Kotwica

“We would ask the court to instruct the witness to answer.” (( @Kayayday @Michael @almightybounter ))

“Your Honor, no documents have been offered for admission. I am unsure what “evidence” this court and opposing counsel is referencing in sustaining objection 32. As to objection 34, the testimony of this witness seems to highlight that IAB was there to investigate, they made contact with my client. Again, this court is referring to documents that have not been admitted as evidence.” (( @Michael @almightybounter))

“You honor, in response to the objections in Question 31 counsel is testifying, this is an improper objection outside the rules of evidence. In response to the object in Question 32, no evidence has yet been offered. I’m laying foundation to work with the exhibit in question. Question 33, was not asked and answered. I am asking what the intent of the investigation was. This is a unique question that has not been asked. Question 35, counsel is testifying, this is an improper objection outside the rules of evidence. I believe counsel is confusing pre trial documentation and the required admission of said evidence in trial for it to be part of the record. (( @Michael, @almightybounter ))

“Q29. What did the pager say Lieutenant? Q30. What did you and Stefan Castillo discuss? Q31. What was your impression of Mr. Castillo? Q32. Why did you select Mr Castillo as opposed to the other individuals on scene to speak to? Q33. When you spoke to Mr Castillo did you intend to conduct an investigation? Q34. Did you Mirandize or Garrity warn Mr Castillo in the hospital? Q35. What if anything did Mr Castillo admit to or deny during your conversation at All Saints? Q36. Did you request an interview in a different location? If so, where? Q37. When did you request a second interview?” (( @almightybounter, @Michael, @Kayayday ))

"Thank you. Q14. Who are the current members of Executive Staff? Q15. Were you alerted to an event that occurred on June 26? Q16. If so, how were you alerted? Q17. Did you respond to a scene? Q18. If so, where did you respond? Q19. Did you respond to the scene with other members of internal affairs, or meet members of internal affairs at the scene? Q20. Who else from internal affairs were on scene? Q21. What did you observe when you arrived on the scene? Q22. How many deputies were on scene when you arrived? Q23. Did you make contact with a Deputy Castillo when you arrived on scene? Q24. Why did you make contact with Deputy Castillo?" @Michael @Kayayday @almightybounter

"Lieutenant, you contradicted yourself. Do you as a member of internal affairs keep official records of your interactions with deputies. You answered that executive staff and internal affairs have access to the records. Which one is it?" @Kayayday @almightybounter @Michael

"Outside of POST, I am unfamiliar with the acronyms you used, for the sake of a clear record I need you to refrain from using acronyms. Q10. As a member of internal affairs do you keep records of your interactions with deputies? Q11. As part of that record keeping, who has access to the records? Q12. Were you working on June 26 2024? Q13. Did you open a record about an event that occurred on June 26, 2024?" @Kayayday, @Michael, @almightybounter

Q2. "Elise, I might've misspoke - who if any organization are you employed by?" Q9. What additional trainings did you take? Donald continues to stand at the podium. @Kayayday @Michael @almightybounter

"Thank you your honor. Lieutenant Crawford, I'm going to ask you a set of questions, as you know during this proceeding is around your conduct and the conduct of other members of the Los Santos Sheriffs Department. Lets begin with some basic questions. Q1. Can you spell your name for the record? Q2. Who if any organize are you employed by? Q3. What position do you hold? Q4. What is your current assignment? Q5. When did you graduate the academy? Q6. What organization hosted your academy? Q7. Did you work in another law enforcement agency prior to your current position? Q8. Have you taken any additional training for the position you have in your current position?" Donald continues to stand at the podium after asking his first eight questions. @Michael@almightybounter@Kayayday

"No, we request the court to summons Sergeant Crawford for examination per our conversation when I took over this case." @almightybounter

"A few questions for redirect. Q1. Captain, you answered that you asked for a private moment, why did you want that private moment? Q2. When the internal affairs investigators did not leave - bring us back to that point. Did you in that moment feel that you were not free to leave? Q3. Did this investigation feel any different than any other investigations you attended or personally conducted, if so why? Q4. Do you believe that the fundamentals of policing that you are familiar with govern the conduct and type of policing that these investigators perform?" @GriffinT @Michael @almightybounter

"Thank you counselor, just for the court record if the judge is able to confirm for the clarity of the record."

"My apologies your honor, who is Mister White? And to be completely clear our witness is to answer question one through five, ten and eleven? You did not mention ten in your previous statement."

"Your honor, we seek to no raise no new objections. However, I am unclear on the courts ruling to question ten. We objected on the grounds of relevance and outside of the scope of direct examination, it is unclear whether you are asking the witness to answer question ten."

"We request the court to instruct the witness on the questions he is to answer and respectfully preserve the objection."

"Your honor, your ruling?"

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

“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.”

“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.”

"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."

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

“We call our first witness.”

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

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

"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."