Quidachay
People of the Territory of Guam v. Quidachay
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Appellant Joseph Quidachay (“Quidachay” or “appellant”) appeals the decision of the Appellate Division of the District Court of Guam affirming a 1994 conviction in the Guam Superior Court for armed robbery, theft, use of a deadly weapon, first degree sexual assault, and possession of a firearm without an identification card. Quidachay contends that (1) a new trial is necessary on the basis of exculpatory post-conviction statements by a recanting witness and (2) the imposition of restitution was illegal under Guam law.
A motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence must meet the following requirements: (1) the motion must make clear that the evidence was discovered after the trial; (2) the motion must allege facts from which the court may infer diligence on the part of the moving party; (3) the evidence relied upon must not be merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence must be material to the issues involved; and (5) the evidence would probably produce an acquittal. See United States v. Cervantes, 542 F.2d 773, 779 (9th Cir.1976).
The purportedly exculpatory evidence satisfies the first four prongs of the analysis. As to the fifth,…