After a lifer argued why his conviction that he murdered former Humatak mayor Daniel Sanchez be overturned, his co-actor also making the same argument before justices in the high court. Murder convict Joyner Scott Sked, through her attorney, contends investigators did not have enough evidence to prove she did it.

Taking the witness stand during her murder trial in February 2022. "Did you recklessly cause the death of Daniel Sanchez at all?", an attorney asked defendant Sked during her trial held last year. "No, I did not,” said Sked on the witness stand.

Sked denied killing former Mayor Sanchez inside the superior court then, and today, she maintains her innocence. Sked, who is serving life in prison, appealed her conviction before the Supreme Court of Guam.

Defense attorney Peter Perez arguing for Sked’s acquittal contending prosecutors just did not have enough evidence, despite the jury’s guilty verdict. "In the end, no witness testified that Ms. Sked murdered the victim. No witness said Ms. Sked caused the victim’s death. No witness said that Ms. Sked assaulted the victim. No witness said Ms. Sked caused seriously bodily injury to the victim. No witness said she acted recklessly. No witness said she acted with extreme indifference to the value of human life. There was no DNA evidence connecting her to the offense. There was no recording evidence establishing the offense. There was no fingerprints. There was no incriminating serology evidence. And in a case where there were 23 stab wounds and four chop wounds and blood splatter at the scene, you would expect there would be blood evidence connecting the defendant and her clothing to events, which did not exist in this case," he said.

But Chief Justice Robert Torres questioned that argument, saying, "There was some testimony that she was aware that the victim had been stabbed even thought that information had not been made public. At the point she had said that, she had showered and changed her clothes more than once since leaving the residence or shack where the body was found and that shack was locked from the outside. Another person talked about she being very nervous about the police and asked a stranger what she would do if she found a dead body at her boyfriend’s house. So it would seem there is at least circumstantial evidence."

Attorney Perez said, "But at the same time, it comes down to does this establish the evidence or create mere suspicion and innuendo…but when you have mere presence in a conspiracy case that is not sufficient to convict."

In April 2021, Sanchez was stabbed with scissors and bludgeoned with a hammer. His body was left inside co-actor Rudy Quinata's residence with the door padlocked. Quinata also appealed his conviction earlier this week. The high court has yet to decide.

Perez also arguing today that quinata could have been the one to used the hammer and scissors during the killing, adding prosecutors should have only charged sked with what they could prove.

However, prosecuting attorney Marianne Woloschuk says the evidence was enough for the jury to convict Sked. "If you look at the evidence as a whole, you can see that the defendant was with the victim around the time that he died, was with her boyfriend as well. She is the one who mentioned there was some sort of love triangle that went wrong. The jury can infer there was extreme indifference or recklessness…the fact that she left the house and knew the door was chained and padlocked and there was somebody inside there dead or dying and she there is no evidence she ever called anyone or contacted anyone or made any report shows that you are extremely indifferent to the value of human life. There’s the fact that she disappeared for several days after this happened. She told Fred that somebody had stabbed somebody. Even though her testimony she testified that Rudy told her that the victim is dead at the house and don’t go back to the house. But she never testified that Rudy told her the victim had been stabbed. So if she knows the victim is stabbed, she has something to do with it. She was the one who did it," she said.

Woloschuk adding Sked’s testimony was self serving, and she tailored it based on testimony provided by others who were called before her during trial.

The justices took the appeal under advisement and will issue a decision.