People v. James

Opinion

I ,

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 PEOPLE OF GUAM, )

) t 4 CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF461-12 vs. )

5 )

)

6 MA YCAN MARTIN JAMES, ) DECISION AND ORDER )

7 Defendant. )

8 )

9

10 This matter came before the Honorable James L. Canto II on Defendant's motion to II compel discovery, filed September 10, 2012. Oral arguments were heard on October 8, 2012.

12 Assistant Attorney General Nicolas Barrett, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Government and 13 Assistant Public Defender Rebecca Warfield, Esq. represented the Defendant. Having 14 considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the 15 following Decision and Order.

16 The Court expresses its ruling in concert with the format Defendant adopts in his Reply 17 to People's Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery, filed October 2, 2012 18 (hereinafter "Def. Reply"), wherein Defendant details fourteen (14) specific areas or items of 19 discovery of which Defendant moves to compel disclosure by the Government.

20 Def. Reply 1 -- Defendant does not specifically request anything not already provided to 21 him. If any further statements or waivers by Defendant are offered by Prosecution in the future 22 that are not timely disclosed to Defendant before trial, then any such documents will be 23 excluded at trial.

24 Def. Reply 2 -- Court orders in camera review of any pertinent CPS file, if it exists, and 25 said file shall be delivered to Court within 3 days of issuance of this Order, for the Court to 26 review in camera and determine what items are discoverable, if any.

27

28

Page 1 of4

Def. Reply 3 -- Prosecution is ordered to exercise due diligence to determine whether 2 any chain of custody record exists and which Prosecution intends to introduce at trial. If no 3 disclosure is timely made before trial, then any such document will be excluded at trial. 4 Def. Reply 4 -- Prosecution is reminded of its ongoing duty to disclose in accordance 5 with People v. Laxamana, 2001 Guam 26. 6 Def. Reply 5 -- Prosecution is ordered to disclose any recording or memorialization of a 7 statement or statements made by alleged victim to any agent of the Government, whether it be 8 mechanically recorded, digitally recorded, or manually recorded in the form of a manual 9 writing. Any work product included in any such recording, etc. may be redacted by Prosecution 10 before disclosure. 11 Def. Reply 6 -- Prosecution filed a witness list on September 12,2012, detailing all their 12 percipient witnesses. In their response to motion, filed September 21, 2012, Prosecution relied 13 upon this witness list in response to Defense's request for disclosure of any medical 14 examination reports. Thus Prosecution implies they do not have any medical examination 15 reports or percipient witnesses associated with any such medical examination of the alleged 16 victim. Thus if Prosecution offers any such report or witness at trial, it will be excluded. At the 17 hearing held October 8, 2012, it was determined that the person who filled out the "Department 18 of Public Health and Social Services Form" was a typist clerk from the Attorney General's 19 Office who filled out the blank form upon the intake processing of the alleged victim, in order 20 to satisfY the Office's statutory mandate to refer the matter to CPS. Defense agreed on the 21 record this clerk typist was not material to the case as a possible witness. 22 Def. Reply 7 -- Defense requests this Court order Prosecution to exercise due diligence 23 to discover the existence of "Any documents, recordings or writings which pertain to these 24 charges and which are in the possession of the alleged victim, his family, or any other known 25 witness". Defense fails to provide authority for the disclosure of any writings "which pertain to 26 these charges", much less any authority for the proposition that the Attorney General is 27 compelled to investigate private citizens in this regard and wrest from them any such writings. 28 Accordingly, the Court denies this vague request.

Page 2 of4

Def. Reply 8 There is no #8 listed by Defense in its Reply memorandum.

2 Def. Reply 9 -- Pursuant to 8 GCA §70.1O(a)(3), Prosecution is ordered to disclose any 3 report or statement of an expert, which that expert may have made in connection with this 4 particular case, including results of physical or mental examination, scientific tests, experiments 5 or comparisons. Any such report, etc. not disclosed in a timely manner before trial will be 6 excluded at trial. Further, per 8 GCA §70.1O(a)(5), Prosecution is ordered to disclose any 7 record of prior criminal convictions of any of Prosecution's percipient witnesses. 8 Def. Reply 10 -- Pursuant to 8 GCA § 70.1O(a)(7), Prosecution is ordered to provide 9 Defendant with any writing or audio, visual, or digital recording made of any statement by any 10 witness Prosecution intends to call at trial, which stands in contradiction to any other statement II made by the same potential witness to any agent of the Government, regardless of whether the 12 initial statement is recorded or reflected in writing. Prosecution is permitted to redact any 13 portion of said recorded statement that would reasonably be considered "work product" or 14 mental notes ofthe recording party, as opposed to a quote or summary ofthe percipient witness' 15 contradictory statement. If the initial statement by the percipient witness is recorded, written, or 16 memorialized in writing by another, and the Government is in possession of said initial 17 statement, that statement shall also be provided to Defense in addition to the 18 recordinglmemorialization of the subsequent contradicting statement. 19 Def. Reply 11 -- Title 8 GCA § 70.1O(a)(7) requires Prosecution to exercise due 20 diligence to discover and obtain statements within its possession or control which tend to reduce 21 Defendant's potential punishment for the crime(s) charged. However, Defendant's allegation 22 that "witnesses have made statements indicating that prosecution of this case should be 23 terminated" fails to qualifY under this section, since it is unclear who the unnamed "witnesses" 24 are and what relationship they have to the case which might persuade a sentencing court to take 25 such statements into account. Any obligation upon Prosecution to exercise due diligence to 26 uncover such statements does not exist elsewhere in Chapter 70 of Title 8 either. 27 Def. Reply 12 -- Pursuant to 8 GCA §70.1O(a)(4), Prosecution is ordered to disclose any 28 book, paper, document, photograph or tangible object, with the prosecuting attorney intends to

Page 3 of 4

use in the trial or which was obtained from or belonged to the defendant. Any aforementioned 2 item not disclosed in a timely manner before trial will be excluded at trial. 3 Def. Reply 13 -- An in camera review of any confidential Child Protective Services 4 records related to the alleged minor victim under 19 GCA § 13210(b)(2) is consistent with 8 5 GCA § 70.35 and constitutional principles of due process. See Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 6 U.S. 39, 59-61, 107 S.Ct. 989, 1002-1003 (1987). Accordingly, pursuant to 19 GCA § 7 1321O(b)(2) and 8 GCA § 70.35, the Office of the Attorney General is ordered to produce under 8 seal to this Court any and all Child Protective Services records related to the alleged minor 9 victim, and the Court shall review the confidential CPS records in camera and release any 10 exculpatory evidence material to the fairness of the trial. Further, Prosecution is subject to its II continuing duties to disclose as directed by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 12 Def. Reply 14 -- The Court denies Defendant's request to adopt the holding of United 13 States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29 (9th Cir.1991), and instead this Court adopts the threshold 14 materiality showing required in United States v. Driscoll, 970 F.2d 1472, 1482 (6th Cir.1992), 15 cert. denied 506 U.S. 1083, 113 S.Ct. 1056 (1993); United States v. Andrus, 775 F.2d 825, 843 16 (7th Cir.1985); United States v. Bertoli, 854 F.Supp. 975, 1039-41 (D.N.JJ994), affd in part 17 and vacated in part on other grounds, 40 F.3d 1384 (3d Cir.1994); as well as the rationale of 18 United States v. Quinn, 123 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (lIth Cir.1997). In accordance with the above 19 cases, Defendant fails to show sufficient materiality to support his request and is thus denied. 20

21 Jury Selection and Trial will commence November 14, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. Pretrial 22 Conference will occur November 6, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. Hearing on all in limine motions will 23 occur November 9. 2012 at 2:00 p.m. 24

25 SO ORDERED this :31~,,-day of October, 2012. 26

27

28 HON. JAMES L. CANTO II Judge, Superior Court of Guam

Page 4