People v. Santos

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: January 2, 2018
• Docket: CF0330-17
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

g`=l!L€D SUPERIOR COURT 1 GF GUAM

z ZOIBJAH -2 RH 9: 1,2 3 CLERKOFGUURT 4

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 7 OF GUAM 8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) Criminal Case No. CF0330-17 9 Plaintiff, ) ) 10 vs. ) ll ALBERT SANTOS ) JEREMIAH ISEZAKI ) DECISION & ORDER 12 PETER GINES » ) Defendants ) 13 ) 14 ) ) 15

16 INTRODUCTION 17 This matter is before the Honorable Michael J. Bordallo on Defendant Albert Santos's

18 Motion for Reconsideration. Defendant Albert Santos is represented by Attorney William Pole.

19 Defendant Jeremiah Isezald is represented by Attorney F. Randall Cunliffe. Defendant Peter

20 Gives is represented by Attorney Samuel Teker. The People of Guam are represented by

21 Assistant Attorney General Jeremy Kemper. Having reviewed and considered the moving

22 papers, arguments, record and applicable law, the Court issues the following Decision and Order

23 denying Defendant Santos's motion. 24 BACKGROUND

25 This matter arises out of a Magistrate Complaint filed by the People on June 9, 2017,

26 followed by an Indictment on June 16, 2016. The People filed a Superseding Indictment on

27 August 8, 2017. Defendant Santos filed a Motion to Suppress on September 15, 2017. The ._|

l tiled the present Motion for Reconsideration on October 27, 2017. Defendant Gines joined 2 Defendant Santos's motion on November 3, 2017. The People filed an Opposition in responser 3 the motion on November 13, 2017, and Defendant Santos filed a Reply on .November 13, 2017. 4 ISSUE 5 1. Whether the Court will reconsider its October 24, 2017 Decision and Order denying 6 Defendant Santos's request to compel the Prosecution to produce internal affairs 7

documents of the Department of Corrections. 8

9 FACTS

10 1. On March 29, 2017, while in custody at the Department of Corrections, Victim Justin

Memo (the "Victim") suffered injuries in an attack. Consequently, the Victim received 12 treatment at the GuamMemoria1 Hostpitad ("Hospital") and was transferred to the 13

14 Barrigada Heights skilled nursing unit ("SNU").

15 2. The grand jury indicted Defendants Albert Santos H, Jeremiah Isezald, and Peter Genes 16 on numerous charges, including Attempted Murder and Aggravated Assault. 17 3. On July 25, 2017, an unidentified male inmate made a report to a Criminal Investigator 18 detailing an account of the events he heard from another inmate. 19

20 4. The Victim passed away on September 11, 2017.

21 PRINCIPLES OF LAW 22 Motion for Reconsideration 23 Guam law allows a party to move the Court to reconsider a prior decision. However, 24

the scope of such motion is limited: 25

26 Motion for Reconsideration. A motion may be renewed only on the grounds of (1) A material difference in fact or law from that presented to the court before such 27 decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have bane known to 28 the party moving for reconsideration Ar the time of such decision, or, (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or, Page 2 of 5 1 (3) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such decision. 2 No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written 3 argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion.

4 Local R. of Sup. Ct. of Guam CR I.1(d). Additionally, motions for reconsideration are not to

5 be used to "allow a party to advance arguments that could and should have been presented to

6 the court prior to judgment." U.S. v. Martinez-Hernandez, 818 F.3d 39, 48 (let Cir. 2016). 7 Further, a motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon 8 which the court has already ruled. U.S. v. Hassanashahi, 145 F.Supp.3d 75, 80-81 (D. D.C. 9

10 2015). 11 Brady and the Prosecution's Dutv to Locate and Produce Information 12 Guam law assigns the prosecution the affirmative duty to disclose to Defendant's counsel 13 "any material or information which tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as ro the offense 14

charged or would tend to reduce his punishment thereof." 8 G.C.A. §70. 10(a)(7); see also 15

16 Guam v. Kitano, 2011 Guam 11 '][ 19. This duty "is applicable even though there has been no

17 request by the accused, and... encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory 8 1 evidence." Browning v. Baker, 875 F.3d 444, 459 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Striclder v. Greene, 19 527 U.S. 263, 280 (1999). Further, "[f]or claims underBradv, the prosecutor's knowledge does 20

21 not define the limits of constitutional liability. Bradv imposes a duty on prosecutors to learn of

22 material exculpatory and impeachment evidence in the possession of state agents, such as police

23 officers." IQ. (citing Younszblood v. West Virginia, 547 U.S. 867, 869-70 (2006). 24 The prosecutor's responsibility to lead of favorable evidence extends ro "others acting 25 on the government's behalf in the case," and the prosecutor is "presumed ro have knowledge of 26

27 all information gathered in connection with his office's investigation of the case." U.S. v.

28 Meregildo, 920 F.Supp.2d 434, 440 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The constructive knowledge of the

Page 3 of 5 l prosecutor, however, is limited. "It does not encompass every agency and individual within the 2 [government]." Q, see also U.S. v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249, 255 (Zd Cir. 1998) ("[K]now1edge on 3 the part of persons employed by a different office of the government does not in all instances 4

5 warrant the imputation of knowledge to the prosecutor"), see also U.S. v. Morell, 524 F.2d 550,

6 555 (ad Cir. 1975) (explaining that imputation is only proper when an agency can be considered

7 "an arm of the prosecutor"). 8

9 ANALYSIS

10 Defendant Santos moves this Court to reconsider its October 24, 2017 Decision and 11 Order denying his request to compel the Government to produce internal affairs documents 12 concerning Department of Corrections Officers who may testify at trial. As an initial matter, 13

14 the Court Ends that Defendant's present motion reargues a legal theory he previously asserted.

15 Defendant Santos contended that the prosecution's Bradv obligations extended to material that 16 . . .. . the prosecutor knows to exlst or by the exerclse of due dlhgence may become known to him, 17 and that the scope of this obligation encompassed information known to other acting on the 18 government's behalf. Mot. Discovery at 4 (Sept. 15, 2017). Under the Local Rules of the 19

20 Superior Court of Guam, a motion to reconsider is not proper if it repeats an argument

21 previously made and subsequently considered. However, the Court will address the merits of 22 Defendant Santos's motion. 23 Defendant Santos argues that the Department of Corrections and its officers are 24

25 "integral to the current Prosecution." Mot. at 2 (Nov. 15, 2017). The Court disagrees. The

26 Court finds that the material covered by the prosecution'sBrady obligations include

27 information known by government agencies worldng with the prosecution. It does not, 28 however, include information known by all government agencies. In this matter, the Court

Page 4 of S 1 finds that the Department of Corrections is not an "arm of the prosecution." While the facts of 2 the case concern an incident that occurred at the Department of Corrections, the Guam Police 3 Department and the Office of the Attorney General conducted the investigation. The Court 4

5 would make the same determination if the incident occurred at another government agency.

6 For example, if the prosecution were pursuing a criminal matter that took place at the

7 Department of Public Works, the Guam Police Department and the Office of the Attorney 8 General would investigate the matter. Any information known by the Department of Public 9 Works would not be encompassed by the prosecution's Brady obligations because the 10

11 Department of Public Works would not be considered an "arm of the prosecution." Therefore,

12 the Court finds that the prosecution does not have an obligation to locate and produce the 13 internal affairs documents under the control of the Department of Corrections. Defendant 14 Santos, however, has the legal means to attempt to obtain such information by subpoena. 15

18 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 19 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Defendant Albert Santos's Motion for 20 Reconsideration. 21

23 SO ORDERED, this ' L day of 201 /FT

25 :- w 26 SERVICE vIA COURT BOX -

acknowledge that a copy of the original hereto was placed in the 27 court x H6NOH!¢xBLE MICHAEL I."BORDALLO 28 n &7zClxlmrw c IPMZ Judge, Sup¢ri5il;"Court of Guam M Date: me: l00v t -: - .-j/r

Page 5 of 5 Deputy Clerl<:l5'g¢¢§i0r Court of Guam