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 prerequest 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.
3
|
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 eightyone 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.
4
\
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"
5
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
6
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
7
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 conflictinconsistent -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
8
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.
9
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
\ 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*