Fl LE D
CLERK OF co,' .....,,ID\
'
1 SUPERiOR COUR.
2 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM OF GUAM 3 4 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CF0539-24 GPO Report No. 24-15944
5 v.
DECISION AND ORDER
6 JOHN PAUL SAYAMA CHARFAUROS, DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION DOB: 02/01/1997 TO DISQUALIFY 7 SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 8 Defendant. GENERAL CURTIS VAN DE VELD
9
10 INTRODUCTION
11 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on September 5, 2025 for 12 hearing on John Paul Sayama Charfauros's ("Defendant's") Motion to Disqualify Special Assistant 13 Attorney General Curtis Van De Veld ("Motion"). Special Assistant Attorney General ("SAAG") 14 Curtis Van De Veld represents the People, and Attorney Terry Timblin represents Defendant. 15 Having duly considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now 16 issues the following Decision and Order and DENIES the Defendant's Motion.
17 BACKGROUND
18 Defendant is indicted on Charge One: Murder (as a !51 Degree Felony) and Charge Two: 19 Aggravated Assault (as a 2nd Degree Felony), with each charge accompanied by a Special 20 Allegation: Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony. See Indictment 21 (Aug. 8, 2024). The charges stem from an incident on July 4, 2024, in which Defendant is alleged 22 to have recklessly caused the death of T.C. ("Victim") by drowning the Victim in a pool after 23 repeatedly punching the Victim's ribs/face and slamming the Victim's head against a concrete 24 floor. See Magistrate's Complaint (Aug. 1, 2024). 25 Former Assistant Attorney General Sean Brown was originally tasked with prosecuting this 26 case. However, he was removed following his swearing in as Magistrate Judge at the Superior 27 Court of Guam. On February 26, 2025, Curtis Van De Veld informed defense counsel that he
28
Decision & Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Special Assistant Attorney General Curtis Van De Veld CF0539-24, People of Guam v. John Paul Sayama Charfauros 1 would now be representing the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") and prosecuting this case 2 as a SAAG. See Entry of Appearance as a Special Prosecutor (Feb. 26, 2025).
3 On July 7, 2025, Defendant filed his Motion to Disqualify Special Assistant Attorney 4 General Curtis Van De Veld. Defendant seeks SAAG Curtis Van De Veld's disqualification, 5 claiming that SAAG Curtis Van De Veld's employment contract with the OAG creates an improper 6 financial motivation to bring cases to trial. See Motion at 2 (Jul. 7, 2025). Defendant claims this 7 motivation violates Rule l.7(a)(2) of the Guam Rules of Professional Conduct ("GRPC") because 8 SAAG Curtis Van De Veld's representation of the People of Guam will be materially limited by his 9 personal interest in bringing cases to trial. Id. at 2-3. Defendant points to SAAG Curtis Van De 10 Veld's disqualification in S.C. Criminal Case No. CF0723-24-01 (People v. Frank Reyes) as 11 precedent. Id. at 2-4. In that case, the Court determined SAAG Curtis Van De Veld's employment 12 contract jeopardized the defendant's right to a fair trial. See CF0723-24-01 Decision & Order (Jun.
13 23, 2025). Defendant also makes a blanket claim that SAAG Curtis Van De Veld's work as 14 defense counsel in other cases will be materially limited by the confidential relationship he has with
15 the OAG in this case. See Motion at 4 (Jul. 7, 2025).
16 On July 16, 2025, the People filed their Opposition to Defendant's Motion ("Opposition").
17 The People argued that SAAG Curtis Van De Veld's employment contract doesn't violate either 18 Defendant's right to a fair trial or GRPC Rule 1.7(a)(2), because the contract has since been 19 amended to remove the claimed improper financial interest. See Opposition at 2-3 (Jul. 16, 2025). 20 The People also claim there is no evidence the current employment contract violates Defendant's
21 right to a fair trial because SAAG Curtis Van De Veld does not have discretion to approve plea 22 deals. Id. at 5. The People highlight several other key differences between this case and the Frank 23 Reyes case, mainly that no Superseding Indictment was filed in this case following SAAG Curtis
24 Van De Veld's appointment. Id. at 6-7. Lastly, the People argue Defendant lacks standing to assert 25 a general GRPC Rule l.7(a)(2) violation on behalf of SAAG Curtis Van De Veld's unidentified 26 criminal defense clients. Id. at 7-8. 27 On July 23, 2025, Defendant filed his Reply to the People's Opposition ("Reply"). 28 Defendant argues that his fair trial rights were already violated by SAAG Curtis Van De Veld's
Decision & Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Special Assistant Attorney General Curtis Van De Veld CF0539-24, People of Guam v. John Paul Say am a Charfauros 1 involvement with the case before the employment contract was amended. See Reply at 1 (Jul. 23,
2 2025).
3 The Court held a hearing on September 5, 2025. After hearing the arguments of the parties,
4 the Court took the matter under advisement.
5 DISCUSSION
6 I. Preliminary rules:
7 a. Attorney disqualification standards:
8 The standard for attorney disqualification in Guam is "whether an attorney's continued
9 epresentation of a party or participation in an action violates or significantly risks violating the
10 Guam Rules of Professional Conduct". See Barrett-Anderson v. Camacho, 2018 Guam 201 20
11 (emphasis added). The "significantly risks" portion of this test "does not allow disqualification for
12 otential conflict, but for inevitable and material conflicts" because disqualification is a "drastic
13 course of action that should not be taken out of hypersensitivity." Id. at ,r,r 14, 17 (internal citations
14 omitted). This rules-based approach is strictly applied, and even the "appearance of impropriety ...
15 ill not stand alone to disqualify an attorney in the absence of any indication that the attorney's 16 epresentation risks violating the Rules of Professional Conduct." Id. at 1 17 (internal citations
17 omitted).
18 The moving party bears "the burden of proving facts that establish[] the necessary factual
19 rerequisite for disqualification." See Bottoms v. Stapleton, 706 N.W.2d 411, 418 (Iowa 2015).
20 nder this burden, Defendant must produce "substantial evidence" showing that SAAG Curtis Van
21 e Veld's prosecution of this case has violated or will inevitably violate the GRPC. Id. at 418.
22 b. Conflicts of interest between current clients:
23 Defendant points to GRPC Rule l.7(a)(2) as the inevitable and material violation he believes
24 SAAG Curtis Van De Veld's litigation of this case will bring. See Motion at 3-4 (Jul. 7, 2025).
25 ule 1.7 is as follows:
26 (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of 27 interest exists if: 28
Decision & Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Special Assistant Attorney General Curtis Van De Veld CF0539-24, People of Guam v. John Paul Sayama Charfauros 1 (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to 2 another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
3
4 (b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:
5 (1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide 6 competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
7 (2) the representation is not prohibited by law;
8 (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client 9 against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other IO proceeding before a tribunal; and
11 (4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
12 See GRPC Rule 1.7 (emphasis added). 13 To determine whether a lawyer's representation significantly risks material limitation of his 14 esponsibilities to a client, "the critical questions are the likelihood that a difference in interests will 15 eventuate and, if it does, whether it will materially interfere with the lawyer's independent 16 rofessional judgment in considering alternatives or foreclose courses of action that reasonably 17 should be pursued on behalf of the client." See Bottoms v. Stapleton at 416 (Iowa 2005).
18 II. Application:
19 a. SAAG Curtis Van De Veld's employment contract with the OAG does not risk 20 violating Defendant's right to a fair trial or materially limiting SAAG Curtis 21 Van De Veld's representation of the People of Guam because the fee 22 arrangement in question has since been replaced in its entirety. Furthermore, 23 there is nothing to suggest this fee arrangement actually interfered with 24 Defendant's right to a fair trial prior to its removal.
25 The first GRPC Rule l.7(a)(2) violation Defendant asserts is that SAAG Curtis Van De 26 eld' s representation of the People of Guam is materially limited by his personal interest in bringing 27 cases to trial. See Motion at 2-3 (Jul. 7, 2025). Defendant claims this also viol.ates his right to a fair 28 rial. Id. at 3-4.
Decision & Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Special Assistant Attorney General Curtis Van De Veld CF0539-24, People of Guam v. John Paul Sayama Charfauros 1 In an effort to meet his substantial burden, Defendant points to Section 3.1 of SAAG Curtis
2 an De Veld's employment contract with the OAG, which reads as follows:
3 The OAG agrees to compensate LEGAL CONSULTANT at a rate of three thousand and 00/100 dollars ($3,000.00) per month per assigned case for providing the 4 services set forth in Section 1. The OAG agrees to compensate LEGAL CONSULTANT twelve thousand and 00/1000 dollars ($12,000.00) in any month in 5 which LEGAL CONSULTANT is trying a case, regardless of what other cases may 6 be assigned to LEGAL CONSULTANT.
7
8 It's true if left unmodified, this fee arrangement would create a significant risk of violating 9 efendant's right to fair trial and GRPC Rule l.7(a)(2) because it creates an incentive for SAAG 10 Curtis Van De Veld to bring as many cases to trial as possible in order to maximize his salary. See 11 12 CF0723-24-01 Decision & Order (Jun. 23, 2025).
13 However, the fee arrangement in SAAG Curtis Van De Veld's employment contract has
14 since been replaced in its entirety, and Section 3.1 of the employment contract now reads as follows: 15 The OAG agrees to compensate LEGAL CONSULTANT at a rate of $12,000 per 16 month for services rendered. The services to be rendered by LEGAL CONSULTANT are more completely described in Section 3 .1 of the Agreement. LEGAL 17 CONSULTANT is responsible for all resulting taxes, insurance costs; and other fees associated with the practice of law. The Attorney General or his designee may 18 propose assignment of any case to Attorney and Attorney agrees to accept assignment 19 to cases or other duties as may be assigned to Attorney by Appointing Authority or his designee, for which Attorney does not believe an ethical conflict exists, or 20 otherwise causes an ethics compliance issue.
21 See Opposition at Exhibit 1 (Jul. 16, 2025). 22 There is no longer any risk of improper financial incentive for SAAG Curtis Van De Veld to 23 ring cases to trial because his salary no longer varies depending on whether he is in trial or not. Id.
24 25 With this financial incentive eliminated, there is no future risk of influencing SAAG Curtis Van De
26 Veld's independent professional judgment in considering which courses of action to pursue on
27 ehalf of the People of Guam. 28
Decision & Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Special Assistant Attorney General Curtis Van De Veld CF0539-24, People of Guam v. John Paul Sayama Charfauros 1 Additionally, Defendant has not met his substantial burden in showing how the employment
2 contract previously violated GRPC Rule l.7(a)(2) before its modification. While Section 1. 1 of the 3 employment contract vested SAAG Curtis Van De Veld authority to "meet[] with such persons as 4 ay be necessary and appropriate regarding plea agreements, evaluate[] the merits of any particular 5 lea agreement and consult[] with managing attorneys as may be appropriate concerning plea 6 7 agreements", it does not give him the authority to actually enter into or approve plea agreements. Id.
8 n fact, the employment contract clearly shows these actions fall outside of SAAG Curtis Van De 9 eld's authority and instead rest with his managing attorneys. Furthermore, unlike People v. Frank 10 Reyes, there was no Superseding Indictment filed in this case following SAAG Curtis Van De 11 eld's appointment. It cannot be theorized that SAAG Curtis Van De Veld influenced the charging 12 13 decisions in an effort to secure a trial because Defendant is charged with the exact same crimes he
14 faced before SAAG Curtis Van De Veld's appointment.
15 There is no reason to disqualify SAAG Curtis Van De Veld based on a violation of 16 efendant's right to a fair trial because Defendant has failed to offer any evidence suggesting the 17 employment contract actually incentivized SAAG Curtis Van De Veld to bring this case to trial, and 18 emoval of the offending provision will cure any future concerns Defendant has raised.
19
20 b. SAAG Curtis Van De Veld's representation of the OAG does not create a
21 concurrent conflict of interest with his private criminal defense clients because
22 it does not, nor will it inevitably, materially limit their representation.
23 The next GRPC Rule l.7(a)(2) violation Defendant asserts is that SAAG Curtis Van De
24 Veld's work as defense counsel in other cases is materially limited by the confidential relationship
25 e has with the OAG in this case. See Motion at 4 (Jul. 7, 2025).
26 In an effort to meet his substantial burden, Defendant points to the preamble of SAAG Curtis
27 an De Veld's employment contract with the OAG, which reads as follows:
28
Decision & Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Special Assistant Attorney General Curtis Van De Veld CF0539-24, People of Guam v. John Paul Sayama Charfauros 1 Whereas, the services required may only be provided by a Legal Consultant because that person is not only licensed to practice law under the laws of Guam, but because 2 that person also enjoys a confidential relationship with the Attorney General. 3
4 However, Defendant has failed to produce any evidence, let alone substantial evidence 5 equired to back this claim up. Defendant does not suggest any way this confidential relationship 6 ould interfere with SAAG Curtis Van De Veld' s unnamed and unidentified criminal defense 7 clients. Irrespective of standing, and ignoring whether Defendant is even authorized to bring this 8 claim on behalf of SAAG Curtis Van De Veld's clients, Defendant's brief shows a marked absence 9 of any specific conflict. Instead of proving that SAAG Curtis Van De Veld's prosecution of this 10 case will inevitably and materially interfere with his criminal defense work, Defendant has simply 11 alleged the possibility of conflict. This obviously does not meet the high standard required to 12 disqualify opposing counsel.
13 CONCLUSION
14 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion. SAAG Curits Van 15 De Veld may continue prosecuting this case because Defendant has failed to prove any conflict of 16 interest concerning: (i) how the structure of SAAG Curtis Van De Veld ' s salary would materially 17 interfere with his representation of the People of Guam or Defendant's right to a fair trial, or (ii)
18 how SAAG Curtis Van De Veld's prosecution of this case would materially interfere with his 19 unrelated criminal defense work. With the absence of any inevitable or material GRPC violation, 20 there is no basis to remove and disqualify SAAG Curtis Van De Veld.
21
22 NOV 2 1 2025
23 24 S ~::l',.'K E VU\ 12~1All I ac:\00:.. -: ~ge !h.; t c, c·~ctronic 25 cop, of tne or:g,na: was e-rnu :ed to·
26 Oft◊~~0,ndwlfd HONORABLE ALBERTO C. LAMORENA, III 27 Date: \ · ' T Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam Rei dlau 28
Decision & Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Special Assistant Attorney General Curtis Van De Veld CF0539-24, People ofGuam v. John Paul Say am a Charfauros