Get email alerts on the Search Warrant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Defense Tells Guam Supreme Court Warrant Ruling Was Inconsistent and Should Void Conviction
Summary
Defense told the Guam Supreme Court that the magistrate's probable-cause finding, which relied in part on a controlled buy later dismissed, cannot sustain the search warrant as applied and that an inconsistent trial-court review suggests clear and manifest error. The People urged deference and said hearsay may support probable cause under the totality-of-the-circumstances test.
At oral argument, defense counsel argued the search-warrant affidavit relied on a controlled buy that the government later dismissed to protect an informant and that the trial judge improperly used evidence from the dismissed count in reviewing the magistrate's determination. Defense urged that the trial court’s inconsistent findings suggest clear and manifest error that undermines confidence in the verdict.
A justice pressed defense on Franks standards — whether the affidavit contained intentionally or recklessly false statements — and on whether the challenge should have been developed at the trial level. The People’s attorney responded that hearsay is permissible for a probable-cause determination and that two judges previously found probable cause; he argued the appeal should not create a new de novo standard for warrant review.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.
