Excerpts from MCSO Captain Russell Skinner's Nov. 10, 2015 Testimony during the Melendres Contempt Evidentiary Hearings regarding the MCSO's Seattle Operation, with selected notes.*
CROSS-EXAMINATION
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL STANLEY YOUNG
[4223] * * *
Q. You're aware that on April 23, 2015, the Court ordered the MCSO to produce to the monitor certain documents relating to an investigation being done involving Dennis Montgomery in Seattle, correct?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, beyond the scope of direct.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I became aware of it, yes, sir.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. In fact, you sent a litigation hold memo to Mike Zullo and [4224] some other people relating specifically to that order, is that right?
A. I was instructed to do so, sir, yes.
Q. Okay. Could we take a look at Exhibit 2947. And I don't know whether you have a folder there, Captain, that has that exhibit, but there should be a number on the tab that hopefully one of them is 2947.
Note. Exhibit 2947 is E-mail chain re Arpaio/Melendres litigation hold dated April 24, 2015 (MELC199344 - MELC199345).
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that an e-mail that you sent out as part of your responsibilities in CID to make sure that people within MCSO, including Mike Zullo, retain documents?
A. Yes. As I testified earlier, court correspondent -- court correspondence or court orders were disseminated by myself or CID staff.
MR. YOUNG: I move for the admission of Exhibit 2947.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Your Honor, objection, relevance and beyond the scope of direct.
THE COURT: Overruled. Exhibit 2947 is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2947 is admitted into evidence.) Note. Plaintiffs later withdraw this exhibit.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Let's look now at Exhibit 2948. Captain, Exhibit 2948 is a letter signed by Michele Iafrate that was the attachment to the e-mail that you sent out relating to that litigation hold, correct?
Note. Exhibit 2948 is Letter from M. Iafrate re litigation hold dated 4.24.2015 (MELC199311 - MELC199313).
A. Yes, sir, I do believe so. I believe this is it. [4225]
MR. YOUNG: I move for the admission of Exhibit 2948.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, attorney-client privilege.
MR. YOUNG: May I be heard, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may be.
MR. YOUNG: Waiver.
THE COURT: Why isn't the attorney-client waived?
MR. POPOLIZIO: That's a good question, Your Honor, because I don't know if I've ever seen this document. But I don't believe that the waiver, if there is one, is intentional and knowing. And the waiver of the privilege would have to come from Sheriff Arpaio, and there's been no evidence that the person who holds the waiver, or who holds the privilege, the sheriff, has waived it.
THE COURT: Well, you've made no attempts to claw this back, have you? If, in fact, you produced it during discovery.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Well, I'm making the attempt right now, Your Honor, to claw it back.
THE COURT: All right. Well, I'm going to say -- I'm going to rule at this moment that the exhibit is admitted subject to any successful attempt to claw it back by you. But you're going to have to make the showing necessary to get something back that there has been no waiver.
Is that clear to everyone?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. [4226]
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Exhibit No. 2948 is admitted into evidence.) Note. Plaintiffs later withdraw this exhibit.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Now let's look at Exhibit 2984.
Note. Exhibit 2984 is E-mail from Russ Skinner to Michael Zullo (redacted) [Skinner Depo Ex. 2931] dated 4/27/2014 (MELC1241293 - MELC1241294).
THE COURT: Let me just make clear, though, that was Exhibit 2948?
MR. YOUNG: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. So 2948 is conditionally admitted, with the proviso that if you do it timely, Mr. Popolizio, you can make an effort to claw this back, and I won't look at it in the meantime.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, just so there's clarity, may we set a time limit so that if no motion is made, the condition will go away?
THE COURT: Yeah. We're not going to have a hearing tomorrow. Can you get anything on file by the end of the day tomorrow, Mr. Popolizio?
MR. POPOLIZIO: I believe so.
THE COURT: All right. So the end of the day tomorrow if you want to claw this back.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. May we look now at Exhibit 2984.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you have that, Captain?
A. I do, sir. [4227]
Q. Okay. Now, that's an e-mail exchange between you and Mr. Zullo, correct? It's been redacted heavily, but based on the date, would you agree with me that that e-mail exchange between you and Mr. Zullo is a response to the e-mail that you sent out on the document hold?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection as to the question asked.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Do you recognize Exhibit 2984? Well, let me ask it this way. That's your e-mail address in the "from" line on the top e-mail, correct?
A. It is my e-mail address.
Q. Okay. And below that there's another e-mail addressed to you from Michael Zullo. Do you see that?
A. I do, sir.
Q. Okay. And if on the screen we can move down a little bit, that's a redacted version of the e-mail that we looked at just a moment ago, which is Exhibit 2947, is that right?
A. I can only assume. You're basing that off of the header and not the contents, sir. I see "redacted" on there.
Q. Do you have any reason to doubt that as redacted, setting aside the redactions, that this is an authentic copy of an e-mail string that you had with Mr. Zullo while you were [4228] complying with your responsibilities as commander of CID to collect documents that were called for under court order or monitor request?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation. And Your Honor, I'm going to reassert the -- the attorney-client privilege. This actually did come up in deposition, and I asserted that at that time.
THE COURT: All right. But what about this exhibit has anything to do with the attorney-client privilege?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Ms. Iafrate is participating in this, and so are members of her office.
THE COURT: All right. But there is no content on the exhibit, and the exhibit also went to Jerry Sheridan, Amy Lake, Michele Vendredi, Travis Anglin, Brian Mackiewicz, Michael Zullo, C. Shehorn, Bill Knight, Edward Lopez.
As the person asserting the privilege, I think you're under some obligation to indicate why all of those people would need to receive the communication, and there is no communication there, there's no substance to any communication there. So do you want to take the time to lay that out for me now?
MR. POPOLIZIO: What is the question, Your Honor? I'm sorry.
THE COURT: It was pretty detailed. You're the assertion of the privilege. You're the one asserting the [4229] privilege as to these documents based merely on the fact that Ms. Iafrate was one of the people cc'd on this e-mail. And if that's your basis, your objection is overruled, because you have not established the necessary prerequisites to asserting the privilege. Overruled.
You can answer the question.
THE WITNESS: Sorry, sir.
Assuming that the e-mail header is the same as Exhibit 2947, then that bottom e-mail string does look and appear to be the top e-mail string on 2947, sir.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I move for the admission of Exhibit 2984.
MR. POPOLIZIO: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Exhibit 2984 is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2984 is admitted into evidence.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Now, you referred earlier to specialty requests by the monitor, and you used that term in connection with ITRs, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So those would be things where the monitor would say, Give me this specific category of document, and part of your responsibility would be to go out and collect those, is that right?
A. Correct. [4230]
Q. Can we look at Exhibit 2950.
Note. Exhibit 2950 is E-mail chain re M. Zullo response to ITR 51 4231 (MELC1338964 - MELC1338966).
Now, Alex Frank, who's shown on this document, was one of the people working under you at CID, correct?
A. That is correct, sir.
Q. Okay. Is Alex Frank a he or a she?
A. A gentleman, sir.
Q. Okay. So one of the things that he did was to correspond with people who were in possession of documents that the MCSO was obligated to turn over and make sure that those documents would be collected, is that correct?
A. That would be correct, sir.
Q. Okay. In the course of that work -- What's Alexander Frank's title? Sergeant, is that right?
A. That is correct, sir.
Q. Would Sergeant Frank create documents as part of that effort that would reflect what he knew at the time during that collection?
A. I'm sorry. Reflect what he knew? I --
Q. Yes. Well, during the course of his work collecting documents, he would write e-mails about that work, right?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: If you know.
THE WITNESS: He would send requests.
BY MR. YOUNG: [4231]
Q. Okay. This Exhibit 2950 contains some of his e-mails, correct?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: If you know.
THE WITNESS: It appears so, based off of the e-mail headers, yeah.
MR. YOUNG: I move for the admission of Exhibit 2950.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation, relevance.
THE COURT: I can't see a copy of the whole exhibit. Do you want to show me a copy of the whole exhibit, please.
MR. YOUNG: Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Klein, is there a way to do that?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Your Honor, I'd like to add beyond the scope of direct also.
THE COURT: That objection's overruled.
The exhibit is admitted, Exhibit 29 -- the objection is overruled. The exhibit is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2950 is admitted into evidence.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Do you have Exhibit 2945 in front of you, Captain Skinner?
Note. Exhibit 2945 is MCSO Memorandum to Captain Skinner re Response to Document Request Regarding ITR 80 dated 8/2015 (MELC662482 - MELC662484).
A. 2945, sir?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Exhibit 2945 is a copy of a memo that Mr. Zullo wrote to [4232] you with respect to one of the monitor's ITR requests, correct?
A. Yes, sir, appears so.
MR. YOUNG: I move for the admission of Exhibit 2945.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled. Exhibit 2945 is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2945 is admitted into evidence.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Now, the ITR 79 called for documents relating to communications, among other things, with Judge Royce Lamberth. Do you see that?
A. Are you basing this off of the memorandum with the request portion of this?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And Mr. Zullo said in response to you that he had no such records. Did you do anything, or did your staff, to your knowledge, do anything to follow up on that?
A. Again, documents, we send out the request. We don't have possession of documents, whether it be -- if this is a Posse, we don't necessarily have or retain private e-mail accounts. That would need a subpoena.
If a Posse exists, which they do exist in their own entity, that would be a separate entity than it is at MCSO. Only if MCSO had these documents could we verify that they're attainable, either through another mechanism or the person [4233] themselves.
So at this point we have to go off of, since we're also referring to personal e-mail, personal businesses, and personal communication through phones, we have to go based off of that, unless a subpoena has been issued on it, sir.
Q. Well, let's assume that Mr. Zullo did provide some documents relating to the Seattle investigation and provided them to -- well, where would he have take -- where would he have sent them? To whom would he have provided them, if he had provided documents in response to the ITR request?
A. He would have -- if we're requesting, if CID is requesting those documents, they're either to go to us, CID staff, or legal counsel if there's a -- they wanted to review them for any privileged information and make that determination.
Q. Did Chief Knight have any role in collecting documents that were called for in ITRs?
A. Yes.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: If you know.
THE WITNESS: Yes, he did, in the beginning, sir.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. And what was his role?
A. He originally was giving the document -- or assigned the task of the original ITR request. I don't remember how many it consisted of, but one to eight line items, I believe. [4234]
Q. Let's look at 2949,
MR. YOUNG: Oh, actually, did -- I move, if I didn't already, for the admission of 2945.
I guess we did do that, didn't we?
THE COURT: You did do it, and it was admitted.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Your Honor. Sorry.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Next exhibit is [Exhibit 2949]. Now, this is also a memorandum to you from Mr. Zullo relating to another ITR, number 8, is that right?
Note. Exhibit 2949 is MCSO Memorandum to Captain Skinner from Michael Zullo re Response to Document Request Regarding ITR 8 dated August 5, 2015 (MELC677718).
A. It appears so, sir, yes.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I move for the admission of Exhibit 2949.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, relevance, and beyond the scope of direct.
THE COURT: Overruled. The exhibit is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2949 is admitted into evidence.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Next exhibit is Exhibit 2973.
Note. Exhibit 2973 is MCSO Memorandum to Captain Skinner from Michael Zullo re Response to Document Request Regarding ITR 63 dated 6/29/2015 (MELC662480).
Captain Skinner, this is also a memorandum that Mr. Zullo wrote to you in response to another ITR, number 63, correct?
A. 2273 or 2973?
Q. Oh, 2973. I apologize.
A. 2273 is not a memorandum. [4235]
Yes, this appears so, sir.
MR. YOUNG: I move for the admission of 2973.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, relevance, beyond the scope, and 805.
THE COURT: The objection's overruled. The exhibit is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2973 is admitted into evidence.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Next, Captain Skinner, is Exhibit 2974. Actually, we did 2974. I apologize. And I don't know whether you have this in front of you but it's Exhibit 2946. Do you have that?
Note. Exhibit 2946 is MCSO Memorandum to Captain Skinner re Response to Document Request Regarding ITR 80 dated 8/2015 (MELC662482 - MELC662484).
A. I do, sir.
Q. Exhibit 2946 is a multipage document, and it consists of memos written to you with respect to ITR 80, is that correct?
A. Yes. It appears there are three separate memos reference ITR 80.
Q. Do you have that in front of you?
A. Yes, I do, sir.
Q. Okay. And is that the further memoranda written to you in your role as the collector of documents relating to ITR 80?
A. Sorry. Say that first part again, sir?
Q. I'm sorry?
A. I didn't catch your first part of your question.
Q. Well, actually, just looking at the three pages of [4236] Exhibit 2946, those are memoranda written to you by Lee Ann Bohn, Sergeant Romney, and Michael Zullo, responding to ITR 80, correct?
A. That is correct, sir.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I move for the admission of Exhibit 2946.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, relevance; beyond the scope of direct.
THE COURT: Exhibit 2946 is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2946 is admitted into evidence.)
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor -- well, actually, let's go to the next exhibit, which is 2256.
THE COURT: It's about time for an afternoon break. Is this as good a time as any to break?
MR. YOUNG: This is a fine time, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. So 15 minutes we'll be back. Thank you.
(Recess taken.)
THE COURT: Please be seated. Please continue, Mr. Young.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Captain Skinner, I'd like you to look at Exhibit 2090. It's an e-mail dated February 2, 2015, with the subject "Judge Snow." [4237] Do you have that in front of you?
Note. Exhibit 2090 is Email chain between Dennis Montgomery to Mike Zullo with a subject line "Judge Snow" dated 2/2/2015 (MELC202222-24).
A. I do, sir.
Q. Now, that's an e-mail that has a Bates number at the bottom. Do you see that? The first page is MELC202222?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recognize that as the Bates number that was used for documents that were produced by MCSO and responsive, at least in part, to the monitor's document requests?
A. I'm not personally aware of this document, sir.
Q. Have you seen documents with Bates numbers starting with the letters MELC previously?
A. Yes, I have, sir.
Q. And that has been in connection with documents that have been produced with your participation as a result of the monitor's document requests?
A. I would say a good portion, sir. Others came from other units in the Maricopa County Sheriff's office, come from other units within the agency and have the same type of Bates label.
THE CLERK: Counsel, if you could give me one moment. (Pause in proceedings.)
THE CLERK: Okay. Thank you.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Now, I want you to look at the e-mail address associated with the person named Mike on this e-mail string. It occurs in several places, the bottom of the first page, for example. [4238] It's [email protected]. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do, sir.
Q. Okay. You recognize that as the e-mail address of Michael Zullo, correct?
A. In correlation to previous document requests from the monitor and the document you've already submitted into evidence as an exhibit, that I do correlate to being associated with him, sir.
Q. Now, this document was produced by MCSO to the monitor staff in response to the monitor's ITR requests, correct?
A. Again, I don't have personal knowledge, but it could have been, sir.
Q. Okay. What you see in front of you is consistent with the production of this document by the MCSO in response to the monitor's requests?
A. Yes, at least some form or fashion, this probably was produced by MCSO to the monitor utilizing those Bates stamp numbers.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I move for the admission of Exhibit 2090.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation, hearsay, relevance.
THE COURT: Okay. I am going to -- I am going to grant the objection without prejudice, because I don't believe that under 901(b)(4) there are yet enough distinctive [4239] characteristics to establish a foundation for this exhibit. I'm not going to rule on the hearsay objection at this point. You're not -- oh.
MR. YOUNG: Well, Your Honor, let me say that I have a number of other documents that have very similar Bates numbers and are of a similar nature. I can go through them all one by one. I assume that Mr. Popolizio will have the same objection. I can do it, or if --
THE COURT: Well, can I see the parties at sidebar, please.
MR. YOUNG: Yes, Your Honor.
(Bench conference on the record.)
THE COURT: I want to be very careful about admitting exhibits, and although I do think you've established some characteristics, I don't know whether you're going to attempt to establish others, or reestablish with other witnesses. I'm not precluding that, if that's what you're going to try to do.
I don't really see the need, if you're going to try to do that, to go through every one of these, because my rulings will be the same. But I'm also assuming that since Mr. Jirauch objected to allowing Mr. Zullo to take the Fifth without having to appear and wanted to -- a response with respect to specific questions then Mr. Zullo will be appearing.
If you're going to try and get these exhibits in, it seems to me to be most appropriate through him, and then we can [4240] argue about what, if any, adverse inferences are allowed with respect to these individual documents at that time.
So I don't know, Mr. Popolizio, if you're going to require or want Mr. Young to go through every one of these exhibits, but if you do, it seems to me that my ruling's going to be the same.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Which is are you sustaining the relevance or the foundation?
THE COURT: No, I'm not sustaining the relevance objection; I probably specifically overrule that. But I am sustaining the foundation objection.
MR. POPOLIZIO: And I believe it's necessary, Your Honor. I don't believe that plaintiff has established enough unique or distinct characteristics of these just because that there's --
THE COURT: Well, that's all right. You're going to make him go through every one --
MR. YOUNG: Just to be clear, I have a number of documents that are similar to the one I just tried to get introduced. And if you're saying that you may not object to other similar documents I will definitely go through them.
I think my question to the Court and to counsel was if the objection and the ruling are going to be the same as to this kind of document, I'm not sure I see a need to go through them all. [4241]
MR. POPOLIZIO: And the objections are going to be made, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. But here's my point. I'm going to require, nevertheless, Mr. Young to go through them all if you're going to try to rely on these same characteristics in conjunction with reoffering these through -- attempting to reoffer these exhibits through Mr. Zullo. Unless you're going to stipulate that every one of them has the MELC, and that that was the production number used in this case, and that Zullo's e-mail is Zullo's e-mail.
I think that Zullo's e-mail is Zullo's e-mail has already been established through other testimony. But if you're going to have to -- I mean, are you going to make Mr. Young go through and establish that MELC was the production number used by --
MR. POPOLIZIO: No.
THE COURT: -- MCSO in this case? Okay.
MR. YOUNG: All right. Then I'm going to assume that for similar documents, the ruling will be the same, and I do not need to go through all of them with this witness.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. MASTERSON: Judge, can I ask one point of clarification?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. MASTERSON: My question is regarding [4242] clarification. The Court mentioned 901, and I'm wondering about the distinction --
THE COURT: (b)(4).
MR. MASTERSON: -- the distinction between authentication of the document and foundation for the information in the document. I think they're two different objections.
THE COURT: Well, you're probably right.
MR. MASTERSON: I think a document can be authenticated but still lack foundation.
THE COURT: I think you're probably right about that.
MR. MASTERSON: Okay.
THE COURT: So I'll look at it overnight, but I think you're -- that seems to make sense to me. Maybe it is sufficient for authentication, but I still think I'd like a little more; then foundation will be a different issue. But I assume we're going to be raising this all with respect to Mr. Zullo, anyway, or at least I'm not precluding you from doing that.
MR. YOUNG: Yes, we'll see this document again.
THE COURT: And I assume that we -- I assume by what you said, Mr. Masterson, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I also don't want to leave here without understanding that you're going to stipulate that the MELC thing with respect to the other documents would be the same [4243] through -- same as this document that we've established with Captain Skinner. In other words, the MELC prefix was a prefix used by Maricopa County in the production of documents in this case.
MR. MASTERSON: I agree to that, yes.
THE COURT: If you want to establish anything more in terms of authentication or more foundation, you better say it now, Mr. Young.
MR. YOUNG: I will think about it as I walk back to the lectern.
THE COURT: All right.
(Bench conference concluded.)
THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to state that based on the comment made by Mr. Masterson at sidebar, there was no authentication objection offered and so I'm still going to sustain the foundational objection, but there was no authentication objection offered, so my citation to 901(b)(4) was moot.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. So Captain Skinner, I want you now to look at Exhibit 2985. Now, that's one that we recently marked, I think, so I'm not sure you have it in front of you. I wonder whether Ms. Zoratti has it, 2985.
THE CLERK: Here you go (handing).
THE WITNESS: Thank you. [4244]
Yes, sir.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Now, Exhibit 2985 is a memorandum written by Chief Knight dated May 7, 2015, listing various ITR requests that CID had received from the monitor, correct?
A. No, I believe these were received by Chief Knight from the monitor, sir.
Q. Okay. And that's the letterhead of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office on the top of the first page?
A. That's not considered letterhead; that's just an official memorandum format by the Sheriff's Office, sir.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I move for the admission of Exhibit 2985.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, relevance, foundation. Hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained as to foundation.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Captain Skinner, did Chief Knight's responsibilities during the time that he was working on ITR responses include generating memoranda such as this?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: If you know.
THE WITNESS: I do not know. He was at the direction of the chief deputy, sir, not me.
BY MR. YOUNG: [4245]
Q. So Chief Knight was not working with you during the response -- in connection with responses to the monitor document requests?
A. No, sir. We were involved in other production requests at the time.
Q. Well, did you work together at all with Chief Knight in responding to the monitor's document requests?
A. In the initial version, no; down the road, yes.
Q. Okay.
A. When it was turned over to CID, I can only speak of what CID was assigned, and the task, and what we did respond with.
Q. Well, part of your responsibility in complying with the Court's orders would have been to turn over any sound recordings coming within the scope of the monitor's requests relating to the Seattle investigation, correct?
A. I'm sorry. Rephrase that. The Seattle investigation and sound recordings?
Q. Yeah. You know what the Seattle investigation was, correct?
A. I don't know what it was. I was notified what it is in a production request, sir.
Q. All right. Well, with respect to that investigation, if Mr. Zullo or someone else at the MCSO had a sound recording relating to that investigation, would that have been something that would have been of interest to you in responding to the [4246] monitor's document requests?
A. Was it requested --
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Was it requested? And what ITR number is it, sir? Because again --
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Well, and --
A. -- Chief Knight worked on some of the --
Q. And I guess I know -- you know, if you can refer -- on ITR 37, which is one of the ones listed in Exhibit 2985, take a look at that.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. That refers to audio recordings relevant to the Seattle investigation, correct?
A. This was Chief Knight's work product, not CID's work product, sir. We weren't involved in these ITR requests, sir.
Q. Okay. Do you recall an ITR 37 request from the monitor calling for audio recordings, among other things, relating to the Seattle investigation?
A. Not that I recall in the initial, sir. Again, this was turned over to CID at a litter date --
Q. Have you ever –
A. – to --
Q. I’m sorry. Are you finished with your answer? [4247]
A. No, I'm not, sir. It was turned over to CID at a later date for us then to assume the task of collecting documents.
Q. Have you seen ITR 37 before?
A. I may have or may not have, sir. I cannot recall. Again, we had several production requests that we were working on at the time relative to IA matters, ITR requests, property room matters, monthly production requests, quarterly production requests, and a host of other things. So I --
Q. Was your responsibil- --
A. -- cannot specifically say that I saw that particular one. I have seen the ITR requests when CID was tasked with that.
Q. Did you see a list of all the ITR requests at any point in time?
A. More than likely, yes, sir.
Q. All right. You've heard Sheriff Arpaio's voice previously, correct, Captain Skinner?
A. Yes, sir. I've worked for him for over 20 years.
Q. Okay. So you'd recognize it, in all likelihood, if you heard it?
A. In person, yes, sir.
Q. Okay. I'm going to ask that an audio recording, which is Exhibit 2977, be played in part, the initial part, and I'm going to ask you, Captain Skinner, whether you recognize Sheriff Arpaio's voice on that recording.
Note. Exhibit 2977 is First Meeting 2.m4a | ZULLO_003715 - - apparently this recording (published by Stephen Lemons, Phoenix New Times).
(Audio clip played.) [4248]
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, perhaps that's enough.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Captain Skinner, do you recognize Sheriff Arpaio's voice on that recording as one of the people in that conversation?
A. I would assume. I was not present for that, nor have I heard that recording before, sir.
Q. Okay. Did you recognize Sheriff Arpaio's voice as being one of those in that conversation?
A. It does sound like it, sir.
Q. Okay.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I move for the admission of Exhibit 2977.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Foundation, relevance, hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I am going to sustain the foundational objection.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Let's play the beginning of [Exhbit 2978]. Same question, Captain. (Audio clip played.)
Note. Exhibit 2978 is Frist Meeting 1.m4a | ZULLO_003716 -- apparently this recording (published by Stephen Lemons, Phoenix New Times).
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Did you hear Sheriff Arpaio's voice briefly in that recording, Captain?
A. I'd have to hear it again, sir. I did not.
MR. YOUNG: Can we play that part again? (Audio clip played.) [4249]
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Captain Skinner, there was a mention there of Gore. Did you hear that?
A. Vaguely, yes.
Q. Do you recognize that to be Sheriff Arpaio's voice?
A. I can only assume, sir. Again, I was not privy to that conversation. Sounded a little mumbled, but, yes, it potentially could be.
Q. Did anybody in CID, in connection with the various requests that were made to Mr. Zullo, ask him whether he had any audio recordings relevant to the Seattle investigation?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: If you know.
THE WITNESS: I don't know specifically on the audio recordings. I know that once CID took over the ITR requests, communication came from Sergeant Alexander Frank to Mike Zullo on the requests that were outstanding. Anything that had been fulfilled by Chief Knight, Chief Knight would be your best person to ask on that question.
THE COURT: Requests to Zullo were taken over by who?
THE WITNESS: The request was taken over by CID after Chief Knight had tasked them.
THE COURT: And who was the CID person that you said had contact with Zullo?
THE WITNESS: That would be Sergeant Alexander Frank, [4250] who was assigned to CID.
THE COURT: And then did I also understand you to say that CID made no attempts to follow up on materials that were already answered to Chief Knight?
THE WITNESS: Unless there was additional request from the monitor for us to get additional information, I cannot recall specifically at this date of those particular items.
But please understand the ITR requests continued to grow from the initial request. When Chief Knight had it, when it got to, I believe, item 47 or 45, that's when it was turned over to CID, and I think it grew to 78 or 84 --
THE COURT: Okay. So around 45, the ITRs were transferred from Knight to CID.
THE WITNESS: Somewhere around there, sir, yes. I can't recall specifically without going back to that date and time.
THE COURT: And CID made no attempt to verify the accurate of answers 1 through 44, or whatever it was.
THE WITNESS: If deputy chief had told us that those had already been answered and needed verification through our legal team, then there would be no reason to go back, because we had more to go grab, unless the monitor specifically said, We need updates or additional response to that. And that may be the case. I just don't know for sure which one, sir.
THE COURT: Thank you. [4251]
THE WITNESS: No problem.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Captain Skinner, your transfer out of CID back to the Lake Patrol was at your request, correct?
A. That is correct, sir.
Q. The reason you made that request was that you found that working in CID was stressful, correct?
A. Stressful was one component, sir.
Q. What were the other components?
A. Personal reasons, sir.
Q. It was taking a lot of time that you wanted to do other things with, correct?
A. Well, if you wanted to find other things, I have a family, a daughter getting ready to go to college, and a son turning 16, yes, sir.
Q. Administratively, being in CID in command there was a lot of work with all the various things that you had to do, correct?
A. It was a lot of work, sir.
MR. YOUNG: Captains Skinner, I appreciate your time very much. Thank you.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. Young.
MR. YOUNG: No further questions at this time.
* * *
