IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN



PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, ) CASE NOS:.:

)

Plaintiff, )

vs. )

)



DEVON JOHNMARIE and ) ST-15-CR-383

JUANCITO GIRON, ) ST-15-CR-384

Defendants, )



)

MEMORANDUM OPINION



Before this Court is Defendants’ motion for the release of the juvenile records

of a minor who allegedly participated in the underlying crimes with Defendants

Devon JohnMarie and Juancito Giron, and who was charged in Family Court as a

juvenile. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion will be granted in part and the

People will be required to produce to Defendants copies of all statement(s) that the

minor gave to law enforcement regarding the underlying crimes.



BACKGROUND



Defendants Devon JohnMarie and Juancito Giron are charged with Third

Degree Burglary and related crimes, all related to a burglary that allegedly occurred

on or about October 20, 2015, in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. A juvenile, J.B.,

allegedly participated in the burglary with Defendants JohnMarie and Giron, and

J.B. was charged in Family Court as a juvenile.



The Defendants have repeatedly sought the release of the minor’s statements

and records, and on March 4, 2016, Defendant Giron filed a motion for the release of



Family Division records pertaining to J.B. in that Family Court matter. That motion

People v. JohnMarie and Givon

Case Nos. ST-15-CR-383 and 384

Memorandum Opinion



Page 2



was joined by Defendant JohnMarie, and briefed on August 1, 2016. By Order dated

May 21, 2016, Honorable Debra S. Watlington denied the Defendants’ motion, but

noted that the Family Court was not required to dispose of the motion and the judge

to whom the Defendants’ case is assigned had authority to dispose of the motion.

Defendants re-asserted their earlier motion to this Court.

DISCUSSION



Defendants argue they are “constitutionally entitled to see and utilize any and

all J.B. court records in defending the criminal case against [them]’, and ask this

Court—pursuant to 5 V.I.C. 2529—to disclose such records.! Defendants specifically

argue J.B.’s court records should be disclosed to [Defendants] because they are

material to [their] guilt and/or punishment, and thus “favorable to the accused” in

the criminal case. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963).



Section 2529 states that juvenile records shall not be disclosed to anyone

unauthorized, “unless and until otherwise ordered by the judge.” The Court finds

that Defendants are entitled to copies of all Brady material. Therefore, the Court

finds that Defendants are entitled to copies of all statement(s) that J.B. gave to law

enforcement relative to his arrest in the companion case. Brady v. Maryland, 373

U.S. 83, 87 (1963). Therefore, the Court will direct the People to immediately provide



copies of J.B.’s statement(s) to the Defendants. However, Defendants shall safeguard



1 Defendants acknowledge that appropriate restrictions should be placed upon the use of Minor J.B.’s record to

prevent further dissemination to persons not associated with the defense, or for any other purpose.

People v. JohnMarie and Givon

Case Nos. ST-15-CR-383 and 384

Memorandum Opinion



Page 3



the statement(s) provided by the People and may only share the statement(s) with

person(s) who need to assist Defendants in the defense of the matter. Defendants

shall not share the statement(s) with any person not affiliated with the defense of

this matter.



However, a separate issue may arise if the People call J.B. as a witness at trial.

In making the proper determination as to whether additional records should be

disclosed to the Defendants, this Court must balance the minor's privacy rights

against the Co-defendant’s 6 Amendment right to confront an adverse witness. The

plain text of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause provides that, in all

criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the

witnesses against him.” Blyden v. People, 53 V.I. 637, 652-653 (V.I. 2010). To establish

that his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated, the movant must

“show[] that he was prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-

examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness,

and thereby ‘to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors ... could appropriately

draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.’” Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S.

308 (1974). Davis establishes the principle that a criminal defendant's 6t

Amendment Constitutional right to confront a witness may be violated by a trial

judge's refusal to allow impeachment of a key prosecution witness by use of his

juvenile record. In Davis the facts showed that the government witness was on



probation for the same type of crime (burglary) with which the defendant was

People v. JohnMarie and Givon

Case Nos. ST-15-CR-383 and 384

Memorandum Opinion



Page 4



charged, and a safe stolen during the crime was abandoned near the witness's home.

Therefore, the witness may have had a motivation to falsely testify against the

Defendant in order to prevent himself from becoming a suspect. With these

circumstances, the court found that Davis's right to "probe into the influence of

possible bias in the testimony of a crucial identification witness," outweighed the

State's policy of the confidentiality of juvenile records. See Contra, Commonwealth v.

Santos, 376 Mass. 920 (refusing to allow the use of a juvenile record because movant

did not satisfy the factors of Davis because movant did not prove the witness had any

motive or reason to cooperate with the prosecution, and the record was devoid of any

basis for finding a prosecutorial threat to the witness's freedom.)



This Court finds that Defendants’ right to probe into the influence of possible

bias in the testimony of Minor J.B. is higher than the standard set forth in Davis

because J.B. and the Defendants were all arrested for the same crime. This presents

a higher motive to cooperate with the prosecution to the detriment of the co-

defendants. Although juvenile records are not always admissible to impeach a

witness's credibility, in this circumstance it is likely unconstitutional to prevent the

admission. The Court, therefore, finds that should the People call J.B. as a witness

at trial, they will be required to provide Defendants with copies of J.B.’s arrest record,

including disposition of all cases. However, the duty to provide copies of J.B.’s records

to defendants has not yet been established. Upon proper motion, after the People



name J.B. as a witness for trial, the Court will order the People to provide copies of

People v. JohnMarie and Givon

Case Nos. ST-15-CR-383 and 384

Memorandum Opinion



Page 5



the J.B.’s arrest record and disposition of cases, no later than one week before trial.

However, Defendants will be required to safeguard the record(s) and may only share

the record(s) with person(s) who are assisting in the defense of the matter.

Defendants shall not share the record(s) with any person not affiliated with the

defense of this matter.



CONCLUSION



Defendants have a right to all Brady materials. The Court finds that any

statement that the minor gave to law enforcement constitutes Brady materials for

purposes of the Defendants defense. Therefore, the People will be ordered to produce

copies of all statement(s) that J.B. gave to law enforcement relative to his arrest in

his companion case.



If the People intend to call J.B. as a witness in this matter, the Defendants’ 6‘

Amendment right to confront an adverse witness outweighs the minor’s privacy right.

Therefore, Defendants will have a right to J.B.’s arrest record(s) and the disposition

thereof, prior to trial, upon proper motion of the Defendants.



ith will follow.



Kathleen Mackay

Judge of the Superior Court

of the Virgin Islands



An Order consistent here



/