ADA Dan Rather Copeland Deposition

HARTMAN & WINNICKI, P.C.
Daniel L. Schmutter, Esq.

74 Passaic Street
Ridgewood, New Jersey 07450
Phone: (201) 967-8040
Fax: (201) 967-0590
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
John Copeland, Pedro Perez, and
Native Leather, Ltd.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JOHN COPELAND, PEDRO PEREZ, Case No.: 11cv3918
NATIVE LEATHER, LTD.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DEPOSITION READ-INS OF DAN
CYRUS VANCE, JR., in his Official RATHER
Capacity as the New York County District
Attorney, CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs hereby offer the read-ins from the deposition of Dan Rather (Rather)
dated April 27, 2012 attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Attached hereto as Exhibit B is Plaintiffs deposition Exhibit 13, identified and
authenticated at page 10 of the Rather deposition and further marked for evidence as
Exhibit P-31.
Attached hereto as Exhibit C is Plaintiffs deposition Exhibit 14, identified and
Exhibit P-5.
Attached hereto as Exhibit D is Plaintiffs deposition Exhibit 18, identified and

Exhibit P-33.
Attached hereto as Exhibit E is Plaintiffs deposition Exhibit 19, identified and
Exhibit P-32.
Dated: March 11, 2016
/s/ Daniel L. Schmutter

DANIEL L. SCHMUTTER, ESQ.
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------x
KNIFE RIGHTS, INC.; JOHN COPELAND;:
PEDRO PEREZ,
Plaintiffs,
11
-againstCYRUS R. VANCE, JR.
cv
3918
(BSJ) (RLE)
in his
Official Capacity as the

New York County District Attorney
..
and CITY OF NEW YORK,

Defendants.
----------------------------------x
April 27, 2012
10:04 a.m.
30(b) (6) Deposition of the New York County

District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. by
DAN MARTIN RATHER, held at the offices of the
New York County District Attorney's Office,
One Hogan Place, New York, New York, pursuant to
notice, before Donald R. DePew, an RPR, CRR and
---...:'
Notary Public within and for the State of

New York.
REPORTERS CENTRAL, LLC
(212) 594-3582
A P P EAR AN C E S:
DAVID JENSEN PLLC

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
111 John Street
New York, New York 10038
BY:
DAVID D. JENSEN, ESQ.
NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Attorneys for Defendant District Attorney
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr.
One Hogan Place
.:--

BY:
PATRICIA J. BAILEY, ESQ.,

Assistant District Attorney
-AND-
NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

80 Centre Street
BY:
EVA MARIE DOWDELL, ESQ.,

Assistant District Attorney
Special Litigation Bureau
(212) 594-3582
A P P E A R A N C E S (Continued) :
MICHAEL A. CARDOZO
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York
Attorneys for Defendant City of New York
100 Church Street, Room 5-153
BY:
LOUISE LIPPIN, ESQ.,

Assistant Corporation Counsel
ALSO PRESENT:
DOUG RITTER, Chairman, Knife Rights, Inc.
SCOTT BACH, Legal Advisor, Knife Rights, Inc.
-.
(212) 594-3582
18
Q.
Now who is your employer?
19
A.
I work for the district attorney of
20
New York County.
21
Q.
22
Office?
23
A.
24
25
And what's your position in the DA's
My present title is chief of trial
division initiatives.
Q.
Am I correct that you are a career DA

(212) 594-3582
person?
A.
I've done a bunch of jobs.
Q.
How long have you been with the DA's
Office?
A.
This is my 27th year.
Q.
So what position did you start out with
at the DA's Office?
A.
Assistant -- no, I was an intern.
10
Q.
And I'm sorry, what did you say that your
11
12
13
14
15
current position was?

A.
I'm the chief of trial division
initiatives.
And how long have you been in that
Q.
position?
16
A.
Since June of 2010.
17
Q.
And prior to that what position did you
18
hold?
19
A.
20
unit.
21
Q.
And how long were you in that position?
22
A.
Since 1993.
23
Q.
Now can you give me an idea of what your
I was chief of the firearms trafficking
24
current duties as chief of trial division
25
initiatives entails.
(212) 594-3582
A.
Sure.
I oversee 30 some bureau based
projects, which are teams of assistant DAs that
focus on discrete violent gangs, housing projects,
high violence areas.
I also oversee and am in the approval
process for utilization of confidential informants.
I also participate in the oversight of and approval
of electronic eavesdropping and video surveillance
10
warrants and their execution.
11
I consult on proactive investigations,
12
generally throughout the trial division of the
13
office.
14
supervisors assign to me.
15
a bit.
And I perform the tasks that my
I also go to court quite
(212) 594-3582
10
MR. JENSEN:
11
12
Mark this document as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 13.

(Plaintiffs' Exhibit 13, Copy of notice
13
14
of deposition, marked for identification, as
15
of this date.)
16
Q.
Mr. Rather, I'd just like to ask you to
17
take a look at the document we just marked as
18
19
Is this a document you've seen before?
20
(Witness looks at document.)
21
A.
It is.
22
Q.
And is it your understanding that you're
23
24
25
providing testimony today pursuant to this notice?

A.
It is.
MR. JENSEN:
Mark this as Plaintiffs'
(212) 594-3582
11
2
Exhibit 14, please.

(Plaintiffs' Exhibit 14, Copy of document
regarding sale of illegal knives, marked for
identification, as of this date.)
Q.
If you would please take a look at this
document that we've marked as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 14.
First, are you familiar with this
10
document.
11
A.
I am.
12
Q.
And when was the first time that you saw
13
this, if you recall?
14
A.
The day it was issued.
15
Q.
Well, calling your attention to the first
16
sentence there's reference to a large scale
17
investigation into the sale of illegal knives.

Are you familiar with this investigation?
18
am.
19
A.
20
Q.
And how are you familiar with it?
21
A.
I participated in it.
(212) 594-3582
15
20
So in broad strokes what we did is we
21
surveyed retail businesses in our jurisdiction to
22
try to learn who was selling, per se, illegal
23
knives.
24
there were retail establishments selling, per se,
25
illegal knives.
As a result of that survey we found that
(212) 594-3582
16
2
So we designed a field investigation, an
undercover investigation, and sent undercovers in
posing as customers to surveil and to purchase
knives that appeared possibly to be illegal,
per se, knives.
activities we obtained knives.
functional tests on each knife and determined
whether they were, per se, illegal or whether they
10
As a result of those undercover

We performed
were not.
11
And as a result of the field
12
investigation we decided to pursue another stage of
13
investigation, which was issuing grand jury
14
subpoenas, which we did, which brought responses
15
from the retailers.
16
deferred prosecution agreements, DPAs, with some of
17
them.
18
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 14, was released, among other
19
things.
20
21
22
Q.
And then we negotiated
As a result of that process this document,
Now what kind of knives did this
investigation concern?
A.
Per se, illegal knives, gravity knives,
23
and switchblades as those are defined by the penal
24
law.
25
Q.
Let me ask you first of all, do you have

(212) 594-3582
17
2
any understanding of the meaning of the term
gravity knife aside from penal law?
A.
No.
(212) 594-3582
25
.--..
8
9
gravity knife is changed materially since June
10
2010?
11
A.
12
Has your office's view regarding what a
Q.
Before, during, and after that date our
view is what's stated in the penal law.

Does that mean, no, that your view hasn't
13
Q.
14
changed?
15
A.
16
17
It means before, during, and after we
follow the law, the penal law.

Q.
So is your understanding of what the
18
penal law requires with regard to gravity knives,
19
is that the same as it was in June 2010?
20
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
And has the DA's office ever issued a
25
statement or otherwise notified the public that it

(212) 594-3582
26
no longer is concerned with retailers selling
prohibited knives in New York City?
A.
Not that I'm aware of.
(212) 594-3582
33
19
Okay.
Q.
Did you ever have any meetings
20
with the retailers that this investigation
21
concerned?
22
23
A.
I attended those meetings, some of those
meetings, yeah.
24
Q.
How many meetings were there?
25
A.
A dozen about.
(212) 594-3582
34
2
Were the meetings conducted with
Q.
individual retailers or were they conducted with
the retailers as a group?
A.
It was primarily the retailers and their
counsel.
group, it was individual meetings.
have been a meeting where there was more than one
retailer, but I don't recall specifically.
I don't recall meeting with them as a

There might
10
Q.
And when did these meetings take place?
11
A.
They took place in the spring of 2010 and
12
continued a little bit after into June.

I also had some meetings with retailers
13
14
and/or their counsel and the monitor, the
15
independent monitor, after June of 2010.
16
Q.
And those meetings that took place after
17
June of 2010, approximately when did they take
18
place?
19
A.
That summer into that fall.
20
Q.
Now what was the basic purpose of the
21
meetings that were held during the spring of 2010
22
up through June?
23
A.
They had a variety of issues in the
24
agenda.
25
compliance.
Some of those meetings were about subpoena

Some of those meetings were
(212) 594-3582
35
2
3
And the meetings that you had with the
Q.
monitor, what was the basic nature of those
meetings?
.A-.
negotiations that led to DPAs.
To get the monitorship off to a good
A.
start and make sure that the monitoring was being
accomplished efficiently and fairly.
Q.
And who was the monitor, by the way?
10
A.
It was Frederico Gebauer, it's
11
G-e-b-e-a-u-r (sic).
12
Kroll, K-r-o-1-1.
He's a vice president of
And who was it who selected Kroll as the
13
Q.
14
monitor?
15
A.
The district attorney's office did.
(212) 594-3582
36
3
4
5
6
Q.
Now are you the person who is responsible
for negotiating the DPAs that were reached?

A.
I participated in some of that.
That
was not my primary -- my primary responsibility.
Q.
Whose primary responsibility was it?
A.
Michael Kitsis, K-i-t-s-i-s.
Q.
And what is his position?
10
A.
He was the chief of the frauds bureau in
11
the district attorney's office here.
12
Q.
13
DPAs?
14
A.
Are you, yourself,
familiar with the
Yes, I am.
(212) 594-3582
37
9
10
Q.
So when was it that the district attorney
began requesting that retailers turn over knives?

A.
We served a series of grand jury
11
subpoenas on retailers that required the retailers
12
to produce, per se, illegal knives, as defined in
13
those grand jury subpoenas.
14
Q.
And with regard to the grand jury
15
subpoenas, was the requirement that the retailers
16
turn over all of their knives that were assertedly
17
prohibited knives?
18
A.
No.
19
Q.
What subset of those knives did.the
20
21
subpoenas seek to recover?

A.
The, per se, illegal knives that were in
22
their possession, as defined by the penal law
23
provisions on gravity knives and switchblades.
24
25
Q.
So what I'm getting at is, did the grand
jury subpoenas require the retailers to turn over

(212) 594-3582
38
their full inventory of prohibited knives?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And how did the retailers determine
which knives to surrender?
MS. BAILEY:
If you know.
Objection as to form.
A.
I don't know.
Q.
Do you know whether the DA's office
10
provided them, the retailers, with a list of knives
11
that should be turned over?
12
A.
We did not.
13
Q.
Did any retailers ask for guidance in
14
trying to figure out what knives they should turn
15
over?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
And who did?
18
A.
Most of -- I can't say most.
19
them did.
20
several of them.
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Many of
I don't recall specifically which ones,
What guidance was your Office able to
provide them?
A.
We referred them to the definition that
was in the subpoenas.

Q.
And would I be correct in my

(212) 594-3582
39
(
...
understanding that that definition tracked the
language of the penal law?
4
5
6
A.
It's exactly the penal law
definition of gravity knife and switchblade.

So in substance then they were not
Q.
provided with any guidance aside from the language
of the penal law?
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
They were provided with the penal law
A.
guidance.
Q.
Right.
But aside from that there was no other
12
.-
Yeah.
guidance that was provided to them; is that right?

A.
No other guidance other than the penal
law definitions.
Q.
What did your office do with these knives
once they had been surrendered?

A.
We vouchered them as evidence with one
19
exception, which was one of the retailers provided
20
their entire inventory of knives and it was a,
21
relatively speaking, small number.
22
hundreds, not thousands.
23
It was
And there was an issue of hardship for
24
the retailer.
And so we functionally tested each
25
knife that was provided by that retailer and

(212) 594-3582
40
returned the knives which by functional testing
were determined not to be, per se, illegal knives,
we returned those to that retailer.
(212) 594-3582
42
Now who actually performed the functional
15
Q.
16
test?
17
A.
I did.
18
Q.
You did, really?
19
A.
I did, yeah.
20
Q.
Did your arm get sore?
21
A.
I spaced it out over a couple of days,
22
and I got some other people to help me.
23
Q.
Well, what other people?
24
A.
There were some paralegals that I had
25
access to.
And I think my deputy might have come
(222) 594-3582
43
in the room and done some functional testing with
me.
4
5
Q.
Now did you functionally test each one of
these knives or --
A.
I did.
Q.
You personally did?
A.
Yeah.
I either -- in my hand functionally
tested it or was present when one or more other
10
people did.
11
them, whoever was there and available.
12
13
Q.
Mostly we all functionally tested
Were there knives that were functionally
tested by more than one person?
14
A.
Yeah, I think most of them.
15
Q.
And did you ever have the circumstance
16
arise where a knife passed the functional test with
17
one person, but failed it with
18
19
A.
In a fashion.
Gravity knives by law don't have to open
20
each and every time.
21
of the function to meet the elements, but also
22
certainly a test of reasonableness as well.
23
The functional test is a test
So, for example -- and this happened
24
that there were -- I don't know how many -- there
25
were knives within Native Leather's subpoenaed

(212) 594-3582
44
2
production where if you performed the functional
test ten times, it might open once.
you know, in more a prosecutorial discretion sense,
but also a legal sense, that's not what we're going
to determine to be a gravity knife.
7
8
That would be,
So let me make sure I understand you
Q.
correctly.
If someone performed the functional test
10
-- and we are talking about the functional test for
11
a gravity knife; is that right?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
If someone performed the functional test
14
ten times and a knife opened once, your office's
15
position was that it was not a gravity knife?
16
A.
I'm not telling you what would happen,
17
I'm telling you-- I'm trying to tell you what did
18
happen when we tested these knives.
19
20
21
22
23
Q.
So that's the way that the test was
performed when you did it in 2010?

A.
I mean we wouldn't test every knife
ten times, no.

Q.
But if a knife was tested ten times and
24
it opened once, but not nine times, in 2010 your
25
view was that that was not a gravity knife?

(212) 594-3582
45
A.
Right.
Q.
And I just want to understand what your
testimony is.
Is it your testimony that you don't know
whether you would apply that standard again today?
A.
That's not my testimony.
Q.
Would you apply that standard again
today?
MS. BAILEY:
10
And just objection again
11
as to giving advisory opinions.
12
Q.
I'm not asking for an advisory opinion,
13
I'm asking how you enforce the law, which is the
14
central issue in this case.

MS. BAILEY:
15
What you're asking for is
16
to take a hypothetical and say what you would
17
do in this particular case.
18
witness for that.
19
Q.
20
This is not the
The one out of ten policy we've been
discussing, has that --
21
MS. BAILEY:
Objection as to --
22
You're putting words -- and that's not
23
what he testified to in terms of policy.
24
Q.
25
If I showed the transcript of this
deposition to someone who is interested in selling

(212) 594-3582
46
knives in New York City, would they be safe to
assume that so long as they only open knives that
did not open more than one time out of ten
attempts, those knives would not be deemed gravity
knives by the district attorney's office?
MS. BAILEY:
You can answer it if you can.
A.
Objection as to form.
I have no idea.
(212) 594-3582
51
In terms of applying this functional test
Q.
to these surrendered knives that we've been talking
about from Native Leather, how did you handle the
situation when a knife failed the gravity knife
10
11
. test in the hands of one person and passed it in

the hands of another?
12
A.
We would apply a reasonableness standard
13
to that.
You know, part of it is figuring out what
14
proof beyond a reasonable doubt is.
15
part -- a lot of that is just experience in jury
16
work about whether a jury is going to be able to
17
find a particular knife functions that way.
18
you know, we have to be conservative about that.
19
Q.
You know, and
And,
So if a knife passed the functional
20
gravity knife test in the hands of one person, but
21
failed it in the hands of another, there's no
22
specific way that would be handled; is that right?
23
A.
Every case -- you know, every case is
24
different, every knife is different.
25
generalizations like that are really hard to

So
(212) 594-3582
52
2
provide.
Q.
Well, it's not really a generalization
because I'm asking about how you dealt with this
issue when the test was performed on the Native
Leather knives.
8
9
I've lost your question.
A.
Could you ask
it again.
Q.
Yeah.
The question is, if a knife passed
10
the functional gravity knife test in the hands of
11
one person, but failed it in the hands of another,
12
there's no specific way that would be handled; is
13
that right?_
14
A.
Passed and failed, passed is -- means it
15
does constitute a gravity knife under the penal law
16
or failed means it constitutes a gravity knife
17
under the penal law?
18
Q.
Well, for purposes of going forward let's
19
say that passed means it does not according to the
20
test constitute a gravity knife, and failed means
21
it does according to the test constitute a gravity
22
knife.
23
So with that definition, the knife passed
24
the functional gravity knife test in the hands of
25
one person, but it failed in the hands of another,

(212) 594-3582
53
2
am I correct that there 1 s no specific way that
situation was handled?
A.
There 1 s no one specific way that that is
handled.
I mean, you know, the case law indicates
clearly that it doesn 1 t have to pass the functional
test on every try in order to constitute a gravity
knife.
that 1 s part of the calculation.
That 1 s what our appellate division says, so
But the other part of the calculation
10
11
would be whether we can persuade a jury beyond a
12
reasonable doubt, an extremely high standard, that
13
it constitutes that.
14
process if you break it down in this way. And
15
there 1 s no one way that -- there 1 s no one result
16
from that two-step process, if you follow what I 1 m
17
saying.
So there 1 s kind of a two-step
(212) 594-3582
79
8
9
10
11
...
Q.
And the other people who were performing
the tests on the Native Leather knives, did you

teach them to perform the test?
A.
At least one of them was another ADA, so
12
he would have known the test long ago.
13
or two others were paralegals, and I would have
14
taught them -- I must have taught them the
15
functional test.
And the one
(212) 594-3582
81
Q.
10
And can you tell me why is it that a
leatherman is clearly not a gravity knife.

A.
11
I've just never seen a leatherman that
12
opens by centrifugal force,
13
it.
I've just never seen
(212) 594-3582
82
22
23
24
25
Q.
And if you need to look at the letter to
answer this question, that's fine.

First of all, my understanding is that
this is a list of the items that were returned to
(212) 594-3582
83
..---...
Native Leather.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you know if you prepared a list of all
of the items that were surrendered by Native
Leather in the first place?
A.
I don't recall.
Q.
Now am I correct that with the exception
of Native Leather it was the retailers themselves
10
that made the determination of what knives they
11
would turn over to the district attorney's office?
12
A.
Correct.
13
Q.
So once those knives had been turned over
14
was there anything that you did to determine
15
whether they were or were not prohibited?
16
A.
No.
17
Q.
So basically it was a situation of taking
18
19
their word for it?

A.
No.
We served them with a legally valid
20
grand jury subpoena which required them to produce
21
certain items.
22
produced items that they represent to be responsive
23
to the subpoena.
24
taking their word for it.
25
legal obligation by virtue of the subpoena.
In response to that subpoena they
So it wasn't just a matter of
They were actually under
(212) 594-3582
84
... , ......_
Q.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is, did
anyone do anything to double-check the determination
the retailers made?
5
6
A.
Not with respect to the knives that they
produced pursuant to the grand jury subpoenas.
(212) 594-3582
92
22
23
24
25
MR. JENSEN:
Can we mark this as

(Plaintiffs' Exhibit 18, Copies of
deferred prosecution agreements, marked for
(212) 594-3582
93
--
identification, as of this date.)

Q.
So, Mr. Rather, do you recognize this?
A.
I do.
Q.
And what are these?
A.
These are copies of the deferred
prosecution agreements that we signed in the
investigation.
(212) 594-3582
101
24
25
Q.
Okay.
If you can take a look at the next
page, the page marked 153 in paragraph 4A.

(212) 594-3582
102
.........._
If you can look over that briefly.

3
4
At the end of this paragraph 4A there 1 S a
Q.
statement,
Paragon 1 s sale of custom knives, defined as
individual, one of a kind handcrafted knives,
separately marketed and sold to collectors.
11
However, this agreement exempts
11
A.
I see that.
10
Q.
And why was this provision included?
11
A.
It was a negotiated provision in order to
12
13
reach an agreement.
Paragon uniquely based on our
14
investigation -- or almost uniquely
15
inventory and displayed as merchandise very high
16
end kind of one of a kind knives for -- for
17
collectors, real high end stuff.
18
negotiated that the agreement would not -- that
19
those knives if they did constitute a prohibited
20
knife would be excluded from the DPA.
21
incentive to enter into the agreement, but also to
22
reflect that we were just not seeing a thousand, or
23
$2,000, or $5,000 knives being plunged into
24
people 1 s temples and cutting people up.
25
that the risk comparatively of those knives was

had an
And it was
Both as an
And so
(212) 594-3582
103
2
3
less than other knives.

Q.
The basic rationale is someone is
probably not going to spend a couple of thousand
dollars to stab someone?
A.
Essentially, yeah.
(212) 594-3582
106
17
18
Q.
As always, Mr. Rather, if you would
please take a look at Exhibit 19.

19
20
A.
Okay.
21
Q.
And so what are these?
22
A.
These are copies of compliance programs
23
or compliance program summaries provided by -- I
24
think the DPA, all of the DPA retailers.
(212) 594-3582
114
.--.
Q.
And looking at paragraph 8 on the next
page, this discusses the performance of what we've
been calling the functional test with regard to
gravity knives, doesn't it?
A.
It does.
10
Q.
And the last paragraph or the last
11
sentence of this is ''Citywide Locksmith, Inc.
12
warrants that Vivian Cologun has both the knowledge
13
and the physical dexterity to perform these tests";
14
is that right?
15
A.
That's what it says.
16
Q.
What I'd like to know is, first of all,
17
18
what type of physical dexterity is needed?

A.
I don't know.
Again, these are
19
20
Q.
You really don't know?
21
A.
I mean the physical dexterity to perform
22
the functional test.
23
obvious, I don't know.
I mean other than the
24
Q.
What's obvious?
25
A.
The ability to perform the functional

(212) 594-3582
115
2
test, to hold a knife by its handle, apply
centrifugal force, and to determine whether it
locks into place, you know, an open position.
(212) 594-3582
125
21
..
Q.
Was there a determination made that the
22
locking blade folding knives that Eastern Mountain
23
Sports was selling, aside from the assisted
24
openers, were not gravity knives?
25
A.
No.
Those determinations are always made
(212) 594-3582
126
on a functional test.
So the ones that we don't
have and didn't test, I couldn't tell you.
(212) 594-3582
128
centrifugal force,
is that broader than the law?
A.
It is.
Q.
Why is that?
A.
The law doesn't prohibit potential
10
operation by centrifugal force into a locked, open
11
position.
12
.......
Is the statement the potential to open by
Q.
13
14
Q.
The law prohibits actual function.

Someone actually has to be able to do it,
in other words?
A.
Right.
(212) 594-3582
137
22
Q.
Now if I can refer you back to
23
Exhibit 15, which is the Native Leather letter and
24
list.
25
A.
Yeah, I have that.

(212) 594-3582
138
2
Q.
Yeah, this is what I wanted to ask you.

The third paragraph of your letter says,
"Please understand that this Office's determination
that these items do not constitute prohlbited
knives applies only to these particular items."

Do you see that?
7
8
A.
Yes.
Q.
So am I correct that what this means is
10
that if someone has a knife of the same make and
11
model that is listed here as having been returned,
12
that is no assurance that that knife might not
13
still be a gravity knife?
14
A.
That's right.
(212) 594-3582
139
Q.
Am I correct that under this functional
test for a gravity knife it is possible that even
though one example of a particular make and model
of a knife was found not to be a gravity knife,
that another example of the same make and model
could be found to be a gravity knife?
10
A.
11
c ammon .
It's not only possible, it's relatively
.....
(212) 594-3582
144
19
Q.
Was there any minimum standard that the
20
DA's office had for the number of attempts that a
21
retailer should make to wrist flick a knife open
22
before determining whether it is or is not a
23
gravity knife?
24
A.
No.
(212) 594-3582
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C

ADA Dan Rather Copeland Deposition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADA Dan Rather Copeland Deposition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADA Dan Rather Copeland Deposition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HARTMAN & WINNICKI, P.C.

Daniel L. Schmutter, Esq.

Attached hereto as Exhibit D is Plaintiffs deposition Exhibit 18, identified and

Dated: March 11, 2016

/s/ Daniel L. Schmutter

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-againstCYRUS R. VANCE, JR.

Official Capacity as the

and CITY OF NEW YORK,

30(b) (6) Deposition of the New York County

Notary Public within and for the State of

DAVID JENSEN PLLC

DAVID D. JENSEN, ESQ.

NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

New York, New York 10013

PATRICIA J. BAILEY, ESQ.,

NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

EVA MARIE DOWDELL, ESQ.,

REPORTERS CENTRAL, LLC

LOUISE LIPPIN, ESQ.,

Now who is your employer?

I work for the district attorney of

New York County.

And what's your position in the DA's

My present title is chief of trial

Am I correct that you are a career DA

I've done a bunch of jobs.

How long have you been with the DA's

This is my 27th year.

So what position did you start out with

at the DA's Office?

Assistant -- no, I was an intern.

And I'm sorry, what did you say that your

current position was?

I'm the chief of trial division

Since June of 2010.

And prior to that what position did you

And how long were you in that position?

Now can you give me an idea of what your

I was chief of the firearms trafficking

current duties as chief of trial division

I oversee 30 some bureau based

projects, which are teams of assistant DAs that

focus on discrete violent gangs, housing projects,

high violence areas.

I also oversee and am in the approval

process for utilization of confidential informants.

I also participate in the oversight of and approval

of electronic eavesdropping and video surveillance

warrants and their execution.

I consult on proactive investigations,

generally throughout the trial division of the

supervisors assign to me.

And I perform the tasks that my

REPORTERS CENTRAL, LLC

I also go to court quite

Mark this document as

Plaintiffs' Exhibit 13.

of deposition, marked for identification, as