Thursday, April 12, 2012

Casey Anthony deposition in civil trial (Oct. 8, 2011))

The following is the transcript of Casey Anthony's deposition in the civil trial: Zenaida Gonzalez vs. Casey Anthony scheduled to begin on January 2, 2013.

1
1 2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
3 ZENAIDA GONZALEZ,
4 Plaintiff,
5 vs. CASE NO.: 2008-CA-24573
6 CASEY ANTHONY,
7 Defendant.
8 ------------------------------------------------------
9 The deposition of CASEY MARIE ANTHONY conducted via
10 videoconference on behalf of the Plaintiff on Saturday,
11 October 8, 2011, beginning at 8:02 a.m., at the law
12 offices of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., 20 North Orange Avenue,
13 14th Floor, Orlando, Florida, and the witness at an
14 undisclosed location, before Laura J. Landerman, R.M.R.,
15 C.R.R., and Notary Public, State of Florida at Large.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CENTRAL FLORIDA REPORTERS, INC. 407-422-5753

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:
2 3 4 5
6
7 8 9 10 11
12
13 14
JOHN B. MORGAN, ESQUIRE JOHN W. DILL, ESQUIRE MATTHEW MORGAN, ESQUIRE Morgan and Morgan, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue -- Suite 1600 Orlando, Florida 32801

For the Plaintiff,

CHARLES M. GREENE, ESQUIRE (via videoconference) Charles M. Greene, P.A. 28 East Washington Street Orlando, Florida 32801
and ANDREW J. CHMELIR, ESQUIRE (via videoconference) Jacobson, McClean, Chmelir & Ferw 351 East State Road 434 -- Suite A Winter Springs, Florida 32708

For the Defendant.
ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Fleming of
Ron Fleming Video Productions David McKeon, IT, Morgan & Morgan
1 I N D E X
2 TESTIMONY OF CASEY MARIE ANTHONY
3 Direct Examination by Mr. Morgan 4
4 CERTIFICATE OF OATH 50
5 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 51
6 E X H I B I T S
7 (None marked.)

1 MR. DILL: We have to get the stipulation
2 about the oath since your client is there. Okay?
3 So we're going to go on the record. Is that all
4 right?
5 MR. GREENE: That's fine, yeah.
6 MR. DILL: We're on the record. We just --
7 this is John Dill representing the plaintiff. I
8 just want to confirm we have a stipulation between
9 counsel that the court reporter can administer the
10 oath via this video conference and that will be
11 acceptable as far as a binding oath; is that
12 correct?
13 MR. GREENE: That's correct.
14 MR. MORGAN: Let's let the court reporter
15 swear the witness.
16 - - - - -
17 CASEY MARIE ANTHONY
18 having been first duly sworn via videoconference by
19 stipulation of counsel, testified as follows:
20 THE WITNESS: I do.
21 DIRECT EXAMINATION
22 BY MR. MORGAN:
23 Q Good morning. My name is John Morgan, and I
24 represent Zenaida Gonzalez. I'm going to be asking you
25 some questions this morning. I'm sure you've spent some 
1 time with -- with your attorney. The only thing that I
2 would remind you of is if you would please answer instead
3 of "uh-huh" or "huh-uh" just "yes" or "no." And if you
4 don't understand a question that I ask, I'll be happy to
5 repeat it or rephrase it.
6 Do you understand all that?
7 MR. GREENE: She understands her obligations.
8 Q Would you state your full name for the record,
9 please?
10 A Casey Marie Anthony.
11 Q And what --
12 A I'm sorry. Casey Marie Anthony.
13 Q Thank you. And what is your name -- what is
14 your date of birth?
15 A 03/19/1986.
16 Q Thank you. Are you familiar with the person
17 by the name of Zenaida Gonzalez?
18 MR. GREENE: On behalf of Miss Anthony and
19 pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States
20 Constitution and Article 1 of the Florida
21 Constitution, I instruct her not to answer that
22 question, and I object on the grounds it could tend
23 to incriminate.
24 MR. MORGAN: Chuck, she's going to have to
25 invoke that right herself, so I'm going to ask --1 MR. GREENE: No, she's not. I've just invoked
2 it.
3 MR. MORGAN: You don't believe she has to
4 answer that question herself?
5 MR. GREENE: No. I've just invoked it for
6 her. We're objecting on her behalf. The assertion
7 of the privilege is clear.
8 MR. MORGAN: So you're instructing her not to
9 answer that question? That you're answering it for
10 her?
11 MR. GREENE: No. I'm objecting on her behalf
12 and asserting her rights and privileges upon her
13 behalf and instructing her not to respond --
14 MR. MORGAN: And what is the --
15 MR. GREENE: -- because her response could
16 tend to incriminate her.
17 MR. MORGAN: And what is the basis for your
18 instruction?
19 MR. GREENE: Article 5 to the United States
20 Constitution and Article 1 to the Florida
21 Constitution.
22 MR. MORGAN: What is the factual basis for
23 that, sir?
24 MR. GREENE: I need not to explain our factual
25 basis other than to tell you that it could tend to 1 incriminate and provide a link in the chain of
2 evidence that could be used against her, and we're
3 not going to provide that to you.
4 MR. MORGAN: What pending criminal case are
5 you objecting in lieu of?
6 MR. GREENE: We made our objection and that's
7 all I'm going to state. We've made our objection
8 and that's all I'm going to do.
9 MR. MORGAN: Okay.
10 BY MR. MORGAN:
11 Q Miss Anthony, what do you understand the Fifth
12 Amendment applies to in this case? Your attorney has
13 invoked on your behalf your Fifth Amendment right. I
14 would like to ask you what is it that you understand the
15 Fifth Amendment applies to as to this case, Zenaida
16 Gonzalez versus Casey Anthony?
17 MR. GREENE: Objection, calls for a legal
18 conclusion. In addition, on behalf of Miss Anthony,
19 I assert her rights against self-incrimination
20 pursuant to Article 5 of the United States
21 Constitution and Article 1 of the Florida
22 Constitution, and I instruct her not to answer that
23 question on the grounds it could tend to
24 incriminate.
25 BY MR. MORGAN:1 Q Miss Anthony, you're aware that there is a
2 pending civil case against you of Zenaida Gonzalez versus
3 Casey Anthony. Are you aware of that, ma'am?
4 MR. GREENE: One moment, please, while we
5 discuss whether to assert a privilege.
6 (Off-the-record discussion was had.)
7 A Yes.
8 Q Are you aware --
9 MR. GREENE: Did you get her answer to the
10 last question?
11 MR. MORGAN: Yes. Thank you very much, Chuck.
12 BY MR. MORGAN:
13 Q What are -- what is your understanding as to
14 the allegations made against you in that civil matter?
15 MR. GREENE: Let me go off the record to
16 discuss whether we need to assert a privilege.
17 (Off-the-record discussion was had.)
18 MR. GREENE: On behalf of Miss Anthony, I
19 instruct her not to answer the question on the
20 grounds of attorney-client privilege because
21 everything she knows about the case was communicated
22 to her by her counsel.
23 In addition, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment
24 to the United States Constitution and Article 1 of
25 the Florida Constitution, we assert her rights 1 against self-incrimination and instruct her not to
2 answer and object to the question.
3 BY MR. MORGAN:
4 Q Miss Anthony, have you read the complaint
5 against you filed by our law firm?
6 MR. GREENE: You can answer that.
7 A Yes.
8 Q Now, based upon the complaint that you read,
9 what do you understand the allegations against you to be
10 in this civil matter?
11 MR. GREENE: One moment. We're going off the
12 record for a moment.
13 (Off-the-record discussion was had.)
14 MR. GREENE: I'm going to allow you to answer
15 the question except do not reveal anything that I've
16 communicated to you in the course of the
17 attorney-client relationship.
18 THE WITNESS: Okay.
19 A I'm aware that I'm being sued.
20 Q And are you aware of who you're being sued by?
21 MR. GREENE: You can answer that.
22 A An individual by the name of Zenaida Gonzalez.
23 Q Have you ever met Zenaida Gonzalez?
24 MR. GREENE: Just a moment, please.
25 (Off-the-record discussion was had.) 1 MR. GREENE: Objection. On behalf of Miss
2 Anthony, we assert her rights against
3 self-incrimination pursuant to the Florida
4 Constitution Article 1 and Article 5 of the United
5 States Constitution and instruct her not to answer.
6 BY MR. MORGAN:
7 Q Now, Miss Anthony, are you aware that our
8 client, Zenaida Gonzalez, was questioned by police
9 authorities in regards to the disappearance of your
10 daughter, Caylee Anthony?
11 MR. GREENE: Objection. I assert the
12 attorney-client privilege on behalf of Miss Anthony
13 and instruct her not to answer the question to the
14 extent anything she knows came from communications
15 from her counsel and also on behalf of the Fifth
16 Amendment to the United States Constitution and
17 Article 1 of the Florida Constitution assert her
18 privileges and instruct her not to answer.
19 MR. MORGAN: Thank you.
20 BY MR. MORGAN:
21 Q Miss Anthony, was there ever a person named
22 "Zanny" or "Zenaida" who was a nanny to your child,
23 Caylee Anthony?
24 MR. GREENE: Objection. On behalf of Miss
25 Anthony, I assert her privileges against
  








Video: John Morgan and Keith Mitnik discuss Zenaida Gonzalez vs. Casey Anthony civil case

On March 23, 2012, John Morgan and Keith Mitnik discussed the upcoming Zenaida Gonzalez vs. Casey Anthony civil trial, currently scheduled to begin on January 2, 2013. Check out the video interview below.




Judge rules Casey Anthony civil trial will go forward

On April 12, 2012, Judge Lisa Munyon determined the civil lawsuit Zenaida Gonzalez vs. Casey Anthony must go forward. The question of matter is whether Casey Anthony made statements that implicated Zenaida Gonzalez as the "nanny" who abducted her daughter, Caylee. Though Anthony was cleared of implicating Zenaida Gonzalez in statements made on July 16, 2008, she made additional statements to her parents on July 25, 2008. Judge Munyon believes a jury must decide whether or not the July 25, 2008 statements implicate Zenaida Gonzalez.

You may read Judge Munyon's order below.



IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA Civil Division
ZENAIDA GONZALEZ,                   CASE NO.:  48-2008CA-24573-O
Plaintiff, DIV: 43
v.
CASEY ANTHONY,
Defendant.

 
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
 
THIS MATTER came before the Court on March 23, 2012, on the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed February 15, 2012, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 27, 2012, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510. Having considered the parties’ memoranda in support and opposition, arguments, legal authority, and otherwise being fully advised, the Court finds as follows:


A motion for summary judgment is not a substitute for trial on the merits and the trial court is precluded from resolving disputed issues of fact when considering the motion Hervey v. Alfonso, 650 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the undisputed facts entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966). In determining if there are genuine issues of material fact, the court must consider the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985) (“A summary judgment should not be granted unless the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law.” Citation omitted.) 

Even if the facts are uncontroverted, summary judgment is improper if there are competing inferences that can be reasonably drawn. Hervey, 650 So. 2d at 646.

The parties agree that the undisputed facts are as follows:


The defendant made a series of statements to law enforcement on July 16, 2008 which included a handwritten statement, a video recorded statement at 4:11 a.m., and a video recorded statement at 1:20 p.m. During each of these statements, the defendant indicated that her child was in the company of a nanny by the name of Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez when she was last seen. Between the video recorded statements, law enforcement showed the defendant a photograph of the plaintiff, and the defendant unequivocally told law enforcement that the plaintiff was not the nanny. At the hearing, the plaintiff agreed that these statements cannot be and are not the statements upon which her claim is based.


On July 25, 2008, while in custody, the defendant had a conversation with her parents, George and Cindy Anthony, through the remote video visitation system at the Orange County Jail. The conversation was recorded in its entirety so that the Words exchanged between the defendant and her parents are not in dispute.


The defendant stated, “When they went and interviewed that girl down in Kissimmee, they never showed me a picture of her....” The plaintiff argues that this statement implicates the plaintiff in the disappearance of the defendant’s daughter because the plaintiff was the only Zenaida Gonzalez interviewed in Kissimmee. The plaintiff further argues that the statement implies that the plaintiff is the nanny in question and inferentially denies the previous exoneration.

Conversely, the defendant argues that the entire context of the conversation clearly
shows that the plaintiff is not implicated by the defendant but is instead exonerated. This statement is susceptible to two competing inferences, both of which are reasonable, thus this issue must be decided by a jury under Hervey, above.


Plaintiff argues that the undisputed facts show that the above statement was false and that the statement was published by Cindy Anthony acting as agent of the defendant. As stated above, the context of the statement is a disputed matter for jury determination. Likewise, whether Cindy Anthony published the statement as an agent of the defendant or without the defendant’s express authority is a disputed
matter for jury determination. The defendant argues that the undisputed facts show that the defendant never implicated this plaintiff in the disappearance of the defendant’s daughter. Both parties agree that the defendant did not implicate this plaintiff in the disappearance of the child in the July 16, 2008 statements to law enforcement. However, the inferences to be drawn from the July 25, 2008 statement are disputed matters for jury determination.


Based upon the foregoing, it is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Plaintiff s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.


2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:


a. As conceded by the plaintiff at the hearing, defendant’s statements to law enforcement on July 16, 2008 cannot be the false statements that form the basis of plaintiffs claim because the defendant unequivocally told law enforcement that the plaintiff was not the “nanny” when shown a photograph of the plaintiff. As such, the defendant’s motion for summary
judgment is granted as to these statements.

b. Competing inferences can be drawn from the defendant’s statement over the jail’s video visitation system on July 25, 2008 regarding whether the defendant implicated the plaintiff in
the disappearance of the defendant’s daughter. As such, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied as to this statement.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Orlando, Orange County, Florida,
LISA T. MUNYO Circuit Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
this day of April, 2012.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
furnished via the Electronic Court Filing system to John Morgan, Esquire, Keith
Mitnik, Esquire, and John Dill, Esquire, Morgan and Morgan, P.A., 20 North
Orange Avenue, Suite 1600, Orlando, Florida, 32801; Charles M. Greene, Esquire,
Charles M. Greene, P.A., 55 East Pine Street, Orlando, Florida, 32801; and
Andrew J. Chmelir, Esquire, Jacobson, McClean, Chmelir, & Ferwerda, P.A., 351
East State Road 434, Suite A, Winter Springs, Florida, 32708, this 12th day of
April, 2012.

Judicial Assistant
Casey Anthony Trial