F
FII Ll ED CLERK go;sqT
1 2025 me Ra PH 5= oh, Si# = '§§===.@m mur-
2
3 0g: El e l
4
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
28
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
28
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-incase
-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
28
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
28
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
9
11 HONORABLE JOSEPH N. CAMACHO Judge Pro Ternpore, Superior Court of Guam 12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23 SERVICE VIA EMAIL
24 I acknowledge that an electronic copy of 1he original was e-mailed 10:
25
26
27
Decision and Order Re: Defendant's Motion for ·a Mistrial Peopl(! v. Nakita T. Ag11ofl, CJ\.10145'-21 Page 11 of II