Excerpts from MCSO Chief Deputy Sheridan's Sept. 24, 2015 Testimony during the Melendres Contempt Evidentiary Hearings (Transcript) regarding Dennis Montgomery and the MCSO's Seattle Operation, with selected notes.*
See also, Sheridan's Apr. 24, Sept. 25 and Sept. 29 Testimony.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY CECILLIA WANG
[1260] [WANG]: I'm going to turn to the subject of something that has [1261] been referred to in this case as the Seattle investigation or the Dennis Montgomery investigation. All right?
A. All right.
Q. During the last time you sat in that witness chair on April 24th, Ms. Iafrate asked you questions about that investigation, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And you testified that ultimately nothing came of it, is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Because you found it difficult to verify the credibility of the confidential informant, Dennis Montgomery, is that correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Now, I want to go back and get some more basics about the investigation. You and Sheriff Arpaio were personally directing this investigation, correct?
* * * [1262]
Q. Were you and Sheriff Arpaio personally overseeing this investigation?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And the other people participating in the investigation were the confidential informant, Dennis Montgomery, Posse Member Mike Zullo, MCSO Detective Brian Mackiewicz, and MCSO Sergeant Travis Anglin, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. This investigation was one that was very closely held as a confidential matter, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. It was people needed -- only people who needed to know about it knew about it, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, you were asked in April whether you ever heard the sheriff describe this investigation, the Seattle investigation, as looking into the Court in this case.
Do you recall that?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. Okay. Can I ask that -- to publish the portion of the transcript of your testimony on April 24th, 2015, page 1003, lines 12 through 20. Let's get the question as well, two previous lines.
Okay. So, sir, the transcript reads:[1263]
"Question: Did you ever hear him describe it as an investigation of me to anyone at the MCSO?"
That was a question from the Court. Do you understand that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. All right. And your answer was:
"No, sir. As a matter of fact, I made quite sure, and I believe in the presence of the sheriff, with detective -- Sergeant Anglin and Detective Mackiewicz when this information came forward that they were not, it was -- and I don't normally do this because it's not my style, but I told them: This is a direct order from me. You are not to investigate any information involving Judge Snow. If any further information comes up, I want to know immediately. Nothing ever did materialize."
Do you see that?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. That testimony was correct, sir?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. So it's true that nothing relating to Judge Snow ever materialized out of that investigation?
A. As far as I know.
Q. All right. Now, sir, do you recall a meeting where Sheriff Arpaio, Sergeant Anglin, Detective Mackiewicz, and you were all present where you gave the instruction: Do not investigate the district court in the Melendres case? [1264]
A. In the what case? I'm sorry.
Q. Judge Snow. Did you ever give an order in the presence of Sheriff Arpaio, Sergeant Anglin, Detective Mackiewicz, and Detective Mackiewicz not to investigate Judge Snow?
A. Yes.
Q. You never gave that order directly to Mike Zullo, correct?
A. I don't recall if I did or not.
* * *
Q. Are you aware of the relationship between Mike Zullo and Sheriff Arpaio?
A. I'm aware that they talked.
Q. Is it fair to say that Mike Zullo spoke more often with Sheriff Arpaio in relation to the Seattle investigation than he spoke with you, than Mike Zullo spoke with you?
* * * [1265]
[A]: Yes.
[Q]. And was it the case that with regard to the Seattle investigation, Mike Zullo spoke much more often with the sheriff than he did with you?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. And did you ever speak to Dennis Montgomery, the confidential informant, directly?
A. No.
Q. So you could not have given Dennis Montgomery the order not to investigate Judge Snow, is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, if I can have that transcript segment back on the screen, do you see where you said, you instructed them first not to investigate any information involving Judge Snow, and then you said if any further information comes up, you want to know immediately, is that right?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. So was it your expectation that even if Sergeant Anglin and Detective Mackiewicz followed your order that they should not investigate Judge Snow, further information might come up from others in the investigation? [1266]
A. I said that knowing Dennis Montgomery's prior behavior and just coming out of the blue with information, I thought that might be a possibility in the future.
Q. So you thought that Dennis Montgomery might come forward with additional information with -- about a purported conspiracy involving Judge Snow?
A. It was possible in my mind that he would do something like that, yes.
Q. All right. Now, during the course of the Seattle investigation you, in fact, did see information from Dennis Montgomery that purported to indicate that there was some kind of conspiracy against the sheriff, correct?
A. Conspiracy against the sheriff? Is that the question?
Q. Yes.
A. I guess you could label it that way.
Q. All right. Was there an occasion on which Brian Mackiewicz, Detective Mackiewicz, called you on the telephone and said that Dennis Montgomery had evidence of a phone call from the United States Department of Justice to Judge Snow's chambers?
A. There was some information about that. I don't remember who I heard it from. It probably was from Brian.
Q. All right. Let's take a look at your deposition testimony from September 15th, 2015, at page 582. Actually, beginning at 581, line 18, I asked you: [1267]
"To your knowledge, did Judge Snow's name ever come up in the Seattle investigation?
"Answer: Yes, it did.
"Question: Can you tell me everything you know about Judge Snow's name coming up in the investigation?
"Answer: I received a phone call from Detective Mackiewicz, and he told me that Montgomery said that he had some information that there was some -- there were -- there was a telephone conversation from the Department of Justice to Judge Snow's chambers.
"And I told Detective Mackiewicz -- I said, 'Brian,' I said, 'as far as I'm concerned, this is a ploy from Dennis Montgomery to string us along to continue to pay him.'"
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. So you learned during a phone call from Detective Mackiewicz of information purporting to be about Judge Snow, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you also had an in-person meeting where Sheriff Arpaio, Sergeant Anglin, and Detective Mackiewicz were present where you again told the MCSO personnel present, Do not investigate Judge Snow, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And if Dennis Montgomery gives us more information that [1268] relates to Judge Snow or purports to relate to Judge Snow, you let me know, correct?
A. That's correct.
* * * [1270]
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Sir, take a look at Exhibit 2072 and let me know, sir, whether you've seen those documents before in the course of the Seattle investigation.
Note: Ex. 2072 is: Arpaio timeline/charts re Montgomery 1724 investigation (Ex. F to Dkt 1166) (MELC199917-MELC199935). It is admitted into evidence on Sept. 29 (Transcript at 1724).
A. I'm not sure. During my deposition you showed me a document that I immediately recognized as the one and only document that I ever saw pertaining to the Montgomery investigation. And it had -- and the reason I know and the reason I said "yes" a minute ago is because this document has the wiretap information about my personal phone on there, and that's what I keyed on a few minutes ago by saying "yes." It may have been premature, because that original document that I saw, I don't recall Judge Snow's name being on there. I recall it being a lot less -- a lot more crude in nature than this. This is what I would call a refined word process document. The original document that I recall seeing was put together a lot more hastily, and it's not as pretty as this.
Q. Okay. I believe I showed you this document during your deposition on September 15th. At page 587 of your deposition of September 15th, 2015, I marked Exhibit 2524 into – for identification, that's the same as the exhibits -- Exhibit 2524 that we just looked at here. And I asked you to turn to [1271] Exhibit F.
And starting at line 19 of page 587 I said: "Turn to Exhibit F, and let me know if it's the timeline document that you were just describing.
"We identified the MELC page number as 119 -- sorry, 119917, and I asked you at page 588, line 12: "Is this the timeline document that you were describing earlier?"
And you answered: "Yes."
Then I asked you a question: "And I think a minute ago you said your recollection is that you saw this timeline before Mackiewicz called you and told you that Montgomery had information about a phone call between the Justice Department and the judge; is that right?"
And you answered: "Yes."
So was that testimony incorrect, you don't -- it's the same document, Exhibit 2524, Exhibit F.
A. I'm sorry, I'm just confused, because the document that I recall seeing, again, was crude, and it had my phone number with the wiretap number above with nothing in between the wiretap number with the sheriff's phone number right below it. And I may have been hasty when I answered the question that this was the document that I remember seeing.
The other thing that I noticed as I was sitting here today, that I may not have noticed on the 15th, was it says "Joe Arpaio brief" on top. I don't ever remember seeing [1272] anything that said Joe Arpaio brief until either April 23rd or 24th, when I saw one of the other charts for the first time.
I do recall the word "timeline" on the original document that I recall seeing.
Q. Okay. So your testimony now is that you were mistaken during your deposition in testifying that you had seen this document, which is now marked 2072, before?
A. Yes.
* * *
MS. WANG: Could I have Exhibit 2074 handed to the witness? . . .
Note. Ex. 2074 was not submitted into evidence during this testimony. It is later admitted in two parts. 2074A ("DOJ/ARPAIO, 2007-2013 (MELC199549)[PDF] is admitted Sept. 25 (Transcript at 1292); 2074B ("DOJ/Arpaio 2007-2013, chronology and handwritten notes (MELC199550)" [PDF] is admitted Oct. 2 (Transcript at 2289).
Note. For more info on Exhibit 2074 (A&B), including additional testimony re: these documents, see WYE-Nov. 5, 2013.
* * *
Q. Do you have that the document in front of you, sir?
A. I do.
Q. Okay. Is that the document you've seen before?
A. It is.
Q. All right. And you see that, again, there are these purported wiretap numbers here, is that right?
A. That's correct. [1273]
Q. And there are references to the Melendres case on this document as well?
A. Correct.
Q. For example, it indicates on 7-19-2012 Melendres case here by judge.
Do you see that, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And there's another reference to the judge -- the judge's ruling on October 2nd, 2013.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. This exhibit is a two-page document. It was produced that way to us. Take a look at the next page. It appears to be a typewritten document with some handwriting above. Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Have you seen that document before?
A. You showed it to me the other day.
Q. Okay. But other than in your deposition had you seen it before?
A. I don't believe I did.
* * *
Q. Do you see up at the top there it appears this document was faxed from a number 425-502-7617?
Do you see that? [1274]
A. I'm sorry. Could you say that again?
Q. Do you see that there's a line up at the top of the document, the first page of Exhibit 2074, that appears to have a fax number, it looks like the indication that a document has been sent via fax machine?
A. Oh, is that what you're referring to, the 425 --
Q. Yeah, 425-502-7617.
A. Yeah, I see that number there.
Q. Okay. Is that familiar to you as a number being from Bellevue, Washington?
A. I have no idea what that number is.
Q. Okay. You don't know whose number that is?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. All right.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I'd like to move the admission of Exhibit 2074. Well, let me ask him a couple more questions.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. This document at page MELC19950 appears to be created on a manual typewriter, is that right?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. All right. And are you familiar with the sheriff's practices in terms of typing?
A. Yes.
Q. You're familiar with the fact that he uses a manual typewriter, is that right? [1275]
A. Yes, he does.
Q. And are you familiar with Sheriff Arpaio's handwriting?
A. Yes.
Q. And does this look like a document, based on your experience of how Sheriff Arpaio creates documents, does this appear to be a document that Sheriff Arpaio created?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: Do you want to lay a little bit more what the basis of his experience is?
MS. WANG: Sure.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Have you seen documents that look like this one, typed on a manual typewriter by someone who's not a very good typist? Are you familiar with whether the sheriff has created documents like this using a typewriter?
Have you seen other documents that look like this in appearance that you know to be from Sheriff Arpaio's typewriter?
A. Normally, it's just a few sentences.
Q. Okay. But have you seen documents that appear to look like this with this kind of typeface, this style of typing, from Sheriff Arpaio?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And you already testified that the handwriting at the top appears to you to be consistent with Sheriff [1276] Arpaio's handwriting?
A. I didn't say that.
Q. Oh, I'm sorry. I think I misheard you, then.
Are you familiar with Sheriff Arpaio's handwriting?
A. I am.
Q. Does this look like his handwriting to you?
A. Again, you asked me that the other day, and I'm afraid to say if it is or it isn't. It's possible. Looks similar.
Q. All right. You've seen many documents written in Joe Arpaio's handwriting, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
MS. WANG: All right. Your Honor, I'd move admission of 2074 into evidence at this time.
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation, hearsay.
THE COURT: What reason are you admitting page 2?
MS. WANG: Well, Your Honor, I can -- I can move the admission just of page 1 if that's preferable. We'll have to assign it a new exhibit number, I think.
THE COURT: Well, we're at 5 o'clock.
MS. WANG: Oh. Time flies.
THE COURT: Why don't we do this. If you're going to assign it a new exhibit number --
MS. WANG: We'll come back tomorrow with that, I think.
* * *
See also, Sheridan's Apr. 24, Sept. 25 and Sept. 29 Testimony.
*Source: Melendres v. Arpaio et al, No. CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.) Transcript of Proceedings - Evidentiary Hearing Day 5 (pages 1036-1278).
