l ¢ *g `L Lat. D CLERKQ CGL%§=¢'x" 2 2025 APR -3 PH 2ezsapR~-3 PH f.i: 50 3
4 SL?ER§G?" csvm »F Gum a 5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CASE no. NO.CF0708-23-01 CF0708-23-01 9 9 vs. 10 DECISION DECISION AND ORDER 11 PAUL PAUL JOHN TUNCAP CRUZ, 12 Defendant. Defendant. 13
14 INTRODUCTION 15 15 This matter came came before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez Perez on on March March 25, 25, 2025, 2025, for for hearing hearing 16 16 on the the People People of of Guam's Guam's("the ("the Government") Government")Motions Motionsfor forRelief Relief (1) (1) To To Allow Allow the the Testimony of 17 17 Former Medical Former Medical Examiner Dr. Jeffrey Examiner Dr. Jeffrey Nine, Nine, M.D. via via Audio-Video Audio-VideoTelecommunication, Telecommunication; or 18 18 alternatively, (2) to Continue alternatively, (2) Continue Trial to to Secure Secure the Testimony of of Former Former Medical Medical Examiner Examiner Dr. Dr. 19 19 Jeffrey Nine, Jeffrey Nine, M.D., M.D., by by Deposition Deposition("Motion ("Motion for for Relief'). Relief"). Present Present were Assistant Assistant Attorney 20 20 General Christopher Greyand Cristopher Grey andSpecial SpecialAssistant AssistantAttorney AttorneyGeneral General Curtis CurtisC. C.Van Van de de veld veld on behalf 21 of of the the Government Government and and Defendant Defendant with counsel, counsel, Thomas Thomas J. J. Fisher. Having reviewed the Fisher. Having the 22 22 pleadings, the arguments presented,and arguments presented, andthe therecord, record,the theCourt Courtnow nowissues issuesthe thefollowing following Decision Decision 23 23 and Order. Order. 24 24 BACKGROUND 2, 25 Defendant is charged with with one one count countof ofChild Child Abuse Abuse (As (As a Third Degree Felony) and and one one 26 26 count of Failure to Provide (As ofFailure (As aa Misdemeanor). (Indictment, (Indictment, Nov. Nov.9, 9, 2023). 2023). These Thesecharges charges stem stem 27 27 from the death deathof ofDefendant's Defendant's minor minorchild childP.J.C. P.J.C.(DOB: (DOB: 08/13/2022) 08/13/2022) inin November November 2023.Id.Id The 2023. The 28 28
People People v, v. Cruz Case No. CF0708-23-01 CF0708-23-0l Decision and Order
Page 11 of of8 1 charges against the charges against the minor minor child's mother, mother, Giltinan Giltinan Aldan Aldan Ramangmou,1 were severed from Ramangmou, were 2 Defendant Cruz for Defendant Cruz for trial. trial. See Order After After Hearing Hearing Granting Defendant Cruz's Granting Defendant Cruz's Motion Motion to to Sever,
3 Dec. 27, 2023. 2023. The The charges charges against Ramangmouwent against Defendant Ramangmou wentto totrial trialin inJuly July2024. 2024.AAjury jury of of
4 twelve ultimately found Defendant ultimately found DefendantRamangmou Ramangmouguilty guiltyofofNegligent NegligentHomicide Homicide(As (As a Third Third 5 Degree Felony) and Abuse (As and Child Abuse (As a Third Third Degree Degree Felony). Felony).
6 Jury Selection Jury Selection and andTrial Trial for Defendant Cruz was most most recently recently set set to to commence commenceon onApril April
7 7 3, 2025. 2025. See See Second Second Amended Amended Criminal Criminal Trial TrialScheduling Scheduling Order, Order, Feb. Feb. 13, 13, 2025. 2025. Defendant Defendant 8 asserted his hisright right to to aa speedy speedytrial trial on onFebruary February11, l l, 2025. 2025. 9 On March 21, 2025, at the 2025, at the Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Conference, the Government indicated it would be
10 10 filing aa motion motion regarding the testimony of the testimony of Guam's former Medical Examiner, Dr. Jeffrey Examiner, Dr. Jeffrey Nine.
11 The Government Government subsequently subsequently filed filed the the instant Motion aa few instant Motion few hours hours later, along with with aa Submission 12 12 of of Dr. of Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine Nine in in support supportofofthe thePeople's People'sMotion Motionfor forRelief. Relief. The The Court Court set set 13 1 an evidentiary hearing for for March March 25, 25, 2025. 2025. 14 14 On March 24, 2025, Defendant 24, 2025, Defendantfiled filed his his Opposition.
15 15 On March 25, 2025, the 25, 2025, the Court Courtheard heardsworn sworntestimony testimonyfrom fromDr. Dr.Jeffrey JeffreyNine Nine via via Zoom.
16 16 The Court Court subsequently subsequently placed the matter under advisement. advisement.
17 17 On March 31, l, 2025, the Court 2025, the Court ordered ordered the the Government Government to to have have Dr. Dr. Jeffrey Nine Nine submit submit a 18 18 statement from aamedical statement from medicalprofessional professionalregarding regardinghis hiswife's wife's medical medical condition. condition. On April April 2, 2, 2025, 2025, 19 19 the the Government Government submitted underseal submitted under seal for for in camera review aa medical medical professional professional statement statement 20 regarding Dr. Jeffrey regarding Dr. Jeffrey Nine. Nine.
21 DISCUSSION
22 22 The Government moves the the Court Court to to allow allow Dr. Dr. Nine's Nine's testimony testimony at trial via audio-video 23 23 telecommunication or alternatively, to to continue continue trial for for no no less less than than six (6) (6) months months to to secure secure his 24 testimony testimony by deposition. deposition. See See generally, generally, Mot. Relief] Relief, Mar. Mar. 21, 21, 2025. 2025. Dr. Nine Nine conducted conducted the 25 autopsy autopsy of the the victim victimininthe theinstant instantmatter, matter, P.J.C. P.J.C. (DOB: (DOB:08/13/2022), 08/13/2022), and and his testimony testimony is 26 26
27 1 1 Defendant Ramangmou Ramangmouwas wascharged chargedwith with(1) (1)Murder Murder(As(AsaaFirst FirstDegree DegreeFelony); Felony);(2) (2) Aggravated Assault Assault (As (As aa 28 Second Degree Degree Felony); Felony), and and(3) (3) Child Child Abuse Abuse(As (As aa Third Third Degree DegreeFelony). Felony). (Indictment, (Indictment, Nov. 9, 2023).
People v. v. Cruz Case No. No. CF0708-23-0l CF0708-23-01 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 2 of8 of 8 1 essential for the essential for Government'scase. theGovernment's case. Id Id at at 2. Dr. Dr. Nine Ninerelocated relocated to to Ohio Ohio with with his his wife wifeand and son son 2 in the summer in summer of2024 andisisunable of 2024 and travelto unabletototravel to Guam Guam"due "due to to his his need need to to assist assisthis hiswife wife and child child
3 with multiple weekly treatments for their treatments for their serious serioushealth healthissues." issues."Id Id Defendant Defendantopposes, opposes, arguing arguing 4 that remote testimony will will violate violatehis hisrights rightsunder underthe the Confrontation ConfrontationClause Clausepursuantto pursuant Crawford Crawford 5 v. v. Washington, Washington, 541 (2004). See 541 U.S. 36 (2004). See generally, Opp'n, Mar. Mar. 24, 24, 2025. 2025. 6 The Sixth Sixth Amendment Amendment guarantees that "[i]n guarantees that "[i]n all allcriminal criminalprosecutions, prosecutions, the the accused accused shall shall 7 enjoy enjoy the right ... the right ... totobebe confronted confrontedwith withthe thewitnesses witnesses against against him." him." U.S. U.S.Const. Const. amend. amend. 8 VI. "[T]he VI. "[T]heConfrontation ConfrontationClause Clauseguarantees guaranteesthe thedefendant defendant aa face-to-face face-to-face meeting meeting with with witnesses witnesses 9 appearing beforethe appearing before thetrier trierofoffact." fact." Coy Coy v.v. Iowa, Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 487 U.S. loll (1988) 1012, 1016 (1988) (citation (citation 10 10 omitted). omitted). This This right right serves serves to to "ensure "ensure the integrity of the the integrity the fact-finding process." Id at fact-finding process." at 1019 1019 11 (citation ( citation omitted). omitted). Defendants, Defendants,however, however,do donot nothave havean anabsolute absolute right to a face-to-face meeting 12 with witnesses against them at trial. with trial. Maryland v.v. Craig, Craig 497 U.S. U.S. 836, 836, 844 844(1990). (1990). This "does
133 1 not, of course, not, course, mean thatititmay mean that mayeasily easilybe bedispensed dispensedwith." with." Id Id at at 850. 850. The The Supreme Supreme Court Court in 14 14 Craig Craig confirmed that "a defendant's that "a defendant's right right to to confront confront accusatory accusatory witnesses witnesses may may be satisfied satisfied 15 15 absent absent aa physical, physical, face-to-face face-to-face confrontation at at trial trial only where denial denial of ofsuch such confrontation confrontation is 16 necessary to further necessary to further an animportant importantpublic publicpolicy policyand andonly onlywhere wherethe thereliability reliability of the the testimony is 17 otherwise assured." assured." Id. Id (citations (citations omitted). 18 18 While Craig Craig considered the use considered the use of of one-way closed-circuit closed-circuit television, courts courts have have since 19 19 applied its reasoning applied its reasoningwith with equal equalforce force to to live, remote, technology. 2 See, remote, two-way video technology See, e.g., 20 United United States v. v. Carter, 907 F.3d 1199 1199 (9th (9thCir. Cir. 2018) 2018) ("We ("We now nowmake make clear clear that that aa defendant's 21 21 right to physically physically confront confront an an adverse adverse witness (whether (whether child child or or adult) adult) cannot cannot be compromised compromised 22
2 23 To the the extent extent Defendant Defendant argues argues that that Craig Craig is no no longer valid in light of Crawford Crawford v.v. Washington, Washington, 541 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the the Court Court is not inclined to to agree. agree. See, See, e.g.., State State v. v. Tate, Tate, 969 N.W.2d N.W.2d 378, 385 (Minn. 378, 385 (Minn. 2022) 2022) ("We("We are are not 24 persuaded otherwise by persuaded otherwise Tate's assertion by Tate's assertion that that Craig Craig is undermined undermined -- and and should not not extend extend beyond beyond itsits facts facts -on -on the ground that ground that itit conflicts conflicts with with the the Supreme Supreme Court's subsequent decisionin subsequent decision in Crawford Crawford ... . .Crawford Crawford did not overrule 25 Craig. Craig. The majority opinion in Crawford did not even cite cite to to the the Craig decision. Furthermore, Furthermore, Crawfordand and Craig 26 answered different questions:Crawford questions: Crawford addressed theconstitutionality addressed the constitutionality of admitting an out-of-court statement, while statement, while Craig considered whether a defendant's Confrontation Confrontation Clause Clause right right has has been satisfied when a court court allows allows testimony 27 via via remote remote technology in place of of face-to-face face-to-face testimony testimony forfor anan unavailable witness."), Sharla unavailable witness."); Shala/av.v. Ill. Ill. Council Council onon Term Care, Long Term Care, Inc., Inc., 529 U.S. 1, 18 (2000) 529 U.S. (2000) ("This ("This Court does not Court does not normally normally overturn ... earlier overturn ... earlierauthority authority sub sub 28 silentio."). silentio. ").
People People v. v. Cruz Cruz Case No. CF0708-23-01 CF0708-23-0l Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 3 of ofS8 l 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 2 standard standard isissatisfied. satisfied. And that standard standardisisaastringent stringentone; one,the theuse useof of remote remote video procedure procedure must 3 3 be resewed reserved for rare cases in rare cases in which whichitit isis 'necessary."'); 'necessary."'), United United States States v. v. Yates, Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1307, 4 1313 (nth Cir. 1313 (11th Cir.2006) 2006)("Our ("Ourcircuit circuitprecedent precedent acknowledges acknowledges that that Craig Craig supplies the proper test 5 for admissibility of two-way video conference admissibility of conference testimony."); testimony."), United United States States v. Bordeaux, 400 F.3d 6 548, 548, 554 (8th Cir. 554 (8th Cir. 2005) 2005) ("Craig would govern this case case even ifif there there were were not not aa precedent precedent 7 7 squarely on point squarely on point because becauseaa 'confrontation' 'confrontation'via via a two-way closed closed circuit circuit television is not not 8 constitutionally equivalenttotoaaface-to-face constitutionally equivalent face-to-faceconfrontation confrontation.... ....two-way two-waysystems systems share share with one- 9 way systems a trait traitthat thatby byitself itselfjustifies the application of justifies the ofCraig: Craig: the 'confrontations' 'confrontations' they they create 10 10 virtual, and are virtual, notreal andnot realin inthe thesense sensethat that aa face-to-faceconfrontation face-to-face confrontationis is real.").Accordingly, real."). Accordingly,
11 [W]here [W]here aa defendant's defendant's right right to to confront confront aa witness witness against himhim will will be affected, the determination determination of ofwhether whetheraa particular particular case case requires requires departure departure from from usual usual procedures 12 12 must must bebe made, made,by bythe thetrial trialcourt, court,on onaacase-by-case case-by-casebasis. basis. The court generally generally must must 13 (l) (1)hold holdananevidentiary evidentiaryhearing hearing and and (2) find: find: (a) (a)that that the the denial denial of physical face-to- physical face-to- 14 face confrontation confrontation at at trial is necessary necessary to further an an important importantpublic publicpolicy policy and and(b) (b) that the the reliability reliability of ofthe the testimony testimony is is otherwise otherwise assured. assured. 15 15 United UnitedStafes States v. v. Yates, Yates, 438 F.3d F.3d 1307, 1307,1305 1305(11th (nth Cir. 2006) 2006) (citing (citing Craig Craig, 497 U.S. at 850,855). 855). 16 16 A. Necessity Necessity to further an important public public policy 17 17 The Court Court first considers considers whether the the denial denial of aa face-to-face face-to-face physical physical confrontation confrontation is 18 18 necessary to further an important importantpublic publicpolicy. policy. See Craig, 497 U.S. at 850. 850. "Craig "Craig requires that 19 19 furtherance of the important furtherance of important public public policy policy make make it necessary necessary to deny the defendant his right to a 20 20 physical physical face-to-face confrontation." confrontation." Yates, Yates, 438 438 F.3d F.3d at at 1316 (emphasisininoriginal). 1316 (emphasis original)."[A] "[A] 21 criminal defendant's constitutional rights cannot be be neglected neglected merely to avoid avoid added added expense or 22 22 inconvenience." inconvenience." Carter, 907 F.3d at 1208. 1208. See also also Yates, Yates, 438 F.3d at 1316 (requiring court to 1316 (requiring 23 23 make "case-specific findings make "case-specific findings of offact factthat that would would support support a conclusion that that[a] [a] case caseisisdifferent different from from 24 any any other criminal prosecution in criminal prosecution in which which the the Government Government would find it it convenient convenient to to present present 25 testimony by two-way testimony by two-way video video conference."). 26 26 On On March March 25, 25, 2025, 2025, the Court Court held held an an evidentiary evidentiary hearing hearing and and heard heard sworn testimony 27 27 from Dr. Nine Nine regarding regarding his his family's family'shealth healthsituation situation and and the the impact traveling to Guam Guam would 28 28
People v. v. Cruz CaseNo. No. CF0708-23-01 CF0708-23-01 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 4 of8 1 have. The The Court Court considers considers these these facts facts in in addition addition to to those those set set forth in his Declaration filed March 2 21, 2025. 2025. The The COurt also considers Court also considers the the statement statement received received from from Mrs. Mrs. Nine's Nine's physician submitted
3 by the Government Governmenton onApril April2,2, 2025 2025. 4 Dr. Dr. Nine testified that while testified that while on on Guam, Guam, he and his wife decided decided to to foster foster a child with 5 disabilities and formally adopted him in in 2024. Their Their son requires twenty-four twenty-four (24) (24) hours of of care 6 for his disability. disability. In 2024, Dr. Dr. Nine's Nine's wife developed developed aa new condition condition which which without without treatment, 7 would result in permanent permanent blindness blindness and stroke. stroke. Dr. Dr. Nine's wife wife treatment treatment requires requires weekly 8 injections and she cannot drive. drive. In May 2024, Dr. Nine and his family moved to Ohio because
9 they required required medical medical care care not not available available on on Guam. Guam. Dr. Dr. Nine testified that his testified that his wife wife and son's
10 10 conditions are significant and lifelong. Traveling conditions Travelingto to Guam Guam from from Ohio Ohio requires requires forty-eight forty-eight to sixty 11 11 hours of travel, travel, as as Guam Guam and and Ohio Ohio are are over over 7,500 7,500 miles miles apart. apart. Dr. Nine testified that his absence
12 for an extended period of of time time (i.e. (i.e. more than than twenty-four twenty-four (24) (24) hours) would result in severe 13 consequences consequences for his family, especially for his his wife. wife. Dr. Dr. Nine Ninetestified testified that that when when he he had had to travel 14 14 to Guam from Ohio while he was still under contract to conduct autopsies, he would travel on the 15 15 weekends to try to weekends to avoid interrupting intemipting his son's appointments during the week. Dr. Dr. Nine Nine testified 16 that his wife suffered greatly during these trips trips as as she she was was unable unable to to get the required amount of of 17 17 sleep every every night night (8 (8 to 10 hours) for for her her medical medical condition while while he he was away and it took his wife 18 18 a long time to recover from his travel away. away. Dr. Nine further testified that he he does not have any
19 19 vicinity of family in the vicinity where they of where they live live to to assist, assist, nor nor is is he he able able to to utilize visiting visiting nurses nurses to assist 20 due to his son's need need for for twenty-four-hour twenty-four-hour care. 21 21 Courts have found illness a sufficient justification to satisfy the necessity necessity prong of Craig. Craig. 22 "The st statee ha has aa legit ima int legitimate er interest in pr ot ing the wit protecting witness fr from physica physical da danger aand 23 suffering." Horn v. Quarterman, Quarterman, 508 F.3d 306, 320 (5th (5th Cir. Cir. 2007). 2007). "[I]t is possible to view
24 Craig as allowing a necessity-based exception for face-to-face, in-courtroom in-courtroom confrontation where where
25 25 the witness's the witness's inability inability to to testify testify invokes invokes the the state's state'sinterest interestininprotecting protectingthe thewitness witness... ... from
26 26 physical danger or suffering." Id. Id. In In State State v. v. Sweidan, Sweidan, a Washington Court further concluded 27 "thatt the imp nt policy important olicy of aalleviating llevia t ing physical hys ica l pain p a in and a nd suffering ffer ing can ca n extend t end too tthe
28 circumstances circumstances when the witness would attend to another's another's needs needs resulting resulting from from such such suffering. suffering.
People v. v. Cruz Case No. CF0708-23-0ll Case No. Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 5 of of88 l No No reason reason exists exists to to distinguish distinguish between between the aching of ofthe the witness witness and and the hurting hurting of of a witness's
2 2 close family member." member." State v. Sweidan, Sweidan, 461 461 P.3d 378,389 389(Wash. (Wash.App. App. 2020). 2020). See also, also, People 3 v. v. Coulthard, Coulthard, 307 Cal. Rprtr.3d 383, 383, 411 411(Cal.App. (Cal.App. 2023) 2023) (finding (findingthe the People Peoplemet mettheir their burden burden to 4 show the witness's show witness's remote remote testimony testimony was necessary necessary to advance advance an an important public policy important public 5 (ensuring ( ensuring the health of of courtroom users users during duringthe theCO COVID-19 VID-19 pandemic) where where the the witness was 6 the primary caretaker of her two young children, caretaker of children, did did not not have have the the means means to arrange for alternate arrange for alternate 7 childcare, her childcare, her testimony testimonycould couldnot notbe besupplanted supplanted by byanother, another, and and where where the the defendant defendant asserted asserted his 8 right to a speedy speedy trial). trial).
9 Accommodating Dr. Dr. Nine's Nine'srequirement requirement to to remain remain in in the the state state of Ohio to take take care of of his
10 10 wife wife and and son's son's health health conditions is more than than aa matter matterof of convenience. convenience. Because Because his his presence presence is 11 needed in Ohio as a caretaker, caretaker,he hecannot cannottravel travelthe thesignificant significant distance to to Guam Guamto totestify testify in in person 12 12 without endangering endangeringtheir theirhealth. health.Mrs. Mrs. Nine's Nine's physician physician confirmed confirmed that it will be be detrimental detrimental to 13 her health healthif if Dr. Dr. Nine Nine were to to be gone for more than thantwenty-four twenty-fourhours. hours.See SeeMedical Medical Professional Professional
14 Statement RegardingDr. Statement Regarding Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine, Apr. 2, 2, 2025. There Thereare are no no reasonable reasonable alternatives which 15 15 would allow this this matter matter to proceed in a timely timely fashion. fashion. Defendant Defendanthas has asserted asserted his right to aa 16 16 speedy trial and speedy trial the health Dr. Nine testified that the and Dr. healthconditions conditionshis hiswife wife and and son sonface face are are lifelong. lifelong.
17 17 Thus, as their Thus, as challengesare healthchallenges their health arenot notlikely likely to improve improve soon, soon, there there does does not not appear appear to be any any 18 18 option to continue option continue trial time for Dr. Nine trial to a later time Nine to to travel travel the the long long distance distance to to Guam Guam and testify and testify 19 in m person. person. 20 20 In light In ofthe light of the above, above, the the Court Court finds that Dr. Dr. Nine's Nine's remote remote video video testimony testimony is is necessary necessary 21 to further the important further the importantpublic publicpolicy policyof of health health care care-- caring caring for ailing ailing family family members members and and 22 22 preventing furtherharm preventing further harmtotohis hiswife's wife's already already serious seriousmedical medicalcondition. condition. Dr. Dr. Nine's Nine's testimony testimony 23 23 regarding the state state of the victim victimchild childupon uponhis his an'ival arrivalatatthe thescene sceneand and his his subsequent autopsyof subsequent autopsy of
24 the body cannot be be provided provided by anyone else. See Bullcoming anyone else. Bullcoming v. New Mexico, Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 658-
25 59 (2011) (2011) ("Melena'ez-Diaz, ("Melendez-Diaz, relying relying on on Crawford 's rationale, Crawford's refused to rationale, refused to create create a 'forensic 'forensic 26 26 evidence' evidence' exception exceptionto tothis this rule. rule. An An analyst's analyst's certification certificationprepared prepared in in connection with a criminal connection with 27 27 investigation investigation or or prosecution, the the Court Courtheld, held,isis 'testimonial,' 'testimonial,' and and therefore within within the compass compass of of
28 the Confrontation Clause."). Clause.").
People v. v. Cruz Case No. CF0708-23-0l Case No. CF0708-23-0 I Decision Decision and and Order
Page 6 of of8 1 B. Reliability Reliability of Testimony 2 The Court turns nextto turns next tothe thereliability reliability prong prong of the Craig analysis. analysis. The The Government Government has has 3 the the burden burden to show show that that testimony testimony obtained obtained through through a live, live, two-way two-way audio-video audio-video 4 telecommunication telecommunication is reliable. reliable. See See Craig, 497 U.S. at at 850. "To satisfy 850. "To satisfy this this prong, prong, the the witness witness 5 must must generally be be under under oath and understand understandthe theseriousness seriousnessof of his his or or her her testimony, testimony, the witness
6 must be subject must be subj et to cross-examination, and and the judge, jury, jury, and and defendant must must be be able able to to properly properly
7 see and hearthe and hear thetestifying testifyingwitness." witness." Id. Id at at 845-46. 845-46. 8 The Court understands understandsthat thathe theintended intendedformat formatfor forDr. Dr.Nine Ninetototestify testifyremotely remotely via via audio-
9 video telecommunication telecommunication is Zoom, the medium medium from which he testified remotely on on March 25, 10 10 2025. 2025. At Atthat that hearing, hearing, the the Court, the Government, Defense Defense Counsel, Counsel, and and Defendant were able to II 11 see and hear Dr. Nine without hear Dr. without technical technical difficulty as as he he answered answered questions questions from both both the the 12 12 Government and defense. Dr. Nine's and defense. Nine's camera camera was was clear clear and his his video video feed was fully displayed on
13 13 the courtroom television television screen. Dr. Dr. Nine's Nine'scamera camerapresented presentedhis his upper upper body and face, face, similar to
14 what azury would see jury would from aawitness see from witnesssitting sittingat atthe thewitness witnessstand. stand.At Attrial, trial,Dr. Dr.Nine's Nine's video video picture
15 15 will will be be fully fully displayed displayed on on the Court's 65-inch television television in the the courtroom courtroomfor forthe thejury. jury. Dr. Dr. Nine Nine
16 16 has has testified over over 250 250 times times as as aa medical medical examiner examinerand and therefore thereforeunderstands understands the seriousness of seriousness of 17 17 his testimony. testimony. Additionally, Additionally, Dr. Dr. Nine Nine sets sets forth the following following in in his his Declaration: Declaration: 18 8. I will willsecure securesuch such equipment equipment and and arrange for for such such technical assistance assistance as may be required to testify by means of audio-video communication. communication. 19 19 9. I understand thatififII am understand that amallowed allowed to to testify either by deposition or by means means of 20 audio-visual telecommunication,that audio-visual telecommunication, thatI Iwill will be sworn to tell the the truth, truth, the the whole 21 truth, andnothing truth, and nothing but but the thetruth truthunder underthe thelaws lawsofof Guam amwilling andam Guam and willing to take take such such 22 oath as the the Court may may require. require.
23 (Decl. (Deel. of ofDr. Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine ,r,r8-9, Nine W 8-9, Mar. Mar. 21, 21, 2025). Any AnyZoom Zoomtestimony testimony will willalso also be be subject subject to
24 contemporaneous cross-examination.AAjury contemporaneous cross-examination. jury will will be be able able to clearly clearly see see and and observe Dr. Nine as as he testifies, judge judge his his demeanor demeanor and the the manner manner in in which he he testifies, and and ultimately determine 25 25
his testimony whether his testimony isisworthy worthy of of belief. Accordingly, Accordingly,the theCourt Courtfinds findsthat thatthe the Government Government has has 26 26
27 shown that thattestimony testimonyobtained obtainedthrough throughaalive, live,two-way two-way video video telecommunication is reliable. 27
People v. v. Cruz Case No. CF0708-23-0l Case No. CF0708-23-01 Decision Decision and Order
Page 7 of8 of 8 1 The Court, having found that both prongs of of the Craig test are satisfied, hereby grants the
2 Government's Motion Government's Motionto to allow allow Dr. Dr. Nine Nine to to testify testify at at trial remotely remotely via Zoom.
3 CONCLUSION
4 foregoing reasons, For the foregoing the Court reasons, the Court hereby hereby GRANTS GRANTS the Government's Motion Motion for for 5 Relief to Allow the Testimony of Relief of Former Medical Examiner Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine, Nine, M.D., MD., via Audio-
66 Telecommunication. Parties Video Telecommunication. Partiesshall shallreturn return for for aa continued continued Pre-Trial Conference on April 4, 7 2025 at 2:00 p.m. Jury Selection and Trial Trial shall shall commence commence on April April 10, 10, 2025 2025 at at 1:30 p.m. 8 ti re
9 IT IS SO ORDERED this this _1_ 9 day dayofofApril, April, 2025. 2025.
111 »
12 12 HONORABLE VERNON p. P. PEREZ Superior Judge, Superior Court of Guam 13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21 slegvlcl Sl!IIVICB y vIA VIA I-MAIL B-MAIL 22 22 1 acWno1N•eoge that 1 acirhowledge that an ~" elecllomx. electron1t Copy of the the Ovgmal or,g,r,a, was wa~ e e walled ma,led to
23 23 /6,, Ff /eAi /it; f ishtv 24 24 Date 9/s/m Tilde. 5-l/é-» 25 /we 6/kim ifvl Deputy clerk. . Superior Deputy SupenmCourt Coin al of Guam Guam 26 26
27 27
28 28
People v. v. Cruz Case No. CF0708-23-0l Case No. CF0708-23-01 Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 8 of8 of