Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
Transcript of Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
4581
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
November 20, 2015
9:01 a.m.
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW
(Evidentiary Hearing Day 21, Pages 4581-4820)
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
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 1 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4582
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: Stanley Young, Esq.
By: Michelle L. Morin, Esq.
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700Redwood Shores, California 94065
University of California Irvine School of Law
Immigrants' Rights ClinicBy: Anne Lai, Esq.
401 E. Peltrason Drive, Suite 3500Irvine, California 92697
For the Defendant Maricopa County:Walker & Peskind, PLLC
By: Richard K. Walker, Esq.SGA Corporate Center
16100 N. 7th Street, Suite 140
Phoenix, Arizona 85254
For the Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa CountySheriff's Office:
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
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4583
A P P E A R A N C E S
For the Intervenor United States of America:U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division
By: Paul Killebrew, Esq.950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 5th FloorWashington, D.C. 20530
U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights DivisionBy: Cynthia Coe, Esq.
By: Maureen Johnston, Esq.
601 D. Street NW, #5011
Washington, D.C. 20004
For Executive Chief Brian Sands:
Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLPBy: M. Craig Murdy, Esq.2929 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1700
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
For Lieutenant Joseph Sousa:David Eisenberg, PLC
By: David Eisenberg, Esq.
2702 N. 3rd Street, Suite 4003Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Also present:
Sheriff Joseph M. ArpaioExecutive Chief Brian Sands
Chief Deputy Gerard SheridanLieutenant Joseph Sousa
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 3 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4584
I N D E X
Witness: Page
(None)
E X H I B I T S
No. Description Admitted
(None)
M I S C E L L A N E O U S
Argument Page
By Mr. Young 4597
By Ms. Wang 4633By Mr. Killebrew 4683By Mr. Masterson 4699
By Mr. Murdy 4771
By Mr. Walker 4796By Mr. Masterson 4807
By Mr. Young 4810By Ms. Wang 4813
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 4 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4585
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE COURT: Please be seated.
THE CLERK: This is civil case number 07-2513,
Melendres, et al., v. Arpaio, et al., on for oral argument.
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
and Michelle Morin, Covington & Burling, for plaintiffs.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. POCHODA: Good morning. Dan Pochoda from the ACLU
of Arizona for plaintiffs.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MS. LAI: Your Honor, Anne Lai for plaintiffs.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. KILLEBREW: Good morning, Your Honor. Paul
Killebrew, Cynthia Coe, and Maureen Johnston for the United
States.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. MASTERSON: Good morning, Judge. John Masterson
and Joe Popolizio for Sheriff Arpaio and the alleged
contemnors, and we have Holly McGee with us.
THE COURT: Good morning.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 5 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4586
MR. WALKER: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard Walker
on behalf of Maricopa County.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. McDONALD: Good morning, Your Honor. Mel McDonald
making a special appearance for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. MURDY: Good morning, Your Honor. Craig Murdy on
behalf of retired Executive Chief Brian Sands.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. EISENBERG: Good morning, Your Honor. David
Eisenberg, specially appearing on behalf of Lieutenant Sousa.
THE COURT: Good morning. Is that everybody?
I just want to take care of a few matters before we
get started and make sure I understand things. Yesterday we
had a telephonic conference in which I invited the parties, for
the most part, if they could answer any of the questions that
I'd filed on Wednesday today, that would be appreciated, but I
authorized you to file any answers in writing up to two weeks
after today, post-oral argument. I'm just going to put that on
the record.
Mr. Murdy, in that argument, or in the course of the
conversation, asked me to identify any excerpts in the record
that I was considering, or was aware that I was considering, so
the parties could address them. I identified several pleadings
and position papers filed by the parties that went up -- that
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 6 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4587
preceded the preliminary injunction motion, and Ms. Iafrate's
representation sometime later pertaining to Chief MacIntyre's
duties with respect to the receipt of correspondence from
Mr. Casey. I've thought of a few more. I just want to put
them out there so you'll know. I don't think they'll be
controversial.
Starting with the May hearings, Chief Deputy Sheridan,
Chief Trombi, and others, including your predecessors,
Mr. Casey and Ms. Iafrate, made representations to the Court
about various materials they'd found. You've done that as
well. I think that there's probably enough hearing testimony
on those things and where they came from that I won't have to
refer back to statements made, for example, by Chief Deputy
Sheridan in which he indicated these things, or Chief Trombi or
you or Mr. Casey. But I may well be interested in referring to
those statements, and so if you want to address them and you
have concerns with them, please let me know.
You also made representations to me, Mr. Masterson,
about the 50 hard drives in the custody -- that are currently
in the custody of the marshal. You indicated that those
hard drives were the hard drives provided by Dennis Montgomery
to the MCSO. I'm not sure that we've ever had -- as I thought
about it last night, I'm not sure that we've ever had
affirmative testimony that establishes that, and that's
probably because you had made the affirmative representation to
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 7 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4588
me, and that would be another one that I would be looking at.
I did read this morning -- I've had several things
filed. I read, for example, at least briefly reviewed,
executive Chief Sands' sort of summary, assuming that you were
using that in lieu of spending time today, Mr. Murdy. And
also, Chief MacIntyre has filed a request that he be released
from any consideration of criminal prosecutions.
In those motions they cite to, for example, Chief
Arpaio's deposition testimony, noting that it is consistent
with his trial testimony. For example, his trial testimony
that he relied on his subordinates to implement the preliminary
injunction and in his deposition testimony he indicates which
subordinates, apparently, he relied on. I don't know whether
you have a position about whether or not I can consider
deposition testimony, but I raise it for your consideration.
I'm not sure that specifications were not made in
Sheriff Arpaio's hearing testimony. I remember him saying
something similar in his hearing testimony; I'm not sure if
that specific factual specification was made. And it might be
of some interest to me when I'm considering findings of fact
and conclusions of law, so I just raise it for your attention
that at least that deposition testimony purports to say that he
was relying on Chief Deputy Sheridan and Executive Chief Sands
to implement the terms of the preliminary injunction order.
Those are the only other things for the parties that I
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 8 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4589
could think of overnight that may be avowals that have been
made in the course of hearings, but as I say, there may be
others. If there are others, I will raise them to your
attention before I issue any findings of fact and conclusions
of law, in case you have any comment to make on them.
With respect to your 801(d)(2) motion for
reconsideration, Mr. Masterson, I do share, to some extent,
sympathy with the plaintiffs when they point out that you
didn't really object to any specific evidence, and I understand
that. I do think that you have a point, however, when you make
an argument that a confidential informant is not necessarily in
an agency relationship with a law enforcement agency.
I think that in some cases this is not -- let me just
be clear. I think that in some cases this isn't a traditional
confidential informant, it's more like they were paying
Mr. Montgomery for his services, although there was the aspect
that they were also paying him for access to records that he
was purporting to them he had illegally obtained.
Actually, what I was thinking about, though, is I
don't think it was error to admit any testimony that I can
think of because, A, there may -- it depends on his statement
whether or not he was in an agency relationship or making a
statement that was in the course of his agency relationship.
But if he wasn't, I'm not necessarily going to take what
Mr. Montgomery says for truth of the matter asserted on any
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 9 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4590
event -- in any event.
But he was involved in conversations with the other
representatives of MCSO, and so I'm either going to consider --
if it gets down to me parsing those audiotapes that I think is
what you're talking about, I will determine whether or not it's
a statement made by Mr. Montgomery, and if it is a statement
made by Mr. Montgomery, whether that statement can be
considered in an -- made in any sort of an agency relationship
with MCSO. And if it's not, I'm going to consider whether or
not I'm going to consider the statement for the truth of the
matter asserted, which I think is, you know, may well not be
the case but it still, I think, overcomes the hearsay
exception.
So I guess that's how I'll approach those audiotapes
when I listen to them. If I think, when I listen to them, that
there's any portion that, for some reason, doesn't qualify for
a hearsay exception and is substantive, I don't know that I
want to parse through and say that with respect to every
statement that I don't think is relevant. But in fairness to
the plaintiffs, if I think a statement is relevant to my
findings of fact, but as I review it, because I've admitted
these tapes in evidence, if I think there's some basis for your
motion for reconsideration, I will alert the parties so that
the plaintiffs can address whether or not I should
substantively consider it, or consider it not for the truth of
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 10 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4591
the matter assert -- for the truth of the matter asserted even
if I find that there is no agency relationship established.
Is that -- everybody understand that?
Maricopa County -- oh, Mr. Masterson.
MR. MASTERSON: Just one thing, Judge. I think it
will apply to more than the audiotapes, because there are a
number of e-mails that have statements made --
THE COURT: Well --
MR. MASTERSON: -- by Mr. Montgomery.
THE COURT: -- I may or may not do that, but, again,
I'm not going to get bogged down in any of that stuff. I'm
going to look at it all, and if there's something that's
important, I may raise it, but I've admitted those exhibits.
We didn't have this discussion -- I mean, we did have a little
bit of this discussion towards the end of the last day of
evidence, but I just can't imagine that there's anything in
those tapes that either isn't made in an agency relationship or
that I'm going to consider for the truth of the matter
asserted. But if there's something that falls into that
exception and it could be either damaging to the plaintiffs or
damaging to you if I were to consider it, I'll raise it with
you.
MR. MASTERSON: Thank you, Judge.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, it would be our view that
there really has not been preservation of any alleged error in
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 11 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4592
what this motion concerns, and it's unfair to us to have such a
motion be considered to preserve any error because if there
were an objection to a document or a recording that's already
been admitted, or a statement that's already been admitted, we
should have the chance to address that objection and --
THE COURT: Didn't I just say I would give you that
object -- give you that chance if I thought there was anything
that merited my raising it with you?
MR. YOUNG: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. As I was reviewing things that
we need to tidy up and close up, you've already -- I've already
given you matters that remain under seal that I think maybe
should go out from seal, and I know the court reporter
indicated to me last night that some of you had asked for
copies of those particular transcripts, so I'll expect that
within two weeks, if there's anything that you think still
needs to be under seal, you'll let me know that and let me know
why.
Also, Mr. Masterson, I remember a couple of weeks ago
we had an exchange about whether or not any highlighting on a
particular exhibit -- which I don't know was ever admitted into
evidence, but may have been -- was the result of the original
clients, or whether or not the monitor might have highlighted
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 12 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4593
information for you, because that was the exhibit I'd given to
you of papers that the monitor had given to me.
And I thought you were going to identify for me the
documents that you wanted to know where the highlighting came
from, and maybe that isn't where we left it, but that's where I
thought we left it and it's left hanging, so I don't have an
answer for you. Because I'm glad to ask the monitor if, in
fact, he highlighted anything. If you can tell me what it is,
what highlighting it is that you would be interested.
So in order just to tie that up, let's raise that
and -- and if you have -- if you want to know that, you need --
as far as I recall, and I may be wrong about this, but I
thought you were going to tell me what documents you were
interested in, and I don't think you've done that yet.
But if you do -- I may be wrong. If I am, if you'll
still tell me the documents, I'll tell you I will consult with
the monitor and see if he highlighted any of that before he
transmitted it to me, and if so, what he highlighted, and I'll
let all parties know.
MR. MASTERSON: I will do that, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay.
We have the motion for judicial notice from the
County, we have the objection from the plaintiffs; I don't
think I need to decide on that today. I did note that the
plaintiffs objected to noticing the summary. They would rather
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 13 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4594
that I notice the invoices, and so maybe the County just wants
to provide the paid -- I don't know, do you have some sort of
paid receipt that you give the monitor when you pay him those
amounts?
MR. WALKER: Your Honor, I really don't know the
answer to your question, but I can check on that, see if we
can --
THE COURT: It doesn't seem to me that there's a huge
dispute about the substance of the payment, and I can't imagine
there would be. If the monitor has been paid, he's been paid
in connection with this litigation, as far as I'm aware, by
Maricopa County, and I just don't know if the amounts actually
paid are subject to dispute, but if you can give me those
actual payment amounts, that will be good.
And I do note that the other thing that you asked me
to judicially notice was my own payment order for costs
involved in the trial of this case. And I haven't gone back to
look at what it was, but I am certainly going to judicially
notice my own orders to the extent that the County can
demonstrate they actually complied and paid those amounts. And
I suppose that plaintiffs are in as good a position to tell us
whether they were paid those amounts as anybody, so I'm not
going to have a whole lot of dispute about that.
MR. WALKER: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is there anything else that any of the
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 14 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4595
parties know that's outstanding before we begin?
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor. We have two matters along
these lines. The first is that the parties had agreed to a
protective order relating to the Touhy subpoena to the federal
government that plaintiffs served. That's document -- docket
number 1468. So we would request the Court's signature on that
stipulation so that we can get the materials from the federal
government.
THE COURT: Doc what?
MS. WANG: 1468.
THE COURT: Anybody object to my signature on document
1468?
MR. MASTERSON: No objection.
MR. WALKER: No objection, Your Honor.
MR. MURDY: No, Your Honor.
MS. WANG: Thank you, Your Honor.
The second issue is that the parties stipulated to the
admission of certain deposition testimony of Rollie Seebert in
lieu of his live testimony at trial, so we're still waiting for
your order on that. That's docket number 1469.
THE COURT: If you stipulated to it, the stipulation
is granted and I'll consider the testimony.
MS. WANG: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything else?
All right. I am hoping, and I assume you gathered
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 15 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4596
that, since I have to pull together all the facts and relevant
facts from the hearing and the exhibits from approximately 20,
if not 21, days of hearing testimony and the exhibits
submitted, that you'll sort of outline your case. I've
assigned two hours and 45 minutes per side. We're going to get
going.
Are the plaintiffs going to reserve any time for
rebuttal?
MS. WANG: We would like to, Your Honor, and we'll --
we'll gauge that as we go along. Any time that's remaining, we
would like to reserve.
And Your Honor, just to let you know in advance,
plaintiffs have split up the addressing of the topics.
Mr. Young will address the preliminary injunction and the
pattern of recalcitrance, including the Seattle investigation.
I will address, with the Court's permission, the
pretrial discovery violations, the May 14, 2014 events, and
matters concerning Internal Affairs.
We will take approximately two hours and 20 minutes,
and Mr. Killebrew for the United States will take about 25
minutes for his summation.
THE COURT: All right.
So who's going to going to begin?
MR. YOUNG: I will, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. You'll notice that I'm going
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 16 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4597
to sit and stand throughout. It will help me stay awake.
MR. YOUNG: I'll try to assist you in that regard,
Your Honor. Or at least I'll try not to impair you in that
effort.
Your Honor, we don't have Mr. Klein today, so I'm not
going to actually show you or play for you video and audio;
you've seen that in the hearings that we've had.
I do want to say as to the injunction, that what's at
issue here is the fact that the current leaders of the MCSO
violated the Constitution, violated the Court's orders, and
then used the agency itself to try to insulate those leaders
from the consequences of those violations.
The Sheriff's Office should be protecting the public,
not its leaders, and it should be pursuing the enemies of
public safety, and not the enemies of the sheriff.
Unfortunately, Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Sheridan, Chief Sands, and
Lieutenant Sousa, and others working with them, decided to
ignore the preliminary injunction order of this Court for the
sake of the sheriff's political position.
They wanted the sheriff to be able to continue to tell
the public that he was enforcing all of the immigration laws,
and that was for his political benefit, particularly in the
election year of 2012.
They did stage an internal investigation -- a
violation of this Court's orders -- and found that no one in
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 17 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
09:2
09:2
09:2
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4598
the department had violated any policies of the agency, and
that no one should be subject to discipline, notwithstanding
the rather valiant efforts of Mr. Vogel both to have the MCSO
have an internal -- an independent decision maker, and also to
subject the sheriff to that investigation.
Then after this Court's trial findings in 2013 -- and
in particular, after its decision to appoint a monitor in
October 2013 -- the sheriff continued to search for ways to
undermine this Court and its rulings. We saw the video of the
sheriff reacting on the issue of public interaction; we saw
Chief Sheridan call this Court's orders ludicrous and crap.
But more ominously, we ended up with the Seattle
investigation, with an investigation of enemies of the sheriff,
including Mary Rose Wilcox, Eric Holder, Lanny Breuer, and
unfortunately, this Court.
The sheriff's attorneys have argued, or implied, that
somehow the sheriff should be able to rely on shady characters,
even criminals, and that may be the case. However, here
Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Sheridan enthusiastically became shady
and unsavory people themselves, fully aware that what they were
trying to do would be illegal, and that they -- or that they
would rely on what they thought was illegal activity by
Mr. Montgomery.
All this activity shows contempt, intentional
contempt, intentional violation of this Court's orders, and
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 18 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4599
intentional efforts to conceal and escape the consequences of
those violations. That activity is not worthy of the
sacrifices that rank and file MCSO employees make every day,
and the risks that they take to their lives and safety every
day. It requires a thorough reform of the agency, further
reform to the internal investigations process and other
operations, to make sure that the MCSO does not commit these
violations again.
So I'm going to go through in a little bit of detail,
Your Honor, both the preliminary injunction issue and the
Seattle investigation issue, and other manifestations of the
agency's defiance of this Court's orders.
I'd note various exhibits, 71, 67, which the sheriff
and Chief Sheridan have admitted. That's the motion to vacate
and the OSC, and the injunction order. 71 and 72, they admit
all of those things as fact.
So we're not really dealing here with whether they
should be liable for civil contempt -- this is Arpaio and
Sheridan, because they've already admitted it -- and the issue
here is what the remedy should be.
We have clear notification by Mr. Casey to
Chief Sands, Lieutenant Sousa, Chief Sheridan, and Sheriff
Arpaio, as well as Chief MacIntyre, on December 23 in
Exhibit 187. Immediately, Mr. Casey told them: You cannot
turn anyone over to the federal government. That's at 1642 and
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 19 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4600
1639 of the transcript.
THE COURT: Wait a minute. Give me those again.
MR. YOUNG: 1642, 1639. Those are pages of the
transcript.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. YOUNG: Then there's an immediate conversation on
the evening of December 23rd reported by Mr. Casey in his
e-mail, Exhibit 2534, where he says that Arpaio is conflicted,
and Sands and MacIntyre relatively pleased.
Mr. Casey's time records, which is 2523, Exhibit 2523,
show more conferences: on December 26 with Arpaio, Sands,
MacIntyre, and Sousa; on December 28 with Sands; on December 30
with Sands and Sousa. All of these discussions are about the
preliminary injunction --
THE COURT: Are the time records 2523 or 2533?
MR. YOUNG: The bills are 2533, Exhibit 2533. And
Mr. Casey testifies about this at transcript pages 1654 to
1655.
Despite this knowledge, the top people at the MCSO
never sent out a notification to all personnel within the
department to let them know that the activity that the Court
enjoined had been enjoined. Casey discusses doing this with
Chief Sands, according to transcript page 1653, but Chief Sands
says that Sheriff Arpaio says, No, let's not tell everybody,
let's just keep it to HSU, and Sands goes along with that
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 20 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4601
instruction.
THE COURT: Now, is this Casey's testimony?
MR. YOUNG: Actually, what I just mentioned is Chief
Sands' testimony, and I don't have a page number for that right
now.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. YOUNG: Then there's a further discussion on
January 3, 2012, between Mr. Casey and Sheriff Arpaio. This
is, again, according to Mr. Casey's time record, page
MELC210542 of Exhibit 2533.
In Exhibit 2535, Mr. Casey describes that
conversation, and he says: "The sheriff called last night and
he wanted a notice of appeal filed on the injunction." And
this shows Mr. Casey's view, according to what Sheriff Arpaio
told him, that the MCSO was not detaining people based solely
on immigration status. And that's why Mr. Casey says that his
belief is -- according to the sheriff -- that the injunction is
relatively harmless to MCSO field operations. That, of course,
is completely untrue. Sheriff Arpaio never forgot about the
injunction. At all times after December 23, 2011, he's
testified, he's admitted, that he was well aware that the
injunction was there.
Other MCSO people also were aware because they started
the process of designing training scenarios in order to
implement the injunction. That's Exhibit 2536 and Exhibit 189.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 21 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4602
And at least a couple of the scenarios there, you know, were --
yes, Mr. Casey testified accurate. But there were a couple
that were not.
They never finished that process, however, and that's
another problem within the MCSO. Mr. Casey testified that he
told Sergeant Palmer that there were problems with the
scenarios, and he expected that those problems would be fixed.
And they never were fixed. There never was a further effort to
implement those training scenarios.
Chief Sheridan also knew about the injunction. We
have a number of e-mails on which he's listed. He has meetings
with Mr. Casey which I'll go into a little bit more later in
more detail when I speak specifically as to them.
We have Lieutenant Sousa's March 27, 2012 e-mail,
Exhibit 156, showing that he knew training was needed. He knew
that it had not been approved. Lieutenant Jakowinicz is also
on that meeting. So here we have people within the HSU who are
supposed to be implementing the injunction, they know it, but
they fail to do it.
Now, Sheriff Arpaio knew that he could not detain
people based on unlawful presence. He knew that because
Mr. Casey told him, he knew it because Chief MacIntyre told
him, he knew it because Chief Sands told him in the case of the
conversation about that drop house activity, and he knew
because Sergeant Palmer told him when they had their argument
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 22 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4603
about these people that the sheriff wanted Palmer to hold.
THE COURT: It's pretty clear that Palmer
misunderstood the injunction, isn't it?
MR. YOUNG: That is true.
THE COURT: Palmer told him he couldn't hold them to
photograph them, but he told -- but in order to do what he
thought was complying with the injunction, he shipped them
right off to Border Patrol.
MR. YOUNG: That is true. But the key fact is that
they discussed the injunction specifically, and they discussed
specifically the injunction's prohibition on detaining people.
The fact that Palmer got it wrong as to the full contours of
that doesn't detract from the fact that the sheriff was in an
argument with one of his subordinates about not being able to
keep people because of the injunction.
THE COURT: I get that, but what does it really show?
MR. YOUNG: It shows that the sheriff knew about the
injunction and he knew that there were restrictions on his
ability to hold people.
THE COURT: I think as you've said -- and maybe I'm
wrong; we'll let Mr. Masterson tell me, or Mr. Popolizio. I
don't know that I heard the sheriff say a lot of times that he
really wasn't sure about the injunction. I think his defense
is: I delegated this to my subordinates and/or Mr. Casey to
implement.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 23 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:3
09:3
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4604
Isn't that what he said?
MR. WANG: Well, he --
THE COURT: Or does he also say: I didn't know.
MR. YOUNG: He alleges that, but the problem is that
the sheriff sets the policy for the department. So he doesn't
delegate that. He's the one who orders Jakowinicz to take
people to the Border Patrol. He's the one who orders all of
his subordinates to follow through on what I'm about to
discuss, which is his effort to continue to be able to say that
he was enforcing all of the immigration laws.
We have numerous press releases, Exhibits 75, 76,
where he says, right after the injunction is issued, despite
his knowledge of it, that he will continue to enforce all
immigration laws. Exhibit 202B, a video, one of his interviews
with Jorge Ramos, says he's still detaining undocumented
aliens.
In Exhibit 77, in the last paragraph he says he is,
quote, "adamant about the fact that his office will continue to
enforce both state and federal illegal immigration laws as long
as the laws are on the books."
He says that on video in Exhibit 2828A; he says it in
Exhibit 2829A, another video; in Exhibit 196A, at the
Republican National Convention in August 2012.
THE COURT: Which one was that?
MR. YOUNG: Exhibit 196A.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 24 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
09:3
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4605
He tells Fox News he will enforce all laws, state and
federal, with respect to immigration.
Then in June 2012, the sheriff had a series of media
appearances after ICE started to refuse to take people that the
MCSO was bringing to them based solely on unlawful presence.
He announced that he would come up with a work-around that
would involve precisely the backup plan that he later announced
in his news releases.
I would direct Your Honor to Exhibits -- and these are
videos -- 199A, where he says he will continue to enforce the
laws, and objects to letting people go as in amnesty, which he
doesn't approve; Exhibit 198B, nothing will change. He will
keep doing what he's been doing for the last four to five
years; Exhibit 197A, he addresses specifically the issue of
what to do when he has people with no state charges, and he
asked: Do we let them back on the street? And he says, That's
sad, and he will find a work-around and come up with his own
ideas for dealing with people where there are no state charges,
but where he believes that the person is in the country
unlawfully.
It's those ideas that then lead him to a further
violation of the court order, where he views this as just a
political matter. It's not a matter of complying with the
Court's orders; it's a political imperative that causes him to
do that.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 25 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
09:3
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4606
And you see this in his interview with Neil Cavuto on
June 25, 2012 -- that's Exhibit 200A -- where Mr. Cavuto
actually asks him: Well, do you think you're going to end up
in jail because of what you're doing to keep detaining people
when you don't have state charges? And the sheriff's response
to that is: Well, I don't want amnesty. I have a plan. That
shows that he is willing to violate an order of the Court in
order to keep doing what he wanted, which was to have people
vote for him and donate to his campaign.
And we see this in an April 13, 2012 interview,
Exhibit 201B, where he says: Yes, he's popular because of what
he's doing. He gets the big bucks because people like what
he's doing. And he sends out press releases because he wants
to know -- he wants everyone to know what he is doing.
Now, during that same summer, during the trial we
heard Mr. Casey testify that he heard of what he detected to be
violations of the injunction, and he and Mr. Liddy had a
conversation with Chief Sands about that issue.
And then he says he also spoke to Sheriff Arpaio about
Sheriff Arpaio's trial testimony on that issue. That's at
transcript pages 1851 to 1854. Mr. Casey told the sheriff
directly: You cannot hold people for federal authorities.
That's page 1854, lines 16 through 20 of the transcript.
And this is what Mr. Casey says: He said he told the
sheriff: Do you understand, Sheriff, that you cannot -- and he
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 26 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4607
says it's almost the same conversation he had later on in the
fall of 2012 -- do you understand that there is no
transportation whatsoever to the federal authorities, that you
cannot hold? And then he says the sheriff said, quote: I do
understand that. So it's clear what Mr. Casey told Sheriff
Arpaio.
Then in 2012, shortly before the election, we have the
backup plan. That's precisely the kind of turning people over
to federal authorities that Mr. Casey and others had told the
sheriff you cannot do. Exhibit 51, a press release, says that,
Well, there's no state crime, but as directed by the sheriff,
two suspects were taken to the Border Patrol. And they're
going to enforce all the immigration laws.
Exhibit 56, on the ninth page is the incident report
that describes precisely that incident that's treated in the
press release, which is Exhibit 51.
Then on September 20, 2012, there's another -- it's an
employer raid at Nu Look Revinyling. That's at Exhibit 78,
which is the press release. He talks in what he acknowledges
is a political statement about opening up employment
opportunities for those who are in the country legally.
Exhibit 79 is the shift summary for that operation,
showing the lack of evidence for state charges on the second
page.
Another press release, Exhibit 52, dated September 27,
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 27 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
09:3
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4608
2012, relating to United Construction, talks about ICE refusing
to arrest two illegal aliens, and Arpaio, quote, refusing to
allow them to be released into the streets and ordering
deputies to transport them to the Border Patrol, end quote.
Exhibit 81 is the shift summary for that raid. It
shows at the first -- bottom of the first page and top of the
second two particular people who were in the country illegally,
but whom ICE refused to take, and the sheriff violated the
injunction in order to transport them to the Border Patrol.
Exhibit 82 is an October 9, 2012 news release about an
incident -- about a traffic stop performed by Deputy Armendariz
where this same thing took place.
Exhibit 83 is the incident report on that incident.
It shows at the bottom of the third page that Deputy Armendariz
found no criminal charges as to Mr. Soto Gonzalez, and then
they took him to the Border Patrol, nonetheless. This is
precisely the activity that Lieutenant Jakowinicz testified the
sheriff ordered him and others at HSU to perform.
Exhibit 84 is another employer raid, October 12, 2012.
Six people were turned over to ICE for deportation, and that
they were detained despite the lack of evidence for state
charges, as indicated in Exhibit 85.
So in January 2013, shown in Exhibit 180, the sheriff
said: Until the laws are changed, my deputies will continue to
enforce state and federal immigration laws. That's despite the
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 28 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4609
clear prohibition of the injunction. In paragraph 36,
Exhibit 67, that's the injunction, which says local law
enforcement agencies such as the MCSO may not enforce civil
federal immigration law.
There are more employment raids that are depicted in
Exhibits 80, 81, 86, and 89. All of this is happening despite
the fact that the sheriff knows that the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the injunction in September 2012. That's at transcript 2539.
THE COURT: Wait a minute, please.
All right.
MR. YOUNG: So, you know, there's a legal process. We
have judges who make decisions who tell people that they should
obey the law. We have appellate processes where people who
don't like decisions can go to the appellate courts and try to
get the decisions overturned.
They tried that in this case; they failed. They knew
what the law was; the sheriff knew what the law was; he,
nonetheless, went ahead and continued to violate it.
So then we get to October 2012, and as to some of
those press releases, we, the plaintiffs, send the Sheriff's
Office, through Mr. Casey, a letter, raising some concerns
about this issue.
What happened there -- and this involves both Sheriff
Arpaio and Chief Sands -- is that Sheriff Arpaio comes to them
and says: This is probably a violation of the injunction.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 29 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
09:3
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4610
That's at transcript pages 1687 and 1802. Mr. Casey says that
it's probably a violation. I refer later -- page 1691 of the
transcript -- according to Mr. Casey, the sheriff initially
said: I'm the sheriff and I make the decisions. That's
transcript 1692. They had a heated discussion. Then both
Mr. Casey and Chief Sands tell the sheriff that his actions are
violating the injunction.
THE COURT: What do I do about the fact that
Chief Sands doesn't seem to be able to remember any of this?
MR. YOUNG: Well, I don't think that's quite accurate.
There are certain things where he says he doesn't remember; on
the other hand, there are plenty of other instances where he
does actually remember. And if I can point to certain answers
to Mr. Popolizio's questions at pages 16 -- actually, sorry --
1969 to 1971, and 1974 to 1977, Chief Sands actually answers
quite a number of questions. And he also listened to all of
Mr. Casey's testimony. And Mr. Casey's testimony, he didn't
have any disagreement with Mr. Casey's testimony.
THE COURT: That's true, he didn't. It's kind of a
generalized statement, but he didn't have any disagreement.
When he was testifying himself, though, he seemed to have a
mighty poor memory of things.
MR. YOUNG: Well, Your Honor can take that into
account in connection with credibility findings. That's also
an issue that's relevant to the summary judgment motion, which
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 30 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4611
is part of Your Honor's list of questions the other day. And
what I would ask is that we be allowed to respond in writing.
I know Mr. Sands filed something else this morning; I haven't
read that yet.
But the issue with the summary judgment motion, let me
say I think the motion should be denied. The issues can be
considered by the Court in light of the evidence that was
admitted, but there's evidence that has been admitted that we
think is highly relevant to the motion that's not in the motion
papers. We haven't had a chance to brief that because the
evidence came in afterward. There is material referred to in
the motion papers that's not in the evidence.
My request would be that the motion be denied and that
the parties have a chance, we certainly should have a chance,
to brief that issue further.
THE COURT: Brief what issue? Do you want me to deny
the motion and allow you to file a responsive brief to the
brief Mr. Sands filed this morning?
MR. YOUNG: Yes, that would be appropriate. I'm
prepared to argue the motion, and there are some new things on
the Sands motion that result from the evidence that has come in
since the motion papers were filed that I can argue if you'd
like to hear argument on that issue.
THE COURT: You can decide how to spend your time.
MR. YOUNG: All right. Well, why don't I -- why don't
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 31 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4612
I do that after we go through the injunction --
THE COURT: All right.
MR. YOUNG: -- and the Seattle investigation.
So what happens in October, according to Mr. Casey --
and the sheriff does not contradict any of this -- is that they
had a heated discussion. In the end, Sheriff Arpaio tells
Mr. Casey: All right. That's a mistake. It won't happen
again. I'm not going to violate the injunction further.
Then they go ahead and send a letter that Mr. Casey
says he thinks it's likely going to lose if it ever comes up in
court, but he has enough that he thinks he can send the letter.
And that's at page 1806 about what the sheriff tells Mr. Casey,
and 1802 as to what Mr. Casey then did.
But the key here -- and this goes to the bona fideness
or non-bona fideness of that letter -- Mr. Casey tells Sheriff
Arpaio he's likely going to lose if that issue ever comes up.
That's at transcript 1802, 1691 to 1694, and 1847 to 1849.
That discussion indicates willfulness. It's
willfulness because it's knowledge of violation of the
injunction; there's an extensive discussion of the injunction;
and you have the lawyer for the sheriff telling the sheriff --
and Chief Sands -- that the activity that they're engaging in
violates the injunction. And Chief Sands agrees with that
assessment, according to Mr. Casey. Despite that fact, those
violations continued.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 32 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4613
On March 14, 2013, Exhibit 88 shows that seven people
were turned over to ICE despite a lack of evidence for state
charges. That's explicit in that Exhibit 88.
Exhibit 182, dated May 18, 2013, four people were
turned over to ICE without smuggling charges. And the sheriff,
in bragging about this, cites his oath to enforce all the laws
seriously.
The motivation for this? Again, 2012 is an election
year. Mr. Casey says that he was told by Chief Sands that this
was directed toward helping the sheriff politically, to
generate publicity. The sheriff himself, in some of the video,
says that the purpose of his press releases is to generate
publicity so the people like what he's doing. Transcript 1699,
as to Casey's testimony on that motivation.
And Sheriff Arpaio himself says this in August 2012 in
Exhibit 196D, his interview at the Republican convention. He
says he's got seven and a half million dollars in campaign
contributions because people like what he is doing. So what he
did was intentionally and calculatedly decide to violate the
Court's injunctions, notwithstanding his lawyer's advice, in
order to help his reelection.
Now, I mentioned various individuals. There are
people who are not alleged contemnors who contributed to the
violation that occurred here, and this shows a need for
thorough reform in the entire agency. We have various e-mails
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 33 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4614
involving Chief Trombi, Lieutenant Jakowinicz, Lieutenant
Trowbridge, Sergeant Palmer.
Mr. Vogel, who investigated this issue, discusses all
these people at Exhibit 2219, pages 209, 858 to 861; that's his
report. So a whole department failed to take adequate steps.
Specifically as to Lieutenant Sousa, he knew about the
order. He knew about Casey's advice. Now, there's a -- he
says that, Well, Casey didn't actually say "arrest or release."
But the order itself, which Lieutenant Sousa did get, is quite
clear. And it's undisputed that Lieutenant Sousa never changed
anything that HSU was doing. Despite the fact that he knew
that there was the need for training, he didn't see it through.
Now, he left at some point in 2012 and Lieutenant
Jakowinicz took over that role, and Lieutenant Jakowinicz
didn't put any training in effect, either. But he did not
specifically see to it that people were trained so that the
injunction was complied with.
And I'm going to -- he testified to an interaction
with Mr. Casey, and I'm going to reserve that. I do have
some -- I want to discuss the advice of counsel issue when I
get to the end of this injunction discussion.
So Chief Sands knew about the injunction. He handled
it, according to his own testimony, he does remember that.
That's at transcript 1965. He was in charge of the operations,
but never publicized the injunction to the whole department.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 34 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:5
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4615
He heard Casey's advice during the trial. This is at page 1676
and 1678 of the transcript.
THE COURT: Is this Sands?
MR. YOUNG: Yes.
THE COURT: And he's acknowledging that he heard what
Casey said to him about evidence that the injunction was still
being violated during trial?
MR. YOUNG: He didn't disagree with what Mr. Casey
testified to.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. YOUNG: And he actually does say that he had some
recall of the events surrounding Mr. Segura's letter.
So, for example -- and I'll try to come up with a page
citation -- he did testify that he had some memory of those
events in October 2012. For example, at page 1959 of the
transcript -- this relates to Exhibits 2512 and 2514, the
correspondence between Mr. Casey and Mr. Sands and others -- he
does recall those events, or at least something relating to
those events surrounding the letter that Mr. Segura, counsel
for plaintiffs, sent.
So despite his knowledge, he also did not do anything,
really, to implement the injunction, other than telling -- this
is his own admission at transcript 1965 to 1967 -- other than
telling Sousa to obey the order.
Chief Sheridan's basic defense is that he was busy
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 35 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4616
with other things, but he doesn't deny -- but his testimony is
not credible. The Court should look at all the e-mails that he
was copied on and take this into account. Chief Sheridan
denied even talking to Mr. Casey about the Melendres case prior
to the trial in July-August 2012. That's at transcript 950 and
953.
But that's not true. Mr. Casey's time entries show
that he talked to Chief Sheridan on December 6, 2011,
transcript 1628; March 23, 2012, page 210556 of Exhibit 2533;
Mr. Casey talked to Chief Sheridan on April 3rd, 2012. That's
transcript page 1675.
Both Chief MacIntyre and Chief Sands have testified
that they talked with Chief Sheridan about the preliminary
injunction shortly after it came out. Mr. Vogel's report says
the same thing. That's Exhibit 2219 at page 209857.
So these e-mails that Chief Sheridan received --
Exhibit 187, for example, about the injunction; Exhibit 2511
about the Ninth Circuit's affirmance of the injunction -- those
are not isolated things. Chief Sheridan can't say, well, he
wasn't paying attention to the case, and therefore he didn't
open the e-mails. He was talking to people -- Casey, Sands,
MacIntyre -- about the injunction. So he knew that it was
happening, it had happened.
So I would point, as to Chief Sheridan, to Mr. Vogel's
conclusions that Chief Sheridan violated department policy and
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 36 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4617
ought to be disciplined. As page 209925 of Mr. Vogel's report,
Exhibit 2219, says, Chief Sheridan was actually subject to a
potential 40-hour suspension because of his misbehavior with
respect to the injunction. And it was only Chief Olson, in a
process that Ms. Wang will talk about, that was clearly
defective and is in need of further reform, that prevented him
from suffering that consequence.
So advice of counsel. It's undisputed that there was
never any affirmative advice. If you look at page 2498 to
2499, the sheriff admits that no lawyer ever affirmatively told
him that he could hold the people that he was holding and turn
them over to the federal authorities.
He's asked: I'm not asking about silence or
acquiescence. I'm asking whether any lawyer actually
affirmatively told you, Yes, you can do this.
The sheriff's answer is: Well, I don't recall any
lawyer, but if I do recall, other agencies were doing it.
That's not legal advice.
At page 2500, lines 16 to 2501, line 8, the sheriff is
asked: 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.
Again, 2548, lines 12 through 25, Arpaio tes --
Sheriff Arpaio testified not recalling Mr. Casey saying that
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 37 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4618
the sheriff could do that.
In fact, the sheriff never even heard of Mr. Casey's
letter back to plaintiffs' counsel until September 2015.
That's at transcript pages 2502 to 2503. No one else testifies
to any affirmative advice, either.
So we have a -- we have no advice here.
THE COURT: What about Sousa's testimony that he asked
Casey something about if the stop -- if we call ICE during the
course of the stop it becomes ICE's stop?
MR. YOUNG: Well, I'm glad you asked that question,
Your Honor. What Mr. Sousa actually -- what Lieutenant Sousa
actually said was: I told Mr. Casey my view of the injunction
and Mr. Casey didn't contradict me. And some version of that
is also in what Sheriff Arpaio alleges, that they said: This
is what I wanted -- construe the injunction to mean, and then
nobody ever told me anything wrong.
That's if you believe what they say. If you believe
what they say, under the case law, that does not suffice to
create an advice of counsel defense.
I would refer Your Honor to the Ninth Circuit criminal
jury instruction 5.9, which refers to a requirement that there
be full disclosure of all material facts to the attorney; that
the person claiming the advice of counsel defense must have
received the attorney's advice as to the specific course of
conduct that was followed, and then reasonably relied on that
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 38 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4619
advice.
THE COURT: Sheriff said -- I can't remember whether
Sands confirmed this or not. Sheriff said, as I recall: I
told Sands to only tell the HSU because that's what the
attorney told me to do.
Was there ever any question put to Mr. Casey as to
whether or not he limited his advice in that way?
MR. YOUNG: I think Mr. Casey said that he told them
that everybody should be notified of the injunction. I may be
able to tell you the page on that at some point.
But the jury instruction is affirmed in various Ninth
Circuit cases. U.S. versus Bush, 626 F.3d 527: The person
claiming the defense needs to present evidence that he fully
advised the attorney of his plan, received advice regarding
that plan from the attorney, and followed that exact advice in
good faith.
Now, even if you believe what Sheriff Arpaio and
Lieutenant Sousa said, which I don't think you should, but if
you did, they don't satisfy that requirement. They did not
seek advice about the specific course of action before taking
that action. Sheriff Arpaio says, in fact, that he talked to
them -- talked to Mr. Casey afterward, and that Casey didn't
express objection, which is contrary to what Mr. Casey said.
But even if you assume what Sheriff Arpaio says is true, he
doesn't satisfy the requirements of the case law.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 39 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4620
And it's undisputed -- well -- yeah, it is undisputed
that Sheriff Arpaio didn't tell Mr. Casey all the facts, which
is another necessary element. The sheriff told Mr. Casey that
he was not detaining anyone -- transcript 1642 to 43 -- and he
told Mr. Casey that the October 2012 events were a mistake that
would not be repeated, transcript 1694. So he did exactly the
opposite of what Mr. Casey was advising him. That's --
THE COURT: Let me ask you this: Isn't Mr. Casey a
bit gullible by now?
MR. YOUNG: I'm sorry, Your Honor, a bit --
THE COURT: If I understand the chronology, Casey has
at some point reviewed Palmer's flawed scenarios; he's gotten
back and told Palmer that they're flawed scenarios. Then Casey
hears testimony, including testimony from Sheriff Arpaio, that
he still asserts the right to detain persons even if he has no
state charge, and he tells us, I think, that he pulled Sheriff
Arpaio aside after that and said: You can't be doing this.
And Sheriff Arpaio said: Okay. I'm not doing it. I won't do
it any more.
Then he gets the October instance and he said: You
can't be doing this. And Sheriff Arpaio says: I'm the
sheriff. And then he says: Well, this was just a mistake.
Does Mr. Casey bear any responsibility to see that
this -- that something a little broader happens here?
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, we don't have a position on
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 40 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
09:5
09:5
10:0
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4621
Mr. Casey at this point.
THE COURT: Does it impair his credibility at all?
MR. YOUNG: I don't think it impairs his credibility,
in part because the sheriff didn't -- doesn't contradict
anything that Mr. Casey says. And I will -- I will --
THE COURT: I remember. I remember the testimony
where he doesn't contradict him. If you have the page cites,
I'll take them, though.
MR. YOUNG: Sure. So at transcript 2543 to 2544,
Sheriff Arpaio does not deny telling Mr. Casey that he would
release people without state charges. And actually go back to
2542 of the transcript as well, that's because the sheriff
believed that President Obama was going to let people go,
anyway, so there was no reason to detain them.
THE COURT: Well, yeah, but was that after the October
incident? As I recall that one, that was when I first entered
the preliminary injunction.
MR. YOUNG: Yes, that was earlier on. And then at
2555 through 2556 of the transcript, the sheriff does not deny
telling Mr. Casey that he would follow Mr. Casey's advice.
Now, as far as Mr. Casey's credibility is concerned, I
point out that Mr. Casey actually represented to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Sheriff's Office was
not detaining people based on unlawful presence.
THE COURT: Well, he represented that to this Court
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 41 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4622
even before the preliminary injunction, didn't he?
MR. YOUNG: He did. And it seems to me that if you're
trying to decide --
THE COURT: Let me really be clear about that. He
represented to this Court in writing that the Sheriff's Office
had no authority, and, in fact, had not been attempting in any
way to enforce federal civil immigration law since 2009.
That's what he represented to this Court before the preliminary
injunction.
I guess I'll say this to you, Mr. Masterson: Is there
any way that you can detain someone, if you don't have state
charges, under any legal authority, if you are not asserting
some sort of right under federal civil immigration law?
Go ahead, Mr. Young.
MR. YOUNG: I think that the sheriff was asserting in
trying to enforce federal civil immigration law. That's what
he explicitly said in all of his press releases and video
appearances. I think the sheriff believed that if he said,
Well, I'm not going to enforce federal civil immigration law,
he thought he was going to lose votes and stop getting as much
campaign contributions as he was. So it was his interest to do
that and say that, and in order to be able to say that, that's
what he did.
As to Mr. Casey, I do think that you should believe
Mr. Casey's testimony. Number one, he resigned from
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 42 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
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
Argument - Young, 11/20/15 Evidentiary Hearing 4623
representing the sheriff in November 2014 before this contempt
proceeding ever arose. He said that his reason lay in part
because of the sheriff's resistance to following the Court's
orders.
He then, in testimony before this Court, scrupulously
followed his duties and refused to testify against his client
until compelled to do so. If the sheriff had not waived the
attorney-client privilege back in April, he would never have
done that. I think that you need to give some credence to
that.
Now, as to the October conversation, Mr. Casey says he
didn't ever see the press releases beforehand. That's at 1691.
But he does not deny -- the sheriff does not deny that. He
doesn't contradict Mr. Casey's testimony that Mr. Casey did not
read those press releases. That's at 2553 to 2554. So that --
the defiance of the Court's orders I think is clear and
warrants serious remedy.
On the advice of counsel defense, so not only did the
sheriff not tell Casey all the facts, he misled Mr. Casey as to
the facts. Plus they didn't get advice. They got silence,
maybe, assuming you believe what they say. Silence is not
advice. What they say they did was they told Mr. Casey their
views and then didn't get objection back. That's not advice of
counsel.
And I would refer the Court to United States versus
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1583 Filed 11/23/15 Page 43 of 240
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1583 Nov 20 2015 Transcript - Closing Argument
44/240
F R I E N D
O F T