The Supreme Court of Guam issued an opinion in *People of Guam v. Jared John Santos* (2025 Guam 15), addressing a criminal appeal that centers on the destruction of crucial video evidence in a drive-by shooting case. The decision marks one of the court's first published opinions of 2025 and highlights ongoing challenges in preserving digital evidence in criminal prosecutions.
Defendant-Appellant Jared John Santos was convicted in Superior Court on charges of aggravated assault and possessing a firearm without a license following a drive-by shooting incident that occurred in Hågat. The case originated in 2018 as Superior Court Case No. CF0731-18 and reached the Supreme Court as Case No. CRA23-015 after Santos appealed his convictions.
The central issue in the appeal concerned testimony about the contents of a security video that allegedly showed events leading up to the shooting. According to the court documents, the original video was never obtained by the government during the investigation. More problematically, the only duplicate copy of the video was destroyed by the investigating officer before the case went to trial.
This evidence destruction created significant complications for the prosecution's case and raised questions about due process rights. The loss of the video evidence meant that the court and jury could not view the actual footage that might have shown the events preceding the shooting. Instead, they were limited to testimony describing what the video purportedly contained.
The case was argued and submitted to the Supreme Court via Zoom video conference on Oct. 23, 2024, reflecting the court's continued use of remote technology for oral arguments. Defendant-Appellant Santos was represented by Braddock J. Huesman of Razzano, Walsh & Torres, P.C., while the People of Guam were represented by Nathan M. Tennyson, identified as a former Acting Deputy Attorney General from the Office of the Attorney General's Appellate & Writing Division.
The three-justice panel that decided the case included Chief Justice Robert J. Torres, Associate Justice F. Philip Carbullido, and Associate Justice Katherine A. Maraman, who authored the opinion. The composition represents the full Supreme Court of Guam, which consists of three justices who hear appeals from the territory's Superior Court.
The case raises important questions about evidence preservation in the digital age and the responsibilities of law enforcement to maintain potentially exculpatory evidence. The destruction of video evidence by investigating officers has become an increasingly contentious issue in criminal cases, particularly as body cameras, security cameras, and other recording devices become more prevalent in law enforcement investigations.
While the specific outcome of Santos's appeal is not detailed in the available court documents, the case addresses the fundamental question of how courts should handle situations where crucial evidence has been destroyed before trial. This issue has broad implications for criminal defendants' rights and the integrity of the judicial process.
The Hågat shooting case also demonstrates the challenges faced by prosecutors in territorial jurisdictions like Guam, where resources for evidence preservation and analysis may be more limited than in mainland U.S. courts. The territory's criminal justice system must balance thorough investigations with practical constraints while ensuring that defendants receive fair trials.
The timing of the case, spanning from the original 2018 charges through the 2024 oral arguments and 2025 decision, illustrates the lengthy appellate process that can occur in complex criminal cases. The five-year gap between the original charges and the Supreme Court decision reflects both the thorough nature of the appellate review process and the backlog that can affect court systems.
For practitioners in Guam's legal community, the case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of evidence preservation protocols. The destruction of the security video by the investigating officer highlights the need for clear procedures regarding the handling and preservation of digital evidence, particularly in serious criminal cases involving firearms and violent crimes.
The case also underscores the evolving role of technology in criminal proceedings, from the use of security cameras as evidence-gathering tools to the conduct of appellate arguments via video conference. As courts continue to adapt to technological changes, cases like *Santos* will help establish precedents for how digital evidence should be handled and preserved.
The Supreme Court's decision in *People of Guam v. Jared John Santos* will likely be closely watched by criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors, and law enforcement officials throughout the Pacific territories as they navigate similar evidentiary challenges in their own cases involving digital evidence and police investigations.