People v. Cruz

Superior Court of Guam·Decided February 20, 2019·No. CF0543-18·Unknown

Opinion

swf*

s 5Lii*5D§\,';*(j,l'U5@.T ; 1

2 2Q19FE'5 20 my 2: u. 3 c;€¥=:vi up mum 4 VT-? !- I

6 IN T H E SUPE RIO R CO URT O F GUA M

THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, 8 CRIMINAL CASE no. CF0543-18 9

Plaintiff, 10 DECISION AND ORDER

11 vs.

BR I AN K EVI N CR UZ, 13

14 Defendant.

15 INTRODUCTION 16 This matter is before the Honorable Vernon P..Perez on Defendant Brian Kevin Cruz's 17 ("Defendant") Motion to Bar Video and Still Photography During Hearings. Defendant is 18 represented by Attorney Douglas B. Moylan,l and the People of Guam ("the Government") are 19 represented by Assistant Attorney General J. Basil O'Mallan HI. Having reviewed the 20 pleadings, the arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision 21 and Order. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On September 14, 2018, Defendant was indicted eight counts of First Degree Criminal 24 Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree Felony), eight counts of Second Degree Criminal Sexual 25 Conduct (As a First Degree Felony), four counts of Third Degree Criminal Sexuai Conduct (As 26

28 1 The Motion, however, was filed by Defendant's prior counsel, Assistant Public Defender Jocelyn M. Roden.

People v. Cruz Case No. CF 0543-18 Decision and Order . Page l of 6 1 a Second Degree Felony), Kidnapping (As a Second Degree Felony), Aggravated Assault (As a

2 Second Degree Felony), Assault with Intent to Commit Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a Third

3 Degree Felony), Family Violence (As a Third Degree Felony), Felonious Restraint (As a Third

4 Degree Felony), two counts of Possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance (As a Third

5 De gre e Fe lony), and Elu ding a Police Office r (A s Misdemeanor). (Indictment, Sep. 14,

6 2018). Jury Selection and Trial in this matter is currently set for March 13, 2019.

7 On September 21, 2018, Defendant filed the instant Motion. On October 9, 2018, at the

8 Criminal Trial Setting, counsel for the Government indicated that there would be an opposition

9 to Defendant's Motion forthcoming. On N o ve m be r 21, 2018, t h e Go ve rn m e n t fi l e d i t s

10 Opposition. No reply was filed. Prior to the Government filing it's Opposition, however, the

Alternate Public Defender was appointed to represent Defendant due to conflicts of interest

12 arising with the appointment of the Public Defender Service Corporation. Subsequently, on

13 January 15, 2019, at a Further Proceedings Hearing, Attorney Moylan was appointed to

14 represent Defendant due to conflicts of interest arising with the appointment of the Alternate

15 Public Defender. On January 29, 2019, at a Further Proceedings Hearing, Attorney Moylan

16 indicated to the Court that he was also adopting the prior Motion to Bar Video and Still

17 Photography During Hearings and moved the Court for a decision on the Motion. The Court

18 gave leave to Defendant to submit any additional pleadings in support of the Motion, and

19 indicated it would take the matter under advisement. At this time, the Court has only been in

20 receipt of one media request for electronic proceedings.

21 DISCUSSION

22 Defendant moves the Court to protect his Constitutional right to fair and impartial court

23 proceedings by prohibiting media from photographing or filming any of his court hearings. See

24 generally, Mot., Sep. 21, 2018. Defendant's objection stems. from allegations that the media

25 routinely violates the Media Rules promulgated by the Judiciary of Guam. Id. The Government

26 objects, arguing that Defendant has provided "no good cause as to why the Court should

27 prohibit media members from malting recordings, as they are entitled to do under 8 G.C.A. §

28 1.23." (Opp'n at l, Nov. 21, 2018). The Government further submits that "early instruction to

People v. Cruz Case No. CF 0543-18 Decision and Order Page 2 of 6 1 media members on following the Media Rules and close enforcement of those rules will provide

2 the Defendant the relief he seeks." Id. at 4.

3 The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a trial by a fair and

4 impartial jury. U.S. Const. amend. V. This r ig ht is r e ite r ate d in Guam law at 8 G.C.A . §

5 1.l1(a), which provides that "[i]n any criminal action, the defendant is entitled to a speedy and

6 public trial." Title 8 G.C.A. section 1.23 provides that "[t]he taldng of photographs in the

7 courtroom during the progress of judicial proceedings, or radio or television broadcasting of

8 judicial proceedings from the courtroom, shall be permitted by the Court, subject to restrictions

9 in rules and regulations promulgated by the Court."2 The Supreme Court of the United States

10 has declined to hold that such a statutory right of access is prohibited by the Constitution.

11 Chandl er v. Fl orida, 449 U.S. 560, 581-82 (1981).

12 Here, "Defendant's primary concern is the restriction and intrusion by cameras thmsted

13 at the defense table when [he] communicates with his lawyer." (Mot. at 3). Defendant further

14 argues that the "media presence will likely hinder [his] ability to communicate with his counsel

15 during hearings." Id. In Ch an dl e r, the Supreme Court acknowledges that "the general issue of

16 the psychological impact of broadcast coverage upon the participants in a trial, and particularly

17 upon the defendant, is still a subject of sharp debate." Chandl er, 449 U.S. at 578. The Supreme

18 Court concluded that "[w]hatever may be the mischievous potentialities of broadcast coverage

19 for intruding upon the detached atmosphere which should always surround the judicial process,

20 at present no one has been able to present empirical data sufficient to establish that the

21 m er e p r esence of the b r oad cast m ed ia inherently has an ad verse effect on that p rocess."

22 Chandl er, 449 U.S. at 578-79 (internal citations, alterations, and quotation marks omitted).

23 Defend ant has not p rovid ed any ad d itional authority in sup p ort of his arg ument that the

24 presence of the media will affect his state of mind during proceedings, nor to suggest that the

26 2 On August 11, 2016, the Supreme Court of Guam issued Promulgation Order No. PRMI6-001-01, adopting the 27 proposed Judiciary of Guam Rules Governing Electronic Coverage of Judicial Proceedings, effective October 1, 2016. Under the Media Rules, there is a presumption that all judicial proceedings that are open to the public are 28 subject to electronic coverage.

People v. Cruz Case No. CF0543-18 Decision and Order Page 3 of 6 1 Supreme Court's assessment in Chandler has changed, warranting a complete exclusion of the

2 media from the courtroom. The Court will, however, order that the media not record any

3 conference, discussion, or conversation between: attorneys and their clients, between co-

4 attorneys, or between attorneys and the judge held at the bench, pursuant to Rule 9(d).

5 Lastly, the Court acknowledges that "[t]he risk of juror prejudice is present in any

6 publication of a trial, but the appropriate safeguard against such prejudice is the defendant's

7 r ig h t to d e m on s tr a te th a t th e m e d ia 's c ov e r a g e of h is c a s e - b e it p r in te d or b r oa d c a s t-

8 , c om p r om is e d the ab ility of the p ar tic u lar ju r y that he ar d the c as e to ad ju d ic ate fair ly ."

9 Chandler, 449 U.S. at 575.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People v. Cruz, (superctguam 2019).

People v. Cruz (People v. Cruz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Murphy v. Florida
421 U.S. 794 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Chandler v. Florida
449 U.S. 560 (Supreme Court, 1981)