_e-H \- '- ,
1=1E LED §: .
L/ SUPERIOH SUPERIOR r,~ COURT G l)Er-€;u ·,__,;§ ,,,.J~";% ,. 11 22211 Ju?i 25 FH 52 17 2 CLERK OF COURT OF CDURT 3 3 E?v. I 4 IN THE THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 5 5
6 6 OF GUAM THE PEOPLE OF GUAM CRIMINAL CASE no. NO. CF0458-23 CF0458-23
7 vs. _f
8 8 MICHAEL BABAUTA JORDAN MICHAEL BABAUTA (DOB: DECISION DECISION AND ORDER 03/15/1991), Re: Re: Defendant Defendant's Motion to Recuse RecuseAAG AAG Sean 99 BRANDON BRANDON RUFUS RUFUS CHANDLER CHANDLERaka aka Brown (Brando (Brando Rufus Rufus Chandler) Chandler) (DOB: (DOB:02/14/1989), 02/14/1989), 1fO 30 JASON KEITH MANIBUSAN JASON KEITH MANIBUSAN (DOB:(DbB: ,: , 08/20/1977), 08/20/1977), and 11 CYNTHIA ROSE 11 CYNTHIA ROSEQUINATA QUINATA(DOB (DOB:z 10/18/1976), 12 12 Defendants. Defendants. 13 13
14 14 This matter matter came came before the the Honorable Honorable Arthur Arthur R. R. Barcinas Barcinas on on June 2024, on aa 11, 2024, June 11, 15 15 hearing hearing for Defendants' Defendants' Motion to to Recuse Recuse AAG AAGSean SeanBrown. Defendant Jordan Brown.Defendant Michael Jordan Michael 16 16 - Babauta was represented Babauta was representedby byAttorney Attorney Vanessa Williams, Williams, Defendant Defendant Cynthia Quinata Rose Qui Cynthia Rose rata was 17 17 represented by Attorney Minakshi represented by Minakshi Hemlani, Hemlani, and and Defendant Defendant Brandon Brandon Rufus was Chandler was Rufus Chandler 18 18 represented by Attorney William represented by WilliamGavras. Gavras. Defendant DefendantJason Jason Keith Keith Manibusan present, also present, Manibusan was also 19 19 but his counsel, but his counsel, Attorney Attorney David David Lujan, Lujan, was was not. not. Assistant AssistantAttorney General("AAG") AttorneyGeneral Sean ("AAG") Sean 20 Brown Brown was present for for the the People. People. 21 BACKGROUND 22 22 On April April 12, 12, 2024, 2024, Defendant Defendant Chandler filed a Motion Chandler filed Motion to to Recuse Assistant Attorney Recuse Assistant 23 General General Sean Brown ("Motion"), ("Motion"), arguing arguingthat, that, in inprior priorpractice, practice, Attorney Attorney Brown represented Brownrepresented 24 Decision Decision and and Order Ir Criminal Criminal Case CF0458-23,People v.v.Babauta, Case No. CF0458-23, Babita, et et al.
1 1 the the wife wife ofofthe thevictim, victim,and andthat thatthis thisprior priorrepresentation representation taints AAG Brown's taints AAG Brown's continued continued
2 participation in this participation in this case. case. Specifically, Specifically, Defendant Chandler assertsthat Chandler asserts thatthe thevictim's victim's wife wife is an an
3 "obvious "obvious suspect" suspect" in in the the murder of the victim, and thatAAG and that AAG Brown Brown appears to have appears to have overlooked overlooked
4 this matter in his prosecution. prosecution. Chandler Chandler further asserts that, because asserts that, becauseof of said prior relationship,
5 AAG Brown AAG Brownisisprivy privytotomaterial materialfacts factsininthis thiscase, case, potentially potentially including including exculpatory exculpatory evidence,
6 that he has has not not shared sharedwith with Defendants.
7 On the same same day, day, Defendant DefendantBabauta Babautafiled filedaajoinder jointer to to the the Motion, Motion, and and the thePeople People filed filed
8 their Opposition Opposition to the the Motion. Motion. On OnApril April15, 15,2024, 2024,Defendants Defendants Chandler Chandler and and Babauta filed their Babauta filed
9 respective Replies to the People's People's Opposition.
\ 10 10 ,>, On April April 17, 17, 2024> Defendant Manibusa:n 2024; Defendant Manibusanfiled filed aa joinder' jointer to to the the Motion. Motion. On OnApril 329, ApriL'29,
11 11 2024, Defendant Quinata 2024, Defendant Qui rataalso alsofiled filedaajoinder jointer to to the the Motion. Motion.
12 12 On June June ll, 11,2024, 2024,the theCourt Courtheard arguments from heard arguments from the the parties, parties, and and took took the the matter matter
13 13 under advisement. advisement.
14 14 DISCUSSION
15 15 Defendant seeksfor Defendant seeks for AAG AAG Brown Brown to to recuse recuse himself from this matter. matter."[D]isqualification "[D]isqualification
16 16 is aa drastic drastic course course of action action that that should not be taken should not taken simply simply out out of hypersensitivity to ethical ethical
17 17 nuances orthe nuances or theappearance appearanceof ofimpropriety." impropriety."Barrett-Anderson v. Camacho, 2018 Guam Guam 20 ,r 14. 20 1114.
18 18 I. I. The TheGuam GuamSupreme SupremeCourt Courthas hasheld heldthat thatattorney attorneydisqualification disqualification is is warranted warranted
19 19 only when his or her her representation representation violates or significantly significantly risks risks violating the the
20 Guam Rules of of Professional Conduct.
21 The current test test for attorney disqualification disqualification in in Guam Guam is whether an attorney's continued
22 representation orparticipation representation or participationininan anaction action(1) (1)violates violates or or (2) (2) significantly risks violating the the
23 Guam Rules of Guam Rules of Professional Professional Conduct Conduct("GRPC"). ("GRPC"). See See id. ,r 20. "Guam adopted id. 1120. the 2002 adopted the 2002ABA ABA
24 Page 2 of7 of Decision Decision and and Order Criminal Criminal Case Case No. CF0458-23, People v. Babauta, Babita, et et al.
11 Model Model Rules Rules of ofProfessional Professional Conduct Conduct on on September September 29, 2003," and 29, 2003," and "[u]nder "[u]nder the the Model Rules,
2 attorney disqualificationisis warranted attorney disqualification warrantedonly only when when his his or or her her representation representation violates violates or or
3 significantly risks violating significantly risks violating the the Rules of of Professional Professional Conduct." Conduct." Id. 'if 17. Id. 11 17. After the the 2003 2003
4 adoption of the adoption of the GRPC, GRPC, the the "appearance "appearance of ofimpropriety" impropriety" standard set forth standard set forth in in People v. v.
5 Tennessee, Tennessen, 2009 2009 Guam 3, ceased Guam 3, ceased to to be the applicable applicable standard for attorney standard for attorney disqualification in
6 all criminal criminal actions actions filed after after the the GRPC's GRPC'seffective effectivedate. date.Id. 'if 18. Id.11 18. "Although "Although considering considering the
7 appearance of impropriety appearance of impropriety may may be be part part of the inherent of the power of the inherent power the court court as as to regulate regulate the the
8 conduct of attorneys, conduct of attorneys, itit will not not stand stand alone to disqualify disqualify an an attorney attorney in the absence absence of any any
9 indication that that the the attorney's attorney's representation representationrisks risksviolating violatingthe theRules Rules of of Professional Professional Conduct." Conduct."
,} 10 10 Id 'if 17. Id 11 17."Standing "Standingalone, alone,the the'appearance 'appearanceof of impropri.ety' impropnety'lstandard ?·standard is open to widespread wldespread abuse abuse
11 11 and tactical advantage." and exploitation for tactical advantage." Id. Id. Accordingly, the the Court is bound bound to to rely rely exclusively
12 12 on the GRCP in in its its analysis analysis of of the the Motion. The The Court Court also also notes notes that "the disqualification of aa
13 13 prosecutor by the prosecutor by the trial trial judge judge is aa determination from which direct determination from direct appeal appeal is simply simply not not
14 14 available," as as the the Guam Guam Supreme Court "will Supreme Court "will not not consider consider an an issue issue which which aa party is statutorily statutorily
15 15 not permitted to to advance." advance."People People v. v. Lujan, 1998 1998 Guam Guam 28 'if 9. 28 119.
16 16 Defendant Defendant largely argues argues that AAG Brown's that AAG Brown'srecusal recusalisisappropriate appropriate because because there there has has
17 17 been an alleged appearance of impropriety. appearance of impropriety. "The "The proceedings proceedings also also become become tainted tainted if ifitit appears appears
18 18 that prosecutorhas that a prosecutor hasaabias biasor orreason reasontotopursue pursuea acase casedifferently." differently."Mot., Mot., at .at5.5. "The "The appearance appearance
19 19 that prosecutormight that a prosecutor mightpursue pursuea acase casedifferently differentlyrequires requiresrecusal." recusal."Id.Id."'[The "'[The legal profession] profession]
20 must avoid not must avoid not only only all all evil but but likewise likewise avoid the the appearance appearance ofofevil;" evil," Id. Id. (quoting (quoting ABA ABA
21 Comm. Comm. On Prowl Profl Ethics, Ethics, Formal Op. 49 (l931)). Formal Op. (1931)). However, However, as as stated stated above, above, the the mere mere
22 appearance of impropriety appearance of impropriety alone alone is is no no longer sufficient to carry carry a motion motion to disqualify disqualify because, because,
23 "[i]f "[i]fa aformer formerclient clientneed needmerely merelyallege allegethat thatshe shemade maderelevant relevantconfidential confidentialcommunications communications to
24 Page of Page3 of7 1
Decision Decision and and Order Criminal Criminal Case Case No. CF0458-23, People v. Babauta, Babita, et et al.
11 her former attorney, then the attorney, then the [appearance [appearanceof ofimpropriety] impropriety]rule rulewill will be be an an obvious obvious vehicle vehicle for
2 abuse." abuse." Barrett-Anderson, 2018 20 ,rii 17 (quoting Adam v. Guam 20 2018 Guam v. Macdonald Page Page & Co., 644 644
3 A.2d 461, 464 (Me. 461, 464 (Me. 1994)). 1994)). Defendant Defendant additionally argues argues that thatthe thevictim's victim's wife wife is an "obvious "obvlous
4 suspect" this case, suspect" in this case, and andthat thatAAG AAG Brown "has given given -- or orappears appears to to have have given given-.- her her aa pass. pass."as
5 Mot., at at 2. However, However, "obvious "obvioussuspect" suspect" or ornot, not, the the victim's victim'swife wifewas wasnot notnamed namedas as aa suspect suspect by
6 the Guam Police Department Guam Police or as Department or as aaDefendant Defendantby bythe theAttorney AttorneyGeneral's General's Office, Office, and and therefore
7 the Court has no basis has no basis to to consider disqualification on that that basis under under the the GRPC. GRPC. Defendant is
8 speaking in terms speaking in terms of of possibilities, possibilities, and and the the"significant "significant risk" risk" portion of the test does not allow
9 disqualification for potential disqualification for potential conflict, conflict, only only for for inevitable inevitable and and material material conflicts. conflicts. Barrett-
l 10 Ahderson v. Camacho, Ahderson Cama~ho, 2018 Guam 20 1117. ,r i ,,, . \
11 I. The victim's life insurance policy 1.
12 12 Defendants assert,and Defendants assert, andAAG AAG Brown Brown affirmed affirmed at atthe theJune June11ll hearing, thatAAG hearing, that AAG Brown
13 13 signed off off on on a form submitted bythe submitted by thevictim's victim's wife wife regarding the the victim's victim's life life insurance policy. insurance policy.
14 14 AAGBrown AAG asserted that Brownasserted that the form form "was "was sent sent actually actually to to [the [the Guam Guam Police Police Department,] Department,] and and
15 15 they wanted they have the to have wanted to the AG sign sign off offon onit," it,"after afterwhich whichBrown Brownasserted asserted he he assigned assigned an an
16 16 investigator investigator to ask ask GPD whether the victim's victim's wife wifewas wasaasuspect suspectin inthis this matter. matter. 2:28:00, Hearing
17 17 Tr., (June (June 11, 2024). 2024). Brown argued that thathe he did did not notbelieve believe any law enforcement authority authority could
18 18 say she was not a suspect without conducting suspect without conducting an aninvestigation, investigation, but but he he had hadhis hisinvestigator investigator "talk "talk
19 19 the GPD to the detectives who GPD detectives who said said she's she's not not actually actually identified identified as as aa suspect suspect so I could could sign sign that that
20 form as as a prosecutor." prosecutor." Id. Id. When asked by the asked by the Court Courtwho who signed signedthe theform, form,Brown Brown affirmed, affirmed, "I "I
21 signed the the form. form. But But it's it's like some survivor death benefit." benefit." Id. Id.
22 Defendants arguethat Defendants argue thataa reasonable reasonableprosecutor prosecutorininAAG AAG Brown's Brown's place place would have have
23 conducted conducted aafollow-up follow-up investigation upon upon discovering discovering that thatthe thevictim's vlctim's wife wife was the beneficiary
24 Page Page44 of of7 1
Decision Decision and and Order Criminal Case No. CF0458-23, Case No. CF0458-23,People v.v.Babauta, Babita, et et al.
11 to the victim's victim's life lifeinsurance insurance policy. policy. Def. Def. Chandler's Chandler's Reply, Reply,atat5. 5. The TheCourt Courtacknowledges acknowledges that that
2 AAG AAGBrown's Brown'spurported purported failure failure to to investigate investigate the the victim's victim's wife wifeupon upondiscovering discoveringthat that she she was
3 the beneficiary beneficiary of the policy could could create the appearance create the appearanceof ofimpropriety. impropriety.AAG AAG Brown's failure
4 to conduct conduct a follow-up follow-up investigation investigation regarding regarding any any potential potential connection between the connection between the life
5 insurance policy and insurance policy andthe thevictim's victim's death death also also gives gives the the Court Court cause causetotoquestion questionAAG AAG Brown's
6 conduct matter. As conduct in this matter. As Defendants note, note, life life insurance policies in insurance policies in murder murder cases tend to to have
7 significant evidentiary weight significant evidentiary weight where where the the beneficiary beneficiary is is aware aware of of the policy. See, See, e.g., e.g., Scott v. v.
8 State, State, 161 So.3d 389 161 So.3d 389 (AL (Al. App. App. 2012). 2012). Further, Further, Defendant Defendant Babauta cites directly Babauta cites directly to to discovery
9 from the the People People indicating indicating that that the victim victim and and his wife wife had had been been separated for over separated for over aa year, year, and and 8. > 10 that that the the Wictim's :victim's wife wifehad 5 .been had,,. engaged'inin>>aa sexual ,been engaged sexual relationship relationship and smoki~g 3~;;, and smoking
11 11 methamphetamines withthe methamphetamines with the severed severed former former fifth defendant, defendant, whom detectives detectives determined determined had had
12 planned the victim's planned the vlctim's death. death. Def. Babauta's Babauta's Reply, Reply, at at 33 (citing (citingtoto23-02207, 23-02207, pp. pp. 398-408, 398-408, 505- 505-
13 510). The The possibility possibilitythat that aa reasonable reasonable prosecutor, upon discovering these prosecutor, upon facts, would refrain these facts,
14 14 from further further investigation investigation is is troubling troubling to to the the Court, Court, and and does does create create the the potential appearance of appearance of
15 impropriety on the thepart partof ofAAG AAG Brown.
16 The above facts facts gleaned from from discovery, discovery, combined combined with with the the life lifeinsurance insurance policy, policy, speak speak
17 17 to potential potential motive, and the Court and the Court finds finds itit concerning concerning that thatAAG AAG Brown would gloss gloss over over that that
18 connection simply because because the thepolice police did did not not identify identify the the victim's victim's wife wifeas as aa suspect. suspect. That being
19 said, however, the Court said, however, Court also also acknowledges acknowledges that that the mere appearance of impropriety appearance of impropriety is no
20 longer the the test test for for attorney attorney disqualification, disqualification, and and the Court is bound bound by the the Supreme Supreme Court's
21 decision to find cause cause for disqualification only within within the the four corners comers of the GRPC. Defendants Defendants
22 having provided no having provided no basis basis under underthe theGRPC uponwhich GRPC upon whichto to disqualify disqualify AAG AAG Brown, Brown, the the Court Court
23 similarly finds no no applicable applicable GRPC GRPC rules rules were were violated violated or were in significant risk of significant risk of violation
24 Page 55 of7 of 7 Decision Decision and and Order Criminal Criminal CaseNo. No. CF0458-23, Peoplev.v.Babauta, CF0458-23, People Babita, et et al.
11 by AAG AAGBrown Brownininthis thisinstance. instance. Accordingly, Accordingly, Defendants' Defendants' first first argument fails to meet argument fails meet the the
2 Barrett-Anderson Barrett-Anderson test test for attorney disqualification.
3 2. The The sealed proceedings
4 Defendant further further argues arguesthat, that,asasaaresult resultofofAAG AAG Brown's Brown's prior prior participation participation in in sealed sealed
5 proceedings ascounsel proceedings as counselfor forthe thevictim's victim'swife, wife,AAG AAG Brown Brown is privy to to evidence evidence regarding: (1) regarding: (1)
6 sexual sexual assault chargesbrought assault charges broughtagainst againstthe thevictim victim and and(2) (2) the the relationship relationship between between the the victim
7 and his wife. Defendant and his Defendant Chandler alleges that, Chandler alleges that, during duringthe thesealed sealedproceedings, proceedings,"AAG "AAG Brown
8 garnered evidence that garnered evidence that is both both relevant relevant and and material material to the the instant instant matter," matter," and and that that said said
9 evidence is not known to to Defendants' counsel.Def. Defendants' counsel. Def Chandler's Chandler's Reply, at at 3. 3. However, again, again, 0 0
10, 0 Defendants do Defendants do not not?cite cite to to any rule indicating any rule indicatinghow Bro'wn's knowledge how AAG Brown'sAAd knowledge' of of the the sealed sealed 5» ,x
11 11 proceedings demonstrates demonstratesaaviolation violation or or significant significant risk risk of of violation violation under the the GRPC. GRPC.
12 To the the contrary, contrary, the the Guam Guam Supreme Supreme Court has has held in Barrett-Anderson Barrett-Anderson that a Deputy
13 Attorney General Attorney General hypothetically learning of hypothetically learning of confidential confidential information in the information in the course course of dual dual
14 representation of adverse representation of parties could adverse parties could not be disqualified disqualified because because limited disclosure disclosure of that that
15 information was permitted permitted under underother otherrules rulesof of the the GRPC. GRPC. 2018 28,r1127. Guam 28 2018 Guam "While DRT 27. "While DRT
16 alleges that Deputy Attorney General General Mason Mason may have obtained confidential information in the
17 course representingDRT course of representing DRT in a prior, prior, now-dismissed now-dismissedaction action..... DRT DRT does does not not show show how how this this
18 the [GRPC]." violates the [GRPC]." Id. ,r 25. "[E]ven Id. 1125. "[E]venif if hehehad hadobtained obtainedconfidential confidentialinformation information during during the
19 course of conflicted representation, course of Rule 1.9( representation, Rule l.9(c) allows allows aa lawyer lawyer to to reveal reveal information information as as other other
20 Rules permit," permit," and "Rule 1.6 1.6 allows allows aa lawyer lawyer to to reveal reveal confidential confidential information information to to the the extent extent
21 reasonably believed necessary reasonably believed necessary'to 'to establish establishaaclaim claimor or defense defenseon onbehalf behalfof of the the lawyer lawyer in a
22 controversy and the client ... 4'." the lawyer and controversy between the as Id. Id. ii,r27 27(quoting (quotingGRPC GRPC1.6(b)<2»), 1.9). l.6(b)(3), 1.9).
23 Relevant to to the the instant matter, the instant matter, the GRPC also also dictates dictates that that a lawyer may reveal reveal confidential confidential
24 Page 6 6 of7 of Decision Decision and and Order Criminal Case No. CF0458-23, Peopl Criminal People v. Babauta, e v. et al Babi ta, et al.
11 information information "to "to respond respond to allegations allegations in in any any proceeding proceeding concerning concerning the the lawyer's lawyer's representation representation
2 of of the client, or the client; or ... .. to to comply with other complywith courtorder." other law or a court order."GRPC GRPC l.6(b)(3),(4). l.6(b)(3),(4). "Even "Evenunder under
3 a set of facts most favorable to [the [the parties moving for disqualification,] the parties moving the Attorney General's
4 officewould office notbe wouldnot beconflicted conflictedand anddid didnot notviolate violateany anyethical ethicalrules, rules, because because Rules Rules 1.6 1.6 and and 1.9 1.9
5 permit such disclosure.Without such disclosure. Without aaconflict conflict or violation, no no request to disqualify can request to can be properly
6 granted." granted." Barrett-Anderson, 2018 Guam Guam 28 ,r 27. 28 1127.
7 Accordingly, Accordingly,the theCourt Courtfinds findsthat thatthis this argument argument also does Barrett-Anderson does not meet the Barrett-Anderson
8 test for attorney disqualification. attorney disqualification.
9 CONCLUSION
10 10 Based ,Based on on the foregoing, foregoing, the the Court Court hereby DENIES Deflendant's Motionto Defendant's Motion toRecuse RecuseAAG', AAG
11 11 Sean Brown from from this this matter.
12 12
13 13 IT IS SO so ORDERED 2520212 JUN 25 202/i
14 14 /
15 15 / .v . `
- . \ _ /'1 --) 16 16 f HONORABLE ARTHUR R. HONORABLE-ARTH:iJR R. BARCINAS BARCINAS ,___ 17 17 Superior Court of Guam Judge, Superio/court
18 18
19 19
24 Page77of of77