Melissa Saenz — Direct/Cross/Redirect
1,051 linesTHE COURT: Your next witness.
MR. MONIZ: We call Officer Melissa Saenz by deposition designation. Just so the jury is aware, for the fast hour or so, what we'll hear is questioning by Ms. Beard's counsel We IO will, then, shift to questioning by Mr. Depp's counsel
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Please state your name and your business address.
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes. Officer Melissa Saenz, 1546 West Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Los Angeles, California.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what is your occupation?
OFFICER SAENZ: I am a police officer.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And how long have you been a police officer?
OFFICER SAENZ: Going on 12 years.
MS. BREDEHOFT: When -- what year did you begin as a police officer?
MS. BREDEHOFT: And was that with the LAPD?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, it was.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you have any law enforcement experience prior to coming to the LAPD in July of 2009?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, I did not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: As of May 21, 2016, what was your rank?
OFFICER SAENZ: Can you repeat the date?
MS. BREDEHOFT: May 21st, 2016.
OFFICER SAENZ: I was a training officer.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And was that a P3?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And as a training officer, were you considered a Field Training Officer?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And for how long a period of time had you been a training officer as of May 21, 2016?
OFFICER SAENZ: Approximately, I believe, four months.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And who was the first officer you trained once you became a training officer at the LAPD?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't recall.
MS. BREDEHOFT: When did you start training Officer Hadden?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't recall the exact month.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you have an approximate?
OFFICER SAENZ: If the incident was in May, then it's going to be within two months of May, before or after.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So, are you suggesting that you may not have started training Officer Hadden until two months after the May 21st, 2016 incident, so he wasn't there?
OFFICER SAENZ: No,l'I'm not
MS. BREDEHOFT: Was it two months or less from the time I you started training Officer Hadden before the May 21, 2016 incident?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yeah. So I have a probationer for two months, so May could have been the second month I had him or the first month I had him
MS. BREDEHOFT: But you don't recall, as you sit here today, how long you had been training Officer Hadden as of the May 21st, 2016 incident?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct
MS. BREDEHOFT: What does Central Division include?
OFFICER SAENZ: They encompass downtown Los Angeles.
MS. BREDEHOFT: In May of 2016, what shift were you on?
OFFICER SAENZ: I was working nights.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what would the night shift entail? What was the time, from when to when?
OFFICER SAENZ: It is approximately 6:45 p.m to 6:45 a.m
MS. BREDEHOFT: And how many days a week would you work the shift?
OFFICER SAENZ: Usually three days a week. , I 7
MS. BREDEHOFT: Typically, what was the range of the number of units that were working on your shift in May of 2016, in Central division?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't recall.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I mean, are we talking less than five, more than ten, more than 25?
OFFICER SAENZ: There would be at least five units. How high over that, I wouldn't know that. Again, every night is different. The city pulls from different divisions if there's special events going on, so it's constantly changing.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. But it's usually at least five and maybe somewhere between five and ten, if there's not a special event. Would that be a fair estimate?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What was the process for checking out equipment in May 2016, after roll call?
OFFICER SAENZ: We would walk to the window and give them our name and serial number, and they would present us with equipment for the shift.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what equipment were you given in May 2016, after roll call?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't recall.
MS. BREDEHOFT: You don't recall any of the equipment you were -- you checked out in May of 2016, after roll call?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't remember that specific day that I checked out equipment. I can tell you what I typically check out, if that's what you'd like.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. Let's start there.
OFFICER SAENZ: I usually check out a police vehicle, a taser, a less-lethal beanbag shotgun, and a regular Shotgun.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Anything else?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, nothing else.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you check out body-worn video equipment?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes. If you were trained in body-worn video, then, yes, you would check that out
MS. BREDEHOFT: Were you trained in body-worn video equipment?
OFFICER SAENZ: I was not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Have you ever been assigned body-worn video equipment?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I have.
MS. BREDEHOFT: When?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't remember the specific date.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What is your best estimate?
OFFICER SAENZ: If I had to guess, it would probably be June of 2016.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Why do you think it was June of 2016 b that you were first assigned body-worn video equipment?
OFFICER SAENZ: Because that's the time frame that I remember having to use it. It was new to me. I never used body-worn before.
MS. BREDEHOFT: When did LAPD start issuing body-worn equipment for Central Division?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't know that date.
MS. BREDEHOFT: When, approximately?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't know. I couldn't give you a date.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Can you name any other officer who did not have body-worn equipment that was on your I shift at any time between November 2015 and June 2016, other than you?
OFFICER SAENZ: I cannot.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Have you had more than one body-worn video equipment?
OFFICER SAENZ: Body-worn camera? Is that what you're asking?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes.
OFFICER SAENZ: I have had two, one in Central Division, and, now, a new one at Southwest Division, where I currently am The camera stays at their respective divisions.l,• 6
MS. BREDEHOFT: While you were at Central Division, did you ever get assigned more than one body-worn video camera?
OFFICER SAENZ: Not to my knowledge.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So, to the best of your knowledge, you had the same body-worn video camera throughout the time that you were at Central Division; is that correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you have a recollection of, at any l time, while you were at Central Division, your body-worn video camera not working, so you couldn't turn it on during an incident?
OFFICER SAENZ: I do not recall that.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What tools were available to you, in May of 2016, for investigating calls, answering and investigating calls?
OFFICER SAENZ: Can you specify what you mean by "tools"?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Well, did you have a notebook, for example?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes. We carry field officer notebooks.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And did you have your own field officer notebook?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Can you describe what your field officer notebook looked like in May of 2016?
OFFICER SAENZ: It's a small, just paper pad that we keep in our pockets to write on.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And do you carry a pencil or a pen with it so that you can take them out during a call and take notes?
OFFICER SAENZ: I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What do you do with your notebooks once you have filled them?
OFFICER SAENZ: You can turn them into the kit room and they can store them.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Is that what you have done?
OFFICER SAENZ: I have my same officer's field officer's notebook in my locker.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you just start it?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, I have several different ones, but I usually keep them in my locker.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So for the field officer's notebook that you had in May 2016, that would be in your locker?
OFFICER SAENZ: It should be, yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: How many field officer notebooks have IO you filled since you've been a police officer?
OFFICER SAENZ: Not many. Probably less than - less than five.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And do you recall how many, roughly, how many pages are in each field officer notebook?
OFFICER SAENZ: I - no, I don't recall.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you have access to D.A.R.T.?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't recall what hours they worked at Central Division.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what does D.A.R.T. stand for?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't know the specific acronym, but I know it's the domestic violence car.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you also have access to reports types of reports, incident reports in various forms, diagrams, things of that nature, in case you needed them?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I did.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And where were those kept while you were on a shift? I'm talking about May 2016.
OFFICER SAENZ: I usually keep extra spare reports in !S my bag, and I also keep them in my vest.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So, when you answered calls in May of 2016, you had reports material in your vest as you answered calls; is that correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Defendant's Exhibit Number 14. It's a multiple-page document. I'm I just asking her if she recognizes this document.
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. When is the last time you reviewed this document?
OFFICER SAENZ: About a week ago.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. And what were the circumstances under which you reviewed this document a week ago?
OFFICER SAENZ: For this testimony.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, I asked you some questions about the body-worn video.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Are you aware of anyone, any other officer, being assigned your body-worn video under your serial number?
OFFICER SAENZ: I'm not aware.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Is there any chance that you could be mistaken about when you were assigned body-worn video?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, there's not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And why do you say that?
OFFICER SAENZ: Because everything is recorded and documented on evidence.com, under my serial number. So if a supervisor wanted to enter the database under my serial number, they could watch my videos and see the specific date and time my videos started to record and when the date of my last video was, to this date.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. And did you go back and look to see what date you started?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What was the date that you were assigned body-worn video equipment in Central Division?
OFFICER SAENZ: So the first day that I took out body-worn video was June 16th of 2016.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to show you this second page of what has been marked as Deposition exhibit Number 1.
MS. BREDEHOFT: It has you summoned to attend and give IO testimony at a deposition and, also, to produce certain documents.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recall this being issued?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And here we go. Documents to be produced. The first of those was all video footage recorded by you relating to any incident at 849 S. Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90014 on May 21, 2016, including all video footage relating to incident number, and it has the number, on May 21, 2016.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you conduct any type of search or any kind of effort to see if you had any video footage on May 21, 2016, relating to this incident?
OFFICER SAENZ: The answer's no.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to ask you to take -- did anyone at the LAPD, at any point, supervisors, watch commanders, commanders, anyone connected with the LAPD, ever ask you whether you had any video footage from the incident of May 21, 2016?
OFFICER SAENZ: No.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to ask you to take a look at number 2 here. It says "All documents and/or communications (including, without limitations, any notes, memoranda, reports, filings, and/or summaries) relating to any incident at 849 S. Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90014, on May 21, 2016."
MS. BREDEHOFT: Are you aware of any documents or communications that would fit this description?
OFFICER SAENZ: No.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, Officer Saenz, you've had training on domestic violence, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Could you tell me what that consists of?
OFFICER SAENZ: We received training in the police academy.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Anywhere else? Did you have any other type of domestic violence training, other than when you were in the police academy?
OFFICER SAENZ: Other than my experience in the field dealing with domestic violence, no, not that I can recall.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And as of May of 2016, would you agree that you had answered over 100 domestic violence calls?
OFFICER SAENZ: About - yeah, we - yeah, I - yes, I got a lot of domestic violence calls every day.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And you consider yourself to be a specialist in domestic violence; is that accurate?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't understand the title ,20 "specialist." I don't consider myself a specialist.
MS. BREDEHOFT: In May of 2016, what was the police I officer supposed to do when the victim of a domestic violence would not respond to questions or cooperate with pursuing charges after a call was placed and the police officers had arrived?
OFFICER SAENZ: If an individual is uncooperative, we I are to check the location to make sure that the suspect isn't hiding, for the safety of the potential victim, and offer a business card if they decide to speak to us later.
MS. BREDEHOFT: In May of 2016, was it your understanding that if you saw evidence of injury or property damage in disarray, that you were to file a report, even if the victim was not cooperating?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to show you what's been marked as Exhibit Number 8, and this is something that was dated November 24, 2018 It's to all department personnel from the chief of police, domestic violence supplemental report form. And it starts out with domestic violence supplemental report form, and it has the number of it, has been revised to provide a more concise picture of the history and needs of the victim for the purpose of investigating the crime of domestic violence.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Was this a document that you recall receiving at some point?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And do you understand -- do you have any understanding of why this was supplemented on November 24, 2014?
OFFICER SAENZ: I do not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to ask you, Officer, to take a look at what's been marked as exhibit Number 9, and it's called "Los Angeles Police Department Domestic Violence Supplement Report."
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recognize this document?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what is your understanding of what this document is?
OFFICER SAENZ: It's a supplemental document that we add to a police report for domestic violence.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. And is this one of the reports that you would carry in your vest when you answered calls?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to ask you to take a look at, if you can, at the very left-hand column, where it has a number of different categories here, and it has victim shaking, unresponsive, crying, scared, angry, fearful.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you know why these are included on this supplemental domestic violence report?
OFFICER SAENZ: To identify somebody's emotional state during an investigation.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And this is specifically with respect to domestic violence, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And then, if you can tum over to the crime scene section, on the right-hand side, you'll notice that there are some categories that include location, vandalized/ransacked, personal property damages, furniture disarray/broken.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What is your understanding of why those categories are included in there for making notations for domestic violence supplement report?
OFFICER SAENZ: To identify the crime scene at the time of the incident.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And was it your understanding that these items, that they have on here, may be significant in assisting and determining whether there was, in fact, domestic violence and in proving the case?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I direct your attention, specifically, I to the evidence section. And it indicates witnesses present during domestic violence, statements taken, evidence collected, photos taken on there.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What is your understanding of what the 1116 significance of this -- collecting this information?
OFFICER SAENZ: It's significant to tell a story about ! 19 what happened at the domestic violence incident.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And then, if you can scroll down a little bit further to additional questions, there's a series of those, including, has suspect threatened to kill you, do they possess firearms, have they ever attempted to smother, strangle, or suffocate you, and things of that nature. What is your understanding of why you're supposed to ask those questions?
OFFICER SAENZ: Give you a background on the relationship and idea of what the victim and the suspect have been through.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Thank you. Just let me ask you a question, Officer Saenz. You did not fill out I that supplemental report when you responded on May 16, 2020 -- May 21, 2016, to the Broadway ! . call, correct, with Amber Heard?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct. It did not meet criteria.
MS. BREDEHOFT: The question I asked was, did you fill out one of those forms?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, I did not. I did not-
MS. BREDEHOFT: Officer Saenz, I'm going to ask you to take a look at what has been marked as Exhibit Number 10. And if I can direct your attention to the top. It says "Domestic Violence, Standards of Review." And it has field notebook divider, domestic violence laws, LAPD Form No. 18.30.02.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Are you familiar with that?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: It has case preparation, and it says "Note the complainant's emotional and physical condition."
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you see that?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And then, "Ensure all evidence is gathered and preserved, e.g. bloodied clothing, damaged phones/property."
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you see that?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And it also says "Ensure photographs are taken of injuries or lack of injury to the complainant and accused," and then suggests both a day or two after.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What is your understanding for the reason for collecting this evidence?
OFFICER SAENZ: Because these are proofs of a crime?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm sorry, I didn't --
OFFICER SAENZ: These are proof of a crime. If there is a crime, this is important to prove that a crime was committed.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What do you mean by fruits [sic] of a crime?
OFFICER SAENZ: If we're talking domestic violence, the location would be evidence. So if there's, you know, a house is ransacked, that should be noted in the report. That would be considered evidence.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. Then we are going to go to the second page here, "Ensure photographs are taken of scene and damaged property, e.g., broken furniture, damaged phones, phone cord, evidence of alcohol consumption, general disarray."
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you see that?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what is your understanding of why that would be important?
OFFICER SAENZ: Same thing. Proof of a crime.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Then it also says "Canvass location and interview all witnesses, including children, 'fresh complaint' witnesses, neighbors," p 1 1 and local law enforcement.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you see that?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what would be the reason for canvassing the location and interviewing all witnesses?
OFFICER SAENZ: That would be further evidence.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. And what is your understanding of what "fresh complaint" means.
OFFICER SAENZ: I wouldn't- I couldn't tell you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And then, if we go down a little bit further, it also has "Complainant Questions," and it has questions such as length and nature of relationship. But, also, prior incidents of domestic violence, reported and unreported, and what form of violence or abuse has taken. Do you see that?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what is your understanding of why that would be important?
OFFICER SAENZ: Because its gives us an idea of background on their relationship.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And then we go to the next page, and we have a little bit more here, we have the -- well, I went too far. And that says how long these incidents has been occurring, any logs or diaries, is there a pattern of alcohol or substance abuse. •7 What is your understanding of why those s would be relevant?
OFFICER SAENZ: Again, because it gives us background on what we're dealing with, what type of relationship this is.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And may help with the proof of the I crime?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct !rs
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And then we have "Identify the person who first saw the complainant after the incident." And it says, in parentheses, "fresh complaint witness," so I'm kind of guessing that must be the definition. But why would it be important to interview or identify the person who first saw the complainant after the incident?
OFFICER SAENZ: They probably have the best recollection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And also has "Identify the person with whom the complainant first spoke about the incident (fresh complaint witness)."
MS. BREDEHOFT: What is your understanding of why that would be important?
OFFICER SAENZ: Same thing. Best recollection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And then we have "What have neighbors seen or heard?"
MS. BREDEHOFT: Why would that be important?
OFFICER SAENZ: Because it would prove to us that there was an incident. If there was other people with the same story as the victim.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And then, we also have "Did witness observe how physical injury occurred?"
MS. BREDEHOFT: Why would that be important?
OFFICER SAENZ: Because that would tell us that there was a crime, that somebody got injured.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And then we have Statements by the complainant and/or accused after the incident. Why would that be important?
OFFICER SAENZ: Because we're getting our story from the complainant, so what they say is everything with the crime.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. Let's look at 12 for a moment. This is Deposition Exhibit Number 12. It's office of the Chief of Police, April 9, 2020, and it's a domestic violence victim's memo. And it says "Purpose: The department is legislatively mandated to provide specific information to victims of domestic violence crimes," and then they go on to describe that.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What is your understanding of -- well, let me go a little further because I'm not trying to -- I'm going to try to move through this a little quicker. So, it says To mitigate this issue, the department has begun to use the Victim Identification Notification Everyday VINE pamphlet to accomplish not only the domestic violence information requirements under Section 13701 of the California Penal Code, but also to provide information regarding the VINE p I program. Did you have a copy of that pamphlet? Was that something that was given to you?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And was that something that you typically provided, then, as it says you should, to victims of domestic violence?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What is your understanding of why you Do you understand the question? were to provide the pamphlet?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes. Because it gives resources to the victim, domestic violence resources, like shelters and phone numbers to provide help.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to show you what has been marked as exhibit Number 11.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recognize this document?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do. This is the VINE.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. When you say "VINE," is this the pamphlet that we've been referring to?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Is it your understanding that you were supposed to be giving that pamphlet to victims of domestic violence on calls; is that correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you provide a copy of this pamphlet to Amber Heard?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not. I didn't identify her as a victim of domestic violence.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Is that the sole reason why you did not give that to Amber Heard?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes. We only give them to the victims of domestic violence.
MR. MONIZ: At this point, Your Honor, Ms. Heard's counsel is asking to move into evidence, and publish to the jury, Defendant's Exhibit 730. And Mr. Depp has no objection.
THE COURT: All right. 730 in evidence, and it can be published. Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: First page of Exhibit Number 3, it's an incident recall from, specifically, May 21st, 2016. Do you recognize this document?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do. And what -- please explain to me what It's a summary of our radio call. All right. And how is this recorded? By dispatch.
OFFICER SAENZ: And how is it communicated to you?
OFFICER SAENZ: A computer in our car.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. So, I'm going to ask you to take a look at the very beginning of this. It starts -- well, it starts out -- it obviously has an incident number.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Is this your understanding of the incident recall for the report to 2849 S. Broadway involving Amber Heard?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: It starts out with 5/21/16 at 20:35:58, which is 8:30:58, or almost 8:31, and it says "Incident initiated by:" Such and such.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you see that?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And the next thing that's y g communicated is penthouse 3, PR received call from victim's friend, Amber, assaulted by boyfriend. PR refused to give further.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you see that?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, when you were out on the road, did you see that right away or did you have to look this up later, when it was you that was going to respond?
OFFICER SAENZ: We review the calls as we're driving to the call.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Then, we have, at 5/21, 20:37, which is 8:35, a duplicate call.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you see that?
OFFICER SAENZ: I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Let's go down to 5/21/2016. Officer Saenz, can you go where I just highlighted here, and it's 20:57, which would be what time?
OFFICER SAENZ: 8:57.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. And it has "Stat: AS." What does that mean?
OFFICER SAENZ: I believe it means at scene.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. So would that be when you and Officer Hadden arrived at 849 S. Broadway?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct. I,
MS. BREDEHOFT: And then, it has -- the next entry is 5/21/2016. It has 21 :22:57. So, that would be 9:22?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And it says -- go ahead. I'll have you read this.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What does it say next?
OFFICER SAENZ: "Met with vict. Check loc. Verified husband left loc. Vict advised verbal."
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Go ahead and go into the next ! 14 page, or next line. Go ahead.
OFFICER SAENZ: "Dispute and refused to give any further info. Issued business card."
MS. BREDEHOFT: Who wrote those two lines?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't recall.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what does that mean to you, those two lines that you just read?
OFFICER SAENZ: It's a disposition of what happened at the call.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Can you tell me what that means? I mean, just tell me, in real-person's words, what those words are.
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes. We met the victim, we checked the location, the husband wasn't there, and that the victim advised us that she just had an argument and that she wasn't going to give us any further Is information. And because we didn't identify a crime, we issued her a business card, letting her I know that she could reach out to us later if she changed her mind and wanted to cooperate.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And at what point did you close n this incident?
OFFICER SAENZ: Whatever it says on the screen. Let's see, 9:22:57. Okay. And what did "incident closed"
OFFICER SAENZ: That we cleared from the location. We're complete. Done.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Now, if we can go to page Bates-stamped number 12. And do you recognize this document?
OFFICER SAENZ: I do. It's a summary of all our calls from that day.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And I believe you testified earlier that you reviewed this document in preparation for this deposition; is that correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I did Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And if we can go down to right here. That's 9:22, correct, at the end of that?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. And it says "242D-domestic violence."
MS. BREDEHOFT: What is that?
OFFICER SAENZ: It's a code for domestic violence.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what does the 242D mean?
OFFICER SAENZ: That's battery.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Officer Saenz, when we broke before the lunch break, I had just asked you about whether or not you believed that you were at the penthouse on May 21st, 2016, for 30 to 60 minutes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recall me asking that?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And do you recall testifying that that's what you thought was the time that you and Officer Hadden spent at the penthouse on May 21st, 2016?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I recall.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And in fact, it was significantly less, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And, in fact, it was -- you entered from the elevator at 9:04 p.m. and went back into the elevator at 9:19, for a total of 15 total minutes, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And we've seen the video clips of you getting on the elevator and getting off, and that's where those time stamps come from.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, once you got off the elevator at 9:04 p.m., the first thing you did was listen for some noise, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And then you went around and checked out the outdoor courtyard to see if anyone was outside. Do you recall that?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I did.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And you saw there was a woman in the gym that was not related to the incident.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Is Do you recall that?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: How did you know the woman was not related to the incident?
OFFICER SAENZ: Because she seemed unfazed. She was just working out.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you speak with her?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, I didn't.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recall what she looked like?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, did you take any notes during the entire 15 minutes from when you got off the elevator to when you got back on the elevator?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did Officer Hadden, to your knowledge?
OFFICER SAENZ: Not to my knowledge, no.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you take pictures or record anything?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So, after you saw the woman in the gym and looked at the property, you went back to the hallway and you met with what you called a white male who's generic.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recall using that tenn?
OFFICER SAENZ: They asked me to describe him, yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And you said generic, correct? I 9
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What do you mean by "generic"?
OFFICER SAENZ: He didn't have any identifying - I don't know, nothing that I could remember. I just remember a male, white. Nothing out of the ordinary.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What color was his hair?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't even remember now.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did he have facial hair, a beard or J 18 mustache?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't remember.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recall how tall he was, roughly?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't remember anything about him.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you ask him his name?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't recall.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, the generic white male talked with you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recall that?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And when you first saw Amber Heard, she was crying, red-eyed, and was not making eye contact with you, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And you asked her a few question, and it was quite clear that she did not want to speak to the police; is that correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, Amber Heard was visibly upset, so she would look down, sometimes look up to you when she spoke, but it was back and forth, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What was Amber Heard wearing that night?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't recall.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What hairstyle did Amber Heard have that night?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't recall.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, when was the first time you were asked to provide details of the events of May 21, 2016?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't recall.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recall providing your testimony at a deposition in July of 2016?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Is that the first time you were asked to provide any details of what your recollection was of the events of May 21, 2016?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And that was, roughly, two months later; is that correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And how many shifts had you worked in that two-month period?
OFFICER SAENZ: I'm not aware. I don't know.
MS. BREDEHOFT: How many calls had you answered in those two months?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't know that number.
MS. BREDEHOFT: How many of those calls were domestic violence calls in those two months?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't know that number.3
MS. BREDEHOFT: And if you saw any signs of injury on Amber Heard, or even just damage to the property, would you have been duty bound to make a report?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, your recollection is that there was no damage to the flat. You searched the entire flat, and there was no damage, broken glass, or anything out of the ordinary; would you agree?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you see anything, did you observe anything out of the ordinary during this particular call that you answered at the penthouse on May 21, 2016?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: When you left that call, when you got back into that elevator, do you recall what you were thinking?
OFFICER SAENZ: I remember being impressed by the penthouse, how big and beautiful it was, yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: But anything else?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, nothing.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And just so we can stay on that for a minute, you did not -- you had not heard of Amber Heard at the time of this report, right, of May 21st, 2016?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct
MS. BREDEHOFT: But you did know that Johnny Depp was an actor, right?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct
MS. BREDEHOFT: And you didn't know that that was Johnny Depp's penthouse when you reported there, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: But you, as you just said, were impressed with the penthouse. Would it be fair to say that you thought somebody with some wealth lived there?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Can you bring up Plaintiffs Exhibit Number 23.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Officer Saenz, do you recognize this elevator at all?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What do you recall?
OFFICER SAENZ: That's the elevator from the location.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Alex, I'm going to ask you to go to 21 :19:40. And as you're moving that --
MS. BREDEHOFT: Officer Saenz, I'm going to ask you to take a look at this and see if you can tell me what you are saying to Officer Hadden in this video clip.
MS. BREDEHOFT: That's you; is that correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And Officer Hadden, you recognize?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Officer Saenz, can you tell what you were saying to Officer Hadden?
OFFICER SAENZ: I cannot.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Does it look like you might have said, at the beginning, "That was crazy"?
OFFICER SAENZ: I can't tell what I was saying.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Would you agree, though, that you were quite animated in your discussion with Officer Hadden?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, I wouldn't agree.
MS. BREDEHOFT: How would you describe your demeanor?
OFFICER SAENZ: Comfortably talking to my partner.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. I'm going to ask you to take a look at Plaintiffs Exhibit Number 17. And while Alex is bringing that up, so your best recollection is that you saw no injuries on Amber Heard, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And your best recollection is you saw no property damage, nothing in disarray, nothing out of the ordinary, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And if you had seen either of those, you would have had to file a report, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Officer Saenz, let me ask you this question: So we've established that you got off the elevator on the penthouse level at 9:04 p.m. April 26, 2022 Do you recall that?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recognize the person here?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do. Amber Heard.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And do you see any signs of injuries on Amber Heard's face in this picture?
OFFICER SAENZ: I do not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Is it your testimony that you do not perceive this cheek to be reflecting an injury on Amber?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct. No injury.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to ask you to take a look at this section here with the eyelid. I'm going to ask you to take a look at that eyelid.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Is it your perception that that eyelid does not reflect an injury? I'm sorry, what was your answer, Officer Saenz?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct, no injury.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And then up above, on the forehead level, where the redness is and it looks like there's a couple of bumps, is it your perception I I that does not reflect an injury?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Officer Saenz, I'm going to ask you to take a look at what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit Number 18, close to the time that you alighted from the elevator, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Please describe for me what you see in this photograph.
OFFICER SAENZ: A striped carpet with discoloration on the right-hand side of the photo, and what I perceive as - I don't know if that's a reflection - some sort of mark.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, you believed and testified, in fact, that you considered the hallways to be very well lit that night, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Right.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you see this, those stains?
OFFICER SAENZ: No. Not that I recall.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Would you agree that there's a reddish stain on the right side?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What does that look like, from your experience?
OFFICER SAENZ: Like a stain from - like a liquid
MS. BREDEHOFT: Red wine, possibly?
OFFICER SAENZ: It could be, yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. But you don't recall seeing that in the hallway after you got off the elevator?
OFFICER SAENZ: I do not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And you did not investigate this or take any pictures or record anything about it, correct.
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Now, let's go to number 19. Do you recognize what is depicted in exhibit number 19?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes. It's our business card.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And it has !Al on the front of it. What is that?
OFFICER SAENZ: That's our unit designation.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And then it has Hadden and a badge number. Is that his badge number?
OFFICER SAENZ: That is his serial number.
OFFICER SAENZ: That is his serial number.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Serial number. Thank you. It has your name, and is that your serial number?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Who wrote this on the card?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't recall.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Would it have been either you or Officer Hadden?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recognize this handwriting?
OFFICER SAENZ: I can't tell from this.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, I think you indicated, when you were looking at the incident recall and the CAD Summary, that a business card had been left.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recall that?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And why did you leave a business card?
OFFICER SAENZ: I advised Amber Heard that she could contact us at any time if she changed her mind and decided that she wanted to speak to us and cooperate.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. Let's go to number 20. April 26, 2022 1 Do you recognize this? What's depicted in this picture?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do. It's the back of the business card.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. And it says 5/21/2016 and the time is 9:16 p.m. Is that the time that the card -- that it was written?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And do you recognize the 111 handwriting on this side?
OFFICER SAENZ: It looks like my handwriting.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Now, it says "radio call of dispute." 15 Do you see that?
OFFICER SAENZ: I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Why didn't you put verbal dispute?
OFFICER SAENZ: It didn't - verbal dispute, it's the same thing to me.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And you have "refused report" on here, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Could you just read this next part that I I you wrote on here?
OFFICER SAENZ: Sure. "Advised can call at later time if changes mind."
OFFICER SAENZ: Because she was uncooperative and didn't want to speak so us.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Now, why did you say "if changes ,8 mind"?
OFFICER SAENZ: Because I was giving her the opportunity to have a resource if she changed her mind.
MS. BREDEHOFT: But if Amber Heard had no injuries and there was no evidence of any type of physical property issues, disarray, breakage, et cetera, then why would it matter if she change her mind?
OFFICER SAENZ: It's a courtesy that I choose to give people when I go to calls.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, if Amber Heard had called you later, you had already closed this out and had not written a report and had taken no notes, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: But if I'm understanding your earlier I testimony, that if you saw evidence of injury, or if you saw injury -- evidence of property damage, even if the victim did not cooperate, you would write a report, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And we'll go to Number 21.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Officer Saenz, this is just a picture. Do you recognize you and Officer Hadden here?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Officer Saenz, is the time stamp on here of 9:19 p.m -- :49 p.m., does that comport with your recollection of when you left?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't recall what time I left I'm just going based on the video that is in front of me.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Do you have any reason to believe that is incorrect?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't
MS. BREDEHOFT: Officer Saenz, I'm going to ask you to take a look at exhibit Number 24.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recognize the person in this photo?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes. Amber Heard.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Do you perceive there to be an injury or evidence of injury on Amber's face in this photo?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, I do not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What is your perception of the redness on the cheek and the eyelid and above the eyebrow?
OFFICER SAENZ: It's consistent with her crying. She's fair-skinned. Her face is flush.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to ask you to look at what has been marked as Exhibit Number 25.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recognize this as Amber Heard?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you see a red mark on Amber Beard's cheek and above her eyelid and above her eyebrow on this picture?
OFFICER SAENZ: Her face looks flush. Yes, it's redness.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What's your perception of what that is caused by?
OFFICER SAENZ: Like I said earlier, it's consistent with what I'd seen, her crying.
MS. BREDEHOFT: You don't think it's consistent with a cell phone being thrown at her?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct It does not look like an injury caused from a cell phone.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And why not?
OFFICER SAENZ: Because it's consistent with somebody crying. Her face is flush.
MS. BREDEHOFT: This was taken on May 21st. I'm going to ask you to look at what's been marked as Exhibit Number 26.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recognize this as Amber Heard?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Officer Saenz, do you see any redness on Amber Beard's cheek and above her eyelid and -- we'll go with those?
OFFICER SAENZ: I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what is your perception of what the cause of those is, those red marks?
OFFICER SAENZ: Consistent with her crying. Her face is flush.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And is it fair to say that you do not believe that this reflects an injury?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct
MS. BREDEHOFT: And would it also be fair to say that you would not consider it sufficient to investigate further, whether it's an injury?
OFFICER SAENZ: There's nothing that would stop me from , investigating. I would continue to ask her questions, and it's up to the victim if they want Is to cooperate.
MS. BREDEHOFT: But, so that we -- we're clear here, even if the victim doesn't cooperate, if you see signs of injury, you still, and I believe you testified to this, believe yourself duty bound to write a report, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: But in your mind, you don't perceive this as to be reflective of an injury; is that correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And I'm going to ask you to take a look at Exhibit Number 27. Again, do you recognize this as Amber Heard?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And do you see redness on the cheek of Amber Heard on this photo?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. And then you had testified, on a number of these other pictures, and on this one as well, that this was consistent with crying.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you see any redness on Amber's other cheek?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Is it the same or similar to the redness on the cheek, on the right cheek?
OFFICER SAENZ: Based on this photo, it looks like one cheek is redder then the other?
MS. BREDEHOFT: But you also don't see any swelling with that?
OFFICER SAENZ: Right.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to ask you to take a look at what has been marked as exhibit 28.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recognize this as Amber Heard?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And do you see redness on the y y right cheek and above the eye?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And is it your perception that this reflects any type of -- or could reflect any type of injury?
OFFICER SAENZ: No.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Why not?
OFFICER SAENZ: Because my perception is it was consistent with her crying.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Let's take this down and go to 29.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to ask you the same question. Do you recognize this as Amber Heard?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And do you see any redness in the right cheek and above the eyelid?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And is it your perception that these are not indicative of injury?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what's your reasoning?
OFFICER SAENZ: Consistent with her crying.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Let's take this one down. Let's go to Number 30.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, you testified earlier that you thoroughly searched the penthouse. Do you recall that testimony?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And Josh Drew, the gentleman that you had called a generic male, actually took I you through and escorted you through the penthouse and the series of penthouses, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Officer Saenz, did you or did you not thoroughly search the penthouses on May 21st, 2016?
OFFICER SAENZ: We did search the penthouse.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And you used the tenn "thoroughly"; did you not?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't recall.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you feel like you conducted a thorough search of the penthouses that night?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I did. I did a sweep of the location for the suspect.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And when you're talking about a sweep of the location, did you go through every room?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes. Every room
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And was there anyone else escorting you through those rooms?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes. The same male that we met with at ! 7 the beginning of the call.
MS. BREDEHOFT: That you called the generic male, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, you also testified, a little earlier, that this was a very nice series of penthouses, right?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you interview the woman that was sitting with Amber Heard?
OFFICER SAENZ: I attempted to. All parties were uncooperative.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What did you say to the woman that was with Ms. Heard?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't recall the exact words, but I introduced myself to everyone and asked if they had seen what happened or know what happened, and they all refused to speak to me.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you ask for their names?
OFFICER SAENZ: I recall, yes. I did ask for the names. Nobody would give me their names.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, that's a little unusual, isn't it?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, it's not. A lot of people don't like us.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Well, is it that they don't like you or O is it, potentially, that they don't want to -- with a domestic violence situation, are reluctant to press charges?
OFFICER SAENZ: Every situation is different. Based on my training and experience where I work, it's usually that people do not like us.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you have a recollection of what the woman who was with Amber Heard looks like?
OFFICER SAENZ: No recollection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you know what color hair she had?
OFFICER SAENZ: I have zero recollection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you know how old she was, how tall she was, what her hairstyle was, what she was wearing? Anything about her?
OFFICER SAENZ: Zero recollection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: But, somehow, you're sure you tried to interview her and she refused to answer questions?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes. It's common practice. I try to interview everyone during my investigation.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So, did you pull out your notebook, at any time, while you were in the penthouse.
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not. I had nothing to write. No O one would speak to me.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Well, how did you know that when you started asking questions, that they weren't going to give an answer?
OFFICER SAENZ: They just looked at me.
MS. BREDEHOFT: But wouldn't you pull out your notebook first and then ask the questions and then write down the answers as they're giving them to you?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, I don't put anything in my hand for officer safety issues, until I'm sure that - COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, Officer, can you repeat your answer?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't put anything in my hand for officer safety reasons. I'm not sure if I'm going to write, I keep my hands free. When I asked the questions, I got no answer; therefore, I didn't take out my notebook or pens.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you have any reason to fear for your safety at the time that you were talking with Amber Heard when you were with her?
OFFICER SAENZ: I always fear for my safety. A potential suspect could have been in the house. So, yes - my guard was not down, if that's what you're asking.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What did you do first? Did you look at the -- throughout the house to ensure that the person wasn't there or did you ask the questions first and then look at the house?
OFFICER SAENZ: I attempted to ask questions first. I can't just go into a house and start checking it without asking questions.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So, what questions did you ask first?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't recall specific questions.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recall any of your questions?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recall any of the answers that you were given?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't recall.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, we went through the domestic violence supplemental report and some of the guidelines for officers on domestic violation.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recall that the crime scene, a number of items requested location ransacked, location vandalized, furniture in disarray, personal property damage? Do you remember any of those being on the checklist for the crime scene for domestic violence?
OFFICER SAENZ: As they pertain to domestic violence ,14 reports, yes, I do. / 1 s
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. Now, did you ever speak with the two officers who answered the second call from the townhouse that night?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you ever communicate, in any manner, with the two officers who answered the second call to the penthouse?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you communicate through a third party to the second set of officers relating to the domestic violence call and your determination?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you know the two officers who were responding to the second call?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you know who they are to this day?
OFFICER SAENZ: I do not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Have you ever spoken to the other two officers about the -- responding to this call on May 21st, 2016?
OFFICER SAENZ: I have not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Have you ever spoken with anyone else about your response and their response to this call on May 21st, 2016?
OFFICER SAENZ: I have not.
MR. MONIZ: And just so everybody's aware, up until now, you've been listening to questioning from Ms. Heard's counsel. At this point I believe, we're going to shift over to questioning by Mr. Depp's counsel.
MR. PRESIADO: So I want you to focus on the date of the incident that we have been talking about during this deposition, and that is May 21st, 2016. I'll refer to that as the date of the incident.
MR. PRESIADO: Do you understand what I nan when I say "date of the incident''?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. So as of the date of the incident, fur how Jong bad you been a training officer?
OFFICER SAENZ: Since, I believe, the end of November of 2015.
MR. PRESIADO: Between six to eight months?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: Prior to the date of the incident, how long bad you been a training officer?
OFFICER SAENZ: Four to six months.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And as of the date of the Is incident, approximately how many incidents of domestic violence had you come across?
OFFICER SAENZ: I couldn't tell you. I mean, I believe I said hundreds.
MR. PRESIADO: Yes, that's how I understood it from testimony, or in previous depositions, at least. So, it's in the hundreds?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. Now, when you -- and you indicated that you proceeded to the incident at Eastern Columbia Building due to what you heard ! 12 from dispatch; is that correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MR. PRESIADO: And do you recall, as you sit here today, what you were told from dispatch that led you to the Eastern Columbia Building on the date of the incident?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't have an independent recollection.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. As you sit here today, do you recall that it had something to do with a dispute at that location?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MR. PRESIADO: And when you first arrived at the scene of the incident, what did you first do upon entering the building?
OFFICER SAENZ: We met with a security guard in the lobby, who escorted us to the elevator.
MR. PRESIADO: Did you ask that security guard any s questions about the building -- strike that.
MR. PRESIADO: Did you ask that security guard any questions?
OFFICER SAENZ: Not that I recall.
MR. PRESIADO: Did the security guard escort you up to the penthouse?
OFFICER SAENZ: They gave us access through the elevator. I do not believe that they came up to the penthouse with us. I believe they just accessed the elevator.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And when you arrived at the penthouse and exited the elevator, was it just you and your partner, Mr. Hadden, Officer Hadden?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And what did you do next?
OFFICER SAENZ: We tried to listen for any kind of sounds of domestic violence. We checked the hallways. We didn't observe anyone. We went out to a courtyard, didn't observe anyone. And based on what I was just reminded of, there was a woman in the gym who didn't seem involved, was working out, looked fine. Nothing out of the ordinary. And then we responded to a door in the hallway, and I knocked and was met by a male.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. Up until that point in time, from exiting the elevator to knocking on that door, did you see anything that indicated a crime?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Up until the point when you knocked on that door, did you see or hear or witness anything indicating that there had been a domestic violence perpetrated?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Up until you knocked on that door, did you see anything which you would have considered out of the ordinary?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: And I guess what I'm asking is, walking from the elevator to the gym, and then to the door that you knocked on, was that -- you were in the hallway?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I was in the hallway.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And during that time period, from exiting the elevator through to knocking on the door, was there anything in the hallway that was unusual for you?
OFFICER SAENZ: Not that I observed, no.
MR. PRESIADO: Did you see any stains on the floor?
MR. PRESIADO: Area? Not that I recall. Did you see any vandalism in that area? No, I did not. Did you see any broken glass in that
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: And upon knocking on the door, what happened next?
OFFICER SAENZ: Male opened the door. I don't remember the exact questions and conversation we had, but I remember asking if they called for help, and he said that it was the neighbor and that she was inside of his house, apartment, with his girlfriend. And I asked him if they could step out, and he told me to wait and he shut the door. And we waited-we waited for them to exit. I don't remember how much time passed by, and they came out, and that's when we were met with his girlfriend and who I now know is Ms. Heard in the hallway.
MR. PRESIADO: Up until that point in time, did you hear anything that led you to believe that a crime had been committed?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Up until that point in time, did you see anything that made you believe that a crime had been committed?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Up until that point in time, did you hear anything that made you believe that there had been an act of domestic violence there?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Up until that point in time, did you p p y see anything that made you believe that there had been an act of domestic violence there?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. So you indicated that after you knocked on the door, you spoke with -- you spoke with a gentleman; is that correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MR. PRESIADO: And you previously testified to someone as a generic white male. O Is that the same person?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: So your previous testimony, when you were referring to a "generic white male," that's the person who opened the door when you first knocked on it, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, there was only one male at the location, besides my partner. J 18
MR. PRESIADO: There was only one male for the entire time you were at the location?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: So, in the hall, you met with a generic white male, Ms. Heard, and the generic white male's girlfriend; is that right?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: It was just those three folks?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MR. PRESIADO: And you were there with your partner, Officer Hadden.
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MR. PRESIADO: And how -- in the hallway, how far were you standing from Ms.- Heard?
OFFICER SAENZ: It was close, probably, like, two to five feet.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And at that time, did you notice any injuries on Ms. Heard?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. Were you looking to see if she had any injuries at that time?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I was.
MR. PRESIADO: And so, you were looking to see if Ms. Heard had any injuries and you determined that she did not; is that accurate?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And was the lighting good enough in the hallway for you to make that determination?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes. The hallway was well lit.
MR. PRESIADO: And at the time, were you wearing any sort of corrective lenses?
OFFICER SAENZ: I was not.
MR. PRESIADO: Although you're not wearing corrective lenses, were you prescribed corrective lenses at the time?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, I have never worn glasses, and I'm not prescribed. I have good vision.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And at that time, did you have good vision?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I did.
MR. PRESIADO: At the time you were observing Ms. Heard, did you have good vision?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I did.
MR. PRESIADO: And did you observe any injury at that time?
MR. PRESIADO: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: What did you ask Ms. Heard at that time, if anything?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't have an independent recollection. Again, it's been so long, I don't remember specific questions.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. Now, let me just back up a little bit. During the time period from when you left the elevator and about when Ms. Heard came out into the hallway, at any time, did the generic white male tell you that there had been an act of domestic violence?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, he did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Did he tell you anything that made you think there may have been an act of domestic violence?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, he did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Did he tell you anything that made you believe that a crime may have been committed?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, he did not.
MR. PRESIADO: And during that time period, did you ask him what had happened or what was happening?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I did ask him, and he just refused to give me any information.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. So, now, fast-forward to what we were talking about with respect to you in the hallway with the generic white male, Ms. Heard, and the generic white male's girlfriend.
MR. PRESIADO: After you observed her and saw no sign of injury, what did you do next?S
OFFICER SAENZ: I advised her that we would be conducting a protective sweep, just to make sure that there was no one else in the house. And she Is agreed if her neighbor, the male, could accompany us with the protective sweep.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. Up until that point in time, did you ask Ms. Heard what happened?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I did.
MR. PRESIADO: And what was her response?
OFFICER SAENZ: No response. She was uncooperative. I 1 s
MR. PRESIADO: And, Officer Saenz, at that time, was Ms. Heard cooperative?
OFFICER SAENZ: Ms. Heard was uncooperative.
MR. PRESIADO: Thank you. And by "uncooperative," does that mean that when you asked her a question, she wouldn't say a word, or did she say something that made you think she was not cooperating?
OFFICER SAENZ: She wouldn't say anything.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. So, just to be clear, you would ask questions and she wouldn't say anything?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And what did you do at that point?
OFFICER SAENZ: After the protective sweep, I asked her, again, if she wanted to talk to me. Has anything happened? Again, I don't remember the specific questions that I asked her, but I asked her questions to establish if there was some sort of crime, who was involved, and, again, she wouldn't give me any information. I attempted to ask her friend, the other woman in the room. I even asked the male to wait in the hallway so it could just be us women in there so we could talk privately, maybe she felt more comfortable that way. Still, she denied there was any crime.
OFFICER SAENZ: They wouldn't answer any specific questions. So I wrote a business card, I advised her, if she changed her mind, that she could call us at any time and we would respond to help her out.
MR. PRESIADO: So backing up a bit to the time you were in the hallway with the three of them, and you testified that Ms. Heard was uncooperative, and then you indicated you did a sweep. I want to start with -- from the point of time in the hallway, where she was uncooperative, transitioning to the sweep.
MR. PRESIADO: How did that occur? Did you ask her if you could look in the penthouse? How did you go from standing in the hallway to conducting a sweep?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't recall.
MR. PRESIADO: Now, before you swept the penthouses, did you ask if you could enter the penthouses?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I did.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And who -- and what was the response?
OFFICER SAENZ: I can't remember if she gave me a response or nodded her head. I can't remember.
MR. PRESIADO: From what you observed or heard from Ms. Heard, you took it that she was permitting you to enter the penthouses and look around; is that accurate?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MR. PRESIADO: Was it more than one penthouse?
OFFICER SAENZ: There was - yes, there was two.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And this tenn "sweep" we've been using, is that a technical police officer tenn?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yeah.
MR. PRESIADO: And what do you mean by conducting a _ 8 sweep?
OFFICER SAENZ: It's called a protective sweep, and we do so to make sure that there's no other individuals that may be victims that are hurt inside the location or a suspect hiding, concealing themselves from officers, that would attack the victim after we left the location. So we go in to verify that any potential suspects are gone from the location, for the victim's safety.
MR. PRESIADO: Thank you.
MR. PRESIADO: And you conducted a protective sweep of two penthouses, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MR. PRESIADO: What is your understanding of who owned or lived in the first penthouse that you performed y p a protective sweep on?
OFFICER SAENZ: It was my understanding that Amber Heard, that it was her home. Again, the gentleman directed us. That's why he came with us, so we Is wouldn't get lost.
MR. PRESIADO: I see. And during your protective sweep, during the first -- of the first penthouse, Is did anybody accompany you during the entire sweep?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, the male. The only male that was there, besides my partner.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And your partner conducted the I sweep with you?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And as to the protective sweep of the first penthouse, did you go into every room of the penthouse?
OFFICER SAENZ: To my knowledge, yes.
MR. PRESIADO: And was your knowledge based on the generic male leading you out?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MR. PRESIADO: Was it your understanding that your protective sweep included you looking at every room in the penthouse?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MR. PRESIADO: During the protective sweep of the first penthouse, did you see anything that led you to believe that a crime had been committed?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: During the protective sweep of the first penthouse, did you see anything that made you think a crime had been committed?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: During the first protective sweep, did you see anything that made you think that an act of domestic violence had occurred?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not
MR. PRESIADO: During the protective sweep of the first penthouse, did you hear or see anything -- I'm sorry, did you hear or see anything that made you believe an act of domestic violence had occurred?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. Upon your completion of this sweep, protective sweep of the first penthouse, up until that point in time, from you exiting the elevator up until that point in time, did you hear or see anything that made you believe that a crime had been committed?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Up until that point in time, did you hear or see anything that made you think that an act of domestic violence had occurred?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not
MR. PRESIADO: Now, I want to ask you -- you testified that -- well, you testified to you viewing Ms. Heard and not seeing any signs of injury.
MR. PRESIADO: Did you review her again after that first viewing?
OFFICER SAENZ: During the interviews and throughout the entire investigation, I'm constantly standing here and watching, so I can - if I see any other observations that would indicate any injury of domestic violence.
MR. PRESIADO: And did you see anything like that?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: And did you see anything like that p during the entire time period that you were on that call? Do you believe that you had enough time viewing Ms. Heard to determine whether or not she had sustained any injuries?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MR. PRESIADO: And did you determine that she I sustained any injuries?
OFFICER SAENZ: I determined that she did not sustain any injuries.
MR. PRESIADO: So, other than the conversation you had with her in the hallway, when you first got there, did you have any other conversations with Ms. Heard?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay.
OFFICER SAENZ: Inside of the loft- or penthouse, sorry.
MR. PRESIADO: Was that before or after the protective sweep?
OFFICER SAENZ: I believe both, before and after. I attempted.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. How many conversations, separate conversations did you have with Mr. Heard?
OFFICER SAENZ: I don't recall.
MR. PRESIADO: There was at least the one in the hallway and there was one before or after the protective sweep, correct? I'm sorry, I missed that answer.
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And during the second conversation you had with her, after the one in the hallway, how close were you to her?
OFFICER SAENZ: The same, two to five feet. She was right in front of me.
MR. PRESIADO: Were you close enough to get a good view of -- to determine whether or not she had any injury?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I was.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And during that second conversation, did you determine whether or not she had an injury?
OFFICER SAENZ: I determined that she did not have any injuries.
MR. PRESIADO: At any point in time, during the incident, during the date of the incident, did she complain of an injury?
OFFICER SAENZ: She did not.
MR. PRESIADO: During the protective sweep of the penthouse, did you see anything in disarray?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. Now, you indicated -- let me ask you, did you do a protective sweep of a second penthouse?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I did.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. Did the generic white male accompany you on that sweep as well?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, he did.
MR. PRESIADO: What was your understanding of who owned or resided in that second penthouse?
OFFICER SAENZ: I had no idea.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. Did you, during that second protective sweep, did you walk through every room in that penthouse?
OFFICER SAENZ: From my understanding, yes, we did.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And during that second protective sweep, did you see anything that you would say was in disarray?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: During that second protective sweep, did you see anything that made you believe there had been a crime committed?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: During that second protective sweep, did you hear anything that made you think that a crime had been committed?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: During the protective sweep of the second penthouse, did you see anything that made you believe an act of domestic violence had occurred?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: During the protective sweep of the second penthouse, did you hear or see anything that made you believe a crime had been committed?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: After you performed the second protective -- I'm sorry, after you performed the protective sweep of the second penthouse, what did pI you do?
OFFICER SAENZ: I responded to where Amber Heard was, and I, again, tried to see if I could get any information from her. I was unsuccessful, and. then I issued her the business card and let her know that she could call us back if she wanted to talk.
MR. PRESIADO: Did she answer any of your questions?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, she did not.
MR. PRESIADO: At any point in time, during the entirety of the incident, did Ms. Heard answer any of your questions?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, she did not.
MR. PRESIADO: During the entire time of the incident, did Ms. Heard complain of any injury?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, she did not.
MR. PRESIADO: During the entirety of your time at the incident, did anybody say anything that made you believe a crime had been committed?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, they did not.
MR. PRESIADO: During the entirety of the time you were at the incident, did anybody say anything that made you believe an act of domestic violence had occurred?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, they did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. During the entirety of your time Is at the incident, did you see anything that made you believe a crime had occurred?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: During the entirety of your time at the incident, did you hear anything that made you believe a crime had been committed?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: During the entirety of your time at the incident, did you hear or see anything that made you believe that an act of domestic violence had occurred?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Had you heard of anybody by the name of Ms. Heard at that time?
OFFICER SAENZ: Never.
MR. PRESIADO: Amber Heard?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, I had never heard of Amber Heard before that time.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. Did you recognize any of the people that you encountered during the incident?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: At the time of the incident, did you have any reason to believe that anybody who you encountered at the incident was famous?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And during the entire time that you were at the penthouses during the incident, did you have any reason to believe that Mr. Depp was affiliated or involved in the incident?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Madam Reporter, can you repeat my last question, where I was?
MR. PRESIADO: COURT REPORTER: Sure.
MR. PRESIADO: "Question: During the entire time you were at the penthouses during the incident, did you witness any bruises on Ms. Heard?"
MR. PRESIADO: And there was not a response.
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not observe any injuries on Ms. Heard.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. Did you observe any swelling on Ms. Heard's face?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Did you observe anything that led you to believe that she was a victim of domestic violence?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Alex, if you can pull up exhibit 2.
MR. PRESIADO: COURT REPORTER: So is this going to be exhibit 57?
MR. PRESIADO: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: Officer Saenz, do you recall having your deposition taken on July 18th, 2016, in connection with Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And do you recall giving testimony in connection with that deposition under oath?
MR. PRESIADO: Did you answer? I'm sorry, Officer?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And did you give accurate and true testimony at that time?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And you understood you were under oath, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay.
MR. PRESIADO: Alex, if you could go to page 26.
MR. PRESIADO: Officer Saenz, do you recall testifying as to -- do you recall testifying that, and I'm talking about today, do you recall just testifying that you can't recall what Ms. Heard said to you, if anything?
OFFICER SAENZ: I do not have an independent recollection, but I can go off of what I'm seeing here on my screen.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay.
MR. MONIZ: Your Honor, we're at 5:00. It looks like we have 18 minutes left.
THE COURT: Do you have any problems finishing it tonight?
MR. MONIZ: Go ahead and finish it.
MR. MONIZ: Okay.
MR. PRESIADO: And do you agree with me that your memory of the day of the incident was fresher on July 18th, 2016, than it is today?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes. That is correct.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And the incident was May 21st, 2016, this deposition was taken July 18th, 2016. How long after the incident was this deposition taken?
OFFICER SAENZ: A few months.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay.
MR. PRESIADO: Alex, if I can have control. There's a delay, Alex. Can that be fixed, or is that just the way it is?
AV TECHNICIAN: This is Alex speaking. Yeah, I'm afraid I can't help that. I'm sorry, Mr. Presiado.
MR. PRESIADO: That's fine.
MR. PRESIADO: I'm going to start here. Do you see my cursor?
OFFICER SAENZ: I do.
MR. PRESIADO: I'm going to start here, at line 3. The question is, "Okay. So we'll get back to that. Before you did a sweep or a check of the rest of the penthouse, did you have an opportunity to speak with Ms. Heard when you were in the apartment?
MR. PRESIADO: "Answer: Yes I did.
MR. PRESIADO: "Question: Okay. Can you tell us about that conversation?
MR. PRESIADO: "Answer: Sure. I asked her what happened. Opening question. She said nothing, and she continued to cry. I said, who do you live with-- who do you live here with? She shook her head as if she did not want to answer. I asked her, are you hurt? Do you need an ambulance? She shook her head, again, no. At that point, I asked her if she mind -- if she would mind if I checked her apartment, and that's when she said no." And Officer, does this refresh your recollection of the conversation you had with Ms. Heard at that time?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, it does.
MR. PRESIADO: And your testimony that I just read, is that true and accurate?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, it is.
MR. PRESIADO: During the entire time period you were at the penthouses, on May 21st, 2016, did Ms. Heard say that she had been assaulted, in any way, by anybody?
OFFICER SAENZ: No, she did not.
MR. PRESIADO: During your protective sweep of the two penthouses, did you view anything that you would characterize as vandalism?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: During the entire time you were at the penthouses on May 21st, 2016, were you looking for a probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I was.
MR. PRESIADO: And what did you determine?
OFFICER SAENZ: I determined there was no crime.
MR. PRESIADO: Did you -- what did you determine with respect to an assessment of probable cause?
OFFICER SAENZ: There was no probable cause of any sort of crime.
MR. PRESIADO: Thank you. During the entire time you were at the penthouse on May 21st, 2016, were you wearing any body-worn video cameras?
OFFICER SAENZ: I was not.
MR. PRESIADO: Are you certain of that?
OFFICER SAENZ: I am certain.
MR. PRESIADO: And how is it that you are certain of that?
OFFICER SAENZ: Because I didn't start using body-worn video until June of 2016.
MR. PRESIADO: And that's after the date of the incident, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MR. PRESIADO: Alex, if you wouldn't in.ind putting Exhibit 9 back up.
MR. PRESIADO: Officer Saenz, you were shown this document earlier.
MR. PRESIADO: What is this document?
OFFICER SAENZ: It is a domestic violence supplement report.
MR. PRESIADO: And do you recall Counsel asked you about the victim column and the crime scene column?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do recall.
MR. PRESIADO: Did you also see there's a suspect column in the middle?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And is there any difference between the victim column and the suspect column with respect to the terms -- the box terms?
OFFICER SAENZ: No difference.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. Did you fill out one of these forms in connection with your investigation on May 21st, 2016?
OFFICER SAENZ: I did not.
MR. PRESIADO: Why not?
OFFICER SAENZ: Because it was determined there was no crime.
MR. PRESIADO: And, Officer Saenz, just one more question with respect to that Exhibit 9, I know it's not up. But the fact that you did not fill out that form, is that consistent with your training?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, it is. I wouldn't fill that out because there was no crime. It doesn't - it's not called for.
MR. PRESIADO: When you testified during the London trial, at the time, did you believe your testimony was accurate?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MR. PRESIADO: At all times you've testified under oath in any legal proceedings, trials, depositions, do you always give accurate and truthful testimony?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MR. PRESIADO: And do you have any reason to not give accurate and truthful testimony in connection with this deposition?
OFFICER SAENZ: I do not.
MR. PRESIADO: Officer Saenz, do you see these two pictures?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MR. PRESIADO: Do you recognize the person in the picture?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes. Amber Heard.
MR. PRESIADO: In both pictures?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: Do you see a difference in these pictures -- between these two pictures?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do. The lighting of the photos.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. Do you see any difference in connection with the redness on the cheeks of Ms. Heard as between these two pictures?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do. The left side is - the photo's brighter.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And other than that, would you agree with me that these two pictures are the same; in other words, Ms. Beard's face, the position of her face, and everything about her in these pictures is identical, except for the differences that you indicated?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: Okay. And even though these are the same pictures, do you see any difference with respect to the redness in -- on Ms. Beard's face with respect to the two pictures?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, the photo on the left is brighter, causing the redness on the cheeks to, what appears to be brighter, or exaggerated.
OFFICER SAENZ: Concentrate on the picture on the left.
MR. PRESIADO: And what did you say with respect to -- Can you read to me what it says in the little box at the very top on the left, under add a title? Do you see a date and a timestamp?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I see it
MR. PRESIADO: What's it say, date and timestamp?
OFFICER SAENZ: Date is May 21st, 2016; timestamp is 9:25:12 p.m.
MR. PRESIADO: And now, let's look at the other pictures, Exhibit 29, at the same spot.
MR. PRESIADO: Can you read for me what the timestamp says there?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes. It says May 21st, 2016, 9:25:12 p.m.
MR. PRESIADO: So both exhibits, both pictures are the same exact timestamp, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MR. PRESIADO: And even though that's the case, do you still believe there's a difference between the two pictures, as you previously described?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes, I do.
MR. PRESIADO: Officer Saenz, do you see Exhibit 41?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: Do you recall counsel asking you questions?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: During your protective sweep of the two penthouses on May 21st, 2016, did you see anything in disarray?
OFFICER SAENZ: No.
MR. PRESIADO: Officer Saenz, I think you answered this, but up until the present, for how long have you been an LA -- Los Angeles police officer?
OFFICER SAENZ: I will be going on 12 years.
MR. PRESIADO: Officer Saenz, in connection with your investigation at the Eastern Columbia Building on May 21st, 2016, were you in a rush, in any way, to complete the investigation?
OFFICER SAENZ: No.
MR. PRESIADO: Were you willing to stay as long as necessary to determine if a crime had been committed?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: At any point in time during your investigation on May 21st, 2016, at the penthouses, did Ms. Heard ask you to file a report?
OFFICER SAENZ: No.
MR. PRESIADO: Did anybody that you spoke with or saw on May 21st, 2016, at the penthouses, ask you to file a report?
OFFICER SAENZ: No.
MR. PRESIADO: Did you have any cause to file a report?
OFFICER SAENZ: No.
MR. PRESIADO: And was that determination in line with your training?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: If you had witnessed anything that led you to believe that an act of domestic violence had occurred, would you have filed a report?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: And you, in fact, did not file a report, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes. Correct.
MR. PRESIADO: And if you had witnessed something that led you to believe that an act of domestic violence had occurred, would you have filed a report, even if Ms. Heard had asked you not to?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. PRESIADO: And is that in line with your training?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MR. MONIZ: Just so everybody is on the same page, we have about a minute and a half of questions from Ms. Heard's counsel at this time.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Officer Saenz, you were asked some questions about when you were -- got off the elevator in the penthouse and when you got on and how much time you spent at the penthouse level I approached it in my earlier, but based on the cross-examination, I feel like we need to go back to that.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So, I'm going to ask you to take a look at what is Exhibit Number 6.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And do you recognize you and Officer Hadden in this picture?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And what time does the times tamp on this picture say for the elevator?
OFFICER SAENZ: It says 21:04:43.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So that's 9:04:43; would that be right, 9:04 p.m.?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And you looked at this earlier. And I'm going to ask you to take a look at it again, at 21.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So this one has what time?
OFFICER SAENZ: 21:19:49.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. And allowing for your -- and, Officer Saenz, you said, earlier, that you weren't sure whether there were accuracies or inaccuracies in terms of the elevators. But allowing for that there may be any issues at all, I would you agree that it still means that you were on and off that elevator in 15 minutes?
OFFICER SAENZ: Assuming the times are correct, yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. You were asked to look at a number of the pictures that I had shown you earlier, that were taken on the night of May 21st, 2016, both before, during, and after the time that you and Officer Hadden had reported to the -- to Ms. Heard's penthouse. Do you recall seeing those again and I being asked about them?
OFFICER SAENZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: You were asked, by counsel for Mr. Depp, to take a look at those again, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And he asked you if you had seen any of those photographs before, and you indicated that you had not, correct?
OFFICER SAENZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So, other than what was placed in the CAD summary by either you or Officer Hadden, and ,22 then, also, went into the incident recall, are you aware of any documentation that either you or Officer Hadden collected relating, in any manner, to your visit to the penthouse on May 21, 2016?
OFFICER SAENZ: No.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the testimony for today. Please do not do any outside research, and don't talk to anybody about the case. We'll see you tomorrow morning, okay? Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. I still have some outstanding exhibits. So if you could get with Jamie and see what those are so we can get that taken care of, so we don't get backwards and we keep up.
THE COURT: All right. We'll see you in the morning. Thank you.
COURT BAILIFF: All rise.
[SECTION HEADER]: I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal this 27th day of April, 2022. My Commission Expires: September 30, 2024 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ET