LCS-CV-2024-001 - Post-Award - Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

[almightybounter]

"Counsel for the Plaintiff,
 

Regarding your request to summon Stefan Castillo's union representative, James Guanti, to testify at trial, the court acknowledges the potential relevance of his testimony given his role in representing Sergeant Castillo during the administrative proceedings.
 

The court hereby grants the Plaintiff’s request to subpoena James Guanti as a witness. The subpoena will compel his attendance and testimony, provided that his knowledge pertains directly to the issues at hand, such as the department's policies on administrative leave and the actions taken against Sergeant Castillo."

 

@GriffinT

[Kotwica]

** Donald moves into the well, standing to the side of the witness booth and readjusts his large glasses, moving the notepad out to look out of the bottom of his bifocals. **

Q1. Captain Guanti, can you introduce yourself to the court and begin by spelling out your full name?

Q2. Captain Guanti, who are you employed by?

 

Q3. How long have you been an employee of your agency?

 

Q4. What position do you hold?

 

Q5. In order to obtain this position can you identify what training, if any you had to take?

 

Q6. Can you explain the role your rank plays within your agency?

 

Q7. Have you received any advanced education whether on the job training or formal education on employee rights due to your position within your agency?

 

Q8. Have you ever conducted employee interviews for administrative punishments, or criminal investigations? If so, could you approximate how many you have conducted? Rough estimations are find.

 

Q9. Do you remember attending an internal affairs investigation with Stefan Castillo?

 

** Donald licks his right index and thumb, reaching to the bottom of the page and flips it over to the next sheet on his yellow notepad. **

 

Q10. During that investigation do you remember Stefan Castillo being presented with something called a Garrity Warning?

 

Q11. Did Stefan Castillo sign that warning and did you review that warning with him before he signed it?

 

Q12. Did you sign the warning yourself?

 

Q13. Can you identify the location of the interrogation?

 

Q14. How was the room arranged, was Stefan and yourself closer to the door or was the Internal Affairs representatives closest to the door?

 

Q15. How would you, personally in your lay opinion describe the atmosphere of the room.
Your honor to question 15 we would consider this proper utilization of lay witness testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 701(a).

 

Q16. In your perspective did you feel that Stefan Castillo as his representative had an opportunity to leave?
Your honor to question 16 we would consider this proper utilization of lay witness testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 701(a).

 

Q17. Did Mr. Castillo in your opinion respond respectfully to the questions being asked of him?
Your honor to question 17 we would consider this proper utilization of lay witness testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 701(a).

 

Q18. In your experience as a supervisor did the questioning of Mister Castillo conform to the norms of what you would expect?
Your honor to question 18 we would consider this proper utilization of lay witness testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 701(c), we do not believe this deviates into Rule 702 testimony. However, if this court prefers we can present Captain Guanti has a 702 expert witness.
 

@GriffinT

Edited July 11, 2024 by Kotwica

[ImperiumXVII]

"Your honour, we object to questions thirteen through eighteen on the grounds that they are immaterial to the case being tried here. The case being brought before the court is whether or not Mr. Castillo's Garrity rights were violated. Anything after Mr. Castillo signed the Garrity warning and was placed on notice that he was under investigation is not relevant to the claims surrounding the initial field interview."

[Kotwica]

"Your honor, that question is squarely involved in this case. Garrity itself identifies a right to remain silent, in my opening I outlined the fact that I believe retaliation had a part to play here, thus a violation of my clients Constitutional rights. Additionally, the questions are more probative than prejudicial under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 403."

Edited July 11, 2024 by Kotwica

[almightybounter]

"Let's go through the objections one by one. I'll make a ruling on each of the contested questions.

Question 13:

"Can you identify the location of the interrogation?"

"Objection overruled. The location of the interrogation is relevant to understanding the context and environment in which Mr. Castillo's rights were read and whether he felt free to leave."

 

Question 14:

"How was the room arranged, was Stefan and yourself closer to the door or was the Internal Affairs representatives closest to the door?"

"Objection overruled. The arrangement of the room can speak to the psychological atmosphere of the interrogation, which is relevant to whether Mr. Castillo felt free to leave."

 

Question 15:

"How would you, personally in your lay opinion describe the atmosphere of the room?"

"Objection overruled. The witness's lay opinion on the atmosphere of the room can be helpful to understand the environment during the interrogation, and it is admissible under Rule 701(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence."

 

Question 16:

"In your perspective did you feel that Stefan Castillo as his representative had an opportunity to leave?"

"Objection overruled. This is admissible as lay witness testimony under Rule 701(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The witness's perspective on whether Mr. Castillo felt he had the opportunity to leave is relevant to the issue of whether Mr. Castillo's rights were properly upheld."

 

Question 17:

"Did Mr. Castillo in your opinion respond respectfully to the questions being asked of him?"

"Objection sustained. This question appears to be immaterial to the issue of whether Mr. Castillo's Garrity rights were violated. The respectfulness of Mr. Castillo's responses does not directly pertain to the alleged coercion or improper conduct by the Sheriff's Department."

 

Question 18:

"In your experience as a supervisor did the questioning of Mister Castillo conform to the norms of what you would expect?"

"Objection sustained. While the norms of questioning might be relevant, this question borders on expert testimony, which the witness has not been qualified to provide under Rule 702. Mr. Wright, if you wish to pursue this line of questioning, you may need to present Captain Guanti as an expert witness under Rule 702, with the appropriate foundation laid."


"The witness is instructed to answer all questions except questions seventeen and eighteen." 

 

@GriffinT

[Kotwica]

** Donald nods **
"Your honor, we request to waive notification to the opposing counsel admission of an expert witness, additionally we move to waive the requirement of admission of a Curriculum Vitae as the witness is in the court room.  We proffer that we can etablish Captain Guanti as an expert witness in the aforementioned questions. Upon his completion of those questions we proffer to this court that he be established as an expert witness and be permitted to answer question 18. 

Your honor we respectfully request that question seventeen be asked because the question would further narrow the possible reasons for his administrative leave squarely to the point that he refused to question, not that he was disrespectful to the internal affairs sergeant. If opposing counsel stipulates to the fact that Mister Castillo we don't see a need for question seventeen but I expect they will not."

Edited July 11, 2024 by Kotwica

[almightybounter]

"Mr. Wright, I appreciate your arguments, but there are specific legal standards and procedural requirements that must be adhered to in this court.
 

First, regarding your request to waive notification to opposing counsel for the admission of an expert witness and the requirement to present a Curriculum Vitae, I must deny this request. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence require that opposing counsel be notified of the intention to call an expert witness and be provided with the expert's qualifications in advance. This ensures that all parties have a fair opportunity to prepare for cross-examination and to challenge the expert's qualifications if necessary. Allowing such a waiver without proper notice and documentation would be prejudicial to the defense.
 

Second, as for establishing Captain Guanti as an expert witness, this must be done following the proper procedures. You will need to lay the foundation for his qualifications on the record, and I will make a determination based on that foundation and any objections raised by opposing counsel.
 

Lastly, regarding question seventeen, the potential relevance of Mr. Castillo's demeanor during the interview does not directly pertain to the primary issue of whether his Garrity rights were violated. The question about his respectfulness does not sufficiently narrow the focus to the legality of the interrogation process itself. Therefore, I stand by my earlier decision to sustain the objection to question seventeen.

You may proceed with the questions that have been permitted, and if you wish to establish Captain Guanti as an expert witness, you must follow the proper procedures for doing so."

[Kotwica]

"Your honor, I am sure you are well aware that there is no official requirement to submit a Curriculum Vitae in accordance with Rule 702, it is a simple courtesy. Opposing counsel has objected on the grounds that we would then admit the witness as an expert, satisfying the notice requirement. If opposing counsel needs time to prepare for an expert witness they knew that at the point that they objected. Additionally, your honor, the plaintiff makes note that opposing counsel did not raise the issue regarding an expert witness, the court did, and by doing so has resulted in a denial of natural justice."

[almightybounter]

"Mr. Wright, I appreciate your enthusiasm and your reminder of the flexibility within Rule 702. However, let's get a few things straight. While it may be 'a simple courtesy' to submit a Curriculum Vitae, it is also a standard practice that promotes transparency and fairness. Courts aren't in the habit of making decisions based on surprises, and we're not about to start now.
 

Opposing counsel objected because have a right to prepare for an expert witness. Just because they could guess that you might call Captain Guanti as an expert doesn't mean they should be left to rely on their crystal ball. Legal procedures are in place to ensure both sides are on equal footing, not to keep anyone on their toes with last-minute revelations.

You mentioned 'natural justice.' Natural justice includes the right to a fair trial, which means following procedures that ensure both sides can adequately present their cases. I raised the issue to prevent any claims of unfairness later on.
 

So, if you want Captain Guanti recognized as an expert witness, you will do it by the book. Provide the necessary foundation for his qualifications, give opposing counsel the opportunity to review and prepare, and we will proceed accordingly. We won't cut corners just because you think the rules are a courtesy.

Now, I suggest you use this time wisely.

We're taking a 30-minute recess so you can get your ducks in a row. Court is adjourned until then."

[Kotwica]

"Your honor, opposing counsel did not object for the right to prepare for an expert witness, they objected on the grounds that they believe the testimony would be irrelevant. The objection was improperly raised by a non-party to the case. I'm confused as to the continual objection, we'd like to preserve it on grounds for appeal, and I will talk to my client regarding moving for a mistrial. During the recess I'd ask you to review Rule 702, as well as the judicial limitations on inferences."

[almightybounter]

"Mr. Wright, I appreciate your passion and your commitment to your client's case. However, let’s clarify a few points.

First, as the presiding Judge, it is within my purview to address and manage procedural issues that arise during the course of the trial, including the qualifications of expert witnesses. My intervention is not an objection but a necessary oversight to ensure the trial proceeds fairly and justly.
 

Secondly, it is crucial to address the procedural aspect of introducing expert testimony. Ensuring both parties have adequate notice and preparation time for expert testimony is fundamental to a fair trial. This is not merely a question of relevance but one of due process and proper notice, which affects the quality and reliability of the evidence presented.
 

Your client's rights, as well as the integrity of these proceedings, are paramount. If you feel that an appeal is necessary to preserve your client’s rights, you are well within your rights to pursue that course of action. However, threatening a mistrial over procedural clarifications is neither productive nor conducive to the efficient administration of justice.

I am well-versed in Rule 702 and its requirements for expert testimony. We will proceed with your questions to establish Captain Guanti’s qualifications as an expert witness. Once that is complete, I will make a determination based on the evidence and arguments presented.

Court will reconvene in 30 minutes to address these matters."

[Kotwica]

"Your honor, we will file a stay with the appellate court on the matter."

[almightybounter]

"Mr. Wright, you are entitled to seek appellate review if you believe that an error has been made. However, be advised that a stay will delay the resolution of this case, which may not be in the best interests of your client.
 

If you wish to proceed with filing a stay, I will respect your decision. I must also remind you that the appellate court will consider whether the procedural decisions made here are in line with established legal principles and whether they affect the substantive rights of the parties involved.
For the record, I am committed to ensuring a fair trial for all parties, and my rulings are based on the necessity of adhering to legal standards and ensuring the proper administration of justice.
 

Court is adjourned to allow Mr. Wright time to file his motion. We will reconvene once the appellate court has made a determination. Thank you."

[Kotwica]

“We call our first witness.”

[almightybounter]

"Very well, Mr. Wright. Please call your first witness to the stand."
 

(Courtroom bailiff stands and prepares to escort the witness to the stand.)

(Once the witness is seated and sworn in, proceed with the examination.)
 

"Mr. Wright, you may begin your examination."

Edited July 12, 2024 by almightybounter