People v. Reyes

Opinion

L E D FILED C€_EF';§< CLERK OF comm' COURT 2625 JI.l23 2025 JUN 23 PM PH 4: ll! 26 25 ggpggifiiéi Qian.§I§'"'§`" x, ; ~* go: x;e5J?%,i§ O n =a sf

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 AND ORDER REGARDING REYES JR., DEFENDANT'S DEFENDANT'S MOTION MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DISQUALIFY AND REMOVE SPECIAL Defendant. Defendant. PROSECUTOR

INTRODUCTION

This matter came before the Honorable John C. Terlaje on June 16, 16, 2025, for a motion

hearing hearing on Defendant Frank Joseph Defendant Frank JosephGumataotao GumataotaoReyes, Reyes,Jr.'s Jr.'s("Mr. ("Mr. Reyes") Motion Motion to

and Remove Special Prosecutor. Disqualify and Prosecutor. Present Present at the hearing hearing were Special Special Assistant Assistant

Attorney General Curtis C. Van Van de de veld veld ("Mr. ("Mr. Van Vandh de veld") veld") on on behalf behalfof ofthe the People of of Guam

("the Governnlent"), Government"), and Attorney Heather Quitugua on behalf behalf of Defendant Reyes. Having

reviewed the reviewed the pleadings, pleadings, the the arguments arguments presented, presented, and and the the record, issues the record, the Court now issues

following Decision following Decision and and Order. Order.

BACKGROUND

Defendant Reyes faces charges charges stemming stemming from alleged alleged events events occurring occurring on on or or about about

September 8 to September 9, to September 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 onApril 14, 2025. April 14,

the original In the original indictment, indictment, Mr. Mr. Reyes Reyeswas wascharged chargedwith witharson, arson,desecration, desecration, obstructing obstructing government function, destructionof function, and destruction of evidence. In In the Superseding Indictment, Mr. Superseding Indictment, Mr. Reyes

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

Conspiracy to to Commit Aggravated Aggravated Murder, Murder, Conspiracy to Commit Commit Murder, Murder, and Complicity

Commit Aggravated to Commit AggravatedAssault, Assault,in inaddition additionto to the the charges charges in in the original indictment. indictment.

On April 28, 28, 2025, 2025, Mr. Reyes Reyes filed filed aa Motion Motionto to Disqualify Disqualifyand and Remove Remove Special Special Prosecutor Prosecutor

Curtis Van de veld. The The Government filed filed its its Opposition Opposition to to this this Motion Motion on on May May30, 30, 2025, 2025, and and

Mr. Reyes Reyes filed filedhis hisreply replyononJune June5,5,2025. 2025.On OnJune June16, 16,2025, 2025,the the Court Courtheard heard arguments arguments on on

the Motion Motion to to Disqualify Disqualifyand andplaced placedthe the matter matter under under advisement.

DISCUSSION

At issue At issue before the Court is whether whether Attorney Attorney Van Van De veld should de veld shouldbe bedisqualified disqualified from from

acting as a Special Special Assistant Assistant Attorney General General in in this this matter. matter. Defendants argue that Defendants argue that 1) 1) Mr.

Van Van dh de veld veld must must be disqualified disqualifiedbecause because his his continued continued representation in this matter violates

the Guam Rules the Guam Rules of of Professional Professional Conduct Conduct("GRPC") ("GRPC") under under Rule Rule 1.7, 1.7; 2) 2) he he has has aa financial financial

interest taldng cases interest in taking cases to to trial; trial, and and 3) 3) he improperly provided providedcommentary commentary on on witnesses witnesses and and

relative to evidence relative to the the case case during during the grand jury hearing.

"Disqualification isis aadrastic "Disqualification drastic course course of ofaction action that that should should not be taken taken simply simply out out of

hypersensitivity to hypersensitivity nuances or to ethical nuances or the the appearance appearanceof of impropriety." Barrett-Anderson v. v.

Camacho, 2018 Guam 20 ,r Camacho, 1] 14 14 (citation (citation omitted). The Supreme Supreme Court of ofGuam Guam determined determined

that that "the appearance appearance of impropriety impropriety standard ceased to standard ceased to be be the the standard standard for for attorney attorney

disqualification after the disqualification after the 2003 2003 adoption adoptionof of the the Guam Rules of Professional Guam Rules Professional Conduct Conduct for

criminal actions tiled filed after after the the rules' rules' effective effectivedate dateand andfor forall allsubsequent subsequent attorney attorney conduct conduct in

pending civil civil cases." Idatat1[,r 18. cases." Id 18. The The "current "current standard standard for attorney disqualification disqualification is is whether whether

an attorney's continued representation attorney's continued representationof ofaa party party or participation participation in an an action action violates violates or or

significantly significantly risks risks violating violatingthe the Guam Guam Rules Rules of ofProfessional Professional Conduct." Idatat1],r 20 (emphasis Conduct." Id (emphasis

added). "The "The 'significantly 'significantlyrisk' risk'portion portionofofthe thetest testdoes does not allow disqualification disqualification for for potential conflict, but but for inevitable and materialconflicts." and material conflicts." Id. at ,r (citing Bottoms Id at1117 Bottoms v. v. Stapleton, Stapleton, 706 706

N.W.2d 411, N.W.2d 411, 417 417 (Iowa (Iowa 20l5)). 2015))."A"A conflict does conflict not does exist not becauseone justbecause existjust oneparty party asserts asserts it

does." does." State State v.v. McKinley, McKinley, 860 N.W.2d 874, 880 (Iowa (Iowa 2015) (quoting Pqnpins Pippins v. State, 661 State, 661

N.W.2d N.W.2d 544, 544, 547 547 (Iowa (Iowa2003)). 2003)). The Themoving movingparty partybears bears "the "theburden burden of ofproving proving facts facts that that

establish[] the necessary establish[] necessary factual factual prerequisite prerequisite for for disqualification." Bottoms, 706 N.W.2d at at

418. 418.

The Court disagrees with with the the Defendant that that disqualification is required required in in this this case case

due to a conflict due to conflict of ofinterest, interest, but agrees that thatdisqualification disqualification is necessary necessaryto toavoid avoid jeopardizing jeopardizing

the Defendant's right to a fair and impartial impartial jury jury trial.

1I. Reyes has Defendant Reyes has Standing

Defendant Reyes First, Defendant Reyes is is responsible responsible to to prove provethat thathe he has has standing standing to bring this this issue issue

before before the the Court. Court. The The United UnitedStates States Supreme Supreme Court has stated thatstanding stated that standingunder underArticle Article III III

ofthe of the United United States States Constitution contains contains three threeelements: elements:1) 1) injury injury in in fact fact that that isis (a) (a) concrete

and particularized, particularized, and and (b) actual actual or or imminent, imminent; 2) 2) causal causal connection connection between between the the injury injury and and

the conduct conduct complained complainedof; of, and and 3) 3) likelihood that the the injury injury will will be redressed by a favorable redressed by

decision. Lucan decision. Lujan v. v. Defenders Defendersof of Wildlife, Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 560-61 (1992). As Special Special Prosecutor Prosecutor

Van de de veld veld quoted quoted in in his his Opposition, Opposition, "[s]tanding "[ s]tanding to to litigate litigate often often turns turns on on imprecise imprecise

distinctions and distinctions and requires requiresdifficult difficult line-drawing." Campbell Campbell v. v. Louisiana, 523 523 U.S. 392, 392, 397 397

(1998). Mr. (1998). Mr.Van Vandh de veld veldargues argues that that the existing standing caselaw should not notbe beread readto to"allow "allow

a more more broad broad ability ability to to simply simply contend contend aa due due process process right without without specific indication indication of

OppositionBy injury." Opposition Bythe the People People(May (May30, 30,2025) 2025)atatp.p.8.8.The TheCourt Courtdisagrees disagreesthat that this this is is what

requesting. Defendant is requesting.

The guarantee guarantee of of due due process process of found in of law found in the the second second sentence sentence of of section 1 of the

Fourteenth Amendment Amendment of the United United States States Constitution Constitution is extended extended to Guam with with the same

and effect force and effect as as in in the the United United States States or in any State State of the United States. States. 48 48 U.S.C.A, U.S.C.A, 3 1421b(u). 1421b(u). The 14th 14th Amendment provides that Amendment provides that no no State State shall shall"deprive "deprive any any person personof of life,

liberty, or property, liberty, or property, without withoutdue dueprocess processofoflaw law..." U.S. Const. ... " U.S. amend.XIV, Const.amend. XIV, §§ 1. 1. At At its its

foundation, the due foundation, the due process process right right guarantees guaranteesfairness fairnessin in any any legal legal criminal proceeding held

against a defendant. "It "It is is axiomatic axiomaticthat thatone one has has standing standing to litigate litigate his his or or her her own own due due process

rights." Campbell v. rights." Campbell v. Louisiana, 523 U.S. 392, 392, 397-400 397-400 (1998). The Court believes that (1998). The that a

perceived violation violation of ofdue due process process is is an an injury injury in in fact fact in initself, itself,which whichDefendant Defendantargues argues has has

already occurred. Defendantspecifically occurred. Defendant specifically argues argues that, that,were wereititnot notfor for the the alleged alleged violation violation of

due process, Defendant likely process, Defendant likely would not be be facing facing "outlandish "outlandish charges charges that that appear to be appear to

unsupported inthe unsupported in therecord." record."Defendant's Defendant'sBrief Brief in in Support Supportof ofMotion Motion to to Disqualify Disqualify and Remove Remove

Putative Special Prosecutor Prosecutor (April (April 28, 2025).

While the Court While the Court does not c·omment comment on onthe veracity of theveracity of Defendant's Defendant's claims, these

arguments by by Defendant show that he has has alleged alleged an injury in in fact that that is concrete concrete and and actual,

causedby which was caused by Special Special Prosecutor Van de veld's veld'sconduct, conduct, and and which which could could be be redressed

by his his removal removal from from this thiscase. case. Furthermore, Furthermore, the the Guam Guam Rules Rules of ofProfessional Professional Conduct Conduct

"authorize "authorize courts courts 'to 'toprotect protectthe the public public and public confidence and maintain public confidence in the thelegal profession,9 legal profession,'

and 'to deter the themisconduct misconductof others."' Barrett-Anderson v. Camacho,2018 of others."' 2018 Guam Guam 20 at 12

(quoting Iowa (quoting Iowa Sup. Sup. Ct. Cr.Att'y Att'y Disciplinary Disciplinary Bd. v. Deremiah, Ba v. Deremiah, 875 875 N.W.2d 728, 728, 737 737 (Iowa

2016)). Therefore, Therefore, based based on on the the above, above, the the Court Court believes believes Defendant Defendant has has standing to litigate standing to

this Motion.

II. 11. Conflict Conflict of Interest Under GRPC oflnterest GRPC Rule 1.7 1. r 1

It is is unlikely unlikely that that Mr. Reyes can to object to Mr. Van Van de de veld's veld'sparticipation participation in in this this

case on the the grounds groundsof of aa conflict under under GRPC GRPC Rule Rule 1.7. 1. 7. Mr. Mr. Reyes Reyes does does not not currently currently have,

and has hasnot notpreviously previouslyhad hadan anattorney-client attorney-clientrelationship relationshipwith withAttorney AttorneyVan Vande develd. veld.A A "non-

client client must must meet stringent standing requirements, stringent standing requirements,that thatis,is,harm harmarising arisingfrom from a legally legally

cognizable interest interest which is is concrete concrete and and particularized, particularized, not not hypothetical." Lakes hypothetical." Great Lakes Constr., Inc. v. Constr., Inc. v. Barman, 114 Cal. Cal. Rptr. Rptr. 3d ad 301, 301, 309 309 (Cal. (Cal. App. App. 2010) 2010) (citing (citing Coyler Coyier v. v. Smith,

50 F. Supp. ad 966, 971-73 Supp. 2d 971-73 (C.D. Cal. 1999)). 1999)). The The general accusation that general accusation that Mr. Mr. Van de veld

has conflicting interests interests when when he he "represents "represents defendants one moment in cases brought by the

the next [OAG], and the next moment moment prosecutes prosecutes other other defendants defendants as aa representative of that representative of that same

office" is insufficient to show that Defendant Reyes office" Reyes has has aa legally cognizable cognizable interest interest which is

particularized, not concrete and particularized, not hypothetical. hypothetical. Defendant Defendant Frank Frank Joseph Joseph Gumataotao Gumataotao Reyes,

Jr.'s Brief Brief in Supp. Of Of Mo. To To Disqualify Disqualify and and Remove Remove Putative Putative Special Special Prosecutor Prosecutor at p. 5

(Apr. 28, 2025). Therefore, the the Court does not consider consider this point in its analysis of whether

Mr. Van De de veld veld should be disqualified in this case.

III. Defendant's Right Defendant's Right to to aa Fair and Impaltial Impartial Judicial Process

As discussed above, above, the the "current "current standard standard for for attorney attorney disqualification disqualification is whether an

attorney's attor n ey's continued r epr esen tationofof aa party con tin ued representation par ty or par participation ticipation in in an action action violates violates or

significantly risks risks violating violating the the Guam Guam Rules Rules of Professional Conduct." Id. atat, 1120 (emphasis

added). "The 'significantly 'significantly risk' risk' portion ofthe portion of the test test does does not not allow disqualification disqualification for potential

conflicts." Id. conflict, but for inevitable and material conflicts." at, 17 (citing Bottoms Id at1117 Bottoms v. v. Stapleton, 706

411,417 (Iowa 2015)). N.W.2d 411,

In addition to to the Guam Rules of Professional Conduct, the Court is also informed by the Guam

persuasive legal sources, including the American Bar Bar Association Association Criminal Justice Standards

for the Pr Prosecution Function, ction , which ich provide guidan guidance the pr ce for th professional conduct an ofession con and

performance ofprosecutors, performance of prosecutors, as as well well as as best best practices practices in in the profession. Under Under these standards,

a prosecutor should not permit his his or or her her "professional "professional judgment judgment or obligations to to be affected

by the the prosecutor's prosecutor's personal, personal, political, political, financial, financial, professional, professional, business, business, property, property, or other

interests or relationships." interests relationships." Furthermore, Furthermore, a "prosecutor interests in personal "prosecutor should not allow interests

or aggrandizement advancement or aggrandizement to affect judgments regarding what judgments regarding is in the best interests of what is justice in any justice any case." ABA ABACriminal CriminalJustice JusticeStandards Standards for for the the Prosecution Prosecution Function, Function, 4th ed.

(2017), Standards Standards 3-1.7(b), (1). (f).

a. Financial FinancialInterest Interest

Based on the the evidence evidence provided provided in the the form form of Curtis Van Van de veld's veld's legal legal consultancy consultancy

contract with the Office Office of ofthe theAttorney AttorneyGeneral, General,the theDefense Defensehas has established established that that Mr. Van Van De de

veld has a financial veld financial interest interest in infringing bringingcases caseswhere wherehe he acts acts as as special prosecutor to to trial. trial. The

third page of the third page the provided provided contract contract states that''[t]he states that *'[t]heOAG OAG agrees agrees to to compensate compensateLEGAL LEGAL

CONSULTANT CONSULTANTatata rate a rateofof three thousand three thousandand and00/100 00/100 dollars dollars ($3,000.00) ($3,000.00) per per month month per

assigned case case for for providing the the services services set forth in Section 1. The OAG OAG agrees agrees to to compensate compensate

LEGAL LEGALCONSULTANT CONSULTANTtwelve thousand twelve thousandand and00/100 00/100 dollars dollars ($l2,000.00) ($12,000.00) in inany any month month in in

which which LEGAL CONSULTANT CONSULTANTis istrying tryinga case, a case,regardless regardless ofofwhat whatother other cases cases may be

assigned assigned totoLEGAL LEGAL CONSULTANT." CONSULTANT."While Whileit may not it may notbebethe thecase caseevery everymonth month based based on on

numberof the number of cases Mr. Van Van dh de veld veld isishandling, handling, the the fact factremains remains that that this this contract contract promises

a possibility possibility of ofan an additional additional $9,000 $9,000 in in the the event that Mr. Mr. Van Van de veld veld takes takes a case to to trial. trial. The

Court agrees agrees with Defendant Defendant that that this this fee arrangement creates an arrangement creates an incentive incentive for Special Special

Prosecutor Prosecutor Van de veld veld to to bring bring as as many many cases cases to to trial trial as as possible. possible. This This personal, personal, financial financial

interest in in taking taldng cases casesto to trial trial necessarily necessarily conflicts with with the notion of ofpursuing pursuing justice, which

is the role of aa prosecutor. prosecutor.

Under GRPC Rule Rule 1.7(a)(2), 1.7(a)(2),aalawyer lawyermust mustnot notrepresent represent aa client client when when there there is aa

concurrent conflict of concurrent conflict of interest, which exists interest, which exists when when "there "there is is aa significant significant risk risk that that the the

representation of one representation of one or or more more clients clientswill will be materially materially limited...by ... byaapersonal personal interest interest of the

lawyer." lawyer." The TheCourt Courtbelieves believesthat thatsuch such aa risk risk exists exists in in this this case case because the the nature natureof of Mr. Mr. Van

dh veld's contract with de veld's with the the Office Office of the the Attorney Attorney General General creates creates a personal interest for him

to bring this case to trial trial that that would not be present for any other attorney representing representing the

Office Office of ofthe theAttorney AttorneyGeneral Generalwho whoisisnot notunder undersuch such aa contract. contract. As As Defendant Defendant has has claimed, the natureof the nature of Mr. Van Van dh de veld's veld's contract contract with the OAG with the OAGcould couldincentivize incentivizean anaction action such such as as

bringing aa superseding superseding indictment against a defendant when the the original original indictment contained

only significantly significantly lesser lesser charges. charges.

The GRPC GRPC also also contains contains rules rules prohibiting prohibiting aa lawyer lawyerfrom fromentering enteringinto intoan an arrangement arrangement

for for aa contingent fee in certain types types of of cases. cases. While While Rule 1.5(d) does does not specifically specificallystate state the

case of aa special special prosecutor, prosecutor, it does prohibit "a "a contingent contingent fee fee for forrepresenting representing aa defendant defendant in

a criminal case." The The Court Court believes believes that that the the policy policyreasons reasons behind behind this prohibition apply apply to

the case at hand. hand.There There is an ethical ethical concern when when a prosecutor prosecutor receives receives greater compensation

for taking taking aa Defendant Defendant to to trial trial because because itit leads leads the the prosecutor prosecutor to have a vested vested interest interest in

securing indictment that securing an indictment thatwill will ensure ensurethe thecase casedoes doesgo goto totrial. trial. This This concern is is aligned with

the principles enumerated the by the enumerated by the US US Supreme Court in Young Young v.v. US. US. ex ex rel. rel. Vuitton Litton et et File Fils

S.A., including SA., including that that aa "scheme injecting injecting a personal interest, financial or otherwise, into the interest, financial

enforcement process may enforcement process may bring bring irrelevant irrelevant or or impermissible impermissible factors factors into into the the prosecutorial prosecutorial

decision", decision", and and that that the the existence existence of ofan an interested interested prosecutor prosecutor "creates an an appearance appearance of

impropriety that that diminishes faith in the the fairness fairness of of the the criminal justice justice system in in general." general." 481

787, 808, U.S. 787, 808, 811 811 (1987) (citation (citationomitted). omitted).Although Althoughthe thefacts factsin inthis this case case are are different different than than

they they were in Young, Young, these principles remain applicable. these principles applicable.

The fact remains that Mr. remains that Mr. Van dh de veld is is an an interested party as interested party as a result result of of his his fee

arrangement with the arrangement with theOffice Office of ofthe the Attorney Attorney General. General. Based Based on on the the above, this Court believes

that there there isisaadanger dangerthat thatfinancial financialincentives incentivescould couldhave haveimpacted impactedMr. Mr.Van Vande develd's veld's previous

decisions in how to to prosecute prosecute this matter. matter. However, whether whether or or not not these these incentives actually

had an impact, impact, the the existence existence of of such incentives creates creates an an appearance appearanceof of impropriety impropriety with with the

potential to diminish potential to faith in diminish faith in the the fairness fairnessof of the the criminal criminal justice justice system. system.Mr. Mr.Van Van de de veld's

continued representation representationof ofthe thePeople People of of Guam in this this matter mattersignificantly significantly risks risks violating violating the Guam Rules of ofProfessional ProfessionalConduct, Conduct, and and the the Court Court believes believes that that the the appropriate appropriate solution is

disqualify him to disqualify him from fromrepresentation representation in in this case. case.

GrandJury b. Grand Jury Commentary Commentary

Upon in in camera review of ofMI. Mr.Van Vandh develd's veld'stestimony testimonyduring duringthe the grand grand jury hearing,

the Court the Court agrees agrees with Defense Defense counsel that Mr. counsel that Mr. Van Van de de veld veldprovided providedinappropriate inappropriate

commentary on witnesses and evidence witnesses and evidence relative relative to the case. case. Mr. Van Van De veld was de veld was introduced introduced

to the grand jury as a special special prosecutor this case, prosecutor on this case, and and was was then then allowed allowed to to testify as as a

witness. witness. He repeatedly repeatedly made made conclusory conclusory statements regarding evidence, and statements regarding and whether or not

particular statements from witnesses statements from witnesseswere were reliable. reliable.

Under the Under the GRPC, aa prosecutor prosecutor in aa criminal criminal case case is is required to "refrain required to "refrain from from

prosecuting prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor that the prosecutor knows knows is not supported by probable cause." supported by cause." Guam Guam

Rules of ofProfessional Professional Conduct Conduct Rule 3.8(a). 3.8(a). AAprosecutor prosecutor must must also "make timely timely disclosure disclosure

to the defense of ofall all evidence evidenceor orinformation informationknown knowntotothe theprosecutor prosecutorthat that tends tends to negate negate the

guilt of ofthe the accused accused or mitigates mitigates the offense, and, and, in in connection connection with with sentencing, sentencing, disclose to

the the defense defense and and to the the tribunal tribunal all all unprivileged unprivileged mitigating mitigating information known to information known to the the

prosecutor." prosecutor." GRPC Rule 3.8(d).

Defendant has alleged that that certain charges in the superseding indictment may superseding indictment may not be

supported by supported by probable cause. cause. Mr. Mr. Van de veld's veld'srepresentation representation of ofthe the facts facts in in this this case case to the

grand jury jury presented presented only only one set of possible possible events. events. In In aa case, case, such such as this one, where nearly

evidence is all evidence is circumstantial and based circumstantial and basedon onpotentially potentiallyconflicting conflicting witness testimony, testimony, Attorney Attorney

de veld Van dh veld represented represented to the the grand grand jury jury with with his his language language and and tone tone that that his his personal personal

assumptions aboutthe assumptions about theevents eventswere were correct, correct, and other perspectives should not be considered.

The Court believes that this manner of presentation of manner of of evidence to the the grand grand jury significantly

risks violating GRPC Rule risks violating Rule 3.8, 3.8, which which requires requires probable probable cause cause for all all charges charges and and the the disclosure of all disclosure of all evidence evidence or orinformation information known known to to the the prosecutor prosecutor that that could could mitigate mitigate the the

offense offense or or negate negate the Defendant's guilt. guilt.

Under Under GRPC GRPC Rule 33 .7, .7, aa lawyer lawyer must must not not act act as asboth both an an advocate advocate and and aa witness. witness. While While

this rule refers refers to trial, trial, not to grand jury proceedings, proceedings, the same principle may be applied. applied.

Having a prosecutor, who is introduced to the grand jury as prosecutor, who as the prosecutor on this case, as

occurred here, stand occurred here, stand as as a witness witness and present a version of of events events while while injecting injecting personal personal

commentary, is likely to impair the fairness of the grand jury jury proceedings.

Under GRPC GRPC Rule Rule 8.4, 8.4, itit is is professional professional misconduct misconduct for for aa lawyer lawyerto to engage engage in in conduct conduct

is prejudicial that is prejudicial to to the the administration administration of justice. justice. Mr. Mr. Van Van de dhveld's veld's testimony was presented

in a manner that in thatwas waslikely likely to to unfairly unfairly influence the the superseding superseding indictment indictment against againstMr. Mr. Reyes, Reyes,

and therefore is prejudicial to the administration of of justice.

The Court Court believes believes that that Mr. Van Van de de veld's veld's manner manner of ofpresenting presenting evidence evidence during during the

grand jury created a material conflict with his continual representation representation of the People in this

case. case. As aa result, result, his his continued continued representation representation ofof the the People People of Guam Guam in in this this matter matter

significantly risks risks violating violating the the Guam Guam Rules Rules of ofProfessional ProfessionalConduct, Conduct, and and the the Court believes

that the appropriate that the appropriatesolution solutionisisto to disqualify disqualify him from from representation representation in in this case. case.

CONCLUSION

For the the foregoing foregoing reasons, reasons, the the Court Court hereby hereby GRANTS Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion to

Disqualify Disqualify Special Special Assistant Assistant Attorney General General Van de veld.

Further proceedings proceedings will be be held held in in this this matter matter on June 26., 26, 2025 at 9:00 am.

L 2 ORDERED, this SO ORDERED, this Z 3 l, 5 day ~ b of - - Le - f 2025.

sluwlcz SDVICI!VIA VIA emAIL I1 acknow Cove Co~ of 1!-MAIL ledge that' ilckno\Nledge D' tl"le that' an an EIEc(rof\IL °ng»ngIlw l; e (he o"g,,,a1'was e1ectron1t fv\alled,!o emailed to > . . .-rf s /6" ,r M lf6 6'vilyk9 fl, Ha, HONO HN TERLAJE Judge, Superior C50rt'6 Guam

Oatef/JJ/1-J if:W ffme. lf~-1/(M. Date /27 YJ lTnle

i4t6&l a,1k ~ AL /Cb/ (31/Jw 6,4 Deputy Deputy clerk clerk.. Supenov Court of Superior Court ot Guam Guam