People v. Reyes

Opinion

. aw

-4

Fl! E . 9"- .zL§<-i 'eLK €.II>§~

ZUZEJLIL 2025 JUL 30 goAMafwaa

f I: 04

sw=@1€8?l 48:91

(}F GUM# O v¢'i.1

IN THE

THE SUPERIOR

SUPERIOR COURT

COURT OF

OF GUAM

GUAM

OF GUAM

THE PEOPLE OF GUAM

Plaintiff, CRIMINAL CASE CASE NO.: CF0723-24-01

vs.

FRANK JOSEPH JOSEPH GUMATAOTAO DECISION DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING REYES JR., DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AND Defendant. INDICTMENT

INTRODUCTION

This matter came before the Honorable Honorable John C.

C. Terlaje on July 1,

1, 2025, for

for a motion

hearing on Defendant Frank Joseph Gumataotao Reyes, Jr.

Jr.'s ("Mr. Reyes")

Reyes") Motion

Motion to Dismiss

the the Superseding Indictment and Superseding Indictment and Indictment.

Indictment.Present

Present at

at the

the hearing

hearing were

were Assistant

Assistant Attorney

General John David Griffin on behalf of the the People of Guam ("the People"), and Attorney

Heather Quitigua on Heather Quitigua on behalf behalf of Defendant Reyes. Having Defendant Reyes. Having reviewed reviewed the

the pleadings,

pleadings, the

the

arguments presented, arguments presented,and andthe

therecord,

record,the

theCourt

Courtnow

nowissues

issuesthe

thefollowing

following Decision

Decision and Order

DENYING the Motion DENYING the Motion to to Dismiss

Dismiss the

the Indictments.

Indictments.

BACKGROUND

Defendant Reyes faces charges charges stemming from alleged alleged events

events occurring

occurring on

on or

or about

about

September 8 to to September

September 9,

9, 2024

2024 in

in Guam.

Guam.The

The indictment

indictmentin

inthis

thiscase

casewas

wasoriginally

originally filed

filed

on October 22, 2024, and a superseding supersedingindictment

indictmentwas

wascharged

chargedand

andfiled

filed on

on April 14, 2025.

April 14,

the original In the original indictment, indictment, Mr.

Mr. Reyes

Reyes was

wascharged

chargedwith

witharson,

arson,desecration,

desecration, obstructing

obstructing

govenunent government function, function, and destruction destructionof

of evidence. In

In the Superseding Indictment, Mr.

Superseding Indictment, Mr. Reyes

is charged with Complicity charged with Complicity to Commit Aggravated Aggravated Murder,

Murder, Complicity to

to Commit

Commit Murder,

Murder,

Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Aggravated Murder,

Murder, Conspiracy to Commit Commit Murder, and Complicity

to Commit Commit Aggravated Aggravated Assault,

Assault, in

in addition

addition to

to the

the charges

charges in

inthe

theoriginal

originalindictment.

indictment.

Defendant Reyes filed filed his

his Motion

MotiontotoDismiss

Dismissthe

theSuperseding

SupersedingIndictment

Indictment and

and Indictment

Indictment on

on

April 25, 25, 2025.

2025. The

The People

People of

ofGuam

Guam filed

filedits

itsOpposition

Oppositionon

on May

May30,

30,2025,

2025, and

and Defendant

Defendant

Reyes filed filed his his Reply

Replyon

onJune

June 4,

4, 2025.

2025. This

ThisCourt

Courtdismissed

dismissed Special

Special Prosecutor

Prosecutor Attorney

Curtis Van Van dh veld from de veld fromthis

this case

case on

on June 23, 2025, in part because June 23, becauseof of inappropriate testimony

before before the the Grand Jury for the superseding Jury for supersedingindictment indictmentagainst

againstMr.

Mr.Reyes.

Reyes. On July 1,

I, 2025,

2025, the

Court heard arguments arguments on

onthe

theMotion

Motion to Disqualify

Disqualify and

and placed

placed the

the matter

matter under

under advisement.

DISCUSSION

Title 8, Title 8, Guam Guam Code

Code Annotated,

Annotated, Chapter

Chapter 50

50 governs

governs grand

grand jury proceedings in in Guam.

Guam.

A grand grand jury's jury's function function is

is "to

"toinquire

inquireinto

intofelonies

feloniesand

andany

anyrelated

related misdemeanors

misdemeanors triable by

the court." 88 G.C.A. the court." G.C.A. §§ 50.10.

50.10. The

The grand jury"shall

grand jury "shall find an an indictment when from

from the evidence

presented there is presented there is reasonable reasonable cause

causeto

tobelieve

believe that an indictable offense offense has

has been committed

and thatthe and that thedefendant defendantcommitted

committedit."

it."88G.C.A.

G.C.A. §

§ 50.54 (emphasis in

50.54 (emphasis in original).

original). The

The indictment

indictment

serves two essential purposes: itit affirms that the grand jury found essential purposes: found probable cause cause for the

the

charges in the the indictment,

indictment, and

andititgives

gives the

thedefendant

defendantnotice

notice of

of the charges.People

the charges. v. Ta

Peoplev. Taisacan,

isacan,

Ir 29;

2018 Guam 23 H' 29, Guam Guam v.v.San

SanNicolas,

Nicolai, 2013 Guam

Guam 21 Ir 12.

21 H' 12. The Guam Supreme Court

has has found found that that "reasonable cause" and "reasonable cause" and "probable cause"

cause" are

are equivalent

equivalent in

in meaning

meaning and

and

requires the the grand jury jury to base its indictment upon upon "such

"such a state

state of

of facts as would lead

lead aa man

of ofordinary ordinary caution caution or

or prudence believe, and prudence to believe, and conscientiously conscientiously entertain entertain a strong suspicion of of

the guilt of of the San Nicolas the accused."' San Nicolai at People v.

at fn. 5 (quoting People v. Brice, 44 Cal. Rptr. 231,

240 (ct. APP- 240 (Ct. 1965);

App. 1965)).

At issue At issue before before the

the Court

Court isis whether

whether the

the Indictments

Indictments in this case were based based on

on

sufficient competent evidence sufficient competent evidence as asisisrequired

requiredby

by 88 GCA

GCA §§ 50.42.

50.42. Under

Under Guam

Guam law,

law, aa grand

grand

jury is only to receive receive competent

competent evidence. However, However, ififaagrand

grand jury

jury receives

receives evidence

evidence that

that is

not competent, the indictment competent, the indictmentisis not not rendered

renderedvoid,

void, as

as long

long as there

there is

is "sufficient

"sufficient competent

competent

evidence to support evidence to the indictment"

support the indictment"that thatwas

wasreceived

receivedby

bythe

thegrand

grandjury.

jury.88GCA

GCA §§ 50.42.

50.42.

Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motionasks

asks this

this Court

Court to

to dismiss

dismiss all

all of

ofthe

thecharges

charges against

against him

him as

as set forth in

in the

Indictments because Indictments because"no "no competent

competentevidence

evidence was

was presented

presentedtoto either

eitherjury."

jury." Specifically,

Defendant argues that the Grand that the Grand Jury

Jury for

for the Superseding Indictment received Superseding Indictment received only hearsay hearsay

testimony because"the testimony because "the testifying testifying police

police officer

officer [and]

[and] the

the putative

putative special

special prosecutor

prosecutor [were]

not competent to testify because their testimony testimony was not within

within their

theirpersonal

personalknowledge"

knowledge" and

and

consisted largely consisted largely of reading reading aa police

police report.

report. According

AccordingtotoDefendant,

Defendant, such

such testimony

testimony is not

not

"competent "competent evidence"

evidence"as

as required

required under

under Title

Title 8,

8, Guam

Guam Code

Code Annotated,

Annotated, Chapter

Chapter 50. The main

inquiry here therefore becomes how Guam precedent has hasdefined

defined"competent

"competent evidence" under

this statute, and this statute, andwhether whetheraagrand

grandjury

jury receiving

receiving hearsay

hearsay evidence,

evidence,or

or evidence

evidence given

given by

witnesses witnesses without without personal

personalknowledge,

knowledge, can

canbe

be considered

considered"competent

"competent evidence."

evidence."

Defendant invites the Court to to exercise

exercise its

its inherent

inherent supervisory

supervisory authority

authority to dismiss

dismiss

both the the Indictments Indictments in this case because, because, Defendant argues, grand juries heard argues, both grand heard only

hearsay evidence, and the grand jury for hearsay for the the superseding

superseding indictment

indictment received

received inappropriate

inappropriate

testimony from the testimony from the putative putative special

special prosecutor. As

As part

part of

ofthis

this request,

request, Defendant

Defendant urges

urges this

this

Court to declare declare that that hearsay

hearsay is never

never competent

competent evidence

evidence under

under Guam law, whether

whether the

the

evidence is presented in a civil or or criminal

criminaltrial

trialor

ortotothe

thegrand

grandjury

jurypursuant to Section 50.42.

pursuant to

The Defendant further asks this further asks thisCourt

Courtto

tooverrule

ovelTule the

thegrand

grandjury's

jury's finding

finding of

ofprobable

probable cause

cause

to sustain the Indictinents sustain the against Defendant.

Indictments against Defendant. For For the

the reasons set forth herein, reasons set herein, this this Court

Court

declines to do so.

Under 8 GCA §

I. Competent Evidence Under § 50.42 50.42

The Court Court finds

finds that,

that, contrary

contrary to

to Defendant's

Defendant's arguments

arguments otherwise,

otherwise, existing

existing Guam

Guam

legal authority has taken authority has takenthe thedefinition

definitionof

of "competent evidence" in in Section

Section 50.42

50.42 to include

include

hearsay hearsay evidence.

evidence. See, People v.

See, People v. Quidachqy, Quidachay, 1986

1986 WL 68912

68912 *2

*2 (Guam

(Guam D.Ct.App.Div

D.Ct.App.Div.

1986)(hearsay evidence is 1986)(hearsay evidence is not necessarily incompetentfor necessarily incompetent for the the limited

limited purpose

purpose of being

being

presented to the presented to the Grand GrandJury;

Jury,"hearsay,

"hearsay,though

thoughnot

notadmissible

admissibleover

overobjection

objectionat

attrial,

trial, will

will be

regarded as sufficient regarded as sufficient to to establish

establish aa fact")(citing fact")(citing Nalley's

Nalley's Inc.

Inc. v.v. Corene

CorenaProcessed

Processed Foods,

Foods,

Inc., 240 240 CaLApp.2d Cal.App.2d 948,

948, 50

50 Ca1.Rptr. 173, 175

Cal.Rptr. 173, 175 (1966)).

(1966)).

The Supreme Court of of the

the United

United States

States made

made this declaration in Brady Bracy v.v.US.,

US, 435

435

U.S. 1301, 1301, 98 S.Ct.

S.ct. 1171

1171 (1978), which

which remains good law today:

today:

Because it seems to me that applicants applicants misconceive

misconceive the the function function of the grand jury in in our system of ofcriminal criminal justice,

justice, IIcannot

cannot conclude

conclude that

that four

four Justices

Justices of this

this Court are

likely to vote vote to

to grant

grant their petition [for their petition [for a stay stay of the judgment of the judgment conviction]. The of conviction].

grand jury does does not sit toto determine determine the truth ofthe truth of the charges

charges brought

brought against

against aa

defendant, but defendant, but only to determine determine whether there is probable cause cause to believe believe them

true, so as to require require him

him to

to stand

stand his

his trial.

trial. Because

Because ofofthis

this limited

limited function, we have held that an an indictment

indictmentisisnot

notinvalidated

invalidatedby by the

the grand

grandjury's

jury's consideration of hearsay, Costello v. Costello v. United United States,

States, 350 U.S. 359, 76 S.Ct. S.ct. 406, 406, 100

100 L.Ed. 397397 (1956), oror by the the

introduction of evidence obtained in violation violation of ofthe

the Fourth

Fourth Amendment,United United States States

v. Calandra, v. Calandra, 414 414 U.S.

U.S. 338,

338, 94 S.ct.

S.Ct. 613,

613, 3838 L.Ed.2d

L.Ed.2d 561 561 (1974). While the (1974). While the

presentation ofof inadmissible inadmissible evidence at trial may may pose a substantial threat to the the integrity integrity of faetfinding process, ofthatfactjinding process, its introduction beforebefore the grandjuryjury poses poses no

such threat. I have have nono reason

reason to believe

believe this

this Court will

will not

not continue

continue to abide by the

the

language of Mr. Justice Justice Black in Costello [citation [citation omitted]: "An "Anindictment indictmentreturned

returned

by aa legally legallyconstituted

constituted andand unbiased grand jury, unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the the prosecutor, prosecutor, ifif valid valid on

on its

its face,

face, is

is enough for trial enough to call for trial of ofthe

the charge

charge on

on the

the merits.

merits.

The Fifth Fifth Amendment

Amendment requires nothingnothing more."

more."

Bracy at Eracy at 1302 1302 (emphasis added). Indeed, emphasis added). Indeed, Rule Rule 1101

1101 of the Guam Rules

Rules of Evidence

Evidence (2004)

(2004)

specifically specifically exempts exempts grand

grand jury proceedings from the application of of rules

rules of

of evidence (except

privileges) privileges) otherwise otherwise applicable to civil applicable to civil actions actions and

and proceedings,

proceedings, criminal

criminal cases

cases and

and

proceedings and contempt proceedings proceedings (except those in which the court may may act summarily).

GRCP GRCP Rule Rule 1101 1101 (21), (0)(2).

(a), (c)(2).

In this case, the Defendant asks asks this

this Court

Court to

to find that the testimony that the testimony of

of two witnesses

who were not personally personally involved

involved in

in the

the investigation

investigation of

ofthe

the offenses

offenses with

with which

which Defendant

Defendant

was charged was charged is is not

not "competent

"competent evidence"

evidence" under

under 88 GCA

GCA §§ 50.42.

50.42. While

Whilethe

the prosecution

prosecution may

may

have arguably presented "better" evidence, evidence, in

inthe

the opinion

opinionof

ofthe

themovant,

movant, to

to the

the grand

grand jury, the

conclusion conclusion it it begs

begs the

the Court to reach is not supported supported by

by well-established legal legal authority

authority and

Defendant Defendant does not provide provide any

any case

case law

law which

whichsupports

supports such Ending.

such a finding.

The Guam Supreme Court has has never

never been called to

to address

address the issue where the trial

court overturned overturned aa grand grandjury's

jury's finding

finding of

of probable

probable cause

cause - which

which is

is what

what Defendant

Defendant asks

asks

the court to to do

do here.

here. However,

However, in

in ruling that trial court did that a trial did not not act

actinappropriately

inappropriately in inquiring inquiring

jury was

whether a grand jury was apprised of facts that constitute elements of of an offense, the

the Supreme

Court declared declared that "the trial court court cannot

cannot substitute

substitute its

its own

own conclusions

conclusions about

about the

the evidence

evidence

for for the actions of the actions of the grand jury." San grand jury." San Nicolas, Nicolas, supra, at fn. 8.

supra, at The Court 8. The Court finds

finds no

no reason

reason to

divert from from this principle principle of

of law now.

Support for leaving the determination determination of

ofaa grand jury undisturbed is established by the

holding of ofthe the Supreme

Supreme Court of the

the United

United States

States in Costello v.

v. US., 350

350 U.S.

U.S. 359,

359, 364

364

(1956). Inthat (1956). In that case, the Supreme Supreme Court

Court found

found that

thatallowing

allowing trial

trial courts

courts to

to review

review the findings

of ofaa grand grand jury "would "wouldrun

run counter the who

counter to the whole history of ofthe

the grand

grand jury institution,

institution, in which

laymen laymen conduct their inquiries inquiries unfettered

unfetteredby

bytechnical

technicalrules."

nlles." Costello

Costello at

at 364. In

In that vein, the

Costello court opined:

opined:"No

"No case

case has been cited

cited nor have we been able to find any, furnishing

an authority authority for for looking

looldng into

into and

and revising

revising the

the judgment of

ofthe

the grand

grand jury upon the evidence,

for the the purpose purpose of of determining

determining whether

whether or not

not the

the finding

finding was

was founded

founded upon

upon sufficient

sufficient

proof`...". Costello at proof...". Costello at 362- 363 (quoting US.

US. v.v. Reed,

Reed, 27 Fed.Cas. 727, 738, Fed.Cas. pages 727, 738, No. 16, 16,

134)(1852)). 134)(1852)). Citing Citing Costello, the Ninth Circuit the Ninth Circuit Court

Court of

of Appeals in People of

ofGuam

Guam v.

v.

Quidachay, 815 815 F.2d 1311

1311 (9th Cir. 1987),

1987), declared

declared that '"[t]he [United that '"[t]he [UnitedStates]

States] Supreme

Supreme

Court has held that that there

thereisisno

no constitutional

constitutional prohibition prohibition against

against presenting hearsay to a grand

jury or jury or against against hearsay hearsay forming the basis basis for

for an indictment." Quidachay, Quidachay, 815 F.2d at 1312.

1312.

Costello Costello and and Quidachay

Quidachay remain good law law today

today and,

and, importantly,

importantly, "are

"are precedent

precedent binding on

on

the trial courts courts and considered persuasive persuasive authority."

authority." Nicholson

Nicholson v.

v. Superior Court of

ofGuam,

Guam,

2007 Guam 9 (citing People v.

v. Quenga, Jr 13 n. 4). Thus, despite Defendant's Quenga, 1997 Guam 6 If

arguments, the state arguments, the stateof of the

the law remains that which which was established by Costello: hearsay, when

jury, is "competent

considered by a grand jury, evidence" for "competent evidence" for the the purposes of 88 GCA

purposes of GCA §§ 50.42.

50.42.

In In his his Motion,

Motion, Defendant

Defendanthas

has requested

requested that

that this

this Court

Court ignore

ignore established

established precedent

precedent

from the the Ninth Circuit in People v.

v. Quidachay,

Quidachay, 1986

1986 WL 68912

68912 *2

*2 (Guam

(Guam D.Ct.App.Div.

1986) 1986) and and People of of the Territory of

ofGuam

Guam v.

v. Garrido, 1984

1984 WL 48828

48828 (D.Ct.Guam

(D.Ct.Guam App.

1984), affd affd and and remanded by People of of Territory

Territory of

of Guam v.v. Garrido,

Garrido, 752 Fed. (9 th Cir.

F2d. 1378 lath Cir.

1985) 1985) as as unsupported unsupported in Guam law because the Guam Supreme Court Coup has

has "raj

"rejected the notion

of ofsuch such federal interpretations as as necessarily

necessarilycontrolling."

controlling." Motion

Motionto

toDismiss

Dismiss the

the Superseding

Superseding

Indictment and Indictment and Indictment Indictment(Apr. 25, 2025)

(Apr. 25, 2025) at

at 14.

14. Defendant

Defendant points to note

points tb note 4 in

in People

People v.

v.

Quenga, Quenga, 1997 Jr 13 1997 Guam 6 H' 13for for support

supportin

inthis

this assertion,

assertion, despite

despite this

this note

note actually

actually making the

opposite contention. In In the note, the Guam Supreme Supreme Court

CoM states

states::

...[the ... [the Guam Guam Supreme

Supreme Court]

Court] does not recognize recognize the

the decisions

decisions of thethe Appellate Appellate

Division Division asas controlling controlling our

ourconstruction

construction of

oflaw.

law. We

Weconsider

considerits

itsopinions

opinions asas precedent

precedent

that is binding binding upon the

the trial courts

courts of

ofGuam,

Guam, butbut these decisions, like these decisions, like those those of the

Court of Appeals, are considered persuasive authority of Appeals, are considered persuasive authority when when we [the [the Guam Supreme

Guam Supreme

Court] consider consider an

an issue...It

issue .Itshould

should be

beunderscored

underscored that

that the creation of

ofthe

the Supreme

Supreme

Court of Guam Guam did

did not erase pre-existing ease erase pre-existing case law. Precedent Precedent that

that was extant

extant when

we became became operational

operational continues unless and continues unless and until until we

we [the

[the Guam

Guam Supreme

Supreme Court]

Court]

address the issues discussed there. address the issues discussed there. WeWe will not divert from such precedents unless not divert from such precedents unless supports such

reason supports suchdeviation.

deviation.

People v.

v. Quenga, Quenga, 1997 Jr 13, 1997 Guam 6 up 13,n.n.44 (emphasis (emphasis added).

added). As

As stated

stated in this

this note,

note, the

the

Superior Court of Guam, Superior Court Guam, where where this

this Motion

Motion currently

currently sits,

sits, does

does not

not have

have any

any authority

authority to

disregard decisions decisions of

of the

the Appellate Division, and and Quidachay

Quidachay and Garrido are are still binding

binding

precedent precedent in the trial courts courts of

ofGuam

Guam because

because the

the Guam

Guam Supreme

Supreme Court

Court has

has not

not addressed

addressed

these particular issues these particular issuesdifferently.

differently.

The Defendant further urges the Court to disregardQuidachay Quidachay and

and Garrido,

Garrido, supra,

supra, as

as

"poorly "poorlyreasoned,~unsupported reasoned, unsupported ininlaw, law, and

andwrongly

wrongly decided," and

and argues

argues that the Appellate that the Appellate

Division Division"impermissibly "impermissiblyoverstepped oversteppedthe

thebounds

bounds of

ofwell

wellsettled

settledrules

rules of

ofstatutory

statutory construction

construction

by ignoring ignoringthe the plain

plain wording

wordingofofthe

thestatute

statuteand

and clouding

cloudingthe

theunambiguous

unambiguous statutory text with

purported legislative purported legislative history and tortured history and tortured interpretations interpretationsof

ofthe

thelanguage

languageitself."

itself." Mot. at 14

14

While the

(citations omitted). While the Court in Quidachay discuss the Quidachay does discuss the Compiler's Note under Compiler's Note under 8

GCA GCA§§50.42, 50.42, the the rule

rule in

in Quidachay

Quidachay was based on the the appellate

appellate court's

court's earlier decision

decision on

on the

same issue issue in inPeople of

of the

the Territory

Territory of

of Guam

Guam y.y, Garrido,

Garrido, 1984

1984 WL 48828 (D.Ct.Guam App.

App.

th

1984), aff'd affd and remanded by People of Territory Territorjy of Guam

Guam v.v. Garrido,

Garrido, 752 Fed.

F2d. 1378

1378 (9th Cir.

Cir.

1985)(discussing 1985)(discussing its rationale in Garrido rejecting defendant's defendant's contention

contention that

that an

an indictment

indictment

cannot be supported cannot be by hearsay, supported by citing to Supreme hearsay, citing Supreme Court Court rulings

rulings in

in Costello and

and

Short)(citations omitted)). Thus, Short)( citations omitted)). Thus, Quidachay Quidachay and

and Garrido

Garrido were

were not

not founded

founded upon

upon the

the

Compiler's Note Note under

under the

the annotated

annotated statute, but rather statute, but upon a reliance rather upon reliance on on controlling

controlling

precedent precedent of the Supreme Supreme Court of the

the United

United States

States in United

United States v.

v. Costello, 350 U.S.

359, 363, 76 S.Ct. 404, 406, 100 S.ct. 404, 100 L.Ed. 397 397 (1956).

(1956). See

See Quidachay

Quidachay at *2; at *2. The Garrido at

*2, Garrido

appellate court in both both Quidachay

Quidachay and Garrido cited to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

th

case case of United United States States v.

v. Short, 493 F.2d 1170,

1170, 1173

1173 (9th Cir. 1974)

Cir. 1974) for support

support of its

its ruling

that hearsay that hearsay is is admissible

admissible before

before the

the grand

grand jury.

jury. This Court

Court does

does not

not have

have the

the authority

authority to

disregard good, controlling law established established for nearly

nearly four decades

decades just because

because Defendant

believes it to be "poorly reasoned."as "poorly reasoned.

As As the the court in Quidachay stated, refining to Costello, the function of a grand jury is stated, referring

only to to determine whether whether evidence

evidence is suff;cient

sufficientto

to charge

charge aa person with a crime.

crime. The Costello

court court interpreted the meaning interpreted the meaningof of "competent

"competent evidence"

evidence" to create

create minimal

minimal restrictions

restrictions of

reliability. reliability. The The Ninth

Ninth Circuit

Circuit considering Quidachay Quidachay developed

developedthe

the standard

standard further by stating

that that if the the evidence evidence is

is such

such that

that aa reasonable

reasonable person would rely rely upon,

upon, then

then it is

is competent

competent

within the meaning of of the statute. People v. 1313 (9th Cir. 1987).

v. Quidachay, 815 F.2d 1311, 1313

continues to

The Court continues to be bound bound by

by this

this precedent.

precedent. While the

the evidence presented

presented by the

the

witnesses in the grand jury jury was likely not based on firsthand firsthand knowledge,

knowledge, it

it was the type of

was the

information upon which a reasonable person could rely, and hearsay, as discussed above, is

competent evidence competent evidence in in a grand jury in Guam.

The Court finds that "sufficient competent evidence to support support the indictment" under

GCA §§ 50. 8 GCA 42 wa 50.42 s r ecei

was ved by

received byt hthe

e grgrand

a n d jur y, a nand

jury, er efor e decl d t htherefore i

declines tto di sm

dismiss tthe

indictments. indictments

Alleged Prosecutorial II. Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct Misconduct isis Not

Not aa Legal

Legal Basis for Dismissing Indictment

Defendant requests that this Court dismiss the superseding indictment "as a sanction

for the prosecutions repeated use of of excessive

excessive hearsay

hearsay in

in violation

violation of

ofthe

the statute,

statute, the putative

special prosecutor's improper improper testimony, and to deter deter any such

such iilture

future conduct." Mot. at 20.

Defendant asserts that he of protections given to him by the he "was denied the benefit of the statute, statute,

in violation of his his due process rights." Specifically, defense counsel identifies the following

problems with with the evideNce evidence presented to the the grand

grand jury:

jury: the

the prosecution

prosecution presented

presented a playback

playback

of witnesses as to of to what what was

was contained

contained in

in the

the police

police report,

report; the

the putative

putative special

special prosecutor

improperly testified improperly testified and and provided

provided his

his opinions

opinions and commentary as to the and commentary the credibility credibility and

and

weight of evidence, evidence; putative

putative special

special prosecutor

prosecutor had

had no personal knowledge no personal knowledge of events, events; no

additional ddition a l knowledge kn owledge was

wa s sought

sough t and

n d no witn

witnesses who ma

esses wh made statements de sta testified; no temen ts testified,

independent depen den t investigation in vestigationwas

was performed

per for medby

by the

th e grand

gr an d jury;

jur y, and evidence

an d eviden ce was at

at least

least

"uncertain." According "uncertain" According to to defense

defense counsel,

counsel, the

the grand

grand jury

jury "relied

"relied on

onunreliable,

unreliable, multiple

multiple

layers of hearsay." Mot. at 18.

While the Court agrees with Defendant's Defendant's characterization characterization of the role of a Prosecutor Prosecutor

and special obligations that are included therein, the Court Court declines to

to dismiss the

the superseding

indictment "as a sanction" for alleged improper testimony. The Court has already addressed the alleged prosecutorial misconduct by granting Motion to Disqualify Putative granting Defendant's Motion Putative

Special Prosecutor, and believes believes that

that this is a sufficient sufficient sanction

sanction that does not infringe infringe upon

upon

the character

character of

of grand jury

jury proceedings.

Neither Neitherthe

the statutes governing grand statutes governing grand jury proceedings proceedings nor

nor any

any other

other Guam law requires

the grand jury

jury to

to conduct

conduct its

itsproceedings

proceedings in

inany

anyspecific

specific manner.

manner.According

According to Guam law, the

grand jury

jury shall find an

an indictment

indictment "when

"when from

from the

the evidence

evidencepresented

presented there

there is

is reasonable

reasonable

cause to believe cause to believe that

that an

an indictable

indictable offense

offense has

has been

been committed

committed and

and that

that the

the defendant

defendant

committed it." 88 GCA committed it." GCA§§50.54 50.54 (b).

(b).88G.C.A.

G.C.A.Section

Section50.18

50.18(b)

(b)further

furtherprohibits

prohibits the

the court from

court from

interfering with

with the

the grand jury process.

1

Most Most importantly,

importantly, there

there is

is no

no claim

claimhere

herethat

that the

the testimony

testimony presented

presented to the grand jury

was false. Defense counsel the testimony counsel terms the testimonyas as"uncertain,"

"uncertain,""unreliable,

"unreliable, multiple

multiple layers

layers of

of

hearsay" and

and contends that the

thepresentation

presentationof

of this

this evidence

evidence to the grand

grandjury

jury somehow denied

Defendant Reyes "the

"the benefit

benefit of

ofprotections

protections given

givento

tohim

himby

bythe

the statute, violation of statute, in violation ofhis his due

due

process rights," but

but fails

fails to

to establish

establish how due

due process was denied.

denied. Mot. at 18.

18. Defendant also

failed to

to present

present any

any relevant

relevant case

case authority

authority in

in support of this

support of this basis

basis as

as grounds

grounds to grant

grant the

the

motion to

to dismiss.

dismiss. Therefore,

Therefore, the

the Court

Court rejects

rejects this

this contention

contention and denies the motion to denies the

dismiss the indictments.

CONCLUSION

For For the foregoing reasons, the Court reasons, the Court hereby herebyDENIES

DENIES Defendant's Motion Motion to

to Dismiss

Dismiss

the Superseding Indictment and Indictment.

so SO ORDERED,

w

3 O30W-- day

ORDERED, thisthis of day of

-r~ Ju\J 2025.

slnvlce savac■vIA VIAe-mAI1.

■-MAIL

, annowieuge ack nowieagelhasathat ana" electvonu.

eiectron1l

Com COP\' al ofme theorvglna'

011gI1"1lPwas

iNiliee ml.1\ed

ma'1teo LU

to

_/\

/16.,, 6 , //.- H1/MU://'I / (}111-lgv1

v

HO BLE OHN c. TERLAJE Judge, Court of Guam Date? /14 fume. ll; rllh A/M W ~ Deputy clerk.

clerk . Supellur Supe,1ar Court of Guam