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

[GriffinT]

** James Guanti walks up to the witness stand and sits down **
** James Guanti swears under oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. **

 

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

"J-A-M-E-S G-U-A-N-T-I."

Q2. Captain Guanti, who are you employed by?
"I am currently employed by the Los Santos Sheriff's Department."

Q3. How long have you been an employee of your agency?
"Twenty-five years."

Q4. What position do you hold?
"I'm currently a Captain and Unit Commander of the Special Enforcement Bureau... Our SWAT team."

Q5. In order to obtain this position, can you identify what training, if any, you had to take?
"I currently have an MA in Public Administration.  I also was required to enter and pass the Basic Sergeant Supervisory School. I was also sent by my then Captain at the time to the FBI National Academy and graduated from a class which teaches supervisors how to be effective leaders through communication and other general leadership tactics.  Within my unit, I was required to pass our SWAT School and our Team Leader school."

Q6. Can you explain the role your rank plays within your agency?
"From a general sense, I am required to assist in department wide recruiting, such as debating with other Captains and Commanders in regard to reinstatement applications, along with Bureau specific administrative tasks.  This could be handling administrative requests, promotions, and administrative punishments.  I am responsible for all members of the Special Enforcement Bureau, totaling approximately thirty people."

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?

"As stated earlier, I received my Master’s Degree while currently being an employee of the Los Santos Sheriff's Department, along with being sent to and graduating from the FBI National Academy, specializing in leadership."

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.
"I have conducted only interviews for administrative punishments.  I have conducted approximately twenty-five administrative interviews in my career."

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

"Yes, I do."
 

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

 

Q11. Did Stefan Castillo sign that warning, and did you review that warning with him before he signed it?
"Yes to both."
 

Q12. Did you sign the warning yourself?

"I did."

 

Q13. Can you identify the location of the interrogation?

"It was located in the Hall of Justice, inside the Internal Affairs office."

 

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

"The room had a one-way mirror with a camera.  The room was white with no decoration, with a wooden desk located in the center of the room.  Myself and Sergeant Castillo were closest to the door."

 

Q15. How would you, personally in your lay opinion describe the atmosphere of the room.

"Tense. Myself and Sergeant Castillo did not possess his firearm during the interview, as I was instructed to lock my firearm up before entering the office area.  The two investigators, however, had their firearms on them the whole time.  This made me feel like I had done something illegal and couldn't be trusted, even though I wasn't personally under investigation.  It made me feel uneasy."

 

Q16. In your perspective did you feel that Stefan Castillo as his representative had an opportunity to leave?
"No.  Sergeant Castillo asked to speak with me privately during the interview, and the two investigators refused to leave the room.  Based on that and both of us not having our firearms, I would say no."

 

** James Guanti steps down from the witness stand and returns to his seat. **

 

[almightybounter]

"Thank you, Captain Guanti, for your testimony.

Mr. Wright, do you have any further questions for this witness?"

 

@Kotwica

Edited July 13, 2024 by almightybounter

[Kotwica]

“We will request a redirect of our witness following the cross examination.”

[almightybounter]

"Very well. The request for a redirect is noted.

Counsel for the defense, you may now proceed with your cross-examination of Captain Guanti."

@Michael

Edited July 13, 2024 by almightybounter

[ImperiumXVII]

"Your honor, we object to the following answer.

 

16 hours ago, GriffinT said:

Q16. In your perspective did you feel that Stefan Castillo as his representative had an opportunity to leave?
"No.  Sergeant Castillo asked to speak with me privately during the interview, and the two investigators refused to leave the room.  Based on that and both of us not having our firearms, I would say no."

 

This is speculative. Captain Guanti is guessing."

 

** Sophie Thyne awaits a response from Judge Hockenbeyer. **

 

"Thank you, your honor.

 

16 hours ago, GriffinT said:

Q4. What position do you hold?
"I'm currently a Captain and Unit Commander of the Special Enforcement Bureau... Our SWAT team."

 

Q1: Are you currently assigned to, or work in the Internal Affairs Bureau in any capacity?

 

16 hours ago, GriffinT said:

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.
"I have conducted only interviews for administrative punishments.  I have conducted approximately twenty-five administrative interviews in my career."

 

Q2: Were any of these administrative interviews related to the use of force by an employee?

Q3: Were any of these administrative interview subjects placed on administrative leave at any point before, during, or after the interview for a reason related to use of force by the employee?

 

16 hours ago, GriffinT said:

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

"The room had a one-way mirror with a camera.  The room was white with no decoration, with a wooden desk located in the center of the room.  Myself and Sergeant Castillo were closest to the door."

 

Q4: Do you know for certain that a one-way mirror was installed in the room or are you simply making an inferrence?

Q5: Given that you were sat closest to the door, did you feel that the investigators were in a position to prevent you from leaving at any time?

 

16 hours ago, GriffinT said:

Q15. How would you, personally in your lay opinion describe the atmosphere of the room.

"Tense. Myself and Sergeant Castillo did not possess his firearm during the interview, as I was instructed to lock my firearm up before entering the office area.  The two investigators, however, had their firearms on them the whole time.  This made me feel like I had done something illegal and couldn't be trusted, even though I wasn't personally under investigation.  It made me feel uneasy."

 

Q6: Were the investigators acting in a way that would make the average person in the street feel tense?

Q7: Is it standard procedure for the subject of an investigation to be allowed to carry a firearm when meeting with investigators?

Q8: Is it standard procedure for a peace officer to carry a firearm in their own place of work?

Q9: Would you say that it is reasonable for an employee who has broken the rules to feel tense when being interviewed by their managers?

Q10: Were you on administrative leave during the interview by the Internal Affairs Bureau?

Q11: (Follow-up if yes) Are employees on administrative leave reasonably allowed to carry their issued firearm?

 

(( Only to be asked if the earlier objection is overruled. ))

 

16 hours ago, GriffinT said:

No.  Sergeant Castillo asked to speak with me privately during the interview, and the two investigators refused to leave the room.  Based on that and both of us not having our firearms, I would say no."

 

Q12: Were you or Mr. Castillo, at any point during the interview, physically prevented from leaving by investigators or other physical blockages, for example furniture or locks?

Q13: Did you or Mr. Castillo, at any point during the interview, ask if you could leave?

[Kotwica]

"Your honor we would object to question six, rule 701 calls for speculation."
"Your honor we would object to question seven, 701 calls for speculation. This witness has not been introduced as an internal affairs member."
"Your honor we also object to question nine, 701 calls for speculation."
"Your honor we object to question ten, rule 611 - outside the scope of direct examination, and rule 401 - relevance."

Edited July 13, 2024 by Kotwica

[ImperiumXVII]

Your honor, Captain Guanti has performed 25 administrative interviews himself. He knows what the correct procedure is for performing one, I would hope. Thus question seven is not calling for speculation.

 

Question nine also does not call for speculation - Captain Guanti has performed 25 administrative interviews and he would know first hand if the subjects of these interviews have felt tense during their interview. Captain Guanti has first hand knowledge of whether or not people that have broken the department's rules have seemed tense.

 

And your honor, allow me to rephrase question 10. Was Mr. Castillo on administrative leave during the interview by the Internal Affairs Bureau?

[almightybounter]

The objections to Questions 6 and 9 are sustained as they call for speculative responses beyond the witness’s direct observations. The objection to Question 7 is overruled as Captain Guanti’s experience qualifies him to speak to standard procedures he is familiar with. The objection to the original Question 10 is sustained for being outside the scope and irrelevant, but the rephrased question is allowed. The proceedings should continue with a focus on relevant and informed testimony within the witness’s direct knowledge and experience.

[almightybounter]

"Ms. Thyne, your objection to Q16 is overruled. Captain Guanti’s answer to Q16 is admissible under Rule 701 as it is rationally based on his perception and helpful to the court’s understanding of the situation. His conclusion about whether Sergeant Castillo had an opportunity to leave is derived from specific, observable facts and his extensive experience in similar circumstances. Therefore, it does not constitute mere speculation."

"The witness's response to Q16 will remain part of the record, and the proceedings should continue with a focus on eliciting further relevant and informed testimony."

 

@Michael

[almightybounter]

"The witness is instructed to answer all questions except 6, 9, 10."

@GriffinT

[Kotwica]

“Your honor, we object the the record of counsel introducing the twenty five investigations, I believe that is to question sixteen.
 

They did not lay any foundation for that statement, nor did they introduce any evidence to achieve that result. We again find the court moving beyond the scope of what is presented by counsel to establish a basis for the defenses argument. Any evidence to support this statement opposing counsel would need to lay foundation to introduce which they have not done.

 

If you are permitting his background as an Internal Affairs member with sufficient background to make that determination he should’ve been introduced, he should be a 702 witness as this goes way beyond the scope. I am happy to file a brief in support.”

Edited July 14, 2024 by Kotwica

[almightybounter]

"During direct examination, Captain Guanti testified to his experience, including conducting approximately twenty-five administrative interviews. This establishes a foundation for his knowledge and understanding of administrative interview procedures and the typical atmosphere during such interviews."

"Those were your own questions being asked, Mr. Wright. Captain Guanti was merely just answering your questions."

 

@Kotwica

Edited July 14, 2024 by almightybounter

[Kotwica]

“Correct, the problem at this point is we are going beyond the lay testimony and the defense is asking a question which REQUIRES specialized knowledge, that is outlined in 702(a). This is not an expert witness but he’s being asked to go beyond the scope and giving his opinion not as an officer, or Captain but as a member of a specialized unit with specialized experience conducting specialized interviews.
 

The question itself we are not objecting to but we are objecting that this court is permitting expert testimony after denying the plaintiffs question this court deemed was a 702 violation.” 

[ImperiumXVII]

Your honor, Captain Guanti did not say that he performed any administrative interviews as part of Internal Affairs Bureau - it is completely reasonable that a Captain in charge of a tactical unit would know what the procedures for an administrative investigation are. As far as I am aware - and this court is aware - Captain Guanti is not privy to Internal Affairs Bureau procedures. The question is entirely based on his role as a Captain and a commander of a department unit.

[Kotwica]

"Your honor, this is still specialized knowledge that goes beyond a lay witness."

Edited July 14, 2024 by Kotwica