6 JOHN PAUL PAUL SAYAMA SAYAMA CHARFAUROS, DOB: DOB:02/01/1997 02/01/1997 7
8 Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION 9 FOR SEVERANCE JONARIE MARIE REYES CRUZ FROM CO-DEFENDANT 10 10 (aka JONAIRE MARIE MARIE REYES CRUZ), DOB: DOB: 04 15/1994 04/15/1994 11 11
12 12 Defendant. Defendant.
13 13 INTRODUCTION 14 14 This matter matter came came before before the the Honorable Honorable Alberto Alberto C. C. Lamorena, Lamorena, III III on October October 25, 2024 for 15 15 hearing Jonarie Marie hearing on Jonarie Marie Reyes Cruz's (aka Jonaire Jonaire Marie Marie Reyes Reyes Cruz's) Cruz's) ("Defendant ("Defendant Cruz's") Cruz's") 16 16 Motion Motion for for Severance Severance from from Co-Defendant Co-Defendant ("Motion"). ("Motion").Assistant Assistant Attorney Attorney General General Jacob Jacob Wagner 17 17 represents thePeople, People, and and Alternate Alternate Public Public Defender Leonardo represents the Leonardo Rapadas Rapadas represents represents Defendant Cruz. 18 18 Having Having duly duly considered considered the the parties' parties' briefs, briefs, oral oral arguments, arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now the applicable 19 19 issues the following following Decision Decision and and Order Order and G RANTS ANTS Defendant issues the Defendant Cruz's Motion. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Defendant Cruz and John JohnPaul Paul Sayama SayamaCharfauros Charfauros("Defendant ("Defendant Charfauros") Charfauros") were indicted 22 on various felony felony charges in inthe theabove-captioned above-captionedcase caseininrelation relationtotothe the death of T.C. ("Victim"). See death ofT.C. ("Victim"). 23 Indictment (Aug. (Aug. 8, 8, 2024). 2024). Defendant DefendantCruz Cruzwas was the the Victim's Victim'smother, mother,and andDefendant Defendant Charfauros Charfauros was 24 the Victim's Victim's step-father. step-father. See Motion Motion at at 2 (Sep. 20, 20, 2024). 25 On September 20, 20, 2024, 2024,Defendant DefendantCruz Cruzfiled filedher herMotion Motion for for Severance from Co-Defendant. 26 Defendant Cruz claims a joint joint prosecution prosecution against herself and Defendant Charfauros Charfauros will will unfairly 27 prejudice her, by violating violatingher her rights rights under under the Confrontation Confrontation Clause of ofthe the Sixth Sixth Amendment Amendment and and by 28 confusing the jurors with antagonistic defenses. defenses. Id. at 2-6 2-6..
Decision Decision and and Order Granting GrantingDefendant's Defendant's Motion for Severance Severance from from Co-Defendant Co-Defendant CF0539-24,People CF0539-24, People of ofGuam Guam v. v. John Paul Sayama Say Charfauros & Charfauros & Jonarie Jonarie Marie Marie Reyes Reyes Cruz Cruz Page 1 of5 L
I
11 On October October 23, 23, 2024, 2024, the the People filed filed their their Opposition Opposition to to Defendant Defendant Cruz's Motion Motion 2 ("Opposition"). TheThe ("Opposition"). People contend People that contend Defendant that Cruz Defendant is is Cruz speculatingabout speculating mutually antagonistic aboutmutually antagonistic 3 defenses, and and that the Court should should take take other less-drastic less-drastic correctional steps steps should should such such defenses defenses 4 arise. arise. See Opposition at 3-4 Opposition at 3-4 (Oct. 23, 23, 2024). 2024). The People People also also believe believe they they can can preserve preserve the the 5 Defendants' Sixth Sixth Amendment Amendment confrontation confrontation rights by eliminating eliminating references references to to the the co-defendants co-defendants 6 when introducing their statements tothe statements to thepolice. police. Id. at 4-5.
7 The Court Court held held a hearing on October 25, 2024. After hearing 2024. After hearing the the arguments of the arguments of the parties, the 8 Court took took the matter matter under advisement. advisement.
9 DISCUSSION
10 10 I. Preliminary Law: Law:
11 11 A court court has discretion to sever joined joined defendants in a case case and andallow allow for for prosecution to to proceed proceed
12 12 separately separately against eachdefendant. against each defendant. Title Title 8 G.C.A. §§ 65.35 8 G.C.A. provides: 65.35 provides: 13 13 If Ifitit appears that aa defendant appears that defendantororthe thegovernment governmentisisprejudiced prejudicedbybyaajoinder jointer of of offenses or ofofdefendants indictment or defendants in an indictment or information informationor or by by such suchjoinder jointer for trial together, 14 14 the court may may order an election or or separate separate trials trials of counts, counts, grant grant a severance severance of 15 defendants or provide defendants or provide whatever other relief relief justice requires. requires. 15 16 See 8 16 G.C.A. §§ 65.35. 8 G.C.A. 65.35.
17 17 The severance rule rule stated statedabove above"does "does not not ... require severance whenever whenever prejudice is shown." as
18 18 See Zafro Zafiro v.v. United United States, States, 506 506 U.S. 534, 534, 534 (1993). (1993). "Less "Lessdrastic drasticmeasures, measures, such such as limiting 19 3 instructions, instructions, often often will willsuffice" suffice"when whenjointer joindercreates createsonly onlyaaminimal minimal risk risk of ofprejudice. prejudice. Id. at 534. 534. 20 21 Ultimately, ltimately,the the trial trialjudge judge must must "weigh "weighprejudice prejudiceto tothe thedefendant defendant caused caused by the joinder jointer against against the 21 22 22 obviously obviouslyimportant important considerations considerations of economy economy and and expedition expedition of ofjudicial judicial administration" administration" that that joint
23 trials rials provide. provide. See Bradley v. v. United United States, States, 433 433 F.2d 1113, 1117(D.C.Cir., 1113, 1117 (D.C.Cir., 1969).
24 However, severance should be severance should be granted granted "if "if there there is aa serious serious risk that that a joint trial trial would would 25 25 compromise compromise a specific trial right of ofaa properly properly joined joined defendant defendant or or prevent prevent the jury from malting making a 26 ii reliable eliablejudgment judgmentabout about guilt guilt or or innocence." innocence." See Zafiro, 506 U.S. U.S. at at 534. 534. An An example example of ofone one such such 27 28
Decision Decision and and Order Granting Defendant's Motion Motion for for Severance Severance from Co-Defendant CF0539-24, CF0539-24, People People of of Guam v. v. John John Paul Paul Say Sayama Charfauros & am a Charfauros & Jonarie Jonarie Marie Marie Reyes Reyes Cruz Page 2 of5 1
11 serious serious risk risk is is the the admission of evidence evidence "against "against aa codefendant" "that would would not not be admissible if a
2 defendant 2 defendant were were tried tried alone". Id. Id. at at 539. 539. 3 II. A joint joint prosecution prosecution against DefendantsCruz against Defendants Cruz and and Charfauros Charfauros will will unfairly prejudice prejudice 4 because the them because thejury jury will likely consider will likely consider improper improper evidence, evidence, and the Defendants risk 5 being denied denied their their rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Sixth Amendment. Amendment. 6 Here, there are are potentially potentially several several pieces of of evidence evidence that that are admissible admissible in the the People's People's case 7 7 against either Defendant Cruz or Charfauros, but but not not against againstthe theother. other. For example, both both Defendants 8 8 Cruz Cruzand and Charfauros Charfauros made extensive statements statements toto the thepolice, police, which the the People People will will undoubtably undoubtably seek 9 9 toointroduce introduce at trial. See Magistrate's Complaint (Aug. 1, 1, 2024).
10 These statements are admissible statements are admissible in in the the People's People's case case against against the the respective respective declarants declarants as as 11 admissions by an opposing admissions by party. See 6 opposing party. 6 G.C.A. G.C.A. §§801(d)(2)(A). 80l(d)(2)(A).However, these However, thesestatements statements are are 12 12 inadmissible inadmissiblehearsay hearsay ififoffered offeredagainst againstthe thenon-declarant non-declarant defendant. defendant. 13 13 Even Even ififthe thePeople Peoplesuccessfully successfullyargued arguedthese thesestatements statements fit fit under under aa hearsay hearsay exception, exception, the the 14 14 jurors ·urors still stillcannot cannotconsider consider them them when when determining determining the the non-declarant defendant's guilt, non-declarant defendant's guilt, as as doing doing so 15 15 risks ·sks violating the the non-declarant defendant's rights non-declarant defendant's rights under under the the Confrontation Confrontation Clause Clause of of the Sixth Sixth 16 16 Amendment. endment. See Briton Brutonv.v. United UnitedStates, States, 391 391 U.S. 123, 126(1968). 123, 126 (1968). The The Sixth Sixth Amendment Amendment provides 17 17 that "in all hat "in all criminal criminal prosecutions, prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the accused shall the right right ... to be be confronted confronted with with the the 18 18 witnesses against him. See U.S. Cons. Amend. Amend. VI. This Thisincludes includes "the "the right right of ofcross-examination". cross-examination". 19 19 See Bruton, 391 391 U.S. at 126. 126. However, However,because because criminal criminal defendants defendants cannot be compelled to take take the 20 20 stand underthe stand under theFifth Fifth Amendment's Amendment's privilege privilege against against self-incrimination, self-incrimination, both both Defendants Defendants Cruz Cruz and and 21 21 Charfauros Charfauros risk risk being being denied denied the the opportunity opportunity to to cross-examine cross-examine the the other other should should their co-defendant's 22 admissions be used 22 admissions used against them. 23 23 Limiting Limiting instructions instructions that that the jurors consider these statements only in the case statements only case against against the the 24 24 declarant declarant will willnot notadequately adequatelyreduce reducethe the "substantial "substantial risk" risk"they theyimproperly improperlyconsider considersuch suchstatements statements 25 25 in·nthe thecase caseagainst againstthe the non-declarant non-declarant defendant. defendant. Id. at 126. 126. It It is is an "overwhelming "overwhelming task" task" for for jurors to 26 26 segregate segregate evidence for consideration consideration in determining the guilt or innocence determining the innocence of of the the declarant, declarant, while 27 27 simultaneously simultaneously ignoring that evidence when when determining the guilt guilt or or innocence innocence of ofthe the non-declarant non-declarant 28 28 defendant. defendant. See People People v.v. Amanda, Aranda, 407 407 P.2d 265, 265, 271 271 (Cal. 1965). 1965). "The "The risk risk of ofprejudice prejudice is 1s
Decision Decision and and Order Granting Defendant's Motion Motion for for Severance Severance from Co-Defendant CF0539-24, CF0539-24, People People of ofGuam v.v. John John Paul Paul Say Sayama Charfauros & am a Charfauros & Jonarie Jonarie Marie Marie Reyes Reyes Cruz Page 3 of5 \
11 heightened" eightened" given given that that this this is is already already aa particularly particularly "complex" murder murder case case involving involving multiple multiple 2 defendants. defendants. See Zajiro, Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 539. 539. Simply put, it would be a "naive "naive assumption" believe that assumption" to believe 3 aa jury jury instruction instruction will overcome overcome the the prejudicial prejudicial effects effects of ofimproper improper consideration consideration of evidence. See 4 Krulewitch rulewitchv. v. United United States, States, 336 U.S. 440,453 453(1949). (1949). Severance Severance should should be granted because because limiting limiting
5 instructions instructions and and other less drastic measures measuresdo donot notsufficiently sufficiently reduce the the risk of of prejudice here.
6 III. A joint joint prosecution prosecution against DefendantsCruz against Defendants Cruz and and Charfauros Charfauros will will unfairly prejudice prejudice
7 them by confusing and and inflaming inflaming the the jurors jurors with withantagonistic antagonisticdefenses. defenses. 8 Additionally, Additionally,Defendant DefendantCruz Cruzbelieves believesshe sheand/or and/or Defendant Charfauros will present Charfauros will present 9 antagonistic antagonisticdefenses defensesand and blame blame each other otherfor for Victim's Victim's death. death. See Motion Motion at at 55 (Sep. 20, 20, 2024). 10 10 Although "mutually Although "mutually antagonistic antagonistic defenses defenses are are not not prejudicial prejudicial per per Se", se", courts courts retain retain sound sound 11 discretion to grant l l discretion grant severance should these these antagonistic defenses pose a serious serious risk risk of of prejudice to
12 12 the thedefendants defendants by by compromising compromising their their trial rights. See Zafiro, 506 U.S. U.S. at at 538. 538. "To "To be be entitled entitled to 13 13 severance on the basis of mutually mutually antagonistic defenses, defenses, aa defendant must show that that the the core core of the
14 14 codefendant's codefendant'sdefense defenseisissosoirreconcilable irreconcilablewith withthe thecore coreofofhis hisown owndefense defensethat that the the acceptance acceptance of 15 15 the thecodefendant's codefendant'stheory theoryby bythe thejury juryprecludes precludes acquittal acquittal of ofthe the defendant." defendant." See United United States States v. 16 th Cir. 16 Throckmorton, Throckmorton, 87 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 1996). 17 17 Here, there is reason to anticipate antagonistic defenses that thatare areirreconcilable irreconcilable at their their core. core. It
18 is likely 18 likely the the Defendants will place place fault fault on on the other in an effort effort to absolve themselves of blame.
19 19 This is is probable probable given giventhe the seriousness seriousness of ofthe the charges charges and and that both defendants defendants are are alleged alleged to have
20 been present at at the the crime crime scene. scene. In In fact, fact, Defendant DefendantCruz Cruzhas has already already hinted hinted that a core aspect of her 21 defense will willbe be pointing pointingblame blametowards towards Defendant Defendant CharfaUros Charfauros alone. See Motion Motion at at 55 (Sep. 20, 22 2024). Acquittal Acquittalof ofDefendant DefendantCruz Cruz under this defense under this defense will will necessarily necessarily call call for for the the conviction conviction of
23 23 Defendant Charfauros. Charfauros. This This will willunfairly unfairlyprejudice prejudiceDefendant DefendantCharfauros Charfauros by preventing the jury 24 from determining "guilt or innocence ... on an individual and determining his "guilt basis." See United and independent basis." United 25 States States v.v. Tootick, Tootick, 952 F.2d F.2d 1078, 1078,1086 (9th. Cir. 1086(91l'1, Cir.1991). 1991).
26 Furthermore, the presentation Furthermore, the presentationof of irreconcilable irreconcilable antagonistic antagonistic defenses defenses will will prejudice the
27 Defendants by by effectively effectively adding addingan an "extra "extraprosecutor" prosecutor"to tothe thecase case against against them. them. Id. at 1082. 1082. The 28 People's People'scase case against against each each Defendant will be be reinforced reinforcedby bythe the co-defenda.nt's co-defendant's contradictory claims
Decision Decision and and Order Granting Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motionfor forSeverance Severance from Co-Defendant CF0539-24, People of ofGuam v.v. John John Paul Pau! Sayama SayamaCharfauros Charfauros & & Jonarie Jonarie Marie Marie Reyes Reyes Cruz Page 4 of5 s
c
11 and blame pointed towards towards the the other. other. Each Defendant "must not only contend contend with with the the effects effects of
2 the government's government's case case against against him, but he he also also must must confront confront the thenegative negative effects effects of the
3 codefendant's case." case." Q Id.atat1083. 1083."The presentation "The presentationofof the thecodefendant's codefendant'scase casebecomes becomesaaseparate separate
4 forum in in which the the defendant defendantisisaccused accusedand andtried." tried." Id. Q at at 1082. 1082. Because Because each each defendant's defendant's claims
5 will will reinforce reinforcethe the People's People'scase caseagainst againstthe the other, other, this this too too prejudices prejudices the the Defendants by preventing
thejury 6 the juryfrom fromdetermining determining their their "guilt "guilt or or innocence innocence ... on on an individual individual and andindependent independentbasis." basis."Id. Q
7 at 1086. Severance Severance of ofthe thecase case isis necessary necessary given giventhe the inevitable inevitablesubstantial substantial prejudice that will result result
8 should the case case proceed proceed against both both Defendants Defendantsjointly. jointly.
9 CONCLUSION 10 10 For For the reasons stated above, above, the Court GRANTS ANTS Defendant Cruz's Motion. Defendant Cruz's Motion. ItItisisordered ordered that that
11 11 this matter matter concerning concerning Defendant DefendantCruz Cruz be be severed severed from from that that of of Defendant Charfauros. Charfauros. Defendant Defendant
12 12 Cruz's Cruz's new new case case file file shall shall now nowbe be CF0539-24-01 CF0539-24-01.
13 13
14 14 ORDERED this _ _NOV IT IS SO ORDERED N_O_V_11 _9 9 z0za _20_24-.i1r 15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18 HONORABLE ALBERTO C. c. LAMORENA, LAMORENA, III Presiding Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam 19 19
22 SERVICE VIA EMAIL SERVICE VIA EMAIL 23 II acknowledge that an an electronic electronic acknowledge that copy of the copy of the original original was was e-mailed e-mailed to: to: 24 ltfo," &eo , l*16»¢ AND 1-r. ,..,..,,,.,,, 'NTv'mH,°n 25 Date: uh Date:~me:· I1me:` • 26 Hevlvmi 7e we CrfV"'v- Deputy C1érk;Sup§Mr Courg 0fGuém 27 o . . ofG~am
Decision Decisionand and Order Order Granting Granting Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motionfor forSeverance Severance from from Co-Defendant Co-Defendant CF0539-24, People People of ofGuam v.v. John John Paul Paul Sayama SayamaCharfauros Charfauros & & Jonarie Jonarie Marie Marie Reyes Reyes Cruz Page Page 5 of5