almightybounter

rent free

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department Case No: 24-CV-1034 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The court has reviewed the submissions by Donald J. Wright and Jacob E. Rabinowitz III, who seek reconsideration of the court’s previous order denying their motion to join as additional counsel for the Plaintiff. Both counsels assert that the Plaintiff's right to legal representation encompasses the addition of multiple attorneys and argue that the court lacks discretion to deny such a request under Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1654, and other cited authorities. The court acknowledges the Plaintiff's right under Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to be represented by counsel, including co-counsel. However, this right is not without limits when it comes to the court’s inherent authority to manage its proceedings. While Rule 44 does allow for parties to be represented by counsel of their choice, this right does not supersede the court’s duty to ensure that the litigation process remains fair, orderly, and free from undue delays or procedural complications. The court's responsibility extends to managing the docket in a manner that avoids the potential for inefficiency or conflict among counsel, which could ultimately prejudice the Plaintiff or the proceedings as a whole. 28 U.S.C. § 1654 permits parties to plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel. However, this statute does not strip the court of its inherent power to regulate the conduct of attorneys and manage the cases before it. Courts possess broad discretion to make determinations that preserve the integrity of the judicial process, including the authority to limit the participation of counsel when it is necessary to prevent potential conflicts, confusion, or delay. Furthermore, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 directs that these rules "should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding." The addition of multiple counsel at this juncture could compromise these objectives by introducing complexities that are unnecessary at this early stage. The court acknowledges the assertion that its decision is subject to de novo review by an appellate court. However, it is also well-established that trial courts are granted broad discretion in managing their proceedings, as upheld in Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In the exercise of such discretion, this court has assessed the current representation of the Plaintiff, the procedural posture of this case, and the potential implications of introducing additional counsel. This ruling is not based on an infringement of the Plaintiff's right to counsel but rather on the court's duty to ensure orderly case management. Additionally, the reference to interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and (d)(1) does not automatically render this court's decision subject to reversal. The court has acted within the bounds of its discretionary power to manage litigation effectively, and it finds no "substantial ground for difference of opinion" on this matter that would warrant an immediate appeal. The preservation of judicial efficiency and the avoidance of unnecessary procedural delays are legitimate bases for this court's decision. The Plaintiff is adequately represented by current counsel. The court’s decision to deny the addition of counsel at this time does not preclude the possibility of reconsideration should circumstances evolve in a manner that justifies additional legal representation without compromising the integrity of the proceedings. After thorough consideration, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. This court affirms its prior order as an exercise of its discretion to maintain the orderly administration of justice. Should the Plaintiff wish to appeal this decision, they are entitled to do so through the appropriate legal channels; however, this case shall proceed without the addition of Mr. Wright and Mr. Rabinowitz as co-counsel at this time. So Ordered. Dated: September 18, 2024 Judge: Martin Hockenbeyer Superior Court of San Andreas (( @Kotwica @Jacob Rabinowitz ))

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS Case No: 24-CV-1034 Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ADDITION OF COUNSEL The Plaintiff, Michelle Jefferson, through her current counsel Xavier Castenda, has submitted a "Motion for Addition of Counsel" to allow attorneys Donald J. Wright and Jacob Ezekiel Rabinowitz III to join as additional counsel in this matter. The motion indicates that the proposed attorneys wish to act "pro bono" to protect the rights of citizens who protest. After careful consideration, the Court finds that the motion should be denied for the reasons set forth below. The Court recognizes the right of a party to be represented by counsel, as provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1654, which states that parties may "plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel." However, this right does not grant an unfettered entitlement to multiple or additional counsel at any time, particularly where such an addition may result in complications, delays, or conflicts within the proceedings. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to secure the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding" (Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). The addition of multiple counsel in a case already represented by an attorney can potentially disrupt the efficient progression of the case. Introducing two additional attorneys without demonstrated cause can lead to unnecessary complications in case management, potentially delaying proceedings and increasing the burden on the court. The Plaintiff's motion fails to articulate any specific need or cause for the addition of new counsel, nor does it suggest any inadequacy in the current representation. Without such a showing, the Court finds no compelling reason to grant the request, as it may introduce strategic differences, divided responsibilities, and complexities contrary to the goals of Rule 1. The Plaintiff is currently represented by Xavier Castenda, whose representation has not been shown to be ineffective, conflicted, or otherwise deficient. According to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7, which governs conflicts of interest, the Court has a duty to ensure that legal representation serves the client's best interests. Adding new counsel at this stage, especially without a demonstrated need, could disrupt the current attorney-client relationship, leading to conflicts in case strategy and legal judgment. Further, Rule 1.2 emphasizes that the attorney must consult with the client regarding the means of pursuing their objectives. The introduction of additional counsel risks creating conflicting advice and strategic disagreements, potentially detracting from the Plaintiff's interests rather than protecting them. While the proposed counsel seeks to act "pro bono," this status does not automatically warrant their inclusion. The Court must ensure that its proceedings are conducted in an orderly and efficient manner. The Court appreciates the public-spirited nature of pro bono representation; however, it must balance this against the need for procedural orderliness and the current adequacy of representation. The motion does not allege any deficiency in the Plaintiff's current representation, nor does it demonstrate a compelling reason for the addition of new counsel. Courts may grant additional representation when there is evidence of inadequate representation, a conflict of interest, or complexity warranting multiple attorneys. However, none of these factors are present here. The mere desire to represent protestors or act in the public interest, while noble, does not necessitate the addition of new counsel in this specific case. The Court is vested with the authority to manage its docket and the proceedings before it. The decision to allow additional counsel lies within the Court's discretion to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process. Citing 28 U.S.C. § 1654 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, the Court exercises this discretion to prevent potential disruption, confusion, or delay in these proceedings. For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the "Motion for Addition of Counsel" lacks sufficient cause to warrant the addition of Donald J. Wright and Jacob Ezekiel Rabinowitz III as additional counsel in this matter. The Plaintiff is currently represented by competent counsel, and the addition of further attorneys would unnecessarily complicate and potentially delay the proceedings without serving the interests of justice. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff's "Motion for Addition of Counsel" is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 18, 2024 /s/ Judge Martin Hockenbeyer Superior Court Judge County of Los Santos, Civil Division (( @Kotwica ))

Superior Court of San Andreas County of Los Santos Civil Division Case No: 24-CV-1034 Case Name: Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENSE'S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING AI USE AND FILING ERRORS The court has reviewed the Plaintiff's response to the Defendant's allegations concerning the use of AI in preparing legal documents and the purported filing errors. The court will address both the Defendant's concerns and the Plaintiff's explanation to ensure a fair and just ruling. The court recognizes that AI tools, when used appropriately, can aid in drafting legal documents. The Plaintiff's counsel has clarified that AI was used merely as a drafting aid, with full human oversight maintained. While the Defendant has raised valid concerns about ensuring that legal filings reflect the judgment and responsibility of the attorney, the court finds that there has been no violation of ethical standards in this instance. The court acknowledges the Plaintiff's counsel's admission of a technical error in the initial filing. Minor errors in legal documents can occur, particularly for attorneys appearing in court for the first time. However, this does not excuse the responsibility to ensure that all filings are complete and accurate. In the interest of fairness, the court will permit the Plaintiff to correct the procedural deficiency. ORDER: The court finds no evidence of misconduct regarding the use of AI by Plaintiff's counsel. This matter is now settled and will not be revisited without substantial new grounds. The Plaintiff is granted leave to resubmit the motion to compel production of evidence, ensuring all procedural requirements are fully met. The corrected filing must be submitted within 3 days of this order. Both parties are reminded of their obligations to uphold the integrity of court proceedings. Continued focus on procedural disputes to the detriment of substantive issues may result in sanctions. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 18, 2024 /s/ Judge Martin Hockenbeyer Superior Court Judge County of Los Santos, Civil Division (( @nfr.ai @John Gilbane ))

"Counsel?" (( @nfr.ai ))

Superior Court of San Andreas County of Los Santos Civil Division Case No: 24-CV-1034 Case Name: Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department ORDER ON DEFENSE'S MOTION TO RECUSE OPPOSING COUNSEL This matter comes before the court following the Defendant’s oral motion to recuse Plaintiff’s counsel, Attorney Xavier Castenda, based on allegations of improper use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the preparation of legal filings. The court also addresses the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Evidence. Both parties have submitted briefs concerning the use of AI in legal document preparation. The court acknowledges that technological advancements, including AI tools, have become increasingly common in the legal profession. AI can assist attorneys in drafting documents, checking for errors, and streamlining certain administrative tasks. However, the primary concern here is whether the use of AI by Plaintiff's counsel undermined the professional responsibilities of an attorney, including the requirement for independent legal judgment and accountability. Attorney Xavier Castenda has clarified that AI was employed as a drafting aid to suggest language improvements and identify potential errors in documents. However, he asserts that all filings were reviewed, modified, and finalized by him, fulfilling his professional obligations. The court finds this explanation aligns with the ethical standards provided that the attorney remains the final arbiter of the content and maintains full responsibility for the filings. The Defense argues that reliance on AI breaches procedural standards requiring that court filings be authored by human attorneys, potentially compromising the integrity of the legal process. While the court agrees that the core role of legal counsel must not be delegated to AI, the use of AI as a supplementary tool does not inherently violate procedural rules or ethical standards, provided that counsel exercises full oversight and judgment. The court references Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), which requires every submission to be signed by an attorney of record, certifying that it has been properly reviewed. This rule is meant to ensure accountability, not to preclude the use of advanced tools for drafting assistance. The critical factor is whether the attorney has conducted a reasonable inquiry into the law and facts, applying independent legal judgment. ORDER: Defense’s Motion to Recuse Plaintiff’s Counsel: The court DENIES the Defense’s motion to recuse Plaintiff’s counsel. The court finds no evidence that the use of AI by Attorney Xavier Castenda in preparing legal documents constituted a breach of his professional duties. The AI's role was limited to providing drafting support, while the attorney retained full responsibility for the filings. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Evidence: Given the resolution of the issue regarding AI's use, the court will now lift the stay on proceedings concerning the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Evidence. The court orders the Los Santos Police Department to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Evidence within three days of this order. Failure to do so may result in sanctions or adverse inferences. The court acknowledges the evolving role of technology in legal practice. However, the fundamental requirement is that attorneys remain the final and accountable authority over legal filings. In this case, Attorney Xavier Castenda's use of AI does not demonstrate a lack of compliance with professional or procedural standards. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 18, 2024 /s/ Judge Martin Hockenbeyer Superior Court Judge County of Los Santos, Civil Division (( @John Gilbane @nfr.ai ))

Superior Court of San Andreas County of Los Santos Civil Division Case No: 24-CV-1034 Case Name: Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department ORDER ON DEFENSE'S ORAL MOTION TO RECUSE OPPOSING COUNSEL The court has been presented with an oral motion by the Defense, represented by Attorney John Gilbane, to recuse the Plaintiff’s counsel, Attorney Xavier Castenda. The Defense raises concerns regarding the use of AI-generated assistance in the preparation of legal documents, asserting that such reliance may compromise the integrity of legal filings. In this jurisdiction, the court recognizes that technology, including AI tools, can assist attorneys in preparing legal documents. However, the use of such tools does not absolve an attorney from their professional responsibilities. It is the duty of counsel to ensure that any documents submitted to the court are accurate, properly researched, and compliant with applicable laws and ethical standards. The court requires clarification on the following points: Nature of AI Assistance: Whether the use of AI in this case was merely for drafting support or if it supplanted the professional judgment of Plaintiff's counsel. Counsel’s Oversight: Assurance that Attorney Xavier Castenda has thoroughly reviewed, modified, and endorsed all documents submitted, ensuring they meet the standards of professional legal conduct. ORDER: The court will hold a hearing on this matter to allow both parties to present arguments regarding the use of AI assistance in this case. The hearing is scheduled for September 18, 2024. Both parties are directed to submit briefs outlining their positions on the use of AI-generated assistance in legal filings. The Plaintiff's counsel shall submit their brief by September 19, 2024. The Defense shall submit any responses by September 20, 2024. Until this matter is resolved, the court will stay further proceedings on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Evidence. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 18, 2024 /s/ Judge Martin Hockenbeyer Superior Court Judge County of Los Santos, Civil Division (( @John Gilbane @nfr.ai ))

Superior Court of San Andreas County of Los Santos Civil Division Case No: 24-CV-1034 Case Name: Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE The court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s "Motion to Compel Production of Evidence," filed by Attorney Xavier Castenda on behalf of Michelle Jefferson, as well as the response submitted by Attorney John Gilbane for the Defendant, the Los Santos Police Department (LSPD). The plaintiff has requested the production of bodycam and dashcam footage from Officer Sergeant Amber Moore, alleging that this evidence is essential for the case's proper adjudication. The Plaintiff filed this motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Sections 2031.310 and 2030.300, seeking to compel the production of specific evidence after the LSPD allegedly failed to comply with prior discovery requests. The defense’s response argues against the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claims but does not directly address the discovery request at hand. In civil litigation, discovery is intended to allow both parties access to evidence that is likely to support or refute the claims and defenses presented. The court finds that the requested bodycam and dashcam footage is potentially relevant to the matters in dispute. As such, its production is necessary for a fair and thorough examination of the facts. ORDER The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Evidence is hereby GRANTED. The Los Santos Police Department is ordered to produce the following evidence: Bodycam footage from Officer Sergeant Amber Moore, including all recordings related to incidents occurring on the dates specified in the Plaintiff's request. Dashcam footage from the police vehicle occupied by Officer Sergeant Amber Moore on the dates specified in the Plaintiff's request. The Los Santos Police Department shall comply with this order by producing the requested footage no later than September 19, 2024. Failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions against the Defendant, including but not limited to adverse inferences being drawn from the non-production of the requested evidence. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 18, 2024 /s/ Judge Martin Hockenbeyer Superior Court Judge County of Los Santos, Civil Division (( @John Gilbane @Userone @nfr.ai ))

"The court acknowledges the recent communication dated September 16, 2024, from the plaintiff, Michelle Jefferson, which includes the following updates: Amendment of Allegations: The plaintiff has included an additional allegation of false arrest occurring on September 14, 2024. The plaintiff has further asserted that the charges of "Obstruction of Justice" were falsely levied by Officer Amber Moore on multiple occasions. Legal Representation: The court acknowledges that the plaintiff has retained legal counsel, Mr. Xavier Castenda, who will represent her in this matter moving forward. Orders: The court hereby issues the following orders in light of the recent updates to the case: Defendant's Response: The Los Santos Police Department and Officer Amber Moore are ordered to file an updated response to the amended complaint. The deadline for this response is 5 days from the date of service of the updated case file. Proof of Service: Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Xavier Castenda, is ordered to file proof of service with the court for both the Los Santos Police Department and Officer Amber Moore immediately upon completion of service." SO ORDERED. Dated: September 16, 2024 /s/ Judge Martin Hockenbeyer Superior Court Judge County of Los Santos, Civil Division (( @Userone ))

Superior Court of San Andreas County of Los Santos Civil Division Case Name: Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department Case Number: 24-CV-1034 Order to Serve: The court hereby issues the following order: Service of Process The plaintiff, Michelle Jefferson, is ordered to serve a copy of the Civil Case Cover Sheet, Civil Case Brief, and this Order on the defendant, Los Santos Police Department, including Officer Amber Moore. The service must be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure for the State of San Andreas. Method of Service Service may be completed by personal delivery, certified mail, or any other method prescribed by law for the service of civil complaints. Proof of service must be filed with the court promptly upon completion of service. Deadline for Service The plaintiff must serve the defendant within 3 days from the date of this order. Failure to complete service within this timeframe may result in dismissal of the case without prejudice. Defendant's Response Upon receipt of this order, the defendant, Los Santos Police Department, shall have 5 days to file a formal response to the complaint. Failure to respond within the allotted time may result in a default judgment against the defendant. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 14, 2024 /s/ Martin Hockenbeyer Superior Court Judge County of Los Santos, Civil Division ((@Userone))

“Counsel for the plaintiff, the court has been informed of ongoing settlement negotiations. I must remind you that your client's active participation is essential for these discussions to proceed effectively. If you are unable to reach your client and facilitate their involvement in these negotiations, the court may consider dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss an action if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order. This includes situations where a plaintiff is unresponsive or otherwise fails to move their case forward. The court is empowered to dismiss the case with or without prejudice depending on the circumstances. Please ensure that you are able to communicate with your client promptly, as failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action.”

“Counsel, I appreciate your efforts to resolve this matter amicably. However, the court has an obligation to ensure that cases proceed in a timely manner. I am willing to grant a brief continuance if you can provide a clear timeline for the negotiations. How much time do you anticipate needing to finalize the settlement?”

"Counsel for the defense, I must reiterate that while discovery provides a foundation for the case, the evidentiary weight lies in the testimony and exhibits presented in court. Mere assertions based on pre-trial findings without supporting evidence are insufficient." Objection to Q31: Overruled The objection is overruled. The question seeks the witness's personal perception, which can be relevant to their actions and decision-making process. Objection to Q32: Overruled The objection is overruled. The defense has not presented any evidence to corroborate the claim that Mr. Castillo was the only deputy on scene. Therefore, the question remains relevant. Objection to Q33: Overruled The objection is overruled. The question seeks to clarify the witness's state of mind at a specific point in time and is not repetitive. Objection to Q34: Overruled The objection is overruled. The defense has not presented evidence to support the assertion that Mr. Castillo was not under investigation or threat. Therefore, the question is relevant to determining if appropriate warnings were given. Objection to Q35: Overruled The objection is overruled. The defense has not presented evidence to substantiate the claim that Mr. Castillo refused a field interview. The witness may have relevant testimony. Please proceed with the examination." (( @Michael @Kayayday @Kotwica ))

Objection to Q31: Overruled. IAB investigators are typically expected to maintain impartiality, the question is directed at the witness's personal impression, which is relevant to understanding the context of the investigation. However, the witness should clarify that their impression does not imply bias or prejudice. Objection to Q32: Sustained. If evidence has been presented establishing that Mr. Castillo was the only deputy on scene, the question is redundant. The foundation for the witness's choice to speak with Mr. Castillo has already been laid by this evidence. Therefore, there’s no need for further inquiry on this point unless there’s new evidence being introduced Objection to Q33: Overruled. The question of intent to conduct an investigation is distinct from whether the investigation was initiated or not. The question aims to understand the purpose or objective behind the conversation with Mr. Castillo, which is a valid line of inquiry. Objection to Q34: Sustained. If it has been established that Mr. Castillo was neither under investigation nor facing any administrative or criminal charges at the time, then a Miranda or Garrity warning would not be necessary. Thus, the question is irrelevant to the established facts. Objection to Q35: Overruled. The objection that counsel is testifying is not valid here. The question aims to clarify the content of Mr. Castillo’s responses or lack thereof, which is relevant to the case. If evidence was provided that Mr. Castillo refused the field interview, it is still important to document what, if anything, was discussed or admitted. (( @Kotwica @Michael @Kayayday ))

"Plaintiff, you may inquire." @Kotwica

Superior Court of San Andreas County of Los Santos Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001 Case Title: Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department To: Sergeant (now-Lieutenant) Elise Crawford Los Santos County Sheriff's Department (LSSD) 2807 Macdonald Street, Los Santos, San Andreas, 90012 You Are Hereby Summoned: In the name of the people of the State of San Andreas, you, Sergeant Crawford, are hereby required to appear before the Superior Court of San Andreas, County of Los Santos, as a witness in the case of Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department (LCS-CV-2024-001). Details of Appearance: Date: 10/08/2024 Time: 08:30 Location: Antonin Scalia Memorial Courthouse 1817 Hopkins Avenue, Market, Los Santos 343, San Andreas Courtroom: 1 Purpose of Summons You are summoned to provide testimony in the above-referenced case. Your testimony is critical in establishing the facts relevant to the matter at hand. Legal Consequences Failure to appear at the specified date and time without lawful excuse may subject you to penalties, including but not limited to contempt of court. You may also be liable for any damages caused by your non-compliance with this summons. Preparation You may bring any documents, records, or evidence in your possession that are relevant to the matters for which your testimony is sought. You are encouraged to consult with your legal counsel prior to your appearance if you have any questions about your testimony or this summons. Issued By: Martin Hockenbeyer Honorable Judge Superior Court of San Andreas, County of Los Santos Date of Issuance: 08/08/2024 Seal of the Superior Court of San Andreas County of Los Santos (( @Kayayday @Michael @Kotwica))

"Counsel for the plaintiff, have you completed presenting your evidence and witnesses? Would you like to rest your case in chief at this time?" @Kotwica @Michael

"Is there anything else to add, Ms. Thyne? Mr. Wright?" @Michael @Kotwica

"It is indeed, Mr. Wright."

"Mr. White, the rephrased question is relevant and falls within the scope of the direct examination therefore your objection is overruled. The witness may answer the rephrased question."

"To clarify and address any concerns, the court asks the Plaintiff to specify their objections, if any, to the following questions: Q1: Are you currently assigned to, or work in the Internal Affairs Bureau in any capacity? 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? Q4: Do you know for certain that a one-way mirror was installed in the room or are you simply making an inference? 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? Q11: Are employees on administrative leave reasonably allowed to carry their issued firearm? Please specify the grounds for any objections you have to these questions."

"Captain Guanti’s instructed to answer the following questions: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q7, Q8, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q13." "The objections to Q6 and Q9 are sustained, and the witness is not required to answer these questions. "The objection to Q10 is overruled (rephrased). It seeks factual information about Mr. Castillo's status during the interview." @Kotwica @Michael

"Captain Guanti’s testimony about the administrative interview process and his observations during the interview with Sergeant Castillo is admissible under Rule 701 as lay witness testimony. The objections related to speculation about the feelings of others, internal affairs procedures, and the relevance of his administrative leave status are sustained." @Kotwica @Michael

"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

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