People v. San Agustin

Opinion

FILED CLER!< OF COURT I

7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

8 THEPEOPLE OF GUAM, 9 Case No. CF0446-23 10 vs. II DECISION AND ORDER ARTHUR U. SAN AGUSTIN, eta/, (Motions to Reconsider) 12

13 Defendant. 14 INTRODUCTION 15 This matter was filed with the Honorable John C. Terlaje on July 11, 2024, regarding the 16 People's Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's July 1, 2024, Decision and Order granting 17 San Augustin's ("Defendant San Augustin's") Masatomo Nadeau's ("Defendant Nadeau's") 18 joined Motions to Disqualify the Office of the Attorney General. Assistant Attorney General 19

20 Joanna P. Deering ("Deering") filed briefs on behalf of the People. Joaquin Arriola ("J. Arriola")

21 and William B. Brennan ("Brennan") appeared for Defendant San Agustin and G. Patrick Ci ville

22 ("Civille") appeared for Defendant Nadeau. Based on the relevant law and authorities the Court 23 now issues the following decision and order DENYING the People's Motion to Reconsider. 24

27 Decision and Order Case No. CF0446-23, People v. Arthur U San Agustin Page 1 of 4 I BACKGROUND 2 On August 21, 2023, the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") indicted Defendant 3 San Augustin and Defendant Nadeau with five charges: (1) Tampering with Public Records, (2) 4 Obstructing Government Functions, (3) Official Misconduct, (4) Obstructing Governmental 5

6 Functions, and (5) Official Misconduct. Super. Indictment (Aug. 21, 2023). These charges were

7 all brought regarding both Defendants roles in the Department of Public Health and Social

8 Services ("DPHSS"). It is alleged that Defendant San Agustin, formally the Director of Guam

9 DPHSS, renewed sanitary permits for several public schools without proper inspection; it is 10 further alleged that Defendant Nadeau, as the Chief Environmental Public Health Officer of the 11 Guam DPHSS, Division of Environmental Health, aided in this misconduct at the expense of 12 public health. [Prop.] Findings of Facts & Conclusions of Law re: Mot. to Disqualify Off. of 13 Att'y Gen. (Apr. 1, 2024). 14 On September 1, 2023, Defendant San Augustin filed a Motion to Disqualify the Office 15 of the Attorney General. Mot. to Disqualify Off. Of Att'y Gen. (Sept. 1, 2023). On the same day, 16

17 Defendant Nadeau also filed a Motion to Disqualify the Office of the Attorney General and

18 Joinder in San Augustin's Motion. Def. Nadean's Mot. to Disqualify Off. Of Att'y Gen. and

19 Joinder in San Augustin's Mot. to Disqualify Off. of Att'y Gen. (Sept. 1, 2023). On July 1, 2024,

20 this Court issued a Decision and Order granting Defendants' Motions to Disqualify the Office 21 of the Attorney General. On July 11, 2024, the People filed their Motion for Reconsideration of 22 the July I, 2024, Decision and Order. People's Mot. for Recons. of the July 1, 2024, Decision & 23 Order (Jul. 11, 2024). Defendant San Augustin filed an Opposition on July 26, 2024. Def.'s Opp'n 24 to OAG's Mot. to Recons. July 26, 2024, Decision & Order (Jul. 26, 2024). Defendant Nadeau 25

27 Decision and Order Case No. CF0446'23, People v. Arthur U San Agustin Page 2 of4 1 joined in the Opposition on the same day. Def. Nadeau's Joinder in Arthur San Agustin's Opp'n 2 to OAG's Mot. to Recons. July I, 2024, Decision & Order (Jul. 26, 2024). 3 DISCUSSION 4 The Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam, Criminal Procedure Rule ("CR") 1.1 5

6 governs motions for reconsideration in criminal cases and provides that a motion may be

7 renewed only on the grounds of: (I) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the court before 8 such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or 9 (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change in law occurring after the 10 time of such decision, or, (3) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such a decision. II No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written 12 argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion. 13 CR 1.l(d). 14 The OAG have offered no material difference in fact or law that could not have been 15 known to the OAG while exercising reasonable diligence. Further, there has been no emergence 16 of new material facts or a change oflaw that has occurred in the eleven days between this Court's 17 Decision and Order, and the People's Motion for Reconsideration. Finally, most of the arguments 18 made by the OAG in their Motion were made previously. 19 Ill 20

22 Ill

24 Ill 25

27 Decision and Order Case No. CF0446-23, People v. Arthur U. San Agustin Page 3 of 4 I

2 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 3 Based on the above analysis, the Court DENIES the People's Motion for 4

5 Reconsideration. The Court reaffirms the Defendants' Motions to Disqualify the Office of the

6 Attorney General.

7 e,l:b <._t SO ORDERED, this _ _ _ day of_~_il-'-c._,u___b__,,="--- 2024. 8

II

27 Decision and Order Case No. CF0446-23, People v. Arthur U. San Agustin Page 4 of 4