Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

[Kotwica]

Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

 

Case Number: YY-XNNN

Prepared by: Donald J. Wright

 

APPELLATE BRIEF FOR APPLEANT'S EMERGENCY APPEAL FOR REAPPOINTMENT OF JUDGE, REVERSE AND REMANDING OF DECISION.

_______________________________________________

 

Argument

1. Stefan Castillo, through his assigned counsel requests this Court of Appeals to reverse, remand a judicial decision made by the Honorable Martin Hockenbeyer in case LCS-CV-2024-001.

2. Martin Hockenbeyer, in issuing a judgment to the defendants objection of "irrelevance" formulated his own objection to question 18 raised by the plaintiff, that question namely was:
"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."

3. The defendant's counsel objected: "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."

4. It has long been understood that a judge is to act as a neutral non-party to the proceedings. Here, Judge Martin Hockenbeyer by inferring an argument that was not made tipped the scales of justice to favor the defendant thus underminding the long standing tradition and role that the Judiciary has played within the United States. 

5. Attorneys know that they are bound to the objections that they raise, and if an issue is not raised during the trial it cannot be raised on appeal, if Judge Martin Hockenbeyer's decision is upheld this would essentially nullify the need for preservation of an objection in the trial court. 

6. This issue is ripe for appeal as no final judgment has been made.

7. Stefan Castillo, through counsel respectfully requests that this court stay the proceedings until a decision can be rendered, remand and vacate the determination made by Judge Hockenbeyer and appoint a new judge for the purpose of this trial.

 

 

_______________________________________________

Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.

 

Sworn this 11 day of July, 2024 by:

 

/s/ Donald J. Wright

Donald Wright

Edited July 11, 2024 by Kotwica

[almightybounter]

In the Court of Appeals for the State of San Andreas

Case Number: LCS-AP-2024-002

Plaintiff-Appellant: Stefan Castillo

Defendant-Appellee: The Los Santos Sheriff's Department

Lower Court Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001

Judge: The Honorable Martin Hockenbeyer

Opinion and Order on Emergency Appeal

Before: Chief Justice Harold Faircloth

---

 

The Court of Appeals reviews the emergency appeal filed by Plaintiff-Appellant Stefan Castillo. The appeal challenges specific decisions made by Judge Martin Hockenbeyer in case LCS-CV-2024-001. Castillo requests a reversal, remand, and the reappointment of a new judge for the trial.
 

The case concerns allegations that Mr. Castillo's Garrity rights were violated. During the trial, Plaintiff's counsel questioned Captain James Guanti about various aspects of the interrogation and subsequent investigation. The defense objected to questions 13 through 18 on grounds of immateriality. Judge Hockenbeyer sustained objections to questions 17 and 18 but overruled the objections to questions 13 through 16.
 

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

1. Judge Hockenbeyer improperly sustained an objection by formulating his own objection to Q18.
2. The defendant’s objection was based on immateriality, which was not applicable.
3. The judge acted beyond neutrality, thus favoring the defendant.
4. Preservation of objections should not be undermined by the judge’s intervention.
5. The issue is ripe for appeal despite no final judgment.
6. The proceedings should be stayed, the decision remanded, and a new judge appointed.

Analysis:
 

•  Judicial Neutrality and Objection to Q18:

Plaintiff’s Argument: Plaintiff contends that Judge Hockenbeyer formulated his own objection to question 18, which is alleged to be a proper utilization of lay witness testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 701(c). They argue this did not deviate into Rule 702 testimony.
 

Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 701 pertains to opinion testimony by lay witnesses:

• Rule 701(a): Testimony must be rationally based on the witness's perception.
• Rule 701(b): Testimony must be helpful to clearly understanding the witness's testimony or determining a fact in issue.
• Rule 701(c): Testimony must not be based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.

Question 18 asked Captain Guanti to compare the questioning of Mr. Castillo to normative standards expected in his supervisory experience. This potentially requires specialized knowledge and experience, thus bordering on expert testimony as defined under Rule 702, which governs testimony by experts:

• Rule 702: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion if:
  • (a) The expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.
  • (b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data.
  • (c) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods.
  • (d) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

By sustaining the objection, Judge Hockenbeyer aimed to prevent testimony that might require expert qualification without the proper foundation being laid. This action ensures adherence to the evidentiary standards.
 

•  Immateriality of Questions:

Plaintiff’s Argument: The plaintiff argues that the defendant's objection was based on the immateriality of the questions to the case, focusing on whether Mr. Castillo's Garrity rights were violated.

Legal Analysis: The relevance of evidence is governed by Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 401:

• Rule 401: Evidence is relevant if:
  • (a) It has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
  • (b) The fact is of consequence in determining the action.

The objection on grounds of immateriality is valid if the questions posed do not directly relate to the alleged violation of Garrity rights. The Garrity rights protect public employees from being compelled to incriminate themselves during investigatory interviews conducted by their employers. Questions relevant to the circumstances of the interrogation, the environment, and the treatment of Mr. Castillo are material to determining whether these rights were upheld.

Judge Hockenbeyer's decisions to overrule objections to questions 13-16 reflect their relevance to the interrogation's context, making it likely that these questions would impact the assessment of Mr. Castillo’s Garrity rights.
 

• Judicial Intervention and Fairness:

Plaintiff’s Argument: The plaintiff argues that Judge Hockenbeyer acted beyond neutrality by inferring an objection that was not raised by the defense, potentially favoring the defendant.

Legal Analysis: Judges have a duty to ensure the fairness and relevance of the proceedings and to act as neutral arbiters. According to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 3(A)(4):

• "A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law."

However, judges also have the responsibility to intervene when necessary to prevent improper evidence from being considered, even if an objection is not explicitly raised. In this case, Judge Hockenbeyer's intervention to sustain the objection to Q18 was to ensure the witness did not provide expert testimony without proper qualification, which is a necessary function to maintain the trial's integrity.
 

• Preservation of Objections:

Plaintiff’s Argument: The plaintiff contends that if Judge Hockenbeyer's decision is upheld, it could undermine the principle that issues not raised during the trial cannot be raised on appeal.
 

Legal Analysis: The principle of preserving objections is indeed fundamental, as outlined in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 46:

• Rule 46: A formal exception to a ruling or order of the court is unnecessary. When the ruling or order is requested or made, it is sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or order of the court is requested or made, makes known to the court the action which the party desires the court to take or the party's objection to the action of the court and the grounds therefor.

However, judicial intervention to address significant evidentiary issues does not nullify this principle. Judges can act to ensure proper trial conduct and evidence admissibility. Judge Hockenbeyer's actions did not remove the necessity for objections but rather ensured that the trial adhered to evidentiary rules.
 

• Ripeness for Appeal:

Plaintiff’s Argument: The plaintiff argues that the issue is ripe for appeal, even though no final judgment has been made.

Legal Analysis: Interlocutory appeals, or appeals of decisions made before a final judgment, can be permissible if they address substantial questions that significantly affect the trial's fairness. According to 28 U.S. Code § 1292(b):

• "When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order."

Given the potential impact of the evidentiary rulings on the trial's outcome, this issue is indeed ripe for appeal.
 

• Request to Stay Proceedings, Remand, and Appoint a New Judge:

Plaintiff’s Argument: The plaintiff requests that the court stay the proceedings, remand and vacate the determination made by Judge Hockenbeyer, and appoint a new judge for the trial.

 

Legal Analysis: Such requests are typically granted under circumstances of demonstrated judicial bias or significant procedural errors. The current evidence suggests that Judge Hockenbeyer's rulings were within judicial discretion and aligned with the Federal Rules of Evidence.
 

Conclusion:

Upon review, the Court finds that Judge Hockenbeyer's decisions regarding the objections to questions 13 through 18 were appropriate and in line with the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Plaintiff-Appellant has not demonstrated judicial bias or procedural error warranting the appointment of a new judge or the staying of proceedings.

 

Order:

1. The emergency appeal is denied.
2. The lower court’s decisions on the objections to questions 13 through 18 are affirmed.
3. The case LCS-CV-2024-001 is remanded to the lower court for continuation with Judge Martin Hockenbeyer presiding.

---

Signed: Chief Justice Harold Faircloth

Date: 12.07.2024