Upload
jack-ryan
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
1/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2471
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants.
)))
)))
)
)
)))
No. CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, Arizona
October 8, 2015
9:03 a.m.
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW
(Evidentiary Hearing Day 11, Pages 2471-2711)
Court Reporter: Gary Moll
401 W. Washington Street, SPC #38
Phoenix, Arizona 85003(602) 322-7263
Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporterTranscript prepared by computer-aided transcription
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
2/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2472
A P P E A R A N C E S
For the Plaintiffs:American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
Immigrants' Rights ProjectBy: Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
Immigrants' Rights Project
By: Andre Segura, Esq.
125 Broad Street, 18th FloorNew York, New York 10004
American Civil Liberties Union of ArizonaBy: Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.P.O. Box 17148
Phoenix, Arizona 85011
Covington & Burling, LLPBy: Tammy Albarran, Esq.
1 Front Street, 35th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Covington & Burling, LLP
By: Stanley Young, Esq.
By: Michelle L. Morin, Esq.333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, California 94065
For the Defendant Maricopa County:
Walker & Peskind, PLLCBy: Richard K. Walker, Esq.
By: Charles W. Jirauch, Esq.SGA Corporate Center
16100 N. 7th Street, Suite 140
Phoenix, Arizona 85254
For Executive Chief Brian Sands:Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
By: Greg S. Como, Esq.
2929 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1700Phoenix, Arizona 85012
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
3/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2473
A P P E A R A N C E S
For the Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa CountySheriff's Office:
Iafrate & AssociatesBy: Michele M. Iafrate, Esq.649 N. 2nd Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
By: A. Melvin McDonald, Jr., Esq.
By: John T. Masterson, Esq.
By: Joseph T. Popolizio, Esq.2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800Phoenix, Arizona 85012
For the Movants Christine Stutz and Thomas P. Liddy:Broening, Oberg, Woods & Wilson, PC
By: Terrence P. Woods, Esq.P.O. Box 20527
Phoenix, Arizona 85036
For the Intervenor United States of America:
U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights DivisionBy: Paul Killebrew, Esq.950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 5th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20530
U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division
By: Cynthia Coe, Esq.601 D. Street NW, #5011
Washington, D.C. 20004
For Lieutenant Joseph Sousa:
David Eisenberg, PLCBy: David Eisenberg, Esq.
2702 N. 3rd Street, Suite 4003
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
For Brian Mackiewicz:Sitton Nash
By: Alexandra Mijares Nash, Esq.
301 W. Warner Road, Suite 133Tempe, Arizona 85284
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
4/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2474
A P P E A R A N C E S
Also present:Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio
Executive Chief Brian SandsChief Deputy Gerard SheridanLieutenant Joseph Sousa
I N D E X
Witness: Page
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO
Direct Examination Continued by Mr. Young 2497Cross-Examination by Mr. Masterson 2504
Redirect Examination by Mr. Young 2536Examination by the Court 2556
JOSEPH SOUSA
Direct Examination by Ms. Wang 2589
Cross-Examination by Mr. Popolizio 2693
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
5/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2475
E X H I B I T S
No. Description Admitted
2008 Employee Grievance Response by Chief Deputy 2681
Sheridan, 7/28/2015 (MELC724585-MELC724587)
2555 E-mail from Joseph Sousa to Lisa Allen re 2608
answers to JJ Hensley's questions dated6/7/2012 (MELC830783-830784)
2559B MCSO Memorandum from Joseph Sousa to Chief 2657
Joe Rodriguez, dated 05/19/15, re Grievance
reference discipline received for IA#14-0542(MELC-IA013644 through MELC-IA013648)
2560 MCSO Internal Affairs Investigation Report of 2648Deputy C. Armendariz re missing money fromAmber Marie Murphy's bag dated 5/17/2010
(MELC-IA013516-IA013517)
2561 Memorandum from Joseph Sousa to Edward Lopez 2675re disciplinary action against Sousa for
failure to supervise duties under command in
reference to the proper impounding of evidenceitems dated 6/4/2015 (MELC1337432-1337436)
2837 Video Excerpt from The Joe Show, released 2496
February 26, 2014 dated 2/26/2014
2856 MCSO Memorandum re: ICE LEAR Protocol dated 26158/18/2009 (MELC1397148-MELC1397149)
2898 MCSO Memorandum from Lt. Joseph Sousa to Chief 2660Mike Olson, dated 05-14-15, re: Response to
possible disciplinary action. Pre-DeterminationHearing #14-0542 set for 05-15-15
(MELC-IA013686 through MELC-IA013693)
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
6/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2476
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated.
THE CLERK: This is civil case number 07-2513,
Melendres, et al., v. Arpaio, et al., on for continuation of
evidentiary hearing.
Counsel, please announce your appearances.
MS. WANG: Good morning, Your Honor. Cecillia Wang
and Andre Segura of the ACLU for plaintiffs.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. YOUNG: Good morning, Your Honor. Stanley Young,
Tammy Albarran, and Michelle Morin for plaintiffs, from
Covington & Burling.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. POCHODA: Dan Pochoda of the ACLU of Arizona for
plaintiffs.
MR. KILLEBREW: Good morning, Your Honor. Paul
Killebrew and Cynthia Coe for the United States.
MR. MASTERSON: Good morning, Judge Snow. John
Masterson, Joe Popolizio for Sheriff Arpaio and the individual
contemnors, and with us is Holly McGee.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. WALKER: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard Walker
on behalf of Maricopa County. And Mr. Jirauch suffered an
injury over the weekend, so I'm not sure whether he'll be
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
7/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2477
joining us or not today.
THE COURT: I hope not serious.
MR. WALKER: It could be. Involved a concussion,
so...
THE COURT: Well, send him the best of I'm sure not
just me, but everyone involved.
MR. WALKER: Thank you.
MS. MIJARES NASH: Good morning, Your Honor.
Alexandra Mijares Nash, specially appearing for Brian
Mackiewicz.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. McDONALD: Good morning, Judge Snow. Mel McDonald
making a special appearance for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. COMO: Good morning, Your Honor. Greg Como of
Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith representing retired Chief
Brian Sands.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. WOODS: Good morning, Your Honor. Terry Woods
representing nonparties Stutz and Liddy.
MS. IAFRATE: Good morning, Your Honor. Michele
Iafrate on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio and the alleged unnamed
contemnors.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. EISENBERG: Good morning, Your Honor. David
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
8/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2478
Eisenberg specially appearing on behalf of Lieutenant Sousa.
THE COURT: Good morning.
All right. We have a couple of matters to take up
before we resume the testimony of Sheriff Arpaio. The first
is, I asked both parties to prepare a joint pretrial -- or
joint pretrial-like statement. I didn't get one. I got
plaintiffs' submission late last evening that has Mr. Como's
suggestions. I got defendants'. You may have filed it last
evening, Mr. Masterson, but I didn't read it till this morning.
I don't view it as compliant as to what I requested at
all, and I'm going to determine whether or not we're going to
recess hearings right now while you hammer out what I'm going
to view as being compliant, or go forward if you can provide me
with a compliant statement.
I do realize that the parties have been working under
some difficulty in light of depositions that you had, I presume
yesterday, don't know. I did discuss with all parties on the
phone -- Mr. Popolizio was representing defendants -- the need
to reschedule some of the subpoena obligations of Mr. Zullo and
that deposition, so I realize that you were working with that
difficulty. I still don't view this as a compliant statement
and I will tell you why.
I realize that it is all parties' rights not to
stipulate to documents if you don't want to, and apparently
there are very few to no stipulations as it pertains to
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
9/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2479
documents. And so because -- I guess if the parties aren't
going to arrive at stipulations, I have to take that into
account in determining what time I'm going to allow, because we
have to have the foundation for every document that is out
there, and if we have to do that, we have to do that. I will
allow time for that.
We have no statement as to the defendants as to the
witnesses they wish to call and what they expect those
witnesses to testify to. We do have that statement as to
plaintiffs, but none -- you have identified just witnesses.
You haven't indicated what you anticipate their testimony would
be at all, Mr. Masterson, and it's impossible for me to assess
what kind of time limits I'm going to impose unless you can
tell me what your witnesses will testify to.
The plaintiffs, as I said, did provide that, and I
have a few comments with respect to that, too, that I want to
talk about. But I'm going to require the defendants to provide
that kind of information so that I can give you -- so that we
can know exactly who's going to be called when.
I realize, too, Mr. Masterson, that you may not choose
to call some of your witnesses, and that's fine. You're not
going to get any argument, I think, from anybody at this point.
That's fine. But if you're going to call them, as is the case
always in civil matters, I require you to disclose the topics
of their testimony in a joint pretrial statement, and that
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
10/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2480
hasn't been done.
What I generally do in civil trials, which I haven't
done here because discovery was ongoing and apparently still is
ongoing, is I give plaintiffs a certain amount of time and I
give defendants a certain amount of time and I charge against
you the time you spend in direct and cross and all of those
things. I'm going to go back and do my best to reconstruct
that. I have kept some rough notes. But I'm also going to
keep in mind the nature of ongoing discovery in this case.
But one of the things I think Mr. Masterson suggested
that I think is worth taking up -- we're going to have
Lieutenant Sousa in a few minutes; we have Sheriff Arpaio on
the stand right now. I realize that new matters and new -- and
new discovery require that we go over, sometimes, previous
testimony to the extent that that is enlightened by new
discovery. But with respect to the topics that you've
indicated Lieutenant Sousa's going to talk about, he already
talked about a lot of those topics in his previous testimony.
I don't see any need to track over that again unless it's
highlighted by some newfound information.
So you've indicated that you'll take three hours with
Lieutenant Sousa. And I guess I want to know why we're going
to have to take three hours with Lieutenant Sousa. What kind
of new information do we have that's going to take three hours?
And just -- and the only reason I'm doing this, plaintiffs, is
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
11/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2481
to demonstrate exactly what I intend to do when I get
defendants' statement of what they're going to do with
witnesses in setting the trial schedule going forward, so we
know roughly who and what we have and when they're going to be
testifying.
Mr. Jirauch, welcome.
MR. JIRAUCH: I'm sorry, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Welcome.
MR. JIRAUCH: Thank you.
THE COURT: Glad to see you here.
MR. JIRAUCH: I'm glad I was able to make it.
THE COURT: So is everybody clear on that?
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let me you ask you first,
Mr. Masterson, when can you give me a single document that will
have your -- I mean, you've put in a lot of things, but I've
indicated what I view as your major deficiency. When can you
give me a single document that's going to tell me what your
witnesses are going to testify to?
MR. MASTERSON: Judge, I think we can probably get
that out tonight. I had put together the -- most of the --
what you got last night over the last couple days. Then I
received plaintiffs' revised edition with the witness testimony
yesterday and did not have time to revise ours and get it to
the Court yesterday, but I can do that -- well, after we get
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
12/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2482
done today.
THE COURT: All right. Well, then I'll look at it
way, way, way, late tonight, or early, early, early tomorrow
morning, so that we can have this discussion, I guess,
tomorrow.
Ms. Wang.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, just briefly on defendants'
submission last night, they previously provided us with a list
of witnesses through e-mail, on the fly, as we were all working
during the hearing. But last night they listed three new
witnesses they previously had not disclosed: Lieutenant Molina,
Lieutenant Skinner, and Captain Farnsworth. And plaintiffs
would request that if they will put those witnesses on the
stand, that we have a chance to depose them before that.
I also note, Your Honor, that the deposition of Deputy
Garcia, our request is still pending. I first requested that
deposition on September 16th and followed up again on September
29th, and have not heard from defendants as to when that
deposition can go forward.
THE COURT: Okay. So we have Garcia, Molina,
Farnsworth, and Skinner?
MS. WANG: Correct.
THE COURT: Mr. Masterson?
MR. MASTERSON: Well, Judge, it was a bit difficult
for us to anticipate who all we needed to call. I first got
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
13/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2483
witnesses and exhibits shortly before we began a couple weeks
ago, and we've been working diligently since then to put
together what we need to do to respond to what plaintiffs have
presented. So, yeah, there's a couple new witnesses, and there
will be maybe a couple more witnesses that we add.
I will tell you that it should be no surprise to the
plaintiffs as to who these people are. They're people who have
worked on compliance efforts with MCSO, through the monitors
and the Court, and provided substantial assistance to the
monitors and put together significant materials and quarterly
reports to turn over to the monitors which were then forwarded
to the Court. So these were not anybody we've been hiding;
these are folks who have been working with the monitors and the
Court to comply with the Court's previous orders.
THE COURT: Well, I assume if you're going to add new
witnesses, you're going to do your very best to put them on
tonight so we can discuss them tomorrow.
MR. MASTERSON: Absolutely.
THE COURT: Do you have any issue, since we're
about -- we've got today and tomorrow, then we have Tuesday and
Wednesday, then we have a week and a half off. Do you have any
issue with plaintiffs taking the depositions in that week and a
half off, of witnesses that you just noticed?
MR. MASTERSON: I don't. I don't. I'd prefer not to
see these seven-hour marathons --
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
14/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2484
THE COURT: I would prefer that, too. I don't blame
you.
Ms. Wang.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I have just one concern based
on what Mr. Masterson just said. If defendants' intent is to
elicit testimony about MCSO's efforts to comply with other
court orders than the ones that are at issue in this case, or
subject matters other than MCSO's internal accountability
systems, plaintiffs' position would be that that testimony
would not be relevant to this civil contempt hearing and the
remedies that are at issue.
THE COURT: Well, I guess I get that, Ms. Wang.
Do you want to say something, Mr. Masterson?
MR. MASTERSON: I do, Judge. We've spent many hours,
if not days, in depositions, and certainly many hours in trial,
going over testimony and issues concerning Dennis Montgomery
and the Seattle investigation because plaintiffs contend --
THE COURT: Clearly, to me, if you want to introduce
information about Montgomery and the Seattle investigation,
that's fine.
MR. MASTERSON: I don't. But what I want to do is
plaintiffs contend that this shows the attitude of the sheriff
or MCSO. My contention is what really shows the attitude of
MCSO is everything they have done to comply with the court
orders, rather than what some guy in Seattle did.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
15/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2485
THE COURT: Well, I'll tell you what my inclination
is. My inclination is to give you at least limited leeway to
do that; I think that's fair game. If it goes too far afield,
I may tell you it's time to stop this.
As I said, Friday, I've got no interest in stretching
this thing on through November and December. But as I've also
indicated to the parties, if you've got factual matters that
you want to argue, I want to do factual -- I want to do all the
factual testimony in this hearing here and now. And then, as I
believe I indicated, I'll give -- I'm trying to keep track of
it all. I'm not sure I'm going to succeed, but I am trying.
And what I would like to do is within a few days after
the end of this hearing I'm going to give you a chance to argue
your positions, and then I'm going to make findings of fact.
And then, in light of the findings of fact, we'll determine
whether or not there are any factual issues outstanding at all;
or, B, if we need to, and if we do, the extent to which we need
to have experts on Internal Affairs remediation. I think
that's what we've all agreed to, isn't that correct?
MR. MASTERSON: I believe so, yes.
THE COURT: Ms. Wang?
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. So ultimately, I will allow
you some leeway to talk to me about efforts at compliance that
don't really relate to the matters in contempt. But it's not
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
16/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2486
going to be unlimited leeway, and it would be one of those
things I would appreciate it. Apparently, you know, you don't
want to stipulate, and again, that's everybody's right, you
don't have to stipulate to documents. But I would suspect that
some -- that you might at least try to stipulate with the
parties the extent to which there has been compliance.
I have already stated on the record, and I don't
suppose that anybody's going to tell me that I can't talk about
matters that are in the record, even if they aren't part of
this hearing. But I've already stated on the record that I
attended, for example, unannounced, the initial training of
MCSO personnel and I found that training to be impressive. I
did note that I came unannounced, and I don't have any reason
to believe that Chief Deputy Sheridan knew I was coming, and
yet I attended the training in which he himself was. I
complimented him for that.
So there have been some things that, while I have been
very discouraged at a number of things, there certainly have
been things that I've placed on the record that I've noted
constituted what I thought to be at least good faith attempts
to comply with my order.
But I also don't think that we need to review what the
monitor has already done in terms of his quarterly assessments
and the extent to which he assesses that MCSO's in compliance.
And I'm not going to open up a whole bunch of arguments about
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
17/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2487
whether or not the monitor's assessments in his normal
quarterly reports are accurate, because there's a procedure by
which you can contest those, and as far as I'm aware, you have
never contested any of those on relevant issues.
So I'd suggest that you go back, look at those monitor
reports, look at areas where I've indicated that I've noted
compliance, look at areas where I've noted noncompliance, and
maybe you can stipulate to a lot of that stuff.
Does that sound reasonable to you, Mr. Masterson?
MR. MASTERSON: It does, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. But if you can, can you try
and pull that together tonight? I gathered from some sort of
e-mail message that Mr. Young sent everybody yesterday and
copied my office there's a possibility there might be some dead
time tomorrow. I hate dead time. And so maybe we can use it
to sort of shore up the rest of this schedule so we know what
we're doing.
Does that make sense, too?
MR. MASTERSON: That makes a lot of sense.
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Wang, did you have --
MS. WANG: Your Honor, as to that point, we've done
our best to rearrange with defendants to avoid dead time
tomorrow. The issue was that Captain Bailey and Mr. Vogel both
had scheduling issues and cannot go until next week, so we
tried to move up the subsequent witnesses and tried to work
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
18/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2488
with defendants to make them available tomorrow to try to avoid
running out of witnesses.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. MASTERSON: And I just want to point out, Judge,
that we're going to do our best. We scheduled the witnesses in
the order that we were given yesterday and the day before, and
then I got another shift or move of the witnesses this morning
when I got in. Although I think it was sent yesterday
afternoon, I didn't get it until this morning. So we're trying
now to see if we can move people around, and we'll do our best.
THE COURT: I'd appreciate that.
To the extent that we do have time, let's use it
productively on other matters. It seems like we do have
matters that we can take up and maybe use some time
productively.
Do we want to now discuss what we anticipate that
schedule to be, so everybody knows what we're talking about?
Today we have Sheriff Arpaio, obviously; and then I
gather you're going to call Lieutenant Sousa.
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor. And then after
Lieutenant Sousa we are prepared to go forward with
Sergeant Tennyson; and then we will skip to Chief Olson, if he
is available, and Sergeant Anglin.
THE COURT: All right. It looked to me like your
estimates for Tennyson and Olson were reasonable, given --
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
19/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2489
given that, so I don't have any issue with your time estimates
on Tennyson and Olson and Anglin.
Are those the witnesses you anticipate for rest of the
week, or are there others?
MS. WANG: I believe that's it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
We now probably need to take up -- I did receive a
filing under seal from Mr. Conrad. If nobody objects to my
accepting the filing under seal, I'm going to do that.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, plaintiffs do not have that
document.
THE COURT: Hmm.
MS. WANG: I do not know what it is.
THE COURT: On the motion to seal pleading filed by
Mr. Conrad, he shows it being sent to Iafrate, Masterson,
Young, Pedley, Pochoda, Wang, Segura, Lai, Castillo, Walker,
McDonald, Birnbaum, Stein, Mitchell, Wilenchik, Como,
Eisenberg, Rapp, Woods, Clark, Killebrew, Nash.
Did you not receive it?
MS. WANG: We have a copy of the motion; we do not
have a copy of any document that --
THE COURT: All right. So he not only filed it under
seal, he filed it ex parte?
MS. WANG: That appears to be the case, unless it is
in the mail.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
20/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2490
THE COURT: Mr. Masterson, did you receive it?
MR. MASTERSON: Well, we received -- at least to my
knowledge, we received what Ms. Wang received.
THE COURT: All right. But you didn't receive the
substance of his explanation?
MR. MASTERSON: No.
THE COURT: All right. Well, then, I will inform the
parties that he has apparently filed something, a motion that
is ex parte as well as under seal. And I will also inform the
parties that I have read that motion, not understanding that it
was filed ex parte and not merely under seal.
I don't really think that is appropriate. However, I
can understand him not necessarily wanting Ms. Nash to see
everything that he said.
But I will tell you what my upshot is. He's not here.
Ms. Iafrate, I think, contacted him and indicated she had, and
that we would give them until today to set forth any case that
they thought why matters should be under seal.
I'm going to say that my inclination is to do two
things. First, it is to show what Mr. Conrad has filed to all
the parties so that it is not an ex parte motion. And by all
parties, I guess I only mean all parties in this context, and
not necessarily specially appearing parties, including
Ms. Nash.
But I will also tell you -- and in fact, if I need to
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
21/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2491
show it to you right now, I will show it to you right now --
that in that motion he does acknowledge that the -- there seems
to have been quite a bit of public dissemination of the fact
that Mr. -- or that Detective Mackiewicz is under a criminal
investigation. He does not believe that that is the basis for
things to be under seal. He does express some concerns. And,
course, he expresses what I view as a rather general preference
to not have anybody know anything about criminal investigations
that are ongoing.
As I indicated to Ms. Iafrate on Friday, however, that
generalized concern does not seem to me to weigh, when I have
to balance matters in which there is a public interest against
any law enforcement privilege which requires a balancing.
So I will tell you that it would be my inclination, to
the extent that matters pertaining to items that have already
been admitted into evidence in this matter, or matters that are
the topics of investigation that everybody knows that
detective -- or everybody has testified that
Detective Mackiewicz is already -- or Mackiewicz is already
aware of, if you have questions that relate to that, to those
topics, and don't go any further for Sheriff Arpaio, I'm
inclined to allow you to ask them.
However, on a question-by-question basis, or if the
parties want to review that now and express generalized concern
so that any sort of privilege that they may -- or any sort of
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
22/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2492
concern they may have about impairing investigations is raised
and not -- raised before it's raised in on court, I'll hear you
now.
Mr. Masterson.
MR. MASTERSON: I believe I'd like to see the
document, please, Judge.
THE COURT: Sure.
Ms. Wang?
MS. WANG: We'd like to see it, too.
THE COURT: Mr. Como?
MR. COMO: It's not really necessary for me to see it,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: And Mr. Walker?
MR. WALKER: I'd like to see it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Well, why don't you parties
come to sidebar and I will show you my copy of the document.
I've only got one, and actually, unfortunately, it contains
some of my notes, but I guess, without waiving any privilege --
Well, can you print off a copy for me from the docket?
THE CLERK: What is it?
THE COURT: It is docket document 1443 lodged under
seal.
THE CLERK: Do you want the entire thing printed?
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
THE CLERK: The entire thing?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
23/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:3
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2493
THE COURT: It's the document that's entitled Response
to Court's Inquiry of the Arizona Attorney General.
(Off-the-record discussion between the Court and the
clerk.)
(Pause in proceedings.)
THE COURT: If the parties want to take -- and I'm
just talking parties now -- if the parties want to take a
minute, review that rather brief pleading, then I'll discuss it
with you at sidebar if you wish.
(Off-the-record discussion between counsel.)
THE COURT: The parties ready to discuss this at
sidebar if they wish to?
MS. WANG: Yes.
(Bench conference on the record.)
(Page 2493, line 15, through page 2495, line 6, sealed
by order of the Court.)
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
24/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2495
(Bench conference concluded.)
THE COURT: Mr. Young.
Good morning, Sheriff.
SHERIFF ARPAIO: Good morning, sir.
THE COURT: I just remind you you're under oath, even
though we've had an intervening weekend. I'll remind you
you're under oath, and I'll remind you -- let's find one of
those headsets that works for you right now.
SHERIFF ARPAIO: Thank you.
THE COURT: I'll give you a test, make sure you can
hear.
SHERIFF ARPAIO: Right.
THE COURT: Can you hear this all right?
SHERIFF ARPAIO: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you, Mr. Masterson, speak so that we
can make sure Sheriff Arpaio can hear you?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Can you hear that, Mr. -- can you hear
that, Sheriff Arpaio?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
25/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2496
SHERIFF ARPAIO: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Are they comfortable?
SHERIFF ARPAIO: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
Mr. Young.
MS. WANG: Thank you, Your Honor. I do have, on
further reflection, a few more questions for Sheriff Arpaio.
Actually, I have one housekeeping matter as well. On
Friday, we discussed and viewed, and Your Honor admitted, a
video exhibit which is an excerpt from the movie The Joe Show,
and I believe that the transcript reflects that as
Exhibit 2837A. I've actually realized that there's no A suffix
to that, so it's actually Exhibit 2837 with no letter suffix,
and I would ask that the record be clarified to reflect the
admission of that exhibit.
THE COURT: Any problem with that?
MR. MASTERSON: No, Judge.
MR. WALKER: No objection.
THE COURT: The record will be reflected to admit
Exhibit 2837.
(Exhibit No. 2837 is admitted into evidence.)
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Your Honor.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
26/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2497
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO,
recalled as a witness herein, having been previously duly
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, you testified last week about reading an article
in the newspaper about the fact that Senator Jon Kyle, former
Senator Jon Kyle, joined Covington & Burling. And you said
something, I believe, to the effect that you had read that
relatively recently within the last couple months.
I'm going to show you a newspaper article from the
Associated Press from March 2013, if Mr. Klein can show that.
I ask whether that refreshes your recollection that, in fact,
it wasn't within the last couple months but it was actually
prior to November 2013 that you first read that Senator Kyle
had join Covington & Burling?
A. Well, excuse me, first of all, I don't recall saying that I
first read the article you're referring to. I was referring to
an article recently from The Arizona Republic where they
mentioned Senator Kyle's involvement with that law firm, and he
was a consultant for many firms, so that's what I was
remembering. That was about two months ago.
Q. In November 2013 you knew that Senator Kyle was with
Covington & Burling, correct?
A. Well, it's a little confusing, because I'm not sure, once
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
27/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2498
you leave office, it takes two years to join a law firm, so I'm
not sure it has the time element. It could be.
Q. Sheriff Arpaio, I'm going to ask you some questions now
about the issue of legal advice and lawyers with respect to the
injunction. You do not recall any lawyer affirmatively telling
you that under the injunction you were allowed to take illegal
immigrants to the Border Patrol, correct?
A. I don't recall anyone saying you can't do it.
Q. Well, my question, Sheriff, is: Do you recall any lawyer
saying that you could do that?
A. I remember asking that question, and I didn't get a
negative or a positive.
Q. Sheriff, I'm going to have you look at a portion of your
deposition from September 18. It's page 643, line 3, to page
644, line 6, and it is clip number 67.
(Deposition video clip played as follows:)
"Question: Can you tell me everything that either
Mr. Casey or any other attorney has told you about that issue?
"Answer: Well, the main thing was when I made that
statement that we were going to use the Border Patrol to
replace ICE since ICE had a policy not to do it anymore, and
since we work closely with the Border Patrol on drugs and
everything else, that I didn't seem to have any pressure not to
do it when I said that's what I was going to do.
"Question: Did any lawyer affirmatively tell you that
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
28/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:4
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2499
that was permitted under the preliminary injunction?
"I'm not asking about silence or acquiescence. I'm
asking whether any lawyer actually affirmatively told you,
'Yes. You can do this'?
"Answer: Well, I don't recall any lawyer, but if I do
recall, other agencies were doing it.
"Question: Okay.
"Answer: And still are probably, but I know that
doesn't resolve the Judge's issue we're working under his --
his decisions, but I don't remember anybody saying you can't do
it."
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, was that testimony accurate when you gave it on
September 18?
A. Yes.
Q. Now --
MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, excuse me. Under 106,
could we also read through line 20 on page 644?
Excuse me, through line 25 on page 644.
MR. YOUNG: Well, can I ask the question first and
then I'll reread the rest of it, or would --
THE COURT: It's your examination.
MR. YOUNG: Yeah.
BY MR. YOUNG:
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
29/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2500
Q. Well, Sheriff, the part that you just saw, was that
accurate?
A. To the best of my knowledge.
MR. YOUNG: Now I'm going to read the rest of it:
"Question: Okay. Well, I understand that."
MR. MASTERSON: Excuse me. I don't know if we have it
on video or not, but we heard it the first time on video; if we
could hear the remainder on video.
THE COURT: If you have that capability, we should do
that.
MR. YOUNG: So Mr. Klein, if you could play page 644,
starting at line 7, going down to line 25.
(Deposition video clip played as follows:)
"Answer: -- his decisions, but I don't remember
anybody saying you can't do it.
"Question: Okay. Well, I understand that. My
question is: Do you remember any lawyer telling you that you
could do that, that is, take people to the Border Patrol after
ICE was refusing that?
"MR. MASTERSON: Form, foundation.
"Question: Did anyone affirmatively and positively
tell you, 'This is okay under the injunction'?
"MR. MASTERSON: Form, foundation.
"Answer: I don't recall other than I believe what
Casey when the matter came up, and he never said you can't do
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
30/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2501
it. So I don't know how you would take that. I took it like
it was okay to do because I wanted some advice before I did it.
"Question: Did Casey tell you, 'Yes, you can do that
and it complies with the injunction'?
"Answer: I don't recall him either way. I recall him
not having a problem with it.
"Question: Okay."
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, you now have heard that Mr. Casey wrote a letter
back in October 2012 to plaintiffs, responding to questions
raised by plaintiffs about whether your backup plan for taking
people to the Border Patrol violated the preliminary
injunction, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You do not recall ever reading that letter, correct?
A. Well, I read it recently, but I may have read it way back,
I'm not sure.
Q. Sheriff, on your September 17, 2015 deposition, I'm going
to play for you page 391, lines 12 through 16.
That is clip number 9.
(Deposition video clip played as follows:)
"Question: So you never read a letter from Mr. Casey
on the issue of whether your office was violating the
injunction; is that right?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
31/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2502
"Answer: I don't recall."
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. That testimony was accurate when you gave it, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And in fact, until September 16, 2015, just a few weeks
ago, you had never even heard about Mr. Casey writing such a
letter, is that correct?
A. I said before I may I have read the letters, but I don't
recall the time frame.
Q. Well, Sheriff, I'm going to now go to page 391 of your
deposition, from line 18 of that page to line 20 of page 392.
MR. MASTERSON: What page, please?
MR. YOUNG: Yeah, page 391, starting at line 18, going
to page 392, starting at line 20.
It is clip number 10.
(Deposition video clip played as follows:)
"Question: Well, how did you hear about a letter that
Mr. Casey wrote as you described a few minutes ago on the issue
of whether your office was violating the injunction?
"Answer: Well, I think in passing, the chief deputy
may have mentioned something like that which surprised me. I
never saw anything.
"Question: What did Mr. -- strike that. Sorry.
"What did Chief Sheridan tell you about Mr. Casey's
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
32/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2503
letter?
"Answer: I just -- just a brief comment, and I don't
know about the letter, what was in it.
"Question: When did Chief Sheridan make this brief
comment to you about Mr. Casey's letter?
"Answer: I think it was in passing yesterday.
"Question: Before Chief Sheridan made the brief
comment about Mr. Casey's letter to you yesterday, had you ever
heard about Mr. Casey's letter before?
"Answer: No."
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, did you testify accurately, as we just saw, on
September 17, 2015?
A. Yes. Actually, I didn't know what letter he was talking
about.
Q. Other than Mr. Casey, you never discussed your backup plan
with any other lawyer, correct?
A. Not that I can recall. I think it was Mr. Casey.
MR. YOUNG: Sheriff, I may have some more questions
for you after your attorney has asked his questions, but for
now I'm out of questions. Thank you very much.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Masterson. You or Mr. Popolizio?
MR. MASTERSON: Me.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
33/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Arpaio - CX Masterson, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2504
THE COURT: Okay.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. MASTERSON:
Q. Good morning, Sheriff. How are you this morning?
A. Okay.
Q. Can you hear me okay up here?
A. Loud and clear.
Q. Okay.
A. It's my fault if I mess up.
Q. Well, I sometimes talk low, too, so I'll try to stay close
to the microphone here.
I want to start with talking about the first time you
mentioned you met with Mr. Blixseth. Mr. Young asked you some
questions last week about that very first meeting.
Could you tell me when you recall -- if you do -- when
you first met with Mr. Blixseth?
A. I believe it was around October, November of '13.
Q. Of 2013?
A. Yes.
Q. And did Mr. Blixseth come here?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you recall occurring at that meeting?
A. Well, he had some information about banking, people going
into bank accounts, stealing ID and financial statements.
Q. Did he tell you where he got that information?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
34/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Arpaio - CX Masterson, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2505
A. I'm not sure whether he said he received it from the
source, Montgomery.
Q. Did he mention Mr. Montgomery at that time?
A. He may have.
Q. Did he mention the man's first name, Dennis Montgomery?
A. If he mentioned Montgomery, I'm sure the first name came
out.
Q. When you first met with Mr. Blixseth in October, November
2013, did he tell you anything about Judge Snow?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask him anything about Judge Snow?
A. No.
Q. Sheriff, I want to look at Exhibit 2074A, and I think it
should be somewhere in that massive pile in front of you there.
A. 2074?
Q. 2074A.
A. I'll get there.
Q. And to help you, it's the one that we've been calling, I
think, a time line. It says DOJ/Arpaio.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have that document, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall when you got that document?
A. I know what the date is, but I don't recall.
Q. Okay. What's the date on it up at the top?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
35/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Arpaio - CX Masterson, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2506
A. It's November 5, 2013.
Q. Okay. Did you ask Dennis Montgomery to give you that
document, or anything like that document?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask Mr. Blixseth to tell Dennis Montgomery to give
you this document or anything like that document?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask anyone at MCSO, whether it be
Detective Mackiewicz or Posseman Mike Zullo, to have Dennis
Montgomery give you that document or some document like that?
A. No.
Q. Did you, prior to November 5, 2013, ask Dennis Montgomery
to do anything at all to look into Judge Snow or anything about
Judge Snow?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask Detective Mackiewicz or Posseman Mike Zullo to
have Dennis Montgomery do anything to investigate Judge Snow
prior to --
MR. YOUNG: Objection, ambiguous.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. MASTERSON:
Q. Did you ask Detective Mackiewicz or Posseman Mike Zullo to
do anything, or ask Dennis Montgomery to provide information
like Exhibit 2074A to you, or to look into or investigate
Judge Snow?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
36/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Arpaio - CX Masterson, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2507
A. No.
Q. I think you told Mr. Young you recall meeting with Dennis
Montgomery at some point?
A. Yes.
Q. And I thought you said something maybe at a hotel? Do you
remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall when that was?
A. I'm not sure whether it was the first part of 2014. Could
be.
Q. Do you recall what you talked about with Dennis Montgomery?
A. I believe we were talking about the banking fraud.
Q. Did you ever see any list of banking information while you
were meeting with Dennis Montgomery?
A. No.
Q. While you were meeting with Dennis Montgomery, did you ever
discuss Judge Snow at all?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask Mr. -- Dennis Montgomery to provide you or --
investi -- provide you with any information about Judge Snow?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask Dennis Montgomery to investigate Judge Snow?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall any information that Mr. Montgomery provided
to you about this banking information at that meeting?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
37/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Arpaio - CX Masterson, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2508
A. I don't believe at that meeting.
Q. Do you recall in general, and I'm not asking you for any
specifics at this point, but do you recall in general any
information that was provided to you about what that banking
information supposedly consisted of?
A. Well, I remember the information I got was about 150,000
people living in Maricopa County were victims, and I believe
the maybe 300, 350,000 outside of Maricopa County but in
Arizona.
Q. And how did you receive that information?
A. I believe I received it from the investigators.
Q. Would that be Detective Mackiewicz or Mike Zullo?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever see a list itself, or any computerized
document, of banking information from folks here in Maricopa
County?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever receive information that Judge Snow's name was
in that banking information?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell me about that. What did you learn about that or what
did you hear about that?
A. Well, I heard that there was not just Judge Snow, but other
judges across the nation, plus many businesses, plus my name.
My wife was in that situation.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
38/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Arpaio - CX Masterson, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2509
Q. You learned that information from Detective Mackiewicz or
Mike Zullo? Is that how that happened?
A. I'm not sure which one, but it was one of them.
Q. Did they tell you that Judge Snow's personal information
was in the banking information supposedly provided by Dennis
Montgomery?
A. Yes. I think they mentioned a few with the same name was
in there, including the judge, I believe.
Q. Was this information they saw -- and if you know; if you
don't know, that's fine, just tell me. Do you know whether
they saw this banking information with Judge Snow's name in it,
or is this something that Dennis Montgomery is telling them?
A. I don't know. I don't know whether they saw it themselves.
Q. So you don't know whether they saw Judge Snow's name on a
list, or whether Dennis Montgomery told them that Judge Snow's
name was on the list, is that correct?
A. No. I mean, the point is they could have seen it, but I
don't recall if they said they physically or visually saw it
themselves.
Q. And I think you just told me -- or were you told that your
personal information and your wife's personal information was
on the list?
A. Yes.
Q. And again, who told you that?
A. One of the investigators.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
39/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Arpaio - CX Masterson, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2510
Q. Either Detective Mackiewicz or Mike Zullo?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you still have 2074A up there in front of you?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that exhibit -- and I actually don't know whether you
have a redacted version or not, but does that exhibit have your
personal cell phone number on it?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know, does it have Chief Sheridan's personal
cell phone number on it?
A. Yes.
Q. And are the personal cell phones that are listed in
Exhibit 2074A, are those next to the -- rather, are those on
the lines that are delineated DOJ wiretap and then a number?
A. Yes.
Q. Did that cause you any concern at this point when you saw
DOJ wiretap number and then your personal cell phone number?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell me about why that might have given you some concern at
that point.
A. Well, you know -- excuse me. You know, after being a top
federal law enforcement official for many, many years, and the
possibility that the government agency is tapping my lines is a
little concerning.
Q. And that document is dated November 5, 2013, correct?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
40/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Arpaio - CX Masterson, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2511
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I want to talk about November 6, 2013, the very next
day. Do you recall talking with Mr. Young about a phone call
with someone named JC?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall that as you're sitting here today, that phone
call and what you were told during that phone call?
A. Well, in general terms, I believe he received information
from a person, a journalist, that my wife's telephone home
number was being tapped. And of course, that concerned me
also. Here I get two different stories about my telephone
line.
Q. Was this by two entirely different people?
A. Yes.
Q. Did both of them -- well, I understand that you didn't talk
to Dennis Montgomery when you saw Exhibit 2074A, but that
document does refer to DOJ wiretaps, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then I think you just told us that the very next day
when you talked with this JC person, did that person tell you
that your phones were being tapped by the feds?
A. Well, I don't know, excuse me, what agency; could have been
CIA or whatever.
Q. Do you recall if CIA was mentioned to you on November 6,
2013?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
41/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
10:0
10:0
10:0
Arpaio - CX Masterson, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2512
A. I believe it may have been.
Q. Now, let me ask you this: On November 5, 2013, the day
before, or before that, were you told that Dennis Montgomery
was somehow involved with the CIA? Or did you know that yet?
A. I don't think I knew that.
Q. Okay. So on November 5 and November 6, 2013, two entirely
different sources were telling you that your personal phone is
being tapped by someone in the federal government.
MR. YOUNG: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. MASTERSON:
Q. Were you told on November 5 and November 6 by two different
people that your phones were tapped?
MR. YOUNG: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. MASTERSON:
Q. Well, Sheriff, take a look at Exhibit 2074A, please, and
look at the line September 28, 2009. You see that?
A. Yes.
Q. What does it say right next to that?
A. It says "DOJ wiretap" and then a number.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to what the initials "DOJ" stand
for?
A. I would imagine the "Department of Justice."
Q. And under that on the line May 28, 2010, do you see that?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
42/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Arpaio - CX Masterson, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2513
A. Yes.
Q. What does that line say right next to that?
A. "DOJ wiretap" plus a number.
Q. "DOJ." Who would that be, in your opinion?
A. I believe it's the chief deputy.
Q. No, what does the "DOJ" stand for?
A. Department of Justice.
Q. Is the Department of Justice part of the federal
government?
A. Yes.
Q. The very next day on November 6th --
THE COURT: Do you know, Mr. Masterson, could I
interrupt here? I just want one more point of clarification.
MR. MASTERSON: Certainly, Judge.
THE COURT: If you can, Sheriff, just by referring to
the DOJ wiretap number, which one of those was you and which
one was Chief Deputy Sheridan? Or did you believe to be you,
and which one did you believe to be of Chief Deputy Sheridan?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, excuse me. I go by the
phone number.
THE COURT: Sure.
THE WITNESS: It's my phone number.
THE COURT: Yeah. And you don't have to tell me your
phone number, but you'll see that the one that has your phone
number has a DOJ wiretap number associated with it?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
43/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Arpaio - CX Masterson, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2514
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Could you tell me the DOJ wiretap
number that is associated with your phone number.
THE WITNESS: Well, I can give it out, but I don't
know if it's --
THE COURT: Yeah, I don't think it hurts if you give
out the wiretap number; don't give out your phone number.
THE WITNESS: It's 56990-34.
THE COURT: All right. And what is the DOJ wiretap
number that is supposedly associated with Chief Deputy
Sheridan's phone number?
THE WITNESS: It's 64402-03.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Masterson.
BY MR. MASTERSON:
Q. Now, on the very next day on November 6th, 2013, did anyone
tell you your phones were being tapped?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you told who was tapping your phones?
A. I think the mention was the CIA.
Q. Was the November 6th information completely from a
different source than November 5 information?
A. That I know of, yes.
Q. When Mr. Young was asking you questions you used the word
"bizarre." Can you tell me what you meant by that?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
44/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Arpaio - CX Masterson, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2515
A. Well, it is bizarre when you look at my situation. I do
know that I was a little concerned. I believe around June of
that year someone sent me a, personally to me a bomb, and the
FBI postal inspector spent a year to catch the guy. He was
convicted in federal court here and also in Oklahoma.
And three months later, another e-mail comes to kill
my wife and my grandkids, and the threats continued. I think
that person is now in court. So I had a little concern. It
seems that it was a pretty rough six months with these alleged
wiretaps and threats.
Q. Were you curious about what was going on if somebody from
the federal government was tapping your phones?
A. If it was true, yes, I would be concerned.
Q. Did you want to look into that and see if you could find
out what was going on?
A. Well, my main objective was to get more information. I
believe our detectives or Montgomery had mentioned that
Montgomery could get a voice sample of those telephone calls.
I'm not an expert, I don't know if they can or they can't, but
that's what I was told.
Q. Tell me a little bit about that. Were you trying to get
Mr. Montgomery to come up with, I guess, a recording of the
wiretap on you? Is that what you're telling me?
A. Well, that's one reason, and another is to verify his
liability, whether this is all garbage or not.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
45/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Arpaio - CX Masterson, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2516
Q. Do you recall -- and I think you talked about it with
Mr. Young a little bit -- a meeting at your office, and I don't
want to put words on your -- in your mouth, but I think you
testified that Detective Mackiewicz or Mike Zullo or both of
them were on the phone.
Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell -- tell us what you recall learning at that
meeting.
A. Well -- excuse me. One thing that concerned me was the
government or someone infiltrating my office and the County
Attorney's Office, and even the -- my law firm.
Q. Now, when you say your law firm, what do you mean?
A. That's the law firm I'm using that you're representing.
Q. Okay. My law firm.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You just said you were concerned about your office
and the County Attorney's Office and my law firm.
Can you tell me why you were concerned about that?
A. Well, I think that's a big security breach when people are
going into the sensitive information of a government agency and
also a law firm.
Q. What were you told about a possible breach of your agency,
the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, or my law firm?
A. Well, the main thing was that they were going into it. I
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
46/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Arpaio - CX Masterson, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2517
didn't get all the information if they got anything or not. I
do know the law firm triggered my interest because it was
mentioned that one of the lawyers' kid was going to play
soccer, and how would anybody know that if they didn't get into
those e-mails of that law firm.
Q. Now, did you learn this at that meeting that you were
talking about with Mr. Young?
A. I believe that I heard that at that meeting.
Q. Do you recall who was on the phone? In other words, who
was providing you -- well, let me stop and just ask it again.
Who was providing that information to you during that
meeting about the intrusion, or hack, into your office, MCAO,
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, and my law firm? Who was
giving you that information?
A. I believe that the -- Detective Mackiewicz and Zullo were
there on the phone --
Q. Okay.
A. -- not in person.
Q. Did you bring up Judge Snow at that time?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask Detective Mackiewicz to investigate Judge Snow?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask Mike Zullo to investigate Judge Snow?
A. No.
Q. Did either of those two gentlemen provide any information
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
47/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:1
10:1
Arpaio - CX Masterson, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2518
to you about Judge Snow on that phone call, that you recall?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. Do you know whether you had Exhibit 2074A while you were on
that phone call?
A. No. I don't believe I had.
Q. Well, let me ask you -- well, let me ask again: Are you
telling me you don't think you had it or you don't recall
whether you had it?
A. I don't recall if I had it in my hand or heard about it.
Q. Okay. During that meeting were you concerned about
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office computers possibly having been
hacked?
A. Very concerned.
Q. Were you concerned about the Maricopa County Attorney's
computers supposedly been hacked?
MR. YOUNG: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: I'm going to allow it.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I was concerned.
BY MR. MASTERSON:
Q. Were you concerned about your private attorneys', my law
firm's computers being hacked?
A. Yes.
Q. At that point, tell me -- tell me at that point what --
well, did you think it was important to follow up on that, or
did you think this was all, what we've heard before, garbage or
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
48/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
Arpaio - CX Masterson, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2519
junk? Did you know at that time what you were dealing with
here?
A. No.
Q. Did you think it was important to follow up?
A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. Well, I think when you have a -- two law enforcement
officials, their lines are tapped, if it was true, that's
important; and also government agencies infiltrated.
Q. Did MCSO follow up on some of the information provided by
Dennis Montgomery with respect to the banking information or
the identity theft issues, do you know?
A. I believe so.
Q. Do you know what was done?
A. I believe the chief deputy assigned some detectives to
follow up on it.
Q. And do you know what those detectives found?
A. I'm not sure all the details, but I believe they found some
evidence, some connection that somewhat verified the -- the
bank accounts.
Q. So are you telling me that the detectives who followed up
did verify certain of the information that was provided them
was accurate?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you look at Exhibit 2531, Sheriff, please.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing
49/240
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
Arpaio - CX Masterson, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2520
A. 2531?
Q. Yes, sir. Do you have it there, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you -- do you remember that document?
A. I don't know -- remember reading it at the time, but --
Q. Well, do you remember being told at some point that the
opinion was that Mr. Mo