EFTA00607219.pdf
PDF not loading? Open directly | View extracted text
📄 Extracted Text (16,905 words)
1 ROUGH DRAFT TITLE
2
3 ***ROUGH DRAFT TRANSCRIPT***
4
5 CASE NAME: BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL vs.
6 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
7 WITNESS NAME: PAUL G. CASSELL
8 DATE OF DEPOSITION: 10/16/15
9
10
11 This is an unedited, unproofread,
uncertified transcript for attorneys' information only.
12 This transcript may NOT be cited in documents or used
for examination purposes.
13
14 This raw transcript may contain the
following:
15
1. Conflicts - an apparently wrong word
16 that has the same stenotype stroke as a less-used word.
Conflicts are remedied by the reporter in editing.
17
2. Untranslates/Misstrokes - a stenotype
18 stroke appears on the screen as the result of the
computer dictionary not having the same stroke
19 previously identified or a misstroke or partial
translation of the word.
20
3. Reporter's notes - a parenthetical word
21 or phrase from the reporter. Since the reporter must
write each word instantly, a misunderstood word or
22 phrase will not be apparent until some time later.
Reporter's notes provide the opportunity to correct such
23 situations.
24
25
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400
EFTA00607219
2
1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the video
2 record. Today is Friday, the 16th day of
3 October, 2015. The time is 1 :33 p.m.
4 We are here at 110 Southeast 6th Street,
5 Suite 1850, in Fort Lauderdale Florida for the
6 purpose of taking the videotaped deposition of
7 Paul G. Cassell . The case is Bradley J. Edwards
8 and Paul G. Cassell versus Alan M. Dershowitz.
9 The court reporter is Terry Tomaselli and the
10 videographer is Don Savoy, both from Esquire
11 Deposition Solutions. Will counsel please
12 announce their appearances for the record.
13 MR. SCAROLA: Jack Scarola appearing on
14 behalf of Bradley Edwards and Professor Paul
15 Cassell . With me is Joni J. Jones from the Utah
16 Attorney General 's Office.
17 MS. McCAWLEY: Sigrid McCawley on behalf of
18 from Boies Schiller & Flexner.
19 MR. SIMPSON: Richard Simpson on behalf of
20 Defendant and Counter-Claim Plaintiff Alan
21 Dershowitz. And with me is my colleague Nicole
22 Richardson and Thomas Scott from the firm of Cole
23 Scott & Kissane. Ms. Richardson and I are from
24 the firm of Wiley Rein.
25 MR. SWEDER: Kenneth Sweder from the firm of
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607220
3
1 Sweeder & Ross for Professor Dershowitz.
2 Thereupon,
3 PAUL G. CASSELL,
4 having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified
5 as follows:
6 THE WITNESS: I do.
7 DIRECT EXAMINATION
8 BY MR. SIMPSON:
9 Q. Good morning or good afternoon, I guess?
10 A. Afternoon, yes.
11 Q. If I ask any questions today that you can't
12 understand, would you please let me know and I'll
13 attempt to rephrase or clarify it?
14 A. Sure.
15 Q. You're a former United States District Judge;
16 is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. When were you a judge?
19 A. From about 2002 'til about November 2007.
20 Q. Okay. So you were appointed by the first
21 President Bush?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Uh, second President Bush?
24 A. Second President Bush, yes.
25 Q. And then after resigning as a judge, you
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607221
1 became a professor at the University of Utah; is that
2 correct?
3 A. Yeah I was professor -- excuse me -- before I
4 was a professor in the evening hours while I was a judge
5 from 2002 to 2007. And then I resumed full time
6 teaching at the University of Utah in around November of
7 2007 when I left the bench.
8 Q. Okay. And since you've left the bench, have
9 you also been affiliated with a law firm?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Could you tell me what that affiliation is
12 what --
13 A. Sure. I'm a special counsel with Hatch James
14 and Dodge. It's a law firm, small boutique litigation
15 law firm in Salt Lake City, Utah, and I occasionally do
16 cases with them.
17 Q. Is it fair to say that since 2007, since
18 resigning as a judge, you've been engaged at least on a
19 part-time basis in the practice of law?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And, in particular, in one of the cases
22 that's at issue here, what has been referred to as the
23 underlying CVRA case; you're familiar with that case?
24 A. Yeah. Let me be clear just the juxtaposition
25 of the causes, the CVRA case is not through Hatch James
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607222
5
1 and Dodge. That's through the University of Utah. I'm
2 pro bono work through the University of Utah.
3 Q. You have entered an appearance in that case?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. And in order to enter that appearance, you
6 were admitted pro hac vice; is that correct?
7 A. That's right.
8 Q. And to be admitted pro hac vice, you
9 certified that you were familiar with the applicable
10 rules including the rules of the southern district of
11 Florida; is that right?
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. And you're also familiar with the rules of
14 professional responsibility; is that correct?
15 A. Sure.
16 Q. Okay. As a judge, did you ever strike a
17 party's pleadings because they were impertinent,
18 scandalous, irrelevant?
19 A. I don't recall doing that immediately.
20 Q. Okay. To the best of your knowledge, you
21 don't recall any instance of doing that?
22 A. I mean what I did, I think, there were two
23 cases where I referred people to the Bar which was a way
24 of dealing with the pleadings that were inappropriate in
25 those cases.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607223
0
1 Q. Okay. But other than referring the two
2 parties to the Bar, you never entered, to your
3 recollection, striking a party's pleadings; is that
4 right?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. Okay. I want to ask you a few questions
7 about the issue of striking pleadings. Would you agree
8 with me that courts generally disfavor a motion to
9 strike?
10 A. No.
11 Q. And that striking allegations from a pleading
12 is a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when required
13 for the purposes of justice and only when the
14 allegations to be stricken have no possible relation to
15 the controversy?
16 A. I think that's what some courts have said,
17 yes.
18 Q. And is it fair to say -- is that what you
19 represented to the court in response to
20 Professor Dershowitz's application to intervene?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. And you wouldn't have represented that to the
23 court unless you believed it to be accurate; is that
24 right?
25 A. That's right.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607224
7
1 Q. Would you also agree that if there is any
2 doubt as to whether the allegations might be an issue in
3 the action, courts will deny the motion?
4 A. That was our position in our response to
5 Professor Dershowitz's motion to strike, yes.
6 Q. And in considering a motion to strike, the
7 court must consider the pleadings in the light most
8 favorable to the party making the pleading, correct?
9 A. Yeah, that's our position, that was our
10 position, yes.
11 Q. Okay. In your view, is it -- for an attorney
12 to ask a leading question at a deposition, does the
13 attorney have to have a good-faith basis to believe that
14 that question is true or the facts assumed in that
15 question are true?
16 A. I mean, that's a broad question, but as a
17 general rule, yeah.
18 Q. As a general rule -- I'm not being very
19 articulate --
20 A. Yeah.
21 Q. -- you don't ask a leading question about a
22 fact unless you have a good-faith basis to believe that
23 facts is true, correct?
24 A. I think that's right. I mean I don't know if
25 over the last day and a half, you know, narrow questions
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607225
8
1 have been given very long answers. I am assuming you
2 want narrow answers; is that true?
3 Q. Well, that wasn't my question, but why don't
4 we stay on that --
5 A. I mean, I could discuss that at great length.
6 I didn't know if that's what you wanted me to do.
7 Q. I would like you to give a fair answer to my
8 questions and I'll let you answer your questions and if
9 follow up, I would ask that one at a time for the court
10 reporter.
11 I would ask that you answer the question
12 fairly and I'll try not to interrupt you. And then if
13 you would do your best to answer the questions, and as I
14 said, if you don't understand it, let me know.
15 A. Right.
16 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm going to
17 interrupt you for just a moment. Pardon me.
18 There is this page that was placed in front of
19 me, and I don't know whether this was intended as
20 a delivery of something.
21 MR. SCOTT: No. You had asked for a copy of
22 the entry from Professor Dershowitz's book when
23 he made reference to it. I said I'd give you a
24 copy in the last deposition, and that's it. We
25 made a copy of it.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607226
9
1 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you. I had also
2 asked for all of the information regarding
3 communications with Rebecca, which I was told
4 that I would get today. Is that available?
5 MR. SCOTT: No. I told you that we would
6 consider if that -- I apologize. I said we will
7 consider that and you can put it in a request and
8 we will respond.
9 THE WITNESS: I would sure like to see that
10 before I answer any more questions. Is that
11 something you could make available?
12 MR. SIMPSON: I don't think that's necessary
13 to answer the questions I'm going to ask. I'm
14 not going to ask you any questions -- I won't ask
15 you any questions about Professor Dershowitz's
16 communications with this Rebecca that you've
17 heard about. You were in the room while he
18 testified, correct?
19 THE WITNESS: Right, but I mean there are
20 there are broader subjects that extend beyond
21 those communications, so if you're going to ask
22 any questions about those broader subjects, I
23 would like to see the communications. That would
24 be helpful to me.
25 BY MR. SIMPSON:
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607227
10
1 Q. I'm just going to ask you questions about
2 the case and about your knowledge, and all I ask is that
3 you give your best answers based on your knowledge.
4 A. And all I ask is, if you're going to ask any
5 questions touching on those communications and I get a
6 chance to take a look at the subjects addressed in those
7 communications --
8 Q. If I ask you a question that you need to look
9 at something that you've never seen before to answer,
10 why don't you let us know?
11 A. Okay. Will do.
12 Q. What is your understanding of the ethical
13 responsibility of an attorney in signing a pleading to
14 be filed in Federal Court, and let's say in the Southern
15 District of Florida, if that's any different than
16 elsewhere?
17 A. Sure.
18 Q. Just give me your understanding.
19 A. Sure. The obligation is to make sure that it
20 is a good-faith pleading based on the facts and the law
21 as the attorney understands them, and consistently with
22 the obligation of the attorney to zealously represent
23 the position of his client.
24 Q. Okay. Would you agree with me that it would
25 be unethical to use pleadings for an improper purpose,
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607228
11
1 for a purpose other than to advance a cause in
2 litigation?
3 A. Sure.
4 Q. And would you agree with me that it would be
5 unethical to make allegation of misconduct by a person
6 in a pleading if that -- if those allegations were not
7 relevant to the case?
8 A. Sure.
9 Q. And would you agree --
10 A. Actually, not pertinent to the case.
11 Q. Not pertinent to the case?
12 A. Yeah. And when you say not relevant,
13 obviously, reasonable people can have disagreements
14 about what allegations are relevant to the case or not
15 Q. And my question is that an attorney, it would
16 be unethical, do you agree, for an attorney to sign a
17 pleading where the attorney does not have a good-faith
18 basis that the allegations of misconduct are relevant to
19 the case, are pertinent to the case?
20 A. Pertinent to the case, and as I understand
21 for example under rule 11 , the requirement is that the
22 allegations being advanced must not be frivolous.
23 Q. And that there's a good-faith basis for them?
24 A. Well, I mean if you're talking about good
25 faith frivolity, those are I mean, potentially different
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607229
12
1 standards under the law. My understanding is that
2 frivolity is the standard for, for example, rule 11
3 sanctions.
4 Q. Is it unethical to include, in your opinion,
5 to include allegations in a pleading for the purpose of
6 generating publicity?
7 A. If that's the only purpose, sure, that it
8 would be inappropriate.
9 Q. And is it unethical to make allegations
10 without having done a reasonable investigation to
11 satisfy -- for the attorney to satisfy himself or
12 herself that there's a factual basis for the
13 allegations?
14 A. Something along those lines, sure.
15 Q. As a general matter, you agree with that
16 proposition?
17 A. Yes, sure.
18 Q. Would you agree that the scope of the
19 investigation, the reasonable investigation an attorney
20 must do, varies depending upon the nature of the
21 allegations being made?
22 A. Sure, yes.
23 Q. Let me finish -- we are both speaking at the
24 same time
25 A. Sure.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607230
13
1 Q. -- so let me finish --
2 A. Sure. I just want to make sure you get an
3 opportunity to ask as many questions as you want so.
4 Q. Okay. And I appreciate that, but the court
5 reporter can't take down both of us at once. So we just
6 need to speak one at a time, but I appreciate that.
7 A. Good.
8 Q. I believe the last question I was asking you
9 about whether the scope of the investigation, what
10 reasonably required of an attorney varies depending upon
11 the nature of the allegations being made. I think you
12 said, yes; is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And could you explain how, what in your
15 understanding of how --
16 A. Sure. I mean, obviously, they are going to
17 be some cases that are very complicated factually. More
18 investigation would be appropriate there. There can be
19 some situations that very simple factually, less
20 investigation would be factually necessary there. Same
21 points about legal issues, too, some cases are complex
22 legally, some cases are simple legally.
23 The more legal investigation would be
24 required for the more complex cases.
25 MR. SCAROLA: Professor Cassell , I know it is
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607231
14
1 a little bit unnatural for you to be responding
2 to questions that are being asked immediately to
3 your right and not be looking directly at the
4 examiner the entire time, but because this is
5 being videotaped, it might be helpful if you can,
6 to the extent that you're able, to look into the
7 camera so that the jury for whom this may be
8 played --
9 THE WITNESS: I see.
10 MR. SCAROLA: -- at a later time gets to see
11 your full face.
12 THE WITNESS: All right. I hope you won't
13 consider me rude then --
14 MR. SIMPSON: I will not consider -- it's
15 good advice from your counsel and I will not
16 consider you rude.
17 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
18 BY MR. SIMPSON:
19 Q. I want to ask you some more questions about
20 the scope of investigation. Would you agree that an
21 allegation of serious misconduct by another person
22 generally requires more investigation than a lesser
23 serious type of allegation?
24 A. Sure. That's a fair statement.
25 Q. And so, for example, before accusing a person
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607232
15
1 of engaging in criminal misconduct, the attorney needs
2 to do a thorough investigation; is that right?
3 A. Yeah, under the circumstances, sure. I
4 should say in light of the circumstances, obviously, you
5 know, different kinds of cases can have different
6 circumstances.
7 Q. Okay. Is one of the considerations that goes
8 into that how much -- whether there's time pressure to
9 get the pleading on file?
10 A. Sure. That would be one of the factors.
11 Q. And how much time the attorney has to
12 investigate the facts?
13 A. Yes. That would be one of the factors as
14 well.
15 Q. Okay. And so before making -- where an
16 attorney's client has no pressing need to get a pleading
17 on file immediately, and the pleading is going to
18 include serious allegations of misconduct by another
19 person, an ethical attorney will take the time needed to
20 do a full investigation; is that fair?
21 A. That's fair, and the converse of your
22 proposition is also fair. For example, if a client has
23 a pending discovery dispute in front of a judge that
24 could be ruled on any day, that would be an exigency
25 that would require pleadings to be filed more quickly
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607233
16
1 than -- than otherwise.
2 Q. And if the dispute concerned, for example, a
3 specific discovery issue, would you expect the response
4 to be directed to that issue?
5 A. I would expect that the record would be built
6 so that it would be available for the discovery issue,
7 yes.
8 Q. Okay. I am going to ask the reporter to mark
9 as Cassell -- am I pronouncing your name correctly?
10 A. Yes, it's Cassell, yes.
11 Q. Okay. Could I ask the reporter to mark as
12 Cassell Exhibit 1 -- I will hand that to the reporter.
13 (A Plaintiff's A Defendant's I.D. Exhibit
14 No. 1 - A description was marked for identification.)
15 BY MR. SIMPSON:
16 Q. Let me identify that for the record. I may
17 want to mark two things.
18 A. Okay.
19 Q. Exhibit 1 is documented Plaintiff's Response
20 to Motion for Limited Intervention by Alan M.
21 Dershowitz, and I'm going to ask the reporter to mark
22 another exhibit at the same time. This will be
23 Exhibit 2, and this is a document entitled Jane Doe
24 Number 3 and Jane Doe Number 4's motion pursuant to rule
25 21 for joinder in action. Both cases having been filed
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607234
17
1 in the case Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 versus the United
2 States. This is number 2.
3 (A Plaintiff's A Defendant's I.D. Exhibit
4 No. 2 - A description was marked for identification.)
5 BY MR. SIMPSON:
6 Q. Mr. Cassell , do you have those documents in
7 front of you?
8 A. I do.
9 Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you first about
10 Exhibit 2 before 1, since exhibit 2 is first in
11 chronological order.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Is this the motion for joinder that you filed
14 on behalf of the parties then known as Jane Doe Number 3
15 and Jane Doe Number 4 in what was called the CVRA
16 action?
17 A. This is the joinder motion, yes.
18 Q. Okay. And if you look at the last page
19 before the certificate of service --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- over on page 12, it shows the document
22 being signed by Bradley J. Edwards and then it says and
23 Paul G. Cassell , pro hac vice, S.J. Queeny [sic] College
24 of Law
25 A. Quinney.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607235
18
1 Q. Quinney, got that one wrong, College of Law
2 at the University of Utah. Is that indicating your
3 signature to the document?
4 A. That's -- that's indicating not my signature,
5 but it's indicating that I stand behind the arguments
6 made in the document, yes.
7 Q. Much more articulate statement than I. I
8 simply wanted to confirm that you had authorized your
9 name to be listed as a counsel who was, for purposes of
10 the rules, vouching for this document?
11 A. Yes, I was vouching for this document
12 completely.
13 Q. Okay. And you list here your address as
14 being at the college of law at the University of Utah
15 with no qualification. If you compare that to the next
16 exhibit, Exhibit 1 actually --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- your signature has a footnote that says,
19 this daytime business address is provided for
20 identification and correspondence purposes only, and is
21 not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the
22 university of Utah; do you see that?
23 A. I do see that.
24 Q. Why was that footnote not included on the
25 first pleading filed which is Exhibit 2?
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607236
19
1 A. The footnote -- one of the problems with the
2 the Word processing program to drop a star footnote is
3 it requires, under the word programing, you have to to
4 have different sections in the document because
5 otherwise it would be footnote -- let's see.
6 Yes, so there was already a footnote 1 on the
7 joinder motion and so, what happens with footnotes is if
8 you identify it as footnote, put in a footnote where the
9 University of Utah signature block is, for example, it
10 becomes footnote 2, so then you have to create a
11 different section and then once you have a different
12 section you can establish a new number and a new
13 nomenclature instead of numbers. You can have the
14 asterisk, and so somehow with the signature block
15 getting reprocessed here, that star footnote dropped off
16 and within I think -- I think it was about three days, I
17 realized that the star footnote had dropped off, so I
18 filed a corrected pleading with the -- with the new star
19 footnote on it.
20 Q. You would agree with me that a fair-minded, a
21 reasonable reader looking at the signature block on the
22 as filed original document, could conclude that the
23 University of Utah was somehow endorsing or standing
24 behind this pleading?
25 A. I don't think that's quite fair. I think the
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607237
20
1 way that works is, people know that when, for example,
2 you know, a Professor speaks from the university, they
3 are giving their own point of view. The -- a school
4 like the University of Utah has, gosh, several hundred
5 faculty members, if not more, and so any time a member
6 of the University of Utah speaks, they are giving their
7 views on the subject. There may be a range of views.
8 Some Professors at the university of Utah may
9 be in favor of crime victim rights. Other Professors
10 may be opposed to crime victim rights. Young people
11 generally jump to the conclusion that just because they
12 are hearing a Professor from a particular school speak,
13 that that necessarily means that they are saying
14 something that the university endorses.
15 Q. If that's true, why do you include the
16 footnote on some pleadings?
17 A. Well, I included the footnote in this
18 particular case, the dean at the law school said, hey,
19 you know, it might be useful just to drop a footnote in
20 just to make sure that there's no misunderstanding and I
21 said, sure, I would be glad to do that. And so I think
22 pleadings, in this case leading up to this, had the star
23 footnote. Apparently on the signature block had got
24 dropped out. And then we were able to fix that in a
25 couple of days on this one.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607238
21
1 Q. So is it accurate that after you filed what's
2 Exhibit 2, that the dean of the law school asked you to
3 file a corrected version with the footnote?
4 A. No. That misunderstands what I said. Early
5 on, just in talking -- I do a lot pro bono litigation
6 for crime victims all over the country, and I do that,
7 that's one of the reasons I'm at the University of Utah.
8 They have been very supportive of my pro bono work in
9 this case as well as in other cases, and so the dean
10 said, well , one of the things just might be helpful is
11 to drop a footnote. I don't think it was required that
12 I drop the footnote, nobody suggested it would be useful
13 to drop the footnote, and so I agreed to do that in this
14 case and in other cases as well, but somehow in this
15 particular pleading, the -- as I say, the signature
16 block possibly was a cut-and-paste from an earlier
17 pleading in the case, possibly it was some issue
18 involving that section feature of the word processing
19 program. The star footnote had dropped off.
20 And so once I realized that without anyone
21 calling that to my attention when I looked at the brief
22 a couple of days after we filed it, and said, oh, I need
23 to fix that and did, indeed, fix that as quickly as I
24 could.
25 Q. What was the context in which the dean asked
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607239
22
1 you as a practice to drop the footnote; was it in
2 connection with this case or some other circumstance?
3 A. It was -- as I recall, it was several years
4 earlier. I don't know. Maybe a year or two earlier
5 than this particular litigation, from what I remember.
6 If I looked at some of my other pro bono cases around
7 the country, we might be able to get a sharper time
8 frame on that. I've done pro bono crime victims in a
9 lot of cases. And the dean just thought it might be
10 useful to have that kind of a footnote to avoid any
11 misunderstanding.
12 Q. Would you agree with me that in order to
13 allow your name to be listed as counsel on this
14 pleading, that you were required to have a sufficient
15 basis for the allegations based on what you knew as of
16 December 30th, 2014?
17 A. Sure. I think that's fair. Obviously, I
18 imagine one of the issues we are going to discuss here
19 today is what is a sufficient basis for filing a
20 pleading like that. So, yeah, in general, of course, we
21 had to have a sufficient basis for filing something like
22 this and I firmly believe that we did.
23 Q. And to put a point on my question, the way in
24 which to measure the knowledge is as of December 30th,
25 2014, so the facts that came to your attention after
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607240
23
1 that date, by definition, could have been part of what
2 you were relying on to allow your name to be listed as
3 counsel on this document, correct?
4 A. That's right. With regard to this document,
5 we would be looking at knowledge on or before December
6 30th, 2014.
7 Q. Would you turn to page 4 of the document,
8 first full paragraph on the page, the second sentence.
9 Actually, third sentence, you say: In addition to being
10 a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe Number 3 and
11 other minors, Dershowitz was an eye witness to the
12 sexual abuse, et cetera. Do you see that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Who were the other minors?
15 A. Well, one of the ways -- you want some
16 documentation of that?
17 Q. I want to know: You made an allegation here,
18 you first make an allegation that Professor Epstein
19 abused -- Jane Doe Number 3 -- Dershowitz. I'm sorry?
20 A. Right.
21 Q. Jane Doe Number 3 who is no longer anonymous,
22 Miss , correct?
23 A. Right. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the
24 question please.
25 Q. I just want to clarify that your pleading is
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607241
24
1 alleging that Professor Dershowitz engaged in this
2 sexual misconduct with Miss ; she's Jane Doe
3 Number 3, correct?
4 A. That's right. Jane Doe Number 3 is Miss
5 A (ph) .
6 Q. And I will ask you questions about that. But
7 my question now is: You also allege that Professor
8 Dershowitz was a participant in the abuse of other
9 minors besides Miss Do you see that?
10 A. Yes, I see that.
11 Q. Who are the other minors?
12 A. So I don't know the exact name of the other
13 minors who were involved, but I do have an 89 page
14 police report from the Palm Beach Police Department
15 which lists, if I recall correctly, about 23 or 24 names
16 of minors who went to the Jeffrey Epstein mansion in
17 Palm Beach during a period of time that extends from --
18 let's see -- it would have been roughly, I don't know,
19 from probably about a six-month period in 2005 -- there
20 are a series of names. I don't think in this particular
21 case because of confidentiality reasons, we can put into
22 the record the names of those girls, but what I would
23 propose doing is putting into the record the 89 page
24 police report from the Palm Beach Police Department,
25 which has page after page after page after page of young
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607242
25
1 girls going to the Epstein Palm Beach mansion and then
2 being sexually abused in some cases, at least one case,
3 forcibly raped. That is the basis for that particular
4 allegation.
5 Q. Mr. Cassell , does the police report you're
6 referring to at any point say Professor Dershowitz
7 abused any of these particular minors -- not were they
8 abused at the mansion -- but did it say anywhere that
9 Professor Dershowitz did that?
10 A. The police report itself does not refer to
11 Professor Dershowitz abusing these girls. However, when
12 you look at the police report, what it shows is a
13 pattern of egregious sexual abuse of approximately 23 to
14 24 young girls over an extended period of time at a
15 mansion that was owned by Jeffrey Epstein who was one of
16 the closest personal friends, from what I could gather,
17 of Mr. Dershowitz.
18 And so that was -- there's other information.
19 I don't want to filibuster you on that. I would be
20 happy to elaborate on that, but that is the first piece
21 of evidence that I would begin referring to. If you
22 want a more -- if you want -- just so the record is
23 clear, if you want to know all the bases, all the
24 grounds for which that allegation appears, then I would
25 like to make a more extended presentation.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607243
26
1 Q. We will get there. But my -- I want to make
2 sure we are clear about this.
3 Am I correct that the report itself never
4 says, Alan Dershowitz abused anyone?
5 A. That is a correct statement, I believe.
6 Q. And we won't -- and the report does
7 reflect -- the conclusion of -- it reflects abuse of
8 minors by Jeffrey Epstein, correct?
9 A. Oh yes, oh yea. What it shows is forcible
10 rape of underage girls, and not a, shall we say, one off
11 situation, but on something that is happening over,
12 let's say, this is roughly a six-month period, 180
13 days -- I mean, I think you know, they document roughly
14 speaking at least 180 sexual encounters give or take,
15 and in fact, on some days, what they document in that
16 police report is abuse that is taking place not once,
17 not twice, but three times during the day in this
18 mansion.
19 And so I certainly agree with you, if it's
20 possible, maybe my math is off here, 200 percent, that
21 this report documents repeated sexual abuse including
22 forcible rape by one of the closest friends of
23 Mr. Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein.
24 Q. So it's your testimony that Mr. Epstein was
25 one of Professor Dershowitz's closest friends?
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607244
27
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. We will come back to your basis for that.
3 I want to go back to the police report.
4 We've clarified it never says Professor Dershowitz
5 abused anyone, correct?
6 A. It doesn't say that directly, but the police
7 report is part of a larger package of information that I
8 had available to me since you asked on December 30th
9 that suggested that Mr. Dershowitz was involved in the
10 abuse of minors.
11 I'm sorry. Let me correct that. In the
12 sexual abuse of minors, in particularly, minor girls.
13 Q. Would it be your position that anyone who was
14 a friend, or a friend of Mr. Epstein who visited his
15 house on more than a few occasions, that that's
16 sufficient to conclude that -- to allege that they
17 engaged in sexual abuse of minors?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Are we talking about guilt by association
20 here?
21 A. No. And that question requires a more
22 extended answer, which I would be happy to provide for
23 you, if you would like an extended answer.
24 Q. Let me ask you this question: You referred
25 to the police report, correct?
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607245
28
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. And focusing now, not -- not on
3 , we are focusing on the other minors, correct?
4 I just have that in mind, right?
5 A. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?
6 Q. I want to make sure you're focusing on the
7 allegation in this pleading that Professor Dershowitz
8 abused other minors; do you have that in mind?
9 A. I do.
10 Q. Okay. First of all, I want to know, and for
11 this question you don't have to give the names, do you
12 have specific minors who you, at this point, contend
13 were abused?
14 A. I believe that the pool of people came from,
15 among other young girls, roughly 23 to 24 minors
16 identified in the Palm Beach Police Department report,
17 or other similarly-situated girls in either New York, in
18 the airplanes, or on -- in the Palm Beach mansion. So
19 this -- the problem that I have here frankly, I'm sorry,
20 but I think your question fairly calls for a longer
21 answer, I could give you the names of those girls if
22 Jeffrey Epstein would tell us the names of those girls
23 that he trafficked in Florida, in New York, on his
24 airplanes and elsewhere. But I think everyone in this
25 room is aware Mr. Epstein has repeatedly refused to
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607246
29
1 answer questions about the names of the girls that he
2 was sexually trafficking. And that's one of the things
3 that has made this case so difficult, because if we
4 could get the names of those girls, then we could -- we
5 could try to help them.
6 We could -- we could start to unravel the
7 many crimes that Mr. Epstein has committed along with
8 his associates. So, again, I could go on longer, and I
9 don't want to filibuster your time, I think I've seen
10 illustrations of that recently, but I -- what I want to
11 do is make sure that -- that I could give additional
12 information if people like Mr. Epstein would cooperate
13 and give me the names of the girls that he was sexually
14 trafficking.
15 MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike the
16 nonresponsive portion of the answer.
17 Can I have the same standing objection,
18 Mr. Scarola?
19 MR. SCAROLA: No, I don't think -- I don't
20 think you will need a standing objection.
21 MR. SIMPSON: Well , I'll just make the
22 objection there and --
23 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
24 MR. SIMPSON: I will go back to my question.
25 BY MR. SIMPSON:
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607247
30
1 Q. My question had nothing to do with whether
2 you could identify girls that Jeffrey Epstein abused.
3 My question was: As of December 30th, 2014 -- you don't
4 have to give me the name right now -- is there any
5 specific girl that you had evidence Professor Dershowitz
6 abused?
7 A. What I had was the police report moving girls
8 and the girls were named in the police report, although
9 the police report that I think has been made public has
10 the names redacted, those girls were moving through the
11 mansion at the time when, for example, household staff
12 were saying that Mr. Dershowitz was receiving massages.
13 And so, yes, I have 24 names in mind as
14 possible sexual abuse victims that Dershowitz may or may
15 not have abused. And I have not been able to pinpoint
16 exactly what happened, because the people who would be
17 in the best position to help me sort out what the names
18 were, specifically Jeffrey Epstein among others, have
19 refused to cooperate and give me those names.
20 MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike the
21 nonresponsive portion of the answer.
22 THE WITNESS: Can I ask what part of that was
23 nonresponsive in your view?
24 MR. SCAROLA: That's all right.
25 THE WITNESS: Okay.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607248
31
1 MR. SCAROLA: Professor Cassell , you don't
2 need to do that.
3 BY MR. SIMPSON:
4 Q. If I understand you correctly, you said in
5 that answer question -- strike that.
6 If I understood you correctly, you said in
7 that answer that there was a universe of 24 girls I
8 believe you said or approximately, that Professor
9 Dershowitz may or may not have abused; is that your
10 position?
11 A. That's correct. It's been impossible to
12 narrow down exactly what happened because of lack of
13 cooperation from, for example, Jeffrey Epstein.
14 Q. If as of December 30th, 2014, based on your
15 information, Professor Dershowitz may or may not have
16 abused other minors, why did you allege that he did?
17 A. Your question, as I understood it, was did I
18 know the name of the particular girl that he may or may
19 not have alleged -- I'm sorry -- did I know the name of
20 the particular girl that he may have abused. And I
21 couldn't get the exact name, but what I had was
22 Mr. Dershowitz receiving massages in a time when,
23 according to the police report, massage was a code word
24 for sexual abuse of underage girls.
25 Q. And so was it your understanding as of
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607249
32
1 December 30th, 2014, that every massage given to anybody
2 at Mr. Epstein's residence was a code word for sexual
3 abuse?
4 A. It was my understanding that the term
5 "massage" was frequently, if not almost invariably, used
6 as a code word for sexual abuse, or at least sexual
7 activity, if the girl happened to be over the age of 18.
8 But in most cases at least, or in many cases depending
9 on exactly what universe you're looking at, these were
10 underage girls, under the age of consent in the State of
11 Florida, they were under the age of 18.
12 Sometimes as young as -- I think it went all
13 the way down to, gosh, I'm trying to remember now, I
14 think 13 or 14 was was the youngest age in the police
15 report.
16 Q. Is it your position that as of December 30th,
17 2014, you had a sufficient basis under the Federal Rules
18 of Procedure and applicable ethical rules to allege that
19 anyone who got a massage at Mr. Epstein's residence had
20 abused minors?
21 A. No.
22 Q. What -- back up now. With respect again to
23 other minors as of December 30th, 2014, had anyone --
24 had any young woman, other than -- we will put -- I'm
25 going to ask about separately.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607250
33
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. Had any other young woman told you she had
3 been abused by Professor Dershowitz?
4 A. No other young women had told me that, no.
5 Q. Had, as of that date, had anyone told you
6 that Professor Dershowitz had abused other minors?
7 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object for a
8 moment here to the extent that you're going to be
9 answering a question that requires you to divulge
10 any attorney/client communication with
11 , I have a standing objection that I'm
12 putting on the record right now.
13 does not waive her
14 attorney/client privilege with her lawyers, and
15 they are not entitled to testify as to
16 information that she intended to be confidential
17 that she communicated to her lawyers.
18 MR. SCAROLA: And I would instruct you not to
19 answer the question on that basis.
20 MR. SIMPSON: All right.
21 BY MR. SIMPSON:
22 Q. I disagree with the position on the
23 privilege, but I will -- you're going to follow the
24 instruction not to answer those questions?
25 A. I am.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607251
34
1 Q. Okay. I want to put then aside
2
3 Had anyone else as of December 30th, 2014,
4 told you that Professor Dershowitz had abused any minor,
5 other than
6 A. No one -- no other -- no other person, no
7 other person had spoken to me and told me that directly,
8 no.
9 Q. And when you say no other person, I'm
10 including not just any -- any victims of Mr. Epstein,
11 but anyone else, no one had said to you, I have
12 knowledge that Alan Dershowitz abused a minor, other
13 than Epstein -- ; is that
14 correct?
15 MR. SCAROLA: Let me ask you for
16 clarification if I could. Are you asking whether
17 any person made that statement based upon the
18 direct personal knowledge of that person? And
19 the purpose for my clarification is to the extent
20 information was conveyed to Professor Cassell by
21 co-counsel, or anyone within the joint
22 representation or common interest privilege, I'm
23 not going to permit him to answer that question.
24 If it's anybody outside that, he clearly can. So
25 if you're looking for someone with direct
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607252
1
2
3 ***ROUGH DRAFT TRANSCRIPT***
4
5 CASE NAME: BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL vs.
6 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
7 WITNESS NAME: PAUL G. CASSELL
8 DATE OF DEPOSITION: 10/16/15
9
10
11 This is an unedited, unproofread,
uncertified transcript for attorneys' information only.
12 This transcript may NOT be cited in documents or used
for examination purposes.
13
14 This raw transcript may contain the
following:
15
1. Conflicts - an apparently wrong word
16 that has the same stenotype stroke as a less-used word.
Conflicts are remedied by the reporter in editing.
17
2. Untranslates/Misstrokes - a stenotype
18 stroke appears on the screen as the result of the
computer dictionary not having the same stroke
19 previously identified or a misstroke or partial
translation of the word.
20
3. Reporter's notes - a parenthetical word
21 or phrase from the reporter. Since the reporter must
write each word instantly, a misunderstood word or
22 phrase will not be apparent until some time later.
Reporter's notes provide the opportunity to correct such
23 situations.
24
25
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400
EFTA00607219
2
1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the video
2 record. Today is Friday, the 16th day of
3 October, 2015. The time is 1 :33 p.m.
4 We are here at 110 Southeast 6th Street,
5 Suite 1850, in Fort Lauderdale Florida for the
6 purpose of taking the videotaped deposition of
7 Paul G. Cassell . The case is Bradley J. Edwards
8 and Paul G. Cassell versus Alan M. Dershowitz.
9 The court reporter is Terry Tomaselli and the
10 videographer is Don Savoy, both from Esquire
11 Deposition Solutions. Will counsel please
12 announce their appearances for the record.
13 MR. SCAROLA: Jack Scarola appearing on
14 behalf of Bradley Edwards and Professor Paul
15 Cassell . With me is Joni J. Jones from the Utah
16 Attorney General 's Office.
17 MS. McCAWLEY: Sigrid McCawley on behalf of
18 from Boies Schiller & Flexner.
19 MR. SIMPSON: Richard Simpson on behalf of
20 Defendant and Counter-Claim Plaintiff Alan
21 Dershowitz. And with me is my colleague Nicole
22 Richardson and Thomas Scott from the firm of Cole
23 Scott & Kissane. Ms. Richardson and I are from
24 the firm of Wiley Rein.
25 MR. SWEDER: Kenneth Sweder from the firm of
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607220
3
1 Sweeder & Ross for Professor Dershowitz.
2 Thereupon,
3 PAUL G. CASSELL,
4 having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified
5 as follows:
6 THE WITNESS: I do.
7 DIRECT EXAMINATION
8 BY MR. SIMPSON:
9 Q. Good morning or good afternoon, I guess?
10 A. Afternoon, yes.
11 Q. If I ask any questions today that you can't
12 understand, would you please let me know and I'll
13 attempt to rephrase or clarify it?
14 A. Sure.
15 Q. You're a former United States District Judge;
16 is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. When were you a judge?
19 A. From about 2002 'til about November 2007.
20 Q. Okay. So you were appointed by the first
21 President Bush?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Uh, second President Bush?
24 A. Second President Bush, yes.
25 Q. And then after resigning as a judge, you
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607221
1 became a professor at the University of Utah; is that
2 correct?
3 A. Yeah I was professor -- excuse me -- before I
4 was a professor in the evening hours while I was a judge
5 from 2002 to 2007. And then I resumed full time
6 teaching at the University of Utah in around November of
7 2007 when I left the bench.
8 Q. Okay. And since you've left the bench, have
9 you also been affiliated with a law firm?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Could you tell me what that affiliation is
12 what --
13 A. Sure. I'm a special counsel with Hatch James
14 and Dodge. It's a law firm, small boutique litigation
15 law firm in Salt Lake City, Utah, and I occasionally do
16 cases with them.
17 Q. Is it fair to say that since 2007, since
18 resigning as a judge, you've been engaged at least on a
19 part-time basis in the practice of law?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And, in particular, in one of the cases
22 that's at issue here, what has been referred to as the
23 underlying CVRA case; you're familiar with that case?
24 A. Yeah. Let me be clear just the juxtaposition
25 of the causes, the CVRA case is not through Hatch James
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607222
5
1 and Dodge. That's through the University of Utah. I'm
2 pro bono work through the University of Utah.
3 Q. You have entered an appearance in that case?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. And in order to enter that appearance, you
6 were admitted pro hac vice; is that correct?
7 A. That's right.
8 Q. And to be admitted pro hac vice, you
9 certified that you were familiar with the applicable
10 rules including the rules of the southern district of
11 Florida; is that right?
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. And you're also familiar with the rules of
14 professional responsibility; is that correct?
15 A. Sure.
16 Q. Okay. As a judge, did you ever strike a
17 party's pleadings because they were impertinent,
18 scandalous, irrelevant?
19 A. I don't recall doing that immediately.
20 Q. Okay. To the best of your knowledge, you
21 don't recall any instance of doing that?
22 A. I mean what I did, I think, there were two
23 cases where I referred people to the Bar which was a way
24 of dealing with the pleadings that were inappropriate in
25 those cases.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607223
0
1 Q. Okay. But other than referring the two
2 parties to the Bar, you never entered, to your
3 recollection, striking a party's pleadings; is that
4 right?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. Okay. I want to ask you a few questions
7 about the issue of striking pleadings. Would you agree
8 with me that courts generally disfavor a motion to
9 strike?
10 A. No.
11 Q. And that striking allegations from a pleading
12 is a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when required
13 for the purposes of justice and only when the
14 allegations to be stricken have no possible relation to
15 the controversy?
16 A. I think that's what some courts have said,
17 yes.
18 Q. And is it fair to say -- is that what you
19 represented to the court in response to
20 Professor Dershowitz's application to intervene?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. And you wouldn't have represented that to the
23 court unless you believed it to be accurate; is that
24 right?
25 A. That's right.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607224
7
1 Q. Would you also agree that if there is any
2 doubt as to whether the allegations might be an issue in
3 the action, courts will deny the motion?
4 A. That was our position in our response to
5 Professor Dershowitz's motion to strike, yes.
6 Q. And in considering a motion to strike, the
7 court must consider the pleadings in the light most
8 favorable to the party making the pleading, correct?
9 A. Yeah, that's our position, that was our
10 position, yes.
11 Q. Okay. In your view, is it -- for an attorney
12 to ask a leading question at a deposition, does the
13 attorney have to have a good-faith basis to believe that
14 that question is true or the facts assumed in that
15 question are true?
16 A. I mean, that's a broad question, but as a
17 general rule, yeah.
18 Q. As a general rule -- I'm not being very
19 articulate --
20 A. Yeah.
21 Q. -- you don't ask a leading question about a
22 fact unless you have a good-faith basis to believe that
23 facts is true, correct?
24 A. I think that's right. I mean I don't know if
25 over the last day and a half, you know, narrow questions
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607225
8
1 have been given very long answers. I am assuming you
2 want narrow answers; is that true?
3 Q. Well, that wasn't my question, but why don't
4 we stay on that --
5 A. I mean, I could discuss that at great length.
6 I didn't know if that's what you wanted me to do.
7 Q. I would like you to give a fair answer to my
8 questions and I'll let you answer your questions and if
9 follow up, I would ask that one at a time for the court
10 reporter.
11 I would ask that you answer the question
12 fairly and I'll try not to interrupt you. And then if
13 you would do your best to answer the questions, and as I
14 said, if you don't understand it, let me know.
15 A. Right.
16 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm going to
17 interrupt you for just a moment. Pardon me.
18 There is this page that was placed in front of
19 me, and I don't know whether this was intended as
20 a delivery of something.
21 MR. SCOTT: No. You had asked for a copy of
22 the entry from Professor Dershowitz's book when
23 he made reference to it. I said I'd give you a
24 copy in the last deposition, and that's it. We
25 made a copy of it.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607226
9
1 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you. I had also
2 asked for all of the information regarding
3 communications with Rebecca, which I was told
4 that I would get today. Is that available?
5 MR. SCOTT: No. I told you that we would
6 consider if that -- I apologize. I said we will
7 consider that and you can put it in a request and
8 we will respond.
9 THE WITNESS: I would sure like to see that
10 before I answer any more questions. Is that
11 something you could make available?
12 MR. SIMPSON: I don't think that's necessary
13 to answer the questions I'm going to ask. I'm
14 not going to ask you any questions -- I won't ask
15 you any questions about Professor Dershowitz's
16 communications with this Rebecca that you've
17 heard about. You were in the room while he
18 testified, correct?
19 THE WITNESS: Right, but I mean there are
20 there are broader subjects that extend beyond
21 those communications, so if you're going to ask
22 any questions about those broader subjects, I
23 would like to see the communications. That would
24 be helpful to me.
25 BY MR. SIMPSON:
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607227
10
1 Q. I'm just going to ask you questions about
2 the case and about your knowledge, and all I ask is that
3 you give your best answers based on your knowledge.
4 A. And all I ask is, if you're going to ask any
5 questions touching on those communications and I get a
6 chance to take a look at the subjects addressed in those
7 communications --
8 Q. If I ask you a question that you need to look
9 at something that you've never seen before to answer,
10 why don't you let us know?
11 A. Okay. Will do.
12 Q. What is your understanding of the ethical
13 responsibility of an attorney in signing a pleading to
14 be filed in Federal Court, and let's say in the Southern
15 District of Florida, if that's any different than
16 elsewhere?
17 A. Sure.
18 Q. Just give me your understanding.
19 A. Sure. The obligation is to make sure that it
20 is a good-faith pleading based on the facts and the law
21 as the attorney understands them, and consistently with
22 the obligation of the attorney to zealously represent
23 the position of his client.
24 Q. Okay. Would you agree with me that it would
25 be unethical to use pleadings for an improper purpose,
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607228
11
1 for a purpose other than to advance a cause in
2 litigation?
3 A. Sure.
4 Q. And would you agree with me that it would be
5 unethical to make allegation of misconduct by a person
6 in a pleading if that -- if those allegations were not
7 relevant to the case?
8 A. Sure.
9 Q. And would you agree --
10 A. Actually, not pertinent to the case.
11 Q. Not pertinent to the case?
12 A. Yeah. And when you say not relevant,
13 obviously, reasonable people can have disagreements
14 about what allegations are relevant to the case or not
15 Q. And my question is that an attorney, it would
16 be unethical, do you agree, for an attorney to sign a
17 pleading where the attorney does not have a good-faith
18 basis that the allegations of misconduct are relevant to
19 the case, are pertinent to the case?
20 A. Pertinent to the case, and as I understand
21 for example under rule 11 , the requirement is that the
22 allegations being advanced must not be frivolous.
23 Q. And that there's a good-faith basis for them?
24 A. Well, I mean if you're talking about good
25 faith frivolity, those are I mean, potentially different
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607229
12
1 standards under the law. My understanding is that
2 frivolity is the standard for, for example, rule 11
3 sanctions.
4 Q. Is it unethical to include, in your opinion,
5 to include allegations in a pleading for the purpose of
6 generating publicity?
7 A. If that's the only purpose, sure, that it
8 would be inappropriate.
9 Q. And is it unethical to make allegations
10 without having done a reasonable investigation to
11 satisfy -- for the attorney to satisfy himself or
12 herself that there's a factual basis for the
13 allegations?
14 A. Something along those lines, sure.
15 Q. As a general matter, you agree with that
16 proposition?
17 A. Yes, sure.
18 Q. Would you agree that the scope of the
19 investigation, the reasonable investigation an attorney
20 must do, varies depending upon the nature of the
21 allegations being made?
22 A. Sure, yes.
23 Q. Let me finish -- we are both speaking at the
24 same time
25 A. Sure.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607230
13
1 Q. -- so let me finish --
2 A. Sure. I just want to make sure you get an
3 opportunity to ask as many questions as you want so.
4 Q. Okay. And I appreciate that, but the court
5 reporter can't take down both of us at once. So we just
6 need to speak one at a time, but I appreciate that.
7 A. Good.
8 Q. I believe the last question I was asking you
9 about whether the scope of the investigation, what
10 reasonably required of an attorney varies depending upon
11 the nature of the allegations being made. I think you
12 said, yes; is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And could you explain how, what in your
15 understanding of how --
16 A. Sure. I mean, obviously, they are going to
17 be some cases that are very complicated factually. More
18 investigation would be appropriate there. There can be
19 some situations that very simple factually, less
20 investigation would be factually necessary there. Same
21 points about legal issues, too, some cases are complex
22 legally, some cases are simple legally.
23 The more legal investigation would be
24 required for the more complex cases.
25 MR. SCAROLA: Professor Cassell , I know it is
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607231
14
1 a little bit unnatural for you to be responding
2 to questions that are being asked immediately to
3 your right and not be looking directly at the
4 examiner the entire time, but because this is
5 being videotaped, it might be helpful if you can,
6 to the extent that you're able, to look into the
7 camera so that the jury for whom this may be
8 played --
9 THE WITNESS: I see.
10 MR. SCAROLA: -- at a later time gets to see
11 your full face.
12 THE WITNESS: All right. I hope you won't
13 consider me rude then --
14 MR. SIMPSON: I will not consider -- it's
15 good advice from your counsel and I will not
16 consider you rude.
17 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
18 BY MR. SIMPSON:
19 Q. I want to ask you some more questions about
20 the scope of investigation. Would you agree that an
21 allegation of serious misconduct by another person
22 generally requires more investigation than a lesser
23 serious type of allegation?
24 A. Sure. That's a fair statement.
25 Q. And so, for example, before accusing a person
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607232
15
1 of engaging in criminal misconduct, the attorney needs
2 to do a thorough investigation; is that right?
3 A. Yeah, under the circumstances, sure. I
4 should say in light of the circumstances, obviously, you
5 know, different kinds of cases can have different
6 circumstances.
7 Q. Okay. Is one of the considerations that goes
8 into that how much -- whether there's time pressure to
9 get the pleading on file?
10 A. Sure. That would be one of the factors.
11 Q. And how much time the attorney has to
12 investigate the facts?
13 A. Yes. That would be one of the factors as
14 well.
15 Q. Okay. And so before making -- where an
16 attorney's client has no pressing need to get a pleading
17 on file immediately, and the pleading is going to
18 include serious allegations of misconduct by another
19 person, an ethical attorney will take the time needed to
20 do a full investigation; is that fair?
21 A. That's fair, and the converse of your
22 proposition is also fair. For example, if a client has
23 a pending discovery dispute in front of a judge that
24 could be ruled on any day, that would be an exigency
25 that would require pleadings to be filed more quickly
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607233
16
1 than -- than otherwise.
2 Q. And if the dispute concerned, for example, a
3 specific discovery issue, would you expect the response
4 to be directed to that issue?
5 A. I would expect that the record would be built
6 so that it would be available for the discovery issue,
7 yes.
8 Q. Okay. I am going to ask the reporter to mark
9 as Cassell -- am I pronouncing your name correctly?
10 A. Yes, it's Cassell, yes.
11 Q. Okay. Could I ask the reporter to mark as
12 Cassell Exhibit 1 -- I will hand that to the reporter.
13 (A Plaintiff's A Defendant's I.D. Exhibit
14 No. 1 - A description was marked for identification.)
15 BY MR. SIMPSON:
16 Q. Let me identify that for the record. I may
17 want to mark two things.
18 A. Okay.
19 Q. Exhibit 1 is documented Plaintiff's Response
20 to Motion for Limited Intervention by Alan M.
21 Dershowitz, and I'm going to ask the reporter to mark
22 another exhibit at the same time. This will be
23 Exhibit 2, and this is a document entitled Jane Doe
24 Number 3 and Jane Doe Number 4's motion pursuant to rule
25 21 for joinder in action. Both cases having been filed
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607234
17
1 in the case Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 versus the United
2 States. This is number 2.
3 (A Plaintiff's A Defendant's I.D. Exhibit
4 No. 2 - A description was marked for identification.)
5 BY MR. SIMPSON:
6 Q. Mr. Cassell , do you have those documents in
7 front of you?
8 A. I do.
9 Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you first about
10 Exhibit 2 before 1, since exhibit 2 is first in
11 chronological order.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Is this the motion for joinder that you filed
14 on behalf of the parties then known as Jane Doe Number 3
15 and Jane Doe Number 4 in what was called the CVRA
16 action?
17 A. This is the joinder motion, yes.
18 Q. Okay. And if you look at the last page
19 before the certificate of service --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- over on page 12, it shows the document
22 being signed by Bradley J. Edwards and then it says and
23 Paul G. Cassell , pro hac vice, S.J. Queeny [sic] College
24 of Law
25 A. Quinney.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607235
18
1 Q. Quinney, got that one wrong, College of Law
2 at the University of Utah. Is that indicating your
3 signature to the document?
4 A. That's -- that's indicating not my signature,
5 but it's indicating that I stand behind the arguments
6 made in the document, yes.
7 Q. Much more articulate statement than I. I
8 simply wanted to confirm that you had authorized your
9 name to be listed as a counsel who was, for purposes of
10 the rules, vouching for this document?
11 A. Yes, I was vouching for this document
12 completely.
13 Q. Okay. And you list here your address as
14 being at the college of law at the University of Utah
15 with no qualification. If you compare that to the next
16 exhibit, Exhibit 1 actually --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- your signature has a footnote that says,
19 this daytime business address is provided for
20 identification and correspondence purposes only, and is
21 not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the
22 university of Utah; do you see that?
23 A. I do see that.
24 Q. Why was that footnote not included on the
25 first pleading filed which is Exhibit 2?
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607236
19
1 A. The footnote -- one of the problems with the
2 the Word processing program to drop a star footnote is
3 it requires, under the word programing, you have to to
4 have different sections in the document because
5 otherwise it would be footnote -- let's see.
6 Yes, so there was already a footnote 1 on the
7 joinder motion and so, what happens with footnotes is if
8 you identify it as footnote, put in a footnote where the
9 University of Utah signature block is, for example, it
10 becomes footnote 2, so then you have to create a
11 different section and then once you have a different
12 section you can establish a new number and a new
13 nomenclature instead of numbers. You can have the
14 asterisk, and so somehow with the signature block
15 getting reprocessed here, that star footnote dropped off
16 and within I think -- I think it was about three days, I
17 realized that the star footnote had dropped off, so I
18 filed a corrected pleading with the -- with the new star
19 footnote on it.
20 Q. You would agree with me that a fair-minded, a
21 reasonable reader looking at the signature block on the
22 as filed original document, could conclude that the
23 University of Utah was somehow endorsing or standing
24 behind this pleading?
25 A. I don't think that's quite fair. I think the
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607237
20
1 way that works is, people know that when, for example,
2 you know, a Professor speaks from the university, they
3 are giving their own point of view. The -- a school
4 like the University of Utah has, gosh, several hundred
5 faculty members, if not more, and so any time a member
6 of the University of Utah speaks, they are giving their
7 views on the subject. There may be a range of views.
8 Some Professors at the university of Utah may
9 be in favor of crime victim rights. Other Professors
10 may be opposed to crime victim rights. Young people
11 generally jump to the conclusion that just because they
12 are hearing a Professor from a particular school speak,
13 that that necessarily means that they are saying
14 something that the university endorses.
15 Q. If that's true, why do you include the
16 footnote on some pleadings?
17 A. Well, I included the footnote in this
18 particular case, the dean at the law school said, hey,
19 you know, it might be useful just to drop a footnote in
20 just to make sure that there's no misunderstanding and I
21 said, sure, I would be glad to do that. And so I think
22 pleadings, in this case leading up to this, had the star
23 footnote. Apparently on the signature block had got
24 dropped out. And then we were able to fix that in a
25 couple of days on this one.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607238
21
1 Q. So is it accurate that after you filed what's
2 Exhibit 2, that the dean of the law school asked you to
3 file a corrected version with the footnote?
4 A. No. That misunderstands what I said. Early
5 on, just in talking -- I do a lot pro bono litigation
6 for crime victims all over the country, and I do that,
7 that's one of the reasons I'm at the University of Utah.
8 They have been very supportive of my pro bono work in
9 this case as well as in other cases, and so the dean
10 said, well , one of the things just might be helpful is
11 to drop a footnote. I don't think it was required that
12 I drop the footnote, nobody suggested it would be useful
13 to drop the footnote, and so I agreed to do that in this
14 case and in other cases as well, but somehow in this
15 particular pleading, the -- as I say, the signature
16 block possibly was a cut-and-paste from an earlier
17 pleading in the case, possibly it was some issue
18 involving that section feature of the word processing
19 program. The star footnote had dropped off.
20 And so once I realized that without anyone
21 calling that to my attention when I looked at the brief
22 a couple of days after we filed it, and said, oh, I need
23 to fix that and did, indeed, fix that as quickly as I
24 could.
25 Q. What was the context in which the dean asked
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607239
22
1 you as a practice to drop the footnote; was it in
2 connection with this case or some other circumstance?
3 A. It was -- as I recall, it was several years
4 earlier. I don't know. Maybe a year or two earlier
5 than this particular litigation, from what I remember.
6 If I looked at some of my other pro bono cases around
7 the country, we might be able to get a sharper time
8 frame on that. I've done pro bono crime victims in a
9 lot of cases. And the dean just thought it might be
10 useful to have that kind of a footnote to avoid any
11 misunderstanding.
12 Q. Would you agree with me that in order to
13 allow your name to be listed as counsel on this
14 pleading, that you were required to have a sufficient
15 basis for the allegations based on what you knew as of
16 December 30th, 2014?
17 A. Sure. I think that's fair. Obviously, I
18 imagine one of the issues we are going to discuss here
19 today is what is a sufficient basis for filing a
20 pleading like that. So, yeah, in general, of course, we
21 had to have a sufficient basis for filing something like
22 this and I firmly believe that we did.
23 Q. And to put a point on my question, the way in
24 which to measure the knowledge is as of December 30th,
25 2014, so the facts that came to your attention after
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607240
23
1 that date, by definition, could have been part of what
2 you were relying on to allow your name to be listed as
3 counsel on this document, correct?
4 A. That's right. With regard to this document,
5 we would be looking at knowledge on or before December
6 30th, 2014.
7 Q. Would you turn to page 4 of the document,
8 first full paragraph on the page, the second sentence.
9 Actually, third sentence, you say: In addition to being
10 a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe Number 3 and
11 other minors, Dershowitz was an eye witness to the
12 sexual abuse, et cetera. Do you see that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Who were the other minors?
15 A. Well, one of the ways -- you want some
16 documentation of that?
17 Q. I want to know: You made an allegation here,
18 you first make an allegation that Professor Epstein
19 abused -- Jane Doe Number 3 -- Dershowitz. I'm sorry?
20 A. Right.
21 Q. Jane Doe Number 3 who is no longer anonymous,
22 Miss , correct?
23 A. Right. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the
24 question please.
25 Q. I just want to clarify that your pleading is
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607241
24
1 alleging that Professor Dershowitz engaged in this
2 sexual misconduct with Miss ; she's Jane Doe
3 Number 3, correct?
4 A. That's right. Jane Doe Number 3 is Miss
5 A (ph) .
6 Q. And I will ask you questions about that. But
7 my question now is: You also allege that Professor
8 Dershowitz was a participant in the abuse of other
9 minors besides Miss Do you see that?
10 A. Yes, I see that.
11 Q. Who are the other minors?
12 A. So I don't know the exact name of the other
13 minors who were involved, but I do have an 89 page
14 police report from the Palm Beach Police Department
15 which lists, if I recall correctly, about 23 or 24 names
16 of minors who went to the Jeffrey Epstein mansion in
17 Palm Beach during a period of time that extends from --
18 let's see -- it would have been roughly, I don't know,
19 from probably about a six-month period in 2005 -- there
20 are a series of names. I don't think in this particular
21 case because of confidentiality reasons, we can put into
22 the record the names of those girls, but what I would
23 propose doing is putting into the record the 89 page
24 police report from the Palm Beach Police Department,
25 which has page after page after page after page of young
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607242
25
1 girls going to the Epstein Palm Beach mansion and then
2 being sexually abused in some cases, at least one case,
3 forcibly raped. That is the basis for that particular
4 allegation.
5 Q. Mr. Cassell , does the police report you're
6 referring to at any point say Professor Dershowitz
7 abused any of these particular minors -- not were they
8 abused at the mansion -- but did it say anywhere that
9 Professor Dershowitz did that?
10 A. The police report itself does not refer to
11 Professor Dershowitz abusing these girls. However, when
12 you look at the police report, what it shows is a
13 pattern of egregious sexual abuse of approximately 23 to
14 24 young girls over an extended period of time at a
15 mansion that was owned by Jeffrey Epstein who was one of
16 the closest personal friends, from what I could gather,
17 of Mr. Dershowitz.
18 And so that was -- there's other information.
19 I don't want to filibuster you on that. I would be
20 happy to elaborate on that, but that is the first piece
21 of evidence that I would begin referring to. If you
22 want a more -- if you want -- just so the record is
23 clear, if you want to know all the bases, all the
24 grounds for which that allegation appears, then I would
25 like to make a more extended presentation.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607243
26
1 Q. We will get there. But my -- I want to make
2 sure we are clear about this.
3 Am I correct that the report itself never
4 says, Alan Dershowitz abused anyone?
5 A. That is a correct statement, I believe.
6 Q. And we won't -- and the report does
7 reflect -- the conclusion of -- it reflects abuse of
8 minors by Jeffrey Epstein, correct?
9 A. Oh yes, oh yea. What it shows is forcible
10 rape of underage girls, and not a, shall we say, one off
11 situation, but on something that is happening over,
12 let's say, this is roughly a six-month period, 180
13 days -- I mean, I think you know, they document roughly
14 speaking at least 180 sexual encounters give or take,
15 and in fact, on some days, what they document in that
16 police report is abuse that is taking place not once,
17 not twice, but three times during the day in this
18 mansion.
19 And so I certainly agree with you, if it's
20 possible, maybe my math is off here, 200 percent, that
21 this report documents repeated sexual abuse including
22 forcible rape by one of the closest friends of
23 Mr. Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein.
24 Q. So it's your testimony that Mr. Epstein was
25 one of Professor Dershowitz's closest friends?
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607244
27
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. We will come back to your basis for that.
3 I want to go back to the police report.
4 We've clarified it never says Professor Dershowitz
5 abused anyone, correct?
6 A. It doesn't say that directly, but the police
7 report is part of a larger package of information that I
8 had available to me since you asked on December 30th
9 that suggested that Mr. Dershowitz was involved in the
10 abuse of minors.
11 I'm sorry. Let me correct that. In the
12 sexual abuse of minors, in particularly, minor girls.
13 Q. Would it be your position that anyone who was
14 a friend, or a friend of Mr. Epstein who visited his
15 house on more than a few occasions, that that's
16 sufficient to conclude that -- to allege that they
17 engaged in sexual abuse of minors?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Are we talking about guilt by association
20 here?
21 A. No. And that question requires a more
22 extended answer, which I would be happy to provide for
23 you, if you would like an extended answer.
24 Q. Let me ask you this question: You referred
25 to the police report, correct?
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607245
28
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. And focusing now, not -- not on
3 , we are focusing on the other minors, correct?
4 I just have that in mind, right?
5 A. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?
6 Q. I want to make sure you're focusing on the
7 allegation in this pleading that Professor Dershowitz
8 abused other minors; do you have that in mind?
9 A. I do.
10 Q. Okay. First of all, I want to know, and for
11 this question you don't have to give the names, do you
12 have specific minors who you, at this point, contend
13 were abused?
14 A. I believe that the pool of people came from,
15 among other young girls, roughly 23 to 24 minors
16 identified in the Palm Beach Police Department report,
17 or other similarly-situated girls in either New York, in
18 the airplanes, or on -- in the Palm Beach mansion. So
19 this -- the problem that I have here frankly, I'm sorry,
20 but I think your question fairly calls for a longer
21 answer, I could give you the names of those girls if
22 Jeffrey Epstein would tell us the names of those girls
23 that he trafficked in Florida, in New York, on his
24 airplanes and elsewhere. But I think everyone in this
25 room is aware Mr. Epstein has repeatedly refused to
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607246
29
1 answer questions about the names of the girls that he
2 was sexually trafficking. And that's one of the things
3 that has made this case so difficult, because if we
4 could get the names of those girls, then we could -- we
5 could try to help them.
6 We could -- we could start to unravel the
7 many crimes that Mr. Epstein has committed along with
8 his associates. So, again, I could go on longer, and I
9 don't want to filibuster your time, I think I've seen
10 illustrations of that recently, but I -- what I want to
11 do is make sure that -- that I could give additional
12 information if people like Mr. Epstein would cooperate
13 and give me the names of the girls that he was sexually
14 trafficking.
15 MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike the
16 nonresponsive portion of the answer.
17 Can I have the same standing objection,
18 Mr. Scarola?
19 MR. SCAROLA: No, I don't think -- I don't
20 think you will need a standing objection.
21 MR. SIMPSON: Well , I'll just make the
22 objection there and --
23 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
24 MR. SIMPSON: I will go back to my question.
25 BY MR. SIMPSON:
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607247
30
1 Q. My question had nothing to do with whether
2 you could identify girls that Jeffrey Epstein abused.
3 My question was: As of December 30th, 2014 -- you don't
4 have to give me the name right now -- is there any
5 specific girl that you had evidence Professor Dershowitz
6 abused?
7 A. What I had was the police report moving girls
8 and the girls were named in the police report, although
9 the police report that I think has been made public has
10 the names redacted, those girls were moving through the
11 mansion at the time when, for example, household staff
12 were saying that Mr. Dershowitz was receiving massages.
13 And so, yes, I have 24 names in mind as
14 possible sexual abuse victims that Dershowitz may or may
15 not have abused. And I have not been able to pinpoint
16 exactly what happened, because the people who would be
17 in the best position to help me sort out what the names
18 were, specifically Jeffrey Epstein among others, have
19 refused to cooperate and give me those names.
20 MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike the
21 nonresponsive portion of the answer.
22 THE WITNESS: Can I ask what part of that was
23 nonresponsive in your view?
24 MR. SCAROLA: That's all right.
25 THE WITNESS: Okay.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607248
31
1 MR. SCAROLA: Professor Cassell , you don't
2 need to do that.
3 BY MR. SIMPSON:
4 Q. If I understand you correctly, you said in
5 that answer question -- strike that.
6 If I understood you correctly, you said in
7 that answer that there was a universe of 24 girls I
8 believe you said or approximately, that Professor
9 Dershowitz may or may not have abused; is that your
10 position?
11 A. That's correct. It's been impossible to
12 narrow down exactly what happened because of lack of
13 cooperation from, for example, Jeffrey Epstein.
14 Q. If as of December 30th, 2014, based on your
15 information, Professor Dershowitz may or may not have
16 abused other minors, why did you allege that he did?
17 A. Your question, as I understood it, was did I
18 know the name of the particular girl that he may or may
19 not have alleged -- I'm sorry -- did I know the name of
20 the particular girl that he may have abused. And I
21 couldn't get the exact name, but what I had was
22 Mr. Dershowitz receiving massages in a time when,
23 according to the police report, massage was a code word
24 for sexual abuse of underage girls.
25 Q. And so was it your understanding as of
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607249
32
1 December 30th, 2014, that every massage given to anybody
2 at Mr. Epstein's residence was a code word for sexual
3 abuse?
4 A. It was my understanding that the term
5 "massage" was frequently, if not almost invariably, used
6 as a code word for sexual abuse, or at least sexual
7 activity, if the girl happened to be over the age of 18.
8 But in most cases at least, or in many cases depending
9 on exactly what universe you're looking at, these were
10 underage girls, under the age of consent in the State of
11 Florida, they were under the age of 18.
12 Sometimes as young as -- I think it went all
13 the way down to, gosh, I'm trying to remember now, I
14 think 13 or 14 was was the youngest age in the police
15 report.
16 Q. Is it your position that as of December 30th,
17 2014, you had a sufficient basis under the Federal Rules
18 of Procedure and applicable ethical rules to allege that
19 anyone who got a massage at Mr. Epstein's residence had
20 abused minors?
21 A. No.
22 Q. What -- back up now. With respect again to
23 other minors as of December 30th, 2014, had anyone --
24 had any young woman, other than -- we will put -- I'm
25 going to ask about separately.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607250
33
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. Had any other young woman told you she had
3 been abused by Professor Dershowitz?
4 A. No other young women had told me that, no.
5 Q. Had, as of that date, had anyone told you
6 that Professor Dershowitz had abused other minors?
7 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object for a
8 moment here to the extent that you're going to be
9 answering a question that requires you to divulge
10 any attorney/client communication with
11 , I have a standing objection that I'm
12 putting on the record right now.
13 does not waive her
14 attorney/client privilege with her lawyers, and
15 they are not entitled to testify as to
16 information that she intended to be confidential
17 that she communicated to her lawyers.
18 MR. SCAROLA: And I would instruct you not to
19 answer the question on that basis.
20 MR. SIMPSON: All right.
21 BY MR. SIMPSON:
22 Q. I disagree with the position on the
23 privilege, but I will -- you're going to follow the
24 instruction not to answer those questions?
25 A. I am.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607251
34
1 Q. Okay. I want to put then aside
2
3 Had anyone else as of December 30th, 2014,
4 told you that Professor Dershowitz had abused any minor,
5 other than
6 A. No one -- no other -- no other person, no
7 other person had spoken to me and told me that directly,
8 no.
9 Q. And when you say no other person, I'm
10 including not just any -- any victims of Mr. Epstein,
11 but anyone else, no one had said to you, I have
12 knowledge that Alan Dershowitz abused a minor, other
13 than Epstein -- ; is that
14 correct?
15 MR. SCAROLA: Let me ask you for
16 clarification if I could. Are you asking whether
17 any person made that statement based upon the
18 direct personal knowledge of that person? And
19 the purpose for my clarification is to the extent
20 information was conveyed to Professor Cassell by
21 co-counsel, or anyone within the joint
22 representation or common interest privilege, I'm
23 not going to permit him to answer that question.
24 If it's anybody outside that, he clearly can. So
25 if you're looking for someone with direct
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607252
1