a
FfI LLED· ED CLERK OF count QLERK COURT 2@25 -y JuL -7 PM 2025 JUL PM 1=~z:s I: I 3 SUFE?§5R SUPEHiOR CUURT COURT GF OF QEUAM GUft.J\11 l:f. IN THE THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM
PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, Criminal CF0487-20 Criminal Case No. CF0487-20
Plaintiff, vs. DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EDWARD ACE SICAT EDWARD ACE aka KIM, SICAT aka KIM, RECONSIDERATION
Defendant. Defendant. RUSH This matter Gutierrez on the Honorable Dana A. Gutierrez matter came before the July 1, on July 2025, for 1, 2025, Status for aa Status
Hearing, which proceeded to arguments on Sicat's arguments on Motion for Sicat's Motion Reconsideration (June for Reconsideration 23, 2025). (June 23,
At At the the hearing, Attorney Attorney Michael F. Phillies Michael F. andPublic Phillipsand DefenderStephen PublicDefender P. Hattori Stephen P. appeared on Hattori appeared
behalf behalf of Edward Edward Ace Ace Sic at ("Sic Sicat and Assistant ("Sicat"), and General Christine Assistant Attorney General S. Tenorio Christine S.
appeared onbehalf appeared on behalfof of the People of thePeople Guam ("People"). of Guam consideringthe Afterconsidering ("People"). After parties' written theparties' and written and
oral arguments, arguments, the CourtDENIES the Motion Motion for for Reconsideration but ORDERS that the trial be Reconsideration but
RESCHEDULED RESCHEDULEDtotocommence Tuesday, July on Tuesday, commenceon 22, 2025. July 22,
BACKGROUND
As As explained explained in in more more detail detail in in the the Court's Court's previous and Orders,' Decisions and previous Decisions this case Orders,1 this has case has
been awaiting trial for for several severalyears. years. The TheCourt Courthas has set set and later vacated and later numerous trial vacated numerous dates. To trial dates. To
briefly brieflysummarize summarize::
11 See, See, e.g., e.g., Decision Decision and Order RE: and Order RE: Motion to to Continue Continue (July (July 20, 20, 2023), 2023), Decision Decision and and Order Order RE: RE: Competency Issuesand Competency Issues andSecond SecondForensic ForensicEvaluation Evaluation(July (July10, 10,2024), 2024), and and Decision Decision and and Order Order Finding Defendant CompetenttotoStand Defendant Competent StandTrial Trial (Mar. (Mar. 14, 14, 2025). DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CF0487-20; People People of ofGuam Guam v. v. Edward EdwardAce AceSic Si cat
• • The Court's initial Criminal Trial Scheduling Order ("CTSO") issued in March March 2021, with trial scheduled for November scheduled for consent of order was vacated with the consent November 2021. This order of the parties in order to facilitate another criminal trial before this Court. • • The Court's First Amended Amended CTSO issued in September 2021, with trial rescheduled for 2022. This February 2022. request of vacated, on request This order was vacated, the parties, of the to facilitate parties, to plea facilitate plea negotiations. • • issued in April 2022, with trial The Court's Second Amended CTSO issued for trial rescheduled for October 2022. This order was vacated, on request of the request of parties, to facilitate further plea the parties, negotiations. • The Court's Third Amended CTSO issued in October 2022, with trial trial rescheduled for November 2022. This order was vacated, on request November of the parties, to resolve certain pre- request of trial evidentiary issues. • The Court's Fifth Amended so2 2issued CTSO Amended cr March 2023, with trial rescheduled for June issued in March order was vacated, on request 2023. This order of the parties, due to the entry of request of of a of appearance of new prosecutor. •• The Court's Sixth Amended CTSO issued in May 2023, 2023, with trial rescheduled for July vacated, on Sicat's request, 2023. This order was vacated, because he had recently request, because retained the recently retained of Attorney Phillips, who sought time to familiarize himself services of himself with the case.
See generally Dec. & Order at 1-4 Order at 2023). The Court then set a new trial date for August 1-4 (Jul. 20, 2023).
15, 2023. 2023. See id at 17. However, this date was continued after granting See id. Motion to granting Sicat's ex parte Motion
to Attorney Continue due to Hattori's unavailability. Attorney Hattori's Thereafter, the unavailability. Thereafter, the Court's Seventh Amended
CTSO was issued issued on 15, 2023, but August 15, on August at filing but this date was vacated due to Sicat several motions filing several motions
in limine, at issue. competency at Iimine, including a motion placing his competency
In March 2025, following two forensic evaluations and competency hearings, forensic evaluations Court hearings, the Court
found Sic Sicatat competent competent to be proceeded against. See to be Order (Mar. See Dec. & Order 14, 2025). (Mar. 14, Thereafter, 2025). Thereafter,
following following Status Status Hearings onMay Hearings on and May May 22 and 9, 2025, the Court issued its Eighth Amended CTSO, May 9,
with trial scheduled to commence August 4, on August commence on 2025. This date was chosen because (1) the Court 4, 2025.
2 2 The "Fifth The "Fifth Amended" CTSO was in fact CTSO issued in total. fact the fourth amended CTSO but is the fifth CTSO Subsequent CTS Os have followed Subsequent CTSOs have followed this this same same naming naming convention. convention. Hence, Hence, the the Court's Court's current CTSO, the "Eighth "Eighth Amended" Amended" CTSO, CTSO, is is in in fact fact the seventh amended CTSO but is the eighth CTSO issued in total. 2 |
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CF0487-20; People CF0487-20; Guam v. PeopleofofGuam EdwardAce v. Edward Sicat Ace Sic
was not available two weeks of available during the last two July; and (2) the People requested time to secure of July,
of a key off-island witness. the attendance of
23, 2025, Attorney Phillips filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration and an On June 23,
Declaration. In his Declaration, accompanying Declaration. Attorney Phillips Declaration, Attorney avers that Phillies avers of that he is "co-counsel of
"lead counsel" record" and "lead for Sic counsel" for at, as Sicat, well as aswell "co-counsel" and as"co-counsel" "worldng full-time" as a defense and "working
criminal trial attorney in another upcoming criminal "M00re").33 Deel. trial (hereafter, "Moore"). at 1, Phillips at F. Phillips Michael F. Deal. Michael l,
Phillips then 2 (June 23, 2025). Attorney Phillies explains: then explains
Prior to the June to the 2, 2025 June 2, hearing, the 2025 hearing, the prosecution in [Moore] prosecution in listed twenty-two had listed [Moore] had twenty-two (22) witnesses. On June 6, 2025, just four (4) days after this Court's setting 6, 2025, trial setting trial trial, the Moore prosecution raised their number of before and during the Moore trial, of witnesses twenty-two (22) witnesses from twenty-two to forty-six (46). There are (22) to are one hundred and eighty- one hundred five (185) proposed prosecution exhibits in the Moore case and thousands of live of pages of discovery[.] The Moore prosecution is now up of up to of six to aa team of (6) prosecutors. six (6) Counsel continue Defense Counsel to prepare continue to [Nloore] and Attorney Phillips is not able prepare for [Moore] to represent both Defendants Sicatat and Moore at and Moore the same at the time. Such an attempt same time. would compromise representation and compromise representation conflict with the relevant Professional Rules and conflict of of Responsibility.
Decl. Michael F. Phillips at 1. Attorney Deel. Michael asks the Attorney Phillips thus asks Court to the Court reschedule Sicat's case "for to reschedule
Moore trial concludes. Mot. a time after" the Moore 2025). Attorney Phillips Mot. Reconsider at 2 (June 23, 2025). Phillies
grounds his request in Guam Rules of Civil Procedure ("GRCP") Rule 60, and cites Sicat's Sixth
Amendment Amendment right right to to "choice "choice of of counsel," as Attorney Phillips's duties under Guam Rule as well as counsel," as
of Conduct Rule of Professional Conduct 1. 7, as the rationale. Rule 1.7,
On JJune une 25, 25, 2025, 2025, tthe he PPeople Guam of Gua eople of filed aan m filed Opposition n Oppos it ion tto SSicat's Motion ica t 's M for ot ion for
Reconsideration. The Reconsideration. argue, infer The People argue, alia, that inter alia, the Moore (1) the that (1) trial is Moore trial expected to is expected for to "go for
months," meaning Sicat's trial would be "continued that Sicat's meaning that indefinitely;" Opp. "continued indefinitely," Mot. Reconsider Opp. Mot. at 3, Reconsider at
33 The The case case in in question question is People of v. Nicholas ofGuam v. Nicholas Wayne Wayne Moore, Moore,Criminal Criminal Case No. CF0314-21, pending pending trial before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon. 3 \
FOR RECONSIDERATION DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CF0487-20; People of CF0487-20; People Guam v. ofGuam EdwardAce v. Edward Sicat Ace Sic
6; (2) Sicat's trial should conclude before the Moore trial begins, so Attorney Phillips should be 6,
available for available both trials; for both id at 3; trials, id. (3) rescheduling 3, (3) would harm rescheduling would efforts to secure the People's efforts hand the People's
appearance off-island witness, appearance of an off-island witness, id. 4; and (4) even ifif Attorney at 4, id at Phillips is Attorney Phillies unavailable for is unavailable
trial, Sicatat still this trial, has the still has assistance of the assistance Hattori, and potentially Public Defender Hattori, of Public Attorney potentially Attorney
associate, Darlene Phillips's associate, Hit or, who Darlene Hiton, would be able who would to provide able to Sicat with adequate provide Sic legal adequate legal
representation, id. representation, 5-6. On July 27, 2025, id. at 5-6. which asserts 2025, Attorney Phillips filed a Reply, which that asserts that
running the trials back-to-back would leave Attorney Phillips without a "break," and that while back-to-back would
"[t]here attorneys capable "[t]here may be defense attorneys of such capable of feat ... such aa feat Phillips is Attorney Phillips ... Attorney not such is not an such an
attorney." Reply at 2. heard arguments on the matter on July 1, 2025, and subsequently 2. The Court heard
took the matter under advisement.
DISCUSSION
1. 60 Does Not GRCP 60 GRCP Applv Here Not Apply Here
Phillips argues for reconsideration Attorney Phillies 60(b Mot. Reconsider at 2. reconsideration under GRCP 60(b).
However, However, GRCP 60(b) is GRCP 60(b) not the applicable rule. First, GRCP 60 does not apply to criminal cases. is not
(application of See GRCP 11 (application GRCP to of the GRCP criminal trials to criminal "limited to trials is "limited Rules 5(g), to Rules 78, 79(0), 5(g), 78, 84, 79(c), 84,
91, and 93."). Second, GRCP 60(b) is used to "relieve used to party or "relieve a party party's legal or aa party's representative from legal representative
annal Court's scheduling judgment, order, or proceeding[.]" (emphasis added). The Court's final judgment, order is scheduling order not a is not
final (Le order for this case. Third, (i.e., dispositive) order in criminal cases, Third, in motions for reconsideration are cases, motions
Rules of the governed by Local Rules Superior Court the Superior of Guam, Court of Criminal Rule Guam, Criminal ("CR") 1.l(d), Rule ("CR") l.l(d), which
the renewal provides for the of a previously denied motion. Here, however, the Court's renewal of trial date was Court's trial
issued sue sua sponge, arise Hom, sponte; it did not arise or in from, or response to, in response motionby to, aa motion Sicat. Thus, there is no bySic
"motion" to renew. "motion"
4 RECONSIDERATION DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION People of CF0487-20; People Guam v. ofGuam EdwardAce v. Edward Sicat Ace Sic
for Reconsideration" Sicat's "Motion for is better Reconsideration" is construed as better construed first-instance motion for as aa first-instance
continuance. Under or changed Under the Local Criminal Rules, a scheduling order "shall not be vacated or changed
described on the record orally or in without good cause determined by the assigned judge and described
1.1 (e). As writing." CR 1.l(e). this Decision As this and Order Decision and shall explain, the Court does not find good Order shall cause good cause
for a continuance.
2. Sicat's Skat's Right to Choice Right to Considerations Choice of Counsel is Outweighed by Other Considerations
S ica t's' s M otion makes ion ma wo a assertions: kes ttwo s t , thatt At s er t ions : ffirst, or ney Phillips Attorney incapable hillies is inca of le of
representing Sicatatwithout continuance, and without aa continuance; second, that and second, denying a continuance would violate that denying
Sicat's Sixth Amendment/Organic Act right to counsel of Court begins with the of his choice. The Court
constitutional argument and thus assumes arguendo that Attorney Phillips truly cannot represent
at unless Sicat continuance is granted. unless aa continuance
Thee SSixth ix AAmendment me n d o t hthe tto . S . C oConstitution e UU.S. nstituti pprovides rov h ""[i]n s tthat [i l c criminal aall r i mi n a
theright enjoythe shallenjoy accusedshall the accused prosecutions, the prosecutions, right... to have ... to the Assistance have the of Counsel Assistance of for his Counsel for his
defence." The Organic Act of Organic Act "confers this of Guam "confers same right" to local criminal defendants. See 48 this same
U.S.C. U.S.C. §§ 1421b(g); U.S. Supreme the U.S. right, the this right, Interpreting this ,i 8.8. Interpreting Guam 1111 Cruz, 2023 Guam v. Cruz, 1421b(g); People v.
Court has held that "an element of this right is the right of a defendant element of does not defendant who does require not require
appointed counsel to United States v. to choose who will represent him." United v. Gonzales-Lopez, 548 U.S.
140, 152 (2006). Thus, this (2006). Thus, principle extends this principle to local extends to criminal defendants as well. local criminal
of counsel is "not absolute, but qualified, and must be balanced against The right to choice of
the fair the requirements of the and proper fair and administration of proper administration justice." United ofjustice." v. Rasmussen, 881 United States v.
395, 401 F.2d 395, Cir. l989), (7th Cir. 401 (7th Gonzales-Lopez, 548 1989); see Gonzales-Lopez, 152 (a 548 U.S. at 152 trial court has "wide (a trial
latitude" to balance latitude" to right "against this right balance this the needs "against the fairness, and needs of fairness, against the and against demands of the demands its of its
calendar."). Accordingly, the calendar."). Accordingly, right to the right choice of to choice counsel "does of counsel other "does not include a lawyer whose other
5 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR FOR RECONSIDERATION People of CF0487-20; People ofGuam Guam v. EdwardAce Edward AceSic Sicat
preclude compliance commitments preclude compliance with a court's court's reasonable reasonable scheduling of of its its cases." cases." United United
Delia, 925 F.2d 574, States v.v. Delia, 574, 575 575 (2d (2d Cir. Cir. 1991); 1991), see United States Statesv.v.Mitchell, Mitchell, 777 F.2d 248, 258
(5th Cir. 1985) (a defendant "does not have the the right right to to continue continue to to insist insist on on aa particular particular lawyer
and postpone the trial indefinitely, at the the expense of the court, its its schedule, schedule, the the government, and
other parties, and and the the orderly administration of justice."); justice."), Miller v. v. Blackletter, Blacklefter, 525 F.3d 890 (9th
Cir. 2008) Cir. 2008) (trial (trial courts courts have have discretion discretion to to "make "make scheduling and other decisions that that effectively
choice of counsel." (quoting Gonzales-Lopez, exclude a defendant's first choice Gonzales-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 152)).
Sicat's right to be represented by Attorney Phillies Phillips is is qualified qualified and and subject subject to balancing
against other rrelevant inst other considerations. nt consider a tions. That T ha t balancing la ncing weighs weighs aagainst ga Sicat Sic a t here. her e. First, st, a
continuance would pose a significant cost to continuance to the above, the Court the Court's schedule. As detailed above, Court
has been extremely lenient lenient in in granting granting Sicat's Sicat's prior prior requests requests to to postpone postpone this this trial. trial. The Court has
issued a total of eight CTSOs Os in in this this case, case, and and all all but but the the first first have have been been vacated vacated either jointly jointly or
exclusively at Sicat's request. The Court has has even even sent home a fully assembled jury venire in July
2023 in order to to accommodate accommodate Sicat's last-moment of Attorney Phillips's services. With last-moment securing of
each new CTSO, the Court has had to to shift shift its its calendar calendar to to accommodate accommodate a two-week two-week trial, and with
shift, innumerable each such shift, cases (including other criminal matters) innumerable other cases matters) have have been delayed.
Another indefinite continuation would further further delay other other cases and work harm to to other other litigants
awaiting their day in court.
Second, another extended continuance would be harmful to both the witnesses and to the
People. As the People. As the People Peoplenote, note,the thealleged allegedvictims-minors victims-minors at at the the time time this thiscase casebegan-have began-have been
waiting nearly five years to give their testimony and thus to conclude this this chapter chapter of of their lives.
not serve An indefinite continuance would not serve their their interests, interests, nor would it comport with Legislative
intent that witness intent that witness interests interests should should be be prioritized. prioritized. See See 88 GCA GCA §§ 80.65 80.65 (in (in criminal criminal sexual sexual conduct conduct
6 I
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR FOR RECONSIDERATION People of CF0487-20; People ofGuam Guam v. v. Edward EdwardAce AceSic Sic at
cases involving minor victims, "the Court shall take action to expedite trial and give precedence
to the case over any other case."). Further, it is the the Court's understanding that two of of the alleged
victims no longer reside victims reside in Guam, and and that that scheduling scheduling one of of them them to to return return for for trial trial poses poses
particular logistical particular logistical challenges challenges because because he in military he is involved in military training. training. Another Another indefinite indefinite
continuance could therefore jeopardize the People's People's ability ability to to call call all of their all of their material witnesses,
which in turn tum would would affect affect the fact-finding process.
Third, another Third, another indefinite indefinite continuance continuancewould wouldbe be inconsistent-if direct conflict- inconsistent-if not in direct conflict-
with established judicial and legislative policy regarding timely criminal adjudications. Under the
Superior Court of Guam's time time standards, standards, nearly all criminal cases should be concluded within
year of one year of tiling. filing. See Administrative Rule ("AR") ("AR") 13-003 13-003 at at 2 (May (May 13, 2013); see also People 13, 2013),
v. Blas, v. Guam 19 Bias, 2016 Guam 1911] 47 47 (noting (noting that that AR 13-003's time standards are "aspirational," but that AR 13-003's
courts must "diligently strive strive to to meet them, consistent with their obligations" obligations" under the Model
of Judicial Conduct). Likewise, Code of Likewise, itit is the express policy of the Guam Legislature that criminal
cases should be cases should be resolved resolved promptly. See 8 promptly. See 8 GCA GCA §§ 80.50(a), 80.S0(a), ("[t]he welfare of ("[t]he welfare people of the people of the of the the
territory of Guam requires that all proceedings in criminal criminal cases cases shall shall be set for trial and heard and
the earliest determined at the earliest possible possible time."), also 88 GCA time."); see also GCA §§ 80.65. 80.65. While While neither neither authority authority
prohibits the the Court from from granting a continuance continuance for good cause, they both underscore the general
policy that granting granting an extended continuance demands the presence of of special circumstances. As
explained in more detail below, the the Court Court is is not not persuaded persuaded that that Sicat's Sicat's request for a continuance
presents such circumstances.
while Sic In sum, while Si cat has has aa qualified qualified right right to to counsel counsel of his his choice, choice, that right right must must be be balanced balanced
against the interests interests of of all all other other stakeholders stakeholders in the the process. process. The The Court concludes that neither the
Court itself, the People, itself, the People, the the witnesses, witnesses, or the the orderly orderly administration of justice justice would would benefit from
7 1
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION RECONSIDERATION MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CF0487-20; People of CF0487-20; People Guam v. ofGuam EdwardAce v. Edward Sicat Ace Sic
a continuance here. These combined interests outweigh Sicat's combined interests interest in being represented by Sicat's interest
Attorney Phillies. Thus, Attorney Phillips. the denial Thus, the of a continuance for Attorney denial of Phillips's benefit would not Attorney Phillies's
violate Sicat's Sixth Amendment of counsel. Amendment right to choice of
3. 3. The Court Believes Attorney Phillips Can Fulfill His Ethical Duties Can Fulfill
The analysis above assumes The analysis that Attorney assumes that Phillips isis actually Attorney Phillies unable to actually unable fulfill his duties to to fulfill
both Sic both However, the Sicat and the Moore defendant. However, Court isis not the Court convinced that not convinced this is so. Attorney that this
Phillies issuance of Phillips avers that since the issuance the Eighth of the Amended CTSO, the People have increased the Eighth Amended
witness list size of the potential witness in Moore. list in Decl. Michael F. Phillips at 1. Moore. Deel. He further l. He avers that the further avers
[him] to Court's "current trial schedule will not allow [him] represent Defendant to represent Sicat at Defendant Sic trial." Id. at trial." Id at 2.
However, it is is not clear to not clear the Court to the why these Court why additional witnesses these additional prevent witnesses in Moore would prevent
Attorney Phillips Attorney Phillips from fulfilling his from fulfilling duties to Sicat. his duties There isis no at. There overlap between no overlap the scheduled between the scheduled trial
dates for this case and the Moore trial. trial. This scheduled to trial isis scheduled This trial commence the week before jury to commence
selection elect ion in in Moore, Moore, too pausee during during the Moore Moore jury elect ion, and tto conclude jury sselection, efore tthe conclude bbefore
presentation of evidence in Moore begins. In other presentation while this other words, while case is this case back-to-back with is back-to-back
Moore, itit is not running Attorney Phillips would with Moore; itit is not anticipated that Attorney running simultaneous with would
trials simultaneously. need to appear in both trials
Attorney Phillips's citation citation to to the voluminous new discovery in Moore suggests that he the voluminous
believes his pre-trial obligations in Moore will preclude case. However, his trial obligations in this case. preclude his However,
as of of May 2025, Attorney Attorney Phillips Phillips indicated indicated he he was wasavailable availablefor forthis commence in June or trial totocommence thistTllal
or nearly early July. This timing suggests that Attorney Phillips is already prepared, or so, to try this nearly so,
case. In his Declaration, Attorney Phillips does not specify any remaining tasks he must perform
for this his case, e, nor tthat hat performing erforming such uch t asks ks would now bbe e imp due tto os s ib le due impossible his ppre-trial o his re-t rial
Moore. Thus, it is not clear that Attorney Phillips's obligations in this case will be obligations in Moore.
8 1
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION People of CF0487-20; People ofGuam Guam v. v. Edward EdwardAce Ace Sic Si cat
hindered by his pre-trial obligations obligations in Moore. Moore. Conversely, Attorney Phillies Phillips has not averred that
specific pre-trial tasks there are any specific preparation for the Moore trial, nor that tasks he must perform in preparation
performed during the time of any such tasks could only be Performed of Sicat's Sicat's trial. trial. The Court Court also also notes that
one co-counsel in Moore, and he has a co-counsel Attorney Phillips has at least one co-counsel in this case as well. well.
assuming there Thus, even assuming there are are particular particular pre-trial tasks for the defense to perform in either either case, it
is not clear that such such tasks tasks must must be performed by Attorney Phillips, rather than by his co-counsels. be performed
Court accepts The Court accepts Attorney Phillips's Phillips's assel'tion assertion that the the evidence in Moore is voluminous
and does not doubt that the Moore defense will need time time to to prepare prepare for trial. trial. However, Sicat's
trial is is not not set set to to commence commence for for several several weeks, weeks, and the Moore trial is is not not set set to to commence commence for more more
than a month. Attorney Phillips is a veteran litigator and has the benefit of co-counsel in both this
case and in Moore. Under these circumstances, the Court Moore. Under Court is not persuaded that the CTSO actually
prevents Attorney Phillips from fulfilling fulfilling his pre-trial obligations in Moore while also also fulfilling fulfilling
his trial obligations in this case.
With that said, said, the the Court does not desire to force Attorney Phillips to violate violate the Guam
of Professional Conduct. If Rules of If Attorney Phillips concludes that he truly cannot fulfill iultill his ethical
obligations in both cases, the the Court will will permit permit him to withdraw ifhe he so moves by Thursday, July
10, 2025 by 5:00 p.m. If Attorney Phillips attempts to to withdraw after that time, time, the the Court would
be inclined to find that withdrawal withdrawal so so close to to the the trial trial date date would would have have aa "material "material adverse adverse effect"
See Guam R. Prof. on Sicat's interests. See Prof. Cond. l.16(b)(l). Cord. 1.16(b)(1).
4. Trial to Begin Sooner The Court Will Reschedule Trial
Court is not inclined to grant a continuance, While the Court continuance, the Court Court is willing to begin begin this this
trial slightly slightly sooner sooner in in order order to to accommodate accommodate Attorney Attorney Phillips's schedule. The People have orally
represented that they expect this trial trial to to conclude conclude within two weeks, and and that that their presentation of
9 4 \ i
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CF0487-20; People of Guam v. People of v. Edward Ace Sicaf EdwardAce Sicat
should last evidence should last approximately approximately four days. days. The current CTSO reserves two weeks for for trial, trial,
which should which should be sufficient. sufficient. Nonetheless, Nonetheless, the the Court Court recognizes recognizes that that criminal criminal tn'als trials often last longer
than anticipated. anticipated. Therefore, Therefore, the the Court Court has has shifted shifted its its schedule schedule and and is is now available available during the
second-to-last week of second-to-last of July. July. Starting the tnlal trial in in July, July, rather rather than than the the first first week week of August, will
ensure that even if the trial trial extends extends beyond beyond the expected two weeks, it will still conclude before
the presentation of evidence in Moore begins.
now, NOW, THEREFORE, THEREFORE, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion for for
Reconsideration but ORDERS that the trial is RESCHEDULED to begin on Tuesday, July 22,
2025, and to run through Friday, July If the trial is not July 25, 2025. If not completed by that time, the trial
will break during the week of July July 28, 2025, to accommodate the the Court's Court's unavailability..The unavailability. _The trial
will then resume on Monday, August August 4, August 8, 2025. If 4, 2025, and continue through Friday, August If
the trial is is still still not not completed completed by that time, time, the trial trial will will break break during during the the week week of August August 11, 11, 2025,
to accommodate the Moore Moore jury selection. selection. The The trial trial will will then then resume resume on on Monday, Monday, August 18, 18,
(if necessary) 2025, running (if necessary) through Friday, August 22, 22, 2025. Court will 2025. The Cou1"f will issue issue a Ninth
Amended CTSO Amended CTSO to to reflect these new dates. r
th SO ORDERED this 7th day of day of July, July, 2025 2025..
H( ORABLE DANIAI A. GUTI Hz Jo e, Su@rior (Eourt\9lf Guam
SERVICE VIA E-MAIL I acknowledge that an electronic copy of the origin wise-mailed to: /465 '?790 wAv ~W1¥¢~= *""/°"' {rT 5 £vah"L.Topasna QL ' V u 10 Deputy Clerk, Superior Court of Guam*