F FII Ll ED CLERK go;sqT 1 2025 me Ra PH 5= oh, Si# = '§§===.@m mur- 2
3 0g: El e l
5 IN INTHE THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM GUAM 6 PEOPLE OF GUAM, 7 CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CASE CASE NO.no. CM0145-21 CM0145-21 Plaintiff, Plaintiff, GPD ReportNos.: GPD Report Nos.: 21-06538/21-04913 8
vs. 9
10 NAKITA NAKITA T. T. AGUON, DECISION DECISION ANDAND ORDER Re: Defendant's Motion for aa Mistrial Motionfor Mistrial 11 Defendant. 12 12 I+--------- ---------'-- ------------ ---- 13 This This matter matter came came before theHonorable Joseph N. Camacho Joseph N. Camachoon onFebruary February24, 24,2025, 2025, for for a xi 14
15 15 hearing hearing on on Defendant's Motion for a Mistrial. Defendant's Motion Mistrial. Present at the hearing Present at hearingwere: were:Nakita Nddta T. Aguon
16 ("Defendant") ("Defendant") with with Counsel Counsel Michael Michael F. F. Phillies, Phillips,and and Assistant Assistant Attorney Attorney General General Grant Olan 17 ("Attorney Olan") Olan") for forthe thePeople. People. Having Havingconsidered considered the the record record of ofproceedings, proceedings, briefs, briefs, 18 arguments, transcripts, and arguments, transcripts, and applica~le applicable law, law, the Court hereby hereby GRANTS GRANTS Defendant'sMotion Motion for 19
a Mistrial Mistrialand and ORDERS ORDERS the the Clerk Clerkof ofCourt Courttotoimmediately immediatelyreassign reassign the the case case consistent with consistent with 20
21 Administrative AdministrativeRule RuleNo. No. 20-001 20-001..
22 BACKGROUND 23 This This case began on case began on May May 25, 2021, and it 2021, and it was was assigned to the assigned to the Honorable Honorable Alberto Alberto E. 24 Tolentino ("Judge ("Judge Tolentino"). Tolentino").See See Con Compl. (May (May 26, 26, 2021); see also Order Terminating Terminating Judge Judge 25
26 Pro Tempore Appointment (Oct. 4, 4, 2021). 2021). On On May May2, 2,2023, 2023, Defendant Defendant asserted herright asserted her right to a
27 speedy triad.Def. speedy trial. Detl's Assertion or 's Assertion or Waiver Waiver of of Speedy SpeedyTrial Trial (May 2, 2023). Jury trial began began on
28 November 16, 16, 2022, but ititwas was paused paused from late late 2022 through summer 2023 due summer 2023 dueto tojuror juror and
Decision and Order Re: Motion for a Mistrial Re: Defendant's Motion v. Nakita People v. T. Aguon, Nakifa T. Aguon,CM0l45-21 CMOl45-2 l Page Page Il of of 11 ll 11 judge unavailability. judge unavailability. Trial Trialresumed resumed and continued through the summer summer and and fall fall of of 2023. 2023. At At this 2 | » U • | u time, the the People People presented presented thelr their case-ln-ch1ef case-in-chief and rested. However, However, Defendant Defendant did not begin 3 her case-in-chiefi case-in-chief. 4 The The People rested rested on on September September27, 27,2023. 2023.Min. Min. Entry Entry at at 10:13:51 10:13:51 AM AM (Sept. 27, 2023). 5 5
6 Several months later, Several months later, on January January 18, 2024, Judge Tolentino announced announced his disquadl disqualification
7 Hom from the case. See the case. SeeForm FormOne- One - Disqualification Disqualification (Jan. 18, 2024). (Jan. 18, 2024). Judge JudgeTolentino Tolentino cited cited aa family family 8 relationship between his relationship between his mother-in-law mother-in-lawand andAttorney AttorneyDavid DavidLujan Lujan ("Attorney ("Attorney Lujan"), Lujan"), who 9 attorney. Id. was Defendant's previous attorney. Id The The Court Court was was further further informed informed of ofan anadversarial adversarial 10
II rel ati onshi p between relationship between Attorney Attorney Lujan Luj an and and Judge Judge Tolentino's enti no's brother-in-law. brother-i n-l aw.Id. Il l TThe he
12 Disquadiiication also noted Disqualification Form also noted an an apparent apparent "animus" "animus" from Hom Attorney Lujan Lujan towards towards Judge Judge 13 13 Tolentino Tolentino as as factors factors contributing contributingto toan an "appearance "appearance Of See generally bias." See of bias." generally id. Because Because all other 14 14 Judges of the Superior Court of Judges of of Guam Guam were were also also disqualified disqualified from from this this case, case, the the undersigned IS I; judge pro was appointed as judge pro tempore. See SeeNotice Notice of of Judge Assignment Assignment (Jan. 30, 2024). 16
17 17 On February 16, 2024, a Motions Motions Hearing Hearing was was held, and the die Court granted Defendant's
18 is Motion to Withdraw Decision Decision and and Order Denying Denying Motion Motion for forDisquadirication Disqualification of ofProsecutor Prosecutor 19 and took the the Defendant's Defendant's Motion for for Grant Grant of ofUse Use Immunity ImmunitytotoDefense Defense W itness Patrick Witness Patrick 20 Indalecio Indalecio ("Mr. ("Mr.Indadecio") Indalecio")under underadvisement. See Order advisement. See OrderAfter Airer Hr'g Hr'g (Feb. 19, 2024). 21 21 O n March March 1, 1, 2024, 2024, aa Mot i ons Heari Motions ng was Hearing was hel d f for held or Def endant 's Mot i on ffor Defendant's or 22 22
23 23 Disquadiication Disqualification of of Prosecutor and Defendant's Prosecutor and Defendant's Motion Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, and the Judgment of
24 24 matter was continued continued to to March March 22, 2024. See 22, 2024. SeeOrder OrderAfter AfterHr' Hr'g (Mar. 1, g (Mar. 1, 2024). 2024). Although Although trial 25 25 was set for for March March 25, 25, 2024, the the trial was was vacated and and reset resetto toApril April 8, 2024. /d. Id. 26 26 On March March 19, 19, 2024, Attorney Lujan filed aa Motion Motion to to Continue Continue Hearing Hearing on Amended 27
28 Supplemental Motion for Disquadiiication Supplemental Motion Prosecutor.See of Prosecutor. Disqualification of SeeMot. Mot.totoContinue ContinueHr' Hr'g on Am. g on
Decision Decision and and Order OrderRe: Re: Defendant's Defendant'sMotion Motionfor fora aMistn'aLl Mistrial People v. v. Nakita T. Aguon, Naldla T. Aguon,CM0l45-21 CMOl45-2 1 Page 2 of I I Page2ofll 1 Suppl. Mot. for Disqualiticadon Disqualification of ofProsecutor Prosecutor (Mar. 19, 19, 2024). Attorney Lujan Lujan was was scheduled scheduled 2 ¢ » | • - to escort his wife wlfe on on March March 22, 22, 2024 2024 to to Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand, Thailand, for forseveral several medical medical appolntments appointments 3 3 1 l ~d was scheduled and scheduled to return to to Guam Guam on March 30, 2024. March 30, Id. Attorney 2024. Id. Lujan requested Attorney Lujan requested that that the the 4
5 Motion Motion Hearing Hearing be be moved to April April 12, 12, 2024. 2024. Id. Id. The The Court Court denied denied Attorney Lujan's Lujan's request request 5
6 and moved the Motion Hearing Hearing to March March 21, 21, 2024. 2024. See Order Setting See Order SettingHr'g Hr'g on on Mot. for
7 7 Disqualification Disqualificationof ofProsecutor Prosecutor and and Scheduling Order for Other Matters Matters (Mar. (Mar. 20, 2024). g 8 Following Following the the March 21 st Motion March 215' Motion Hearing on Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion for Disqualification 9 of ofProsecutor, the the Court Court took took the the matter matter under under advisement, advisement, vacated the March vacated the March 22, 2024 Motion Motion 10 10
11 11 Hearing, and vacated thejury vacated the jury trial trial set set for for April April 8, 8, 2024 2024 until until funder further notice. notice. See Order After See Order
12 March 21, 2024 Hr'g I-k'g (Mar. 21, 2024). A Status Conference was Status Conference was set setfor for Friday, Friday, April April 12, 2024
13 where the Parties were were expected expected to to discuss discussaamotion motion hearing hearingdate datefor forthe theMotion Motion for Judgment 14 of Aoquittal and date(s) of Acquittal date(s)for for the thecontinuation continuationof ofthe thejury jurytrial. Md. Id. Id. 15 15 On April April 5,5,2024, 2024, the theCourt Courtdenied denied Def endant's Motion Defendant's Motion for Disqualification Disqualification of 16
17 Prosecutor. SeeDecision Prosecutor. See Decisionand andOrder OrderDenying DenyingMot. Mot. for for Disqualification Disqualification of of Prosecutor (Apr. 5, Prosecutor (Apr.
18 18 2024). On April April12, 12,2024, 2024,aaStatus Status Conference Conference was was held, held, and and the Court Court granted granted Defendant's 19 19 Motion Motionfor forUse Useof ofImmunity ImmunitytotoDefense DefenseWitness Witness Mr. Mr. Indadecio. SeeOrder lndalecio. See OrderAfter Acer April April 12, 2024 20 20 Hr'g Hr'g (Apr. (Apr. 12, 12,2024). 2024). The The Motion Motion Hearing Hearing on on Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion for for Judgment Judgment of Acquittal 21
was continued to May 3, 2024. 2024. Id. Id 22
23 23 On May May 3,3, 2024, 2024, aaFurther FurtherProceedings Proceedings Hearing Hearing was held, held, and and the the Court Court heard heard 24 24 testimony from all six testimony six jurors jurors as as to any any improper improper contact contact with Mr. Mr. Indalecio. Indalecio. See Order After See Order 25 25 May May 3, 3, 2024 2024 Hr'g Hr'g(May (May3,3,2024). 2024).Further, Further,the theCourt Courtgranted grantedDefendant's Defendant's request request to have have aa 26 ii process sewer 'from process server from his office office locate locate and and serve serve Mr. Indalecio Indalecio aa Subpoena Subpoena to appear appear at the 27
Decision and OrderRe: and Order Re'Defendant's Defendant'sMotion Motionfor fore Mistrial a Mistrial People v. v. Nakila Nakita T. Aguon, Aguon, CMOI45-2l CM0145-21 Page Page3 of I11I 11 continued hearingand continued hearing andfile file proof service. Id. proof of service. hearing to Id. The hearing Hom Mr. testimony from hear testimony to hear Mr. 2 Indadecio was continued Indalecio was to May continuedto 2024. Id. May 17, 2024. Id. 3 On May 17, 2024, the Court heard testimony Court heard from Mr. tesMony from Indalecio as Mr.Indalecio to the as to improper the improper 4
contact with the contact with the six six jurors, the Court and the jurors, and found that Court found was no that there was jury tampering or improper no jury 5
6 contact jurors and/or by the jurors contact by Mr. Indalecio. and/orMr. Indalecio. See OrderAfter SeeOrder May 17, AfterMay 2024Hr'g; 17,2024 Order Finding Hr'g; Order
77 No No Jury Jury Tampering; Meet and Counsels Shall Meet 2024; Counsels 19, 2024; Aug. 19, Commence Aug. ShallCommence TrialShall Jury Trial Tampering; Jury 8 8 Confer to Finalize Finalize Jury Instructions and Verdict Form Instructions and (May 17, Fonn (May 2024). The 17, 2024). Court also The Court set the also set 9 continuation of of jury jurytriad trial as Defendant's case-in-chief for August to Defendant's as to 19, 2024 through August August 19, 10
l11l 30, 2024. Id. Id.
12 5, 2024, July 5, On July People filed 2024, the People Motion for Trial Continuance filed aa Motion Until the Continuance Until End of the End
13 13 September 2024. September People'sMot SeePeople's 2024. See for Trial Mot.for ContinuanceUntil Trial Continuance End of Sept. Until End 2024 (July 5, Sept. 2024 14 14 2024). People's reasoning 2024). The People's wasthat reasoningwas AttorneyOlan-the thatAttorney prosecutorfor Olen-the prosecutor the case----left for the case-leit 15 12 Id. Further, Guam for military service. Id. fullybriefed Further, Attorney Olan lilly and prepared briefed and Attorney prepared Attorney 16
17 17 Randall W. Albright ("Attorney Albright") to Randall replace him while he was away for military to replace
18 18 Court set Id. However, since the Court service. Id. the continuation set the of jury continuation of triadfor jury trial August 19 for August to August 19 to August 19 19 30, 2024, Attorney abruptlyresigned Albrightabnlptly Attorney Albright andleft resignedand Guamdue leftGuam to extenuating dueto circumstances. extenuating circumstances. 20 ii Id. Id. Thus, there no other there were no qualified prosecutors other qualified available who prosecutors available possessed the who possessed special the special 21 22 knowledge ofthis knowledge of case, other than this case, Attorney Olan, than Attorney who was scheduled to Olan, who return to to return Guam from to Guam Hom 22
23 23 military military service mid-September. Id. sometime during mid-September. service sometime Defendant did Id. Defendant not file any opposition, did not
24 24 and the the Court Court set Status Conference Setting Status See Order Setting 2024. See 26, 2024. Status Conference for July 26, set aa Status 25 25 (July 16, (July 16, 2024). The The Court jury trial the jury vacated the subsequently vacated Court subsequently set for Md set August 19, for August 2024. Id. 19, 2024. Id. 26
27 27
Defendant's Motion Decision and Order Re: Deflendant's for a Mistrial Motion for Nakita TI People v. Nakila Aguon, CM0145-21 T. Aguon, o l4s- 21 Page4of ll Page Il I On July 26, 2024, 2024, aa Status Conference was Status Conference was held, held, and and the the Court Court set set the the continuation continuation of of 2 2 the jury trial trial as as to to Defendant's Defendant's case-in-chief case-in-chieffor January 6, for January 2025. See 6, 2025. SeeOrder OrderAfter Alter July July 26, 26, 2024 2024 3 j Hr'g Hr'(July g (July26, 26, 2024).. 2024). | 4 5 On January 3, 2025, January 3, 2025, Attorney Attorney Lujan Lujan filed filed a Motion to to W ithdraw as Withdraw as Counsel Counsel for for 5
6 6 Defendant, and Defendant Defendant, and Defendant did did not not object object to to his withdrawal. See Mot. to Withdraw as See Mot. as Counsel Counsel
77 for Def. (Jan. (Jan. 3, 2025). 8 On January January 6, 2025, a Jury Triad Hearing was held, Trial Hearing held, and and the Court granted granted Attorney 9 Lujan's Lujan's Motion MotiontotoWithdraw WithdrawasasCounsel Counsel for forDefendant. Defendant. See Order After See Order After January January 6, 6, 2025 2025Hr'g Hr'g 10
11 11 (Jan. 6, 2025). (Jan. 2025). Further, Further, the the Court Court appointed appointed the the Alternate Alternate Public Public Defender Defender to to represent represent
12 Defendant. Id. The Court then set Defendant. Id. continuation of set the continuation of the the jury jury trial trial as as to to Defendant's Defendant's case-in- case-in- 13 13 chief chiefor forFebnlary February 24, 24, 2025. 2025. Id. Id. 14 14 On January 31, 2025, January 31, 2025, Attorney Michael Michael F. F. Phillips Phillipsentered enteredhis his appearance appearance as as counsel counsel 15 15 for Defendant. Defendant. See Entry of of Appearance Appearance (Jan. (Jan. 31, 2025). Subsequently, on February Subsequently, on February 6, 2025, 16 16
17 17 Defendant filed Defendant filed aa Notice of Intent Notice of to File Intent to File Motions Motions for for Mistrial. See Def. Mistrial. See De£'s Notice of 's Notice of Intent Intent to to
18 18 File Mots. For For Mistrial Mistrial (Feb. (Feb. 6, 2025). 19 19 On February February 7, 2025, 2025, aa Status Status Conference was held, Conference was held, and and the the Court Court ordered ordered that that 20 ii Defendant's Defendant's Motion(s) Motion(s)be befiled filedby byFebruary February17, 2025and 17,2025 and that that the the People's People's response be filed response be tiled by by 21 22 February February 24, 2025. See See Order Order After Acer Feb. Feb. 7, 2025 2025 Hr'g Hr'g (Feb. (Feb. 7, 7, 2025). 2025). The The Court Court vacated vacated the the 22
23 23 jury trial jury trial set set for for February February 24, 24, 2025 2025 and and set the continuation continuation of of the jury jury trial as as to Defendant's Defendant's 24 24 case-in-chief for for March March 10, 10, 2025. 2025.Id. Id 25 25 On February 24, 2025, February 24, 2025, aa Motions Hearing Hearing was was held held on Defendant's Defendant's (1) (1) Motion Motion for for 26 ii Mistrial MistrialResulting Resultingfrom fromViolations ViolationsBanning BanningMedia MediaCoverage Coverageand and Public Public Access, Access, and and Failure Failure to to 27 28 28 Maintain Open Court Maintain an Open Court and Public Trial; and Public Trial; (2) (2) Motion Motion to to Recuse Recuse aa Member Member of of the the Jury Jury
Decision and and Order Re: Re: Defendant's Defendant'sMotion Motion for for a Mistrial Mistrial People v. v. Nakita T. Aguon, CMOl45-2I Aguon, CM0145-21 Page PageS5 of of 11 lI 1 Resulting from Irreconcilable Resulting Irreconcilable Conflict Defense Counsel; Conflict with Defense Counsel; and and(3} (3)Motion Motion for for aa Mistrial. Mistrial. 2 2 See Order After Feb. See Feb. 24, 24, 2025 2025 Hr'g Hr'g(Feb. (Feb.25, 25,2025). 2025}. Alter Afterhearing hearing the the arguments arguments from 3 ' ' j Court took counsels, the Court took the the matters matters under advisement advisement and and ordered ordered the theParties Parties to to submit their 4 5 5 Proposed Orders as to Proposed to Defendant's Defendant's Motion for Mistrllal. Motion for Mistrial. Id. Id.
6 On February 26, 2025, On 2025,the thePeople Peoplefiled filed their their Proposed Proposed Order Orderas asto toDefendant's Defendant'sMotion Motion
7 7 for Mistrial. for See Decision Mistrial. See Decision & &Order OrderDenying Denying De£'s Def.'sMot. Mot.for foraaMistrial Mistrial(Feb, (Feb.26, 26,2025). 2025}. Further, Further, 8 8 the Court vacated the jury Court vacated trial set jury triad set for for March l 0, 2025 due to unexpected March 10, unexpected circumstances circumstances in in an 9 ongoing Murder ongoing MurderJury Jury Trial TrialininSaipan Saipanthat thatwas wasexpected expected to to continue continue into the weekof of March March 10- 10- 10 10
11 14, 2025. 14, 2025. See See Order Order Vacating Vacating Jury Trial Trial (Feb. (Feb. 26, 26, 2025). 2025). 'The Court further further explained that a
12 12 would be set after consultation trial date would new triad with the consultation with the attorneys. attorneys. Id. Id.
13 The Court now issues The Court issues the following Decisionand following Decision andOrder Orderon onthe the matter. matter. 14 DISCUSSION 15 I. MISTRIAL IS WARRANTED Le 16 .
17 17 argues that Defendant argues thatthe theCourt Coul'tshould shouldgrant granther herMotion Motionfor foraaMistrial Mistrial as as "this "this trial trial is
18 18 old and over 27 months old 17 months." and the break is over 17 months." M Mem. of P. en of In Support A. In & A. P. 8; Support of ofDenI's Def.'s 19 19 Mot. for Mot. foraaMistrial Mistrialatat2.2.Further, Further,Defendant Defendantreminds reminds the the Court Court of ofthe the fact fact that that "[t]he '"[t]he last time 20 ii the Jury heard any evidence in this case was September September 27, 27,2023." 2023."Id. I. The Id at 1. People argue The People argue 21 22 that unlike People v. that v. Moore, CF0313-21, CF03 l 3-21, which which Defendant Defendant analogizes analogizes her case case with, "the "the 22
23 23 Defendant in Defendant in this this matter matter never moved moved for for a mistrial mistrial until long long after after Judge Tolentino returned to Tolentino returned
24 24 the bench." bench." People's People's Opp'n Opp'n to to Def. De£'s Mot. for for Mistrial Mistrial (hereinafter "People's Opp'n"} (hereinafter "People's Opp'n") at at 3. The 25 25 People further People further argue argue that, unlike Moore, that, unlike trial in Moore, trial in this this matter matter continued continued after oiler Judge Tolentino 26 ii returned to to the bench. bench.Id. Id 27
Decision and Order Re: Re: Defendant's Motion Motion for a Mistrial People People M Naldta T. v. Nakita Z Aguon, CMOl45-2 CM0145-21l Page 6 of l l Page6ofll 1 court has' The trial court has· discretion discretion "to decide whether whether a given incident merits a mistrial." mistrial." 2 • People v. ,r v. Aguon, 2020 Guam 24 1[22 (quoting United States States v. F.2d 763, v. Nace, 561 F.2d 763, 768 768 (9th I 3 Cir. 1977)). Cir. 1977)). "We "We think, that in ally casesof all cases of this this nature, nature,the thelaw law has has invested invested Courts Courts of of Justice 4 55 with the with the authority authority to to discharge discharge aa jury jury from giving giving any any verdict verdict whenever, whenever, in their opinion, opinion,
6 6 taldng the circumstances taking all the circumstances into consideration, consideration, there is is aa manifest necessity necessity for the act, or the
77 ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated." defeated." United States v. Perez, States v. Perez, 9 Wheat 579, 6 Wheat 579, - 8 8 L.Ed. 165. L.Ed. 165. "Under "Underthe the rule, trialcan rule, aa Md canbe bediscontinued discontinuedwhen whenparticular particularcircumstances circumstances manifest 9 g a necessity for so doing, and when failure to discontinue necessity for discontinue would defeat defeat the ends of justice." ends of 10
l11l Wade v.v. Hunter, Wade Hunter, 336 U.S. U.S. 684,690 (1949) (1949) (citing States v. Perez, 9 Wheat 579,66 L.Ed. United States (citing United
12 165). 13 The delays a. The delays that have have already already occurred, occurred, the the foreseeable future future delays, and 14 14 the length of trial are aa manifest trial are manifest necessity necessity for for discontinuing discontinuing trial. trial.
IS 15 In this In this matter, matter, Defendant Defendant incorporated incorporated the Honorable Honorable Arthur R. R. Barcinas's Barcinas's recent recent 16 16 decision in People v. in People v. Moore in her Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Moore in of Her 17 17 Motion for Motion for aa Mistrial; thus, this Court will refer refer to to the Moore Moore Court's checklist checklist in in conducting conducting 18 18 19 analysis. In Moore, its analysis. Defendant analogized Moore, Defendant analogized his his case case to to United States v. Lynch, United States 132 Lynch, 598 F.2d 132 19
20 20 (D.C. Cir. (D.C. 1978). In Lynch, Cir. 1978). District of Lynch, the District of Columbia Columbia Circuit Court Court found that that the triad trial court did
21 not abuse not discretion when itit declared abuse its discretion declared aa mistrial mistrial after after the the judge judge presiding over over the the case case 22 0 • » ill and became ill and could not Finish 135. The District finish the trial. Lynch, 598 F.2d at 135. District of Columbia 23 CircuitCourt Circuit Courtreasoned reasoned that that delay delay due due to to the the judge's judge's illness, illness, potential potential addidonad additional delay due to the 24 25 25 holidays, and and the jury's jury's expected lengthof expected length of trial Md all allsupported supported declaration of of a mistrial mistrial based based on
26 Id. Specifically, necessity. Id. manifest necessity. Specifically, the the District District of Columbia Columbia Circuit Circuit Court Court was was concerned concerned that 27 27 the jury was was subject subject to "the "the risk risk of ofoutside outside pressure" and "pressure pressure" and "pressureresulting resultingfrom iron aa desire desire to 28 decide the case case expeditiously," expeditiously," despite no evidence of either concern. Id.
Decision and Order Re: Re: Defendant's Motion Motion for a Mistrial Mistrial v. Nakita People vo Aguon, CM0145-21 Nikita T. Aguon, CMOl45-2 l Page 7 of 111I Page7of I Although similarities between this recognizes the similarities also recognizes Courtalso this Court authority, this bindingauthority, not binding Although not 2 2 case and Lynch. case and ke Lynch, continuing trial would result in the jury being Like Lynch. Li "at-large" for at being "at-large" 3 I i
j few weeks-likely even longer. least a few Seeid. longer. See jury was at-large during a two-week id (noting the jury 4 5 delay attributed to the illness). In Lynch, the District of the judge's illness). Columbia Circuit Court of Columbia was Court was 5
6 6 that ":further concerned that concerned distractionloomed "further distraction with the loomedwith impendingholidays." the impending Id. The holidays."Id. risk of The risk
7 7 iron an returned from the jury just returned case-the this case even greater in this is even holidays is because of the holidays distraction because distraction 8 s almost eighteen-month almost holiday break. eighteen-month holiday Finally, in Lynch, break. Finally, the Court Lynch, the was concerned Court was that the concerned that 9 19 length of exceeded the trial had exceeded of triad jlrry's expectations. the jury's Id., see expectations. Id.; e.g., Laguerre see e.g., v. Stare, 301 Ga. Laguerre v.
11 11 122, 125-26 (Ga. 2017) (finding (Ga. 2017) prolonged length (Ending the prolonged of trial length of and scheduling trial and conflicts with scheduling conflicts with the
12 necessity warranting manifest necessity jurors' schedules a manifest mistrial). This concern warranting aa mistrial). particularly concern is particularly
13 13 applicable to this applicable case. Jury selection began this case. on November began on 16, 2022. November 16, Trial has 2022. Trial now gone on for has now 14 14 beginning almost almost eighteen months. Moreover, despite trial beginning eighteen months ago, it almost eighteen does it does 15 Q; appear that the trial is not appear close to is close its conclusion. to its Although the conclusion. Although People have the People rested its have rested case, its case, 16 17 17 stillneeds Defendant still to present needs to her case, present her both parties case, and both arguments. parties need to present closing arguments.
18 18 still required the time still estimate the difficulttoto estimate is difficult Realistically, it is Readisticdly, conclude this trial. When the required to conclude 19 19 jury enters jury ofexposure deliberations, both the risk of enters deliberations, outside pressure exposure to outside and the pressure and likelihood the the likelihood 20 not be able to recall jury will not evidence and recall the evidence testimonyfrom andtestimony beginning of firm the beginning triad will of trial will be 21
22 high. high.
23 23 The People argue that The the Defendant, that the not the Defendant, not People,isisresponsible the People, forthe responsiblefor trial's delay. thetrial's
24 24 People's Opp'n Opp'n at series of of a series filing of Defendant'sfiling emphasized Defendant's People emphasized the People Specifically, the 3. Specifically, at 3. 25 25 motions as as the cause of the cause of trial's delay. the triad's The Court delay. Id. The has paused Court has trial to paused trial accommodate to accommodate 26 ii Defendant; howev er, the Defendant; however, Court wants the Court emphasize that wants to emphasize the Court that the paused trial has paused Court has trial to 27 28 28 accommodate Peopleasaswell. the People accommodate the Albeit the well. Albeit majority of the the majority delay being the delay attributed to being attributed
Re: Defendant's Motion for a Mistrial Decision and Order Re: People v. Nakifa T. Aguon, v. Nakita CM0145-2II Aguon, CMOl45-2 Page of I I Page 8 ofl 1 Defendant, the Court also paused trial due to paused trial juror and judge availability. Yet, to juror the reasons for Yet, the 2 I 0 » I do not delay do change the not change fact that the fact not heard that the jury has not testimony in heard testimony eighteen months almost eighteen in almost months 3 I' 1; and the length of the trial has greatly exceeded the jury's expectations. the jury's Absent any expectations. Absent evidence or any evidence or 4 finding of any outside ofany pressure on any of outside pressure the jurors, the of the Court does the Court want to does not want increase the to increase 5
6 jury's continuedrisk jury's continued outsidepressure riskofofoutside ormedia pressure or exposure. media exposure.
7 as a result prejudice as failed not only to show prejudice "[t]he Defendant has failed that "[t]he The People argue that The 8 8 of the of People, but the People, also to but also show how to show cautionary instruction how a cautionary is unlikely instruction is any prejudice.,, unlikely to cure any prejudice." 9 1; at 4. Opp'n at People's Opp'n Althoughaacautionary 4. Although instruction could cautionary instruction remedy any couldremedy concerns about the any concerns IO 11 11 jury's to outside exposure to jury's exposure pressure, itit does outsidepressure, not change does not already occurred change the fact that delay has already
12 and there exists foreseeable delay in the future. Over the course of seventeen the fixture. months, a couple seventeen months, 13 13 jurymembers of jury of were already members were dismissed, and already dismissed, all alternates and all been used. alternates have been Min. Entry (Feb. used.Min. 14 14 2025). Still, 24, 2025). the Court Still, the mindfulthat Court isismindful thelonger thatthe trialcontinues longertrial and.the continuesand. increased the increased 15 §. is that likely itit is morelikely themore Md, the thetrial, intothe lateinto thislate excusedthis be excused to be possibilities that jurors may have to possibilities dirt 16
17 17 the jury deliberations and jury could rush deliberations to adequately and fail to consider the adequately consider case. See State v. Yeboah, the case. Yeboah,
18 . 691 18 ("Itisisdifficult 2005) ("It App.2005) Ct. App. (Minn. Ct. 87, (Minn. N. W .2d 87, 691 N.W.2d imagineaamore difficultotoimagine disgruntled juror more disginmtled juror than 19 19 who has one who had to has had forgoaaplanned to forgo vacationunder plannedvacation these circumstances...such underthese attitude circumstances ... such an attitude 20 Z? not inure surely does not benefit of inure the benefit criminal defendant"). of a criminal 21 22 Defense asserts that in asserts that addition to in addition length of to the length triad,there of trial, was"no therewas way that "noway [he] could that [he] 22
23 23 be prepared with twenty-one (21) days twenty-one (21) ofevidence" days of and that counsel evidence" and had to counsel had review everything to review
24 24 would likely partieswould both parties continue, both 24, 2025). Should trial continue, (Feb. 24, Entry (Feb. Min. Entry related to the trial. Min. likely 25 25 be conduct a review compelled to conduct be compelled of about review of twenty-one (21) about twenty-one days' worth (21) days' ofevidence worth of and evidence and 26 ii Entry (Feb. testimony. Min. Entry testimony. fact, which (Feb. 24, 2025). This fact, attributable to which is highly attributable length of to the length of 27
Decision Decision and Defendant's Motion for a Mistrial Order Re: Defendant'sMotion and Order Mistrial Nakita T. People v. Nikita Aguon, CM0l4S-21 T. Aguon,CMOl45-2l Page 9 ofI1 Page9ofll 1 trial, could could negatively solelyDefendant-and parties-notsolely negatively impact both parties-not theCourt Defendant-andthe concerned Courtisisconcerned 2 jurors will that the jurors notrecall will not the evidence recall the and testimony evidence and from the beginning testimony from of trial. beginning of trial. 3 b. Further delaytototrial Furtherdelay inconsistentwith trialisisinconsistent theends withthe of justice. ends of 4 On On May May 2, 2, 2023, 2023, Defendant Defendant asserted her right asserted her right to to a speedy speedy trial. trial. Def.'s De£'s Assertion or or s 5
6 of Speedy Waiver of (May2,2, 2023). Speedy Trial (May Astrial 2023). As hasalready trialhas begun in already begun this case, in this speedy trial case, the speedy trial
7 clock clock has tolled. 8 G.C.A. § 80.60, ,r 50. Based Guam 7 1]50. Naich, 2013 Guam v. Naich, 80.60; see also People v. Based on the 8 record, Defendant never waived her right to speedy triad. to aa speedy acknowledges trial. As such, the Court acknowledges 9 that that itit has has aa responsibility responsibility to to expedite expedite this trial. See See 8 G.C.A. §§ 80.50(a) 80.S0(a) (stating (stating judicial judicial 10
ll officers have a duty to officers have expedite criminal to expedite proceedings "to criminal proceedings thegreatest "tothe degree that is consistent greatest degree
12 with the with the ends ends of of justice"). The Supreme justice"). The ofGuam, Supreme Court of in the Guam, in of speedy trial analysis, the context of 13 circumstances-such unforeseen circmnstances-such from unforeseen arising from and delay arising defendant and the defendant 13 has found that ofthe conduct of that conduct 14 14 cause. People as illness--constitutes good cause. v. Flores, People v. Guam 221[,r 32. "Delay Flores, 2009 Guam attributable to "Delay attributable 15 IS improper improper Court administration, however, Court administration, does not constitute good however, does cause."Id. good cause." Id 16 16
17 The this trial attributed to Judge-Tolentino's in this The delay 'm previous absence, JudgeTolentino's previous Attorney Olan's absence, Attorney Olan's
18 is absence Attorney Lujan's and Attorney service, and military service, to military due to absence due absence due Lujan's absence his wife's duetotohis medical trip wife's medical 19 19 and conflicting conflicting schedules cause. See schedules constitute good cause. Flores, 2009 SeeFlores, Guam 1 2009 Guam 32. Even more so, 1]32. 20 ii this Court Court vacated trial until vacated triad notice due until further notice conflictingschedules due to conflicting between this schedules between case and this case 21 22 an ongoing murder in Saipan, case in murder case CNMI. The Saipan,CNMI. Court would The Court be failing would be expedite trial failing to expedite if it trial if 22
23 23 allowed allowed this tocontinue trial to this trial whenthe continuewhen additionaldelay the additional foreseeable. delay isis foreseeable. 24 \\ \\ 25 \\ \\ 26 \\ 27 28 28 \\
Decision and Decision Re: Defendant's and Order Re: for aa Mistrial Defendant's Motion for Mistrial People v. People Nakita T. 11. Na/dm T. Aguon, CM0l45-21l Aguon, CMOl45-2 Page 10 of 11 Page 10 l l CONCLUSION 2 For the above reasons, the·Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Motion for a Mistrial 3 and ORDERS. the Clerk of Court to immediately reassign the case consistent with 4
5 Administrative Rule No. 20-00 I. d/. 6 SO ORDERED, this /ff.day of March, 2025. 7 I 8
11 HONORABLE JOSEPH N. CAMACHO Judge Pro Ternpore, Superior Court of Guam 12
23 SERVICE VIA EMAIL 24 I acknowledge that an electronic copy of 1he original was e-mailed 10: 25
Decision and Order Re: Defendant's Motion for ·a Mistrial Peopl(! v. Nakita T. Ag11ofl, CJ\.10145'-21 Page 11 of II