'¢ L
§="iLED 1 5[}?»E5§fil§_;:3 C.0U§.'? mfg,L: 2 zut9 APR 26 PH 3: 32 3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM CLERKGFQGURT 4
5 PEOPLE OF GUAM CRIMINAL CASE NO.: CF0549-18 6
7 vs. DECISION AND ORDER 8 DEAN RAY QUINATA. (Motion to Compel Discovery) DOB: 02/11/1974 9
10 DEFENDANT. 11
12 INTRODUCTION 13 T h i s matter came b e fo r e th e H o n o r a b l e An i ta A. Su ko l a o n D e fe n d a n t Dean R a y 14 Quinta's ("Qui rata") Motion to Compel Discovery. Attorney Curtis C. Van de veld 15 represents Q ui rata. Assistant Attorney G eneral Matthew Phelps represents the People of 16 G u a m ( " P e o p l e " ) . U p o n r e v i e w o f th e w r i tte n a n d o r a l a r g u me n ts , a n d l e g a l a u th o r i ti e s 17 presented by the Parties, and for the reasons set out herein, the Court issues this decision 18 and order DENYING Quinta's Motion. 19 BACKGROUND 20 On September 7, 2018, a grand jury returned an Indictment charging Qui rata with 21 one count each of CONSPIRACY TO IMPORT A SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED 22 SUBSTANCE (As a First Degree Felony), CONSPIRACY TO POSSESS WITH INTENT 23 TO DELIVER A SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (As a First Degree 24 Felony), and POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DELIVER A SCHEDULE I
CO NT RO LLED SUBST ANCE (As a F i rst Degree F el ony). Indi ctment (Sep. 7, 2018).
On November 30, 2018, Qui rata filed three related motions, (1) Motion to Enlarge
Q51 Time to File Motions, (2) Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in an Illegal Search, and G s \s I
CF0549-18, People of Guam v. Qui rata Page 1 of 4 Decision and Order (Motion to Compel Discovery) <=~ > l
(3) Motion to Compel Discovery in Aid of the Motion to Suppress. A pre-trial conference
took place on January 2, 2019, at which time the Court decided it would first rule on the
Motion to Compel Discovery, as Qui rata argued he was unable to more fully set forth the
basis for his Motion to Suppress without access to the discovery he simultaneously sought
to compel. Mot. to Suppress at 2 (Nov. 30, 2018). The People tiled their Opposition to the
Motion to Compel on December 12, 2018. Opp'n (Dec. 12, 2018). A Motion Hearing was
held on January 29, 2019, and the Court thereafter took this matter under advisement.
DISCUSSION
Qui rata moves for an order compelling production of discovery including alleged audio and video recordings, field notes of officers, and records of the Superior Court of Guam Probation Department. Mot. to Compel at 3 (Nov. 30, 2018) . 8 GCA Chapter 70 regulates the discovery process in criminal proceedings. The prosecution has the affirmative duty to disclose to Defendant's counsel "any material or 13 information which tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as to the offense charged or 14 would tend to reduce his punishment thereof." 8 GCA § 70.l0(a)(7), see also Guam v.
15 Kitano, 2011 Guam ll 'll 19. The prosecution has an obligation to tum over certain relevant information that is "within his possession or control, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the prosecuting attorney." 8 GCA § 70.I0(a). The People's obligation only extends "to any material information in the possession or control of members of his staff and any other persons who have participated in the investigation or evaluation of the case and who either regularly report or with reference to this case have reported to his office." 8 GCA § 70.10(b). This disclosure requirement extends to notes made by police officers in the course of an investigation, both 22 in the field and in conducting interviews. People v. Superior Court (Laxamana), 2001 Guam 26 iI 44. Further, under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." However, Brady does not impose an affirmative duty upon the government to take action to discover information which it does not possess. U.S. v.
CF0549-18, People of Guam v. Qui rata Page 2 of 4 Decision and Order (Motion to Compel Discovery) I
Graham, 484 F.3d 413, 417 (6th Cir. 2007); see also U.S. v. Tierney, 947 F.2d 854, 864 (8th Cir. 1991) ("It is well settled that there is no 'affirmative duty upon the government to take action to discover infonnation which it does not possess."' See also Harm v. State, 183 S.W .3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (explaining that the government is not required to seek out exculpatory evidence independently on Defendant's behalf or provide 5 Defendant with exculpatory or mitigating evidence that is fully accessible to Defendant 6 from another source.) The prosecutor's responsibility to learn of favorable evidence extends to "others acting on the government's behalf in the case," and the prosecutor is "presumed to have knowledge of all infonnation gathered in connection with his office's investigation of the case." U.S. v. Meregildo, 920 F.Supp.2d 434, 440 (S.D. N.Y. 2013). The constructive knowledge of the prosecutor, however, is limited. "It does not encompass every agency and individual within the [govemrnent]." lg, see also U.S. v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249, 255 (2nd Cir. 1998) ("[K]nowledge on the part of persons employed by a different office of the government does not in all instances warrant the imputation of knowledge to the 14 prosecutor"); see also U.S. v. Morell, 524 F.2d 550, 555 (2d Cir. 1975) (explaining that
15 imputation is only proper when an agency can be considered "an arm of the prosecutor"). However, "a prosecutor's office cannot get around Brady by keeping itself in ignorance, or by compartmentalizing information about different aspects of a case." Carey v. Duckworth, 738 F.2d 875, 878 (7th Cir.1984). a. Audio and video recordings. Qui rata states that he "previously resolved a forfeiture action on certain personal property seized from Defendant's arrest and was thence informed that audio and video 21 recordings of certain events occurred. No such recordings have been provided." Mot. to
22 Compel at 3. Qui rata has not identified who informed him of the existence of such evidence. Qui rata has not provided the Court with a declaration or any other evidence to demonstrate that such a statement was made to him. Because the Court is not aware of who may be in possession of this evidence, or whether this evidence exists, the Court cannot compel its production. b. Probation Department records. Qui rata argues that he is entitled to the field notes of officers who conducted interviews of infonnants. Mot. to Compel at 2. Qui rata also seeks any information
CF0549-18, People of Guam v. Qui rata Page 3 of 4 Decision and Order (Motion to Compel Discovery) \1
concerning any records of the training and activities of the canine used in the relevant 1 . searches. LL at 3-4. 2 Qui rata argues that the Laxamana decision extends to field notes of Probation 3 Officers. Mot. to Compel at 2.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
'¢ L
§="iLED 1 5[}?»E5§fil§_;:3 C.0U§.'? mfg,L: 2 zut9 APR 26 PH 3: 32 3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM CLERKGFQGURT 4
5 PEOPLE OF GUAM CRIMINAL CASE NO.: CF0549-18 6
7 vs. DECISION AND ORDER 8 DEAN RAY QUINATA. (Motion to Compel Discovery) DOB: 02/11/1974 9
10 DEFENDANT. 11
12 INTRODUCTION 13 T h i s matter came b e fo r e th e H o n o r a b l e An i ta A. Su ko l a o n D e fe n d a n t Dean R a y 14 Quinta's ("Qui rata") Motion to Compel Discovery. Attorney Curtis C. Van de veld 15 represents Q ui rata. Assistant Attorney G eneral Matthew Phelps represents the People of 16 G u a m ( " P e o p l e " ) . U p o n r e v i e w o f th e w r i tte n a n d o r a l a r g u me n ts , a n d l e g a l a u th o r i ti e s 17 presented by the Parties, and for the reasons set out herein, the Court issues this decision 18 and order DENYING Quinta's Motion. 19 BACKGROUND 20 On September 7, 2018, a grand jury returned an Indictment charging Qui rata with 21 one count each of CONSPIRACY TO IMPORT A SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED 22 SUBSTANCE (As a First Degree Felony), CONSPIRACY TO POSSESS WITH INTENT 23 TO DELIVER A SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (As a First Degree 24 Felony), and POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DELIVER A SCHEDULE I
CO NT RO LLED SUBST ANCE (As a F i rst Degree F el ony). Indi ctment (Sep. 7, 2018).
On November 30, 2018, Qui rata filed three related motions, (1) Motion to Enlarge
Q51 Time to File Motions, (2) Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in an Illegal Search, and G s \s I
CF0549-18, People of Guam v. Qui rata Page 1 of 4 Decision and Order (Motion to Compel Discovery) <=~ > l
(3) Motion to Compel Discovery in Aid of the Motion to Suppress. A pre-trial conference
took place on January 2, 2019, at which time the Court decided it would first rule on the
Motion to Compel Discovery, as Qui rata argued he was unable to more fully set forth the
basis for his Motion to Suppress without access to the discovery he simultaneously sought
to compel. Mot. to Suppress at 2 (Nov. 30, 2018). The People tiled their Opposition to the
Motion to Compel on December 12, 2018. Opp'n (Dec. 12, 2018). A Motion Hearing was
held on January 29, 2019, and the Court thereafter took this matter under advisement.
DISCUSSION
Qui rata moves for an order compelling production of discovery including alleged audio and video recordings, field notes of officers, and records of the Superior Court of Guam Probation Department. Mot. to Compel at 3 (Nov. 30, 2018) . 8 GCA Chapter 70 regulates the discovery process in criminal proceedings. The prosecution has the affirmative duty to disclose to Defendant's counsel "any material or 13 information which tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as to the offense charged or 14 would tend to reduce his punishment thereof." 8 GCA § 70.l0(a)(7), see also Guam v.
15 Kitano, 2011 Guam ll 'll 19. The prosecution has an obligation to tum over certain relevant information that is "within his possession or control, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the prosecuting attorney." 8 GCA § 70.I0(a). The People's obligation only extends "to any material information in the possession or control of members of his staff and any other persons who have participated in the investigation or evaluation of the case and who either regularly report or with reference to this case have reported to his office." 8 GCA § 70.10(b). This disclosure requirement extends to notes made by police officers in the course of an investigation, both 22 in the field and in conducting interviews. People v. Superior Court (Laxamana), 2001 Guam 26 iI 44. Further, under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." However, Brady does not impose an affirmative duty upon the government to take action to discover information which it does not possess. U.S. v.
CF0549-18, People of Guam v. Qui rata Page 2 of 4 Decision and Order (Motion to Compel Discovery) I
Graham, 484 F.3d 413, 417 (6th Cir. 2007); see also U.S. v. Tierney, 947 F.2d 854, 864 (8th Cir. 1991) ("It is well settled that there is no 'affirmative duty upon the government to take action to discover infonnation which it does not possess."' See also Harm v. State, 183 S.W .3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (explaining that the government is not required to seek out exculpatory evidence independently on Defendant's behalf or provide 5 Defendant with exculpatory or mitigating evidence that is fully accessible to Defendant 6 from another source.) The prosecutor's responsibility to learn of favorable evidence extends to "others acting on the government's behalf in the case," and the prosecutor is "presumed to have knowledge of all infonnation gathered in connection with his office's investigation of the case." U.S. v. Meregildo, 920 F.Supp.2d 434, 440 (S.D. N.Y. 2013). The constructive knowledge of the prosecutor, however, is limited. "It does not encompass every agency and individual within the [govemrnent]." lg, see also U.S. v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249, 255 (2nd Cir. 1998) ("[K]nowledge on the part of persons employed by a different office of the government does not in all instances warrant the imputation of knowledge to the 14 prosecutor"); see also U.S. v. Morell, 524 F.2d 550, 555 (2d Cir. 1975) (explaining that
15 imputation is only proper when an agency can be considered "an arm of the prosecutor"). However, "a prosecutor's office cannot get around Brady by keeping itself in ignorance, or by compartmentalizing information about different aspects of a case." Carey v. Duckworth, 738 F.2d 875, 878 (7th Cir.1984). a. Audio and video recordings. Qui rata states that he "previously resolved a forfeiture action on certain personal property seized from Defendant's arrest and was thence informed that audio and video 21 recordings of certain events occurred. No such recordings have been provided." Mot. to
22 Compel at 3. Qui rata has not identified who informed him of the existence of such evidence. Qui rata has not provided the Court with a declaration or any other evidence to demonstrate that such a statement was made to him. Because the Court is not aware of who may be in possession of this evidence, or whether this evidence exists, the Court cannot compel its production. b. Probation Department records. Qui rata argues that he is entitled to the field notes of officers who conducted interviews of infonnants. Mot. to Compel at 2. Qui rata also seeks any information
CF0549-18, People of Guam v. Qui rata Page 3 of 4 Decision and Order (Motion to Compel Discovery) \1
concerning any records of the training and activities of the canine used in the relevant 1 . searches. LL at 3-4. 2 Qui rata argues that the Laxamana decision extends to field notes of Probation 3 Officers. Mot. to Compel at 2. Qui rata argues that "[t]he Probation Office regularly reports 4 to the Office of the Attorney General and its records are therefore within the Government's 5 . constructive possession under the statute." ac; The People argue that Probation Officers do 6 not report to the Attorney General and the People are therefore not obligated to disclose
7 E such information to Qui rata. Opp'n at 2. The Court agrees with the People. The Probation Office is a part of the judicial branch, while the Attorney General's Office is a part of the 8 executive branch. The branches of government are separate and distinct entities pursuant to 9 the doctrine of separation of Powers. The People have no authority to oversee the Probation 10 Office and does not have access to the records of the Probation Office. The People do not 11 have a duty to collect information that is not in their control. Graham, 484 F.3d 413, 417 12 i (6th Cir. 2007). If Qui rata seeks information held by the Probation Office, then he must
13 issue a subpoena to such office. 14 The Court further notes that the Attorney General's Office does not exercise control
15 over the Drug Enforcement Agency or any other federal law enforcement agency. As with Q records and field notes of Probation Officers, Qui rata may seek information from federal 16 law enforcement agencies by issuing a subpoena directly to those agencies. 17 CONCLUSION 18 Based on the forgoing reasons, the Court DENIES Quinta's Motion to Compel 19 Discovery. 20
21 i n /7 at Q-WN A Criminal Trial Setting is set for 22
24 i SO ORDERED this LE /7 25 I acknowledge that a copy of the original hereto was placed in the 26 % f 4, f~
27 I°\Z1/d@U€Q 28 A'R J o *_, Time: sc/0 ?011, The Honorable Anita A. Sukola :1 Judge, Superior Court of Guam
Depute' -x Court of Goa re Page 4 of 4 `CF0549-18, Peo_»'c cc Guam v. Qui rata Decision and Order (Motion to Compel Discovery)