*r
a
"E E
I .Lu *""'?I3!r' 7' .73 ? §;;~'="'
. =.a '*..f ; 's 3
2 q,A
2925 FEB 254 PH so 3 SUPERIOR CGURT
4 GF £.%U§»J'e =
5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT
COURT OF GUAM
7
8 8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, PEOPLE CRIMINAL CASENO. CRIMINAL CASE NO.CF0557-24 CF0557-24
9 vs.
10 10 DECISION AND ORDER 11 DAVID QUICHOCHO ln\1cAnGco, UNCANGCO, JR.,
FRANCES JANET SAHAGON CRUZ, 12 Defendants.
13 13
14 INTRODUCTION
15 15 This This matter came before
matter came before the
theHonorable
Honorable Vernon
Vernon P. Perez on February 7, 2025, 2025, for hearing
16 16 on Defendant David Quichocho Defendant David Quichocho Uncangco, Uncangco,Jr.'
Jr.'s ("Uncangco")Motion s ("Uncangco") Motion to
toDisqualify
Disqualify Curtis C.
17 17 Van Van de de veld veld as
as Special Assistant
Assistant Attorney
AttorneyGeneral
Generaland
and Defendant
Defendant Frances
Frances Janet Sahagon
SahagonCruz's
Cruz's
18 18 ("Cnlz") ("Cruz") Jointer JoinderininMotion
MotiontotoDisqualify
DisqualifyCurtis
CurtisC.C.Van
Vande
develd
veldasasSpecial
SpecialAssistant
Assistant Attorney
Attorney
19 19 General. Present Present were Special Assistant Attorney General General Curtis
Curtis C.
C. Van
Van de
de veld
veld on
on behalf
behalf of
of the
20 20 People People of ofGuam
Guam ("the
("the Govemlnent"),
Government"), Uncangco
Uncangco with
with counsel,
counsel, Assistant
Assistant Alternate
Alternate Public
21 Defender Peter J.J. Santos, Defender Peter and Cruz Santos, and Cruz with
with counsel,
counsel, Terry
Tend E. Timblin.
Timblin. Having
Having reviewed
reviewed the
the
22 22 pleadings, pleadings, the arguments presented,and arguments presented, andthe therecord, theCourt
record,the Courtnow
nowissues
issuesthe
the followingDecision
following Decision
23 23 and Order.
Order.
24 24 BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
25 Defendants Defendants face charges
charges stemming
stemming from alleged events between March events occurring between March and 26 26 June of 2024.
2024. (Superseding Indictment, Oct.
(Superseding Indictment, Oct. 1, 1, 2024).
2024). Uncangco is charged with with (I)
(1) Possession
Possession
27 27 of ofSchedule a ScheduleIIIIControlled ControlledSubstance
Substancewith
withIntent
Intentto
to Deliver
Deliver(As
(Asaa First
First Degree
Degree Felony); (2)
(2)Retail
Retail
28 28
People v.
v. Uncangco & Cruz
Uncangco &
Case No.
No. CF0557-24
Decision Decision and and Order
Page 11 of
of77
1 Theft (As a Second Second Degree Felony)-Four Felony) - Four Counts,
Counts; (3) Attempted
Attempted Theft
Theft by Receiving
Receiving (As
(As a Third
2 Degree Felony)
Degree -. Two Counts, Felony)-Two Counts; (4) Fraudulent Use of of a License
License Plate (As aa Third Third Degree
Degree Felony);
Felony),
3 (5) Witness Witness Bribery Bribery (As
(As aa Third
ThirdDegree
DegreeFelony);
Felony), and
and(6)
(6)Tampering
Tamperingwith
witha aWitness.
Witness.Id.
Id Cruz
Cruz is
4 charged with (1)
(l) Conspiracy
Conspiracy to Commit
Commit Theft
Theft by Receiving (As a Second Degree Felony), Felony); (2)
5 Witness Bribery (As a Third Degree Felony);
Felony), and (3) Conspiracy in Tampering with a Witness
(As a Misdemeanor).
Misdemeanor).11 Id Jury Selection and Trial was set to commence on October 4, 2024, as 6 Id. Jury Selection and Trial was set to commence on October 4, 2024,
7 asserted his right to a speedy trial.
Uncangco asserted trial. (Asserted (Asserted Criminal
Criminal Trial
Trial Scheduling
Scheduling Order,
Order, Sept.
8 3, 2024)
2024).
9 On October October l,1, 2024,
2024, Uncangco
Uncangco filed
filed aa Motion
Motion to
to Disqualify
Disqualify Curtis C. Van de veld as Curtis C. as
10 10 Special Assistant Special Assistant Attorney Attorney General
General and Motion to Stay Stay Proceedings.
Proceedings. On the same
same day,
day, the
11 11 Government filed Government filed an anObj sectionOpposition
Objection Opposition to
to Motion
Motion for
for Disqualification
Disqualification of Special Prosecutor.
12 The Court subsequently granted the the portion of
of Uncangco's
Uncangco's Motion
Motion requesting
requesting aa stay
stay and stayed
13 13 this matter pending pending resolution of his Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice in related Criminal Case
2
14 No. CF0225-24 cF0225_242 before another before anotherjudge.
judge. See
See Order
Order After
After Hearing
Hearing Granting
Granting Defendant
Defendant Uncangco's
Uncangco's
15 15 Motion for Stay, Oct. 1, Stay, Oct. l, 2024.
2024. The
The Court
Court indicated
indicated itit would determine determine how to
to proceed
proceed with
16 16 Defendant's Motion Defendant's Motion to to Disqualify
Disqualify after the
the lifting
lifting of
of the
the stay.
stay. Id.
Id
17 17 On January On January 8,
8, 2025, Cruz filed
2025, Cruz in Motion Joiner in
filed aa Joinder Motionto to Disqualify
Disqualify Curits
Curits C.
C. Van
Van de
de veld
veld as
as
18 18 Special Assistant Attorney General.
19 19 On January January 22, 2025, the Court lifted the stay and set forth briefing briefing deadlines
deadlines on the
20 Disqualify. 3 See Order Motion to Disqualify.3 Order Lifting Stay & Setting Setting Briefing for Defendants' Motion to 21 Disqualify Disqualify Special Special Assistant
Assistant Attorney
AttorneyGeneral,
General,Jan.
Jan. 22,
22, 2025
2025.
22
23 23
24 11 These Thesecharges chargesare
are reflected
reflected as
as Charges
Charges Seven
Seven through
through Nine
Nine of
of the
the Superseding Indictment.
25 22 Some Someofofthe the charges
charges against
against Uncangco in the
Uncangco in the instant matter matter were
were previously
previously charged
charged in
in CF0225-24.
CF0225-24. See Indictment Indictment
(CF0225-24), Apr. (CF0225-24), Apr. 15, 2024. CF0225-24 was dismissed dismissed without prejudice in June 2024, however, Uncangco prejudice in
26 subsequently moved moved for
for dismissal
dismissal with prejudice in July July 2024.
2024. See
See Order
Order of
of Dismissal Without Prejudice (CF0225-
(CF0225-
24), Jun. 10, 2024;
2024, Mot. Dismiss With Prejudice (CF0225-24), Jul. 10, 2024.
27 33 CF0225-24 CF0225-24 was was ultimately
ultimately dismissed
dismissed without
without prejudice. See
See Dec.
Dec. &
& Order
Order (CF0225-24),
(CF0225-24), Jan.
Jan. 22, 2025,
2025; Order
Order for
for
28 Dismissal Without Without Prejudice & Case Closure (CF0225-24), Jan. 22, 2025.
v. Uncangco
People v. Uncangeo & & Cruz
Case No.
No. CF0557-24
Decision Decision and and Order
Page of Page 2 of7 l On January January30,
30,2025,
2025,the
theGovernment
Government fileditsitsOpposition.
filed Opposition.No No reply
reply was
was filed
filed by either
either
2 defendant.
defendant.
3 On February 7, 2025, February 7, 2025, the
the Court heard argumentson heard arguments onthe
the Motion
Motion to
to Disqualify and
and
4 subsequently subsequently placed the matter under under advisement.
5 DISCUSSION
6 At At issue
issue before
before the
the Court is whetherAttorney Attorney Van de
dhveld
veld must
mustbe
bedisqualified
disqualified from
from acting
7 as a Special Special Assistant Attorney General General in
in this matter.
matter. Defendants
Defendants argue
argue that a concurrent
concurrentconflict
conflict
8 of interest interest exists under Guam exists under GuamRules
Rules of
of Professional Conduct("GRPC")
Professional Conduct ("GRPC") Rule Rule 1.7
1. 7 because
because
9 Attorney Van Van de
de veld
veldalso
alsorepresents
represents criminal
criminal defendants
defendants in
in his
his private practice. 4 See private practice.4 See generally, 10 10 Uncangco Mot. Disqualify, Disqualify, Oct.
Oct. l,1,2024.
2024.Defendants
Defendantscite
citetotoaadecision
decisionrendered
rendered by
by Judge
Judge Maria
111 T. Cenzon Cenzon in People People v.
v. Blas,
Blas, Criminal
Criminal Case
Case No. CF0334-23-01, for support.
CF0334-23-0l, for support. (Uncangco (Uncangco Mot.
12 12 Disqualify Disqualifyat at 3).
3).The
TheGovernment
Governmentopposes,
opposes,arguing
arguingdefendants
defendantsdo
donot
nothave
have standing
standing to bring the
13 13 Motion Motion to Disqualify. See See generally,
generally, Opp'n, Jan.
Jan. 30, 2025.
2025. The
TheGovernment
Governmentfurther
further notes
notes that
that
14 14
15 15
16 16 4 Uncangco states states that "Rule 1.7 of the Guam Rules of of Professional Conduct Conduct requires Defendant to show that Van 17 De Veld's SAAG SAAG appointment
appointment results
results in
in aa "significant
"significant risk"
risk" of
of violating
violating the
the Rules
Rules of
of Professional
Professional Conduct."
Conduct."
(Uncangco (Uncangco Mot.
Mot. Disqualify
Disqualifyatat2).
2). GRPC
GRPCRule
Rule1.7
1.7provides:
provides:
18 (a) Except as provided
provided inin paragraph
paragraph (b),
(b a lawyer
lawyer shall
shall not
not represent
represent aa client
client if
if the
the representation
representation
19 19 involves a concurrent concurrent conflict
conflict of
of interest.
interest. A concurrent
concurrent conflict
conflict of
ofinterest
interest exists if:
if:
(1) 1) the representation ofof one client will be directly adverse to another client, client; or
20 20 (2) there is a significant significant risk that
that the
the representation
representation of one or more more clients will bebe materially materially
21 limited by the lawyer's lawyer's responsibilities responsibilities to another another client,
client, a former
former client
client or
or a third person
or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
22 22 (b) Notwithstanding the existence ofof a concurrent concurrent conflict
conflict of
of interest
interest under
under paragraph (a), a lawyer 23 23 may represent represent a client if:
if: .
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer ~illwill be able to to provide competent and
24 to each affected client;
diligent representation to client, (2) the representation is not not prohibited by
by law,
law;
25 (3) the representation does not involve the assertion ofa of claim by one client against another 26 26 client client represented by the lawyer lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding proceeding before
before a tribunal,
tribunal;
and
27 27 (4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
28 Guam R. Prowl.
Prof 1. Conduct 1.7.
People v.
v. Uncangco
Uncangco &
& Cruz
Case No. CF0557-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 3 of7
l the "role of of the prosecuting attorney is fundamentally, by its essence, in absolute adversity to the 2 interests of aa defendant defendant under
under prosecution."
prosecution." Id
Id at
at 21. .
3 "Disqualification "Disqualification isis aa drastic drastic course
course of
of action
action that
that should
should not
not be
be taken
taken simply
simply out of
of
4 hypersensitivity to hypersensitivity to ethical ethical nuances
nuances or the appearance appearance of
of impropriety."
impropriety." Barrett-Anderson v.
5 Camaeho, Camacho, 2018 Guam 20 1114 14 ((citation omitted). The Supreme Court of Guam determined that citation omitted).
6 "the appearance appearance of
of impropriety
impropriety standard
standard ceased to
to be
be the
the standard
standard for
for attorney
attorney disqualification disqualification
7 after the 2003 2003 adoption of the Guam Rules of Professional Professional Conduct for criminal actions filed after
8 the rules' effective effective date
date and
and for
for all subsequent attorney conduct in pending civil cases." Id 1 Idatat11
9 18. The The "current standard for "current standard for attorney attorney disqualification disqualification isis whether whether an attorney's
attorney's continued
continued
10 10 representation of of a party or participation in in an action violates or significantly risks vio~ating violating the
11 11 Guam Rules of Professional Professional Conduct." 1 20. "The Conduct." Id atat 1120. "The 'significantly 'significantly risk'
risk' portion
portion of
of the
the test
12 12 does not allow disqualification for potential potential conflict,
conflict, but
but for
forinevitable
inevitableand
andmaterial
materialconflicts."
conflicts." Id
Id
13 13 at 1117 17 (citing
(citing Bottoms v.
v. Stapleton,
Stapleton, 706 N.W.2d 411, 417 (Iowa 2015)).
2015)). "A conflict does not
14 14 exist just because one party asserts itit does."
does." State v.
v. McKinley,
McKinley, 860 N.W.2d 874, 880 (Iowa 2015)
15 15 (quoting Pippins Pqopins v.
v. State,
State, 661
661 N.W.2d 544,
544, 547 (Iowa 2003)).
2003)). The moving
moving party
party bears "the
16 16 burden of proving facts that establish[] the necessary factual prerequisite for
17 17 disqualification."
" Bottoms,
Bottoms, 706N.W.2d at 418.
18 18 The Court first first turns
turns to
to the
the issue
issue of
of whether
whether or not
not defendants
defendants have standing to bring the
Motion to Disqualify.
Disqualify. The
The issue
issue of
of standing was not addressed in People v. Blas.55 See Dec. & 19 19 v. Blas. 20 20 Order (CF0334-23-01), Apr.2,2,2024.
(CF0334-23-01), Apr. 2024. "Standing "Standingisisaathreshold
thresholdjurisdictional
jurisdictionalmatter
matter....
.... The
21 question question of standing focuses on standing focuses on who
who may bring an action.
action. In
In essence,
essence, the
the relevant
relevant inquiry
inquiry is
22 22 whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of whether of the dispute or of ofparticular
23 23 issues." Benavente issues." Benavente v.
v. Taitano,
Taitano, 2006 Guam
Guam 15 1 14 (citations 15 11 (citations and internal quotation marks 24
25 5 5 The Court Court is also aware of two other decisions in the Superior Court of Guam addressing the disqualification issue of of Special Assistant Attorney Special Assistant Attorney Generals.
Generals. In People v.v. Camp, CF0627-19, Judge Alberto Alberto E. Tolentino
Tolentino granted the
26 defendant's Ex Parte Motion to Disqualify Special Assistant Attorney General, however, the issue of defendant's Ex Parte Motion to Disqualify Special Assistant General, of standing was addressed. See Dec. & Order not addressed. Order (CF0627-19), Oct. 15, (CF0627-19), Oct. 15, 2024.
2024. In People v.
v. Basaliso, CFOl75-24,
CF0l Judge Tolentino 27 denied the defendant's defendant's Objection
Objection to
to Attorney
Attorney Van
Vandede veld
veld appearing
appearing as
as Special
Special Prosecutor,
Prosecutor, also
also noting
noting that
that the issue
28 of of standing was never brought up in Blas Bias or Camp.
Camp. (Digital Recording at 10:36:49 (CFOl75-24), (CF0l Nov. 4, 2024).
People v.
v. Uncangco
Uncangco && Cruz
Case No.
No. CF0557-24
Decision Decision and and Order
Page 4 of7
of
1 omitted) (emphasis added). Although (emphasis added). Althoughthe theSupreme
SupremeCourt
CourtofofGuam
Guamhas
has not
not fully
fullyaddressed
addressed the
2 issue of standing as it relates to standing as to conflicts conflicts of
ofinterest,
interest, itithas
has acknowledged that: 6 acknowledged that:6
3 GRPC GRPC 1.7 1.7 and
and 1.9
1.9 both
both address an attorney's address an attorney's conflict conflict of
of interest,
interest, and
and prohibit an
an
attorney attorney from representing representing a client whose interests interests are adverse to are adverse to the
the interests of
interests of
4 another former or another former or current currentclient.
client....
. Some
. Somejurisdictions
jurisdictions find
find that
that without
without anan
5 attorney-client relationshipororsome attorney-client relationship some other other relationship
relationshipimposing
imposingaa dutyduty of
6 confidentiality, confidentiality, aa party party has
has no standing to bring a motion to disqualify based standing to based on a conflict conflict of
ofinterest.
interest.
7 Guerrero v.
v. Moylan,
Moylan, 2002
2002 Guam
Guam 18 ,r 49
18 11 49(citing
(citing DCH
DCH Health
Health Services
Services Corp.
Corp. v.
v. Waite,
Waite, 115
115
8 Cal.Rptr.2d 847, 847, 850
850(Cal.
(Cal. App.
App. 2002);
2002), Johnson
Johnson v.v. Prime
Prime Bank, 464 S.E.2d 24, 24, 26
26(Ga.
(Ga. Ct.
Ct. App.
App.
9 l995)). 1995)).
10 10 "The "The majority
majorityview
viewisisthat
thatonly
onlyaacurrent
current or
orformer
formerclient
clientofofan
anattorney
attorneyhas
has standing
standing to
11 11 complain of of that
that attorney's representation of interests representation of interests adverse adverse to
to that
that current
currentor
orformer
former client."
client."
12 12 Coyler Coyier v.
v. Smith,
Smith, 50 F.Supp.2d 966,969 F.Supp.2d 966, 969(C.D.
(C.D.Cal.
Cal. 1999).
1999). See also
also Kasha
Kasza v. Browner, 133
133 F.3d
13 13 1159, 1171(9th 1159, 1171 Cir. 1998)
(9thCir. 1998) ("As
("As aageneral
generalrule,
rule,courts
courts do
do not
not disqualify
disqualifyan
an attorney
attorney on
on the
the grounds
14 14 of of conflict conflict of ofinterest
interest unless theformer unless the formerclient
clientmoves
movesfor
fordisqualification.");
disqualification."), Great GreatLakes
Lakes Constr.,
15 15 Inc. v.
v. Barman,
Burman, 114
114 Cal.Rptr.3d 301,
301,307
307(Cal.
(Cal.App.
App.2010)
2010)("A
("A 'standing' requirement requirement is implicit
16 16 in disqualification motions.
motions. Generally,
Generally, before
before the
the disqualification
disqualification of
ofan
an attorney
attorney is
is proper,
proper, the
17 17 complaining party must complaining party must have have or must
must have
have had
had an
an attorney-client
attorney-client relationship relationship with
with that
that
18 18 attorney."). attorney."). Neither Neither Uncangco
Uncangco or Cruz
Cruz are
are current
current or former clients of former clients of Attorney Attorney Van de
de
19 19 veld. Thus, Thus, under
under the
the majority
majority view,
view,ititisisclear
clearthat
thatneither
neither defendant
defendant has standing to has standing to move
move for
20 20 his disqualification disqualification from from this
this matter.
matter.
21 An exception An exception to the majority view view exists
exists "where
"wherethe
the ethical
ethical breach so infects the breach so the litigation litigation
22 in which which disqualification disqualification is
is sought
sought that
that it impacts the
the moving
moving party's
party's interest
interest in
in aa just and
and lawful
lawful
23
24 6 6 The TheAmerican AmericanBar Bar Association's Association's ("ABA")
("ABA") Annotated
AnnotatedModel
Model Rulesofof
Rules ProfessionalConduct Professional Conductalso alsoprovide
providethat
that the
the
25 general rule for standing general "is that only a former or current client has standing to bring a standing "is that only a former or current client has standing to bring motion tomotion to disqualify counsel counsel
on the basisof the basis of aaconflict conflict of interest,"
interest," citing In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litig., Litig., 530 F.2d 83
83 (5th
(5th Cir.
Cir. 1976),
1976);
26 FMC FMC Techs., Techs., Inc.
Inc. v.v. Edwards,
Edwards, 420 F.Supp.2d
F.Supp.2d 1153 (W.D. Wash.
1153(W.D. Wash. 2006);
2006), Coyier
Coyler v.
v. Smith,
Smith, 50 F.Supp.2d
F.Supp.2d 966 966 (C.D.
(C.D.
1999). See
Cal. 1999). See ABA ABAAnnotated
AnnotatedModel
ModelRules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7 6th Ed. at 122 (attached to Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7 6th Ed. at 122 (attached to Opp'n).Opp'n).
27 Guam's Guam's Rules Rules of Professional
Professional Conduct
Conduct were were adopted adoptedfromfrom the
the 2002
2002 ABA
ABA Model
Model Rules
Rules ofofProfessional
Professional
28 Conduct.
Conduct. Barrett-Anderson, ,r 17.
Barrett-Anderson, 2018 Guam 201]
People v.
v. Uncangco
Uncangco &
& Cruz
Case No.
No. CF0557-24
Decision Decision and and Order
Page 5 of7
of
1 determination of her claims."
determination of claims." Cooler, Coyier, 50 F.Supp.2d at 971.
F.Supp.2d at 971. "[A]bsent "[A]bsentan
anattorney-client
attorney-client
2 relationship, the moving relationship, the moving party party must
musthave
havehad
hadan
anexpectation
expectationofofconfidentiality.
confidentiality. For
For purposes of
purposes of
3 a disqualification motion, standing arisesfrom standing arises from aabreach breachof
ofthe
theduty
dutyof
ofconfidentiality
confidentiality owed to the
4 complaining party, regardless complaining party, regardless of whether a lawyer-client lawyer-client relationship existed." 7 Great relationship existed."7 Great Lakes Lakes
5 Constr., Inc., 114 Constr., Inc., 114 Cal.Rptr.3d at 307-308 307-308 (quoting
(quoting DCH
DCHHealth
Health Services
Services Corp., 115
115 Cal.Rptr.2d
6 847). A "non-client "non-clientmust
must meet
meet stringent
stringent standing
standing requirements, that is, requirements, that is, harm harm arising
arising from a
legally cognizable cognizable interest
interest which is concrete concrete and particularized, particularized,not
nothypothetical." 8 Id at 309 hypothetical."8
7 Id at 309 8 (citing Cooler, Coyier, 50 F.Supp.2d
F.Supp.2d atat971-73).
971-73). "Courts have invoked the exception in Cooler Coyier where
9 particular facts have established particular facts that the established that the party party seeking
seeking disqualification
disqualification had
had aa personal
personal stake
stake
10 10 beyond beyond the general interest in the thefair
fair administration
administrationof
ofjustice."
justice." S.E. C. v.
S.E.C. v. King
King Chuen
Chuen Tang,
Tang, 831
11 11 F.Supp.2d 1130, 1130, 1143
1143(N.D.
(N.D. Cal.
Cal. 2011).
2011).
12 12 Here, Defendants generally state that"[a]
state that "[a] difference difference of
ofinterest
interest will
willeventuate
eventuateunder
under this
this
13 13 scheme scheme of contradictory contradictory dual-roled Defense Counsel dual-roled Defense Counsel and and Part-Time
Part-Time Prosecutor
Prosecutor which
which will
14 14 materially materially interfere interfere with
with independent
independent professional
professional judgment
judgment in considering
considering alternatives
alternatives or
foreclose courses courses of 9 (Uncangco Mot.
15 of action action that
that should reasonablybe
should reasonably bepursued."
pursued."9 (Uncangco Mot. Disqualify at at
16 16 Suchan 3). Such an argument appearsto argument appears toallege allege aapotential
potential future
futurebreach
breachof
ofAttorney
Attorney Van
Van de
de veld's
veld's duty
duty
17 17 of loyalty of to his loyalty to his criminal
criminal defense clients and defense clients andthe
theOffice
Office of
of the
the Attorney
Attorney General.
General. However, as
as
18 18
19 7 "The Coyler Coyier court rejected an court rejected an argument argument... that is, a non-client .. . that non-client has standing to has standing to move
move toto disqualify opposing opposing
counsel to ensure counsel to theintegrity ensure the integrityof of the
the process
processandandthe thefair justice. None administrationofofjustice.
fairadministration None of these these lofty values,
values,
20 any personal
however, implicates any personalright rightofCoyler
of Coylerwhich
whichisisburdened
burdened thethe
byby alleged
alleged conflict
conflict ofofinterest.
interest.... Coyler's
... Coyler's
21 broad interest the administration interest in the administrationof ofjustice justice was
was insufficiently concrete concrete and particularized to and particularized to support supportaafinding
finding of
standing." Great standing." Great Lakes Constr., Inc, 114 CaLRptr.3d at 309 (citing Constr., Inc, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d at 309 (citing Coyier,Cooler, 50 F.Supp. at F.Supp. 973).973).
22 2.2 8 "A "Anon-client
non-clientmust
must establish
establish a 'personal stake' in the motion to disqualify disqualify opposing opposing counsel
counsel that is sufficient to 23 satisfy the standingrequirements the standing Article III requirementsofofArticle III of ofthe
the United
United States
States Constitution."
Constitution." GreatGreat Lakes Lakes Conslr., Inc., 114 Constr., Inc., 114
Cal.Rptr.3d at 308308 (citing (citing Coyler,
Coyier, 50 F.Supp.2d at at 971).
971). The Supreme Court ofGuam Guam has "repeatedly foundfound that that the
24 'traditional standing requirements' expressed standing requirements' expressed in in Article Article III
IIInevertheless
nevertheless apply
apply to
to claims
claims asserted
asserted in
in Guam's courts."
Guam's courts."
In In re re A.B.
A.B. Won
Won Pat
Pat Int'l AirportAuth., Int'/ Airport Auth., Guam, Guam, 2019 Guam 66 ,r111616(citation 2019 Guam (citationomitted).
omitted). "To
"To establish
establish constitutional
constitutional
25 standing, standing, aa party party must
mustshow:show:(1)(1) it has has suffered
suffered an an injury
injury inin fact;
fact, (2) that
that the injury
injury can be fairly traced traced to the
the
26 taken by challenged action taken by the the defendant;
defendant, andand(3) (3) that that it is likely and beyond mere speculation likely and beyond mere speculation that that a favorable decision decision will willremedy
remedythe the injury
injury sustained."
sustained." Id ,r 17 (internal Idatat1117 (internal quotation quotation marks and citation marks and citation omitted).
omitted).
27 9 Cruz does not add any additional add any additionalfacts factsor
orinformation
informationininher
herjoinder. Inher
jointer. In her jointer, joinder,Cruz
Cruzsimply
simplystates
states that
that she
she
"is "is the the Co-Defendant ofUNCANGCO of UNCANGCO and and virtually virtually every
every point
point made inUNCANGCO's
made in UNCANGCO's Motion Motionapplies applies with
with equal
equal
28 force force to to her."
her." (Joiner
(Joinderatat1,1,Jan.
Jan. 8,
8, 2025).
2025).
v. Uncangco
People v. Uncangco & & Cruz
Case No.
No. CF0557-24
Decision Decision and and Order
Page 6 of7
of 7
1 neither defendant currently has or had an attorney-client relationship relationship with
with Attorney
Attorney Van
Van de veld,
2 such a general statement is insufficient to to show
show they have a legally cognizable interest which is
3 concrete and particularized, particularized, not
not hypothetical.
hypothetical. Defendants have not offered any facts facts showing a
4 confidential or fiduciary confidential fiduciary relationship relationship exists
exists or
or has
has existed
existed between
between them
them and
and Attorney
Attorney Van de
5 veld or that there there has
has been
been a breach
breach of
of any
any duty
duty of
of confidentiality
confidentiality owed
owed to
to them
them by Attorney Van
6 de veld. Defendants Defendantsdodonot
notcite
citetotoany
anyauthority
authorityestablishing
establishing they
they have
have standing
standing as
as non-clients.
7 Without more, the Court is unable to to find
find that either
either defendant
defendant has
has established standing
standing to
to move
move
10 Therefore, the Court denies 8 to to disqualify disqualify Attorney
Attorney Van
Van de
de veld
veld under
under GRPC
GRPC 1.7
1.7 at
at this
thistime.
time." Therefore,
9 the Motion to Disqualify Special Assistant Attorney Attorney General Van de veld.
10 CONCLUSION
11 For the foregoing reasons, the the Court hereby
hereby DENIES
DENIES Defendants' Motion to Disqualify
12 12 Special Assistant Attorney General Van de veld. As Asthis
this matter
matter remains
remains in
in an
an asserted
asserted status,
status, the
13 13 Court sets Jury Selection and Trial for March 5, 5, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. Parties shall return for a Pre-
14 14 Trial Conference on February Trial February 28, 28, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.
15 15 . f\i
4* .
.
IT IS SO
SO ORDERED thls 1!f day of ORDERED this of February, 2025.
16 16
17 17
18 18 HONORABLE VERNONVERNON p. P. PEREZ Judge, Superior Court of Guam 19 19
20 20 10 10 Other jurisdictions have specific statutes statutes regarding
regarding disqualification disqualification of of district district attorneys
attorneys or
or prosecutors.
prosecutors. California,
21 21 for example, requires a showing that that "a "a conflict
conflict ofofinterest
interest exists
exists that would render
render itit unlikely that the defendant 22 would would receive
receive a
a fair
fair trial."
trial." Cal.
Cal. Penal
Penal Code
Code §§ 1424.
1424. See also
also Haraguchi
Haraguchi v.
v. Superior
Superior 182 P.3d 579, 582 (Cal.
Ct., 182 Cr.,
2008) ("When conflicts arise that compromise compromise theirtheir ability ability toto do
do so,
so, they
they can
can and
and should
shouldbe berecused.
reused. But defendants
23 bear the burden of demonstrating demonstrating a genuine conflict, conflict; in the absence of any such such conflict, conflict, a trial
trial court should not
interfere with
with the
the People's
People's prerogative
prerogative toto select
selectwho
whoisistotorepresent
representthem.).
them.). As Guam does not have a corresponding 24 statute in the the criminal criminal code,
code, the
the Court's
Court's focus is on thethe Guam Guam Rules of Professional Professional Conduct and the general standing
I
provisions provisions setset forth
forth in the
the Annotated
Annotated ModelModel Rules Rules of ofProfessional
Professional Conduct.
Conduct. Although hough the he Guam Guam Rules of of
25 Professional Conduct contain an ethics Professional ethics rule rule directed
directed towards prosecutors, prosecutors, the rule does not not specifically specifically address
address
26 prosecutorial conflicts of interest. interest. See Guam R. Prof Prof'l.1. Conduct Conduct 3.8
3.8 (Special Responsibilities Responsibilities of of aa Prosecutor).
Prosecutor). The
'Court doeS=hote',=liowever, that California's Section 1424 "does not allow disqualification ..':' ,Court does,note',:liowever, that California's Section 1424 "does not allow disqualification merely merely because the district 27 attorney's further 27 .. ,attnmey's ftu;tl1~r participation participation in in the
the prosecution
prosecution would
would be be unseemly, would appear improper, improper, or would tend to reduce public confidence in the impartiality impartiality andand integrity integrity of of the
the criminal
criminaljustice
justicesystem."
system." People v. v. Embanks, Eubanks, 59
28.... 28 --··..pa1:.iip&1"2'aQ66i207 Cal.Rptr. 2d 200, 207 (Cal. (cal. App.
App. 1996) (citations omitted).
People v. v. ·Uncangco 'Uncangco &
& Cruz
Sass No. CF0557-24 ~ll,S_e No- CF0557c24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 7 of7
slsgvlcl SellVICI! VIA VIA I-MAIL
l!-MAIL
I1arunowueqge ac111:1:owte~ge relax that an
an _glechonac
_!f!lectron1t
Copy d me o~8.~a» Co~ of,~ ong,rtai was was ee maNed
ma11ea to to
146 11G rflpp, Am
I
TEA/.
2.bv/1-f Date. /¢v/%' rnn¢ Data. ?5£7f~ Time.1:t,JfJ,,-..
#IM co-1 dn h A16.t---!CMM Oeputy clerk Oeuuw clerk , Supenof Superior Coun.
Coin of Guam
of Guam