  
> useful information for the government to present in its case-in- 
> chief.  So, I need to try to get the detainee's testimony in my case- 
> in-chief.  Obviously, it is in your client's interest to limit the  
> government's case and I anticipate you would like to keep that  
> evidence out.  No different than in any other case.  But here we  
> have a witness I cannot just subpoena to Norfolk.  Accordingly, I  
> want to ask if you will agree to the admission of the detainee's  
> deposition in our case-in-chief.  If you do not, and of course, I  
> understand your position and responsibilities to be the best  
> advocates you can be, I will seek to move the trial's situs to  
> Iraq.  I anticipate you may fight such a move and wanted to give you  
> as much warning as possible so we have time to litigate it if  
> necessary.  So my bottom-line is will you waive any objection to  
> admitting the detainee's deposition in our case-in-chief?  If not,  
> we will seek to move situs and we will have to resolve any  
> opposition to that on the record.
>
> v/r,
> Jason