People v. Songeni
Opinion
I' f 1 g-..
. s a
cu§Q§< 11 21825 JLIL 28 p 3: 93 2
3 3§-5PEF€§§3§% go : a" -
n
gt 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 5
OF GUAM, THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, 6
7 Plaintiff, Criminal Case No. CF0124-24 CF0124-24
8 vs.
DECISION AND ORDER ON ON MOTION MOTION TO 9 SEVER MANNIX MANNIX FRANK SONGENI and KASON ANDON, 10
11 11 Defendants.
12 12 INTRODUCTION 13 13 This matter came before matter came before the the Honorable Honorable Alberto Alberto E. Tolentino on on July July 25, 25, 2025, 2025, for aa 14 14 Motion Motion Hearing Hearing addressing DefendantMannix addressing Defendant Mannix Frank FrankSongeni's Songeni'sMotion Motion to to Sever. Attorney 15 15 Terrence E, Tirnblin Terrence Timblin appeared appeared for Defendant Defendant Mannix Songeni, Songeni, Attorney Attorney Thomas Thomas J.
J. Fisher Fisher 16 16
17 17 appeared for codefendant appeared for codefendant Kason Kason Andon, Andon, and and Assistant AssistantAttorney Attorney General General Christine Christine S.
S. Tenorio
18 18 appeared for the appeared for the People People of of Guam ("People").
Guam ("People"). The Court Court now now issues issues the the following order order
19 19 DENYING DENYINGthe theMotion Motion to to Sever.
Sever.
20 PROCEDURE 21 On July 25, 2025, July 25, 2025, Defendant DefendantMannix MannixFrank FrankSongeni Songenifiled filed his his Motion Motion to Sever Sever on on July July 22 25, 25, 2025. DefendantMannix 2025. Defendant MannieFrank FrankSongeni's Songeni'sMotion Motion to to Sever (July 25, 2025).
(July 25, 2025). The People 23 provided their their Opposition Opposition to to the the Motion Motion at at the the Motion Motion Hearing Hearing that that same same day. Counsel Counsel for 24 Defendant Kason Andon also orally moved moved to Sever Sever the the case on the the morning morning of of the the beginning beginning of of 25 trial, July 28, 2025.
2025. The The Court reviewed reviewed the the Motions Motions and and applicable applicable law law and and issued a preliminary preliminary 26 Decision Decision and Order on onMotion Motion to Sever 27 CFOl24-24,People CFO 124-24, People of ofGuam Guam v. Mannix Frank Songeni Songeni& &Kason Karon Andon Anion Page11 of of 4
ruling ruling to Defendant Defendant Songeni's Motion Motion on on July July 25, 25, 2025.
2025. The Court Court now now issues issues the the formal formal 2 Decision and Decision and Order related to that ruling.
ruling.
3 RULINGS 4
5 The Court DENIES Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motionto toSever Severbecause becauseDefendants Defendants have have not not shown shown a
6 serious risk that thataajoint jointtrial trial would would compromise compromise one one or or more more of of Defendants' specific specific trial trialrights rights.
7 Guam law allows for jointer Guam law joinder of oftwo twoorormore moredefendants defendants in in the the same same indictment "if they indictment "if they are are
8 alleged to have have participated participated in the the same act or transaction same act or in transaction or in the the same same series series of of acts acts or 9 9 transactions constituting an transactions constituting offense or an offense or offenses."
offenses." 88 GCA GCA § § 55.35(b). The Court 55.35(b). The Court has authority the authority has the 10 . . . . . a .
to grant a severance of of defendants defendants or or provide provide whatever whateverother otherre11ef]ust1ce relief justice requires "if it appears "If it appears 11 11 that a defendant defendantor orthe thegovernment governmentisisprejudiced prejudicedby byaajoinder jointer of offenses offenses or or of ofdefendants defendants in in an an 12 12 indictment or information or by such suchjoinder jointer for trial together. ..:7, for aNal " 88GCA GCA §§ 65.35.
65.35.
13 13 However, However, this this authority authority does does not not mean mean that all cases with codefendants where the the joint joint 14 14 15 nature of the proceedings has the nature of the potential potential to to create prejudice should automatically automatically be be severed.
15 16 Under Zafiro v.
v. US, US, the the United United States States Supreme Supreme Court Court stated stated that that severance should be granted 16
17 17 "only "onlyififthere thereisisaaserious serious risk that joint trial that a joint trial would would compromise compromiseaaspecific specific trial trial right right of of one one of
18 18 the defendants, or prevent defendants, or prevent the thejury jury from making making a reliable judgment about about guilt or innocence." 79
19 19 506 U.S.
U.S. 534, 534, 539 539(1993)
(1993)(interpreting (interpretingFed.
Fed.R.
R.Crim.
Crum.P.P.14(e)).
l4(e)).
20 A defendant's defendant's right right to to confront confront and and cross-examine witnesses against cross-examine witnesses againsthim himisisviolated violated if if 21 the the jury isis presented presented with with aanon-testifying non-testifying co-defendant's co-defendant's confession confession or orstatements statements that that 22 22 . . a . . . .
incriminate the incriminate the defendant defendant because because that co-defendant co-defendant has has aa constitutional constitutional right not to testify at at 23 trial. US Const. Amend. VI;
Const. Amend. VI, Briton Brutonv.v. United UnitedStates, States, 391 391 U.S. 123, 127-128 (1968). Indeed, 127-128 (1968). Indeed, if if 24 Defendant Andon's statements Defendant Andon's statements totopolice policewere were to to come come into into evidence evidence and andMr.
Mr. Andon Aldon does does not 25
26 Decision and Order on Motion Decision and Motion to to Sever Sever 27 CF0124-24, People of of Guam Guam v.v. Mannix Mannix Frank Frank Songeni Songeni& & Kason KasonAndon Anion Page 2 of 4
testify, Defendant Songeni Songeni would would be denied denied his his right right under under the Confrontation Confrontation Clause to confront 2 and cross examine him as a witness because of witness because of Mr.
Mr. Andon's right not Ardor's right not to incriminate himself himself or 3 4 testify in his own trial. 4 Additionally, counsel for Defendant Kason Andon Andon has.
has argued argued that that the the Court's Court's decision 5
6 to allow the government to to present present evidence evidence of of Defendant Defendant Songeni's Songeni's prior prior convictions convictions Under under
7 GRE 404(b) would unfairly unfairly prejudice prejudice his his client, client, Kason KasonAndon.
Ardor.
8 While the Court understands these concerns, the People have represented and the Court
9 agrees that there there is is another possible possible non-severance non-severance solution. At the Motion hearing, the People 10 10 represented to represented to the Court and Defendants Defendants that any witnesses witnesses will be be instructed instructed not to to testify testify 11 11 regarding any regarding any accusations accusations made made by by one one defendant defendantagainst againstthe the other.
other. The The Court Court is is aware that there 12 12 accusations in are accusations in the the evidence evidence from from Mr. Andon aimed aimed at at Mr.
Mr. Songeni.
Songeni. The The Prosecution Prosecution has 13 13 made clear that these accusations accusations will will not not come come into into evidence and will be omitted from any and 14 14 all testimony.
tesdrnony. Furthermore, the jury will be specifically instructed that prior convictions of one 15 15
defendant are not to be applied as evidence of guilt of their codefendant.
16 16
17 17 The only "specific trial right of one one of the the defendants"
defendants" alleged by counsel for Defendant
18 18 right under Songeni was his right under the the Confrontation Confrontation clause and Bruton Briton case law. However, if the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Songeni (People v. Songeni) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.