People v. Camacho

Opinion

,.,. . ft 1

s i A: gt ,E rr1!,r 1 1 " E E= *»..".:....n,.l Qt §.

20 7r:. 2825 FFR ".lC: otJ - - (.._; 1s lDl ii,:l sI §: 53 I: 53 -if' 53° ""?"? 1 2

go: L-,HJ ».§ .. 2Ss; ; §: I; M: :

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM

OF GUAM THE PEOPLE OF GUAM

Plaintiff; Plaintiff, CRIMINAL CRIMINALCASE CASENO.:NO.:CF0019-24 CF0019-24 GPD Report No.: No.:24-00338 24-00338 vs.

STEFAN KEANU KEANU CAMACHO CAMACHO DECISION AND ORDER RE PEOPLE'S DOB: DOB:10/17/1997 10/17/1997 MOTION FOR RELIEF

Defendant.

INTRODUCTION

This matter matter came came before the Honorable John C. Terlaje on John C. on February February 24, 2025, 2025, for an an

Evidentiary Hearing. Hearing. Attorney AttorneyStephen Stephen Hattori Hattori appeared appeared for for Defendant Defendant Stefan Stefan Keanu Keanu Camacho Camacho

("Defendant Camacho") Camacho") and and Assistant Assistant Attorney General General John John David Griffin Griffin appeared appeared for the

People People of of Guam ("People"). ("People"). The TheCourt Courtnow nowissues issues the following following order GRANTING the People's People's

Motion Motion to Allow Allowthe the Testimony Testimony of ofFormer Former Medical Medical Examiner Examiner Dr. Jeffery Nine, M.D., via via Audios Audio:-

Video Telecommunication.

BACKGROUND

Defendant Camacho has Defendant Camacho hasbeen been charged chargedin in the the Indictment Indictmentwith with Complicity Complicity to Commit Commit

Aggravated Murder (As 1st Degree (As aa 1st Degree Felony) Felony) and Complicity to Commit First Degree Robbery

(As (As aa First-Degree First-Degree Felony), Felony),both both with with Special Allegations Allegations of ofaa Vulnerable Victim, Victim, as as well as Theft Theft of of Prope1"ty (As aa Misdemeanor) Property (As Misdemeanor) and andDestruction Destructionof ofEvidence Evidence(As (As a Misdemeanor). Misdemeanor). Dr. Dr. Jeffrey

Nine Nine ("Dr. ("Dr.Nine") Nine")isisthe theFormer FormerMedical MedicalExaminer ExaminerofofGuam, Guam,who whoperformed performedan anautopsy autopsy on on the

deceased alleged victim victim of ofthe thecrimes crimescharged charged in in the the Indictment Indictment in in this this matter, matter, as well as several

other matters matters currently currently pending pending at atthe theSuperior Superior Court Courtof of Guam. Guam. Dr. Dr. Nine Nine has since relocated to

Columbus, Columbus, Ohio, and the People and the People have stated thattestimony stated that testimony from from Dr. Dr. Nine is is required required to present

essential ofthe essential proof of the charges charges in in the indictment. indictment.

On January 27,2025, January 27, 2025,the thePeople Peoplefiled filedaaMotion Motion for for Relief, requesting requesting that Dr. Nine that Dr. Nine be

allowed to Testify allowed to Testify either either via via Audio-Video Audio-Video Telecommunication Telecommunication or by Deposition Deposition in Ohio. Ohio.

According to the People's People's Motion, Motion, Dr. Dr. Nine Nineisis unable unable to travel to to Guam Guam to testify testify because because he is aa

caretaker for his wife wifeand and child, child, who whohave haveserious serioushealth healthissues. issues. On On February February 10, 10, 2025, 2025, Counsel

for Defendant Camacho Camachofiled filed an anOpposition Oppositiontotothe thePeople's People'sMotion Motion for for Relief, agreeing that Relief, agreeing that Dr.

Nine's Nine'stestimony testimonywas wasnecessary, necessary, but but expressing concerns that that"the "the failure to produce produce Dr. Dr. Nine Nine in

person would lead person would lead to to aa violation violation of of[the] [the]Sixth SixthAmendment Amendment right right totoconfront witnesses."77 confrontwitnesses.

Opposition to People's Opposition to People's Motion to Allow Allow Testimony Testimony of ofFormer Former Medical Medical Examiner Examiner Dr. Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey

Nine, M.D., M.D., via viaAudio-Video Audio-VideoTelecommunication Telecommunication(February (February10, 10,2025). 2025). Defendant Defendant also also argued argued

that that videoconferencing could distort nonverbal nonverbal cues, facial reactions, cues, facial reactions, etc. and and videoconference

technology cannot cannot replace eye eye contact contact among among the the witness, witness, defendant defendant and jurors. Id. and jurors. Id. The Court Court

addresses thesethe addresses these thepoints pointsraised raisedby byboth bothparties partiesbelow. below.

I. Preliminary Law Law

The Sixth Sixth Amendment Amendment of ofthe the Constitution Constitution guarantees that"[i]n guarantees that "[i]n all criminal criminal prosecutions, prosecutions,

the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be conlionted accused shall confronted with with the the witnesses witnesses against him." Generally, against him."

"confrontation" "confrontation"has has been been read as as "face-to-face "face-to-face meeting meeting with withwitnesses witnesses appearing appearing before the trier

of fact." Coy Coy v. v. Iowa, 487 487 77 U.S. 1012, 1012, 1016 (1988) (citing 1016 (1988) (citing Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 748 (1987)). (1987)). The last time this issue was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court was in 1990, in

v. Craig. Maryland v. Craig. According According to the Supreme Court, "though we reaffirm the importance of face-

to-face confrontation with witnesses appearing at trial, trial, we cannot say that such confrontation is

an indispensable element of the Sixth indispensable element Six.th Amendment's Amendment's guarantee guarantee of the right to to confront confront one's one's

836, accusers."ll 497 U.S. 836, 845 (1990). (1990). The Court goes on to say that this "does not, of of course, mean

that it may easily be dispensed with."77 Id. If If applied literally, the Sixth Amendment would exclude

any statement made by a declarant deelarant not not present present at at trial. trial. However, doing so so would would nullify nullify virtually virtually

every hearsay exception, exception, so Courts have long rejected this blanket view of of the the Confrontation Confrontation

Clause as "too extreme". See Ohio v. v. Roberts, Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 63 63 (1980). (1980). In Maryland v. Craig, the

Supreme Court admitted admitted testimony testimony via via a one-way closed circuit circuit television television procedure. procedure. 497 U.S.

836 at 852. 852. In In making making their their ruling, ruling, the the Supreme Supreme Court Court recognized that "a defendant's right to

confront accusatory accusatory witnesses may be satisfied satisfied absent absent aa physical, physical, face-to-face face-to-face confrontation confrontation at

trial only where denial of of such such confrontation confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy

and only where the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured." assured." Id. at 850.

11. II. Evidentiary Evidentiary Hearing Hearingrequirement requirementhas has been been met

In United United States v. Yates, States v. Yates, the Eleventh Circuit Court of of Appeal followed the Supreme Supreme

Court's example in Maryland v. v. Craig and put forth forth the following test for when face to face face

conNotation confrontationmay maybe bedispensable: dispensable:"The "Thecourt courtgenerally generallymust: must: (1) (1) hold hold an an evidentiary hearing and

find (a) that the denial of of physical, face-to-face face-to-face confrontation at trial trial is necessary to further an

important public policy and (b) that the the reliability reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured." United United

States v. v. Yates, Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1315 (2006). To 1315 (2006). To allow allow for for any any testimony that is not done face-to-

face, face, the trial court must find find that it is "essential to deny the the defendant defendant his right right to to face-to-face face-to-face

physical physical confrontation confrontation in in order order to serve the interest the government asserts." Id. Id. Since Maryland v. Craig Craigand and United United States States v. v. Yates, Yates, other courts have have applied applied this this two- two-

part analysis analysis to to two-way, remote remote video video testimony testimony such such as as the the one one requested requested here. here. See See United United

States v. Carter, 907 th Cir. 2018) ["We now make clear that a defendant's States v. 907 F.3d 1199, 1206(9 1199, 1206 (9thCir. 2018) ["We make a

right to physically physically confront confront an an adverse adverse witness (whether child child or or adult) adult) cannot cannot be compromised

by permitting the witness permitting the witness to to testify testify by video (whether (whether one-way one-way or or two-way) two-way) unless unless Craig's Craig's

standard standard isis satisfied."]. satisfied."]. This two-part two-part test is is applied applied on on aa case-by-case case-by-case basis. basis. See See People v. v.

Coulthard, Coulthard, 90 Cal. App. 5th 5th 743, 743, 774, 307 Cal. 774, 307 Cal. Rptr. Rptr. 3d ad 383, 411 (2023). 383, 411 (2023). The Court held the

required evidentiary hearing hearing on on February February 24, 24, 2025, 2025, and gave each each party an an opportunity to state

its case for why the the testimony should should or should not be be allowed allowed according to the analysis inYates. Yates.

The Court also emphasized in the the order orderfor for the theEvidentiary Evidentiary Hearing that the the People People are responsible responsible

for proving proving 1) 1) whether whether the procedure procedure of of taking taking Dr. Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine's Nine's testimony testimony remotely remotely is is necessary

to further further an important important state stateinterest, interest,and andifif so, so, (2) (2) whether testimony obtained through through aa live, live,

two-way, two-way, audio-video audio-video telecommunication telecommunication is is otherwise otherwise assured Id. assured reliable. Id.

111. III. The People have shown that taking taldng Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine's Nine'stestimony testimony remotely remotely is

necessary tofurther necessary to further an an important important state state interest

Regarding the necessity necessity prong prong of of the Craig analysis, the People People have have met met their their burden burden as as

the Court agrees that thattaking takingDr. Dr.Nine's Nine's testimony testimony remotely remotelyisisnecessary necessary to to further further important important state

interests. requiredto interests. Though not required tofollow follow California California precedent, precedent, this Court finds finds the theDecision Decision of the

California Court of Appeal for the California Court the Sixth Sixth District District in People v. Coulthard to be particularly

informative, particularly particularly because because itit is so recent. In In this this case, case, the court considered the Covid-19 considered the Covid-19

Pandemic as a public public policy policy factor, factor, but but noted noted in in its its analysis analysis and decision that the the prosecutor prosecutor"also "also

asserted, among other asserted, among otherthings, things,that that[the [thewitness] witness] was was the theprimary primary caretaker caretakerof oftwo two of her children

(both of (both ofwhom whom were were too too young youngto tobe vaccinated against bevaccinated against COVID-19) COVID-19)and anddid didnot nothave have the the means means to arrange arrange for alternate childcare." Id. alternate childcare." Id. In this case, the health case, the health and and well-being well-being of of the witness'

children, as as well as as the lack of ofcaretaker caretaker for for them, them, was was aa factor factor in in the the court court determining determining that that the

witness could testify remotely Horn England. The from England. The court court also also noted notedthat that"[the "[thewitness'] witness'] testimony

could not be supplanted supplantedwith withtestimony testimonyfrom firm some other person." person." Id. Id.

Similar to the witness in Coulthard, Coulthard, Dr. Nine Nine is is the the only only possible possible witness witness regarding regarding the

autopsy. His autopsy. His testimony testimony is critical to the is critical the People's People's case case because because he he personally personally performed performed the the

autopsy on Victim, autopsy and as he Victim, and he testified testified at the the Evidentiary Evidentiary Hearing, no one else was present for the

autopsy anditit was autopsy and was not not videotaped. videotaped. Therefore, Therefore, considering considering the the rules rules of of hearsay, Dr. Nine hearsay, Dr. Nine is the

only only possible possible witness witness regarding regarding the the autopsy. autopsy.

Also similar similar to the the witness witness in Coulthard, Dr. Nine's Nine's reasons reasons for resisting resisting testifying in

Guam relate relate to to the health health of of his family and and concerns for them not having a caretaker. Dr. Nine caretaker. Dr. Nine

gave sworn statements abouthow statements about how his his wife wife and and son son are are both both undergoing undergoing significant significant medical medical

treatments multipletimes treatments multiple timesper perweek weekin inOhio. Ohio. See Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine Nine (Jan. (Jan. 27, 2025).

According According to Dr. Dr. Nine, Nine, his hiswife wifeand andson sonboth bothrequire requirehis hisphysical physicalpresence presenceand and continual continual

assistance in their assistance in their medical medical battles. battles. Id. Id. This physical presence presence and and assistance would be assistance would be halted for

at least several days least several daysif if Dr. Dr. Nine were forced to physically physically testify testify in in Guam. Dr. Nine testified Guam. Dr.

during the Evidentiary Hearing that he and andhis hiswife wife do do not have family that are are physically physically able to

his wife care for his wifeor orchild, child,and and the the amount amount of care required ofcare required would would preclude preclude any any friends friends in in the the area area

from being able to help. Guam is is over over 7,500 7,500miles miles from from Ohio, resulting resulting in in significant travel travel time

between the two locations. Because between Because his his presence is indefinitely needed in Ohio, Dr. Nine indefinitely needed Nine cannot cannot

testifyin physically testify in Guam Guam without endangering endangering the health health of of several several family members. members. The Court

believes that that ensuring the safety ensuring the safety of of Dr. Nine's Nine's wife wifeand andchild childqualifies qualifiesas asan an important important public public policy, policy, particularly given the particularly given the large large distance distance between between Guam Guam and and Ohio and and the the unique umque

circumstances requiring requiring his physical presence. presence.

The Court Court also also recognizes recognizes the the many many challenges that that would arise arise for both parties parties if if the

Court were to deny deny this this request. request. The only only proposed proposed alternative alternative from the People People or or Defendant Defendant

would would involve involveflying flyingthe theDefendant, Defendant,his hiscounsel, counsel,and andany anyother othernecessary necessary parties parties to Ohio to attend attend

a deposition of Dr. Nine Nine there. there. This This would would erase erase the the opportunity opportunity for the jury to to scrutinize scrutinize the

during his witness during his testimony, testimony, and andwould would arguably arguablyprovide provide aa less less fair fair trial trial for for the the Defendant. Defendant.

Allowing Dr. Allowing Dr.Nine Nineto totestify testifyremotely remotelywould wouldalso alsoavoid avoidthe thesignificant significanttime timeand and financial costs of of

a deposition in in Ohio. Ohio. Furthermore, Furthermore, any evidence evidence or or hearsay hearsay objections objections that that may arise arise during during a

deposition deposition would would not not be be reviewable reviewableby bythe theCourt Courtin inthe themoment momentthey theyare are made made in in the circumstance

of of aa deposition. deposition. Live, Live, remote remote testimony testimony would allow for for the the Court Court to to rule rule instantly instantly on on any any

objections, just as it would if the the witness were in in person.

Furthermore, Furthermore, 88G.C.A. G.C.A. §§ 80.50 statesthat 80.50 states that"the "thewelfare welfareof of the the people people of of the the territory territory of of

Guam requires that all all proceedings proceedings in in criminal criminal cases cases shall shall be be set set for for trial trialand and heard and determined

at the earliest possible time," and and makes it the duty duty of courts, courts, judicial officers, officers, and and prosecuting prosecuting

attorneys to "expedite "expedite such such proceedings proceedings to to the the greatest greatest degree degree that ends of that is consistent with the ends of

justice." The TheCourt Courtbelieves believesthat thatwo-way, two-way, remote remote video testimony testimonywill willallow allow for the Defendant's

trial trial to take take place place at at the the earliest earliest possible possible time, time, without without the the significant significant delays that that would be

associated with with a deposition deposition taking taking place place in in Ohio. Ohio.Furthermore, Furthermore,the theCourt Courtbelieves believestwo~way, two-way, remote

video testimony is the testimony is the best way for forthe the Court Court to to expedite expediteproceedings, proceedings,and and believes believesthat that such such a format can can

and and will be be consistent consistent with the ends ends of justice. This This point point isisfurther further argued argued below below in in the the discussion discussion on

reliability of testimony. testimony.Therefore, Therefore, itit is the Court's Court's opinion opinion that that this testimony must necessarily be

taken remotely to to further further important important state state interests interests as as enumerated above. above. Iv. IV. The People The People have shown shown that testimony obtained that testimony obtained through through a live, two-way,

audio-video telecommunication is otherwise assured reliable

The Court also believes that the People have met their burden of ensuring that testimony

received via live, two-way, audio-video telecommunication is reliable. This procedure preserves reliable. This

most, if if not all elements elements critical critical to the confrontation clause, which have a combined effect of confrontation clause, of

ensuring reliability of the the evidence. evidence. For example, any such telecommunication testimony will be

taken under an oath of of truth, Dr. Nine truth, and Dr. Nine has has expressed his understanding understanding and willingness to

take this this oath. Declaration of Dr. oath. See Declaration Dr. Nine Nine (Jan. (Jan. 27, 27, 2025). Any telecommunication 2025). Any telecommunication testimony

will also be subject to contemporaneous contemporaneous cross-examination, and Defendant will will be given just as

muchh H freedom e d o m too cross-examine s s - e x a m i n e Dr. D r . Nine N i ne as a s if he wwere e r tto o t testify est physically phy s y iin n GGuam. u

Furthermore, the Furthermore, the judge, judge, jury, jury, and and Defendant Defendant will will all all be be able able to to view the demeanor and body

of Dr. language of Dr. Nine Nine as he testifies testifies on on aa screen screen in in the the courtroom. courtroom. Although Dr. Dr. Nine Nine won't won't be

physically present, physically present, jurors jurors will will retain retain the the ability ability to to look look Dr. Jeffrey Nine in his eyes as he testifies,

judge judge his his demeanor demeanor on on the the stand and the manner in which he testifies, ultimately determine testifies, and ultimately

whether his testimony is worthy of of belief.

Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, Courts around the the nation nation have have become more

favorable to favorable of remote to the idea of remote court court attendance. attendance. This Court Court sees parties parties and and counsel counsel attend attend

hearings hearings via audio-video audio-video telecommunication telecommunication on on aa day-to-day day-to-day basis, basis, and and is well equipped equipped to

facilitate this form of testimony. Therefore, the Court believes that the People have shown that

testimony obtained through through aa live, live, two-way audio-video telecommunication has been otherwise

assured reliable form of testimony assured to be a reliable testimony in this case, and constitutes the best best scenario scenario for for meeting meeting

the needs and rights of all parties. v. V. People's People's Motion to Continue Continue Trial to to Secure Secure the the Testimony Testimony of Former Former

Medical Medical Examiner Examiner Dr. Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine, Nine, MD MDby byDeposition Deposition is is denied

Though counsel counsel for Defendant maintained an anobjection objection to to testimony testimony by by audio-video

telecommunication based on constitutionality concerns, concerns, he he did did agree agree with the People during the

Evidentiary Hearing that that the deposition option would be even even less likely likely to to guarantee guarantee the

Defendant's Defendant's constitutional constitutional rights. As As aa result of ofgranting granting the the above motion, the Court DENIES

the alternative Motion, Motion, noting noting that that this method is not preferred by the Court, Court, People, or the

CONCLUSION

The Court Court recognizes recogmzes the the delicate delicate nature nature of this this case case in m balancing balancing the the Defendant's Defendant's

constitutional rights with the constitutional rights the necessity necessity of remote testimony testimony given giventhe the circumstances circumstances in in this this case. case.

However, However, for the reasons listedabove, reasons listed above,the theCourt CourtGRANTS GRANTS the the People's People's Motion Motion to to Allow Allow the the

Testimony of Former Testimony Former Medical Medical Examiner Examiner Dr. Dr. Jeffery Jeffery Nine, Nine, M.D., via Audio-Video Audio-Video

Telecommunication. Dr. Nine is Telecommunication. is permitted permitted to testify testify remotely remotely via via live, live, two-way, two-way, audio-video audio-video

telecommunication telecommunication because this remote testimony is is necessary necessary to further further important important state state interests,

and thismethod and this methodof of testifying testifying is otherwise assured reliable. assured reliable.

'L,\.\ so ORDERED, this L E " .- SO ORDERED, this -i,5 day of MQ 2025.

slznvlce Sl"VICI! vIA VIA e-mAII. l!-MAIL Ru .

I 1 anqqwleqge air•~w•e~ge real thatanan_electfomc Cony CoPw of of the the 0rlg.n8» _,iect,onit wasemailed o,.g,"a1 wa'!. e mailed to to HONORABLE/JOHN . TERLAJE £67 //GI I J'PY WK Judge, Superio1\Cou bf Guam

~Jr/4r Date ;/zrér fume 2 Jfta,,__ frrne. 'J-:

»é"AA»/7 64% ~1 jf/jvt C.Mo Deputy clerk Super Deputy clerk. of Court Supe,.o, (our1 of of Guam Guam