gr"
gr S
;
v
ii:-1
- ; ='°$'
is swf FEW' 1'?"§§§. >:v-* § bL8§=% 1..,.»'§ % " g £ g 5 2 1
1 Elm DCT ET pi 5; 2%
2 $L1P5.Ri0;"; QGURT I
lm*
x
GF JRNl \s,.»= 'nm
3
4
5
6 OF GUAM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF IN THE GUAM 7 OF GUAM,
PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CaseNo.
Court Case
Superior Could No. CF0097-23 8 ))
))
9 vs. )) 10 10 )
)) DECISION AND ORDER 11 11 BEN CASTRO CRISOSTOMO, ) RE. LIMITED REMAND ORDER
12 DOB: 10/31/1983 DOB:10/31/1983 ))
)
13 13 Defendant. Defendant. ))
)
14 14 INTRODUCTION
15 15
16 16 Judge Maria T. Cenzon This matter is before the Honorable Judge upon the Supreme Cenzon upon Court of Supreme Court of
17 17 Guam's Limited Limited Remand
Remand Order (the "Remand Order") of "Remand Order") July18, ofJuly 2024, ordering 18, 2024, this Court to ordering this
18 18 consider Defendant's claim as consider Defendant's set forth as set stay and forth in its motion for stay remand filed and limited remand tiled in the 19 19 Supreme Court(hereinafter Supreme Court (hereinafterthe "Appellate Motion")
the"Appellate failed to disclose exculpatory that the People failed
Motion") that
20 20 material. Representing Defendant material. Representing Ben Castro DefendantBen (hereinafter "Defendant"
Crisostomo (hereinafter
Castro Crisostomo or "Defendant" or
21
22 "Defendant Crisostomo") in in this
this matter Assistant Alternate matter is Assistant Defender Peter Public Defender
Altenate Public J. Santos.
Peter J.
23 23 Representing the People of of Guam Assistant Attorney matter is Assistant
instant matter
People") in the instant
Guam ("the People")
24 24 General General Valerie A.
A. Nuesa.
Nuesa. The
TheRemand further mandated Orderfurther
RemandOrder issue a written mandated this Court to issue 25 decision and order resolving and order resolving the matter within the matter ninety (90)
within ninety date of the days from the date
(90) days Remand the Remand
26
27 Order, inclusive of ofany
any briefing Ltd Remand and hearing. Ltd
briefing and at 7.
Remand Order at
28
v. Crisostomo.,
People v. Crisostomo., CF0097-23 Decision and Order Re. Limited Decision and Remand Order Limited Remand
Page 1 of12
On On August 2,
2, 2024,
2024, the
the Court
Court issued a Briefing
Briefing Schedule
Schedule requiring
requiring the
the parties
parties to
to submit
submi
1
2 2 briefs identifying identifying the
the particular exculpatory exculpatory evidence
evidence which
which is
is the
thesubject
subj et of
of the
the Appellate
Appellate Motio
Motion
3 and and articulating their respective articulating their respective arguments.
arguments.After
After reviewing
reviewing Defendant's
Defendant's Opening
Opening Brief, the
th
4 4 People's People's Responsive
Responsive Brief,
Brief,and
andthe
theapplicable statutes and applicablestatutes and case case law,
law, the
the Court
Court now
now issues
issues this
thi
5 Decision and Decision and Order.
6 PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
7
8 A. The The Defendant's
Defendant's Charges and
and Procedural
Procedural History.
History.
9 On February 16, 2023, On February 2023, a grandjury jury indicted
indicted Defendant
Defendantof
of the
thefollowing offenses: the following offenses: the First Firs
10 Charge of Aggravated
Aggravated Assault (As
(As aa Third Degree Felony), the Second Charge Chargeof
of Terrorizing
Terrorizing (A
(As
111
a Third Degree Felony),
Felony), the
the Third
Third Charge
Charge of
of Child
Child Abuse
Abuse (As
(AsaaMisdemeanor),
Misdemeanor),and
andthe
the Fourth
Fourt
12 12
13 13 Charge of Family Violence (As Charge of (As aa Misdemeanor).
Misdemeanor). See
See Indictment (Feb.
(Feb. 16,
16, 2023).
14 14 jury of A jury twelveand
oftwelve andfour
fouralternates
alternates was
was selected
selected and JuryTrial
and Jury Trial was held
held on
on April
April 5, 6, 7,
I
15 15 18, 18, 19, 21, and 24, 2024, and 24, 2024,respectively.
respectively. As indicated in in the Remand
Remand Order,
Order, two
two days prior
prior to
to trial,
16 16 on April
April 3,
3, 2023,
2023, defense
defense counsel
counsel filed an
an ex parte motion to compel compel discovery
discovery relating
relating to an
17 17 incident reported
reportedto
topolice
police "involving
"involving the
thenamed victim and
named victim and [P.C.],
[P.C.],who
whoisisthe
the father
father of
ofthe victim'
victim' s
18 18
19 19 children, the victim children, wherein the victim made nearly nearly identical allegations against against [P.C.]
[P.C.] that
that she
she has
has made
mad
20 20 against the the Defendant
Defendant Ben
Ben Crisostomo
Crisostomo in this
this case.
case. Defendant
Defendantrespectfully
respectfully requests
requestsfor
for any
anypolic
police
21 » , .
reports where reports where [J.W.]
[J.W.] was a named
named victim
vlctlm where
where [P.C.]" Order
Order at
at 2. Prlor
Prior to
to the
the start ofJury
start of ju
22 22 selection selection on
on April
April5,
5,2024,
2024, the
the Court
Court was
was prepared
prepared to address the defendant's address the defendant's motion to to compel
23 23 24 discovery discovery of
ofthe
the subject
subject police
policereport,
report; however,
however,trial
trialcounsel
counselindicated
indicatedthat
that the
the discovery
discovery request
reques
24
25 25 had had been satisfied.See
been satisfied. SeeOrder
Orderatat2-3
2-3(citing
(citingTranscript
Transcript(Tr.)
(Tr.) at
at 5-6
5-6 **Jury Trial, Apr.
Jury Trial, Apr. 3,
3, 2023)).
2023)).
26 26 Also Also as
as indicated
indicated in
in the Order, during
during cross-examination
cross-examination of
of the
the victim
victim on April
April 18,
18, 2023
2023
27 . .
fifteen days fifteen days after
after the
the Court
Court addressed
addressed the motion
motion to
to compel,
compel,defendant's
defendant'str1a1
trial counsel
counsel referred to
28
People v. Crisostomo.,CF0097-23 Decision Decision and
and Order
Order Re. Limited
LimitedRemand
Remand Order
Order
Page 2 of
of12
J.W.'s J.W.'s similar similar allegations
allegations against
against P.C.
P.C. during
during her did not cross-examination; however, did her cross-examination, impeac not impeach
1
2 2 her using using the
the police
police report which
which had already
already been
beenprovided
provided to counsel two weeks prior. Order to trial counsel
3 at 3-4. 4 Jury deliberations began Jury deliberations began on onApril
April 24, 2023.
2023. The
The jury
jury returned guilty verdict returned aaguilty on all charges verdict on
5 on April April 25,
25, 2023.
2023. See Min. Entry (Apr. 25, See Min. 25, 2023), 2023); see (Jan. 30, Judgment of Conviction (Jan.
see also Judgment
6 6
7 2024). On May 5, 2023, 2023,the
theDefendant
Defendantfiled
filed its Motion for Judgment itsMotion ofAcquittal Judgmentof on Insufficienc Acquittal on Insufficiency 7
8 8 of the the Evidence,
Evidence, or
or ininthe
theAlternative, Declaration ofofMistrial Alternative,Declaration BasedUpon MistrialBased Prosecutoria UponProsecutorial
9 9 Misconduct on May May 5, 2023.
2023. The
The People filed its Opposition to Defendant's motion on May 8, its Opposition
10 2023.
2023. The Court Court heard arguments from heard oral arguments the parties from the and took parties and the matter took the under advisement on matter under
l11l August 15, 15, 2023, and
and issued
issuedits
itsDecision
Decision and denying Defendant's Orderdenying
andOrder motion on November Defendant's motion November 13, 12 12
13 13 2023. 2023. See Decision and See Decision Order Re.
and Order DenyingDefendant's Re.Denying Motionof Defendant 'sMotion Acquittal After ofAequittal Verdict After Guilty Verdicts
14 14 and Alternative Alternative Motion
Motion for
for a Mistrial
Mistrial(Nov.
(Nov. 13,
13, 2023).
2023).
15 15 On On January
January 8,8,2024,
2024,the
theCourt
Courtsentenced
sentencedthe
theDefendant
Defendantotoa atotal sentenceofofive totalsentence years'
Ive (5) years
16 16 imprisonment at the the Department
Departmentof
of Corrections, with
with all but
but three (3) years suspended, with credit years suspended,
17 17 18 for time served.
served. See Judgment
Judgment of Conviction (Jan. 30, 2024).
(Jan. 30, 2024).AA Notice Notice of
of Appeal was filed
Appeal was an
filed and
18
19 19 served served upon this Court COurton
onFebruary
February9,9,2024.
2024.See
SeeNtc.
Ntc.of
ofAppeal (Feb. 9, 2024). The Supreme Appeal (Feb. Cou Supreme Court
20 issued its Remand Order on July July 18,
18, 2024,
2024,for
for this
this Court to
to consider that "th Defendant's claims that
ConsiderDefendant's "the 21 People People failed failed to
todisclose
discloseexculpatory
exculpatory material
material under
under Brady v. Maryland
Brady v. . .. and Giulio Maryland...and v. United Giglio v.
22 22 States..." States . .. " Ltd LtdRemand
Remand Order
Order (Jul. 18,
18, 2024).
23 23 In In order to assist itit in indetermining
determiningwhether
whetherthe
thePeople violatedBrady or Giglio Peopleviolated in providing Giulio in
24 24
25 25 defense counselwith defense counsel with the requested requesteddiscovery
discoveryon
on the
the eve
eve of
of jury selection, this Court jury selection, issued a Court issued
26 26 briefing briefing schedule schedule ordering
ordering the
the parties
parties to submit
submit arguments andeviden~e arguments and evidence in of its motion, supportof in support
27 27 citing to to the
the mandates of Criminal Procedure Rules CR1.1.See mandates of CRl See Order BriefingSchedule Re. Briefing
Order Re. an Schedule and
28 28
People People v. Crisostomo.,
Crisostomo., CF0097-23
CF0097-23
Decision Decision and
and Order Re. Limited
Limited Remand
Remand Order
Page 3 of 12
Hearing on Hearing on Limited LimitedRemand
Remand Order
Order of
ofGuam (Aug. 2, Guam Supreme Court (Aug. 2, 2024).
2024). Defendant submitted l
2 Opening Brief, Exhibit his Opening Exhibit List List and
and Witness
Witness List
List on
onAugust
August16,
16, 2024.
2024. The
The People
People submitted
submitted its
it
3 Responsive Brief Responsive Briefon onAugust
August26,
26,2024.
2024. The
TheCourt
Courttook
tookthe
the matter
matter under
under advisement on October 1, 4 2024, without need of oral arguments without need arguments from the parties. See See Order
Order Re.
Re. Ltd.
Ltd Remand Order;
Order; Matter
5 Taken Taken Under (Oct. 1, 2024).11 Advisement (Oct.
Under Advisement
6
B. Defendant's Motion and and Claims
Claims in Controversy.
7
8 The basis basis for Defendant's Appellate Motion Motion before
before the
the Supreme Court is "[d]uring the Supreme Court th
9 course course of these these [trial] proceedings, proceedings, Crisostomo
Crisostomo has
has obtained court
court filings
filings showing that the
the victim
10 in this case case had
hadprovided
provided statements
statementsto
tothe
theGuam
GuamPolice
PoliceDepartment
Departmentalleging
alleging that
thather
herex-boyfrien
ex-boyfriend
11 1
[P.C.] [P.C.]had had threatened to kill her on or threatened to or about aboutOctober
October30,
30,2021."
202l."Ltd. Remand
Remand Order (Jul.
(Jul. 18,
18, 2024)
2024)
12 12
13 13 at p. 4. He further claims claims::
14 14 [U]ndisclosed [U]ndisclosed statements the victim statements by the victim were not turned over to turned over to trial
trial counsel.
counsel. Trial
Trial
counsel counsel was informed
informed that
that no reports
reports existed
existed in
inresponse
response to
to the
theSubpoena
Subpoena Dunes
Duces
15 15 Tecum for all
all reports
reports in
in which
which the
the victim
victimmade
made complaints
complaints against
against ex-boyfriend
16 16 [P.C.].
[P.C.].
17 17 Inits Id. In OpeningBrief itsOpening Brieftotothis
thisCourt,
Court, without
without citing
citing to
to the
the specific
specific evidence,
evidence, the
the Defendant
Defendant claims
claim
18 18 that undisclosed undisclosedevidence
evidence was
was "impeaching,"
"impeaching," "inadvertently "inadvertentlysuppressed,"
suppressed," and
and "prejudicial
"prejudicial in
in that
tha
19 19 it deprived deprived the Defendant Defendant of aa fair
fair trial
trial because
because there was no
there was no time to prepare prepare for the trial with wit
20
respect to that respect to evidence." Def that evidence." Def's
's Opening
Opening Brief
Brief (Aug. 16,2024)
(Aug. 16, arp. 2.
2024)atop. 2. Defendant
Defendant argues
argues that
tha
21
22 22 "[h]ad the evidence been been diligently provided
provided when requested, the Defendant Defendant would have
have had
ha
23 23 adequate adequate time to prepare using the suppressed suppressedevidence."
evidence. Id. 77
24
25 25 11 Initially, Initially, the the Court
Court ordered the parties to to submit a list of all witnesses they intended to call call at the hearing and
and aa list
lis
26 26 of all exhibits they intended to introduce at the hearing. See Order (Aug. 2, of 2, 2024). However, the Defendant Defendant failed
failed to
specify the number and identities of witnesses and identities witnesses he he intended to
to call
call at
at the
the evidentiary
evidentiary hearing
hearing on
on the
the motion,.
motion, OnOn that
tha
27 27 basis, the Court found that oral arguments arguments were proceed to were not necessary and proceed to take the matter under advisement. See (Oct. l, 2024).
Order (Oct.
28
People People v.
v. Cris ostomo., CF0097-23 Crisostomo., CF0097-23
Decision Decision and
and Order Re. Limited
Limited Remand
Remand Order
Order
Page 4 of12
I
The Defendant's List (Aug.
ExhibitList
Defendant's Exhibit 16, 2024)
(Aug. 16, identities the 2024) for the matter before this Court identifies 1
2 following exhibits, were submitted in support of the Motion:
exhibits, but no actual exhibits were
3 A. Guam GuamPolice
PoliceReport
ReportNo. 1-113, and photos.
pp. 1-113,
23-02729, pp.
No. 23-02729,
GuamPolice
B. Guam ReportNo.
PoliceReport 21-26681, pp.
No. 21-26681, 1~29
pp. 1-29
4 C. P010-23,
POl0-23,Petition forTemporary Petitionfor Order of Temporary Order Protection and OSC.
ofProtection
5 POl0-23,Declaration D. P010-23, of Counsel.
Declaration of
E. P010-23, Orderof
POl0-23,Order Protection.
ofProtection.
6 Deferred Plea Agreement.
CF330-20, Deferred
F. CF330-20,
7 Defendant's Opening
Moreover, no reference was made to the exhibits in the Defendant's Brief to Opening Brief establis to establish
8 what exhibits or evidence was suppressed by the People or how the failure to timely provide the 9
10 documents or purported discovery constituted a violation of documents or Giglio and their progeny.
of Brady, Giulio
111 B. The People's Response
12 12 To the Deferldant's
Defendant's claims of the People evidence, the
of a failure to disclose Brady evidence, retort to the People retort
13 13 Appellate Motion that "relevant and documentation "relevant statements and the Guam documentation from the Police Department'
Guam Police Department"
14 14 were provided Ltd Remand'
Defendant during the course of discovery. See Ltd provided to Defendant 18, 2024).
Remand Order (Jul. 18,
15 15
16 16 In its its rresponsive
esponsive brief beforee this Cour People aargue Court,t, the People r "it rremains that "it tha [from unclearr [fr
ema ins unclea
17 17 Defendant's Defendant's Opening Brief] ...
.. what statements Defendant were 'inadvertently suppressed'
Defendant claims were
18 18 that were made by J.W. (and her her children) to the police police about P.C. Pp!.
about P.C. Resp. Brief Ppl. 's's Resp. Brief (Aug. 26, 19 19 assert that
2024) at p. 3. The People further assert the Defendant that the has failed Defendant has to meet the "threshold of failed to
20 20 materiality" materiality"as ashe
he"does
"doesnot
notspecify
specifythe
thesubstance
substance of
ofthe
thestatements,
statements, the subject
subject matter thereof,
21
22 22 when they they were
were made, and in
made, and in what
what context
context and
and form(s)
form(s) (whether verbal or (whether verbal or written) wer written) they were
23 23 Ids2 made." Id.
24 24
25
26 26 z2 The Court notes that the the responsive
responsive brief filed
filed by
by the prosecutor who brough same prosecutor
the same by the
submitted by
not submitted
was not
People was
the People brought 27 27 trial. AAO the matter to trial. which the defendant's during which
hearing during
the hearing
Olan represented the People at trial and at the AAG Grant Olan defendant's ex
e
parte motion was argued.
28 28
People v.
v. Crisostomo., CF0097-23 CF0097-23
Decision Decision and
and Order Re. Limited
Limited Remand Order
Page 5 of12
DISCUSSION
1
2 This Court's Court's inquiry,
inquiry, as mandated
mandated by the Supreme
Supreme Court, is whether whether the People have failed
3 to meet their discovery obligations as mandated mandatedby
by Brady/Giglio.
Brady/Giglio. See Ltd Remand See Ltd Remand Order (Jul.
4 18, 2024) at 18, 2024) p. 6.
at p. 6. Under
Under 88 GCA
GCA §§ 70.10(a)(7),
70.10(a)(7),the
thePeople
People have
have an
an ongoing
ongoing obligation
obligation to
to turn
tum over
over
5 "any "any material material or information which tends to negate the guilt of of the defendant as to the offense 6
charged charged or would tend
tend to
to reduce
reduce his
his punishment
punishment therefor."
therefor." In
In addition,
addition, the People have an 7
8 obligation to tum over any Brady material, i.e., material that is favorable obligation favorable and and possibly
possibly exculpatory
9 to the defense. See Brady v.
the defense. Maryland 373 U.S. 83, v. Maryland, 83, 87 (1963)
(1963) ("the
("the suppression
suppression by the
the
10 prosecution prosecution of evidence favorable favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the 11 11 evidence evidence is
is material
material either
either to guilt
guilt or
or to punishment,
punishment, irrespective
irrespective of
of the good
good faith
faith or
or bad faith of
of
12 12
13 13 the prosecution.");
prosecution."),see also
also People v.
v. Rugante,
Rugante, 2019 Guam23 ,r 7. Impeachment Guam23 117. Impeachment evidence evidencerelating
relating
14 14 to government witnesses constitutes potential potential Brady
Brady material.
material. People v._Fisher, v..Fisher, 2001 Guam ,r Guam 2 1]
15 15 12, 12; see also Giglio see also Giulio v.
v. United
United States,
States, 405 U.S. 150, 151-55 (1972)
(1972) (holding
(holding evidence
evidence relating to
16 credibility of government government witnesses falls within Brady). "In "In order
order to establish a Brady violation, 17 17 a defendant must establish establish each
each of
of the
the following:
following: (1)
(l) the alleged Brady evidence evidence is
is favorable
favorable to
18 18
19 19 the defendant defendant because
because it is
is exculpatory
exculpatory or impeaching, impeaching; (2)
(2) the
the government
government suppressed
suppressed the
20 20 evidence, either willfully or inadvertently, inadvertently; and (3) the suppression prejudiced the defendant by 21 depriving him or
or her
her of
of aa fair
fair trial." People
People v.
v. Mateo,
Mateo, 2017 Guam 22 ,r 13 22 1] 13 (quoting People v.
22 22 Campos, 2015 Guam Campos, Guam 11 ,r
11 1[29).
23 23
24 In In addition
addition to mandatory Brady disclosures, to mandatory disclosures, 88 GCA GCA §§ 70.15(a)
70.15(a) authorizes
authorizes the
the courts
courts to
to
c
25 25 order prosecution to turn tum over
over other evidence upon "a showing showing of
of materiality
materiality to the preparation preparation
26 · of of his defense and 79 that the request is reasonable." Id and that ,r 15.
Id 11 15. "A
"A threshold
threshold showing
showing of
of materiality
materiality
27 must be established before the prosecution is obligated to tum turn over evidence to the defendant 28
People v. People v. Cris
Crisostomo., CF0097-23
) Decision and Decision and Order
Order Re. Limited
Limited Remand
Remand Order
Page 6 of12 Page either automatically automatically (under
(under section
section 70.10
70.10 and
and Brady) or following aamotion or following bythe motion by defendant the defendant
1
2 2 (under section 70.15)." Id Id. In
Inorder
ordertotoestablish thedefendant "materiality,"the
establish"materiality," mustshow defendantmust that there show that
3 is a reasonable reasonable probability that, hadthe that, had result of the the result
the defense, the to the
disclosed to
evidence been disclosed theevidence
4 proceedings proceedings would have been different. "A "A'reasonable
'reasonable probability'
probability' is probability sufficient to 5 undermine theconfidence undermine the confidence in the the outcome."
outcome."People
People v. ,r 13 2001 Guam 21]
v. Fisher, 2001 13 (quoting United (quoting United
6
7 States v. Presser, 844 F.2d States v. F.2d 1275, 1275, 1281
1281 (6th 1988)).
(6th Cir. 1988)).
7
8 A. The Defendant Defendant has
has failed
failed to
to identify with particularity identify with what evidence particularity what was evidence was
suppressed. f 9
10 10 Despite Despite being
being given
given another
another opportunity
opportunity to specify
specify what particular evidence what particular was evidence was
11 suppressed suppressed ororprovided provided to
to the
the Defendant
Defendant with
with an
an insufficient time to
insufficient time prepare for trial, to prepare the trial, the
12 12 Defendant refers only to this Court's Order identifying J.W. (or her children)
"statements made by J.W.
identifying "statements children)
13 13 about P.C."
to police .about or to P.C." or requested discovery."
to "the requested The Defendant's discovery." The Opening Brief fails to Defendant's Opening
~14 14 establish that whatever statements that whatever orreports statements or reportsmade madeby
by J.W. or the
J.W. or P.C. were about P.C.
the children about
15 15
16 16 material to to the
the defense other than
defense other than by
by stating
stating that
that "the evidence was
was impeaching."
impeaching." Opening Brief Opening Brief
17 17 at 2. Additionally, Additionally, the
the Defendant
Defendant makes
makes no attempt in his
his Opening
Opening Brief
Brief to explain
explain to
to the
the Could
Court
188 1 . | . . . . . . . .
how the documents documents identified in his Exhlblt Exhibit Llst
Listconstlmted
constituted suppressed any suppressed evidence, nor was any 19 19 affidavit affidavit submitted submitted by defense
defense counsel
counsel to
to explain
explain how
howthe
thePeople
Peoplesuppressed
suppressed these
these particular
particular
20 20 documents or statements statementsin
inviolation
violationof
ofBrady Giulio The
Brady or Giglio, The Court Court notes further that Defendant's Defendant's
21
22 22 trial counsel counsel informed
informed the Court on the morning of ofthe
the jury selection
selection that
that outstanding
outstanding discovery
23 23 which was the subject subject of the ex parte motion motion to compel
compel had
had already been provided prior to the 24 24 start of trial, start of trial, albeit on the the eve of selection,
selection; however,
however, two
two weeks
weeks later,
later, the
the report
report or
or information
information
25 was hot not used
used to
to impeach
impeach J.W.
J.W. during
during cross-examination. See Ltd Remand Order at See Ltd at 2, 3-4.
26
27 27
28 28
People v.
v. Crisostomo., CF0097-23 CF0097-23
Decision Decision and
and Order Re. Limited
Limited Remand
Remand Order
Page Page 7 of12
failed to
Having failed to articulate articulate in
in his
his Opening
Opening Brief
Briefthe
theparticular
particular documentary
documentary evidence
evidence
1
2 2 which waswas suppressed
suppressednor
norhow
how such
such suppression
suppressionresulted
resultedininprejudice,
prejudice, the
the Court
Court echoes the
3 Supreme Court's Supreme Cou1*t'sdetermination determinationon
Onthe
therecord's
record'ssilence
silenceon
onthis
thisissue:
issue:"But
"But the record is unclear unclear
4 4 whether other statements statementsin
inthe
theGovernment's
Government's possession may have been suppressed.
suppressed. The
The record
5 is also silent on any potential prejudice that potential prejudice thatmay may have
haveoccurred
occurredfrom
firm delayed disclosure."
disclosure." Ltd
6
7 Court has reviewed the record Remand Order (Jul. 18, 2024), p. 6. Certainly, the Court record and and similarly
7
8 8 comes to the same determination of the record's record's silence.
silence_ on
on the
the matter.
matter. The
The Court
Court cannot
cannot make
make a
9 9 determination upon mere speculation that that certain
certain evidence contains Brady Brady material.
10 'Mere 'Mere speculation that a government speculation that government file may may contain
contain Brady
Brady material
1:11aterial is not
not
11 II sufficient to require require aa remand
remand for in camera
camera inspection, much less inspection, much less reversal reversal for a
new trial. AA due
due process
process standard
standard which is satisfied by mere mere speculation
speculation would
12 Brady into aa discovery
convert Brady ,discovery device deviceand
and iMpose
impose undue
undue burden'
burden' upon
upon the trial
13 13 courts. courts.
14 14 Mateo, 2017 2017 Guam 221],i 17 (emphasis added)
Guam22 added) (quoting (quoting United
United States
States v.v. Navarro,
Navarro, 737 F.2d 625:
15 15 631 631 wt (7thCir.
Cir.1984),
1984), cert. denied, 469
cert. denied, U.s. 1020 469 U.S. 1020 (1984).
(1984).
16 B. The
The Defendant
Defendant has
has failed to meet its burden pursuant to Mateo in in establishing
establishin
17 .a Brady Brady violation and materiality.
materiality. Defendant
Defendant had
had adequate time to prepare.
adequate time
18 In consideratioN
consideration of the
the applicable
applicable caselaw
caselaw and
and Guam
Guam statutes,
statutes, the Court
Court makes
makes the
th
19 19 .
followinginquiry following inquiryand and determinations.
determinations. First, what were the the statements
statements which were withheld? See 20 20 Mateo, 2017 Guam ,i 17. Defendant apparently Guam1117. apparentlyclaims claimsin
inhis
hisAppellate
Appellate Motion
Motion that
that "[d]uring
"[d]uring the
21
22 22 course of these proceedings, Crisostomo has obtained court course courtfilings filings showing that the victim in this victim in
23 case had hadprovided
provided statements
statementstotothe
theGuam
GuamPolice
PoliceDepartment
Departmentalleging
allegingthat
thather
herex-boyfriend
ex-boytiiend[P.C.]
[P.C.]
24 1 had threatenedtotokill had threatened klll her heron
onor
or about
aboutOctober
October30,
30,2021."
202l." Ltd
Ltd Remand
Remand Order (Jul.
(Jul. 18,
18, 2024)
2024) at p.
25 4. As As discussed, discussed, supra,
supra, the Defendant has failed Defendant has failed to articulate articulate in its Opening Opening Brief
Brief what
what those
thos
26 27 statements arespecifically statements are specifically and and has
hasfailed
failed to
to identify the discovery documents documents in which they are 27
28
People v. People v. Crisostomo., CF0097-23 Decision and Decision and Order Re. Limited Remand Order Limited Remand Order
Page 8 of12
contained. Clearly, this Court Clearly, this Court cannot speculate speculate as
asto
towhich
which of
of the
the exhibits
exhibitsidentified
identified in Defendant's Defendant's
1
2 Exhibit List were suppressed.
suppressed. Moreover, contrary to appellate Moreover, contrary appellate counsel's counsel's claim in his Appellate Appellat
3 Motion (as articulated in the Supreme Supreme Court's Limited Remand Order), during during the
the April 5, 2023,
April s, 2023,
4 hearing, Defendant's trial counsel hearing, receipt of counsel had affirmed receipt of all outstanding outstanding evidence and, despite 5 being being aware aware of J.W.'s
J.W.'s accusations
accusations against P.C., P.C., apparently chose not apparently chose not to
to use the evidence
evidence to
6
impeach J.W. on April 18, 2023.
2023. In
In support
support of
of this
this finding,
finding, the Remand
Remand Order notes
notes the
the following:
following:
7
8 The People People then
then made an oral motion in limihe motion in limihe to exclude exclude testimony
testimony about
about the
the other
incident. Id. incident. Id. at 6-7.
6-7. The court responded, responded, "l think at this "I think this point, point, it's probably not not 9 necessary to necessary to conduct conduct a review of ofthat that particular
particular complaint. I think think itit satisfies
satisfies the
the
10 10 request that that hehe had, had, atat least
leastin terms of
in terms of what other information mightmight be be out out there
there
to allow them to prepare." Id. at Defense counsel at 7. Defense counsel added,"We added, "We 'll'!!just
] reserve that
reserve
111 if,_t during during testimony,
testimony, there
there Q is rebuttable Q or impeachable testimony testimony offered QJ!. any red Q13 any
witness that the reports could could serve serve Q
to impeach =
impeach : then,
then, you
you know,
know, M we reserve
reserve thethe
12 12 right right Q to use Q it. It's It's iust like
like any other information that that M we could
could use
use Q to impeach."
13 13 Id. To ld. To which
whichthe the trialcourt
trial.courtresponded,
responded, "I "Ithink
think we
we can
can cross
cross that
that bridge when we
get to it."it." Id.
Id.TheThe·record seemstOto indicate recordseems indicate that that the
the allegations
allegations were
were referenced
referenced
14 14 during cross-examination of [J.W.], but during cross-examination of [J.W.], but the police report was not used to impeach police report was not used Q impeach her[.]3 _ · 15 15
16 16 Second, are the statements exculpatory? See Mateo, 2017 2017 Guam
Guam22 ,r 13.
2211 13. The
The Defendant
Defendan
17 17 has failed to articulate articulate how these
these statements are
are exculpatory,
exculpatory, let alone demonstrate how how the
the Peopl
People
18 18
19 19 willfullyororinadvertently have willfully inadvertentlysuppressed suppressedthose
those statements.
statements.
20 20 Third, are those 'statements statements material? ,r 15.
Id 11
material? Id. 15. Is
Is there
there aa reasonable
reasonable probability that the 21 21 result of the proceedings would have been different had they been disclosed? Once.again, without different had withou 22 22 context surrounding
knowing with certainty the identification or the context surrounding the alleged statements, statements, the
23 23 Court cannot make a determination as as to
to its
its materiality.
materiality.
24 24
25
26 26
27 27 3 3 Ltd Ltd Remand Order at Remand Order at 33 (quoting Transcript Transcript (Tr.) at
at 5-6 (Jury
(Jury Trial, Apr. 5, 2023)(emphasis added).
added).
28
People v. Crisostomo.,
Crisostomo., CF0097-23
Decision and Decision and Order Re.
Re. Limited Remand Order
Limited Remand
Page Page 9 of12
Nevertheless, even if the Court assumes arguendo, arguendo, for the purpose of deciding the matter 1
22 currently before it, that the statements made by J.W. (or her children) accusing P.C. of similar acts
3 were exculpatory and material, materi3:l, the Court
Court finds that the People's Peoples disclosure
disclosure of
of the
the requested
4 discovery identified in defendant's trial counsel's ex parte parte motion
motion to
to compel, the receipt ofwhic which
5 was confirmed by trial counsel counsel on April 5, 2023, 2023, was
was made
made "at
"at a time when it still has value."
value.'
6 Houston, 648 F.3d 806, 813 United States v. Houston, (9 th Cir. 2011).
813 lath 2011). Thus, there there was no prejudice
prejudice to
7 /
88 Defendant. In this instance, People v. Tedtaotao, Tedtaotao, 2015 Guam 31, supports a finding finding that Defendant
99 suffered no prejudice. 10 Tedtaotao, the Guam Supreme Court found that "no Brady violation occurs '[even] if' In Tedtaotao,
111
previously undisclosed previously undisclosed evidence evidenceisisdisclosed
disclosedduring
duringtrial,
trial,unless
unless the
the defendant
defendant is
is prejudiced
prejudiced by the
12 12
13 13 delay in disclosure."'
disclosure." People v. Tedtaotao, Tedtaotao, 2015 Guam 31 1i52 iJ52 ((citation omitted). "In citation omitted). "In such such a case,'
case,"
14 14 the Supreme Supreme Court
Court continued, "the appropriate standard to appropriate standard to apply apply is essentially
essentially whether
whether the
th
15 15 disclosure came came so
so late
late as
as to
to prevent
preventthe
thedefendant
defendantfrom
fromreceiving
receivinga afair
fairtrial.
trial..... IfIfaa defendant defendan
16 16 exculpatory evidence
receives exculpatory evidence in in time
time to
to make
make effective use of it, use of it, aa new
new trial
trial is
is generally
generally not
no
17 17 18 warranted." Id.
warranted."Id 18
19 19 The disclosure in Tedtaotao Tedtaotao was of
of a co-defendant's statement statement which
which he
he later
later retracted,
retracted,
20 20 the retraction of which was discovered by the People during witness preparation preparation after the trial had 21 already begun. The People provided no written discovery discovery to the defendant informing him of the 22 22 retraction nor did they notify Tedtaotao Tedtaotao in
in any
any way. Id.1153.
way. Id iJ53. Tedtaotao, Tedtaotao, instead,
instead, only became aware 23 24 ofthe of the retraction during during his defense
defense counsel's
counsel's cross-examination ofthe cross-examination of the co-defendant co-defendant who had made 24
25 the statement and later statement and later retracted retracted his
his statement,
statement,while
while the co-defendant was on co-defendant was on the stand.
stand. In
In this
26 be instance, Supreme Court instance, the Supreme Court ruled ruled that no Brady
Brady violation
violationoccurred,
occurred, and
and that
that Tedtaotao
Tedtaotao had not
27 . . I | . . u . .
been deprived been deprived of ofaa fair
fair dual
trial despite
despite the
the People's inform him People's failure to inform him of ofthe
the retraction,
retraction, reasoning:
28
People v. Crisostomo.,
Crisostomo., CF0097-23
Decision Decision and
and Order Re.
Re. Limited
Limited Remand Order
Page 10 of12
l2
\
[53] [53] Evidence that that Cnlz Cruz hadhad retracted
retracted an
an earlier
earlier statement
statement is clearly
clearly Brady
Brady
1 material because
because itit impeaches
impeachesaagovernment
governmentwitness.
witness.Moreover,
Moreover, the People did not 2 provide provide Tedtaotao
Tedtaotao with
withthis
this information
infonfiationwhen
when they
they had
had a duty to do so.
3 [55] However, Tedtaotao [55] Tedtaotao was not deprived a deprived of a fairfair trial.
trial. Tedtaotao
Tedtaotao hadhad full
opportunity opportunity to to cross-examine cross-examine Cruz Cruz regarding regarding Cruz's
Cruz's retraction
retraction andand retracted retracted
4 statements. Moreover,asasthe statements. Moreover, the trial tnlalcourt
courtnoted,
noted,"[Cruz]
"[Cruz] was was also
also listed
listed on
on
5 [Tedtaota0's]
[Tedtaotao's] witness
witness list and [Tedtaotao] was and [Tedtaotao] was free free to call
call [Cruz]
[Cruz] ononthe
the stand,
stand,
further question fUrther question[Cruz]
[Cruz] in front ofofthe
the jury,
jury, and
and further
further attack his his credibility, bias, 6 and truthfulness."
truthfulness."[citation
[citation omitted].
omitted]. Finally, the fact that Tedtaotao did not move for aa continuance
continuance in in order
order to
to prepare
preparehishiscase
caseininchief
chiefininlight
light of
of the
the new
new evidence
7 hurts any argument hurts any argumentthat thathehesuffered sufferedprejudice
prejudice as
asaaresult
resultof of the
the delay. See
See Kitano,
8 2011 Guam 11 2011 Guam ,r 27.
ll 1127.
9 The People's
People's "inadvertent
"inadvertentsuppression"
suppression" (as
(as described in his described by Defendant in his Opening OpeningBrief)
Brief)
10 IO is far less less egregious than that of than that of the prosecutor in Tedtaotao.
Tedtaotao. HQ re, Defendant's trial Here, trial counsel counse
11 11 acknowledged the receipt acknowledged the receipt of all all outstanding discovery as outstanding discovery as identified in his his ex
ex parte
parte Motion to
12 12
13 13 5, 2023 April 5,
Compel on April at least 2023 - at thirteen (13)
least thirteen his cross»examination to his
prior to
days prior
(13) days J.W. on of J.W.
cross~examination of o
r
14 14 April 18, 2023.
April 18, 2023. He had had more than ampletime
than ample time to
to prepare
prepareto
to impeach
impeachJ.W.
J.W.with
withany
anyinformation
information -
15 15 police reports, reports, protective
protective orders,
orders, any
any documentary
documentary or other
other evidence
evidence -.- disclosed by - disclosed by the
the People
16 16 even even on on the eve
eve of
oftrial
trialand
and most
most certainly
certainlyhad
had adequate
adequate time to prepare
prepare during the two weeks in during the
17 17 which Defendant had which Defendant hadthe theinformation.
information. 88GCA
GCA §
§ 80.40 entitles aadefendant 80.40 entitles defendanttoto"at "atleast
leastfive
five (5)
(5) days
days
18 18
19 19 after entering his plea entering his plea to
to prepare for trial."
prepare for trial." Like
Like the
the defendant
defendant in Tedtaotao,
Tedtaotao, Defendant here her
20 20 asserted his right asserted his right to to speedy trial, however, as speedy trial; as the the Supreme
Supreme Court noted
noted in Tedtaotao,
Tedtaotao, no request
21 for aa continuance made, but, continuance was made; but, in in any
any event,
event, he
he had
had more
more than
thanthe
theminimum
minimumfive
five (5) days
days in
22 which to prepare to impeach prepare to impeachthe
thewitness
witnessJ.W.
J.W.with
with the
thediscovery,
discovery, even
even if it
it was
was provided
provided on
on the
th
23 23 eve of of trial.
24 24
25 Thus, the Thus, the Court finds that the the Oefendant
Defendant has
has failed
failed to meet his burden of showing that that the
26 26 People have committeda Brady violation in Brady violation in this
this matter.
matter.
27 27
28
People People v.
v. Cris ostomo., CF0097-23 Crisostomo.,
Decision Decision and
and Order Re. Limited
Limited Remand
Remand Order
Page 1111 of12
of12
CONCLUSION
2 For the above reasons, the Court finds that the People did not suppress any discovery in
3 its possession nor fail to provide exculpatory evidence to the Defendant in violation of Brady, 4 Giglio or Guam Supreme Court precedent. The statements made 1 by J.W. (or her children) to 5 police about P.C. were disclosed to the Defendant with adequate time to prepare for the cross-
6
7 examination of J.W. at trial. Even assuming arguendo that any evidence was suppressed- which
8 the Court does not find - the Defendant Crisostomo suffered no prejudice.
9 SO ORDERED this 16th day of October, 2024. 10
11
12 HONORABLE MARIA T. CENZON 13 Judge, Superior Court of Guam
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 SERVICE VIA._E-MA1t 24 ,l.adlilowledge that-an electronic . •_a,pA-the original was .:rnoRe!I ID:
4, I /4/J{) -
25
26
27
28
People v. Crisostomo., CF0097-23 Decision and Order Re. Limited Remand Order Page 12 of12