-gr sf VL L., CLERK GF scum' 11 2025 FEB 2825 25 Vi'i I: 53 FEB25 2 SUPEREGR 3 3 OF GUAM 4
5 5
6 6
7 IN THE THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 8
9 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM
10 10 Plaintiff, CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0723-24 GPD Case GPD Case No.. No.: 24-21062 24-21062 11 11 vs. 12 12 DECISION AND ORDER RE PEOPLE'S EITHEN JAMES FRANKLIN MOTION FOR RELIEF 13 13 AQUININGOC MENDIOLA (aka Either Eithen James Mendiola) 14 14 DOB: 09/11/1999 15 15 FRANK JOSEPH GUMATAOTAO 16 16 REYES JR. 17 17 (aka Frank Joseph Reyes) DOB: 03/14/2000 18 18 Defendants. 19 19
20 20
21 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
22 22 This matter came before the Honorable C. Terlaje on February 24, 2025, for an Honorable John C.
23 23 Evidentiary Hearing on Evidentiary Hearing on the the People's People's Motion Motion for for Relief. Relief Public Public Defender Defender Attorney Attorney William 24 Bischoff Bischoff appeared for Defendant Eithen James Mendiola ("Defendant Defendant Eithen ("Defendant Mendiola"), Attorney 25
Decision and Decision 26 26 Order Re People's Motion for Relief Relief 27 CF0723-24, People PeopleofofGuam Guam v.v. Eithen James James Mendiola and Frank Frank Joseph Joseph Reyes Reyes Page 1 of of9 1 Tend Timblin Terry Timblinappeared appeared for for Defendant Defendant Frank Joseph JosephReyes Reyes ("Defendant ("Defendant Reyes"), and and Special Special 2 2 Assistant Attorney General CurtisVan General Curtis Vande dhveld veldappeared appearedfor the forthe People People ofofGuam Guam ("People"). The ("People"). The 3 Court now issues issuesthe thefollowing following order GRANTING the People's People's Motion Motion to Allow Allow the the Testimony 4 of Former of Former Medical Examiner Dr. Dr. Jeffery Jeffery Nine, Nine, M.D., M.D., via Audio-Video Telecommunication. Audio-Video Telecommunication. 5 BACKGROUND 6 Defendant Mendiola has has been been charged chargedin inthe theIndictment Indictmentwith withMurder Murder(As st (As a 1let Degree 7
8 Felony) and and Aggravated Assault (As Aggravated Assault (As a Second-Degree Felony) with a Special Second-Degree Felony) Allegation of Special Allegation
9 9 Possession and and Use Use of of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of aa Felony. Defendant Defendant Reyes Reyes has has
10 been charged in the charged in the Indictment Indictmentwith withArson Arson(As (As a Third-Degree Felony), Desecration Desecration (As a 11 11 Misdemeanor), Misdemeanor), Obstructing GovernmentFunction Obstructing Government Function(As (As a Misdemeanor), Misdemeanor), and and Destruction Destruction of 12 12 . . u . . . . Evldence Evidence (As (As aa Mlsdemeanor). Dr. Jeffrey Misdemeanor). Dr. Jeffrey Nine Nlne ("Dr. Nlne") Nine")isisthe theFormer Former Medlcal Medical Examiner Examiner 13 13 of ofGuam, Guam, who performed performed an an autopsy thedeceased autopsy on the deceasedalleged alleged victim victim of ofthe the crimes crimes charged in the 14 14 Indictment Indictment in in this matter, as well well as several other other matters currently pending at the Superior Court 15 15 16 of of Guam. Guam. Dr. Dr. Nine Nine has has since since relocated to Columbus, relocated to Columbus, Ohio, Ohio, and and the the People People have have stated stated that that 16 17 testimony from from Dr. Dr. Nine Nine is is required required to to present present essential proof proof of ofthe the charges charges in in the indictment. 17
18 18 On January 24,2025, January 24, 2025,the thePeople Peoplefiled filedaaMotion Motionfor for Relief, requesting requesting that Dr. Nine that Dr. Nine be
19 allowed allowed to Testify Testify either either via via Audio-Video Audio-Video Telecommunication Telecommunication or by Deposition Deposition in Ohio. Ohio.
20 20 According to the People's Motion, Dr. Nine is unable to travel to Guam the People's Guam to testify testify because because he is 21 a caretaker for his wife wife and and child, child, who whohave haveserious serioushealth health issues. issues. On On February February 7, 7, 2025, Counsel 22 Defendant fo r D e fe n d a n t M e ndiola d i o l a filed fi l e d ann Opposition p p o si t i o n to t o the h e P e o p le's e ' s Motion forr RRelief, o t i o n fo e l i e f, ciciting ting 23 unwillingness to waive waive any any aspects aspects of his Sixth Sixth Amendment confrontation right. 24
25 Decision Decision and and 26 Order Re People's Motion forfor Relief Relief 27 PeopleofofGuam CF0723-24, People Guam v.v. Either EithenJames JamesMendiola Mendiolaand andFrank FrankJoseph Joseph Reyes Reyes Page 2 Page of of 9 1 RULINGS
2 1. I. Preliminary Law Law 3 The Sixth Sixth Amendment Amendment of ofthe the Constitution Constitution guarantees that"[i]n guarantees that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, 4 the accused shall shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with with the witnesses against him." witnesses against him." Generally, 5 5 "confrontation" "confrontation"has has been been read as as "face-to-face "face-to-face meeting meeting with withwitnesses witnesses appearing appearing before the trier 6 7 of fact." Coy Coy v. v. Iowa, 487 487 7 U.S. 1012, 1012, 1016 (1988) (citing 1016 (1988) (citing Kentucky v. Sfincer, Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 7
8 748 (1987)). The Thelast lasttime timethis thisissue issue was was addressed addressed by the U.S. Supreme Supreme Court was in in 1990, 1990, in
99 Maryland v. v. Craig. According to to the the Supreme Supreme Court, Court, "though we reaffirm the importance of importance of
10 10 face-to-face confrontationwith face-to-face confrontation with witnesses witnessesappearing appearingatat trial, trial, we we cannot cannot say say that that such such
11 11 confrontation is an indispensable elementof indispensable element of the the Sixth Amendment's guarantee guaranteeof of the the right to 12 12 confront one's accusers." accusers." 497 U.S. 836, 845(1990). 836, 845 (1990). The Court goes goes on on to say that this this "does "does not, 13 13 of of course, course, mean that itit may mean that may easily easily be dispensed with." Id. dispensed with." Id. If If applied applied literally, literally, the the Sixth Sixth 14 14 Amendment would exclude exclude any statement statement made made by by a declarant declarantnot notpresent presentatattrial. trial. However, However, 15 15
16 doing so so would would nullify nullify virtually virtually every everyhearsay hearsay exception, exception, so so Courts Courts have have long long rejected rejected this this 16 17 blanket view of blanket view of the the Confrontation Clause as Confrontation Clause as"too "too extreme". See See Ohio v. v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 17
18 18 63 (1980). (1980). In Maryland v. v. Craig, the Supreme Court admitted Supreme Court admittedtestimony testimonyvia via a one-way one-way closed
19 19 circuit television procedure. 497 television procedure. 497 U.S. U.S. 836 836 at at 852. 852. In Inmaking makingtheir theirruling, ruling, the the Supreme Supreme Court Court
20 20 recognized recognized that that "a "a defendant's defendant's right right to to confront confrontaccusatory accusatory witnesses witnesses may may be be satisfied satisfied absent absent a 21 physical, face-to-face face-to-face confrontation confrontation at at trial trial only only where where denial denial of ofsuch such confrontation confrontation is is necessary necessary 22 to further an important importantpublic publicpolicy policy and and only only where the reliability of the reliability the testimony is otherwise of the 23 assured." assured." Id. at at 850. 24
25 Decision Decision and and 26 Order Re Re People's People's Motion for for Relief 27 CF0723-24, People People of Guam v. Eithen James Mendiolaand of Guam v. Either James Mendiola andFrank FrankJoseph Joseph Reyes Reyes Page Page 3 of9 11 11. II. Evidentiary Evidentiary Hearing Hearingrequirement requirementhas has been been met
2 In In United United States States v. v. Yates, Yates, the Eleventh Circuit Court Court of Appeal followed followed the the Supreme Supreme 3 Court's example example in Maryland v. v. Craig and put forth and put forth the thefollowing following test test for for when face face to to face 4 coniiontation confrontation may be dispensable: "The court dispensable: "The court generally must: must: (1) hold hold an an evidentiary evidentiary hearing hearing 5 and find (a) that and find denial of physical, face-to-face that the denial face-to-face confrontation confrontation at at trial trial is is necessary necessary to further further 6 7 an important importantpublic publicpolicy policy and and (b) (b) that the the reliability of ofthe thetestimony testimony isis otherwise otherwiseassured. assured." as
8 United United States States v. Yates, Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1315(2006). 1307, 1315 (2006).To To allow for for any any testimony testimony that that is not done
9 9 face-to-face, the the trial trial court court must must find that that itit is "essential to deny the defendant his his right right to to face- face-
10 to-face to-face physical physical confrontation confrontation in in order order to to serve serve the the interest interest the government asserts." Id. asserts." Id. 11 11 SinceMaryland Maryland v. v. Craig Craigand and United United States States v. Yates, Yates, other courts have have applied this this two- two- 12 12 . . . . analysis to part analysls to two-way, remote remote vldeo video testimony testimonysuch such as as the the one one requested requested here. here. See See United United 13 13 th States v. Carter, 907 F.3d 1199, States v. 1206(9 1199, 1206 (9th Cir.2018) Cir. 2018)["We ["We now now make make clear clear that that a defendant's 14 14 right to physically physically confront confront an an adverse adverse witness (whether (whether child child or or adult) adult) cannot cannot be compromised 15 15 16 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 16 17 standard standard isissatisfied."]. satisfied."]. This Thistwo-part two-part test test isis applied applied on onaacase-by-case case-by-case basis. basis. See See People v. v. 17
18 18 Coulthard, 90 Cal. App. 5th 5th 743, 743, 774, 307 Cal. 774, 307 Cal. Rptr. Rptr. 3d ad 383, 411 (2023). 383, 411 (2023). The Court held the
19 19 required evidentiary evidentiary hearing hearing on on February February 24, 24, 2025, 2025, and and gave each party an opportunity to state
20 20 its case for why the testimony should or should not not be be allowed allowed according to the analysis inYates. Yates. 21 The Court Court also also emphasized in the emphasized in the order order for the the Evidentiary Evidentiary Hearing Hearing that that the the People are are 22 responsible for proving proving 1) 1) whether whether the the procedure cedureof oftaking takingDr. Dr.Jeffrey JeffreyNine's Nine' s testimony testimony remotely remotely 23 is necessary necessary to further further an important state interest, important state interest, and andifif so, so, (2) whether whether testimony testimony obtained obtained 24 25 through a live, live, two-way, two-way, audio-video audio-video telecommunication telecommunication is is otherwise otherwise assured Id. assured reliable. Id. 25 Decision Decision and and 26 Order Re Re People's People's Motion Motion for Relief Relief CF0723-24, People People of Guam v. Eithen James Mendiolaand of Guam v. Either James Mendiola andFrank FrankJoseph Joseph Reyes Reyes 27 Page 4 of 9 11 111. III. The People have shown that taking taldng Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine's Nine's testimony remotely is
2 necessary tofurther further an an important important state necessary to state interest 3 Regarding Regarding the necessity prong of the Craig analysis, analysis, the the People People have have met met their burden as 4 the Court agrees that taking taking Dr. Dr. Nine's testimony remotely Nine's testimony remotelyisisnecessary necessaryto to further further important important state 5 interests. to follow interests. Though not required to follow California precedent, this Court finds the Decision of of 6 7 the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District in People o p l e vv. . CCoulthard o u l t h a r a ' to be particularly 7
88 informative, particularly because because itit is is so so recent. In In this case, the court considered the Covid-19
99 Pandemic Pandemic as as a public policy policy factor, factor, but but noted in its analysis and decision decision that the prosecutor "also
10 asserted, among asserted, among other other things, things,that that[the [thewitness] wasthe witness]was theprimary primely caretaker caretakerof of two two of her children of her
11 11 (both of (both whom were ofwhom weretoo too young youngto to be be vaccinated vaccinated against against COVID-19) COVID-19)and anddid didnot nothave havethe the means means 12 12 . . . arrange for alternate to arrange alternate childcare." childcare." Id. In thls Id. In this case, case, the health and and well-being well-be1ng of of the witness' wltness' 13 children, as well well as as the the lack lack of of caretaker caretaker for for them, was was aa factor factor in in the court determining that the 14 14 witness could testify testify remotely remotely from England. The firm England. Thecourt court also also noted that that "[the "[the witness'] witness'] testimony 15 15 16 could not be supplanted with testimony from some some other other person." person." Id. 16 Similar Similar to to the witness in Coulthard, Dr. Nine is the only possible witness regarding the 17 17
18 18 autopsy. His testimony autopsy. His testimony is critical to the critical to the People's case case because because he he personally personally performed performed the
19 autopsy on Victim, Victim, and and as he testified at the Evidentiary Hearing, no one else was present present for the
20 20 autopsy and it was not videotaped. Therefore, considering the rules of hearsay, Dr. Nine is the 21 only possible witness regarding the autopsy. 22 Also similar similar to the witness in Coulthard, Dr. Dr. Nine's reasons for resisting testifying in 23 Guam relate to the health of his his family and concerns for them not having a caretaker. Dr. Nine 24 gave sworn sworn statements statements about how his wife and and son son are are both both undergoing undergoing significant significant medical 25
Decision and Decision and 26 Order Re Re People's People's Motion Motion for Relief Relief 27 People of Guam v. Eithen James Mendiola and CF0723-24, People of Guam v. Eithen James Mendiola andFrank FrankJoseph Joseph Reyes Reyes Page of 9 Page 5 of 1 treatments multiple times per week week in Ohio. See See Declaration Declarationof ofDr. Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine Nine (Jan. (Jan. 27, 2025).
22 According to According to Dr. Dr. Nine, his wife wife and and son son both both require require his his physical physical presence presence and and continual continual 3 assistance in their medical battles. Id. This battles. Id. This physical physical presence presence and assistance assistance would be halted for 4 at least several several days days if Dr. Dr. Nine were forced to physically testify in Guam. Dr. Nine testified 5 during the Evidentiary Hearing that he and his wife do not have family that that are physically able 6 7 to care for his his wife wife or child, and and the the amount of care required required would preclude any friends in the 7
8 area from being able firm being able to to help. Guam Guam is is over over 7,500 miles miles from Ohio, Ohio, resulting in significant significant travel
99 locations. Because time between the two locations. Because his his presence presence is is indefinitely needed in Ohio, Ohio, Dr. Nine
10 cannot physically testify testify in in Guam Guam without endangering the health of several family members.
11 11 The Court believes believes that ensuring the safety of Dr. Dr. Nine's qualifies as an important Nine's wife and child qualifies 12 1 public policy, pubic policy, partlcularly particularly given given the the large large dlstance distance between between Guam Guam and and Ohlo Ohio and and the the unlque unique 13 13 circumstances requiring his physical presence. 14 14 The Court also recognizes the many challenges challenges that that would arise for both parties if the arise for 15 15 Court were to deny this request. request. The only proposed alternative alternative from from the People or Defendant 16 16 17 17 flying the would involve flying the Defendant, Defendant, his counsel, counsel, and and any any other other necessary necessary parties parties to to Ohio to
18 18 attend a deposition of of Dr. Nine there. This would erase the opportunity for the jury to scrutinize
19 the witness during his testimony, and and would would arguably arguably provide provide aa less less fair fair trial for the Defendant.
20 20 Allowing Dr. Allowing Dr. Nine to testify remotely would also also avoid avoid the the significant significant time and and financial financial costs 21 of a deposition in Ohio. Furthermore, any evidence of or hearsay objections that may arise during evidence or 22 deposition would a deposition would not not be be reviewable eviewa ble by by the the Court our t in in the the moment moment they they aree made the de in the 23 of a deposition. Live, remote testimony circumstance of testimony would would allow allow for for the the Court Court to rule instantly 24 on any objections, just as it would would if the the witness were in person. 25
Decision Decision and and 26 Order Re Re People's People's Motion for for Relief Relief 27 People of Guam v. Eithen James Mendiolaand CF0723-24, People of Guam v. Either James Mendiola andFrank FrankJoseph Joseph Reyes Reyes Page 66 of 9 Page 11 Furthermore, Furthermore, 88G.C.A. G.C.A. §§ 80.50 statesthat 80.50 states that"the "thewelfare welfareof of the the people people of of the the territory territory of of
2 Guam requires that Guam requires that all all proceedings proceedings in in criminal cases shall criminal cases shall be be set for for trial trial and and heard heard and and 3 determined at at the the earliest earliest possible possible time," time," and makes makes itit the the duty duty of of courts, courts,judicial judicial officers, and and 4 prosecuting attorneys to "expedite "expedite such such proceedings proceedings to to the the greatest greatest degree degree that that is consistent with 5 the ends of justice." The ends of TheCourt Courtbelieves believesthat thatwo-way, two-way, remote remote video testimony testimonywill will allow allow for the 6 Defendant's trial to to take take place place at at the the earliest earliest possible possible time, time, without without the the significant significant delays delays that that 7
8 would be associated with a deposition deposition taking taking place place in Ohio. Furthermore, the the Court Courtbelieves believes two-
9 way, remote video testimony testimony is is the the best best way for for the the Court Court to to expedite expediteproceedings, proceedings,and and believes believesthat that such such
10 a format can and andwill will be consistent the ends consistent with the ends of of justice. justice. This point point is is further further argued below in the argued below
11 discussion onreliability discussion on reliabilityofoftestimony. testimony. Therefore,ititisisthe Therefore, theCourt's Court's opinion opinion that that this testimony must must
12 12 necessarily be taken taken remotely remotely to to further further important important state state interests interests as as enumerated above.
13 13 IV. The The People People have shown that testimony shown that obtained through testimony obtained through a live, two-way, 14 14 audio-video telecommunication is is otherwise assured reliable assured reliable 15 15 The Court also believes believes that that the the People People have havemet met their theirburden burden of ofensuring ensuring that testimony 16 16 received received via via live, live, two-way, two-way,audio-video audio-videotelecommunication telecommunication is is reliable. This Thisprocedure procedure preserves la 17 most, most, if not not all all elements elements critical to the the confrontation confrontation clause, which have clause, which have aa combined combinedeffect effect of of 18
19 19 ensuring reliability of the evidence. For ensuring reliability Forexample, example,any anysuch such telecormnunication testimony will telecommunication testimony will
20 be taken under an anoath oathof of truth, truth, and andDr. Dr.Nine Nine has has expressed expressed his his understanding understandingand andwillingness willingness to
21 take this oath. take this oath. See Declaration of of Dr. Nine (Jan. 27, 2025). (Jan. 27, 2025). Any Any telecommunication telecommunication testimony
22 22 will also will also be be subject subject to to contemporaneous contemporaneous cross-examination, andthe cross-examination, and theDefendants Defendantswill will be be given given 23 2 . . . . . . . as much just as much freedom Heedomto to cross-examine cross-exam1neDr. Dr.Nine Nlneasasififhe hewere were to to testify testlfy physlcally physically in in Guam. Guam. 24 Furthermore, the judge, judge, jury, jury, and and the theDefendants Defendantswill will all be able to view view the the demeanor demeanor and and body 25
Decision and Decision and 26 Order Re Re People's People's Motion for Relief Relief 27 ofGuam CF0723-24, People of Guam v. v. Either EithenJames James Mendiola Mendiolaand andFrank FrankJoseph Joseph Reyes Reyes of Page 7 of 9 1 language of Dr. Nine as he language of he testifies on a screen screenin inthe thecourtroom. courtroom.Although AlthoughDr. Dr.Nine Nine won't won't be
2 2 physically physically present, jurors will will retain the the ability ability to look look Dr. Jeffrey Nine Nine in in his his eyes eyes as he he testifies, testifies, 3 judge his demeanor on the stand andthe stand and themanner mannerininwhich whlchhe hetestifies, testlfies, and and ultimately ultlmately determine determlne 4 whether his his testimony testimonyisisworthy worthyof of belief. belief. 5 Since the start start of ofthe the Covid-19 Covid-19pandemic, pandemic,Cou1"ts aroundthe Courts around the nation nationhave have become become more 6 7 favorable to the the idea idea of ofremote remotecourt courtattendance. attendance. This This Court Courtsees sees parties parties and and counsel counsel attend attend 7 8 hearings via audio-video hearings via audio-video telecommunication on a day-to-day telecommunication on basis, and day-to-day basis, and isis well well equipped equipped to 8
9 9 facilitate this form of this form oftestimony. testimony. Therefore, Therefore, the the Court Court believes believesthat that the the People People have have shown shown that that
10 testimony obtained through throughaalive, live, two-way audio-video audio-video telecommunication telecommunication has has been otherwise
11 11 assured to be assured to be a reliable form of oftestimony testimony in inthis this case, case, and and constitutes constitutes the best scenario scenario for 12 . . . l meeting the needs and and rights rights of of all partles. parties. 13 13 v. V. People's People's Motion Motion to to Continue Continue Trial Trialto to Secure Secure the the Testimony of Former 14 14 Medical Medical Examiner Examiner Dr. Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine, Nine, MD MDby byDeposition Deposition is is denied 15 15 As As aa result of of granting granting the above motion, the the Court DENIES the alternative Motion, alternative Motion, 16 16
17 noting that this method method is is not notpreferred preferred by by the the Court, Court, People, People, or either Defendant. 17
18 18
19 19
Decision Decision and and 26 Order Re People's People's Motion for Relief 27 CF0723-24, People People of ofGuam Guam v. v. Either EithenJames JamesMendiola Mendiolaand andFrank FrankJoseph Joseph Reyes Reyes Page Page 8 of9 l1 CONCLUSION
2 The Court Court recognizes recognizes the the delicate delicate nature of this nature of this case in balancing the the Defendant's Defendant's
3 constitutional rights with the necessity of of remote testimony given the circumstances in this case. 4 However, for the reasons listed above, the Court GRANTS GRANTS the People's Motion. Motion. Dr. Dr. Nine is 5 permitted to testify remotely via live, two-way, audio-video telecommunication because this 6 remote testimony is necessary to further important state interests, and this method of testifying testifying is 7
8 otherwise assured reliable.
10 10
ORDERED, this SO ORDERED, this 7-5 day 1 5 of V day of r: tc,t0..v-1f't-~, 2025. 11 11 -----+-\- 2025. \ 12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15 H o M LE JOHN c. TERLAJE Judge, : Court of Guam 16 16
17 17
19 19 slgvlcl Sl"VICI!vIA VIA1-anAII. l!-MAIL I 1 arknowwdge ackf'.!OW'edge the! that an an gleclvonn J~lect,onit Com Otthe Co~ of theong-'1a\ 011g,,,a1 was wa1 emailed mauled to lo 20 IJC FMC, #5, f'DfC, .. I
'7r~l»/if/I 21 Data. A' Toma. $1/2F 22 l/A!6~ My a Deputy Deputy clerk . Superior Court of Guam
Decision Decision and and 26 Order Re Re People's People's Motion Motion for Relief Relief 27 CFO'/23-24, People of CF0723-24, People ofGuam Guam v. v. Either Eithen James Mendiolaand James Mendiola andFrank FrankJoseph Joseph Reyes Reyes Page 9 of9