Former Irvine council member Larry Argan will sit down for his deposition into the Great Park forensic audit and investigation tomorrow with Anthony R. Taylor, the private attorney conducting the investigation into the Great Park. Agran missed a deposition last month because he had asked for questions in writing so he could prepare for the interview — which every lawyer I’ve spoken with in the past week says is a perfectly reasonable request.
What no one can or will answer — not the city or Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Lalloway — is why Agran wasn’t deposed earlier. This taxpayer-funded political witchhunt has been underway for nearly 20 months with Agran on the council for all but 4 of those months. Deposing Agran then would have given him easy access to staff and records.
HSNO never even called Ken Smith’s Design Studio or Forde & Mollrich’s public relations firm until a week before the final report was to have been due back when this was a $240,000 project. The costs are now around $1.5 million and it appears that Taylor is seeking a Hail Mary with gotcha questions for Agran.
If Taylor had anything on Agran, it would have come out well before the November elections.
While I am not a lawyer, I would disagree with those who suggested Larry Agran be given the questions in writing and alowed to respond accordingly. First rule of interrogation is, you do not want the principal to be able to think about or prepare a canned response to questions asked. Second rule of interrogation is, responses to questions by the principal, generally lead to secondary and even additional follow up questions. Third rule of interrogation is, an experienced interviewer will be able to read body language of the primcipal and determine if he/she is lying or telling the truth. If the principal is believed to by lying, then the interviewer turns the screws and increases the pressure of the interrogation. While I am not privy to what is going on in the depositions, I am commenting based on many years of interviewing both criminal and non-criminal subjects.
As to why Larry Agran was interviewed last, again I have no factual information but based on experience can surmise the following. When a principal is a prime person of interest in an investigation the investigator is best served interviewing all other actors involved first, digesting the information received and then formulating a direct line of questions for the principal. While this process is called an Audit, make no mistake it is in fact an investigation. If suspected acts of criminal misconduct are uncovered there is no doubt that they will be referred to the appropriate legal autority for additional investigation and prosecution? If criminal conduct is not discovered, the focus of the investigation will likely be on acts of corruption, favoritism, mismanagement and abuse of power.
I will reserve judgement on all these areas until the Audit is complete and the report published. I would point out however, if a political witchhunt were underway as you suggest, a full court press would have been put on finishing the Audit in time for it to be used in the election and that was not done. As such, a reasonable and prudent person might conclude the Audit Firm is taking their time and doing the investigation properly. Guess we will all know when the final report is released?
Pat, you don’t seem to understand the difference between a deposition and an interrogation. Please talk to smart lawyers and learn the difference