Norman moved to take the depositions of four potential witnesses, three in Canada and one in the U.S. Unlike in civil cases, where they are routine, depositions in federal criminal cases are quite rare. Essentially, they are only permitted to a defendant when (1) the witness will be unavailable for trial, and (2) the witness will give exculpatory testimony. The Court ruled
that Norman didn't show either, and therefore denied the motion.The govt's opposition papers
are more interesting than the decision. One of the witnesses whom Norman wished to depose was one John Bailey, whom I remember elfninosmom discussing in the (now gone) earlier Norman thread. It appears that deposing Bailey wouldn't have been such a great idea.
With regard to Bailey, who did accounting work for the defendant for a number of years, agents for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), working with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, interviewed Bailey in July of this year. Based on Bailey’s statements during the interview, it appears that Bailey would in fact tend to inculpate Norman, not exculpate him. Among other things, Bailey told the FBI that he believed Norman’s investment program was a scam, and that he told Norman as much on several occasions, and that he did not view the company that Norman used to receive funds from investors as a real company with any assets or legitimate business activities. Bailey further stated that on one occasion, Norman had an investor wire thousands of dollars directly into Bailey’s bank account, without prior notice to Bailey, and Bailey then turned the money over to Norman. After the investor went to Canadian authorities, Bailey was arrested and required to pay the investor back, and despite promising to do so, Norman never reimbursed Bailey. Based on these statements, it is hard to imagine how Bailey’s testimony could serve to exculpate Norman.
Yes, it is.
Trial to begin here in Manhattan on January 22.