Neal, Thanks for your quick reply and I understand your position. v/r, Jason -----Original Message----- From: Neal Puckett [mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 19:58 To: Grover, Jason S LCDR RLSO MIDLANT, NORFOLK Cc: Faraj Haytham; Shea, Kevin D LT NLSO, MIDLANT; Anastos, Kristen LT NLSO, MIDLANT; Kadlec, Nicholas J LT RLSO MIDLANT, Norfolk Subject: Re: Situs and Dep 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
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature