People v. Vargas

Opinion

1 FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2 21121 ~PR 12 ~ [~:29

8y~~~-

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CF0446-18 8 GPD Report No. 18-21592 V. DECISION AND ORDER 10 LOUIS ANTHONY VARGAS, DENYING THE PEOPLE’S DOB: 06/06/1985 MOTION FOR DISCOVERY 11 Defendant. 12 14 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on April 1, 2021 for 15 hearing on the People of Guam’s (“the People’s”) Motion for Discovery (“Motion”). Assistant 16 Attorney General Christine Tenorio represents the People, and Public Defender Stephen Hattori 17 represents Defendant. Having duly considered the parties’ briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable 18 law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order and DENIES the People’s Motion. 20 On February 8, 2021, the People submitted their Motion for Discovery, requesting “the name 21 and address of any expert that the Defendant will call at the trial, along with any report or statement 22 made by such expert.” Motion at 1-2. Specifically, the People are requesting the name/reports of a 23 lawyer whom Defendant and his counsel contacted concerning that person’s knowledge of DNA 24 evidence. Court Recording (“CR”) at 2:26:00 (Apr. 1, 2021). The People believe they are entitled 25 to this information pursuant to 8 G.C.A. § 70.25. CR at 2:25:00. 26 Defense counsel believes they don’t have to hand over the requested info because they have 27 no plans on calling that person to the stand as a testifying expert witness. CR at 2:26:40. Rather, 28 defense counsel claims this lawyer was contacted only to help build their defense and explain DNA

Decision and Order Denying The People’s Motion For Discovery CF0446-18, People of Guam v. Louis Anthony Vargas Page 1 of 3 1 evidence to them. CR at 2:25:45. Defense counsel also believes this info is exempt from discovery 2 for falling under the work product and attorney client privileges. CR at 2:26:00. 3 The Court held a hearing on April 1, 2021. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the 4 Court took the matter under advisement. 6 Title 8 G.C.A. § 70.25 provides that, upon motion by the prosecuting attorney, the court may 7 order: 8 (b) The defendant’s attorney to disclose to the prosecuting attorney or permit the prosecuting attorney to inspect and copy any report or statement of an expert, made 9 in connection with the case, including results of physical or mental examinations and 10 of scientific tests, experiments or comparisons which the defense attorney intends to use in the trial. 11 (c) The defendant’s attorney to state the nature of any defense which he intends to use at trial and the name and address of any person whom the defendant’s attorney 12 intends to call as a witness in support thereof. 13 8 G.C.A. § 70.25 (emphasis added). 14 Because defense counsel has no plans on calling the lawyer in question to the stands as an 15 16 xpert witness, they are under no obligation to provide that person’s name or reports/statements to 17 he prosecution. In fact, requiring such disclosure would violate the work-product doctrine because 18 hese documents contain certain legal advice, made by an attorney in the course of his professional 19 mployment, prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for the Defendant and his counsel. $~g 20 ooey v. Strickland, 269 F.R.D. 643, 647 (S.D. Ohio 2010). 21 Defense counsel should of course provide this information to the People if they subsequently 22 23 btain an expert witness, who they do plan on bringing to the stand to testify. 25 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the People’s Motion. Defendant need not 26 provide the prosecution with the name of or reports/statements made by the attorney he consulted 27 with. 28 IT IS SO ORDERED this Apr .12 2O2lnunc pro tunc to April 1, 2021. ,

Decision and Order Denying The People’s Motion For Discovery CF0446-18, People of Guam v. Louis Anthony Vargas Page 2 of 3 4 HONORABLE ALBERTO C. LAMORENA, III Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL 24 I acknowledge that an electrOnic copy 0 the o~ginal was e-ma,led to: 25 ( pa~c_. 26 ~ —

27 ~ Deputy Clerk~j~PeriOt Court of Guam 28

Decision and Order Denying The People’s Motion For Discovery CF0446- 18, People of Guam v. Louis Anthony Vargas Page 3 of 3