I
ml r 3" ié.,LLJ §;5:;. it =1r=,t
SUPERIUR COURT 1 UF 'GUAM I
2 Z G Z ISEP 28 PH l=03
3 CLERK OF Baum
4 By' 5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM \ 6
7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CF0245-20 GPD Report No. 20-11619 8 v. DECISION AND.ORDER 9 JUAN FAISAO MENDIOLA, DENYING aka John F. Mendiola DEFENDANT'S MOTION 10 DOB: 07/04/1963 FOR NEW TRIAL 11 Defendant. 12
13 INTRODUCTION 14 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on September 2, 2021 for
15 hearing on Defendant JUan Faisao Mendiola's (aka John F. Mendiola's) ("Defendant's") Motion
16 For New Trial ("Motion"). Assistant Attorney General Sean Brown represents the People, and
17 Attorneys Joseph Razzano and Joshua Walsh represent Defendant. Having duly considered the
18 parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision
19 and Order and DENIES Defendant's Motion.
20 BACKGROUND
21 Defendant is charged with Murder (as a First Degree Felony) and Aggravated Assault (as a
22 2nd Degree Felony). Indictment (Jul. 27, 2020). Each charge is accompanied by a Special
23 Allegation: Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony. L. Defendant
24 is accused of murdering Peter John Tadeo Rios Jr. ("Victim") by shooting him with a handgun.
25 Magistrate's Complaint (May 6, 2020).
26 A jury trial began on August 26, 2021 in the Supreme Court of Guam Courtroom. The room
27 was modified to remove the public gallery areas so that the jury box would comply with Covid-19
28 social distancing protocols. Members of the public were consequentially not allowed into the
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion For New Trial CF0245-20, People of Guam v. Juan Mendiola Page 1 of 4 |
1 courtroom. Instead, remote video streaming areas were set up in both the first-floor central atrium
2 of the Guam Judicial Center and in Judge Lamorena, III's trial courtroom. All audio and visuals
3 were broadcasted through a Webcam and its built-in microphone.
4 During the first dayof trial, it was learned that members of the public could not meaningfully
5 hear or see what was occurring during the trial. See Declaration of Mercedes Rosario at 'll 3 (Aug.
6 30, 2021). Audio problems in the remote streams persisted throughout the entire first day of trial,
7 with attorneys and witnesses sounding "muffled and garbled." L. at '][ 4. Furthermore, members of
8 the public claimed they could not view the evidence presented (such as photos of the crime scene
9 and the autopsy), as the courtroom image only took up a small portion of the screen. Ld. at '][ 5.
10 On August 30, 2021, Defendant filed his Motion For New Trial. Defendant argued that the
11 Court's decision to exclude in-person viewing amounts to a violation of Defendant's right to a
12 public trial. Motion at (6-7) (Aug. 30, 2021). Defendant claims that the exclusion of the public
13 prejudices Defendant by heightening the enormity of the offense, eliminating the possibility of
14 spectators coming forward with surprise testimony, and removing Defendant's family/friends
15 whose presence might impact the jurors. L- at 9-10. Defendant further argues that the Court failed
16 to cure this defect because of the audio and visual problems pertinent throughout the live stream.
17 Q. at 10. Defendant believes these audio and visual problems prevent the public from watching the
18 case for irregularities, reviewing the evidence presented, and checking the demeanor of witnesses.
19 L. at 10-11. Defendant requested a new trial in light of these alleged violations. Q. at 11.
20 On August 31, 2021, the People filed their Opposition to Defendant's Motion
21 ("Opposition")., The People argued the Court was justified in halting in-person viewing of the trial
22 because of an overriding need to protect the Defendant, jurors, and members of the public from
23 unnecessary exposure to the deadly Covid-19 virus. Opposition at 1-3 (Aug. 31, 2021). The
24 People followed their Opposition up with a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
25 Opposition ("People's Memorandum"). The People argued that the Court's solution of partially
26 closing public viewing Of the trial did not materially prejudice the Defendant because it was
27 narrowly tailored to advance the Court's interest in limiting Covid-19 exposure and an alternative
28 live-stream was offered. People's Memorandum at 2 (Aug. 3 l, 2021).
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion For New Trial CF0245-20, People of Guam v. Juan Mendiola Page 2 of 4 Q 9
1 The Court held a hearing on September 2, 2021. After hearing the arguments of the parties,
2 the Court took the matter under advisement.
3 DISCUSSION
4 The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that "in all criminal
5. prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." U.S. Const. amend. VI
6 (emphasis added). The Organic Act of Guam also guarantees that "in all criminal prosecutions the
7 accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial." 48 U.S.C. § l42lb(g) (emphasis added).
8 "The failure to hold a public trial is a structural error that infects the entire trial process."
9 U.S. v. Neuron-Sostre, 790 F.3d 295, 301 (IS Cir. 2015), see also People v. Callahan, 2018 Guam
10 17 iI 32 ("Stmctural errors...inc1ude...denia1 of a public trial.") (internal citations omitted).
11 "Stnlctural error in the form of a denial of the public trial right prejudices a defendant
12 notwithstanding that the prejudice may be difficult to detect." Neuron-Sostre, 790.F.3d at 305.
13 The Supreme Court of the United States has held that, to avoid committing structural error,
14 courtroom closures must be justified by an overriding interest and tailored to be "no broader than
15 necessary to protect that interest." Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984).
16 The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic and surge of infections in Guam clearly presents an
17 overriding interest to close the couitroorn to in-person viewing from the public. This is made clear
18 by the Guam Supreme Court's Administrative Order No. ADVI21-232. That Administrative Order L
19 allowed jury trials to continue, so long as they adhere to social distancing guidelines.
20 Administrative Order No. ADM21-232 at 'll 6 (Apr. 12, 2021). However, that same Administrative'
21 Order stressed the need to "limit in-person contact as much as possible by using available
22 technologies (e.g. Zoom)." Ld. at 'll 6. If jury trials are to continue while adhering to social
23 distancing guidelines, they must use Zoom or other video screening services to broadcast the trials
24 or they won't be public. This is precisely what the Court has done here.
25 `Furthermore, partially closing the courtroom to in-person viewing from the public is tailored
26 to be "no broader than necessary to protect" the court's interest. Waller, 467 U.S. at 48. This
27 partial closure is only broad enough to allow for social distancing i.n the jury. An alternative
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion For New Trial CF0245-20, People of Guam v. Juan Mendiola Page 3 of 4 1
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
I
ml r 3" ié.,LLJ §;5:;. it =1r=,t
SUPERIUR COURT 1 UF 'GUAM I
2 Z G Z ISEP 28 PH l=03
3 CLERK OF Baum
4 By' 5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM \ 6
7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CF0245-20 GPD Report No. 20-11619 8 v. DECISION AND.ORDER 9 JUAN FAISAO MENDIOLA, DENYING aka John F. Mendiola DEFENDANT'S MOTION 10 DOB: 07/04/1963 FOR NEW TRIAL 11 Defendant. 12
13 INTRODUCTION 14 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on September 2, 2021 for
15 hearing on Defendant JUan Faisao Mendiola's (aka John F. Mendiola's) ("Defendant's") Motion
16 For New Trial ("Motion"). Assistant Attorney General Sean Brown represents the People, and
17 Attorneys Joseph Razzano and Joshua Walsh represent Defendant. Having duly considered the
18 parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision
19 and Order and DENIES Defendant's Motion.
20 BACKGROUND
21 Defendant is charged with Murder (as a First Degree Felony) and Aggravated Assault (as a
22 2nd Degree Felony). Indictment (Jul. 27, 2020). Each charge is accompanied by a Special
23 Allegation: Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony. L. Defendant
24 is accused of murdering Peter John Tadeo Rios Jr. ("Victim") by shooting him with a handgun.
25 Magistrate's Complaint (May 6, 2020).
26 A jury trial began on August 26, 2021 in the Supreme Court of Guam Courtroom. The room
27 was modified to remove the public gallery areas so that the jury box would comply with Covid-19
28 social distancing protocols. Members of the public were consequentially not allowed into the
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion For New Trial CF0245-20, People of Guam v. Juan Mendiola Page 1 of 4 |
1 courtroom. Instead, remote video streaming areas were set up in both the first-floor central atrium
2 of the Guam Judicial Center and in Judge Lamorena, III's trial courtroom. All audio and visuals
3 were broadcasted through a Webcam and its built-in microphone.
4 During the first dayof trial, it was learned that members of the public could not meaningfully
5 hear or see what was occurring during the trial. See Declaration of Mercedes Rosario at 'll 3 (Aug.
6 30, 2021). Audio problems in the remote streams persisted throughout the entire first day of trial,
7 with attorneys and witnesses sounding "muffled and garbled." L. at '][ 4. Furthermore, members of
8 the public claimed they could not view the evidence presented (such as photos of the crime scene
9 and the autopsy), as the courtroom image only took up a small portion of the screen. Ld. at '][ 5.
10 On August 30, 2021, Defendant filed his Motion For New Trial. Defendant argued that the
11 Court's decision to exclude in-person viewing amounts to a violation of Defendant's right to a
12 public trial. Motion at (6-7) (Aug. 30, 2021). Defendant claims that the exclusion of the public
13 prejudices Defendant by heightening the enormity of the offense, eliminating the possibility of
14 spectators coming forward with surprise testimony, and removing Defendant's family/friends
15 whose presence might impact the jurors. L- at 9-10. Defendant further argues that the Court failed
16 to cure this defect because of the audio and visual problems pertinent throughout the live stream.
17 Q. at 10. Defendant believes these audio and visual problems prevent the public from watching the
18 case for irregularities, reviewing the evidence presented, and checking the demeanor of witnesses.
19 L. at 10-11. Defendant requested a new trial in light of these alleged violations. Q. at 11.
20 On August 31, 2021, the People filed their Opposition to Defendant's Motion
21 ("Opposition")., The People argued the Court was justified in halting in-person viewing of the trial
22 because of an overriding need to protect the Defendant, jurors, and members of the public from
23 unnecessary exposure to the deadly Covid-19 virus. Opposition at 1-3 (Aug. 31, 2021). The
24 People followed their Opposition up with a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
25 Opposition ("People's Memorandum"). The People argued that the Court's solution of partially
26 closing public viewing Of the trial did not materially prejudice the Defendant because it was
27 narrowly tailored to advance the Court's interest in limiting Covid-19 exposure and an alternative
28 live-stream was offered. People's Memorandum at 2 (Aug. 3 l, 2021).
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion For New Trial CF0245-20, People of Guam v. Juan Mendiola Page 2 of 4 Q 9
1 The Court held a hearing on September 2, 2021. After hearing the arguments of the parties,
2 the Court took the matter under advisement.
3 DISCUSSION
4 The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that "in all criminal
5. prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." U.S. Const. amend. VI
6 (emphasis added). The Organic Act of Guam also guarantees that "in all criminal prosecutions the
7 accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial." 48 U.S.C. § l42lb(g) (emphasis added).
8 "The failure to hold a public trial is a structural error that infects the entire trial process."
9 U.S. v. Neuron-Sostre, 790 F.3d 295, 301 (IS Cir. 2015), see also People v. Callahan, 2018 Guam
10 17 iI 32 ("Stmctural errors...inc1ude...denia1 of a public trial.") (internal citations omitted).
11 "Stnlctural error in the form of a denial of the public trial right prejudices a defendant
12 notwithstanding that the prejudice may be difficult to detect." Neuron-Sostre, 790.F.3d at 305.
13 The Supreme Court of the United States has held that, to avoid committing structural error,
14 courtroom closures must be justified by an overriding interest and tailored to be "no broader than
15 necessary to protect that interest." Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984).
16 The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic and surge of infections in Guam clearly presents an
17 overriding interest to close the couitroorn to in-person viewing from the public. This is made clear
18 by the Guam Supreme Court's Administrative Order No. ADVI21-232. That Administrative Order L
19 allowed jury trials to continue, so long as they adhere to social distancing guidelines.
20 Administrative Order No. ADM21-232 at 'll 6 (Apr. 12, 2021). However, that same Administrative'
21 Order stressed the need to "limit in-person contact as much as possible by using available
22 technologies (e.g. Zoom)." Ld. at 'll 6. If jury trials are to continue while adhering to social
23 distancing guidelines, they must use Zoom or other video screening services to broadcast the trials
24 or they won't be public. This is precisely what the Court has done here.
25 `Furthermore, partially closing the courtroom to in-person viewing from the public is tailored
26 to be "no broader than necessary to protect" the court's interest. Waller, 467 U.S. at 48. This
27 partial closure is only broad enough to allow for social distancing i.n the jury. An alternative
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion For New Trial CF0245-20, People of Guam v. Juan Mendiola Page 3 of 4 1
1 viewing method was provided for members of the public, and members of the public were allowed 2 into portions of the trial that were held in the larger San Ramon Courthouse. 3 While there may have been a few hiccups with capturing the audio at the beginning of the 4 trial, the Court addressed these issues by temporarily pausing the trial to make severalchanges to 5 the broadcast process. The broadcast .issues were fully 'resolved once the trial resumed, arid no 6 additional complaints were made to the Court once these changes were made.
7 CONCLUSION
8 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion. Defendant's rights to 9 a public trial were not violated, and he is not entitled to a new trial. 10
11 IT is SO ORDERED this September 28. 2021
17 HONORABLE ALBERTO c. LAMORENA, III Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam 18
22 SERVECE VIA E-MAIL 23 l acknowled g e t hat an elect ronic copy of the ort Ina\ was e-mailed Io: 24 \ /l@~.l»w-~=I 25 wllml *l :wr-S
Date:qluln Ti 26 @""a
Deputy Clerk, Superior Court of Guam 27
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion For New Trial f CF0245-20,People of Guam v.Juan Mendiola Page4of 4