{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;} {\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f169\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f170\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;} {\f172\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f173\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f174\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f175\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);} {\f176\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f177\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255; \red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;} {\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1269916 \rsid1780697\rsid4590330\rsid7481185\rsid9508377\rsid14099601}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min3}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy14\hr14\min10} {\version5}{\edmins4}{\nofpages15}{\nofwords7213}{\nofchars41116}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws48233}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3 \jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot4590330 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4590330 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4590330 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4590330 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4590330 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid4590330\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid4590330 Ada et al v. Gutierrez et al}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 , Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid4590330 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid14099601 1}}}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 of 26 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid14099601 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}} {\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}} {\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid4590330 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid1269916\charrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 JOSEPH F. ADA, FELIX P. CAMACHO, \par and FRED CASTRO \par }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Plaintiffs-Appellants}{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 vs.}{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 CARL T.C. GUTIERREZ AND \par MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO}{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Defendants-Appellees}{\insrsid1269916 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 OPINION}{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Filed: July 20, 2000 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cite as: 2000 Guam 22}{\insrsid1269916 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Supreme Court Case No. CVA99-007 \par Superior Court Case No. CV2765-98 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam \par Argued and submitted on March 10, 2000 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid1269916 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }\pard \ql \fi-3600\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin3600\pararsid1269916 {\ul\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Appearing for the Plaintiffs-Appellants}{\insrsid1269916 :}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Curtis Charles Van de veld, Esq. \par The Vandeveld Law Offices, P.C. \par Union Bank Bldg., Ste. 213 \par 194 Hernan Cortes Ave. \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910 \par \cell \par }{\ul\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Appearing for the Defendants-Appellees}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 : \par F. Philip Carbullido, Esq. \par Jonathan R. Quan, Esq. \par Carbullido Bordallo & Brooks LLP \par Ste. 101, C&A Bldg. \par 251 Martyr St. \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid1269916 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt \brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid1269916 \par }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 BEFORE: BENJAMIN J.F. CRUZ, Chief Justice; PETER C. SIGUENZA, Associate Justice; JOHN A. MANGLONA, Designated Justice.}{\insrsid1269916 \par \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 CRUZ, CJ:}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [1]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab This case arose from controversies and ambiguities surrounding the gubernatorial election in November 1998.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Appellants a rgue that three issues should persuade this court to remand the case for a re-hearing:}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 judge disqualification, the denial of a recount of the ballots, and hearsay evidence admitted under the residual hearsay exception.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Based upon the following discussion , we decline to remand; we affirm the respective holdings of the lower courts in their entirety.}{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [2]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab On November 3, 1998, Guam}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s voters participated in a general election.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Two parties ran slates for the positions of Governor and Lieutenant Governor.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Carl T.C. Gutierrez and Madeleine Z. Bordallo were the incumbent Democrat candidates.}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Joseph F. Ada and Felix P. Camacho were the Republican contenders.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Over the period from November 6, 1998 to November 16, 1998, the Guam E lection Commission (a four-member panel known as the }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 GEC}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 ) tabulated the results as follows: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qj \fi-4320\li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin5760\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Gutierrez/Bordallo\tab \tab \tab \tab 24,250 \par Ada/Camacho\tab \tab \tab \tab \tab 21,200 \par Write-in Ballots (candidates penciled-in)\tab 1,294 \par Under votes (blank votes)\tab \tab \tab 1,313 \par Over votes (votes for both slates)\tab \tab }{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 609 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qj \fi-4320\li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin5760\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Total Votes Cast\tab \tab \tab \tab 48,666}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid1269916 \par }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 For the purpose of determining the number of votes cast, the GEC decided to exclude under votes and include write-in ballots and over votes.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 On November 16, 1998, GEC determined that the Democrats garnered 51.21% of the votes and declared Carl T.C. Gutierrez and Madeleine Z. Bordallo the winners of the election.}{\insrsid4590330 \par }{\insrsid1269916\charrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [3]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Section 1422 of the Organic Act of Guam states, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The Governor of Guam, together with the Lieutenant Governor, shall be elected by }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 a majority of the votes cast}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 by the people who are qualified to vote for the members of the Legislature of Guam.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Title 48 U.S.C. }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 1422 (1987) (emphasis added).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada and Camacho (hereinafter }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 ) believed that an appropriate reading of this law would mean that Gutierrez and Bordallo (hereinafter }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Gutierrez}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 ) did not officially win the election and that, therefore, another election must be held.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 On December 1, 1998, Ada filed separate actions in the District Court of Guam and in the Superior Court of Guam.} {\cs15\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid4590330 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 On December 9, 1998, the District Court ruled that blank ballots should have been included in the tabulations and that, therefore, Gutierrez did not win the election. }{\i\fs20\insrsid4590330 Ada v. Gov}{\i\fs20\insrsid7481185 '}{\i\fs20\insrsid4590330 t of Guam, }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 179 F.3d 672, 674 (9}{\fs20\super\insrsid4590330 th}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 Cir. 1999). That court ordered a run-off election to take place on December 19, 1998. On April 19, 1999, the Ninth Circuit agreed wit h the District Court}{\fs20\insrsid7481185 '}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 s definition of }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 majority of votes cast}{ \fs20\insrsid4590330 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 and affirmed the lower court}{\fs20\insrsid7481185 '}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 s decision. }{\i\fs20\insrsid4590330 Id. }{ \fs20\insrsid4590330 at 677. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 ballots}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 do not equal }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 votes}{ \fs20\insrsid4590330 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 if one reads the Organic Act}{\fs20\insrsid7481185 '}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 s dictates on elections }{\i\fs20\insrsid4590330 in toto.}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 }{\i\fs20\insrsid4590330 Gutierrez v. Ada, }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 ___ U.S. ___, 120 S.Ct. 740 (2000). The Court suggested that a reelection this far into an elected official}{\fs20\insrsid7481185 '}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 s term would be redundant. }{\i\fs20\insrsid4590330 Id.}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 at ___, 120 S.Ct. at 746.}{\insrsid4590330 }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 Both parties agreed that the Supreme Court of Guam should not address the definition over }{ \fs20\insrsid4590330 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 ballots cast}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{ \fs20\insrsid4590330 as the U.S. Supreme Court}{\fs20\insrsid7481185 '}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 s decision on the matter has made the issue moot.}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }{\insrsid1269916\charrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [4]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab In the Superior Court of Guam, this case was initially assigned to Judge Katherine A. Maraman who disqualified herself.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The case was then passed to Judge Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson who likewise disqualified herself.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Next, Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood became the third judge both to be assi gned to the case and to disqualify herself from it.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Finally, the case was assigned to Judge Joaquin V.E. Manibusan, Jr. who decided to hear it.}{\insrsid4590330 \par }{\insrsid1269916\charrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [5]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Ada requested that the Superior Court make several findings, including that the Democrats di d not win by the majority of votes cast, that they committed election fraud in the process, and that a run-off election should be held. Ada made numerous allegations that the Democrats fraudulently caused non-residents, illegal aliens, children, the decea sed, and individuals registered in more than one jurisdiction to vote.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Judge Manibusan presided over seventeen days of hearings from January 8, 1999 to February 8, 1999.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 He issued an opinion in a 233-paged Decision and Order on February 16, 1999. \par }{\insrsid1269916\charrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [6]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Judge Manibusan stated that a strong presumption exists that an election is valid.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 He announced that Ada would have to prove not only that his allegations of illegal voting were true, but also that the illegal votes were cast for and encouraged by Gutierrez.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Of the 151 individuals Ada claimed to have been dead when their votes were counted, Judge Manibusan found that Ada could only prove one deceased person}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s absentee ballot was mistakenly included in the voting tabulation.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Judge Manibusan struck that single vote from the count.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada}{ \insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s counsel placed ten individuals on the stand who may have voted in multiple jurisdictions.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Judge Manibusan found that of the ten witnesses, eight had voted both in and outside of Guam.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Of those eight, three voted for Ada and five for Gutierrez.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In arguing that ballots were incorrectly counted, Ada presented a witness who said that each precinct}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s voting forms have two numbers on them that should be identical: the number of in-person and absentee voters and the number of people who actually voted.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Because several precinct forms had discrepant numbers on them, Ada argues that some person or group must have tampered with the tally.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 After examining the evidence, Judge Manibusan ruled that only twenty-three ballots were miscounted.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 He held that such a small number could not have had an effect upon the}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 election results.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Besides these claims, Judge Manibusan accepted none of Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s other allegations.}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Consequently, Judge Manibusan denied all of Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s requests.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 See Ada v. Gutierrez, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 CV2765-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Feb. 16, 1999).}{\insrsid4590330 \par }{\insrsid1269916\charrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [7]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Ada lists three reasons for his appeal.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 First, Ada moved for Judge Manibusan to be recused from the case based upon the following five reasons:}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 1) Judge Manibusan}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s wife is related to Madeleine Bordallo; 2) Judge Manibusan}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s wife is also related to Oliver Bordallo, one of Gutierrez}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 counsel; 3) Judge Manibusan}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s sister was an administrator in Gutierrez}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 cabinet; 4) Judge Manibusan was nominated to the bench by Governor Gutierrez; and 5) the totality of these factors create an appearance of impartiality if the factors fail to do so separately.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Judge Steven Unpingco heard the motion for Judge Manibusan}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s recusal.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 On January 4, 1999, Judge Unpingco rejected all of Ada}{ \insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s arguments in a strongly-worded Decision and Order.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 He stressed that all judges, including himself, would have to be recused under Ada} {\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s logic and that the rule of necessity would prohibit this. }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada v. Gutierrez, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 CV2765-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Jan. 4, 1999).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada asks for a reversal of Judge Unpingco}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s ruling.}{\insrsid4590330 \par }{\insrsid1269916\charrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [8]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Second, Ada requested that the trial court order a recount of the November 1998 ballots.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 On January 8, 1999, Judge Manibusan decided that he would not order a recount of the ballots as Ada requested.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The trial court read Guam}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s recount law to mean that a recount was only mandatory when necessary.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 It ruled that Ada primarily complained about voter fraud, not ballot miscounts, and thus deserved a hearing on the evidence rather than a recount.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The trial court refused to interpret the recount laws as liberally as Ada requested.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 See Ada v. Gutierrez, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 CV2765-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Jan. 8, 1999).}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Hence, Ada would like this court to reverse that ruling. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [9]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Third, at trial, Gutierrez presented a witness, Evan Montvel-Cohen, to counter Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s allegation that approximately 4,000 people voted illegally.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Montvel-Cohen offered the court exhibits composed of passports, driver}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s licenses, and other identifying items in order to rebut Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s claims.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada objected to both the testimony and the exhibits, but Judge Manibusan admitted the evidence under the residual hearsay exception, Guam Rule of Evidence 803(24), }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 infra}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 .}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada argues to this court that the evidence does not satisfy the requirements of that hearsay exception. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [10]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab This court has jurisdiction based upon Title 48 U.S.C. }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 1421-1 (1987) and Title 7 G.C.A. }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 3107, (1994).}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 A denial of a motion for a judge}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s disqualification is reviewed for an abuse of discretion at the time of final judgment.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Nichols v. Alley, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 71 F.3d 347, 350 (10}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 th}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1995); }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 see generally, People v. Downs, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Crim. No. 83-23A, 1985 WL 56574, at *1 (D. Guam Ap. Div. July 17, 1985).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Determining whether a recount was required is an issue of statutory interpretation and is reviewed }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 de novo.}{\i\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 People v. Quichocho, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 1998 Guam 13, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 3; }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 People v. Palomo, }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 1998 Guam 12 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 4; }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Guam Economic Development Authority v. Island Equipment Co., }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 1998 Guam 7, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 4; }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Camacho v. Camacho, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 1997 Guam 5,}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 24.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 People v. Hualde, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 1999 Guam 3, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 13. \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par A.}{\b\insrsid1269916 }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The Recusal of Judge Joaquin V.E. Manibusan, Jr.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [11]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Ada cites Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 6105, (1993) and }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Dizon v. Superior Court, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 1998 Guam 3, to support his argument that Judge Manibusan should have disqualified himself from hearing this case.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Dizon,}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 this court addressed the issue of whether a Supe rior Court judge, who did not disclose to opposing parties that he received a letter from a Ninth Circuit judge encouraging him to convict the defendant, should have disqualified himself from the proceedings.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Id.}{\i\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada relies upon this case for its proposition that}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 appellate courts should recuse a trial court judge based upon whether a reasonable person would think that the judge appeared partial, regardless if the judge was actually biased.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Id. }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 at }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 8.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Additio nally, Ada focuses on our admonition:}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 If there is a question as to the propriety of a judge remaining on a case, it is better to err on the side of caution and in favor of recusal.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Id.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 at }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 9. While we continue to support our decision in }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Dizon}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 , we find that the numerous factors and issues in the case at hand would not lead to a similar result.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 We first discuss several concerns about disqualification matters before we specifically address Ada} {\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s claims.}{\insrsid4590330 \par }{\insrsid1269916\charrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [12]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Dizon}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 and federal cases on judicial disqualification unanimously rule that the reasonable person standard applies to recusal cases.}{\cs15\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid4590330 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 Federal cases are useful in the following examination because Guam}{ \fs20\insrsid7481185 '}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 s rule on judicial disqualification is based upon the federal law. }{\i\fs20\insrsid4590330 See}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 28 U.S.C. }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 455(a) (1986).}}}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Id. }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 at }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 8; }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In re Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 85 F.3d 1353, 1365 (8}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 th}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1996); }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Camacho v. Autoridad de Telefonos de Puerto Rico, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 868 F.2d 482, 490 (1}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 st}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1989); }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In re Matter of National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh,}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 839 F.2d 1226, 1229 (7}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 th}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1988); }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In re United States, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 666 F.2d 690, 694 (1}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 st}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1981).}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 A court should not hypothesize about what the reasonable person would believe only upon hearing the moving party}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s allegations.}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Instead, it should decide what the reasonable person would believe about a judge}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s partiality given all the relevant facts in the controversy.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 For example, in }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In re United States,}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 the court had to determine whether a judge should have disqualified himself after a newspaper printed a story that the judge had done legal favors for the former governor-turned-defendant in the past.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The court ruled that since the news source was not credible and since any favors between the two men happened fifteen years in the past, the judge had no duty to disconnect himself from the proceedings.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In re United States, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 666 F.2d}{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 at 695-96.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada}{ \insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s contention that the case at hand almost precisely resembles }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Dizon}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 may be rational when only considering his allegations.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 However, a deeper investigation into all the factors in this case would not lead to such a simple conclusion. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [13]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Moreover, courts must apply the reasonable person standard within the contexts of the jurisdictions, parties, and controversies involved.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 For example,}{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 in }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In re Allied-Signal, Inc.,}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 a case that resulted from an extremely tragic and controversial hotel fire in Puerto Rico, the appellants asked the court to recuse a}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 judge whose law clerks had brothers representing a party.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In re Allied-Signal, Inc., }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 891 F.2d 968, 969 (1}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 st}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1989).}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The court opined that were this an ordinary case involving the same relationship, it may have recused the judge.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Id.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 at 970.}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 However, given the notoriety of the case, the large number of parties involved in the litigation, the small number of lawyers in the Puerto Rican bar, and the fact that island lawyers know each other quite well, the court ruled that the}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 chances for partiality to arise decreased greatly.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Id.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 at 971.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The special circumstances in this case are just as diverse as the proceedings in Puerto Rico.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 After hearing all of Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s allegations, Judge Unpingco decided that he could not recuse Judge Manibusan}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 given the relative seclusion of the Guam political system, and the nature of Guam families, the remaini ng judges may well have more conflicts than Judge Manibusan.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada v. Gutierrez, }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 CV2765-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Jan. 4, 1999).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 We agree that the realities of the Guam judicial system should play a part in the application of the reasonable person standard. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [14]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab An important issue in this case that did not arise in }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Dizon}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 involves the }{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 rule of necessity.}{\i\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 United States v. Will, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 449 U.S. 200, 101 S.Ct. 471 (1980), the Supreme Court of the United States had to determine who should hear a case filed by a group of federal judges who were challenging a law that affected their salaries.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Because all Article III judges had a stake in the litigation, the Supreme Court found that the rule of necessity should apply, thus preventing the Court from ordering any judge to disqualify himself or herself.}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Id. }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 at 212, 101 S.Ct. at 479.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Because every judge on the Supreme and Superior Courts of Guam was appointed by either one of the parties in this case, every judge who could hear this case could be accused of appearing partial.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 If every judge could appear partial, it becomes less important for Judge Manibusan to disqualify himself.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 At the oral argument, Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s counsel urged this judicial panel to employ the rule of necessity only after the case has been remanded and all seven Superior Court judges disqualified themselves.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 We firmly deny that request.}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Will}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 , the Court did not hold that every Article III judge had to disqualify himself or herself before it could use thi s common-law principle.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Id.}{\i\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 We see no legitimate reason to waste time and other resources when we can apply the rule of necessity immediately. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [15]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Notwithstanding our goal in }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Dizon}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 to encourage disclosure of facts and urge judges to examine their potent ial for bias, we still noted, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [T]he recusal statutes should not be so broadly construed so as to}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 become presumptive. . .}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Dizon,}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 1998 Guam 3 at }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 9.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 A judge}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s duty to hear a case and keep the wheels of justice rotating is just as strong as his or her duty to remove himself or herself if a reasonable person would not believe in his or her impartiality.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Kansas Public, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 85 F.3d at 1362; }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In re Allied-Signal Inc., }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 891 F.2d at 970; }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 National Union,}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 839 F.2d at 1229.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 We would not want judges to construe our decision in }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Dizon}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 to mean that they should distance themselves from cases at the slightest suggestion.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Judge Manibusan had valid reasons to hear this case and not just reasons to consider disqualifying himself. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [16]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Finally, just as judges may disqualify themselves too readily, parties may try to take advantage of disqualification laws in order to find a jud ge whom they feel will cater to their interests.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Dizon,}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 this court warned against such }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 judge shopping.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Id.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 at }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 9. }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Litigants ought not to have to face a judge where there is a reasonable question of impartiality, but they are not entitled to judges of their own choice.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Kansas Public, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 85 F.3d at 1359; }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 see Allied-Signal, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 891 F.2d at 970; }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 National Union, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 839 F.2d at 1229.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Judge Unpingco found it odd that Ada did not disapprove of his hearing the case even though almost every allegation against Judge Manibusan could be applied to himself.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Thus, he condemned Ada}{ \insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s position, opining that it }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 smacks of judge shopping.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada v. Gutierrez, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 CV2765-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Jan. 4, 1999).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 While we do not ventur e so far as to suggest that Ada is judge shopping, we also remain skeptical of his claims when some of those same allegations could be applied to each of the members on this judicial panel.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [17]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Having discussed the larger issues which must frame our analysis of the disqualification law, we now turn specifically to Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s allegations against Judge Manibusan.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada lists five grounds for demanding the judge}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s recusal.}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Whether separately or in its totality, we cannot agree with Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s argument that Judge Mani busan abused his discretion by not disqualifying himself from this election case. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [18]}{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Eileen Manibusan}{\i\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s Relationship to Madeleine and Oliver Bordallo.}{\i\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada argues that Judge Manibusan should have disqualified himself because his wife Eileen is related to both the defendant Madeleine Bordallo and one of Gutierrez}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 counsel, Oliver Bordallo.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada considers these facts as two separate reasons why Judge Manibusan should have known that his impartiality would be questioned.}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Nevertheless, because the same legal reasoning applies to both relationships, we will examine them simultaneously.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The law clearly states that a relative with interests in a party must have a relationship to the judge within the third degree in order to require that a judge disqualify himself or herself.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 See }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 7 GCA }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 6105(a).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In a case cited in our }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Dizon}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court firmly declared, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 It would obviously be wrong, for example, to hold that }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 impartiality could be reasonably questioned}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 simply because one of the parties is in the fourth degree of relationship to the judge. [The disqualification law], which addresses the matter of relationship specifically, ends the disability at the third degree. . .}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Liteky v. United States, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 510 U.S. 540, 553, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1156 (1994).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Judge Manibusan}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s wife is related to Madeleine Bordallo by the fourth degree and to Oliver Bordallo by the sixth degree.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The relationships are unambiguously beyond the realm of where a party can question a judge}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s impartiality.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 We do not view these family connections as grounds for recusing Judge Manibusan. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [19]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Marilyn Manibusan}{\i\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s Connection to the Democratic Party.}{ \i\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada charges that because Judge Manibusan}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s sister Marilyn worked as a cabinet member in Gutierrez}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 administration and helped in the effort to solicit cross-party votes for Gutierrez, the Judge should have disqualified himself.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Judge Manibusan did not deny that his sister might have worked for the Democratic Party, but he noted that he did not know if Marilyn helped with the 1998 campaign or how she is currently employed.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 See Ada v. Gutierrez, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 CV2765-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Jan. 4, 1999). \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [20]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab We find this subissue analogous to cases in which parties have sought the recusal of judges who have children that work for firms currently arguing in those judges}{ \insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 courts.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Those cases have ruled that if the child would receive future employment bonuses based upon his or her parent}{ \insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s favorable ruling for the firm or if the child has such a high position in the firm that a favorable ruling would directly benefit him or her, then an appellate court should recuse the judge.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 See Kansas Public, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 85 F.3d at 1364; }{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 National Union, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 839 F.2d at 1230.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Thus, Marilyn Manibusan}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s affiliations with the Democratic Party raise concerns for this court in ways that Eileen Manibusan}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s relationship to the Bordallos could not.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 If Marilyn Manibusan were }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 currently}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 acting in a }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 high }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 position within the Democratic Party, we might see more of a reason to recuse her brother from this case.}{\cs15\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid4590330 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 According to the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, judges only need be concerned about a party}{\fs20\insrsid7481185 '}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 s affiliation to themselves and those family members }{\i\fs20\insrsid4590330 in their households.}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 }{\i\fs20\insrsid4590330 See}{\i\scaps\fs20\insrsid4590330 }{\scaps\fs20\insrsid4590330 Model Code of Judicial Conduct}{ \fs20\insrsid4590330 Canon 3(E)(1)(c) (1990). Under this logic, Judge Manibusan would not have to be concerned about the associations of his grown sister.}}}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 However, the aforementioned precedents ruled that an appellate court has no reason to recuse a judge once his or her immediate relatives no longer work for those firms currently before the court.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Hence, in }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 National Union}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 , the Seventh Circuit court ruled that a judge does not have to disqualify himself because his son did legal work for a defendant once in the past.}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 National Union,}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 839 F.2d at 1230. Likewise, in }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Kansas Public,}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 the Eighth Circuit court held that a daughter who chose not to become a first-year associate at a firm appearing before her father did not create grounds for that father to disqualify himself.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Kansas Public,}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 85 F.3d at 1364. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [21]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Ada does not argue that Marilyn Manibusan currently works for the Democratic Party nor does he suggest that a decision from Judge Manibusan would be used by his sister to advance her standing among the Democrats.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Because Marilyn Manibusan}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s work for the Democratic Party has ended, we find that her past actions do not serve as a basis for recusing Judge Manibusan.}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In fact, to rule otherwise could create chaos in Guam courts.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 At the trial level, Judge Unpingco opined, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 A dangerous precedent might be set here should a sibling}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s indirect activities constitute grounds for recusal. . . I come from a family of eight children, and, like Judge Manibusan, cannot claim to know all of their personal, business, and political connections and activities.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada v. Gutierrez, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 CV2765-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Jan. 4, 1999).}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 This court does not feel that the intent behind disqualification laws was to require judges to keep, update, and check biographies of their immediate and extended family every time they begin hearing a case.}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 We do not want to open a Pandora}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s box in which parties begin drawing a judge}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s family tree each time it seems that a judge will rule against them.}{\insrsid4590330 \par }{\insrsid1269916\charrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [22]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Judge Manibusan}{\i\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s Appointment by Gutierrez.}{\i\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada contends that a reasonable person would surely assume that Judge Manibusan could not be impartial in a case involving the person who appointed him.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Case law concludes differently, however.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 U.S. v. Gordon,}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 a court ruled that a judge, appointed by President Reagan, could oversee a case in which the defendant was accused of attempting to murder the former president.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 U.S. v. Gordon, }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 974 F.2d 1110, 1114 (9}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 th}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1992); }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 see In re United States, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 666 F.2d at 696 (ruling that a judge could hear a case involving a governor for whom he did favors in the distant past). If a court could find a judge fit to hear a case as grave as }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Gordon, }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 we could not find differently in the case at hand.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Given our need to use the rule of necessity, this decision is especially significant. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [23]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Furthermore, politicians often appoint to judgeships those acquaintances who know them personally and support them politically.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 At the trial court, Judge Steven Unpingo wrote, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 This is how judges become judges.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 To then turn around and claim that due to this necessary, unavoidable procedure, a judge must be}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 recused because of appearance of bias is to give with one hand while taking away with the other.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada v. Gutierrez, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 CV2765-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Jan. 4, 1999).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Without knowledge of specific deeds, we have no reason to assume that elected officials place individuals in the judiciary for the purpose of having someone in the court who will always favor them.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 No party suggests that Judge Manibusan has committed any of the acts which the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct lists as }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 inappropriate political activity.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 See }{ \scaps\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Model Code of Judicial Conduct}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Canon 5(A)(1) (1990).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada has not offered any concrete information to suggest that Judge Manibusan has used his power in this case to thank the official who appointed him. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [24]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Totality of the factors.}{\i\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 As a final argument, Ada maintains that even if the factors that lead to recusal are not sufficient when considered separately, the reasonable person would find recusal necessary when evaluating the factors}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 in their totality.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In court, Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s counsel clai med that the totality of the factors acts as the crucial difference between Judge Manibusan and the other judges in the Superior and Supreme Courts.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Gutierrez suggests that section 6105(b) does not explicitly provide this rationale as a recusal basis.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 While the case law permits the totality claim, it would not help Ada}{ \insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s position, nonetheless.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Camacho,}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 the appellants argued for the judge}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s recusal on two grounds.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Camacho, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 868 F.2d at 492.}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The court ruled that when both factors did not create grounds for recusal separately, then neither did they have a dispositive effect on the judge}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s decision in total.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Id.; see also Kansas Public, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 85 F.3d at 1365 (ruling that when a reasonable person accounted for appellee}{ \insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s bad-faith acts along with the judge}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s multiple connections to the appellant that recusal would not be necessary).}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Because we do not see any of the individual allegations for recusal as compelling, we refuse to favor Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s allegations in their tota lity. \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par B.}{\b\insrsid1269916 }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Recount of the 1998 Ballots. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [25]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Ada claims that Title 3 GCA }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 12113, (1994) should have led the trial court to grant a recount of the 1998 election ballots.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Because legislators modeled Guam}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s election laws after those in California, Ada considers }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Enterprise Residents Legal Action Against Annexation Committee v. Brennan, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 22 Cal.3d 767, 587 P.2d 658 (Cal. 1978), the most persuasive precedent on the matter.}{\cs15\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid4590330 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 In the past, this court has held that federal cases are persuasive, not mandatory, in our proceedings. }{\i\fs20\insrsid4590330 See, e.g., Sumitomo Construction, Co. v. Zhong Ye, Inc., }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 1997 Guam 8, }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 6; }{\i\fs20\insrsid4590330 People v. Quenga, }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 1997 Guam 6, }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 13 n.4. That logic applies to California state cases as well.}}}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Brennan}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 , the Supreme Court of California specified what circumstances and procedures must occur in order for a court to order a recount.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Id.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Section 12113 states:}{\insrsid4590330 \par }{\insrsid1269916\charrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 At the trial ballots shal l be opened and a recount taken, in presence of all parties, of the votes cast for the various candidates in all contests where it appears from the statements filed that a recount is necessary for the proper determination of the contest. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid1269916 \par }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 3 GCA }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 12113.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada emphasizes the first section of the rule.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 He argues that a court must construe }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 shall}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 as mandatory language.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 See }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Title 1 GCA }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 715(9), (1994).}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Thus, he suggests that the trial court had to order a recount.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 However, a court should read the first section of the rule under the condition of the se cond section.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The trial court correctly examined this rule in its totality.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The second half of the rule indicates that a recount is only required when the court finds it necessary to resolve the controversy.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The trial court accurately reminded Ada and others that }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 necessary}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 does not mean }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 helpful.}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada v. Gutierrez, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 CV2765-98 (Su per. Ct. Guam Jan. 8, 1999).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Brennan }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 does state that }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 the election contest provisions [in California] should be construed }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 liberally}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 in favor of the contestant}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 (emphasis added).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Brennan, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 22 Cal.3d at 772, 587 P.2d at 661.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Nevertheless, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 liberally}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 does not mean }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 automatically.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Section 12113 provides courts with some leeway in whether to grant a recount.}{\cs15\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid4590330 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 Parties, such as Ada, are fortunate in Guam. In places without specific recount laws, recounts are forbidden. 26 }{ \scaps\fs20\insrsid4590330 Am. Jur. 2d}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 }{\i\fs20\insrsid4590330 Recount}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 389 (1996).}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [26]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab In }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Brennan, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 the trial court initially ordered the moving party both to file a statement of allegation and to present outside evidence that the allegations are true.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Id. }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 at 770- 71, 587 P.2d at 660.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The appellate court reversed stating that a court must consider a recount solely }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 from the statements filed.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Id.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 at 772, 587 P.2d at 661.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada points to two paragraphs in his motions in which he said that voting misconduct took place.}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 He asserts that the aforementioned statements in }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Brennan}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 would signify that the Superior Court of Guam was similarly required to conduct a recount.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Again, Ada takes passages out of their total context.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Brennan}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 observes, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 This legislative goal is promoted by interpreting [the relevant California law] so as to confine the trial court to the statement of contest in }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 determining whether a recount is necessary.}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Id.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 at 773, 587 P.2d at 658 (emphasis added).}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Similar to the second half of section 12113, }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Brennan}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s ruling on statements filed concerns how a court should decide if it will grant a recount, rather than concluding that it must allow a recount.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In addition, }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Brennan } {\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 continues, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 It is important to note that in order to compel a recount a contestant must comply with [another California law], which entitles the court to dismiss the matter if the statement of contest fails to allege grounds with sufficient certainty. . . .}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Id.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Without more, Ada}{ \insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s allegations of ballot tampering cannot form a sound basis for a recount.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The trial court looked at these two paragraphs among many allegations when it determined the recount matter.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 It decided that the reasoning in and brevity of the allegations were i nsufficient to cause enough concern to mandate a recount.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada v. Gutierrez, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 CV2765-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Jan. 8, 1999).}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The trial court followed }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Brennan}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 in analyzing the recount issue based upon the statements filed alone.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada simply disagrees with that court}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s outcome and that cannot serve as sufficient grounds for a reversal.}{\insrsid4590330 \par }{\insrsid1269916\charrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [27]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab The }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Brennan }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 court decided a recount was in order because the number of questionable votes were large enough potentially to reverse the results of the election.}{\b\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Brennan, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 22 Cal.3d at 773, 587 P.2d at 662.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In following that logic, the trial court commented that Guam elections have only been recounted when the number of uncertain votes could change the election}{ \insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s results.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada v. Gutierrez, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 CV2765-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Jan. 8, 1999).}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In an attempt to fashion his argument under the aforementioned reasoning, Ada argues that because he claimed over 4,000 votes were illegal, his allegations were large enough to swing an election and mandate a recount.}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 This court rules that positing a large, but unsubstantiated, number of questionable votes will not suffice to demand a recount.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 At no point did Ada argue that around 4,000 ballots were missing, stolen, or destroyed, rather he criticizes many aspects of the election proc ess which cumulatively could have amounted to around 4,000 illegal votes. After listening to several hours of testimony on the ballot matter, the trial court found that twenty-three ballots were miscast at the most.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada v. Gutierrez, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 CV2765-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Feb. 16, 1999).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 At oral argument, Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s counsel agreed that no recount should take place when the number of allegedly mistabulated votes was less than what would have altered an election, even if ballots were unanimously agreed to be missing.}{\insrsid4590330 \par }{\insrsid1269916\charrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [28]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab With only twenty-three miscounted ballots ascertained, GEC officials might want to conduct an investigation into their process, but that does not signify that a court should have ordered a recount.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 With such a minimal number of incorrect ballots, a recount would have been a colossal waste of time and money.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The appellants in }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Brennan}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 immediately offered to pay for the recount regardless of its results.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Brennan, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 22 Cal.3d at 771, 587 P.2d at 660.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Guam}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s law would have required Gutierrez to pay for the recount if it had changed the election results.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 See }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Title 3 GCA }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 12119, (1994).}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Penalties like this justify a trial court}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s caution in granting recounts. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [29]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Because the majority of Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s allegations concerned election fraud rather than an actual ballot miscount, the trial court held that his suit would be addressed best through a courtroom hearing as opposed to a ballot recount.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada v. Gutierrez, }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 CV2765-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Jan. 8, 1999).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 This logic conforms with }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Brennan}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s comment that some grounds for a recount in California required a hearing instead of a recount.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Brennan, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 22 Cal.3d at 774, 587 P.2d at 662.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 This court concurs with those decisions.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Besides its expense in time and money, a recount would not reveal which ballots were cast illegitimately and to which candidate those ballots should be allotted.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The futility of a recount is especially high considering the U.S. Supreme Court}{ \insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s decision on the 1998 election.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Because that Court unanimously found t hat Gutierrez was elected by a majority of the votes cast, then the chance of mistabulated ballots being large enough to swing the election becomes even slimmer.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 See Gutierrez v. Ada, }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 ___ U.S. ___, 120 S.Ct. 740 (2000).}{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 C.}{\b\insrsid1269916 }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The Admissibility of Evan Montvel-Cohen}{\b\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s Exhibits and Testimony.}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [30]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Finally, this court must determine whether the trial court properly admitted the testimony of and exhibits from Evan Montvel-Cohen, a witness for Gutierrez.}{ \cs15\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid4590330 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 Ada would like this court to reverse the trial court}{\fs20\insrsid7481185 '}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 s decision to admit exhibits P through V. The trial court admitted exhibits P through S due to their relevance. Transcript, p. 15 (Continued Bench Trial Feb. 5, 1999). It admitted exhibits T through V deeming them sufficiently probative on the matter. Transcript, p. 38 (Continued Bench Trial Feb. 5, 1999). Because the parties do little to differentiate between the individual exhibits in this appeal, this court treats the exhibits as one unit.}}}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 For this reason, we now examine whether this admission was permissible based upon the catchall, or residual, exception to the hearsay rule.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Title 6 GCA }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 803(24), (1994) describes the hearsay exception for useful inf ormation that does not fit perfectly under the previous hearsay exceptions.}{\cs15\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid4590330 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 Federal cases are persuasive here because Guam}{\fs20\insrsid7481185 '}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 s catchall hearsay exception derives from }{ \scaps\fs20\insrsid4590330 Fed. R. Evid.}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 803(24). As of 1997, this rule is now located at 28 U.S.C. }{\fs20\insrsid4590330 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4590330 807.}}}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 It states: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\b\insrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Other exceptions}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 .}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these Rules and the inter ests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to pr ovide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, his intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant.}{\insrsid4590330 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid1269916\charrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 6 GCA }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 803(24).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada argues that Gutierrez did not meet the law}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s requirement as to trustworthiness of the evidence, alternative means, and adequate notice; Gutierrez maintains that he met the rule}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s every demand.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Because neither side has questioned or actively argued against the evidence}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s materiality or interest to justice, we have no need to examine those prongs of the rule. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [31]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Trustworthiness.}{\i\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Trustworthiness is the characteristic that evidence admitted under section 803(24) must share with the other hearsay exceptions.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Its placement as the first requirement in this law suggests that it acts as the most important factor in the rule.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In order to argue that the trial court should not have admitted Montvel-Cohen}{ \insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s exhibits, Ada cites to cases that hold that documents assembled solely for the purpose of litigation are untrustworthy and inadmissible }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 under the business record hearsay exception}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 , }{\scaps\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Fed. R. Evid}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 . 803(6).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Paddack v. Christensen, Inc., }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 745 F.2d 1254, 1258 (9}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 th}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1984); }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Clark v. City of Los Angeles, }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 650 F.2d 1033, 1036 (9}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 th}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1981).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 However, just because evidence could not be admitted under one hearsay exception does not signify that a court cannot admit it under the catchall exception.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Items offered under the catchall exception need not precisely resemble the other exceptions.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Rather, the law demands that items admitted under the catchall exception must be as equally trustworth y as any other exception.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Piva v. Xerox Corp., }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 654 F.2d 591, 595-96 (9}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 th}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1981); }{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Fong v. American Airlines, Inc., }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 626 F.2d 759, 763 (9}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 th}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1980); }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 U.S. v. Hoyos, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 573 F.2d 1111, 1116 (9}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 th}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1978).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada has no reason to fear that Gutierrez was attempting to pass off Montvel-Cohen}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s exhibits as actual business records. At no point did Montvel-Cohen suggest that the affidavits he compiled were empirical documents that Gutierrez or the Democratic Party would have collected despite this suit.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Instead, Montvel-Cohen noted that he worked for a company which conducts verificative research on politcal concerns such as this one and that his affidavits were designed to address Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s allegations in the only way possible.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 He then explained exactly how he amassed these affidavits.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The trial court had the duty of assessing the weight of this evidence.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 If Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s only contention is that the exhibits are not identical to what would be necessary for a section 803(6) exception, then this court has insufficient grounds for reversal on the matter.}{\insrsid4590330 \par }{\insrsid1269916\charrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [32]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Even when this court focuses solely on whether the exhibits were trustworthy, we hardly have any reason to rule that the trial court abused its discretion.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada claims that Montel-Cohen}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s testimony about affidavits based upon driver}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s licenses, passports, and other governmental documents acted as double hearsay.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 He notes that a few affidavits were signed by individuals other than the persons named in the included documents and reasons therefore that Montvel-Cohen}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s exhibits are entirely untrustworthy.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 This argument misstates the trend in case law.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Courts have excluded exhibits offered under the catchall exception which were highly emotive or biased.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Land v. American Mutual Ins. Co., }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 582 F.Supp. 1484, 1487 (E.D. Mich. 1984) (holding that a report to an insurance company about how the plaintiff lost her finger was too prejudicial); }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Clark, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 650 F.2d at 1038) (excluding contents of a diary due to its high emotionality).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Contrarily, materials created long before parties file suits, processed by entities with no stake}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 in or knowledge about these future legal proceedings, and verifiable at numerous, nonpartisan governmental agencies can be deemed trustworthy.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 For example, in a case involving a Chilean drug smuggler, Chilean immigration records that were not admissible under the public records exception, but were nevertheless trustworthy, became admissible under section 803(24).}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 U.S. v. Friedman, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 593 F.2d 109, 118 (9}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 th}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1979); }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 see also U.S. v. Brown, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 770 F.2d 768, 771 (9}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 th}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1985) (involving a catchall exception analysis in which neither party denies the trustworthiness of passports).}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Montvel-Cohen}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s exhibits consisted of governmentally-produced identification documents:}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 factual and neutral forms that a court could logically deem trustworthy. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [33]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Equally important, the trial court noted that it allowed Ada to present obituaries from newspapers and voter registration lists from other islands, exhibits just as questionable or trustworthy as the passports and birth certificates that Montvel-Cohen}{ \insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s presented.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Transcript, p. 37 (Continued Bench Trial, Feb. 5, 1999).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Like the trial court, we think it would be unfair to allow Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s exhibits and prohibit Gutierrez}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 , especially when the two are similar.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 This court sees no reason to legitimate this inconsistent argument.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [34]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s disapproval of Montvel-Cohen}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s exhibits may center upon the signatures on the affidavits more than the identification materials that accompanied them.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Still, the fact that a few affidavits were signed by people who were not owners of the companion documents does not cause this court to believe that the trial court abused its discretion.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Title 6 GCA }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 7301, (1994) states, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The testimony of a witness may be taken }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 by affidavit,}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 by deposition, or by oral examination}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 (emphasis added).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The trial court commented that a false affidavit equates to perjury.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Transcript, p. 38 (Continued Bench Trial, Feb. 5, 1999). As a result, Ada should have no fear that the trial court did not factor in these few questionable affidavits when assessing whether Montvel-Cohen}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s exhibits were admissible. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [35]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab The last aspect of Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s contention on trustworthiness involves whether Montvel-Cohen should have been allowed to testify in court.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada criticizes Montvel-Cohen for failing to prove that he understood Guam election laws and for not ensuring that affidavits were signed or authenticated properly.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In his defense, Gutierrez notes that Montvel-Cohen stated that he works for a nonpartisan research company that specializes in collecting data to clarify controversies such as the 1998 election and that he has worked on several similar projects before participating in this fact-finding assignment in Guam.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Therefore, Gutierrez suggests that Montvel-Cohen has the type of personal knowledge that would make his testimony probative and that his emplo yer is a neutral organization whose product can be easily deemed trustworthy. Case law reveals that the trustworthiness of documents properly admitted under section 803(24) extends itself to the witnesses describing the information so long as they are non -interested parties. }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 See Friedman, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 593 F.2d at 119 (allowing a Chilean official to testify about Chilean immigration records that he did not personally process); }{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 U.S. v. Pfeiffer, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 539 F.2d 668, 671 (8}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 th}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1976) (allowing a tire company manager to testify about shipping invoices that he did not personally process); }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 see also U.S. v. Rouco, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 765 F.2d 983, 994 (11}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 th}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1985) (overruling a murder defendant}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s objection to allowing a supervisor to repeat statements from a slain policeman-victim).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The same logic applies to Montvel-Cohen}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s testimony.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Although Ada criticizes this witness for not knowing Guam}{ \insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s election rules, he never argues or suggests that Montvel-Cohen is an interested party who would gain from manipulating the facts.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The trial court properly weighed the credibility of the exhibits rather than questioning Montvel-Cohen}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s purpose in presenting them. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [36]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Alternative Means.}{\i\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 By attacking his opponent}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s use of affidavits, Ada implicitly asserts that Gutierrez should have employed alternate means to rebut the evidence Ada presented.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Gutierrez opines that he presented the only and best rebuttal evidence he could offer against Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s allegedly flimsy evidence.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Section 803(24) and related case law specifically state that finding the best means within reasonable efforts is a relative and contextual determination.}{\b\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 See }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 6 GCA } {\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 803(24); }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., Inc., } {\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 896 F.2d 1542, 1552 (9}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 th}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1990).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 For instance, in }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 U.S. v. Leslie, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 542 F.2d 285 (5}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 th}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1976), a member of an automobile theft conspiracy appealed the incriminating evidence his co-conspirators offered against him.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The court found the statements admissible because they were probative and there was no better way for the jury to discover any information.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Id.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 at 290; }{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 see Friedman, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 593 F.2d at 119 (}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The statement was more probative on that point than any other that the Government could reasonably procure.}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 ).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada presented the trial court with many unsubstantiated allegations and a long list of supposedly illegal voters.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In response, Gutierrez did all he could to attack these assertions.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 When Ada claimed that certain voters were not American citizens, Gutierrez submitted passports and driver}{ \insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s licenses to prove that voters were citizens.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 When Ada claimed certain people were not alive or old enough to vote, Gutierrez supplied the court with birth certificates and death certificates to invalidate these claims.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In light of Ada}{ \insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s weak support, Gutierrez cannot be blamed for not presenting stronger rebuttal evidence.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Through Montvel-Cohen}{ \insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s testimony and exhibits, Gutierrez provided the court with a valuable tool it desperately needed to examine the parties}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 claims. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [37]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Title 6 GCA }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 7301, }{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 supra,}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 dictates that affidavits can act as proper testimony in Guam courts.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Gutierrez argues that submitting affidavits and summarizi ng what those exhibits state therein wastes far less time and court resources than having each person who filed an affidavit give an in-court testimony.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 This court finds that reasoning to be solidly in line with the demands of section 803(24).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 This is especially so in light of the trial court}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s stated disappointment that Ada presented many in-court witnesses who did close to nothing to confirm his allegations.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 See Ada v. Gutierrez, }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 CV2765-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Feb. 16, 1999). \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [38]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Advance Notice.}{\i\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada takes issue with the fact that Gutierrez did not inform him of Montvel-Cohen}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s testimony until 9:00 a.m. of the day that the testimony took place.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Gutierrez maintains that his witness was not done compiling the affidavits until that morning and that he delivered all that he could before his witness took the stand.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Further, he argues that Ada should have been on notice that Gutierrez would bring some type of rebuttal evidence to counter Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s allegation.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Section 803(24) unequivocally states that a party wanting to admit testimony under the catchall exception must alert the opponent to his or her intentions in advance and with some detail.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 However, there is no bright line test for this requirement.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 See Rouco, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 765 F.2d at 994 (deeming three days before trial to be ample notice);}{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 United States v. Carlson, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 547 F.2d 1346, 1355 (8}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 th}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1976) (deeming two days before trial to be ample notice).}{\b\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Some cases state that if a party could reasonably assume that his or her opponent would bring such evidence, then that party cannot complain about lack of notice.}{\i\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 See Leslie, }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 542 F.2d at 290; }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Weiss v. Chrysler Motors Corp., }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 515 F.2d 449, 454-56 (2}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 nd}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1975).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Obviously, 9:00 a.m. on the day that the witness is due to take the stand is poor notice.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In the least, Gutierrez could have alerted Ada that Montvel-Cohen was in the process of collecting affidavits.}{\i\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Nevertheless, our disappointment with Gutierrez}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 performance under this prong does not lead us to reverse the trial court}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s decision. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [39]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Originally, some courts demanded that parties intending to employ the section 803(24) exception must follow its advance notice requirement strictly.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 U.S. v. Ruffin, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 575 F.2d 346, 358 (2}{\super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 nd}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1978); }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 National American Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 448 F.Supp. 622, 647 n.36 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 However, other courts have created exceptions to this holding.}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 They have ruled that even if a party did not receive adequate advance notice, the requirement becomes immaterial if that party had the opportunity to attack the evidence presented.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Brown, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 770 F.2d at 771; }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Rouco, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 765 F.2d at 994;}{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Piva, }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 654 F.2d at 596; }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Leslie, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 542 F.2d at 291.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Gutierrez notes that Ada had two days in court to rebut Montvel-Cohen}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s testimony and exhibits.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The fact that Ada was able to reveal questionable affidavits to the trial court and to demonstrate that Montvel-Cohen lacked a thorough understanding of Guam}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s election laws illustrates that Ada had the opportunity to attack the evidence despite Gutierrez}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 poor advance notice.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In f act, the trial court included Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s cross-examination in its analysis of the issue, thus suggesting that Ada}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s arguments were effectively weighed against the evidence.}{\insrsid4590330 \par }{\insrsid1269916\charrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [40]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab Moreover, the advance notice requirement may be waived if the opposing party does not ask for a continuance from the court.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 If a party fails to ask for time to examine documents under this exception, it demonstrates that it is not really bothered by the late alert to the hearsay.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Brown, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 770 F.2d at 771; }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Leslie, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 542 F.2d at 291.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The trial court ended a day}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s proceedings and arranged for Ada to receive copies of the exhibits before the next day of trial.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Transcript, pp. 39-41 (Continued Bench Trial, Feb. 4, 1999).}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 While his counsel complained about having to stay up all night to investigate these new exhibits, Ada never asked for days off to examine the materials.}{\insrsid1269916 }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Though he condemns Gutierrez}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 action as an unfair surprise tactic, Ada never argues that the trial court}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s decision would have been different had he had more time to examine the exhibits.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Whether intended or not, he implicitly revealed his acceptance of the tardy evidence by not requesting a continuance. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [41]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Harmless error.}{\b\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Finally, Gutierrez maintains that the admission amounted to harmless error at most. Courts have held some infractions of the requirements to be harmless error.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Piva, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 654 F.2d at 596; }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Leslie, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 542 F.2d at 291; }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 but see United States v. Iaconetti, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 540 F.2d 574, 578 (2}{ \super\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 nd}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cir. 1976) (}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 While strict co mpliance in the rule is thus lacking, . . . some latitude must be permitted in situations like this. . .}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 ).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 In its decision and order, the trial court stated that Montvel-Cohen}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s testimony and exhibits played only a small part in its findings.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The trial court decided that Ada could not prevail in his suit because he could not present convincing evidence to substantiate his many allegations of election fraud.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Ada v. Gutierrez, }{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 CV2765-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Feb. 16, 1999).}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Hence, even if Gutierrez did not follow section 803(24) precisely, the infraction mattered very little. \par }{\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [42]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab No argument has persuaded this court to reverse the trial court}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s decision on this evidence issue.}{ \insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Cases state that parties should only rely upon section 803(24) in limited circumstances.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Conoco Inc. v. Dep}{\i\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{ \i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 t. of Engergy, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 99 F.3d 387, 392 (D.C. Kan. 1997); }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Land, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 582 F.Supp at 1486; }{\i\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Piva, }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 654 F.2d at 595-96.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 We find that the case at hand consisted of such a special occasion.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the catchall hearsay exception}{\insrsid7481185\charrsid1269916 '}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 s use. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 CONCLUSION \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\b\insrsid1269916 \par }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 [43]}{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 \tab We find that Judge Manibusan did not have to disqualify himself from hearing this case.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 The trial court did not err in ruling that a recount of the election ballots would not be necessary.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 Additionally, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed Evan Montvel-Cohen to testify at the trial and present exhibit s to the court. Consequently, this court has seen nothing which would merit a reversal on any of the issues argued in this appeal.}{\insrsid1269916 }{\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 We }{\b\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 AFFIRM}{ \insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 this case in its entirety.}{\insrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 PETER C. SIGUENZA\tab \tab \tab \tab JOHN A. MANGLONA \par Associate Justice\tab \tab \tab \tab \tab Designated Justice}{\insrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid1269916 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1269916 {\insrsid4590330\charrsid1269916 BENJAMIN J.F. CRUZ \par Chief Justice \par }}