People v. Simmons

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: January 5, 2024
• Docket: CF0242-20
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

,t-. . .t Q ,Lt•'"Q 'c i

SUPERIOF COURT SUPERIUR OF GUAW GF GU/\fvt 1

2 202l1J§:?=%~5 202L. JA~l -5 AHH9:9255. 55 CLERt, OF CLERK OF COURT COURT 3

8~{: _ _-~ _ /EW_ _ _ __ 4 1-vIv1--l1

IN THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

6 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0242-20 7 vs.

8 DERICK JAMES SIMMONS, DECISION AND ORDER DOB: 07/27/1991 Re: Motion/or Motion for New Trial 9 Defendant. 10

11 11 This matter matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas Barcinas on October 6, 2023, 2023, for an an

evidentiary hearing on evidentiary hearing on Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion for New New Trial Trialdue duetotopotential potentialjuror jurordishonesty. dishonesty. 12 12 Defendant was present Defendant was presentwith with Assistant AssistantPublic PublicDefender DefenderBrian BrianEggleston. Eggleston.J.J.Basil BasilO'Mallan O'Mallan III III 13 13 represented the the People. People. 14 14 BACKGROUND 15 15 On On June 13, 2022, June 13, 2022,Defendant DefendantDerick DerickJames JamesSimmons Simmons("Defendant") ("Defendant") moved moved for for a new

16 16 trial, trial, alleging to to newly newly discovered discovered evidence evidence that that one one of ofthe thejurors jurors had had deliberately deliberately concealed concealed

relevant information on void dire, thereby depriving Defendant of voir dire, of his his Sixth Sixth Amendment right to 17 17 an impartial impartial jury. Defendant alleged alleged that, that, upon upon examination examination during void voir dire, dire, the juror did not 18 18 disclose disclose her relationship with "a "a key Government Government witness witness (and (and legal guardian guardian of the complaining 19 19 victim)." Mot., victim)." Mot.,atatl.1.Said Saidwitness witnessisisJacqueline Jacqueline Duenas fas ("Duenas"), ("Due fas"), mother mother of ofDefendant's Defendant's partner partner 20 20 Therese-Rae Duenas fas ("Therese") ("Therese") and and grandmother grandmother of ofthe the victims victims in in this this case.

21 Defendant statedthat Defendant stated thatGuam GuamPublic Public Defender DefenderService Service Corporation Corporation("PDSC") ("PDSC") chief chief

investigator Robbie Call submitted investigator Robbie an affidavit, submitted an affidavit, establishing that:(1) establishing that: (1) on May 17, 17, 2022, 2022, the the 22 defense investigator investigator received receivedinformation informationthat thatthe the juror juror in in question question had lied onvoid voir dire by failing 23 to disclose her relationship with with Duenas; Due fas, (2) (2) on on May May 24, 24, 2022, 2022, the defense investigator met with 24 24 the juror juror in in question questionat ather workplace,the herworkplace, theMaite MaiteBranch Branchof ofCoast360 Coast360Credit CreditUnion Union("Coast360"), ("Coast360"), Decision Orderre: Decision and Order Motionfor re:Motion New Trial forNew Trial CF0242-20; People v. Criminal Case No. CF0242-20,People DerickJames v. Derick Simmons James Simmons

11 to discuss her role discuss her role as as a juror juror in in Defendant's trial; trial, (3) the the juror juror told told the the investigator investigator that that she she is 2 personally personally acquainted with Duenas acquainted with fas because because they they were coworkers coworkers at at Coast360, Coast360, and and that that her her

3 decision to withhold withhold this this information information from from the the Court Court was was justified justifiedby byher herassumption assumption that that her her relationship with with Duenas fas did not impair her her ability ability to be fair and impartial impartial at at trial; trial, (4) at at no point 4 during the trial did the juror inform inform the the Court, Court, the the marshals, marshals, or the attorneys that she she worked worked with 5 Duenas fas or knew her, and and (5) when when asked asked how her association association with with Due fas was discovered, the Duenas 6 investigator showed showed the the juror juror aa group group photograph photograph from from aaCoast360 Coast360 annual annual report report published published in 7 2015, depicting both both the the juror juror and fas. and Duenas.

8 Based on the above, Defendant Defendant argues argues that that the facts facts establish establish that that the juror, at minimum, possessed an an understanding understandingof ofthe thescreening screeningfunction function of of void voir dire, and that that her her desire desire to serve as as 9 a juror motivated her to withhold withhold truthful answers deliberately deliberately and and consistently despite the ample 10 time and and opportunity for a response. response. 11 11 In their opposition, the thePeople People submitted submittedaadeclaration declarationfrom fromOffice Office of of the the Attorney Attorney General

12 12 ("AG")investigator ("AG") investigatorWilliam WilliamSalisbury, Salisbury,who whoalso alsomet metwith withthe thejuror. juror.InInthe thedeclaration, declaration, Salisbury Salisbury stated that that the the juror juror stated stated that that she she does does not know a Jacqueline Duenas, fas, but but vaguely remembers remembers 13 13 working with with aa "Jackie" Due fas several Duenas several years years ago ago and and never connected the two. The The declaration declaration 14 14 further stated that that the the juror juror was surprised when shown a picture from from aa Coast360 Coast360 annual annual report 15 15 because she had hadno noidea ideawhat whatyear yearthe thereport reportwas wasfor, for, and andbelieved believed she only worked worked with with aa Jackie 16 16 Duenas fas for a short time. time.

17 17 At aa March At March 30, 2023 hearing on the 2023 hearing the Motion, Motion, the People People raised raised concerns concerns that an evidentiary evidentiary

hearing may be needed to hearing may to resolve whether whether the the juror juror in in question question was deliberate and knowing knowing in 18 18 her her void voir dire omission. Both Both parties agreed to let let the the Court Court know know at at the the next next hearing on on April April21 21, 19 19 2023, 2023, if an an evidentiary hearing hearing would be needed. At the needed. At the April April 21 21 hearing, hearing, the the parties parties agreed to 20 submit on on the the pleadings, pleadings, and andthe theCourt Courtstated statedititwould would decide decide if if further testimony was needed to

21 rule on on the the Motion. Motion. The TheCourt Courtsubsequently subsequently scheduled evidentiary hearing scheduled an evidentiary hearing to to be held on on

22 October 6, 2023. At the 2023. At the evidentiary evidentiary hearing, hearing, the the Court Court heard heard testimony from from the the juror, juror, Due fas, Duenas,

and Therese. 23

24 Page Page2 of6 Decision and Order Order re: re:Motion Motion for for New New Trial Trial Criminal Case People v. Derick CF0242-20,People Case No. CF0242-20; DerickJames James Simmons

1 1. The juror's juror's testimony testimony 2 2 At the evidentiary hearing, the the juror juror testified testified that that she she recognized recognized Due fas and Therese Duenas

3 took the when they took the witness witness stand, stand, and and that that she she did did not not alert alert the the Court Court or or the the attorneys attorneys after after recognizing them. Tr., at 10:50:32 10:50:32 (Oct. (Oct. 6,6, 2023). 2023).The Thejuror jurorstated stated that that she she had had attended attended one of 4 Duenas's family family events, events, but but did did not not remember remember what what year, year, and and that that Due fas had Duenas had attended attended her 5 grandson's grandson's first first birthday birthdayaround around 2015, 2015,but butthat that she she was wasnot not sure sure ififshe she invited invited Duenas fas or a member member 6 other of her husband's husband's family familydid. did. Tr., Tr., at at 10:45:30: 10:45:30;10:53:10 10:53:10(Oct. (Oct.6,6,2023). 2023).The Thejuror jurorfurther further testified 7 that she did not still maintain a friendship friendship with the Duenases today, and Duenases today, and the the last time she

8 remembered running running into into Duenas Due fas was was approximately approximately a year earlier, earlier, either either at work or or Cost-U- Cost-U- Less. Tr., at 10:54:45 10:54:45 (Oct. (Oct. 6, 6, 2023). 2023). The Thejuror jurorfurther further testified testified that that when she saw saw Due fas and Duenas 9 Therese on the stand and realized realized that she recognized them, she did not tell the Court because because "it 10 didn't didn't dawn dawn on on me me that that I should. For me, I did take take an oath to to be be fair fair and and impartial, impartial, so so that's that's what 11 I proceeded proceeded under." under." Tr., Tr., at at 10:56:00 10:56:00 ( O c t . 6, 2023). 2023). The The juror juror stated stated that that she she did did not think that any

12 the Duenases previous relationship she had with the Duenases would affect her decision. decision. Tr., Tr., at 10:56:15 (Oct. (Oct.

13 6, 2023).

2. Duenas's testimony 14 At the evidentiary hearing, Duenas fas testified that she knows the juror juror because because they they worked 15 in the same department at Coast360 Coast360 until 2017. Tr., at at 11 :07:50 (Oct. 6, 2023). Duenas 11 :07:50 fas also stated 16 that that she and and the the juror juror had had attended attended each each other's other's family family events, events, including including her her daughter's daughter's

17 graduation. 11 graduation. 11:08:00-11109:30 :09:30 (Oct. 6, 2023). (Oct. 6, 3. Therese's testimony 18 At the evidentiary hearing, Therese Therese testified testified that she recognized the juror juror as her mother's mother's 19 "longtime coworker." Tr., at 11:15:00 11 :15:00 (Oct. (Oct. 6,6, 2023). 2023).Therese Theresestated stated that that the the juror juror and and Due fas Duenas 20 worked alongside each other. Tr., at 11:16:00 (Oct. other. Tr., (Oct. 6, 6, 2023). 2023). Therese Therese stated stated that that she and and her her 21 family had had attended attended the juror's grandson's grandson's birthday, birthday, and and that that juror juror had had attended attended her sister's

22 graduation and her her younger younger brother's brother's birthday. birthday. Tr., Tr., at at 11 11:16:30 (Oct. 6, :16:30 (Oct. 6, 2023). 2023). When asked how

often she met or or interacted interacted with with the the juror, juror, Therese Therese testified testified that that when when Duenas Due fas worked worked at at Coast360, Coast360, 23 everyone knew Therese and her siblings, siblings, so they they met "a lot." 11:18:00-11:18:30 11:18:00-11218:30 (Oct. (Oct. 6, 2023). 24 Page of Page3 of6 Decision and Orderre: and Order re:Motion Motionfor forNew New Trial Trial Criminal Case No. CF0242-20,People CF0242-20; Peoplev. v. Derick DerickJames James Simmons Simmons

11 Therese further testified testified that that she and Defendant lived and Defendant Duenas's house in Duenas's lived in between 2014 house between and 2016, 2014 and 2 2 still visit Coast360 would still they would that they and that to see Duenas Coast360 to for at least the fas for next year the next or two. year or at two. Tr., at

3 11:19:00 11: 19:00 (Oct. 6, 6, 2023). 2023). Therese Therese also also testified the juror that the testifiedthat did not juror did know Defendant, not know but knew Defendant, but

who Duenas were. Tr., at Therese were. fas and Therese :00-11 :34:00 at 11:33:00-11 (Oct. 6, 2023). :34:00 (Oct. 4 DISCUSSION 5 5 Pursuant to 88 G.C.A.§ Pursuant to G.C.A.§ 110.30(b), 110.30(b), aa defendant defendant may may move move for for aanew newtrial trial based based upon upon the the 6 ground of newly discovered evidence before or within two (2) ground of (2) years years after judgment. The final judgment. after final 7 decision decision to grant grant a new trial trial rests rests within within the the sound discretion of the v. Leslie, People v. the trial court. People

8 2011 Guam Guam 23 ,r 23 1115. Defendant argues that, having argues that, allegedly discovered new evidence having allegedly ofjuror evidence of dishonesty, he juror dishonesty, 9 is entitled to to a new trial on the basis basis of by an verdict by of the Sixth Amendment right to a verdict impartial an impartial 10 10 jury, under under the test in McDonough Equip. v.v. Greenwood, McDonough Power Equal (1984). To Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 (1984). 11 11 obtain obtain a new trial under the McDonough McDonough test, "a "a party party must must first juror failed demonstrate that aajuror first demonstrate failed to

12 12 answer honestly honestly a material question on void voir dire, and then further further show that a correct response response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge cause." Id. challenge for cause." Id. The concealing for concealing motives for The motives 13 13 information information may vary, vary, but but only only those those reasons that that affect affect a jury's jury's impartiality truly be said to can truly impartiality can 14 14 affect the fairness of a trial. Id. affect the Id. 15 15 There is is no no dispute dispute that that the juror did not not answer answer the the question voir dire, but there question during void 16 16 was no showing that her failure failure to disclose disclose was was intentional jurors testimony and the Court finds the jurors intentional and testimony

17 17 credible credible and and reasonable that her her lack lack of of answer was because she she did notrecognize did not recognize Duenas's name

on on the witness list. list. Under McDonough, Defendant Defendant must must still still demonstrate truthful answer that a truthful demonstrate that 18 18 from from the the juror would have provided provided aa valid valid basis basis to to strike strike the juror cause. In order juror for cause. to disqualify order to disqualify 19 19 the juror for cause, there must cause, there mustbe be aa showing showing of of either actual actual or or implied implied bias, bias, i.e., i.e., bias in fact or 20 20 1109, 1112 (9th Cir. bias conclusively presumed as as a matter matter oflaw. Gonzalez, 214 F.3d 1109, US. v.v. Gonzalez, of law. US.

21 2000). The TheCourt Courthad hadthe the opportunity opportunity to to observe observeand and assess assess the credibility of ofthe the juror juror during during the

22 evidentiary evidentiary hearing hearing held held to to address address this matter and finds the juror's juror's answers answers to to be be reasonable reasonable and and credible given given her her explanations, explanations, the the extended extended break in in the the working working relationship relationship and and minimum minimum 23

24 Page Page44-of6 Order re: Decision and Order Motion for re:Motion New Trial for New Trial Criminal Case No. CF0242-20; Case No. James Simmons DerickJames CF0242-20,People v. Derick

11 contact between the contact between the juror juror and andthe thewitnesses. witnesses. Governments case in Governments case in chief chief as as well as as aa defense defense 2 witness. Duenas fas was called as a government government witness.

3 Actual bias exists exists when, as as the term suggests, the juror juror is is in fact biased for or against one

of ofthe the parties, thereby precluding her from rendering a fair and impartial impartial verdict. verdict. United United States States v. 4 Gonzalez, 906 F.3d 784, 784, 796 796 (9th Cir. 2018). Most Most of ofthe thecases cases in inwhich whichactual actual bias bias has has been been 5 found involved involved jurors jurors who who either either stated stated that that they could not be impartial impartial or who, after after expressing 6 views adverse adverse to one one party, party, equivocated equivocated when asked asked if they they could could set set aside aside those those views views and and 7 evaluate the the evidence fairly and and impartially. Id. at at 796-797. 796-797. The Court has has found found no noevidence evidence of of

8 actual from the juror actual bias from juror in in this instance. Under Under the the implied implied bias bias doctrine, doctrine, bias will will be beconclusively conclusively presumed presumed in in certain certain 9 circumstances even even if the juror juror professes professes a sincere belief beliefthat that she she can be impartial. Id., at 797. 797. The The 10 Ninth Ninth Circuit Circuit has has held that juror bias will be be presumed presumed only in in the the extreme extreme situation situation where the 11 11 relationship between a prospective juror and some some aspect aspect of of the the litigation litigation is is such that itit is highly such that

12 unlikely unlikely that that the average average person person could could remain remain impartial impartial in in their their deliberations deliberations under under the the

circumstances. circumstances. United United States States v. v. Kvasnuk, Kvashuk, 29 F.4th 1077, 1092 (9th 1077, 1092 (9th Cir. Cir. 2022). 2022). Examples of this 13 relationship include when the juror has has had hadaapersonal personalexperience experience similar similar or or identical identical to the fact 14 14 pattern at at issue issue in in the the trial, trial, when when the thejuror juror is is aware aware of highly highly prejudicial prejudicial information information about about the 15 defendant no ordinary defendant which no ordinary person could could be be expected to put aside aside in reaching reaching a verdict, or the 16 juror lies aboutvoid about voir dire facts. facts. Id. The The Defense Defensehas has presented presented no no evidence evidenceto tothe theCourt Courtsuch such that that

17 it can conclude that thatjurors jurors shortfall shortfall if at all amounts to to implied bias.

While While the the juror juror failed failed to to later laterinform informthe theCourt Courtor orattorneys attorneys upon upon realizing realizing that that she she been 18 formerly acquainted acquainted with with the the witnesses, witnesses, the the Court Court finds finds that that the the relationship relationship between between the juror 119 and the the issues issuesof of this case case is too tenuous to meet the "extreme tenuous to "extreme situation" situation"standard standard established by 20 the Ninth Circuit. Circuit. Therefore, the the Court Court finds finds itit more more likely likelythan than not not that that the the juror juror remained remained 21 impartial in in her deliberations deliberations as as she had had testified testified at the evidentiary evidentiary hearing, hearing, and and consequently consequently that that

22 no implied implied bias exists in in this instance. instance. The Court finding finding no no implied impliedor oractual actual bias, bias, Deflendant's Defendant's argument does not pass theMcDonough McDonough test. 23

24 Page 5 of6 Decision and Order Orderre: re:Motion Motion for for New New Trial Trial Criminal Case Case No. CF0242-20,People CF0242-20; People v. v. Derick DerickJames James Simmons Simmons

2 CONCLUSION CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion for for New Trial. 3

5 JAN O JAN 2024 0552024 IT IS SO ORDERED - - - - - - - 6

7 • •

8 , . _.-._ A

HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS 9 Judge, Superior Superior COurt Court of Guam 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

23 23

24 Page 6 of of6