x
-'5U§'°E'rl{IGI" ouT
\
1 .¢ In !/
£1
GF Law \ I 5* l
2 2 "ZS av £5 léljig' 21 §§!s= 25
3 CLE Rt\ OF .COURT CLERK {.]F,CGUR'{
4 ~
B"-{:.--~. - ~ - - - - -
5 IN THE SUPERIOR
SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
6 1
7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, 8 CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0313-21
9 vs.
DECISION AND ORDER
10 10
11 NICHOLAS WAYNE MOORE,
12 12 Defendant. 113
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
14 This matter is before the Honorable Vernon Vemon P.
P. Perez
Perez for the limited purpose of addressing 15 15
Defendant Nicholas Defendant Nicholas Wayne Wayne Moore's ("Defendant") Motion on iin
n Li
Limineg to Recuse and Statement 16 16 of Objection Pursuant of Objection Pursuant to to 77 GCA
GCA §§ 6107
6107 ("Motion
("Motion to
to Recuse"),
Recuse"), filed
filed October 31, 2023.
October 31, 2023.
17 17 BACKGROUND
18 18 Defendant is Defendant is charged
charged with
with (1) counts of Aggravated l) two counts Aggravated Assault (As a Second Degree 19 19 Felony) with with attached Special Allegation: Deadly Deadly Weapon
Weapon Used
Used in
in the
the Commission
Commission of
of a Felony;
Felony,
20 (2) one count of Terrorizing Terrorizing (As
(As aa Third
Third Degree
Degree Felony)
Felony) with
with attached
attached Special
Special Allegation:
Allegation: Deadly
21 Weapon Used Weapon Used in in the Commission
Commission of
of a Felony);
Felony), and
and (3)
(3) one
one count
count of
of Possession of an
an Unregistered
Unregistered
22 Firearm (As a Third Degree Degree Felony).
Felony). (Am.
(Am. Superseding
Superseding Indictment, Jun. 13, 2022).
Indictment, Jun. 2022). This This matter
23
was assigned to Judge Alberto E.
E. Tolentino ("Judge Tolentino") on October 19, 19, 2021.
2021. See Order
Order
24 24 Terminating Judge Pro Tempore Appointment, Oct.
Oct. 19, 2021. The
19, 2021. The matter
matter proceeded
proceeded to
to trial on
25 25 the Amended Superseding Superseding Indictment
Indictment June
June 15,
15, 2022,
2022, and
and continued
continued throughout
throughout the fall of 2022.
26 26 On November 9, 2022, the court adjourned trial trial until
until January
January 10, 2023, to allow trial jurors an 27 opportunity to travel opportunity to travel over over the
the holidays.
holidays. Judge
Judge Tolentino
Tolentino was
was unable
unable to
to resume trial on January 28
People People v. Moore Case No. CF0313-21 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 1I off
of7
1 10, 2023, due 10, due to to medical
medical issues
issues that
that developed
developed throughout the holiday break. On On January
January 9,
9, 2023,
2 Mistrial. On Defendant filed an Ex Parte Motion for a Mistrial. OnJanuary January 10,
10, 2023,
2023, the
the parties
parties appeared
appeared
3 before Judge before Judge Arthur Arthur R.
R. Barcinas
Barcinas who
who presided
presided over the
the matter in a case management role to
4 address housekeeping issues. On On January
January 23,
23, 2023, Judge Barcinas
Barcinas granted
granted Defendant's
Defendant's Motion
5 for a Mistrial. over by Judge Maria T. Cenzon and Judge Mistrial. The matter was subsequently presided over
1
6 Terlaje until John C. Terlaje until Judge Judge Tolentino's
Tolentino's return
return to
to the
the bench
bench on May 15, 2023.
2023.1 of
See Notice of
7 Assignment, Jan.
Judge Assignment, Jan. 23, 2023 (Judge Cenzon assigned), assigned); Notice of
of Judge Assignment,
Assignment, Mar.
Mar. 9,
8 re-assigned); Amended 2023 (Judge Tolentino re-assigned), Criminal Trial Amended Criminal Trial Scheduling Scheduling Order,
Order, Mar.
Mar. 13,
13, 2023
9 (signed by Judge Terlaje for Judge Tolentino).
10 15, 2023, Jury On May 15, Jury Selection Selection and
and Trial
Trial commenced
commenced for the
the second time before Judge
11 11 Tolentino. After Tolentino. After four four days
days of
of jury selection, Defendant tiled filed a Motion for Mistrial. In light Mistrial. In light of
of
12 12 the Motion, the fifth fifth day of jury
jury selection
selection was
was cancelled.
13 1 2023, Defendant filed On June 2, 2023, filed an an Ex
Ex Parte
Parte Motion
Motion for
for Release
Release with
with Conditions.
Conditions. On
14 14 June 5, 2023, 2023, the
the parties
parties appeared
appeared before
before Judge
Judge Tolentino
Tolentino for
for aa Motion
Motion Hearing.
Hearing. At the hearing,
15 15 counsel for Defendant indicated they needed time time to
to prepare
prepare to defend more
more serious
serious charges
charges at
at
16 trial in another another matter
matter before
before another judge
judge and requested that the instant matter be placed on hold
17 17 pending the other case. (Minute (Minute Entry,
Entry, Jun. 5, 2023). Defendant was released back on electronic 2023). Defendant
18 18 (Release from monitoring the following day. (Release from Confinement, Confinement, Jun.
Jun. 5,
5, 2023).
19 19 On August 8, 2023, the parties parties returned
returned to
to court
court for
for Further
Further Proceedings.
Proceedings. At the hearing
20 it was noted that the instant matter would would proceed to trial after Defendant's Defendant's trial in another matter
21 before another judge judge and that there
there was
was aa motion
motion pending. (Minute Entry, Aug. 8, 2023).
pending. (Minute 2023). Further
22 Proceedings were set for November 14, 2023.
November 14,
23 23 October 3, 2023, Defendant filed a Reassertion of On October of Speedy Trial.
24 24
25 25
26 1 1 Elyze M.
Judge Elyze M. lriarte Iriarte also briefly presided over this matter after Defendant's Defendant's re-assertion ofof speedy trial on May 27 See Notice, 5, 2023. See May 5, Notice, May 5, 2023,
2023; Minute
Minute Entry,
Entry, May 8,
8, 2023.
2023. The
Thematter
matterdid
did not
not proceed
proceed to
to trial
trial before
before Judge
Iriarte, however, in light of of the
the Government's withdrawal of Government's withdrawal ofits its waiver
waiver of
of Judge
Judge Iriarte's
Iriarte's conflict
conflict of
ofinterest
interest after
after the
28 Pre-Trial Conference Conference onon May 8, 2023.
May 8, 2023 .
People v. Moore v. 1\1oore
Case No. CF0313-21 CF0313-21
Decision Decision and and Order
Page 2 of7
1 12, 2023, On October 12, 2023, the
the court issued
issued a notice
notice scheduling
scheduling Jury
JurySelection
Selection and
andTrial
Trial for
2 16, 2023.
October 16, 2023. (Notice ofHearing, (Notice of Hearing, Oct.
Oct. 12,
12, 2023).
3 On Friday, October On October 13,
13, 2023, the
the Government, by and
and through
throughAssistant
AssistantAttorney
Attorney General
4 Grant Olan, Olan, filed
filed an Ex Parte Motion to Continue Motion to Continue Jury
Jury Selection
Selection and Trial, requesting to continue
5 jury and trial jury selection and trial until until after
after October 26,
26, 2023. The Government
2023. The Government indicated indicated that
that Defense
6 object to counsel did not object to aa short short continuance.
7 7 On Monday, October October 16,
16, 2023, Jury
Jury Selection
Selection and
and Trial
Trial commenced for the third time.
8 oftwelve A jury of twelveand and four
four alternates
alternates was empaneled
empaneled the
thefollowing
following day.
9 17, 2023, On October 17, 2023, Defendant Defendantfiled
filed aa Motion
Motion in
in Limine
Liming for Mistrial Resulting Resulting from
10 10 Violations Banning Banning Media Recording and and Public Access,
Access, and
and Failure
Failure to Maintain
Maintain Sufficient
Sufficient
11 Room and Seating and Room and Public Trial.
and Public Judge Tolentino Trial. Judge Tolentinodenied denied the
the Motion
Motionfrom
fromthe
thebench
bench the
the same
same
12 12 day.
day.
13 1 On October 26, 2023, On 2023, the
the parties
partiesreturned
returnedtotocourt
courtfor
foraaPre-Trial
Pre-TrialConference.
Conference. Several
14 14 things were discussed things discussed at at the
the hearing,
hearing, including
including Defendant's
Defendant's request
request for mistrial; Defendant's for a mistrial,
15 indication that that aa motion
motion to
to disqualify the prosecutor may may be
be forthcoming; and the
the Government's
16 indication that thatitit may
may be
be filing
filing a motion regarding regarding an
an unavailable
unavailablewitness.
witness. (Minute Entry, Oct.
17 26, 2023). Opening Statements 2023). Opening Statements were scheduled to to begin on October 30,
30, 2023
2023at
at9:00
9:00a.m.
a.m.Id.
Id
18 31, 2023, On October 31, 2023, Defendant Defendantfiled
tiled the
the instant
instantMotion,
Motion,moving
moving for
for Judge
JudgeTolentino's
Tolentino's
19 recusal in this recusal in this matter.
matter. Defendant
Defendant moves for
for Judge
Judge Tolentino's
Tolentino's recusal
recusal pursuant
pursuant toto77 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§
20 6105( a)because 6l05(a) because his his "admissions
"admissions regarding delaying trial trial until
until aa prosecutor was
was available,
available, itself,
21 is sufficient evidence of ofbias
bias and
and an
an appearance
appearanceof
ofpartiality." (Mot. Recuse partiality." (Mot. Recuse at at 4,
4, Oct. 31,l, 2023).
22 . 7, 2023, On November 7, 2023, Judge Judge Tolentino
Tolentino filed his
his Answer
Answer to
to Statement
Statement of
of Objection,
Objection,
23 23 denying that his recusal recusal is appropriate
appropriate in
in this
this matter.
matter.Judge
JudgeTolentino
Tolentinodenies
denies"the
"the existence
existence of
24 24 the Government bias for the Government and/or and/or even
even the
the existence
existence of an
an appearance
appearance of
of partiality
partiality as
as alleged by
25 Defendant." (Answer Defendant." ,r 5, Nov. 7, (Answeratat1] 7, 2023).
26 On On November
November 17,
17, 2023,
2023, pursuant to 77 G.C.A. §§ 6107, pursuant to 6107, the the question
question of
ofwhether
whether Judge
Judge
27 Tolentino should should be disqualified from continuing continuing to preside
preside over
over this
this mater
mater came
came before this
this
28 recusal court. See Notice recusal court. Notice of ofAssignment
AssignmentofofRecusal
RecusalJudge,
Judge, Nov.
Nov.17,
17,2023
2023.
People v.
v. 1\1oore
Moore
Case No. CF0313-21 CF0313-21
Decision Decision and and Order
Page 3 of7
of
1 DISCUSSION
2 Title 7 G.C.A. section 6105 sets forth the substantive grounds under which a judge must
3 be be disqualified. Where Where judge fails
a judge failstotodisqualify disqualifyhim
himororherself,
herself,any
anyparty
partyto
to that
that proceeding
proceeding may
4 move move to to disqualify
disqualify the
the judge
judge pursuant
pursuant to
to 77 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 6107.
6107.
5 6105(a), "[a]ny Under section 6105(a), "[a]ny judge shall disqualify himself himself or herself
herself in any proceeding
6 in which in which his his or
or her
her impartiality
impartiality might
might reasonably
reasonablybe
bequestioned."
questioned." 77 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 6105(a).
6l05(a). "[W]hat
"[W]hat
7 matters is the appearance of bias, not actual bias." People actual bias." People v.v. Carnaalalu,2015 Camaddu, Guam ,r 74 Guam 22 1i 74 (citing
(citing
8 Van Van Dax v. Szqaerior Dox v. Superior Court,
Court, 2008 Guam 7 ',i
2008 Guam (internal quotation H 32) (internal quotation marks marks omitted).
omitted). "The
9 9 appearance of bias is judged judged from
from the
the standard
standard of
of aa 'reasonable
'reasonable person' who knows all the facts,
10 10 and understands understands the
the 'contexts
'contextsof jurisdictions, parties, ofjurisdictions, parties,and andcontroversies
controversiesinvolved."'
involved."'Id.Id "Section
11 6105 is taken 6105 is from the taken from the federal
federal disqualification
disqualification statute, statute, 28
28 U.S.C.A.
U.S.C.A. §§455,
455, and
and the
the Guam
Guam Supreme
Supreme
12 12 federal courts' interpretation Court has held that the federal interpretation of of the
the federal
federal statute
statute is instructive
instructive for the
13 13 purpose of interpreting 7 GCA 6105." People v. Tennessee, Tennessen, 2010 Guam
Guam 12 ,r 25 (citing Ada v.
12 1125
14 14 Gutierrez, 2000 Guam 22 ,i'll12 Gutierrez, 12n.2). "Section 455(a) asks whether n.2). "Section whether a reasonable person perceives
15 15 a significant risk that significant risk judge will the judge
that the will resolve resolve the
the case
case on
on aa basis
basis other
other than
than the
the merits.
merits. The
16 16 reasonable person in this context means aa well-informed, well-informed, thoughtful thoughtful observer,
observer, as opposed to a
17 17 hypersensitive or unduly suspicious hypersensitive suspicious person."
person." Clemens v.v. US. Dist.
Clemens Dist. Cr.
Ct. for Cent.
Cent. Dist.
Dist. of
of
18 18 California, 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir.
California, Cir. 2005)
2005) (internal
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
19 "Supreme Court The "Supreme Court of ofGuam,
Guam, interpreting
interpreting the
the disqualification
disqualification statute, statute, has
has . .. stated that
that
20 disqualifying disqualifying bias bias must
must normally stem Tennessen, 2010 Guam 12 stem from extrajudicial sources." Tennessee, ,r 12 ii
21 Dox, 2008 Guam 7 i!fl 35).
32 (citing Van Dax, 35). "[A] case generally must involve apparent bias deriving
22 from an extrajudicial source, source, meaning something above and beyond judicial rulings or opinions
23 formed in presiding over the case." United States v.
v. Bergrin,
Eergrin, 682 F.3d 261, 282 (ad (3d Cir. 2012)
24 24 (citing Liteky v.
v. United States,
States, 510 U.S. 540,
540, 555
555 (1994)).
(l994)).
25 Under section 6105(b )( ), "[a]
6105(b)(1), "[a]judge
judge shall
shall also
also disqualify
disqualifyhimself
himself or
orherself
herself...
... where he
26 has personal or she has personal bias bias or
or prejudice
prejudice concerning
concerning aa party,
party, or
or personal
personal knowledge
knowledge of
of disputed
disputed
27 evidentiary facts concerning evidentiary facts concerning the the proceeding."
proceeding." 77 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 6105(b)(l).
6l05(b)(1). "[B]ias
"[B]ias sufficient
sufficient to justify
to justify
28 recusal must be a personal personal one
one and
and not
not one
one arising
arising from
from the
thejudge's
judge's view
view of
of the
the law.
law. Impressions
People v.
v. Moore
1 Case No.
No. CF0313-21
CF0313-21
Decision Decision and and Order
Page 4 of Page of7 1 based on information gained gained in
in the proceedings
proceedings are
are not
not grounds for disqualification in the absence
2 of pervasive bias." In re M Ibrahim of IbrahimKhan, Khan, P.S.
P.S.C., 162, 164 C., 751 F.2d 162, 164 (6th Cir.
Cir. 1984)
1984) (internal
3 and citations quotation marks and citations omitted)
omitted).
4 to preside Defendant objects to Judge Tolentino continuing to preside over over this
this matter
matter because of
of
5 how the third third Jury
Jury Selection
Selection and Trial
Trial proceeded in
in this
this matter. generally, Mot. Recuse.
matter. See generally,
6 Defendant argues that there is evidence of of bias
bias and
and an
an appearance
appearance of
of partiality
partiality because Judge
7 Tolentino denied the the parties'
parties' stipulated
stipulated request to continue trial, trial; Judge Tolentino proceeded to
8 commence selection commence selection with only only two
two of
of Defendant's
Defendant's three
three legal
legal counsels
counsels due
due to
to his
his concerns
concerns with
9 Defendant's speedy Defendant's speedy trial trial rights,
rights; and Judge Tolentino subsequently delayed the start of evidence the start
10 10 until a prosecutor prosecutor was
was available
availableover
over Defendant's
Defendant's objection. Defendantsets objection. Id. Defendant sets forth forth that:
11 11 fact, the Court not only granted the prosecutor its requested delay, but without In fact, explanation failed to set trial until after a status status hearing
hearing on October 26, 2023, the 12 12 first date first date prosecutor
prosecutor Sean
Sean Brown
Brown returned
returned toto the Office of the Attorney General.
General.
13 13 During that During that hearing,
hearing, the Court
Court set
set trial for the following Monday, October following Monday, October30, 30,2023
2023.
14 The Court has has not
not provided
provided aa reason
reason forfor the
the two
two week
week delay. When the Court delay. When Court
rejected the parties' stipulation to continue, the Defendant made abundantly abundantly clear
15 15 ready for trial
we were ready trial the the next day. Attorney Lujan day. Attorney Lujan returned returned that night and we 16 asked to begin trial trial Wednesday.
Wednesday.
* * *
17 17 *** 18 18 The prosecution was not involved involved inin another
another criminal
criminal trial
trial at any time during these Additionally, the
proceedings. Additionally, the prosecutor prosecutor asking
asking for
for the continuance was doing so 19 19 because because he had a planned vacation vacation and not because he was in in an an ongoing
ongoing trial.
trial.
20 Finally, the current prosecutor waswas also also not in a criminal trial trial because
because he had not
even returned to the Attorney General's Office until October 26, 26, 2023.
2023. There was
21 representation to
no representation to the the Court
Court byby the prosecution that the prosecution that itit needed needed the
the two
two week
22 continuance granted by the Court, sua sponge Court, sue sponte because of other ongoing criminal criminal trials. The Court trials. The Court did
did not
not indicate
indicate during
during jury
jury selection
selection nor
nor today
today that
that Ir
it needed to
23 delay the commencement
commencement of of trial trial by two
two weeks
weeks because
because of of an
an ongoing
ongoing criminal
criminal
24 matter involving Judge Tolentino. 25 25 Mot. Recuse at 2, 2; 10.
26 26 In his Answer, Judge Judge Tolentino
Tolentino explains
explains:
27 27 That I decided to avoid avoid further
further delay and thus
thus proceed
proceed with
with jury selection
selection with
Defendant's other exper nt's two other experienced aand competent competent trtrial lawyers, ia la Michael F.
wyer Micha F.
28 28
People v. Moore i\1oore
Case No.
No. CF0313-21l
Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 5 of7
Phillips, Esq., Phillips, Esq., and
and William
William L. Gavras,
Gavras, Esq.,
Esq., and
and who
who were able to and
were able and did
did
1 effectively effectivelyparticipate
participate in
in jury selection,
selection;
2 That I was also aware that the the prosecutor
prosecutor assigned
assigned to
to handle
handlethe
thetrial,
trial,Attorney
Attorney Sean
3 was not going Brown, was going to to be
be available
availableuntil
until October
October26,26, 2023,
2023, the
the date he would be
4 re-employed byby the
theAttorney
Attorney General's
General's office;
office,
5 That once the jury was empaneled and and the
the Defendant's secured Defendant's speedy trial rights secured the undersigned
undersigned deemed
deemed it was reasonable
reasonable and
andproper
propertoto delay
delay the
the start
startof
of the trial
6 October 26, 2023, on October 2023, for Attorney Attorney Brown
Browntotoprosecute
prosecutethe
the case and that if anything case and
7 the delay allowed defense counsel allowed defense counsel more time to prepare, prepare;
8 That none none of my
my actions
actions undertaken
undertaken inin this
this case
case were
were demonstrative
demonstrative of
of a bias for
the Government nor indicative of ofprejudice
prejudice against
against the Defendant.
9 (Answer (Answer at ,r,r 16-19).
at 'W 16-19).
10 rulings alone almost
"[J]udicial rulings almost never constitute constitute aa valid basis basis for aa bias
bias or
or partiality
partiality
11 11 motion....
....Almost
Almostinvariably,
invariably,they
theyare
areproper
propergrounds
grounds for
forappeal,
appeal, not
not recusal."
recusal." Liteky, 510
510 U.S.
12 at 555.
555. Judge Judge Tolentino
Tolentino indicates
indicates that
that he
he "was
"wasuncertain
uncertain how
how much
much time
time remained
remained on
on the speedy
13 1
clock after
trial clock after multiple multiple assertions
assertions and
and waivers
waivers by Defendant over the course of this this case" and
and
14 14 that that after Defendant's reassertion on October 3, reassertion on 3, 2023, 2023, he
he "undertook
"undertook to
to identify an
an opening in
15 15
court's] calendar
[the court's] calendar and and to re-arrange
re-arrange its docket to allow allow jury
jury selection
selectionand
and trial
trial on
on the
the matter
matter
16 ... ...for forOctober
October16,
16,2023
2023atat9:00
9:00a.m."
a.m."(Answer ,r,r 11-12).
atat1111
(Answer 11-12).The The Court's
Court's review of
of the
the record
17 17 indicates a significant significant number of written assertions number of assertions and andwaivers
waiversof
of speedy
speedytrial
trial by
by Defendant.
Defendant. See
18 18 Assertion of Speedy Assertion Speedy Trial, Apr. 26, 26, 2022,
2022; Waiver of
ofSpeedy
Speedy Trial,
Trial, Jun.
Jun. 21, 2022, Waiver
21, 2022; Waiver of
19 19 Speedy Trial, Jan.
Jan. 23,
23,2023;
2023,Assertion
Assertionof
ofSpeedy
SpeedyTrial,
Trial, Mar.
Mar. 28,
28, 2023;
2023,Limited
LimitedWaiver
Waiver of Speedy
20 20 Trial, Mar. 31, 2023; Waiver of Speedy Trial, Apr. 13, 2023, Waiver 13, 2023, 2023; Assertion
Assertion of
of Speedy
Speedy Trial,
Trial, May 5,
21 2023, Waiver of 2023; Waiver ofSpeedy Speedy Trial,
Trial,Jun.
Jun. 5, 2023;
2023, Reassertion
Reassertionof
of Speedy
Speedy Trial,
Trial, Oct. 3, 2023.
2023. The Court
22 further notes that further notes that Judge JudgeTolentino
Tolentino began
began the
the October
October 26,
26, 2023
2023 Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial Conference by stating stating
23 23 that: that:
24 24 off, we
First off, we have
have selected
selected aa jury
jury all
allprimed
primed upup and
and ready to go as as aa result of the 25 25 assertion of speedy trial onon behalf behalfof ofMr.
Mr.Moore,
Moore,andandthe
thecourt
courtwanted
wanted toto make
make sure
sure
26 that, that thatwe
we had
hadaajury
juryalready
already selected
selected so that
that we
we can preserve
preserve his right to a speedy trial. trial. The
Thesecond
second thing
thing was
was the
the court,
court, we were waiting for you you to come back, back, Mr.
27 because Mr. Olan
Brown, because Olan is is currently
currently off
offisland
islandand
and that
that itithad
had been
been represented
represented
28
People v.
v. Moore
Case No. CF0313-21 CF0313-21
Decision and Decision and Order
Page Page 6 of7
that you would
would be ready to go for trial trial once
once you
you got back into the office, which was 1 supposed to be today. .
2 (Pre-Trial Conference Tr. at 3: 18-15 -4: 1-5, Oct. 26, 2023).
- 4: 1-5,
3 Upon rreview, the Cour
Court does
does not
not find
find tha
thatt Judge
Judge TTolentino's decision to olentino's decision to gr grant the
the
4 Government'srequest Government's requestfor for aa continuance
continuance to
to "reveal
"reveal such
such a high degree of
of favoritism or antagonism 5 as to to make fair fair judgment Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.
judgment impossible." Lireky, "Bias cannot 555. "Bias cannot be
be inferred
inferred from a
6 mere pattern of rulings by a judicial officer, officer, but
but requires
requires evidence
evidence that
that the
the officer
officer had
had itit 'in'
'in' for
7 the party for for reasons
reasons unrelated
unrelated to
to the
the officer's
officer's view of
of the law, erroneous as that view view might be."
8 McLaughlin McLaughlin v. Union Union Oil
Oil Co.
Co. of
ofCalifornia,
California, 869 F.2d
F.2d 1039,
1039, 1047
1047 (7th
(7th Cir.
Cir. 1989)
1989) (citations
(citations
9 "Normallythe
omitted). "Normally thejudge's judge'srulings
rulingsatattrial
trial do
do not
not constitute
constitute grounds
grounds for
for recusal because they
10 can be corrected by reversal on appeal." Johnson v. Trueblood, 629 629 F.2d
F.2d 287,
287,291 (3d Cir. 1980).
11 At this time, the Court does not not find
find that
that there is
is any
any appearance ofbias
appearance of bias or
or partiality nor is there 12 12 any any actual actual bias or partiality bias or in Judge partiality in Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's decision
decision to
to continue
continue trial
trial under
under 77 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§
13 66105(a)
l05(a) and§ and § 6105(b)(l).
6105(b)(1). The
The Court
Court therefore
therefore DENIES
DENIES Defendant's
Defendant's Motion
Motion in Limine to
in Limine Recuse
to Recuse
14 14 Judge Tolentino.
15 C ONC LUS ION
16 16 reasons, the
For the foregoing reasons, the Court Court hereby
hereby DENIES
DENIES Defendant's Motion in Liming Limine to
17 17 TheCourt
Recuse. The Court returns returns this
this matter
matter to Judge Tolentino Tolentino for
for further disposition.
18 18 216'
19 19 IT IS SO ORDERED this ORDERED this 2,t:ay of November, 2023.
day of November, 2023 .
20 \ )')
21 ' -
-~ I I
22 HONORABLE HONORABLE VE1QN9N I1/PEREZ VEIUIJ;,0/N~/
23 23 Judge, Judge, Superior
SuperiorCou1;t,6f Guam .-
CouJ.!:Of Guam
._::,_ : . • - • : . ,-1
24 24
25 25
26 26
27
28 28
v. 1Moore
People v. 'vfoore Case No.
No. CF0313-21
CF0313-21
Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 7 of7