FILED
| L E D
1 CLERK of COURT CLERK OF couRT
2 2021IJUL 202~ JUL f15
5 AHII=
r, : 15
3 SUPERJOR COURT SUPERKBR COURT
UF GU&M¢é@< OF GUAMA:---t_
4 IN THE
THE SUPERIOR
SUPERIOR COURT
COURT OF
OF GUAM
GUAM
5
6 PEOPLE OF GUAM GUAM Criminal Case No. CM0363-22 GPD GPD Report
Report No.
No. 21-26405
21-26405
7 vs.
8 UGOCHUKWU E. AKOMA, DECISION DECISION AND
AND ORDER
9 (Motion (Motion to
to Dismiss)
Dismiss)
Defendant.
10
11 11 This matter came before
matter came before the
the Honorable
Honorable Alberto
Alberto E.
E. Tolentino
Tolentino on
on April
April 15,
15, 2024,
2024, upon
upon
12 12 Defendant Ugochukwu E.
E. Akoma's
Aroma's oral
oral motion
motion to
to dismiss
dismiss this case
case with
with prejudice.
prejudice. At
At the
the hearing,
13 Attorney Joaquin Joaquin C. Arriola,
Arriola, Jr.
Jr. appeared
appeared on behalf of
of Defendant,
Defendant, and Assistant
Assistant Attorney General 14
15 15 Randall Winston B.
Randall Winston B. Albright Albright appeared
appearedon
onbehalf
behalfofofthe
thePeople
PeopleofofGuam
Guam("People").
("People"). Having
Having duly
duly
16 16 considered the oral arguments, considered the subsequentwritten arguments, subsequent writtenbriefings, briefings, and
and the
the applicable
applicable law,
law, the Court
Court
17 DENIES DENIES Defendant's Defendant's Motion.
18 BACKGROUND
19 19 Defendant, a medical doctor, stands accusedof stands accused oftwo
two counts
countsof
of Fourth
FourthDegree
Degree Criminal Sexual
20 Conduct (as aa Misdemeanor). Conduct (as Misdemeanor). Mag. Comal.
Compl. (Oct. 20,
20, 2022).
2022). Defendant's
Defendant's jury
jury trial
trial began on April
April
21
22 8, 2024, 2024, and andconcluded
concludedon
onApril
April 15,
15,2024,
2024,with
withthe
thedeclaration
declarationof
ofaamistrial.
mistrial. As explained in more
23 detail in in the Court's
Court's April
April19,
19,2024,
2024, Decision
Decisionand
and Order, the trial was plagued with with evidentiary issues,
24 which ultimately ultimately led
led to
to the
the exclusion
exclusion of
of much of the People's evidence.
much of evidence. Defendant Defendant eventually
eventually
25 requested, and the the Court granted,
granted, a mistrial.
mistrial. See
See generally
generally Dec. & Order
Order (Apr.
(Apr. 19,
19, 2024).
26
27
28 Page 1 of9 11 Upon the Upon the Court's
Court's grant ofmistrial, grant of mistrial,Defendant Defendant informed
informedthe
the Court
Courtthat
that he
he intended
intended to make
make
2 an oral oral motion to dismiss dismiss the
the case
case with
with prejudice. The Court prejudice. The Court heard heard Defendant's
Defendant's oral
oral motion for
3 dismissal dismissal later that that same
same day.
day. At
Atoral
oralarguments,
arguments, Defendant
Defendant made
made two core
core arguments:
arguments: aa retrial
retrial
4 violate double
would violate double jeopardy, jeopardy, and
and rescheduling
rescheduling this
this trial
trial would
would lead to
to a violation ofhis
violation of his statutory statutory
5 right to to a speedy
speedytrial.
trial. Min. Entry
Entry at
at2:15:04
2:15:04PM
PM(Mot.
(Mot. Hr'g, Apr. 15,
15, 2024). The
The People
People argued
argued in
in
6 response that response that double double jeopardy to these jeopardy does not apply to these facts and that there is still time time on
on the
the speedy
7
8 trial "clock" retrial. Id. at 22:28:05 "clock" for aa retrial. 128 PM. At At the
the conclusion the hearing, the Court took the conclusion of the the
9 matter under matter advisement.Id.
underadvisement. Id at 2:55:05 2:55:05 PM. TheCourt
PM. The Courtalso
also gave
gaveparties
parties leave
leave to
tosubmit
submit written
written
10 10 briefing by the the end
endof thefollowing
of the following day. Id. at day. Id at 2:52:15
2:52:15 PM. Both
Bothparties See Mot.
parties did so. See Mot. Dismiss Dismiss
11 11 (Apr. 16, 2024), (Apr. 16, 2024); Opp. Mot. Dismiss (Apr. 16, 16, 2024).
12 12 DISCUSSION
13 13 1. Double
Double Jeopardv DoesNot
Jeopardy Does Not Bar
Bar Defendant's
Defendant's Retrial
Retrial
14 14 The general rule
rule is
is that
that when
when a mistrial is
is granted
granted upon
upon the request of the
the defendant, double
15 15
16 16 jeopardy does not bar bar a retrial.
retrial. People v. Pablo, Pablo, 2016
2016 Guam
Guam 29
29 1] 25, Oregon v,
,i 25; v. Kennedy, Kennedy, 456 U.S.
17 17 667 (1982). This Thisisisbecause
because"a
"amotion
motionby
bythe
thedefendant
defendant is
is deemed
deemed to
to be
be aa deliberate election election on
on his
18 18 part to forgo his part to his valued valued right
right to have his guilt
have his guilt or
or innocence
innocence determined by the determined by the first
first trier of fact.99"
trier of
19 19 United United States States v.
v. Scott,
Scott, 437 U.S.
U.S. 82,
82, 93
93 (1978).
(1978). However,
However, both the Guam
Guam Supreme Court and
and the
20 U.S. Supreme have recognized a "narrow exception"
Supreme Court have exception" to tothis
this rule
rule in
inthe
the circumstance
circumstance where
21 "the "the mistrial mistrial arose
arose from
from prosecutorial
prosecutorial or
or judicial
judicialactions
actions done
done in
inorder
orderto
to goad
goad the
the defendant
defendant into
22 requesting requesting aa mistrial."
mistrial." Id
Id.Defendant
Defendantargues
arguesthat
thathe
he was
was "goaded"
"goaded"into
intorequesting
requesting aa mistrial
mistrial here
here by
23
24 the People's "lack the People's "lackofofpreparation preparationand
and inability
inabilitytotomeet
meetbasic
basicevidentiary
evidentiaryburdens,
burdens, and
and repeated
repeated
25 motions to reconsider motions to reconsider basic basicevidentiary
evidentiaryrulings."
rulings." Mot. Dismiss
Dismiss at
at 6,
6; see
see generally
generally Dec. & Order
Order
26 (Apr.
(Apr. 19, 19, 2024)
2024) (summarizing
(summarizing the
the evidentiary issues).
27
28 Page 2 of9 Page
1
1 The burden of of proof
proof on a "goading" claim belongs "goading" claim belongs to to the defendant
defendant and
and is
is a difficult standard
2 to meet. See Earnest v. Dorsey, 1123, 1130 Dorsey, 87 F.3d 1123, 1130 (10th Cir. 1996) (the standard standard is
is "extremely
3 v. August, 375 P.3d 140, exahing"); People v. exacting"), 140, 144 144 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016) ("a heavy burden");
burden"), People
.:
4 v. v. Dawson, Ct. App. 1986)
Dawson, 397 N.W.2d 277, 282 (Mich. Ct. 1986) (a "near impossible burden"), burden"); see also
also
5 Kennedy, at 688 Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 688 (Steve (Stevens,
fs, J.,
J., concurring)
concurring) ("It is almost inconceivable that a defendant 6 prosecutor's deliberate
could prove that the prosecutor's deliberate misconduct misconduct was
was motivated
motivated by
by an intent to provoke a 7
8 mistrial."). Thus, "in mistrial."). Thus, "in practice, practice, the Kennedy standard standard isis rarely
rarelymet. ...Nationwide, met.... Nationwide, such
such cases
cases are
are
9 few and far between."
between." United
United States
States v. Lopez-Avila, 678 F.3d 955, 955, 962
962 (9th
(9th Cir.
Cir. 2012).
10 10 "whether the The key inquiry is "whether the conduct conduct giving
giving rise
rise to
to the
the mistrial
mistrial in this case was intended 11 11 to provoke a mistrial." Pablo, Pablo, 2016
2016 Guam
Guam 29
29126
1126 (emphasis
(emphasis in
in original).
original). A defendant must show 12 12 that the prosecutor had the specific "intent the trial,"
"intent to terminate the trial," not not an "intent
"intent to
to prevail
prevail at
at trial by
13 13 impermissible means." United States v.
v. Oseni,
Oseni, 996 F.3d 183, 188 (7th (7th Cir.
Cir. 1993).
1993). If "prosecutorial
14 misconduct-regardless misconduct-regardless ofofits its character-is
character-isnot
notintentionally
intentionallydesigned
designedtotoprovoke
provoke the
the defendant
defendant into
15
16 for aa mistrial, moving for mistrial, then reprosecution prosecution isis not
not balTed."
barred." State v.
v. Brear,
Breit, 930 P.2d 792, 298 (N.M.
17 1996). Thus, "gross negligence Thus, negligence by the the prosecutor,
prosecutor, or
or even
even intentional
intentional conduct
conduct that
that seriously
seriously
18 prejudices the defense, defense,isisinsufficient."
insufficient." United
United States v. Buck, 847 F.3d 267, 272 (5th Cir.
States v. Cir. 2017), 2017); see
see
19 19 Dawson, 397 N.W.2d at 283 283 ("Negligent 'gross' or ("Negligent error, 'gross' or otherwise, otherwise, may
may properly
properly lead
lead to
to aa mistrial,
20 but in the absence of of willfulness should
should not
not rise
rise to
to the level
level of
ofaa constitutional
constitutional bar
bar on retrials.").
21 The Court must consider the "objective of the trial to "objective facts and circumstances" of to determine the 22 "existence or nonexistence nonexistence of intent"
intent" to
to provoke
provoke a mistrial. Kennedy, 456 U.S.
mistrial. Kennedy, U.S. at at 675. Here, the
675. Here,
23
24 Court is not persuaded that that the
the People's evidentiary errors were made with the specific specific purpose of
of
25 goading Defendant Defendant into requesting a mistrial. As As Defendant
Defendanthimself
himselfnotes
notes:
26 In retrospect, what is clear is that the the assigned prosecutor was foisted into this case 27 at the last last minute.
minute. Witnesses
Witnesses were not not prepared, prepared, exhibits were reviewed and exhibits were and
28 Page 3 of of9 1 updated lltbth hour. And most updated and lists were haphazardly filed at the 11 most important important to the
mistrial, the actual
actual exhibits
exhibits were
were not
not reviewed
reviewed with the corresponding witnesses to 2 2 prepare prepare toto meet the foundational admissibility under the Guam foundational requirements of admissibility 3 Rules of of Evidence. The exhibits were disorganized with some not timely lodged disorganized with
with the Court
Court raising further
further authenticity
authenticity and
and chain
chain of ofcustody
custodyissues
issues.
4
5 Mot. Dismiss Dismiss at 4. Clearly,
Clearly, the
the People
People made
madeerrors
errors in
in their
their preparation
preparation for
for this trial, but these appear this trial,
6 to be errors errors of
of negligence.
negligence.
7 The Court first notes notes that
that the
the People have extensively contested all the evidentiary rulings in People have
8 question, brought question, brought and argued several motions for for reconsideration
reconsideration of those rulings, rulings, requested a
9 mistrial themselves mistrial themselves on on account
account of
of one ruling,
ruling, and even suggested suggested that they would attempt attempt an
an
10 10 interlocutory appeal. The People appeal. The People also
also resisted Defendant's oral motion Defendant's oral motion for for mistrial, and even now, 11 11 they continue to argue the admissibility of the admissibility of the
the evidence.
evidence. See Opp. Mot. Dismiss Dismiss at 5-6.
5-6. While their
12 12
13 13 legal arguments themselves have not been (and not been (and are
are still
still not) well
well taken
taken by
by the
the Court,
Court, this
this posture
14 14 suggests the People genuinely believe in their positions. This in positions. This in Mm
tum suggests
suggests that the People did
15 15 not deliberately err in order to provoke provoke aa mistrial, as they do not believe they they erred
erred at
at all.
16 16 While the People's
People's subjective
subjective views
views obviously
obviously are
are not
not dispositive,
dispositive, there is
is little
little other
other
17 17 evidence before evidence before the Court relevant to to Defendant's The Court Defendant's claim. The Court finds finds nothing in the
nothing in the record
record that
18 18 explicitly demonstrates demonstrates the
the People's
People's specific intent to to cause
cause aa mistrial.
mistrial. Defendant
Defendant has not argued
19 19
20 that specific intent can be inferred from any particular evidentiary error, nor does the Court find that
21 any particular error error inherently
inherentlydemonstrates
demonstrates such
such an intent. Cf
Cf State
State v.
v. Barton, 240 S.W.3d 693,
22 702 (Mo. 2007) ("the fact of the prosecutor's prosecutor's misconduct
misconduct alone does not prove his intent to prevent 23 an acquittal acquittal ...
... his
his misconduct
misconduct may
may just
just as well be attributed to poor attributed to poorjudgment.").
judgment."). And
And the specific
24 kinds of kinds of er r or her errors e-wit ness list here-witness listissues, issues, t he
thefafailure
ilur e t otoprpresent
esent ororiginal
igina l copies,
copies, difficult ies
difficulties
25 establishing establishing aa proper proper chain-of-custody
chain-of-custodyfor
forphysical
physicalevidence,
evidence,etc.-are
etc.-are not
not the
the kind
kind of
oferrors
errors that
that
26
27
28 Page 4 of of9 1 can only occur through calculated efforts. Errors Errors like these can also occur because because of
of disorganization
disorganization
2 or unpreparedness unpreparedness before before trial-in
trial-in other
otherwords,
words, as
as aa result
result of negligence.
3 Defendant's primary Defendant's primary theory theory appears
appears to
to be that he was provoked into requesting requesting aa mistrial by 4 the cumulative effect of the evidentiary evidentiary errors.
errors. See Mot. Dismiss at 6 ("A mistrial mistrial was the only
5 consequence of
foreseeable consequence of the Government's Government's repeated
repeated errors.").
errors."). However,
However, this
this argument
argument is
is difficult
6 to square to r e with aa sta standardd that requires
equir es a showing
showing of
of intentional conduct
conduct on the pa
part of
of tthe
7
8 prosecution. The prosecution. The mere mere fact
fact that
that the
the People
People committed
committed several
several errors
errors does not
not itself
itself prove they
9 intended to err, or that they they intended these errors errors to
to provoke
provoke a mistrial.
mistrial. And
And ifif the
the errors
errors are
are all
all
10 10 unintentional, multiple unintentional, multiple errors errors do
do not create
create a bar to
to rreprosecution.
prosecution. See,
See, e.g., United
United States v.
11 11 McCallum, McCallum, 721 F.3d 706, 711 711 (D.C.
(D.C. Cir.
Cir. 2013)
2013) ("Because
("Because the prosecutor's several violations were 12 12 unintentional, unintentional, however, however, retrial
retrial of
of McCallum
McCallum is
is not barred
barred by the
the Double
Double Jeopardy
Jeopardy Clause."),
Clause.");
13 13 Commonwealth v. Johnson, Johnson, 231 A.3d
A.3d 807,
807, 817-19
817-19 (Penn. 2020).
14 14 Defendant Defendant also
also analogizes
analogizes the
the evidentiary
evidentiary errors
errors in
in this
this case
case to the crucial
crucial error in People v, v.
15 15
16 16 Charfauros, Crum.
Charfauros, Case No. CM0387-17.
Crim. Case CM0387-17. However,, the However he Courtt finds finds t he er r or in
error in tthat
ha t ca se
case
17 17 distinguishable. In Charfauros, a mistrial was declared, and dismissal with prejudice was granted, distinguishable.
18 because the prosecutor elicited testimony from a witness on a highly prejudicial and fundamentally 19 19 irrelevant topic. See Dec. & 17, 2019).
Order at 2 (Dec. 17, & Order 2019). Critically, this evidence was elicited only 20 the Judge
after the Judge had made made a finding on the record that the the evidence
evidence could not be elicited, and after the 21 Judge had issued Judge issued "repeated "repeated warnings
reamingstotothe
theprosecution"
prosecution"against
against doing
doing so.so.Id.Id atat 6.6. When the 22 prosecutor elicited the testimony anyway, the Judge found that he had acted "intentionally and with 23
24 of goading the purpose of goading defense defense counsel
counsel to
to object
object to
tothe
thetestimony."
testimony." Id.
Id
25 By contrast, the evidentiary contrast, the evidentiary errors errors in
in this
this case
case were
were made upon evidence that that was
was clearly
clearly
26 relevant, arguably probative, and and not
not unfairly
unfairly prejudicial
prejudicial to
toDefendant.
Defendant. The People did not introduce 27 waring, nor
the evidence over the Court's warning, norwould wouldthe
theCourt
Court have
have excluded
excluded or
or stricken
stricken the evidence
28 Page 5 of of99 1 had it been been introduced properly.
properly. Instead,
Instead, the evidence
evidence was excluded or stricken because the methods excluded or
2 the People chose to attempt to introduce the evidence were contrary to the Guam Rules of Evidence.
3 The Court does not mean mean to
to suggest
suggest that
that the People's
People's errors
errors in this case were not not serious,
serious; indeed,
4 they were so serious that they required required a mistrial. But unlike the error mistrial. But error in the Charfauros case, the 5 errors in this case do not demonstrate intentional conduct. errors conduct. Instead, Instead, they
they demonstrate
demonstrate negligence.
6 And while prosecutorial negligence negligence is
is condemnable,
condemnable, itit does
does not
not suffice
suffice to sustain a "goading"
"goading" claim.
7
8 Under Under these circumstances, circumstances, double
double jeopardy
jeopardy does
does not
not bar
bar aa retrial.
9 Defendant's Due 2. Defendant's Due Process Process Rights
Rights Were
Were Not
Not Violated
Violated
10 10 In line with the prior argument, Defendant Defendant also casts the People's actions as People's actions as a violation of his violation of
11 11 "due process right to competent prosecution." Mot.
Mot. Dismiss
Dismiss at
at 6.
6. Defendant
Defendantasserts
asserts that
that the
the Court
Court
12 12 has the inherent supervisory authority authority to
to dismiss
dismiss an
an indictment
indictment upon
upon prosecutorial impropriety. Id.
prosecutorial impropriety. Id 13 13 He argues the Court should exercise this authority here because 14 14 [the People's] basic
basic violation
violation of
of the
the Court's
Court's orders
orders concerning
concerning organization
organization ofof
15 15 exhibits, and lodging the same with the court as ordered lodging the same with the court ordered by by the Court - factored into 16 16 the ultimate mistrial.
mistrial. The
The Government
Government as a whole
whole should be deterred from this type of malfeasance when bringing bringing criminal
criminal defendants
defendants to
to trial
trial in Guam.
Guam. This
This matter
matter
17 17 should be dismissed as a stern stem statement from the Court that thethe Government Government must
18 18 do better.
19 19 Id. Id at at 7.
20 While the Court
Court understands
understands Defendant's frustration with the outcome of frustration with of the the first
first trial,
trial,
21 "dismissal of of an indictment
indictment with
with prejudice
prejudice necessarily
necessarily implicates
implicates separation-of-powers separation-of-powers principles,"
22 and is therefore "impermissible "impermissible absent
absent a clear basis in fact United States v.
fact and law for doing so." United 23
24 Bundy, Bundy, 968 F.3d 1019, 1019, 1031
1031 (9th Cir. 2020). Thus, Cir. 2020). Thus, "for
"for prosecutorial
prosecutorial misconduct
misconduct to
to support
support the
25 super visor y exercise supervisory of dismissal exer cise of dismissa l as a s aa sanction,
nct ion, the
t he misconduct must be bot misconduct must bothh fla gr flagrant aand
nd
26 prejudicial." People v.
v. Lujan,
Lujan, 1998
1998 Guam 28 1]
~ 19,
19; see
see United States v.
v. Jacobs,
Jacobs, 855 F.2d
F.2d 652,
652,655
27 (9th Cir. 1988) ("absent flagrant and prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct, this court will find that 28 Page 6 of of9 1 court's dismissal the district court's dismissal of of an
an indictment
indictment is
is an
an abuse
abuse of
of its
itsdiscretion.").
discretion."). By
By contrast,
contrast, "negligent,
"negligent,
2 or even grossly negligent"
negligent" behavior
behavior does
does not
not amount
amount to flagrant misconduct.
misconduct. United
United States v.
v. Kearns,
Kearns,
3 1993); Bundy, 968 F.3d at 1038 (flagrant 5 F.3d 1251, 1253 (9th Cir. 1993), (flagrant misconduct misconduct does not include 4 "accidental or merely negligent" errors).
errors). Here,
Here, the
the Court
Court has found that the People's People's errors
errors were
5 negligent, not not deliberate. Since
Since negligent
negligenterrors
errors do
do not
not rise
rise to the level of
of "flagrant misconduct," the 6 sanction of of dismissal with prejudice prejudice on
on this
this basis
basis is unavailable.
7
8 Necessarily Violate Defendant's Statutorv 3. Retrial Would Not Necessarilv Statutory Speedv Speedy Trial Right
9 Defendant Defendant argues
argues that any retrial
that any retrial would
would violate
violate Guam's
Guam's Speedy
Speedy Trial
Trial Act,
Act, 88 GCA
GCA §§ 80.60,
80.60,
10 10 because there is already already "no time left on the speedy trial clock to to bring
bring [him]
[him] to
to trial
trial again."
again." Mot.
11 11 Dismiss at 8 (Apr.
(Apr. 16,
16, 2024).
2024). Because Defendant
Defendant was
was not
not in
in custody
custody at the time of
of his arraignment,
12 12 his speedy trial his speedy clock began trial clock began with
with sixty
sixty (60)
(60) days on it.
days on GCA §§ 80.60(a)(3).
it. 88 GCA 80.60(a)(3). Defendant Defendant asserted his
asserted his
13 13 right to a speedy trial on January 30, 2024.
2024. Defendant
Defendant calculates that this this required
required him to be brought 14 14 trial by to trial by April April 1,
1, 2024,
2024, although
although in
infact
facthis trialdid
histrial didnot
notbegin
beginuntil
untilApril
April8,8,2024.
2024.Id
Id at
at 8.
8. Therefore,
Therefore,
15 15
16 16 Defendant reasons there Defendant reasons zero (0)
are zero
there are (0) days
days left on his
his speedy
speedy trial
trial clock,
clock, so
so any
any retrial
retrial would
would
17 17 automatically violate his statutory speedy trial right.
18 18 It is undeniable that more than sixty days elapsed between between January
January 30,
30, 2024, and April 8,
8,
19 19 2024. 2024. Under Under88GCA
GCA§§80.60,
80.60, "if
"ifaa defendant
defendant isis not
not brought
brought to
to trial
trial within
within the
the time
time prescribed
prescribed and
and
20 no good good cause is shown, the trial court must must dismiss
dismiss the
the indictment."
indictment." People v. Flores, 2009 Guam v. Flores,
21 'if 23; Ungacta 22 1123, Ungacta v.
v. Superior Court,
Court, 2013 Guam 29 'if 9.9. Thus, the question is whether there was 29 1]
22
good cause for the delay, delay; this is typically found where the delay delay was
was caused
caused by, and/or
and/or was for the
23
24 'ii 26;
benefit of, the defendant. Id 1[ 26, see see Flores, 'if 40 (good Flores, 2009 Guam 22 1140 (good cause found where trial trial
25 delay was due to to appointment
appointment of defendant's new new attorney);
attorney), Quinata
rata v.
v. Superior
Superior Court,
Court, 2010 Guam
26 8 'if1137 (good cause 37 (good causefound
foundtotoexclude
excludetime
time spent
spent resolving
resolving defendant's
defendant's motion to dismiss).
27
28 Page 7 of9 of 1 Here, although jury trial although jury trial began on April 8, 8, 2024,
2024, it was originally scheduled scheduled for March 25,
2 2024, i.e., within 2024, i.e., withinthe the60-day
60-daylimit
limitimposed
imposedby GCA§§80.60(a)(3).
by88GCA The two-week 80.60(a)(3). The two-week delay delay from
from March
March
3 25 to to April 8 8 occurred at
atthe
therequest
requestof
ofDefendant's
Defendant'scounsel.
counsel.Min.
Min.Entry
Entry(Feb.
(Feb.20,
20,2024).
2024). The
The two-
4 week delay was was therefore caused
caused by Defendant and
and was
was for
for Defendant's benefit, and it is therefore 5 excludable excludable for good good cause.
cause. See
See Ungacta,
Ungacta, 2013 Guam 29126.
2013 Guam 29 1] 26. Thus, Thus, on
on the
the date
dateDefendant's
Defendant's first
6 trial began, trial began, aa total total of
of fifty-four
fifty-four (54)
(54) days
days had
had elapsed
elapsed from Defendant's speedy trial clock, speedy trial clock, leaving 7
8 six (6)
6) days
days remaining.
remaining.
9 The Court notes The Court under18 that under
notes that 18USCA
USCA §§ 3161(e) of the
3161(e) of the federal
federal Speedy Trial Act, Speedy Trial Act, the
the
10 10 declaration of a mistrial mistrial resets
resets the
thespeedy
speedytrial
trialclock.
clock. See United
United States v.v. Kington, 875 F.2d 1091, 1091,
11 1107 (5th Cir. 1107 (5th Cir. 1989), 1989); Unitea'States
United States v.v. Porchay, Porchay, 651 930, 937 651 F.3d 930, 937n.5
n.5(8th
(8thCir.
Cir.2011).
2011). Several
Several states
states
12 have similar rules. See, e.g., rules. See, e.g., Cal.
Cal. Penal Code §§ 1382(a)(2), Penal Code 1382(a)(2); Kan.
Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3402(±);
Stat. Ann. 22-3402(f), Colo.
Colo. Rev.
13 Stat. Arm. §§ 18-1-405(6)(e). Stat. Ann. 18-1-405( e). Other Otherstates
stateshold
holdthat
thatthe
the statutory
statutory speedy
speedy trial
trial right
right has
has been satisfied
been satisfied
14 14 where the trial began within the statutory timeframe, regardless statutory timeframe, regardlessof of how
how the
the trial
trial ends,
ends; accordingly,
15 15
16 16 there there iS is no
no corresponding
corresponding "speedy trial trial clock"
clock"governing
governingthe
theretrial,
retrial,but
butrather
ratheraareasonableness
reasonableness
17 17 analysis.
analysis. See, See, e.g.,
e.g., People v.
v. Dixon,
Dixon, 410 N.E.2d 252, 255 255 (Ill. Ct.
Ct. App. 1980),
1980); Bryant
Bryantv.v. State,
State, 746
746
18 So.2d 853, 853, 867
867 (Miss.
(Miss. Ct.
Ct. App. 1998).
1998). InInGuam,
Guam,however,
however,there
thereisisno
nosimilar
similarstatute,
statute, and
and there
there
19 appears to be appears to be no Guam Guam Supreme Court precedent Supreme Court precedent on on the
the intersection
intersection of
of speedy
speedy trial
trial rights
rights and
and
20 mistrials. mistrials. Therefore, Therefore, six
six(6)
(6)days
daysremain
remain on
on the
the speedy trial clock for retrial.
speedy trial
21 21 // II 22 // II 23 24 // II
25 // II 26 // II 27
28 Page 8 of9 1 CONCLUSION
22 Based on the the above
above analysis,
analysis, the
the Court
Court DENIES
DENIES Defendant's Motion. The The Court
Court further
further
3 3 orders that the the Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Conference
Conferencebe
bescheduled
scheduled for
forJuly
July16,
16, 2024,
2024, at
at 8:45
8 :45 a.m.
4 ORDEREDthis SO ORDERED this §i.gL 1 JUL ll
2024
l 5 202%
5 5 6 6
77
8 8 C I
HONORABLE HONORABLE ALBERTO
ALBERTO E. E. TOLENTINO
9 9 Judge, Superior Superior Court of Guam
10 10 11 11
12 12 13 13 14 14
15 15 SERVIICE S~RVDCIEVIA
VHAE-EWAHL
rE-MAHIL
16 16 acknowledge that II acknowledge that an
an electronic
electronic
copyofoi the copy the original
original was
was e-mailed
e-mailed to:
to:
17 17 ,16 I, 4.-riglq ,fa II rr ;vf '1
18 18 nate~ '7//-Y/1Tlme 1/2W/ Date:1brktrime: l/;f4,J,-.
19 19 I7I4.uf (k/du, littti.f (M/w 624
.a...-<
Deputy Deputy Clerk,
Clerk, Superior
Superior Court
Court of
of Guam
Guam
220
21 21
222 2
23 23 224
225 5
226
227 7
28 28 Page Page 99 of
of99