People v. Guzman

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: April 28, 2025
• Docket: CF0028-25
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

F F! L E :J 1 I 1 st r"r= !'=-"l§" CLEAR==. Qs" ; §

2 2025 EPR 2025 APR 28 28PMp 2: 22 3 §:~urEw€§-.q 4 OF GL¥§3= OFGUAMa-._ 5 5

6 IN THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7

8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASENO. CRIMINAL CASE no. CF0028-25 9 vs. 10 10 DECISION AND ORDER 11 ROLAND JUNIOR JUANILLO GUZMAN 12 12 aka Roland Juanillo Guzman Jr. aka Roland Jay Guzman, 13

14 14 Defendant.

15 INTRODUC TION INTRODUCTION 16 16 This matter came came before before the Honorable Vernon Vernon P. Perez Perez on on March March 31, 31, 2025, 2025, for hearing hearing 17 17 on Defendant Roland Roland Junior Junior Juanillo Juanillo Guzman Guzman aka aka Roland Roland Juanillo Juanillo Guzman Guzman Jr. Jr. aka Roland Jay Jay 18 18 Guzman's ("Defendant") ("Defendant") Motion Motionto toDisclose DiscloseInformant Informant Identity. Present Present were were Assistant Attorney Attorney 19 19 General Neal Bonavita Bonavita on behalf of the People of Guam ("the ("the Government") Government") and and Defendant with 20 counsel, Assistant Alternate Alternate Public Defender Peter J. Santos. Having reviewed J. Santos. reviewed the the pleadings, the 21 arguments presented,and arguments presented, andthe therecord, record,the theCourt Courtnow nowissues issuesthe thefollowing following Decision Decision and and Order. 22 BACKGROUND 23 23 1 On January 17, 2025, January 17, 2025,Defendant Defendantwas wasindicted indictedl withtwo with two counts counts of of Possession of aa Possession of 24 Schedule II Controlled Substance Schedule II withIntent Substance with IntenttotoDispense Dispense(As (As a First First Degree Degree Felony) and and one 25

26 l1 On April April24, 24,2025, 2025,the theGrand GrandJury Jury returned returned aa Superseding Superseding Indictment against Defendant. Indictment against Defendant. SeeSee Superseding Superseding 24, 2025. Indictment, Apr. 24, 2025. The TheSuperseding SupersedingIndictment Indictmentdid didnot add any notadd any additional additional charges charges but but amended amended thethebody body of of 27 27 Count Two ofofthe the First First Charge Charge of ofPossession Possession ofofaaSchedule Schedule IIIIControlled ControlledSubstance Substance with Intent to Dispense Intent to Dispense (As (As a 28 First Degree Degree Felony). Felony). Count Count Two Two now now reads reads asas follows: follows:

People People v. Guzman Case No. CF0028-25 Decision Decision and and Order

Page 11 of of6 f 1 count count of Possession of aa Firearm Possession of Firearm Without Without Valid Valid Identification (As a Identification (As a Third Third Degree Degree 2 Felony). Felony). (Indictment, (Indictment,Jan. Jan. 17, 17, 2025). The TheFirst FirstCharge Charge-- Count CountOne One of ofPossession Possession of ofaa Schedule Schedule 3 II Controlled Controlled Substance with Intent Substance with Intenttoto Dispense Dispense(As (As a First First Degree Degree Felony) Felony) stems stems from from aa 4 controlled controlled buy operation with a Guam GuamPolice Police Informant Informanton onJanuary January8,8,2025. 2025.(Deel. (Decl.of ofEmily EmilyL.A. L.A.

5 Rees, Magistrate's Magistrate's Compl., Con pl.,Jan. Jan.11, ll, 2025). 2025). The The First First Charge Charge -- Count Two of Count Two ofPossession of aa Possession of 6 Schedule II Controlled Controlled Substance with Intent Substance with Intentto to Dispense Dispense(As (As a First First Degree Degree Felony) and and Second Second 7 Charge of Possession of of a Firearm Firearmwithout withoutValid ValidIdentification Identification(As (As a Third Third Degree Degree Felony) Felony) stem stem 8 Hom from the discovery discovery of of174.8 174.8gross grossgrams gramsofofsuspected suspectedmethamphetamine, methamphetamine, drug drug paraphernalia paraphernalia and and 9 a firearm firearm during during the execution execution of ofaasearch search warrant warrant at at Defendant's Defendant'sresidence residenceon onJanuary January 10, 10, 2025. 2025. 10 10 Id

11 On March March 19, 19, 2025, 2025, Defendant filed the Defendant filed the instant Motion. On instant Motion. On March March 26, 26, 2025, 2025, the the 12 12 Government filed filed its its Opposition. Opposition. On OnMarch March 28, 28, 2025, Defendant filed 2025, Defendant filed his Reply. Reply.

13 1 On On March March 31, 31, 2025, 2025, the Court Court heard heard arguments Motion and arguments on the Motion and subsequently subsequently placed 14 14 the matter under under advisement. advisement.

15 15 DISCUSSION

16 16 Defendant moves the Defendant moves the Court Court to to order the the Government to disclose Government to the identity disclose the identity of three three 17 17 confidential informants:SOI#l; confidential informants: SoI#l, SOI#2; SOI#2, and and GPI#24-024. GPI#24-024. (Mot. (Mot. Disclose Disclose at at 2, 2, Mar. Mar. 19, 19, 18 18 2025). Defendant Defendant argues argues that the the identity identity of the confidential informants is critical to his defense

19 19 because "there is no because "there no eyewitness eyewitness account accountof of [him] [him] actually actually distributing distributingmethamphetamine." methamphetamine."Id Id at

20 20 TheGovernment 3. The Governmentopposes, does not indicating ititdoes opposes, indicating not intend intend to to call call any any of ofthe the three three individuals individuals as as 21 witnesses at trial. trial. See See generally, Opp'n, Opp'n, Mar. Mar. 26, 26, 2025. 2025. The The Government Government further further notes that that"[a]s "[a]s

23 23 Count Two Count Two

24 24 On oror about about January January 10, 10, 2025, 2025, in Guam, Guam, ROLAND JUNIOR JUNIOR JUANILLO GUZMAN GUZMAN (aka (aka Roland Juanillo Guzman Jr.; aka Roland Roland Jay Guzman) did aka Roland Jay Guzman) did commitcommit the offense of Possession offense of 25 of ofSchedule a ScheduleIIIIControlled ControlledSubstance Substancewith with IntentDispense Intent Dispense (As a P'It Degree Felony), Felony),ininthat that he/she he/she knowingly or did knowingly orintentionally intentionallypossess possess with withintent intenttotodispense dispense aacontrolled controlledsubstance, substance, that that is, 26 26 methamphetamine, and methamphetamine, and the the methamphetamine methamphetamineweighed weighed between between5050 and and 500 500 grams grams gross gross mixture, in violation off GCA § 67.401.1(a)(l) and (b)(l), and 67.40l.4(a)(l)(D). in violation of9 GCA § 67.401.l(a)(l) and (b)(l), and 67.401.4(a)(l)(D). 27 27 (Superseding Indictment, (Superseding Indictment, Apr. Apr. 24, 24, 2025). 2025). Arraignment Arraignment onon the the Superseding Superseding Indictment currently set Indictment is currently setfor for May 8, 8, 28 2025 at 10:00 a.m. a.1n. See Penal Summons, Apr. 25, 2025. Summons, Apr. 2025.

People v. Guzman Guzman CaseNo. No. CF0028-25 CF0028-25 Decision Decision and and Order

Page 2 of 6 1 a policy policy matter, matter, once the identity identity of ofaa confidential confidential informant informant becomes becomes known, known, the the informant's informant's 2 safety is is placed placed at at risk, risk, and the the informant's continued continued ability to assist with police police operations operations is is 3 jeopardized." Id at jeopardized." at 3. 4 Under Guam law, the Government is not required to disclose to to aa defendant: defendant: 5 an informant's inforlnant's identity identity where where hishis identity is aa prosecution prosecution secret and failure to and a failure to disclose will will not not infringe infringe the the constitutional constitutional rights ofof the the defendant. defendant. However, the 6 identity identity of ofan an informant informant may may notnot be be kept kept secret secret where where the the prosecuting prosecuting attorney attorney 7 intends to call such such person as as a witness witness at the the trial. 8 8 G.C.A. §§ 70.20(b). 8 G.C.A. 70.20(b). Although Althoughthe theGovernment Governmenthas hasindicated indicated ititdoes not intend does not call any to call intend to of the any of the 9 three three confidential informants aswitnesses informants as witnessesatattrial, trial,the theCourt's Court'sanalysis analysisdoes doesnot notend endthere. there."The "The 10 10 Government has has aalimited limitedprivilege privilege to withhold the the identity identity of a confidential informant." informant." United United 11 11 States v. v. Williams, Williams, 808 F.2d 1400, 808 F.2d 1400,1402 1402(9th (9thCir. 1990)(citing Cir. 1990) Roviaro v. (citingRoviaro v. United UnitedStates, States, 353 U.S. 353 U.S. 12 12 53, 59 (1957)). "Due "Duetotothe thestrong strongpublic public interest interest in in furthering furthering effective effective law law enforcement, enforcement, the the 13 13 government government enjoys a privilege to to withhold withhold from from disclosure disclosure the the identity identity of ofpersons persons who who furnish furnish 14 14 law enforcement officers with with information information on criminal acts." acts." United United States v. Vincent, States v. Vincent, 611 611 F.3d 15 15 1246, 1246, 1251 (10th Cir. 1251 (10th Cir. 2010) 2010) (quoting Mendoza-Salgado, Mendoza-Salgado, 964 F.2d at 1000). The defendant defendant bears bears 16 16 the burden of demonstrating burden of the need demonstrating the need for disclosure, and and a mere suspicion suspicion that the the information 17 17 will prove prove helpful helpful will not not suffice." suffice." Williams, Williams, 808 F.2d at 808 F.2d at 1402 1402(citations (citationsomitted). omitted). If If "the 18 18 disclosure of an disclosure of an informer's identity, identity, or of ofthe the contents contents of ofhis his communication, communication, is is relevant relevant and and 19 19 helpful to the defense of ofan an accused, or is accused, or is essential essential to to aa fair fair determination determination of of a cause, cause,the theprivilege privilege 20 20 must give way." must give way." Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 353 U.S. at 60-61. 60-61. The TheCourt Courtmust must balance: balance: 21 the public interest in inprotecting protecting the theflow flow of of information information against against the individual's right to prepare his defense. defense. Whether Whetheraaproper properbalance balance renders renders non-disclosure erroneous 22 must depend on thetheparticular particularcircumstances circumstancesof of each case, case,taking taking into into consideration 23 23 the crime charged, the possible charged, the possible defenses, defenses, the thepossible possiblesignificance significance of the informer's 24 testimony, and factors. and other relevant factors.

25 Id. at at62. 62. This Thisinquiry inquirydefies defiesmechanical mechanicalsolutions: solutions: in indetermining determining whether whether the privilege privilege must must

26 26 give way, give thetrial way, the trialcourt courtmust must consider consider the the particular particular circumstances of each circumstances of each case, case, balancing the the

27 27 accused's accused's right to prepare and present presenthis his defense defense against against the the public public interest in acquiring needed needed

28 information and the informant's and the informant'sstake stakein inconfidentiality." confidentiality." United United States States v. Perez, Perez, 299 F.3d 1, 299 F.3d l, 4 4

People People v. Guzman Case No. No. CF0028-25 Decision Decision and and Order

Page 3 of6 of l (let (1stCir. Cir.2002) 2002) (citation (citationomitted). "Inmaking omitted). "In requisiteshowing therequisite makingthe under the Roviaro standard, showingunder

2 the defendant present more must present defendant must than mere more than speculation about mere speculation the possible about the usefulness of possible usefulness an of an

3 informant's testimony. Disclosure of testimony. Disclosure an informant ofan is not informant is required where not required the information where the sought information sought

4 from from him him or or her her would merely cumulative, would be merely or where cumulative, or the informant where the is not informant is participant in or a not aa participant

5 witness to the crime charged." United States v. charged." United 565, 567 v. Moralez, 908 F.2d 565, 1990) 567 (10th Cir. 1990)

6 (citations citations omitted). Courts Courts examining involving confidential cases involving examining cases informants have looked confidential informants at looked at

7 whether they fall into three broad into three categories:: broad categories

8 At one At extreme are one extreme the cases are the where the cases where informant is the informant mere tipster, is aa mere and disclosure tipster, and is not not required. At the required. At other extreme the other are cases extreme are such as cases such as Roviaro itself where the itself where the 9 informant has informant has played crucial role in played a crucial in the allegedcriminal the alleged transaction, and criminaltransaction, and 10 disclosure and disclosure productionof and production of the informant are the informant required to are required ensure aa fair to ensure trial. In fair trial. caseswhere addition, there are cases thereis wherethere slightpossibility isaaslight might benefit possibility a defendant might benefit 111 but the government has demonstrated aacompelling from disclosure, but compelling need to protect 12 informant. its informant. 13 13 Id Id at at568 (internal citations omitted). 568 (internal 14 14 A. GP#24-024 GP#24-024 15 15 The Court will consider whether first consider will first or not whether or ofGPI#24-024 not the identity of must be disclosed GPI#24-024 must 16 16 inaa controlled involvedin was involved GPI#24-024 was to Defendant. GPI#24-024 buy with controlledbuy the Defendant, withthe which forms the Defendant, which 17 17 of a Schedule of Possession of Charge of the First Charge of the basis of basis II Controlled Substance Schedule II (As a First Degree Substance (As Degree 18 18 Hearing,the MotionHearing, theMotion One. AtAtthe CountOne. Felony) -- Count Governmentstated theGovernment that the statedthat recording of the the recording 19 19 defense counsel. to defense sent to controlled buy was sent counsel for Aftercounsel counsel. After Defendant clarified for Defendant that they clarifiedthat had they had 20 20 the Government discovery, the that discovery, not received that indicatedititwould Governmentindicated sendit.it.On wouldsend April11, OnApril 2025, the ll, 2025, 21 for in camera review Court ordered the Government to submit for video recording review the video ofthe recording of January theJanuary 22 Motion to Disclose. Defendant's Motion Re: Defendant's OrderRe: See Order buy. See controlledbuy. 2025 controlled 8, 2025 April16, On April Disclose. On 2025, the 16, 2025, 23 23 Coult'sreview. theCourt's forthe Recordingsfor VideoRecordings BuyVideo ControlledBuy theControlled sealthe underseal submittedunder Government submitted review. 24 buyfootage controlledbuy 2025controlled 8,2025 January 8, The January consists of footage consists video recordings of two video and includes recordings and 25 footage shows Although the video footage video. Although andvideo. audio and both audio GPI#24-024 drive to the target location, shows GPI#24-024 26 26 the residence enterthe location,enter thelocation, arriveatatthe alive period of for aa period residence for time, exit oftime, theresidence exitthe to spend residence to spend time 27 27 outside near outside with Defendant, speakwith to speak truck to the truck inside the go inside andgo truck, and near a truck, thereisisno Defendant,there footage of no footage 28 28 acceptingmoney oraccepting drugsor GPI#24-024drugs handing GPI#24-024 Defendant handing Defendant from GPI#24-024. moneyfrom camera is GPI#24-024. The camera

People People v. Guzman Case No. No. CF0028-25 Decision Decision and Order

Page 4 of6 of 1 facing facing the the truck's truck's dash dash and and windshield windshield for most most of ofthe theconversation conversation inside inside the the sTuck, truck, not not 2 2 Defendant. Further, Further, the the audio quality of ofthe the conversation conversation between between Defendant Defendant and and GPI#24-024 is 3 somewhat muffled muffled and difficult to and difficult to understand understand at times. times.

4 In In this this case, case, Defendant is charged Defendant is charged with with selling selling or delivering delivering drugs drugs to the the confidential confidential 5 informant informant on or about January8,8,2025 about January 2025ininCount CountOne Oneof ofthe theFirst FirstCharge. Charge. Only Defendant Defendant and and 6 GPI#24-024 were present in the present in thevehicle vehicle where where the the controlled controlled buy buy took took place. place. Although Although there there is a 7 video recording recording of ofGPI#24-024's GPI#24-024's encounter encounter with with Defendant, Defendant, as noted earlier, earlier, there there is is no no video

8 footage of ofDefendant Defendant actually handingGPI#24-024 actually handing GPI#24-024drugs dogs in exchange exchange for for money. money. Thus, Thus, similar 9 to Roviaro, "[t]his "[t]hisisisaacase casewhere wherethe theGovernment's Government'sinformer informerwas wasthe thesole soleparticipant, participant, other other than than 10 10 the accused, accused, in inthe thetransaction transactioncharged. charged.The The informer informer was the the only only witness in aaposition positionto toamplify amplify

11 11 or contradict the the testimony testimony of of government witnesses." witnesses." Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 353 U.S. at 64. 64. The "disclosure

12 12 of of aa confidential confidential informant informant is required where the defendant defendantisis charged chargedwith withselling selling or or delivering delivering

13 13 illegal drugs to illegal drugs the subj to the et informant subject informant and and the the informant informant is is the the sole sole participant participant in the transaction." transaction."

14 State v. v. Williams, Williams, 389 So. 3d 578, 582 (Fla. 578, 582 (Fla. Dist. Ct. Ct. App. App. 2023) 2023) (internal (internalquotation quotation marks marks and and 15 15 citation omitted). See See also United United States States v. v. Robinson, Robinson, 144 144 F.3d 104, 106(1st 104, 106 (1stCir. Cir. 1998) 1998)("This ("This

16 16 burden is heavy, burden is not intractable. but not heavy, but intractable.If, If, for example, example, the the informant informant is is the the sole sole participant, participant, other 17 17 than the accused, than the accused,in inthe thetransaction transactioncharged, charged,ororifif the theinformant informantisis the the only only person person who who is in a

18 18 position to amplify amplify or or contradict contradict crucial crucial testimony testimony of ofgovernment governmentwitnesses, witnesses, then then the the court court may 19 19 order disclosure."). Accordingly, Accordingly,should shouldthe theGovernment Government seek seek to continue to move forward with continue to 20 20 count one of the count one Charge, it First Charge, the First it must must provide provide the the identity identity of ofthe the confidential confidential informant informant to 21 Defendant. Defendant. 22 22 B. SOI#1 S01#1 & & SOI#2 S01#2 23 The Court next Tums turns totowhether whetheror ornot notthe theidentities identitiesof ofSOI#l SOI#l and and SOI#2 must be be disclosed disclosed

24 to Defendant. Defendant Defendantargues argues that that "the "thecase caseagainst againsthim him appears appears to be that he circumstantially 25 possessed methamphetaminefound possessed methamphetamine foundatatthe thelocation locationwhere whereaawarrant warrantwas wasissued" issued"and and"[a]t "[a]t trial,

26 26 [he] [he] will willchallenge challengethe theinformant's informant'sallegations allegationsthat thathe hedistributed distributedmethamphetamine all, or methamphetamine at all, or from from

27 27 the targetlocation." the target location." (Mot. (Mot. Disclose Disclose at 3). 28

People v. Guzman Case No. CF0028-25 Case No. CF0028-25 Decision Decision and and Order

Page 55 of6 off 1 Here, SOI#l SOI#l and and SOI#2 SOI#2 provided provided information to GPD used information to to support used to supportGPD's GPD's Affidavit Affidavit

2 for Search Warrant. Thus, Search Warrant. Thus, the the information information they provided provided only only goes goes to to the the probable probable cause for the 3 search. search. Courts Courts have consistently denied disclosure disclosure where where the the informant informantmerely merely provided provided police police

4 with the the probable-cause basisfor probable-cause basis for a search search warrant. warrant. "[D]isc1osure "[D]isclosure is is rarely rarely necessary necessary when, when, as as 5 here, the informant's role was only as as a tipster who who provided probable cause for a search." cause for search." United United 6 States v. Long, 774 774 F.3d 653,663 653, 663(10th (lath Cir. Cir. 2014) 2014) (citing (citing United United States v. v. Moralez, Morales, 908 F.2d 565,

7 567 (10th Cir. 567 (10th Cir. 1990)). l990)). See also United United States States v. Robinson, Robinson, 144 144 F.3d 104, 107(1st 104, 107 (let Cir. 1998) 1998) 8 ("Where, ("Where,as as here, here, the the government's government's informants informants neither neither participated participated in in nor nor witnessed witnessed the events 9 that inculpated the that inculpated the defendant defendant and andled led to to his arrest, the informants arrest, the ordinarily are informants ordinarily are deemed mere 10 10 tipsters. Moreover, tipsters. wehave Moreover, we haveheld heldwith withaaregularity regularitybordering borderingon onthe theecholalic echolalicthat that tipsters, tipsters, as as 11 11 opposed to informants opposed to who are active informants who active participants participants in the the crimes crimes charged, charged, generally deserve deserve 12 12 anonymity."), anonymity."); United United States States v. v. Bender, Bender, 55 F.3d 267, 267, 270 270 (7th (7th Cir. Cir. 1993) 1993) ("When ("When the information

13 13 is a mere 'tipster,' 'tipster,' rather rather than than a participant or an eye witness to the event in in question, disclosure 14 not be will not be required."). required."). The TheSOls SOiswere werenot notparticipants participants or or eye eyewitnesses witnesses to to the the search search of the the 15 15 residence and/orroom residence and/or thedrugs wherethe roomwhere drugsand andfirearm firearmwere werediscovered discoveredby byGPD GPD and andthe theSOis SOls will will

16 not be witnesses witnesses at attrial. trial. Accordingly, Accordingly, the the Court Court does does not find that the disclosure that the disclosureof of SOI#l SOI#l and and 17 17 SOI#2 is required at this this time time and anddenies deniesthis thisportion portionof ofDefendant's Defendant's Motion. Motion.

18 18 CONCLUSION

19 For the the foregoing foregoing reasons, reasons,the theCourt Court hereby hereby GRANTSININPART GRANTS PARTand andDENIES DENIESIN INPART PART

20 20 Defendant's Motion Motion to to Disclose Disclose Informant Informant Identity.

of»* 21

IT IS IS SO SO ORDERED ORDEREDthis day of April, this 2,~~ay April, 2025. 2025. 22

23 23

24 slnvlce vIA Sl!RVICI! VIAe-MAIL l!-MAIL m l

l1 acxnowwuge acknow•eage Ihav that an an electrons; electroruc.

25 Cony Copy of tt\e ne av-gmal wasee ma,led 011g1"a1 was ma-led to to HONORABLE HONORABLE VERNON VERNON p. P. PEREZ 11; Ii P01 I Judge, Judge, Superior Court of Guam 26

27 27 Dale Ume. Z I/\ #f/51% 6/'¢4 28 Deputy Depu!V' clerk Superior COir\ clerk, Supe,1or of Guam Court at

People v. Guzman Case No. No. CF0028-25 Decision Decision and and Order

Page 6 of6 of