r Ii,.t~§-:
ED.,
CLERf( GF CLERK OF COURT
11 202~ OCT I11I PH 2l]2L,0[)T PM 3: 4
in.
2 SUPE?8€3=?€ 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM OF GuAIE/i61 3
4 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM CRIMINAL CASE no.
NO.CF0666-18
CF0666-18
5 5 vs.
6 FRANKLIN CHARGUALAF TAITAGUE, DECISION AND ORDER JR., Re: Motion for for New Trial
7 DOB: 05/14/1982 8 Defendant.
9
10 This matter came before the Honorable matter came Honorable Arthur Arthur R. Barcinas
Barcinas on July
July 24,
24, 2024,
2024, for aa
11 11 continued hearingon continued hearing on Defendant's Defendant'sMotion
Motion for
for New
New Trial
Trial due
due totopotential
potential juror
jurordishonesty.
dishonesty.
12 12 Defendant Franklin Chargualaf Defendant Franklin ChargualafTaitague Taitague ("Defendant")
("Defendant") was present present with
with Assistant
Assistant Public
Public
13 13 Defender Brian Eggleston.
Eggleston. Assistant
AssistantAttorney
Attorney General
General Christine
ChristineTenorio
Tenon represented
represented the People
14 14 of of Guam ("the People").
Guam ("the People").
15 15 INTRODUCTION
16 16 Defendant moves the Defendant moves the Court Court for
for a new trial
trial on
on the
the grounds
grounds of alleged
alleged juror bias.
bias. The
17 17 defense contends contends that
that two jurors failed to disclose disclose pertinent
pertinent information
information during
during void
voir dire. Had
18 18 these these disclosures been made, disclosures been made, the the defense
defense asserts
asserts itit would have had grounds grounds to challenge the
19 19 jurors for cause. jurors cause. The loss loss of
ofthis
thisopportunity,
opportunity, according
according to
to the
the defense,
defense, compromised
compromised the
the
20 integrity of ofthe
the trial, culminating
culminating in aa guilty
guilty verdict.
verdict.
21 The Motion
Motion for
for New
NewTrial
Trialis ispredicated
predicatedononinformation informationobtained
obtained post-trial,
post-trial, after
after the
the
22 22 alternates were released and the jurors commenced deliberations. alternates were deliberations. The Court Court conducted
conducted a
a void
voir
Decision and and Order
Order re:
re:Motion
Motion for
for New
New Trial
Trial
Criminal Case No. CF0666-18, Case No. CF0666-18, People People v.v.Franklin
Franklin ChargualafTaitague, Jr.
Chargualaf Taitague, Jr.
1l dire of the dire of the identified identified jurors
jurors and
and the jury panel
the jury panel to
to evaluate
evaluate any
any potential
potential impact
impact and
and held
held
2 subsequent evidentiary hearings subsequent evidentiary hearings in in response
responseto
tothe
thedefense's
defense's motion.
3 After thoroughly considering After thoroughly considering all all the
the relevant
relevant evidence,
evidence, applicable
applicable law,
law, and
and the
the record,
4 the Court finds that the the defense
defense has
has not
not met
met the
the requisite
requisite burden
burdento
tojustify
justify granting
granting a new
new trial.
5 Accordingly, the Accordingly, the Court DENIES the the Motion
Motion for
for New
New Trial.
6 BACKGROUND
7 On On March
March 23,
23, 2023, during jury deliberations, the during jury the Court Court advised
advised counsel
counsel that
that it
it had
had been
8 informed by the the marshals that, Juror
marshals that, Juror4,4,had hadhad
hadaafamily
family member
memberarrested
arrested(the
(the"arrestee")
"arrestee") and
and
9 brought brought to court on on aa separate
separate child
child support
support case,
case, and
and that
that the
the arrestee
arrestee had been asking
asking the
10 10 marshals marshals toto notify notify Juror
Juror 44 so
so that
that she
she could post
post bail.
bail. The
The Court
Court scheduled
scheduled aa void
voir dire to
to
11 11 question Juror Juror 4,
4, who
who was called before
before the
the Court
Court and
and asked
asked whether
whether she
she knew
knew the
the arrestee.
arrestee.
12 12 Juror statedunder Juror 44 stated thatthe oaththat
underoath thearrestee arresteewas
wasthe
thefather
fatherof
of her
her children,
children, that
that she
she was
was no
no longer
13 13 with him, and that that his
his arrest
arrestwould
would not
not affect
affect her ability to remain remain fair
fair and
and impartial.
impartial. Defense
14 14 counsel counsel immediately asked asked Juror
Juror 4 whether the arrestee arrestee had physically abused her, which she abused her, she
15 15 confirmed, and the defense stated its intent and the intent to to move for
for mistrial.
mistrial. Defense
Defensecounsel
counselthen
then asked
asked her
16 16 if if she she would would be
be able
able to
to remain fair and
remain fair and impartial, impartial, which she
she also
also confirmed.
confirmed. The People
People then
then
17 17 asked Juror Juror44if
if her incident with the arrestee arrestee was a charged case, case, to which
which she
she replied
replied that
that she
18 18 did not know.
know.
19 19 The defense stated stated that
thatititwould
wouldbe
befiling
filing a Motion for
for Mistrial,
Mistrial, alleging
alleging that
that when
when the
the
20 jurors were asked in the void dire whether they had been the the first voir the victim of aa crime victim of crime and
and whether
21 they could remain impartial, Juror remain impartial, Juror44did didnot
not reveal
reveal that
that she
shehad
hadallegedly
allegedlybeen
been aa victim
victim of
22 domestic domestic abuse by the abuse by the arrestee
arrestee in another case, CM0317-22.
another case, CM0317-22. The The People stated
stated that,
that, in their
their
23 screening, Juror 4's name name did not
not appear
appear as a victim
victim in
inany
anycase,
case, but
but added
added that
that Juror had told
Juror 4 had told
24 Page 2 of
ofl4
Decision Decision and Orderre:
and Order re:Motion
Motionfor
for New
New Trial
Trial
Criminal Case Criminal CaseNo.
No. CF0666-18, v. Franklin ChargualafTaitague, People v.
CF0666-l8,People Taitague, Jr.
1 1 the the People that that she
she had
had aa child
child support
support case
case pending.
pending. Juror
Juror 4 then
then requested
requested to make
make an
an
2 independent statementaffirming independent statement affirmingthat thatshe
shewould
would remain
remain impartial.
impartial. The
The Court noted that the
3 question posed question posed by by the
the Court
Court in the
the initial voir dire
initial void dire was a two-part two-part question:
question: (1)
(1) Have
Have you
4 yourself or any yourself or memberof any member of your
your close
closefamily
family or
or friends
fiends been the
the victim
victim of aa crime,
crime; and (2)
and (2)
5 would that experience cause that experience cause you you to
to be
be unfair
unfair to one side of
ofthe
the other?
other? The
The Court
Court stated
stated that,
that,
6 based on Juror Juror4's
4's responses, the second part responses, the part of of the question appeared to to be why Juror
Juror 4 did not
7 answer in the the affirmative. The
The matter
matter was
was then
then continued to the afternoon.
8 On the same day, the same day, the defense
defense filed
filed a Motion
Motion for
for Mistrial,
Mistrial,and
and the
the Court
Court reconvened
reconvened at
at
9 to hear 2:22 PM to hear the the motion.
motion. The
The Court
Court first
first called
calledthe
the entire
entire jury
jury panel
panel to
to determine
determine whether
whether
10 10 Juror hadshared Juror 44 had detailsregarding anydetails
sharedany regardingher hertime
time in
in court
court that
that day.
day. The
The jurors said she
she did not.
11 11 The Court Court then then asked the
the jurors,
jurors, including
including Juror
Juror 4,
4, under
underoath
oathifif they
they would be able to remain remain
12 12 impartial and be impartial and be able able to
to continue
continue deliberating.
deliberating. The jurors said that that they
they would.
would. The Court
Court then
then
13 13 requested the the jurors
jurors to
to·return to
to deliberation.
deliberation.
14 14 Upon review Upon ofthe
review of theMotion
Motionfor
forMistrial
Mistrialand
andJuror
Juror4's
4'sstatements,
statements, the
the Court
Court held
held that it is
15 15 the duty and and obligation of
ofthe
the trial
trialcourt
courttotomake
makean
anassessment
assessment and
and to inquire
inquire into
into the
the jurors
jurors'
16 16 state of mind and their ability to continue to conduct their work work in
in aa fair
fair and
and impartial manller
manner in
17 17 deciding this case.
deciding this case. The The Court
Court then
then found
found that
that it had
had confirmed
confirmed the
the limited
limited amount
amount of
18 18 information information conveyed to the the jurors
jurors was
was sufficient
sufficient not
not to
to inject
injectany
anyextraneous
extraneous material
material that
that
19 19 would improperly influence their their decision.
decision. The
The Court
Court confirmed,
confirmed, and
and each
each juror
juror affirmed
affirmed under
under
20 oath in open court, that that they
they could be fair and
and impartial in deciding this this case,
case, including
including Juror
Juror 4.
21 Ruling from from the
the bench,
bench, the
the Court
Court found
found that,
that, in
in assessing
assessing the answers of Juror 4 with respect to
22 the disclosure, the Court did not see Juror disclosure, the 4's lack Juror 4's lack of
ofresponse
response as
as an
an intentional
intentional omission,
omission, and
and
23 that the the juror
juror was truthful
truthful and
and forthright
forthright when
when directly asked about about the
the information.
information. The Court
24 Page 33 ofl4 Page of14
Decision Decision and Orderre:
and Order re:Motion
Motionfor
for New
New Trial
Trial
Criminal Case No. CF0666-18,People CF0666-18, People v.
v. Franklin ChargualafTaitague, Chargualaf Taitague, Jr.
Jr.
1 1 further found further that Juror found that Juror44had
hadno
noreason
reasontotoknow
know that
thataa case
case had
hadbeen
beenfiled,
filed, or that the
the Public
2 Defender would Defender would be be representing
representing the
the arrestee,
arrestee, until she was asked until she asked by
by the
the Public Defender during
3 March 23, 2023 void the March voir dire. Finally, the dire. Finally, the Court Court found
found that
that all
all jurors
jurors appeared
appeared to be
be truthful
truthful and
and
4 the events unaffected by the events and and information, to the
the extent
extent the
the information
information was
was disclosed,
disclosed, and
and that
that
5 Defendant did not sufficiently meet Defendant meet his his burden
burden of establishing
establishing bias
bias on the
the part
part of Juror
Juror 4,
4, or
6 demonstrate thatJuror demonstrate that actedwith Juror44acted withmalice, malice,ill
ill will, orininany
will, or anymanner
manner such
such that
that would
would subvert
subvert
7 her duty duty to to decide the
the case
case in
in aafair
fair and
andimpartial
impartialmanner.
manner.Accordingly,
Accordingly,Defendant's
Defendant'sMotion
Motion for
8 was denied.
Mistrial was
9 March 31, On March 31, 2023,
2023, Defendant
Defendant filed the instant filed the instant Motion
Motion for New Trial,
Trial, restating
restating its
its
10 10 about Juror claims about Juror44 from from the
the Motion for Mistrial,
Motion for Mistrial,and
andfurther
further alleging
allegingthat
that Juror
Juror 88 had
had also not
11 11 revealed that revealed that he he was the
the victim ofaa crime
victim of crime when asked by when asked Court during voir the Court by the dire.
void dire.
12 12 13, 2023, On April 13, 2023, the
the People Opposition to People filed their Opposition to the the Motion
Motion for
for New Trial,
Trial,
13 13 arguing arguing that Defendant had had not demonstrated dishonesty on demonstrated dishonesty on the the part
part of Juror
Juror 4 or
or Juror
Juror 8,
8, but
but
14 14 had merely speculated speculated that the
thejurors
jurors were
were biased.
15 15 After After aa series
series of
ofcontinuances
continuances requested
requested by both
both parties,
parties, the Court held an evidentiary
16 16 May 14, hearing on May 2024, to 14, 2024, to take
take testimony
testimony from
fromthree
threewitnesses
witnesseson
onthis
thisissue:
issue: Juror
Juror 4,
4, Juror
Juror 8,
17 17 and CiannaR.
and Cianna R.Elliot, Elliot, victim advocate supervisor for for the
the Office
Office of
ofthe
the Attorney
Attorney General.
General.
18 18 At that At that hearing,
hearing, defense
defense counsel
counsel stated
stated that
that subpoenas
subpoenas had
had been
been issued
issued for three
for all three
19 19 witnesses, but only witnesses, but and Elliot Juror 88 and
only Juror Elliot were were able
abletotoattend
attendthe
the hearing
hearing because
because Juror
Juror 4 had
had aa
20 long-standing medical long-standing medical appointment.
appointment.Because
Becauseof the importance
of the importance of
of her
her testimony,
testimony, counsels
counsels
21 proposed to take testimony testimony of the two available available witnesses
witnesses and
and come
come back
back at
at a later time to take
take
22 the testimony the testimony of Juror Juror 4. Court admitted 4. The Court admitted the testimony testimony of
ofthe
the two
twopresent
present witnesses
witnesses and
and
23 issued an Order Order to
to Show Cause
Cause on
on Juror
Juror 4.
24 Page 4 of14
Decision Decision and Order Orderre:
re:Motion
Motionfor
forNew
New Trial
Trial
Criminal Case No. CF0666-18,People CF0666-18, People v.
v. Franklin ChargualafTaitague, Taitague, Jr.
Jr.
I1 On On July 24,
24, 2024,
2024,the
theCourt
Courtheld
heldaahearing
hearingon
onthe
theContinued
ContinuedMotion
Motionfor
forNew
New Trial and
and
2 Order to Show Show Cause,
Cause, heard
heard arguments
arguments from
from both
both Parties,
parties, and
and subsequently
subsequently took the
the matter
matter
3 under advisement.
advisement.
4 1;scUssIon DISCUSSION
5 Defendant argues Defendant arguesthat
thathe
heisisentitled
entitledtoto aa new
new trial
trial based
basedon
onthe
thealleged
alleged failure
failure of
of two
6 jurors to answervoid voir dire questions honestly.
honestly.
7 1.
I. Legal LegalStandard
Standard
8 Pursuant Pursuant toto88G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 110.30(a),
ll0.30(a), "[t]he
"[t]hecourt
courton
onmotion
motionofofaadefendant
defendantmay
may grant
grant aa new
new
9 trial to him ifrequired required in the
the interests
interestsof
ofjustice." "A
"Amotion
motionfor
foraanew
newtrial
trialbased
based on
on any
any ground
ground
10 10 other than the ground than the groundof
of newly
newly discovered evidence shall made within seven (7) days shall be made days after after
11 11 verdict or finding of ofguilty
guiltyor
orwithin
withinsuch
such further
further time
time as
as the
the court
court may fix during
during the seven-day
12 12 period." Id.
period." 110.30(d). "A Id. §§ 110.30(d). "Anew newtrial
trialisisa areexamination reexaminationofofthe
theissue
issue in
inthe
the same
same court,
court, after
after aa
13 13 finding by finding by the court has the court given, or been given,
has been or by
by another jury, after
another jury, after aa verdict verdict has
hasbeen
beengiven."
given." Id.
Id. §§
14 14 110.10. "The granting 110.10. "The trial places new trial
granting of aa new places the the parties
parties in the
the same as if no same position as no trial trial had
had
15 15 been had. All been had. All the the testimony
testimony must anew, and must be produced anew, andthe theformer
former verdict
verdict or finding cannot be
16 16 used referred to, used or referred to, either in evidence evidence or in
in argument
argument or be pleaded bar of any conviction pleaded in bar
17 17 which might which might have have been hadunder
been had underthe
theindictment,
indictment,information
informationor
orcomplaint."
complaint."Id.
Id.§§ 110.20.
l10.20.
18 18 The Guam Guam Supreme Court has
Supreme Court hasheld
held that
that"Section
"Section 110.30(a)
1l0.30(a) is
is substantively
substantively similar to
19 19 Federal Rules of [Criminal]
Federal Rules [Criminal] Procedure ("FRCP") Rule Procedure ("FRCP") Rule 33(a), 33(a), and
and this
this court
court has
has looked to
20 federal case law federal case law on FRCP 33 33 for
for guidance."
guidance." People v.
v. Messier,
Messier, 2014 Guam
Guam 34 ,i 12
34 11 12 (citing
(citing
21 People v.
v. Leslie,
Leslie, 2011
2011 Guam 23 ,iii 15
Guam 23 15 n.1). Pursuant to FRCP 33(a), Pursuant to 33(a), federal federal appellate
appellate courts
courts
22 have generally found found that
that trial courts
courts do not abuse their discretion abuse their discretion in in declining
declining to
to order a new
23 trial based on a juror's juror's nondisclosure of information. See nondisclosure of See US. v.
v. Mulligan,
Mulligan, 573 F.2d 775
775 (2nd
24 Page 5 of
ofl4
Decision and Order Decision Orderre:
re:Motion
Motionfor
for New
New Trial
CF0666-18, People v.
Criminal Case No. CF0666-18,People v. Franklin Franklin ChargualafTaitague, Chargualaf Taitague, Jr.
Jr.
1 1 Cir. 1978)
1978) (finding
finding trial
trial court
court did
did not abuse its discretion abuse its failing to infailing
discretionin to order order new
new trial
trial of former
2 policeman because because of
of one
one juror's
juror's failure to disclose disclose her
her arrest four years
years prior);
prior), US.
US. v.
v. Waylan,
Wayman,
3 510 F.2d 1020 (5th Cir.
1020 (5th Cir. 1975)
1975) (finding that
that defendant was
was not
not entitled to
to new
new trial in absence of
absence of
4 any any showing showing of of bias
bias when
when the
the court
court asked
asked ififany
anyjurors
jurors had
had business
business dealings
dealings with any
any
5 defendant, andjuror defendant, and juror worked worked for
for aa subsidiary
subsidiary of aa company
company that
that had
had done
done business
business with
6 defendant but defendant but remained remained silent);
silent), Welch 371 F.2d Welch v. US., 371 F.2d 287 287 (10th
(10th Cir. 1966) (finding Cir. l966) (finding that that aa
7 juror who, when when asked
asked during
during void
voir dire
dire if any
any close
close relatives
relatives had
had been involved in litigation litigation
8 before before the the court
court did
did not
not disclose
disclose that
that his
his father
father had
had been
been disbarred
disbarred by that court 29 years prior,
9 did not commit commit jury
jury misconduct
misconduct such as
as would
would entitle defendant to a new trial).
10 10 The Supreme Court has Supreme Court has also
also held
held that,
that, while
while a trial judge has
has significant discretion to
11 11 grant grant a motion for new new dual,
trial, grants
grants of such
such motions are
are generally disfavored.
disfavored. Messier,
Messier, 2014
12 12 Guam 34 ,r,r Guam 34 'W 13-14. In reviewing 13-14. In reviewing a trial trial court's
court's decision
decision regarding motion for new regarding a motion new trial, trial,
13 13 however, however, the the Supreme Court has
Supreme Court hasstated
statedthat
thatitit"review[s]
"review[s] a trial
trial court's decision
decision only
only for an
an
14 14 abuse of discretion abuse of discretion and and give[s] substantial deference to substantial deference to the trial trial court,"
court," on
on the
the grounds
grounds that
that
15 15 "[t]ria1 "[t]rial courts presideover courts preside over the
thejury
jury and
andlisten
listento
to all
all of
of the
the evidence." ,r 14, evidence." Id. 1] 14; Leslie, 2011
16 16 Guam 23 Guam ,r 23 'H 19.
17 17 a. The TheMcDonough
McDonough test
test
18 18 Defendant challenges the Defendant challenges the impartiality impartiality of
of the
the two jurors
jurors under the test in McDonough under the McDonough
19 19 Power Equip.
Equip. v.
v. Greenwood,
Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548,
548, 556 (1984).
(1984). In McDonough, the Supreme Supreme Court
Court
20 found that an appellate appellate court was mistaken in deciding that that respondents
respondents were entitled entitled to
to `a new
21 trial trial because because aa juror
juror had
had failed
failed to
to respond affirmatively to aa question respond affirmatively question on on void
voir dire
dire seeking
seeking to
22 elicit elicit information information about injuries to about previous injuries to members membersof
of the
thejuror's
juror's immediate
immediate family.
family. To obtain
23 a new trial trial under
under the McDonough
McDonough test,
test, "a
"a party
party must
must first
first demonstrate that aa juror demonstrate that juror failed to
24 ofl4
Page 6 of 14
Decision and Order Decision Orderre:
re:Motion
Motionfor
for New
New Trial
Criminal Case No. CF0666-18, CF0666-l People
People v. Franklin ChargualafTaitague, Taitague,' Jr.
Jr.
1 answer honestly a material question on void further show that dire, and then further
voir dire, that aa correct correct response
2 would have provided a valid basis for a challenge challenge for
for cause."
cause." Id. The
The motives
motives for
for concealing
concealing
3 information may vary, but only those reasons that affect a jury's jury's impartiality can truly be said to
4 affect the fairness of a trial. 1d.
Id.
5 The McDonough test is the general rule of determining whether a new trial is warranted
6 due to alleged jury dishonesty. However, "[t]he binary test set forth in McDonough is not a be-
7 all-end-all test to all-end-all to be viewed without context.
context. Rather,
Rather, the iiindamental
fundamental purpose
purpose of the test is to
8 the juror answer the crucial, overarching trial inquiry: was the if so, did that bias affect juror biased, and, if
9 fairness of the the fairness the trial?" Scott v. 1128, 1131 Arnold, 962 F.3d 1128, v. Arnold, 1131 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Fania v.
Faria v.
10 10 Harleysville Worcester Ins.
Ins. Co., 852 F.3d
Co., 852 F.3d 87,
87, 96
96 (1st
(let Cir.
Cir. 2017)).
20l7)).
11 The Ninth Circuit has found found that, under McDonough, a defendant must still demonstrate
12 12 that a truthful answer from the jurors would have provided a valid basis to strike the jurors for
13 13 cause.
cause. In order to disqualify disqualify the jurors
jurors for cause,
cause, there
there must
must be
be a showing of
of either
either actual
actual or
14 14 implied bias, i.e., bias in fact or bias conclusively presumed as a matter of law. United States v.
15 15 Gonzalez, Gonzalez, 214 F.3d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir. 2000).
16 16 Actual bias exists when, as the term suggests, the juror is in fact fact biased for
for or against
against
17 17 of the one of the parties, parties, thereby
thereby precluding her from rendering a fair fair and
and impartial
impartial verdict.
verdict. United
18 18 States v. Gonzalez, 906 v. Gonzalez, 796 (9th 784, 796
906 F.3d 784, (9th Cir.
Cir. 2018).
2018). Most
Most of
of the
the cases
cases in
in which
which actual bias has
19 19 been found involved jurors jurors who either stated
stated that they could not be impartial impartial or who,
who', after
after
20 expressing views adverse expressing views to one party, equivocated adverse to when asked equivocated when asked if they could could set
set aside
aside those
those
21 views and evaluate the evidence fairly and impartially. Id. at 796-97.
22 Under Under the implied
implied bias
bias doctrine,
doctrine, bias will
will be
be conclusively
conclusively presumed
presumed in
in certain
certain
23 circumstances even if the juror professes circumstances professes a sincere belief belief that she can be impartial.
impartial. Id., at 797.
24 Page 77 of14 Page ofl4
Decision Decision and Order re: Motion for New Trial Criminal Case Case No.
No. CF0666-18, People v. Franklin ChargualafTaitague, v. Franklin Jr.
Taitague, Jr.
1 1 The Ninth Ninth Circuit Circuit has
has held that juror
juror bias
bias will be
be presumed
presumed only in
in the
the extreme
extreme situation
situation where
2 the relationship the relationship between between aa prospective
prospective juror
juror and
and some
some aspect
aspectof
of the
the litigation is
is such
such that
that it is
3 unlikely that highly unlikely that the the average
average person
person could
could remain
remain impartial
impartial in
in his
his deliberations
deliberations under
under the
the
4 circumstances.
circumstances. United United States
States v.
v. Kvashuk,
Kvashuk, 29 F.4th 1077, 1092 (9th 1077, 1092 (9th Cir.
Cir. 2022).
2022). Examples of this
this
5 relationship include when the the juror
juror has
hashad
hadaapersonal
personalexperience
experiencesimilar
similar or identical to
or identical the fact
to the
6 pattern at issue pattern at issuein in the
thetrial,
trial, when
when the
thejuror
jurorisis aware
aware of
of highly prejudicial
prejudicial information
information about
about the
7 defendant which no defendant no ordinary ordinary person
person could
could be
be expected to put aside
aside in reaching
reaching a verdict, or
or the
8 juror lies about about void facts. Id.
voir dire facts. Id.
9 "Even "Even where,
where, as
as here,
here, the
the two parts of the McDonough test have been satisfied, parts of satisfied, a juror's juror's
10 10 bias is is only
onlyestablished
established under
under McDonough if
if the
the juror's motives
motives for
for concealing
concealing information
information or
11 the reasonsthat the reasons affectthe thataffect thejuror's
juror'simpartiality
impartiality can
canbe
betruly
trulysaid
saidto
toaffect
affect the
the fairness
fairnessof
of the
the trial."
trial."
12 12 Scott, Scott, 962 962 F.3d at 1131.
1131. (quoting
(quoting Conaway
Conaway v.
v. Polk,
Polk, 453
453 F.3d 567,
567, 582-89
582-89 (9th Cir. 2006).
2006).
13 13 "Under McDonough, aa new trial is warranted only if warranted only if the
the [trial]
[trial] court
court finds
finds that
that the
the juror's void
voir
14 14 dire responses responses were dishonest, dishonest, rather
rather than merely mistaken, mistaken, and her reasons and that her reasons for
for making the
15 15 dishonest responsecall dishonest response callher herimpartiality
impartialityinto
intoquestion."
question." Id.
Id. (quoting Pope
Pope v.
v. Man-Data,
Man-Data, Inc., 209
16 16 F.3d 1161, 1161, 1164
1164 (9th Cir. 2000). See See also
also US. v.
v. Brugnara,
Brugnara, 856 F.3d 1198,
1198, 1211-12
1211-12 (9th Cir.
17 17 denying relief 2017) (denying reliefunder under the McDonough
cDonou test because,
because, even
even though
though the
the court assumed aa juror com assumed
18 18 had dishonest, there had been dishonest, therehad hadbeen
beenno
noshowing
showing that
thatthe
thedishonesty
dishonestyconcealed
concealed aa valid
valid for-cause
19 19 challenge).
challenge)
20 II. Juror Juror 4
21 Defendant provideslittle Defendant provides littletoto no no factual
factual information
informationininthe
theMotion
Motion for
for New
New Trial
Trial
22 22 regarding Juror4, regarding Juror necessaryfor makingitit necessary 4,making forthe theCourt
Courtto
torefer
refer to
to the
the March
March 23,
23, 2023
2023Motion
Motion for
23
24 ofl4
Page 8 of 14
Decision and Decision and Order Orderre:
re:Motion
Motionfor
for New
New Trial
Trial
Criminal Case No. CF0666-18,People v. Franklin Chargualaf CF0666-18, People v. Taitague, Jr.
ChargualafTaitague, Jr.
11 Mistrial to to understand Defendant's arguments understand Defendant's argumentsregarding regardingJuror
Juror4.4.InInthe
theMotion
Motion for
for Mistrial,
2 Defendant alleged the the following
following facts
facts relevant
relevant to the
the Court's
Court's analysis:
analysis:
3 1. On l. OnMarch March23,
23,2023,
2023,the
theday
dayafter thejury
afterthe jurybegan
begandeliberations,
deliberations, "the
"the court
court alerted
alerted the
the
4 attorneys that there there was
was aa problem
problem with
with one of
ofthe
the jurors, namely, that
that her 'husband' had
had
5 been arrested arrested by
by the
the court
court marshals
marshalsthat
thatmorning
morningfor
fornot
not paying
paying restitution."
restitution." Mot.
Mot. For
6 Mistrial, at at 1.l.
7 2. The Thecourt
court set
set a hearing
hearingfor
for11
ll:20
:20 a.m. on March
March 23,
23, 2023.
8 3. Before Beforethe
thetrial,
trial,Juror
Juror44had
hadtold
toldthe
thecourt
courtthat
thatshe
she had
had aa child
child support
support case.
9 4. All Allthe
thejurors
jurorswere
were asked
asked in void
voir dire whether they
they had
had been
been the
the victim
victim of aa crime
crime and
and
10 10 whether they could remain whether they "[Juror 4]
and "[Juror
impartial, and
remain impartial, 4] did did not
not reveal
reveal that
that she
she had
had been
been
11 11 assaulted by the assaulted by thefather
fatherof
of her children
children last
last September."
September." Id.
Id.
12 12 5. On OnMarch
March23,
23,2023,
2023,at
atapproximately
approximately10:55
10:55 a.m.,
a.m., defense
defense counsel's
counsel's assistant
assistant discovered
13 13 via aa computerized computerized search that Juror search that Juror44 was was an
an alleged
alleged victim of
of domestic
domestic abuse
abuse in
14 14 CM0317-22, in in which
which the
the Public
Public Defender
Defenderrepresented
represented the
the defendant
defendant and
and would
would thus
thus be
15 15 adverse to the juror.
juror.
16 16 6. Juror Juror 44 claimed
claimed no
no knowledge of
ofthe
the above case.
case.
17 17 7. The ThePeople
Peoplehad
hadalso
alsoconducted
conductedaacomputer
computersearch
searchand
andhad
had not
not found
found Juror
Juror 4's name.
18 18 8. AtAtthe theMarch
March23,
23,2023
2023hearing,
hearing,Juror
Juror44stated
stated that
that she
she could remain fair and and impartial.
19 19 In In their Opposition, the the People
People alleged the
the following
following facts
facts relevant
relevant to
to the
the Court's
Court's analysis:
analysis:
20 l.
1. On Onthe
theday
day of
ofthe
the initial
initial void dire, the Court posed a question as to whether any potential voir dire,
21 jurors had jurors hadan
anopen
opencase
casewith
withthe
theAttorney
AttorneyGeneral's
General'soffice,
office, criminal
criminalor
orcivil.
civil.
22 22 2. Juror Juror44raised
raisedher
herhand
hand and
and stated
stated that she was a party to a child child support
support case, which was
23 later found to be the case the arrestee arrestee was
was arrested
arrested for.
for.
24 of14
Page 9 of
Decision and Order Decision Orderre:
re:Motion
Motionfor
forNew
New Trial
Criminal Case No. CF0666-18,People v. Franklin ChargualafTaitague, CF0666-18, People v. Taitague, Jr.
Jr.
1 1 OnMarch 3. On 22,2023, March22, 2023,while
whilethe
thejurors
jurors were
weredeliberating,
deliberating, the
the Court
Court was
was informed
informed that
that "the
2 2 partner of of Juror 4"
4" had been arrested
arrestedby
by the
the Superior
Superior Court
Court of
of Guam marshals
marshalsfor
for a child
3 support case, and support case, and the
the People
People and defense were summoned summoned before the
the Court
Court to voir dire
to void
4 Juror 4.
4.
5 4. Juror Juror44clarified
clarifiedthat
thathe
thearrestee
arresteewas
wasnot
nother
hercurrent
currentpartner
partner and
and that
that she was not aware
6 of ofthe
the arrest.
arrest.
7 5. . During During the
the March
March 23,
23, 2023
2023 void
voir dire,
dire, defense counsel asked Juror Juror44if
if she had"claimed
she had "claimed
8 to be physically physically abused"
abused" by
by the
the arrestee.
arrestee.
9 6. Juror Juror 44 confirmed
confirmed she
she had
had been
been abused
abused by
by the
the arrestee,
arrestee, after
after which
which defense
defense counsel
counsel
10 10 stated he he would stn'ke Juror 44 for strike Juror for cause.
cause.
11 11 ThePeople 7. The thenasked Peoplethen askedJuror
Juror 44 ififthe
thecase
casewas
wascharged,
charged,and
andshe
shestated
stated that
that she
she did not
12 12 know.
13 13 Juror 44 explained 8. Juror that she explainedthat she did
did not
not divulge
divulgethat
that there
there was
was an
an open
open cnmlnal
criminal case
case because
because
14 14 she know whether she did not know whethercharges chargeswere
werefiled.
filed.
15 15 9. Juror Juror 44 further
further stated
stated that she was
that she was fair and
and impartial
impartial in
in this
this case,
case, regardless
regardless of the
the
16 16 arrestee's physical abuse.
abuse.
17 17 10.
10. During a recess, the the People
People conducted
conducted research
research and
and informed
informed the
the Court
Court that
that Juror
Juror 4 was
18 18 a named named victim in
in an
an open
open family
familyviolence
violencemisdemeanor
misdemeanorcase,
case,but
but her
her name
name had
had been
been
19 19 spelled differently differently in
in the
the magistrate's complaint.
20 11. ThePeople ll. The furtherstated Peoplefurther stated that that the Office
Office of
ofthe
the Attorney
AttorneyGeneral
General was
was last
last in
in contact
contact with
21 Juror Juror 44 on the
the day of
ofthe
the magistrate
magistrate hearing,
hearing, and
and that
that further
further attempts
attempts to contact
contact her had
22 22 been been unsuccessful.
unsuccessful.
23
24 Page 110 of
of14
Decision Orderre: Decision and Order Motionfor re:Motion New Trial
for New Trial
CF0666-18, People
Criminal Case No. CF0666-18, Taitague, Jr.
People v. Franklin ChargualafTaitague,
11 During her testimony at at the
the hearing
hearing on
on July 24, 2024,
July 24, Juror 4 testified 2024, Juror that the testified that arrestee the arrestee
2 commit violence did commit violenceagainst againsther,
her, that
that she
she did
did not asked or beingasked
recall being
not recall answering whether oranswering she
whether she
3 was a victim, victim, that
that she become aware she had eventually become that charges aware that were made charges were against the made against arrestee the arrestee
4 by the Attorney Attorney General
General before
beforethe
the jury
jurytrial
trialininthis she did remember being that she
and that
began,and
casebegan,
thiscase
5 asked several times whether asked several she could be fair and whether she and impartial impartial in
in this
this case, and answered
case, and the answered in the
6 affirmative affirmative each each time. Hearing Tr. (July 24, 2024).
7 On May May 14,
14, 2024,
2024, Elliot,
Elliot, the
the victim
victimadvocacy supervisor, also advocacysupervisor, stated that also stated the victim that the
8 advocacy advocacy unit unit was able
able to contact
contact Juror only once on September 13, Juror 44 only 2022,to 13, 2022, notify her of the to notify
9 magistrate hearing and magistrate hearing andthat thatthe
thearrestee's
arrestee'scase criminalcase.
wasaacriminal
casewas HearingTr., case.Hearing 14:30:00(May Tr., 14:30:00 (May
10 10 14, 14, 2024).
2024). However, However, Elliot that the statedthat
Elliotstated September 13, the September 2022 conversation 13, 2022 primarily to conversation was primarily
11 11 provide Juror Juror 44 with
with information
information as
as to
to where for certain to go for
where to services. Id.
certain services. 14:54:00. Elliot at 14:54:00.
Id. at
12 12 ·stated that the reach Juror the unit was unable to reach after that. Id. at Juror 44 after 14:31 :00.
at 14:31
13 13 Under the the Mcdonough test,
test, a party
party must
must demonstrate juror failed to that aa juror
demonstrate that answer to answer
14 14 honestly honestly a material material question on void voir dire, and then further further show
show that response would that aa correct response
15 15 have provided a valid valid basis
basis for
for aa challenge for
for cause. at 556.
McDonough, 464 U.S. at
cause. McDonough,
16 16 First, the Court does not find that Juror44 failed that Juror failed to answer answer the question honestly the Court's question
17 17 on void voir dire.
dire. As
As the
the Court
Court noted
noted at the March 23,
23, 2023
2023 void
voir dire, the question posed by the
dire, the question
18 18 Court in the initial void voir dire was a two-part
two-part question:
question:(1) any member of or any
( l) Have you yourself or
19 19 your close family family or
or friends
friends been
been the victim of
ofaa come,
crime;and
and (2)
(2)would
wouldthat
that experience cause you experience cause
20 to be unfair to one side side of
ofthe
the other.
other. Even
EvenififJuror
Juror44were
wereaware
awarethat
that the
the arrestee's had been case had
arrestee's case
21 charged, and that charged, and that she shewas
was aa named
named victim the answer in the
she was not required to answer case, she
victim in that case,
22 22 affirmative ififthat that experience
experience did
did not
not cause to be unfair cause her to unfair to to one the other.
side or the
one side In light other. In light of
23 that that fact, to the the extent that Defendant has that Defendant provided sufficient hasprovided Juror 4'ss demonstrate Juror
to demonstrate
evidence to
sufficient evidence
24 Page 11 ofl4
11 of 14
Decision and Decision and Order Orderre:
re:Motion
Motionfor
forNew
New Trial
Trial
Criminal Case No. CF0666-18,People CF0666-18, People v.
v. Franklin
Franklin Cl1argualaf
Chargualaf Taitague,
Taitague, Jr.
Jr.
11 purported knowledge purported knowledge as as the
the victim
victim of aa crime,
crime, Defendant
Defendant has
has not
not provided sufficient evidence
2 to demonstrate that Juror demonstrate that Juror4's 4's purported
purportedvictim status would victim status would cause causeher
herto
to be
be biased
biased to
to one
one side or
3 To the the other. To the contrary, contrary, the
the record
record indicates
indicates that,
that, in
in every
everyinstance
instance where
where Juror
Juror 44 was
was asked
asked-
4 by the the People, by by defense
defense counsel,
counsel, and
and by the Court - whether she she could be fair and
and impartial,
5 she answered that she she she could, could, and
and Defendant
Defendant does not
not seem to
to have
have challenged
challengedthat
that statement
statement at
at
6 any point. Thus, the Court finds that that Juror
Juror 44 did
did in fact answer
answer honestly the question posed by
7 the Court.
Court.
8 Further, upon consideration Further, upon consideration of of these
these facts,
facts, the Court finds that Defendant did not satisfy
9 the the second second McDonough McDonough criterion.
criterion. Defendant
Defendant has
has not
not sufficiently
sufficiently demonstrated demonstrated whether
whether aa
10 10 "correct"
"correct" response would have response would have provided provided a valid
valid basis
basis for
for aachallenge
challenge for
forcause
cause because
because
11 11 Defendant has not Defendant has not demonstrated demonstratedthat
thatJuror
Juror44was
wasbiased
biasedor,
or,ifif any
any bias
bias existed,
existed, that
that it would
12 12 affected the have affected fairness of the fairness ofthis
this trial.
trial. Defendant
Defendant has
has not provided
provided any
any proof
proofof
ofactual
actual bias,
bias, and
and
13 13 to the the extent extent that
that dishonest
dishonest answers
answers to void
voir dire questions may constitute questions may constitute aa basis basis for
for implied
14 14 basis, the Court basis, the Court does does not find
find that
that Defendant
Defendant has
has provided sufficient proof that that Juror
Juror 4's
15 15 answers to the the void
voir dire questions were any more aa demonstration of falsehood than than of mistake
mistake
16 16 or misunderstanding.
or misunderstanding. Thus, Thus, the
the Court
Court does
does not
not find Juror
Juror 4' answers demonstrative 4's answers demonstrative of any any bias
17 17 towards or against either of the the parties
parties in this case, or that that said answers
answers meet
meet the
the criteria
criteria of the
of the
18 18 McDonough test.
test. Accordingly, the
the Court
Court finds
finds that
that Juror
Juror 4's answers
answers to the initial void voir dire
dire
19 19 questions provide no questions provide no basis basis to
to find
find for
for a new
new trial.
20 III.
III. Juror Juror 8
21 In regards regards to Juror
Juror 8,
8, Defendant
Defendant offers
offers little
little factual
factual support,
support, but
but presents
presents only the
the
22 argument that Juror Juror 88 "was
"was the
the victim in [CF0018-22], People People v.
v. Jay
Jay Joshua
Joshua Peter, aa case
case of
23 aggravated Assault." Mot., Mot., at
at 1.
1. Beyond
Beyond this,
this, Defendant offers
offers no
no proof
proofin
in his
his brief
briefor
orargument
argument
24 12 ofl4
Page 12 of14
Decision Decision and Order Orderre:
re:Motion
Motionfor
for New
New Trial
Trial
Criminal Case No. CF0666-18, Peoplev.
CF0666-18, People v. Franklin ChargualafTaitague, Chargualaf Taitague, Jr.
Jr.
1 1 Juror 88 was as to whether Juror was deliberately deliberately untruthful
untruthfulor,
or,if
if so, why or
or how
how that
that would
would demonstrate
demonstrate
2 on Juror 8's part.
any bias on part.
3 the Opposition, In the Opposition, the
the People note
note that
that "Defendant speculates speculates for
for the
the first time in
in his
his
4 motion that motion that Juror Juror#8
#8isis somehow
somehow biased
biasedbecause
becausehe
hewas
wasaanamed
namedvictim
victimin
inaaclosed
closed Aggravated
Aggravated
5 the Public Defender Assault case wherein the Defender represented represented the
the defendant."
defendant." The People
People further
further argue
argue
6 that, because that, because the the Court
Court asked
askedin
in the
the initial
initial voir anyone had dire whether anyone
void dire had an open case case with the
7 Office ofofthe Office theAttorney AttorneyGeneral,
General, ititwas
wasnot
noterror
errorfor
forJuror
Juror88totoremain
remainsilent
silentbecause
because that
that
8 particular case was no no longer open at the
the time.
time.
9 The Court Court finds
finds that
that the
the challenge
challenge to Juror 88 also to Juror also does
does not satisfy
satisfy the
the McDonough
McDonough
10 10 At the criteria. At the hearing hearing on
on May
May 14,
14, 2024,
2024, Juror
Juror 8 testified
testified that,
that, despite being named named as
as aa victim
victim
11 11 the AG's by the officeregarding AG'soffice regardingCF0018-22, CF0018-22,he
hedid
didnot
notanswer
answerthat
that he
he was
was aa victim
victim because
because he did
12 12 not consider himself to be be aa victim
victimininthat
thatcase,
case,since
sincethat
that defendant's
defendant's actions
actions were
were directed
directed
13 13 primarily primarily at the the woman that Juror 88 was that Juror was attempting attempting to
to help.
help. Hearing
Hearing Tr., 15 :06:00 (May 15:06:00 (May 14,
14,
14 14 Juror 8 further 2024). Juror further stated statedthat
thathe
hewas
wascontacted
contactedby
bythe
theAttorney
AttorneyGeneral's
General's office regarding office regarding
15 15 CF0018-22, and CF0018-22, they asked that they
and that askedhim
him if
if he wanted to sit
sit in
in on
on the
the hearing,
hearing, but
but that
that he
he declined
16 16 and the the Attorney Attorney General's office office did
didnot
not say
say that
that itit was
was aa criminal
criminal case.
case. Id. at
at l5:02:00.
15:02:00. Juror
Juror 8
17 17 further testified further that, because testified that, becauseCF00 18-22 had CF0018-22 hadbeen
beenclosed
closedbefore
before the
the start
startof
of this
this trial,
trial, he no
18 18 longer considered considered himself part
part of that
that matter. Id. at
matter. Id. at l5:07:00.
15:07:00. Finally,
Finally,Juror
Juror 88stated
stated that
that his
his
19 19 oldest sibling oldest works for the sibling works the Public Public Defender's
Defender's office,
office, but
but that
that he
he did
did not
not disclose
disclose that
that fact
fact
20 during voir during void dire because he dire because he only
only remembered
rememberedbeing
being asked
askedifif any
any family members were
family members were in law
21 enforcement. Id.
enforcement. Id. at at 15:02:00.
l5:02:00.
22 22 Upon review Upon therecord reviewofofthe recordand
andthe
the testimony,
testimony, the
the Court
Court again
again does
does not
not find
find that
that Juror
Juror 8's
23 answers during void answers indicate any voir dire indicate any deliberate deliberate dishonesty,
dishonesty, and
and at most demonstrate
demonstrate only
only a
24 13 ofl4
Page 13 of14
Decision Decision and Order Orderre:
re:Motion
Motionfor
for New
New Trial
Trial
Criminal Case No. CF0666-18, CF0666-18, People v. Franklin ChargualafTaitague, Taitague, Jr.
1 misunderstanding onhis his part.
part. The
The Court
Court also
also does
does not
not find
find that
that aa purportedly
purportedly correct answer by
2 Juror 8 would have provided a valid basis for aa challenge challenge for
for cause,
cause, and
and Defendant
Defendant has not
3 sufficiently demonstrated the existence of actual or implied bias towards or against either party
4 by Juror 8. Thus, neither of the McDonough factors are satisfied, and the Court finds that Juror
5 8's 8's answers answers to its void voir dire questions provide no basis to find for a new trial.
6 CONCLUSION
7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's Defendant's Motion
Motion for
for New
New Trial. The
8 Court has scheduled further proceedings regarding sentencing for _goober October 17,
17, 2024, at 2 p.m.
9
10 10 IT IS SO SO ORDERED tact
OCT ~§
ORDERED - - ·1 112024
fit
-----
11 11
12 12 l
I
I n
13 13 HONORABLE HONORABLE ARTHUR
ARTHUR R. BARCINAS
14 14 Judge, Superior Court of of Guam
Guam
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
senvlce SlllVICI!VIA VIAI-MAILI-MAIL 19 19 ac nowledgethat acknowiedge realan
an elec amt
electron1t
C oveo (oJJV ofth eEorig1na1
tt,e n now aseem
wa!. uledtoIo
ma,1ed
20 IJG, As, FDIC
fDJC
21 Date. I#ln/111 _ Tune. 3 'f ir
I41é&# cm,
22 Deputy c ark ., Superior Deputy clerk Super Lourt Court of
at Guam
Guam
23
24 Page 114 of
ofl4