Episode 27: Senator Castillo Objects

“You have another witness to call, Professor?” the judge asked.

“Yes,” Senator Travis walked back to the defense table. “The defense calls Dr. Sophia Lachman.”

A woman in the audience began to rise, but Senator Castillo got to her feet first. “Objection, your honor!”

“What is your objection, Profesora?” the judge asked.

“The state moves to exclude the testimony from the defense expert witness,” Senator Castillo explained.

Senator Travis slapped his legal pad down on the defense table in disgust. “The defense allowed the state to present its expert witness, Dr. Cassandra Buchmann. Recall that I specifically asked if we were all okay with expert testimony, and since no one objected, I withdrew MY objection to Dr. Buchmann’s testimony.”

“The state’s silence cannot be interpreted as positive assent to whatever deal you thought you made,” Senator Castillo insisted.

“Under state law,” she continued, “any stipulations must be in writing to be binding. I believe you learned in law school that a verbal agreement is not worth the paper it’s not printed upon? In any event, Dr. Buchmann, as one of the architects of the GAIA Act, merely testified to the legislative intent and meaning of the law. They were on the stand primarily because of their prior involvement in activities that precipitated the litigation, not as an expert witness, per se.”

“Your honor,” Senator Travis reproached the judge, “the defense was laboring under the impression that when a stipulation allowing expert witnesses was entered into in open court, in the presence of the court and the state, we could trust to the honor of the state and the court, both, that the verbal agreement would be honored.

“Dr. Buchmann testified as a person ‘qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to share opinions and interpretations of the facts of this case.’ You cannot allow the state to present its expert witness testimony in open court while denying the defense the same privilege.”

“Your honor,” Senator Castillo stood firm, “the rule on stipulations is crystal clear in the law of our state, and I will not belabor the point. There is similarly a clear distinction between a witness, like Dr. Buchmann, testifying with personal knowledge from prior involvement in activities that precipitated this case, and a witness, like Dr. Lachman with no prior involvement in the facts of the case who will merely offer expert opinion and analysis. The two situations are simply not equivalent.

“The state’s position is that the only relevant question of fact remaining before this court is: ‘did Dr. Andrews teach the biological science account of sexuality, denying his students’ chosen gender identity in violation of the GAIA Act, or did he not?’ Only evidence relevant to that question should be admissible.”

“Professor Travis,” the judge interrupted whatever rebuttal he’d been about to deliver. “Would you please share with the court an outline of the testimony you anticipate Dr. Lachman will provide?”

“Dr. Lachman will rebut Dr. Buchmann’s characterization of what constitutes ‘affirmation’ of students confused about their gender,” Senator Travis explained. “She will share the history of so-called gender affirmation science and how poorly-thought-out attempts to affirm peoples’ choices of non-biological gender identities with hormone therapies and surgeries have led to heartache, trauma, and disaster.

“Drawing on over twenty years’ of clinical experience in actual treatment of patients suffering from gender dysphoria, Dr. Lachman will bring a wealth of much-needed practical, real-world experience to your court, your honor; experience at odds with the ivory-tower, academic speculations and wishful and circular thinking so far presented in this courtroom.

“This court allowed the state’s expert witness to present THEIR theory, such as it was, of how gender definitions work, and why sharing the facts of biological science regarding sex somehow conflicts with it. They’ve shared what they like to term as ‘their truth.’ But there is a different truth.

“Dr. Andrews’s truth: a truth grounded in the facts of reality.

“A truth based on the reality of biological science.

“A truth with practical implications to medicine and to agriculture and to who we are as individuals and as a species.

“A truth that when it is ignored leads to ruin and destruction.

“A truth.…”

Senator Castillo rose. “Argumentative!” she interrupted. “We object!”

“Sustained,” the judge agreed.

“Your honor, if this court does not choose to enforce the tacit agreement the defense had with the state to allow expert testimony, the defense requests that the court at least honor the understanding we had at the beginning of this trial: that the defense at least be allowed to place its expert testimony, in full, and on the record, for your honor to decide whether we can present this testimony to the jury.”

“We object,” Senator Castillo rose.

The district attorney looked up at her, failing to hide his bewilderment.

“On what POSSIBLE grounds?” Senator Travis asked.

“Dr. Lachman is a known advocate of ‘de-transitioning,’ the pseudoscientific practice of attempting to persuade a transgender individual to renounce their adopted sexual identity through therapy and even medical treatment,” Senator Castillo explained. “Her work is fraudulent, and responsible experts have characterized it as cruel, inhuman, degrading, and contrary to internationally-recognized norms of human rights. She is an activist and ideologue. Your honor should not allow her to address the court, and your honor should certainly not give her a pulpit to try to harangue and propagandize the jury with her hateful, radical, right-wing ideology.”

“Your honor,” Senator Travis countered, “Dr. Lachman is a board-certified psychiatrist who has successfully treated and counseled hundreds of patients in a distinguished career of more than two decades. The state was put on notice that Dr. Lachman was on the witness list over a week ago. This objection is out of order, and you should summarily reject it.”

“We have prepared a full brief and motion to exclude her evidence,” Senator Castillo handed her motion to the judge and a copy to Senator Travis, “along with precedents that we discovered only recently, precedents that show why we should be allowed to raise our objections here and now, before her testimony is allowed on the record.”

The judge leaned back in his chair and took a deep breath. “The defense is correct that this is highly improper, Profesora,” the judge acknowledged, leafing through the pages of the brief. “In an abundance of caution, however, I will review your motion.”

“The defense objects!” Senator Travis protested.

“Overruled,” the judge said without conviction.

“We take exception to your honor’s ruling,” Senator Travis stated.

“So noted,” the judge acknowledged. “I assume you will want to review this motion as well, Professor?”

“Of course, your honor,” Senator Travis acknowledged. “We will file a rebuttal at our earliest opportunity, probably later today.”

“Very well,” the judge declared. “We will adjourn until 9 am tomorrow morning when we will take up this motion from the state. Court is adjourned.”

“All rise!” Deputy Martínez announced. The crowd remained standing until the judge left the courtroom.