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
22
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