EFTA00607219

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
ROUGH DRAFT TITLE 
***ROUGH DRAFT TRANSCRIPT*** 
CASE NAME: BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL vs. 
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ 
WITNESS NAME: PAUL G. CASSELL 
DATE OF DEPOSITION: 
10/16/15 
This is an unedited, unproofread, 
uncertified transcript for attorneys' information only. 
This transcript may NOT be cited in documents or used 
for examination purposes. 
following: 
This raw transcript may contain the 
1. Conflicts - an apparently wrong word 
that has the same stenotype stroke as a less-used word. 
Conflicts are remedied by the reporter in editing. 
2. Untranslates/Misstrokes - a stenotype 
stroke appears on the screen as the result of the 
computer dictionary not having the same stroke 
previously identified or a misstroke or partial 
translation of the word. 
3. Reporter's notes - a parenthetical word 
or phrase from the reporter. Since the reporter must 
write each word instantly, a misunderstood word or 
phrase will not be apparent until some time later. 
Reporter's notes provide the opportunity to correct such 
situations. 
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS 
(954) 331-4400 
EFTA00607219

2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the video 
record. Today is Friday, the 16th day of 
October, 2015. The time is 1:33 p.m. 
We are here at 110 Southeast 6th Street, 
Suite 1850, in Fort Lauderdale Florida for the 
purpose of taking the videotaped deposition of 
Paul G. Cassell . 
The case is Bradley J. Edwards 
and Paul G. Cassell versus Alan M. Dershowitz. 
The court reporter is Terry Tomaselli and the 
videographer is Don Savoy, both from Esquire 
Deposition Solutions. Will counsel please 
announce their appearances for the record. 
MR. SCAROLA: Jack Scarola appearing on 
behalf of Bradley Edwards and Professor Paul 
Cassell . With me is Joni J. Jones from the Utah 
Attorney General's Office. 
MS. McCAWLEY: Sigrid McCawley on behalf of 
from Boies Schiller & Flexner. 
MR. SIMPSON: Richard Simpson on behalf of 
Defendant and Counter-Claim Plaintiff Alan 
Dershowitz. And with me is my colleague Nicole 
Richardson and Thomas Scott from the firm of Cole 
Scott & Kissane. Ms. Richardson and I are from 
the firm of Wiley Rein. 
MR. SWEDER: Kenneth Sweder from the firm of 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607220

3 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
Sweeder & Ross for Professor Dershowitz. 
Thereupon, 
PAUL G. CASSELL, 
having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified 
as follows: 
THE WITNESS: I do. 
DIRECT EXAMINATION 
BY MR. SIMPSON: 
Q. 
Good morning or good afternoon, I guess? 
A. 
Afternoon, yes. 
Q. 
If I ask any questions today that you can't 
understand, would you please let me know and I'll 
attempt to rephrase or clarify it? 
A. 
Sure. 
Q. 
You're a former United States District Judge; 
is that correct? 
A. 
That's correct. 
Q. 
When were you a judge? 
A. 
From about 2002 'til about November 2007. 
Q. 
Okay. So you were appointed by the first 
President Bush? 
A. 
Yes. 
Q. 
Uh, second President Bush? 
A. 
Second President Bush, yes. 
Q. 
And then after resigning as a judge, you 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607221

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
became a professor at the University of Utah; is that 
correct? 
A. 
Yeah I was professor -- excuse me -- before I 
was a professor in the evening hours while I was a judge 
from 2002 to 2007. And then I resumed full time 
teaching at the University of Utah in around November of 
2007 when I left the bench. 
Q. 
Okay. And since you've left the bench, have 
you also been affiliated with a law firm? 
A. 
Yes. 
Q. 
Could you tell me what that affiliation is 
what --
A. 
Sure. I'm a special counsel with Hatch James 
and Dodge. It's a law firm, small boutique litigation 
law firm in Salt Lake City, Utah, and I occasionally do 
cases with them. 
Q. 
Is it fair to say that since 2007, since 
resigning as a judge, you've been engaged at least on a 
part-time basis in the practice of law? 
A. 
Yes. 
Q. 
And, in particular, in one of the cases 
that's at issue here, what has been referred to as the 
underlying CVRA case; you're familiar with that case? 
A. 
Yeah. Let me be clear just the juxtaposition 
of the causes, the CVRA case is not through Hatch James 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607222

5 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
and Dodge. That's through the University of Utah. I'm 
pro bono work through the University of Utah. 
Q. 
You have entered an appearance in that case? 
A. 
Correct. 
Q. 
And in order to enter that appearance, you 
were admitted pro hac vice; is that correct? 
A. 
That's right. 
Q. 
And to be admitted pro hac vice, you 
certified that you were familiar with the applicable 
rules including the rules of the southern district of 
Florida; is that right? 
A. 
That's right. 
Q. 
And you're also familiar with the rules of 
professional responsibility; is that correct? 
A. 
Sure. 
Q. 
Okay. As a judge, did you ever strike a 
party's pleadings because they were impertinent, 
scandalous, irrelevant? 
A. 
I don't recall doing that immediately. 
Q. 
Okay. To the best of your knowledge, you 
don't recall any instance of doing that? 
A. 
I mean what I did, I think, there were two 
cases where I referred people to the Bar which was a way 
of dealing with the pleadings that were inappropriate in 
those cases. 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607223

0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
Q. 
Okay. But other than referring the two 
parties to the Bar, you never entered, to your 
recollection, striking a party's pleadings; is that 
right? 
A. 
That's right. 
Q. 
Okay. I want to ask you a few questions 
about the issue of striking pleadings. Would you agree 
with me that courts generally disfavor a motion to 
strike? 
A. 
No. 
Q. 
And that striking allegations from a pleading 
is a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when required 
for the purposes of justice and only when the 
allegations to be stricken have no possible relation to 
the controversy? 
A. 
I think that's what some courts have said, 
yes. 
Q. 
And is it fair to say -- is that what you 
represented to the court in response to 
Professor Dershowitz's application to intervene? 
A. 
That's right. 
Q. 
And you wouldn't have represented that to the 
court unless you believed it to be accurate; is that 
right? 
A. 
That's right. 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607224

7 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
Q. 
Would you also agree that if there is any 
doubt as to whether the allegations might be an issue in 
the action, courts will deny the motion? 
A. 
That was our position in our response to 
Professor Dershowitz's motion to strike, yes. 
Q. 
And in considering a motion to strike, the 
court must consider the pleadings in the light most 
favorable to the party making the pleading, correct? 
A. 
Yeah, that's our position, that was our 
position, yes. 
Q. 
Okay. In your view, is it -- for an attorney 
to ask a leading question at a deposition, does the 
attorney have to have a good-faith basis to believe that 
that question is true or the facts assumed in that 
question are true? 
A. 
I mean, that's a broad question, but as a 
general rule, yeah. 
Q. 
As a general rule -- I'm not being very 
articulate --
A. 
Yeah. 
Q. 
-- you don't ask a leading question about a 
fact unless you have a good-faith basis to believe that 
facts is true, correct? 
A. 
I think that's right. I mean I don't know if 
over the last day and a half, you know, narrow questions 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607225

8 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
have been given very long answers. I am assuming you 
want narrow answers; is that true? 
Q. 
Well, that wasn't my question, but why don't 
we stay on that --
A. 
I mean, I could discuss that at great length. 
I didn't know if that's what you wanted me to do. 
Q. 
I would like you to give a fair answer to my 
questions and I'll let you answer your questions and if 
follow up, I would ask that one at a time for the court 
reporter. 
I would ask that you answer the question 
fairly and I'll try not to interrupt you. And then if 
you would do your best to answer the questions, and as I 
said, if you don't understand it, let me know. 
A. 
Right. 
MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm going to 
interrupt you for just a moment. Pardon me. 
There is this page that was placed in front of 
me, and I don't know whether this was intended as 
a delivery of something. 
MR. SCOTT: No. You had asked for a copy of 
the entry from Professor Dershowitz's book when 
he made reference to it. I said I'd give you a 
copy in the last deposition, and that's it. We 
made a copy of it. 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607226

9 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you. I had also 
asked for all of the information regarding 
communications with Rebecca, which I was told 
that I would get today. Is that available? 
MR. SCOTT: No. I told you that we would 
consider if that -- I apologize. I said we will 
consider that and you can put it in a request and 
we will respond. 
THE WITNESS: I would sure like to see that 
before I answer any more questions. Is that 
something you could make available? 
MR. SIMPSON: I don't think that's necessary 
to answer the questions I'm going to ask. I'm 
not going to ask you any questions -- I won't ask 
you any questions about Professor Dershowitz's 
communications with this Rebecca that you've 
heard about. You were in the room while he 
testified, correct? 
THE WITNESS: Right, but I mean there are 
there are broader subjects that extend beyond 
those communications, so if you're going to ask 
any questions about those broader subjects, I 
would like to see the communications. That would 
be helpful to me. 
BY MR. SIMPSON: 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607227

10 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
Q. 
I'm just going to ask you questions about 
the case and about your knowledge, and all I ask is that 
you give your best answers based on your knowledge. 
A. 
And all I ask is, if you're going to ask any 
questions touching on those communications and I get a 
chance to take a look at the subjects addressed in those 
communications --
Q. 
If I ask you a question that you need to look 
at something that you've never seen before to answer, 
why don't you let us know? 
A. 
Okay. Will do. 
Q. 
What is your understanding of the ethical 
responsibility of an attorney in signing a pleading to 
be filed in Federal Court, and let's say in the Southern 
District of Florida, if that's any different than 
elsewhere? 
A. 
Sure. 
Q. 
Just give me your understanding. 
A. 
Sure. The obligation is to make sure that it 
is a good-faith pleading based on the facts and the law 
as the attorney understands them, and consistently with 
the obligation of the attorney to zealously represent 
the position of his client. 
Q. 
Okay. Would you agree with me that it would 
be unethical to use pleadings for an improper purpose, 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607228

11 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
for a purpose other than to advance a cause in 
litigation? 
A. 
Sure. 
Q. 
And would you agree with me that it would be 
unethical to make allegation of misconduct by a person 
in a pleading if that -- if those allegations were not 
relevant to the case? 
A. 
Sure. 
Q. 
And would you agree --
A. 
Actually, not pertinent to the case. 
Q. 
Not pertinent to the case? 
A. 
Yeah. And when you say not relevant, 
obviously, reasonable people can have disagreements 
about what allegations are relevant to the case or not 
Q. 
And my question is that an attorney, it would 
be unethical, do you agree, for an attorney to sign a 
pleading where the attorney does not have a good-faith 
basis that the allegations of misconduct are relevant to 
the case, are pertinent to the case? 
A. 
Pertinent to the case, and as I understand 
for example under rule 11 , the requirement is that the 
allegations being advanced must not be frivolous. 
Q. 
And that there's a good-faith basis for them? 
A. 
Well, I mean if you're talking about good 
faith frivolity, those are I mean, potentially different 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607229

12 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
standards under the law. My understanding is that 
frivolity is the standard for, for example, rule 11 
sanctions. 
Q. 
Is it unethical to include, in your opinion, 
to include allegations in a pleading for the purpose of 
generating publicity? 
A. 
If that's the only purpose, sure, that it 
would be inappropriate. 
Q. 
And is it unethical to make allegations 
without having done a reasonable investigation to 
satisfy -- for the attorney to satisfy himself or 
herself that there's a factual basis for the 
allegations? 
A. 
Something along those lines, sure. 
Q. 
As a general matter, you agree with that 
proposition? 
A. 
Yes, sure. 
Q. 
Would you agree that the scope of the 
investigation, the reasonable investigation an attorney 
must do, varies depending upon the nature of the 
allegations being made? 
A. 
Sure, yes. 
Q. 
Let me finish -- we are both speaking at the 
same time 
A. 
Sure. 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607230

13 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
Q. 
-- so let me finish --
A. 
Sure. I just want to make sure you get an 
opportunity to ask as many questions as you want so. 
Q. 
Okay. And I appreciate that, but the court 
reporter can't take down both of us at once. So we just 
need to speak one at a time, but I appreciate that. 
A. 
Good. 
Q. 
I believe the last question I was asking you 
about whether the scope of the investigation, what 
reasonably required of an attorney varies depending upon 
the nature of the allegations being made. I think you 
said, yes; is that right? 
A. 
Yes. 
Q. 
And could you explain how, what in your 
understanding of how --
A. 
Sure. I mean, obviously, they are going to 
be some cases that are very complicated factually. More 
investigation would be appropriate there. There can be 
some situations that very simple factually, less 
investigation would be factually necessary there. Same 
points about legal issues, too, some cases are complex 
legally, some cases are simple legally. 
The more legal investigation would be 
required for the more complex cases. 
MR. SCAROLA: Professor Cassell , I know it is 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607231

14 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
a little bit unnatural for you to be responding 
to questions that are being asked immediately to 
your right and not be looking directly at the 
examiner the entire time, but because this is 
being videotaped, it might be helpful if you can, 
to the extent that you're able, to look into the 
camera so that the jury for whom this may be 
played --
THE WITNESS: I see. 
MR. SCAROLA: -- at a later time gets to see 
your full face. 
THE WITNESS: All right. I hope you won't 
consider me rude then --
MR. SIMPSON: I will not consider -- it's 
good advice from your counsel and I will not 
consider you rude. 
THE WITNESS: Thank you. 
BY MR. SIMPSON: 
Q. 
I want to ask you some more questions about 
the scope of investigation. Would you agree that an 
allegation of serious misconduct by another person 
generally requires more investigation than a lesser 
serious type of allegation? 
A. 
Sure. That's a fair statement. 
Q. 
And so, for example, before accusing a person 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607232

15 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
of engaging in criminal misconduct, the attorney needs 
to do a thorough investigation; is that right? 
A. 
Yeah, under the circumstances, sure. I 
should say in light of the circumstances, obviously, you 
know, different kinds of cases can have different 
circumstances. 
Q. 
Okay. Is one of the considerations that goes 
into that how much -- whether there's time pressure to 
get the pleading on file? 
A. 
Sure. That would be one of the factors. 
Q. 
And how much time the attorney has to 
investigate the facts? 
A. 
Yes. That would be one of the factors as 
well. 
Q. 
Okay. And so before making -- where an 
attorney's client has no pressing need to get a pleading 
on file immediately, and the pleading is going to 
include serious allegations of misconduct by another 
person, an ethical attorney will take the time needed to 
do a full investigation; is that fair? 
A. 
That's fair, and the converse of your 
proposition is also fair. For example, if a client has 
a pending discovery dispute in front of a judge that 
could be ruled on any day, that would be an exigency 
that would require pleadings to be filed more quickly 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607233

16 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
than -- than otherwise. 
Q. 
And if the dispute concerned, for example, a 
specific discovery issue, would you expect the response 
to be directed to that issue? 
A. 
I would expect that the record would be built 
so that it would be available for the discovery issue, 
yes. 
Q. 
Okay. I am going to ask the reporter to mark 
as Cassell -- am I pronouncing your name correctly? 
A. 
Yes, it's Cassell, yes. 
Q. 
Okay. Could I ask the reporter to mark as 
Cassell Exhibit 1 -- I will hand that to the reporter. 
(A Plaintiff's A Defendant's I.D. Exhibit 
No. 1 - A description was marked for identification.) 
BY MR. SIMPSON: 
Q. 
Let me identify that for the record. I may 
want to mark two things. 
A. 
Okay. 
Q. 
Exhibit 1 is documented Plaintiff's Response 
to Motion for Limited Intervention by Alan M. 
Dershowitz, and I'm going to ask the reporter to mark 
another exhibit at the same time. This will be 
Exhibit 2, and this is a document entitled Jane Doe 
Number 3 and Jane Doe Number 4's motion pursuant to rule 
21 for joinder in action. Both cases having been filed 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607234

17 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
in the case Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 versus the United 
States. This is number 2. 
(A Plaintiff's A Defendant's I.D. Exhibit 
No. 2 - A description was marked for identification.) 
BY MR. SIMPSON: 
Q. 
Mr. Cassell , do you have those documents in 
front of you? 
A. 
I do. 
Q. 
Okay. I'm going to ask you first about 
Exhibit 2 before 1, since exhibit 2 is first in 
chronological order. 
A. 
Yes. 
Q. 
Is this the motion for joinder that you filed 
on behalf of the parties then known as Jane Doe Number 3 
and Jane Doe Number 4 in what was called the CVRA 
action? 
A. 
This is the joinder motion, yes. 
Q. 
Okay. And if you look at the last page 
before the certificate of service --
A. 
Yes. 
Q. 
-- over on page 12, it shows the document 
being signed by Bradley J. Edwards and then it says and 
Paul G. Cassell , pro hac vice, S.J. Queeny [sic] College 
of Law 
A. 
Quinney. 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607235

18 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
Q. 
Quinney, got that one wrong, College of Law 
at the University of Utah. Is that indicating your 
signature to the document? 
A. 
That's -- that's indicating not my signature, 
but it's indicating that I stand behind the arguments 
made in the document, yes. 
Q. 
Much more articulate statement than I. I 
simply wanted to confirm that you had authorized your 
name to be listed as a counsel who was, for purposes of 
the rules, vouching for this document? 
A. 
Yes, I was vouching for this document 
completely. 
Q. 
Okay. And you list here your address as 
being at the college of law at the University of Utah 
with no qualification. If you compare that to the next 
exhibit, Exhibit 1 actually --
A. 
Yes. 
Q. 
-- your signature has a footnote that says, 
this daytime business address is provided for 
identification and correspondence purposes only, and is 
not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the 
university of Utah; do you see that? 
A. 
I do see that. 
Q. 
Why was that footnote not included on the 
first pleading filed which is Exhibit 2? 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607236

19 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
A. 
The footnote -- one of the problems with the 
the Word processing program to drop a star footnote is 
it requires, under the word programing, you have to to 
have different sections in the document because 
otherwise it would be footnote -- let's see. 
Yes, so there was already a footnote 1 on the 
joinder motion and so, what happens with footnotes is if 
you identify it as footnote, put in a footnote where the 
University of Utah signature block is, for example, it 
becomes footnote 2, so then you have to create a 
different section and then once you have a different 
section you can establish a new number and a new 
nomenclature instead of numbers. You can have the 
asterisk, and so somehow with the signature block 
getting reprocessed here, that star footnote dropped off 
and within I think -- I think it was about three days, I 
realized that the star footnote had dropped off, so I 
filed a corrected pleading with the -- with the new star 
footnote on it. 
Q. 
You would agree with me that a fair-minded, a 
reasonable reader looking at the signature block on the 
as filed original document, could conclude that the 
University of Utah was somehow endorsing or standing 
behind this pleading? 
A. 
I don't think that's quite fair. I think the 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607237

20 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
way that works is, people know that when, for example, 
you know, a Professor speaks from the university, they 
are giving their own point of view. The -- a school 
like the University of Utah has, gosh, several hundred 
faculty members, if not more, and so any time a member 
of the University of Utah speaks, they are giving their 
views on the subject. There may be a range of views. 
Some Professors at the university of Utah may 
be in favor of crime victim rights. Other Professors 
may be opposed to crime victim rights. Young people 
generally jump to the conclusion that just because they 
are hearing a Professor from a particular school speak, 
that that necessarily means that they are saying 
something that the university endorses. 
Q. 
If that's true, why do you include the 
footnote on some pleadings? 
A. 
Well, I included the footnote in this 
particular case, the dean at the law school said, hey, 
you know, it might be useful just to drop a footnote in 
just to make sure that there's no misunderstanding and I 
said, sure, I would be glad to do that. And so I think 
pleadings, in this case leading up to this, had the star 
footnote. Apparently on the signature block had got 
dropped out. And then we were able to fix that in a 
couple of days on this one. 
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 
EFTA00607238