People v. Miranda

Opinion

0 0 ?ILED 1 ~SUPER1~R C8URT OF Q.~LJAM 2 21118MAY—8 M1IO:3L+ 3 COURT 4 5 6 7

8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 9

10 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO.: CF0693-16

11 vs. 12 DECISION AND ORDER ROBERT JOHN MIRANDA, (People’s Motion to Quash Subpoena) 13 aka Robert Juan Miranda DOB: 03/16/1979 14 15 DEFENDANT.

16 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO.: CF0202-17 17 vs. 18 DECISION AND ORDER 19 SALVADOR BUDDY SANTOS, (People’s Motion to Quash Subpoena) DOB: 07/19/1963 20 DEFENDANT. 21 22 23 INTRODUCTION 24 These matters came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on March 6, 2018, upon the 25 People’s Motions to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum filed in CF0693-16 and CF0202-17. Both 26 Defendant Robert John Miranda (“Defendant Miranda”) and Defendant Salvador Buddy Santos

27 (“Defendant Santos”) were represented by Assistant Public Defender Clyde Lemons Jr., and

CF0693- 16 People v. Robert John Miranda ORIGINAL Page 1 of 7 CF0202- 17 People v. Salvador Buddy Santos Consolidated DECISION AND ORDER (People’s Motions to Quash Subpoenas) 0 0 1 Assistant Attorney General Marianne Woloschuk appeared on behalf of the People of Guam 2 (“People”). Because these instant matters share common questions of law, the Court consolidated 3 both matters into this single Decision and Order to be filed in each case. Upon review of the 4 pleadings and legal authorities presented by the Parties, the Court hereby GRANTS the People’s 5 Motions to Quash the Subpoenas in both cases. 6 BACKGROUND 7 CF0693-17: Defendant Miranda 8 On December 13, 2016, Defendant Miranda was charged in Criminal Case No. CF0963-16. 9 with 1) Possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance (as a Third Degree Felony), 2) Driving 10 While Intoxicated (as a Misdemeanor), and 3) Operation of a Motor Vehicle Without a Valid 11 Operator’s License. Indictment (Dec. 13, 2016). On January 16, 2018, Defendant Miranda obtained 12 a subpoena duces tecum through the Clerk of Court and served Lt. Ronald S. Taitano of the Guam 13 Police Department’s Internal Affairs Section (“Officer Taitano”) with the subpoena later that same 14 day. The subpoena commanded Officer Taitano to appear in court on January 24, 2018, at 10:00 AM 15 and to produce “[amy and all sustained internal affairs reports pertaining to the following GPD 16 Personnel: a. POT J.S. Cruz #4038 b. PO# B.T. Babauta.” Subpoena Duces Tecum (Jan. 17, 2018). 17 A criminal trial setting .was scheduled for January 24, 2018, the day the subpoena demanded that 18 production take place. 19 On January 24, 2018, the day of the scheduled hearing, the People filed an Ex Parte Motion • 20 to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order and Order Shortening Time (“Motion to Quash 21 Subpoena Duces Tecum”). At the hearing, the Courtpostponed the matter to January 30, 2018, for 22 further proceedings. During the further proceedings, the Court gave the Defendant time to file an 23 opposition and scheduled a hearing on the People’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum for 24 February 20, 2018.’ Defendant Miranda filed his Opposition on February 8, 2018, and the People’s 25 26 1 On February 13, 2018, Defendant Miranda served another subpoena commanding Officer Taitano to appear and testify at the Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum hearing scheduled for February 20, 2018. The People filed an 27 Ex Parte Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order and Order Shortening Time on February 19, 2018 (“Motion to Quash Subpoena Ad Testificandum”). Defendant Miranda’s Opposition was filed on February 20, 2018, 28 and the People filed their Reply on February 27, 2018. During the hearing on the People’s Motion to Quash Subpoena

CF0693-16 People v. Robert John Miranda Page 2 of 7 CF0202-17 People v. Salvador Buddy Santos Consolidated DECISION AND ORDER (People’s Motions to Quash Subpoenas) 0 0: 1 Reply was filed on February 14, 2018.2 The hearing on the People’s Motion to Quash Subpoena 2 Duces Tecum was rescheduled and taken under advisement on March 6, 2018.

3 CF0202-17: Defendant Santos 4 Similarly, in CF0202-17, Defendant Santos served Officer Taitano with a similar subpoena 5 duces tecum. On May 1, 2017, Defendant Santos was charged in Criminal Case No. CF0202-17 with

6 1) Possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance (as a Third Degree Felony), 2) Driving While 7 Under the Influence of Alcohol (as a Misdemeanor), 3) Open Container (as a Misdemeanor), and 4) 8 Reckless Driving (as a Petty Misdemeanor). Indictment (May 1, 2017). On January 9, 2018, 9 Defendant Miranda obtained a subpoena duces tecum through the Clerk of Court and served the 10 subpoena later that same day on Officer Taitano. The subpoena commanded Officer Taitano to 11 appear in court on January 24, 2018, at 10 00 AM and to produce “[amy and all sustained internal 12 affairs reports pertaining to the following GPD Personnel: a. P01 J.R. Chargualaf #4037 b. P01 J.V. 13 Quitugua #773.” Subpoena Duces Tecum (Jan. 9, 2018). A hearing for further proceedings was 14 scheduled for January 24, 2018, the day the subpoena demanded that production take place. 15 On January 24, 2018, the day of the scheduled hearing, the People filed an Ex Parte Motion 16 to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order and Order Shortening Time (“Motion to Quash 17 Subpoena Duces Tecum”). The Court vacated the January 24, 2018, hearing for further proceedings 18 and scheduled a hearing on the People’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum for February 20, 19 2018.~ Defendant Santos filed his Opposition on February 7, 2018. The People did not reply. The 20 21 22 Duces Tecum, February Officer 21, 2018. Taitano the Therefore, didPeople’s not testify and the Motion Court Subpoena to Quash Order signed an Ad quashing theis subpoena Testificandum mOot. for testimony on

23 2 Assistant Attorney General Matthew A. Phelps filed a supplemental Reply to Defendant Miranda’s Opposition to the

24 People’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum, on behalf of the People, on February 15, 2018. ~ On February 13, 2018, Defendant Santos served another subpoena commanding Officer Taitano to appear and testify 25 at the Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum hearing scheduled for February 20, 2018. The People filed an Ex Parte Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order and Order Shortening Time on February 19, 2018 (“Motion 26 to Quash Subpoena Ad Testificandum”). Defendant Santos’ Opposition was filed on February 20, 2018. The People did not reply. The Court signed an Order quashing the subpoena for testimony on February 21, 2018 and Officer 27 Taitano did not testify at the rescheduled hearing on the People’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum on March 6, 2018. Therefore, the People’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Ad Testz~ficandum is moot..

CF0693-16 People v. Robert John Miranda Page 3 of 7 CF0202-17 People v. Salyador Buddy Santos Consolidated DECISION AND ORDER (People’s Motions to Quash Subpoenas) 0 1 hearing on the People’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum was rescheduled and taken under 2 advisement on March 6, 2018. 3 The People’s Motions to Quash the Subpoenas Duces Tecum in both CF0693-16 and 4 CF0202-17 are nearly identical and contain common questions of law. Accordingly, in the interest .of 5 judicial economy, these instant matters were consolidated. 6 DISCUSSION 7 Sections 70.10 and 70.15 of Title 8 of the Guam Code regulate the discovery process in 8 criminal proceedings. 8 GCA §~ 70.10 and 70.15 (2017). Mandatory disclosures are governed by 8 9 GCA § 70.10, which require the prosecution, upon noticed motion, to disclose to the defense “any 10 material or information which tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as to the offense charged... 11 .“ 8 GCA § 70.10(a)(7); People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 60 (“This section adopts the mandate 12 originally articulated in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) . •“).~ The prosecution’s 13 obligations under 8 GCA § 70J0 extend to any material information, thus imposing a materiality 14 requirement prior to disclosure. 8 GCA § 70. 10(b); People v. Tuncap, 1998 Guam 13 ¶ 18 (“8GCA 15 § 70.10(b) imposes a general materiality requirement upon items before disclosure. Although this 16 standard is not difficult to meet, this general limitation must be considered prior to disclosure.”). 17 Apart from mandatory disclosures, 8 GCA § 70.15 governs other matters generally discoverable 18 upon a showing of good cause. Title 8 GCA Section 70.15 provides, “upon noticed motion by the 19 defendant and a showing of materiality to the preparation of his defense and that the request is 20 reasonable, the court in its discretion may order the prosecuting attorney to disclose to the 21 defendant’s attorney any relevant material and information not covered by § 70.10.” 8 GCA § 22 70.15(a). Therefore, for evidence to be discoverable under both sections 70.10 and 70.15, a threshold

23 showing of materiality must be met. 8 GCA §~ 70.10(b), 70.15(a); People v. Mateo, 2017 Guam 22 24 ¶15.

25 26 27 ~ The United States Supreme Court in Brady held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. . .Brady, .“

28 373 U.S. at 87.

CF0693-16 People v. Robert John Miranda Page 4 of 7 CF0202-17 People v. Salvador Buddy Santos Consolidated DECISION AND ORDER (People’s Motions to Quash Subpoenas) 0 0 1 In People v. Mateo, the Supreme Court of Guam addressed the issue of materiality and the 2 defendant’s burden of production under Guam’s criminal discovery statutes. The Supreme Court, 3 finding that the trial court properly denied Mateo’ s motion for an in camera review of the arresting 4 officers’ personnel files, held that the prosecution was not obligated to turn over those requested 5 documents because the defendant had failed to establish that they were material to his defense. jç~ at 6 ¶~ 15, 17 (rejecting United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 23 (9th Cir. 1991), which held that upon a 7 request by the defendant, the prosecution or the court must review the personnel files of testifying 8 officers in camera for Brady material regardless of any showing of materiality). Thus, for evidence 9 to be discoverable, the defense must first satisfy its burden of production by making the requisite 10 showing of materiality of the evidence sought. j~ Evidence is material “only if there is reasonable 11 probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would 12 have been different. A ‘reasonable probability’ is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in 13 the outcome.” Id. ¶ 19; PeOple v. Fisher, 2001 Guam 2 ¶ 13 (quoting United States v. Presser, 844 14 F.2d 1275, 128 (6th Cir. 1988)). 15 In this case, both Defendant Miranda and Defendant Santos obtained subpoenas demanding 16 the production of the internal affairs (“IA reports”) reports of their respective arresting officers. The 17 People moved to quash the subpoenas, arguing that the Defendants did not make the necessary 18 showing of materiality. On the other hand, the Defendants argue that IA reports of police officers 19 generally contain impeachment evidence and therefore, the People’s failure to disclose such 20 evidence, material or not, would result in Brady violations. In addition, the Defendants argue that 21 absent some kind of review by the People, the Court, or the defense, there can be no determination 22 of materiality. However, as the Supreme Court has noted in Mateo, mere speculation that a 23 government file may contain Brady material is insufficient to require the prosecution to 24 automatically disclose or review requested documents. Mateo, 2017 Guam 22 at ¶ 17; see also 25 United States v. Little, 753 F.2d 1420, 1445 (9th Cir. 1984) (“materiality is not established by a 26 general description of the documents sought or by a conclusory argument that the requested 27 information [is] material to the defense.”). Both Defendants assert that the IA reports are necessary 28

CF0693-16 People v. Robert John Miranda Page 5 of 7 CF0202-17 People v. Salvador Buddy Santos Consolidated DECISION AND ORDER (People’s Motions to Quash Subpoenas) 0 0 1 for impeachment purposes, yet neither Defendant gives any explanation on how those reports would 2 achieve such purpose. Again, to warrant mandatory review or disclosure under Guam’s criminal 3 discovery procedures, the defense must first satisfy its burden of establishing that the records sought 4 are material to its defense. Id.; see also 8 GCA §~ 70. 10(b), 70.15(a). 5 Here, the Court finds that both Defendants have failed to satisfy the threshold showing of 6 materiality. In both subpoenas duces tecum, neither Defendant offers any facts demonstrating how 7 the information contained in the IA reports, nor the IA reports themselves, is material to the 8 preparation of their defenses. In addition, both Defendants failed to file discovery motions pursuant 9 to 8 GCA §~ 70.10 and 70.15 establishing materiality before obtaining their subpoenas from the 10 Clerk of Court. The Court agrees with the People that the purpose of Guam’s criminal discovery 11 procedures is to prevent impermissible fishing expeditions in the discovery process. $cc People v. 12 Kitano, 2011 Guam 11 ¶ 21 (“Brady’s overriding concern [is] with the justice of the finding of guilt, 13 not with the accused’s ability to prepare for trial.”). Allowing due process to be satisfied through 14 mere speculation of discoverable evidence would turn the principles of Brady into a discovery 15 device and place an undue burden on the trial courts. See Mateo, 2017 Guam 22 at ¶ 17 (quoting 16 United States v. Navarro, 737 F.2d 625, 631 (7th Cir. 1984)). Thus, because the Defendants only 17 provide the Court with conclusory arguments to support their need to obtain the IA reports, the Court 18 finds that both Defendant Miranda and Defendant Santos have failed to establish the requisite 19 showing of materiality. 20 Lastly, the Defendants argue that because IA reports were not addressed in Mateo, the 21 materiality requirement does not apply. In Mateo, the Supreme Court ruled on officer personnel files 22 and not IA reports because the defense did not bring up the issue of IA reports in the trial court. In 23 other words, Mateo did not have an adequate record on appeal. Nonetheless, the same logic applies 24 pursuant to 8 GCA §~ 70.10 and 70.15. For evidence to be discoverable, they must, be material. 25 Mateo, 2017 Guam 22 at ¶ 15; see also 8 GCA §~ 70.10 and 70.15. Thus, absent materiality, the 26 Court GRANTS the People’s Motions to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum in CF0693-16 and 27 CF0202-17. 28

CF0693-16 People v. Robert John Miranda V Page 6 of 7 CF0202-17 People v. Salvador Buddy Santos Consolidated DECISION AND. ORDER (People’s Motions to Quash Subpoenas) 0 0 1 CONCLUSION 2 By a preponderance of the evidence and for the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the 3 People’s Motions to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum in both CF0693-16 and CF0202-17. 4 5 A Criminal Trial Setting for CF0693-16 is set for ~1AY 142018 at 10:00a.m~ 6 A Criminal Trial Setting for CF0202-17 is set for 142018 at 10:00 a.m. 7 8 SO ORDERED this day of ~ 0 i 2U1~ 9

10 The Honorable Anita A. Sukola 1.1 Judge, Superior Court of Guam • 12 13 SERVICE VIA COURT BOX 14 I acknowledge that a copy of the original hereto was placed in the court b~f: ~ 15 16 • Date ~/~“1ime: 1 7Vfr~4 17 j~jpj T. ~:uty Clerk, S.~v,h,r Court of G~a~) 18 19 20 21 • .22 23 24 • 25

• 26 27 28

CF0693-16 People v. Robert John Miranda Page 7 of 7 CF0202-17 People v. Salvador Buddy Santos Consolidated DECISION AND ORDER (People’s Motions to Quash Subpoenas)