2 x* L I
g ** § 2 *E ay #nu E gt £ a i=nf §§ §§s 1
2 if §*_§l;§; 2 1 ea! i2= 23 3
4 IN THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM StJP-EX~tCF: COUFt7 *""'z C:tF (ll!11~fii mf Q l) 5 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Criminal Case Case No. CF0446-18 6 GPD Report No. 18-21592 v. 7 DECISION AND ORDER 8 LOUIS ANTHONY VARGAS, DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION DOB: 06/06/1985 TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING 9 INDICTMENT DUE TO DOUBLE Defendant. Defendant. JEOPARDY 10 10
11 11 INTRODUCTION 12 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on August August 23, 23, 2024 2024 for for 13 13 hearing on Louis Anthony Anthony Vargas's ("Defendant's") ("Defendant's") Motion Motion to to Dismiss Superseding Indictment Due 14 to Double Jeopardy ("Motion"). Assistant Attorney General Christine Tenorio represents the People, 14
15 15 and Assistant Public Defender Stephen Hattori represents represents Defendant. Defendant. Having Having duly considered the
16 16 parties' briefs, oral arguments, and and the the applicable applicable law, law, the the Court Court now now issues issues the the following following Decision
17 and Order and DENIES Defendant's Motion.
18 BACKGROUND
19 19 On May 14, 14, 2021, an Amended IndictMent Indictment was filed, charging Defendant with Charge One 20 (Five (Five Counts): Counts): First Degree Criminal First Degree Criminal Sexual Sexual Conduct Conduct (as (as a 1st pt Degree Felony) Felony) with with Special Special 21 Allegation: Vulnerable Victim Allegation: Vulnerable Victim Enhancement, Enhancement, and and Charge Charge Two wo (Five Counts): Counts): Second Second Degree Degree 22 Criminal Criminal Sexual Sexual Conduct (as 1st Degree (as a 1st Degree Felony) with with Special Special Allegation: Allegation: Vulnerable Vulnerable Victim 23 Enhancement. See Amended Indictment Indictment (May (May 14, 14, 2021). 2021 The The charges charges stem stem from from allegations allegations that 24 Defendant Defendant repeatedly sexually sexually penetrated L.E.L. (DOB: 08/27/2008) 08/27/2008) ("Victim"), a minor under the 25 age of of 13, over a multi-year multi-year period, period, with with both both his his penis penis and and foreign foreign objects. objects. LL Id. 26 trial was A jury trial was held held between between April 27, 2021 2021 and and May 20, 20, 2021. 2021. Following Following the the trial, trial, the jury 27 returned etumedaa guilty guilty verdict verdict for for Charge Charge Two (Count (Count Four): Second Degree Criminal Criminal Sexual Sexual Conduct (as (as 1st Degree 28 aa let Degree Felony) Felony) and and its accompanying Vulnerable Victim Enhancement. See Verdict Forms 17 17
Decision Decision and and Order Denying Denying Defendant's Defendant's Motion MotiontotoDismiss Dismiss Superseding Superseding Indictment Indictment Due Due to to Double Double Jeopardy Jeopardy CF0446-18,People of Guam v. Louis Anthony Vargas CF0446-18, People of Guam v. Louis Anthony Vargas Page 11 of of8 I * 1*
1 &&18 18 (May (May 20, 20, 2021).). However, However,the thejury jurywas was unable unable to to reach unanimous unanimous verdicts verdicts on on the other other charges.
2 See Verdict Forms 1-16, 19, 19, & &20 (May 20, 2021). 2021). The Court accepted the jury's jury's verdict and declared
3 aamistrial mistrial on on the the charges charges the the jury jury was unable to reach unanimous unanimous verdicts on. See Minute Entry (May
4 20, 0, 2021). 2021). .
55 The People originally expressed their intent to retry the charges on which the jury was hung,
6 and a future trial trial was set for July 2021. See Minute Entry (May (May 21, 21, 2021). 2021). However, the People
quicklymoved 7 quickly movedtotodismiss dismissall all remaining remaining charges prejudice. See People's charges without prejudice. People's Motion Motion to Dismiss RemainingCharges 8 Remaining ChargesWithout Without Prejudice Prejudice at at 1-2 1-2 (Jun. (Jun. 10, 2021 2021). ). This This was was because because the Victim was unabletototestify 9 unable testifyagainst against the the Defendant Defendant in in the the upcoming upcoming trial trial due due to to emotional emotional distress distress caused caused by relivingthe 10O reliving theincidents incidentsatatthe thefirst first trial. trial. Id. at 1. The Court granted the People's request and dismissed
11 l l the remaining charges without prejudice. prejudice. See Decision and Order Granting the People's Motion to
12 Dismiss DismissRemaining RemainingCharges ChargesWithout WithoutPrejudice Prejudiceatat3-4 3-4(Sep. (Sep.13, 13,2021), 2021); Order Order for for Dismissal Dismissal (Jan. (Jan. 10, 10, 13 2022) 2022). 14 Defendant's conviction Defendant's conviction of Charge ge Two (Count (Count Four Four): Second Second Degr ee Cr Degree iminal Sexual Criminal Sexual 15 Conduct l51 Degree Conduct (as a 1st Degree Felony) Felony) would would ultimately ultimately be vacated by the Supreme Court of of Guam after after 16 they theyfound foundananunrelated unrelatedviolation violation of ofDefendant's Defendant's Sixth Sixth Amendment Amendment rights. rights. See People v. Vargas, Vargas, 17 2024 2024Guam ,r 32. That Guam1 11132. Thatmatter matter was was remanded remanded for for aa new new trial. ,r 32. trial. Id. at Tl 32.
18 later, with Three years later, with the theDefendant's Defendant's conviction now vacated, the People filed a Superseding Superseding
19 Indictment, Indictment, bringing bringing forth forth all all the the same same charges charges and and special special allegations allegations to which Defendant Defendant was 20 originally originallytried tried in in 2021. 2021. See Superseding Superseding Indictment Indictment (Jul. (Jul. 12, 12, 2024). 21 On July July 26, 26, 2024, 2024, Defendant Defendant filed his Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss Superseding Superseding Indictment Due to 22 Double Double Jeopa r Jeopardy. Seeking dismissal dismissal of of the the Superseding Superseding Indictment, Indictment, Defendant claims that the 23 People's People'smulti-year multi-yearwait waitbefore beforerefiling refilingthe thecharges charges has has prejudiced prejudiced him him by by unreasonably unreasonably interfering 24 with withhis hisability abilitytoto prepare prepare aa defense. See Motion Motion at at 3-5 (Jul. (Jul. 26, 26, 2024). 2024). Defendant Defendant also claims claims Double
25 retrial because Jeopardy bars retrial because the themistrial mistrial was was improperly improperly declared without any manifest necessity to
26 do so. Id. at 6-9.
27 On July 29, 2024, the People filed their Opposition to to Defendant's Motion ("Opposition"). ("Opposition"). 28 The ThePeople Peopleclaim claimDefendant Defendantisissimply simplyrehashing rehashing an an old old Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss with with Prejudice Prejudice filed on
Decision Decision and and Order Denying Denying Defendant's Defendant's Motion MotiontotoDismiss Dismiss Superseding Superseding Indictment Indictment Due Due to Double Double Jeopardy Jeopardy CF0446-18,People People of ofGuam Guam v. Louis Louis Anthony Vargas Page Page 2 of8 11 June 24, 2021, which the Court already denied in its September September 13, 13, 2021 Decision and Order. See
2 Opposition Oppositionatat33(Jul. (Jul. 29, 29, 2024). 2024). The ThePeople Peoplealso alsoclaim claimDefendant Defendantisis barred barred from from claiming claiming Double Double
3 Jeopardy Jeopardyprotections protections because because he he consented consented to to the the original original mistrial. mistrial. Id. at 3-4. 3-4. Lastly, Lastly, the the People People
claimDouble 4 claim DoubleJeopardy Jeopardy does does not not bar bar retrial, retrial, even even ififDefendant Defendant hadn't hadn't consented consented to to the the mistrial, mistrial,
5 because becausethe themistrial mistrialwas was declared declared in in manifest necessity. Id. at 4-6.
6 On August 19, 2024, 2024, Defendant Defendant filed filed his his Reply Reply to to Opposition Opposition ("Reply"). Defendant denies ("Reply"). Defendant
7 consenting consentingtotothe themistrial, mistrial,and andclaims claimsthat thatabsent absent his his consent, consent, manifest manifest necessity necessity does does not exist exist to
8 permit permitthe the mistrial. mistrial. See Reply Reply at at 1-2 1-2 (Aug. 19, 19, 2024).
9 The Court held a hearing on August 23, 2024. After hearing the arguments of of the parties, the
10 Court Courtook tookthe thematter matter under under advisement.
11 DISCUSSION
12 I. 1. The People preserved their right to refile the charges charges on aa future future date date because because they
13 13 complied with all statutory complied with requirements and statutory requirements and had had a good good faith faith reason reason for for seeking seeking
14 dismissal dismissal in June 2021.
15 Pursuant to 88 G.C.A. Pursuant to G.C.A. §§ 80.70, the People 80.70, the People may may file file aa motion for dismissal motion for leave of with leave dismissal with of court. court.
16 16 88G.C.A. G.C.A. §§ 80.70(a) 80.70(a) provides that: provides that:
l17 7 The prosecuting attorney may prosecuting attorney may with leave of of court court file a dismissal dismissal of of an an indictment, indictment, information information or or complaint complaint and the the prosecution prosecution shall shall thereupon thereupon terminate... terminate... The 18 prosecuting attorney shall life file a statement of of his reasons for seeking dismissal when he l9 applies for leave to file a dismissal and where leave is granted the court's order shall 19 set forth the reasons for granting such leave. 20 The primary purpose for the "leave of of court" requirement is to "prevent harassment of of a 21 21 defendant by a prosecutor's charging, dismissing, and recharging the defendant with a crime." See 22 22 People v. v. Gutierrez, Gutierrez, 2005 Guam Guam 19, ,r 66 (citing 19, 1166 v. Derr, 726 F.2d 617, (citing US. v. th 617,619 (10th Cir. 1984)). Cir. l984)). 23 23 "The "The prosecutor's prosecutor's good good oror bad faith in bringing the motion is the determining factor in granting or 24 24 denying denying the motion." Li- Id. at ,r 51. "The at 1151. "The trial court at the very least must know the prosecutor's 25 25 reasons for seeking to dismiss the indictment and the the facts facts underlying underlying the the prosecutor's prosecutor's decision." 26 26 Ld. at ,rfl66 d. at 66(internal (internal citations citations omitted). omitted). 27 27 Here, the People properly laid out their reasons for seeking dismissal, explaining that the 28 28 Victim was unable to testify in the immediate future due to emotional distress caused by by reliving reliving the
Decision Decision and and Order Denying Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motiontoto Dismiss Dismiss Superseding Superseding Indictment Indictment Due Due to Double Double Jeopardy Jeopardy CF0446-18, CF0446-18, People People of ofGuam v. Louis Anthony Vargas v. Louis Page Page 3 of8 I I I
1 1 incidents ·ncidents at at the first trial. trial. See People's People's Motion MotiontotoDismiss DismissRemaining RemainingCharges Charges Without Without Prejudice Prejudice at at 2 11(Jun. (Jun. 10, 10, 2021). There Thereisisnothing nothingto tosuggest suggestthat that they they sought sought dismissal dismissal in bad badfaith. faith. Rather,
3 -dismissal was sought dismissal was soughtto toprotect protectthe theVictim's Victim's mental mental health. Id. at l. 1. At Athe thetime, time, the the Victim Victim was was aa 4 12-year-old 12-year-oldgirl girlwho whohad hadjust just given giventwo twodays days of oftestimony testimonyin inan an open open courtroom. See Minute Entry 5 (May (May3,3,2021), 2021);Minute MinuteEntry Entry(May (May4,4,2021). 2021).The ThePeople Peoplesought soughtdismissal dismissalbecause becauseDefendant Defendant had had 6 asserted asserted his right to a speedy trial, trial, and andthe theVictim's Victim's emotional health prevented her her from from testifying testifying
7 again again on on such such short notice. notice. See People's People's Motion Motionto toDismiss Dismiss Remaining Remaining Charges Charges Without Prejudice at 1-2 8 at 1-2 (Jun. 10, 2021 (Jun. 10, 2021). ). This This good faith reason good faith the People's reason preserved the People's ability ability to to refile refileaa Superseding Superseding 9 Indictment Indictment on on aa future future date. date. 10 10 II. 11. Defendant has failed failed to show show any anyunfair unfair prejudice caused causedby bythis thiscurrent currentrefiling. refiling. The
11 11 prejudice prejudice Defendant Defendant does does claim is speculative in in nature, and was already already considered considered in 12 the Legislature Legislature of Guam's decision not to implement decision not implement a statute statute of limitations on the the
13 13 crimes charged. charged.
14 14 Even Even though the People's People's dismissal dismissal was was sought sought in in good good faith, faith, the the Court Court still stillmaintains maintains broad 15 15 discretion discretionand and control control over overfuture future attempts attempts at refiling the the charges. charges. See US. US v. v. Taylor, Taylor, 487 487 U.S. U.S. 326, 326, 16 16 333 333 (1988) (1988) (allowing (allowingcourts courts to to consider consider "prejudice "prejudice to to the the defendant", "the seriousness of the seriousness of theoffense", offense",
17 "the 17 "the facts facts and and circumstances of the circumstances of the case case which led to which led to the the dismissal", and "the dismissal", and "the impact impact of of a re-
18 prosecution rosecution ... on the administration of of justice" when when considering considering whether whether to to bar bar re-prosecution) re-prosecution).. 19 19 When determining the existence determining the existence of unfair prejudice prejudice to to the the defendant, defendant,the thelength lengthof of delay delay "is "is
20 closely closely related". related". Id. at 340. 340. "The "Thelonger longerthe thedelay, delay,the thegreater greaterthe the presumptive presumptive or or actual actual prejudice to 21 the he defendant, defendant, in terms terms of his ability to prepare prepare for trial or the restrictions restrictions on on his hisliberty." liberty." Id. at 340.
22 Whether ether the the defense defense will be be impaired impaired "by "by dimming dimming memories memories and and loss of exculpatory evidence" exculpatory evidence" 23 should should also also be considered. considered. See Dogged Doggett v. US., US, 505 505 U.S. U.S. 647, 647, 654 (1992). (1992).
24 Here, it it took took the the People People three three (3) (3)years years to to file filetheir theirSuperseding SupersedingIndictment Indictment after after dismissing dismissing 25 the he remaining remaining charges. charges. Now, Now, several several witnesses witnesses who testified testified in in the the first trial have moved off off island. island. hememories 26 The memories of ofwitnesses witnesses who who do do remain also not remain are also not as asfresh freshas asthey theyonce oncewere. were.However, However, it's not
27 apparent that any apparent that any unfair unfairprejudice prejudicehas hasactually actuallyresulted resultedfrom fromthis thisdelay. delay. Three Three (3) (3) years is not not an an 28 exceptionally exceptionallylong longtime timeand and it's it'slikely likelythat thatthe thewitnesses witnesses still still remember remember the key details they they testified
Decision Decision and and Order Denying Defendant's Defendant's Motion MotiontotoDismiss Dismiss Superseding Superseding Indictment Indictment Due Due to to Double Double Jeopardy Jeopardy CF0446-18,People CF0446-18, People o/'Guam of Guam v. Louis Anthony Vargas v. Louis Page 4 of8 , ~i
11 to.o.Defendant Defendanthas hasprovided providedno noreason reasonto to believe believeotherwise, otherwise,or orthat that any any key exonerating evidence once once
availableisisnow 2 available nowunobtainable unobtainable due to this due to this refiling. refiling.
3 There is also no statute of limitations for the crimes charged. See 8 statute oflimitations G.C.A. §§10.17. 8 G.C.A. 10.17. In In making making his decision, 4 this decision, the the Legislature Legislature of ofGuam Guamconsidered considered the the seriousness seriousness of both First and Second Degree Criminal Sexual 5 Criminal Sexual Conduct. Conduct. The importance importance of ofprosecuting prosecuting these these crimes crimes clearly clearly outweighs outweighs any any 6 prejudice rejudice Defendant Defendant speculatively speculatively claims, claims, evidenced evidenced by by the the Legislature's Legislature's decision decision to to set set an indefinite statute of 7 statute of limitations. limitations.
III. 8 111. Double Double Jeopardy Jeopardy does not bar re-trial does not re-trialofofthe thecharges charges because: because: 9 a. Defendant consented tothe consented to themistrial. mistrial.
10 10 As mentioned mentioned above, above, because because the jury was hung, a mistrial was declared on Charge One (Five ll Counts), 11 Counts),Charge ChargeTwo Two(Counts (Counts One, One, Two, Two, Three, Three, && Five), Five), and and all all their their accompanying accompanying Vulnerable Vulnerable 12 Victim ictim Enhancements. Enhancements. See Minute Entry (May 20, 20, 2021), 2021); Verdict Forms 1-16, 1-16, 19, & 20 (May 20, 13 2021). 021 ). This Thismistrial mistrial was was declared declared without without issuing an Allen charge to the jurors. See Minute Entry 14 (May (May 20, 20, 2021). 2021). 15 Defendant claims the mistrial was declared unnecessarily and is thus improper. See Motion
16 at at 6-9 6-9 (Jul. 2024). Defendant (Jul. 26, 2024). Defendant claims an Allen charge should have first been given to the jurors 17 concerning concerningthe thecharges chargesthey theywere wereunable unable to to reach reach unanimous unanimous verdicts verdicts on, on, and only then would further 18 18 division necessita teaamistrial. division necessitate mistr ia l. Id. Q a t 6-9. 6-9. In In essence, essence, a n Allen charge is aa jury jury instruction instruction that that 19 encourages encourages dissenting dissenting jurors jurors to to reconsider reconsider whether whether their their verdict verdict isis proper, proper, considering other, equally 20 intelligent ·ntelligent jurors jurors ruled ruled differently. differently. See Allen v. US., 164 164 U.S. 492, 501 (1896). 492, 501 (1896). This This is not an an 21 instruction ·nstruction for for dissenting dissenting jurors to merely merely acquiesce acquiesce to to the the majority majority decision, decision, rather, rather, it encourages 22 open openand and intelligent intelligent discussion discussion among the jurors in in reaching reaching aa unanimous unanimous verdict. verdict. Id. Q atat 501-502. 501-502. 23 "The Double Double Jeopardy Jeopardy Clause of of the Fifth Amendment Amendment protects protects aa criminal criminal defendant from 24 repeated epeatedprosecutions prosecutions for for the same offense." See People v. Pablo, Pablo, 2016 Guam 29 ,r 23. "As aa part of 29 1123. 25 this hisprotection protectionagainst against multiple multiple prosecutions, prosecutions, the the Double Double Jeopardy Jeopardy Clause Clause affords a criminal criminal defendant defendant
26 aa 'valued 'valuedright right to to have have his his trial trial completed by a particular particular tribunal."' tribunal."' Q ,r (quoting Oregon v. Id.atat1123 27 Kennedy, ennedy, 456 U.S. U.S. 667, 667, 671-672 671-672 (1982)). (1982)). "In azury jury trial,jeopardy jeopardy attaches attaches once once the the jury jury is is empaneled empaneled
28 and and sworn." sworn." See State v. v. Moriwake, 65 65 Haw. 47, 47 (1982).
Decision Decision and and Order Denying Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motiontoto Dismiss Dismiss Superseding Superseding Indictment Indictment Due Due to Double Double Jeopardy Jeopardy CF0446-18, CF0446-18, People People of ofGuam v. Louis Louis Anthony Vargas Page 5 of8 J I
1 However, like like other other rights, rights, Double Double Jeopardy Jeopardy protections protections can be knowingly and and voluntarily 2 waived. aived. See People v. Join, 400 U.S. v. Jorn, U.S. 470, 470, 485 485 (1971) (1971) ("A ("A motion motion by by the the defendant defendant for mistrial mistrial is 3 ordinarily ordinarily assumed assumed toto remove remove any any barrier bonier to rreprosecution, prosecution, even even if if the the defendant's defendant's motion is is 4 necessitated ecessitated by prosecutorial or judicial prosecutorial or judicial error."). error."). However, However,aadefendant defendant has has not waived waived their Double 5 Jeopardy eopardy protections if "bad-faith conduct protections if conduct by judge judge or or prosecutor" prosecutor" incentivized incentivized the the defendant's defendant's 6 consent consent to mistrial. mistrial. See US. US. v. v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 611 (1976) (emphasis added). 611 (1976) added).
7 Here, Defendant consented to to the mistrial. See Reporter's Reporter's Transcript Transcript of Verdict Verdict Proceedings 8 at at 44 (Aug. (Aug.15, 15,2022). 2022). Although AlthoughDefendant's Defendant'scounsel counselinquired inquiredwhether whether "the "theCourt Court would would want want to talk 9 toothem them [the [the jurors], jurors], see see ififthey they could could reach reach aa verdict", verdict", he he never never actually actually asked asked for an Allen Allen charge to
10 10 bee read, read, and and left it completely to to the the Court's Court's discretion. discretion. Id. at 4. 4. Furthermore, Furthermore, Defendant's Defendant's counsel counsel 11 esponded"okay" l l responded "okay" theCourt whenthe when Courtexpressed expressedan anintent intentto toretry retrythe thecase, case, without without issuing issuing anAllen an Allen charge 12 12 too the the jury. Id. at 4. 4. There Thereisisalso alsono noindication indicationthis thismistrial mistrialwas wasbased based on on bad-faith bad-faith conduct conduct by the 13 13 government. overnment. Therefore, Therefore,Defendant Defendantvalidly validlyconsented consentedtotothe themistrial mistrialand and waived waived any any double double jeopardy 14 14 protections rotections regarding regarding the the remaining remaining charges. charges. 15 15 b. Even if if Defendant Defendant had had not not consented consented to the mistrial, mistrial, retrial is still still permissible 16 16 because manifest necessity necessity dictated dictated the the mistrial. mistrial.
17 The Double Jeopardy Clause "does Jeopardy Clause "does not 'guarantee 'guarantee to the defendant... the enforcement of the 18 18 criminal criminallaws lawsin inone oneproceeding"', proceeding"',despite despiteitsitspurpose purposeatatpreventing preventingrepeated repeated prosecutions prosecutions of ofthe the same 19 19 offense. offense. See People v. v. Pablo, 2016 Guam 29 at,r1]23 29 at (citing US. 23 (citing US. v. v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600,672 672(1976)) (1976))
20 (emphasis (emphasis added). added). Because Because criminal criminal trials trials are are extremely extremely complicated complicated affairs affairs to to manage, manage, certain certain 21 circumstances circumstances will willinevitably inevitablycome comeup upwhere whereit'it's s necessary necessaryto toabort abort the the proceedings proceedings before beforeunanimous unanimous 22 verdicts erdicts are are reached. reached. 23 If Ifaa trial trial in in which which jeopardy jeopardy has has attached terminated over attached is terminated over the objection of ofthe the defendant, defendant, the estfor 24 test forlifting liftingthe thedouble doublejeopardy jeopardybar barto second trial toaasecond trial is is the the "manifest "manifestnecessity" necessity"standard standard laid laid out in in 25 US. US. v.v. Perez, Perez, 22 U.S. 579 (1824). Manifest Manifestnecessity necessityisisdetermined determined by by "taking "takingall allthe thecircumstances circumstances 26 into 'ntoconsideration" consideration"and and the the Judge is afforded a deal Judge is deal of of "discretion "discretion on the subject". See US. v. Perez,
27 222 U.S. U.S. 579, 579, 580 (1824). "The 580 (1824). "Themost mostcommon commonform formofof'manifest 'manifestnecessity' necessity'isisaamistrial mistrial declared declared by 28 the he judge judge following followingthe thejury's jury'sdeclaration declarationthat that itit was was unable unable to reach aaverdict." verdict." See People v. Pablo,
Decision Decision and and Order Denying Defendant's Defendant's Motion MotiontotoDismiss Dismiss Superseding Superseding Indictment Indictment Due Due to Double Double Jeopardy Jeopardy CF0446-18, People of CF0446-18, People of Guam v. Louis Louis Anthony Vargas Page 6 of8 s I i
|
11 2016 016Guam 29 ,r 24 (internal Guam291124 (internal citations omitted). "In "In determining determining whether whetherto to declare declare aa mistrial because
2 of ofjury jurydeadlock, deadlock, relevant relevant factors factors for the ... ... court jury's collective opinion court to consider include the jury's opinion that
3 it·t cannot cannot agree, agree, the the length length of ofthe the trial trial and and complexity complexity of of the the issues, issues, the length of of time the jury has
4 deliberated, deliberated,whether whetherthe thedefendant defendanthas hasobi ected to objected to aa mistrial, and the effects of exhaustion or coercion
5 on th Cir. 2000). If a on the the jury." See US. US. v.v. Hernandez-Guardado, Hernandez-Guardado, 228 F.3d 1017, 1017, 1029 1029 (9th Cir. 2000). If mistrial is
declared improperly, 6 declared improperly, without without manifest manifest necessity, necessity, double double jeopardy jeopardy bars bars retrial. US. v. retrial. See US. v. Jorn, Join, 400
7 U.S. 470, 487 (1971).
8 Here, jeopardy jeopardy had had attached attached to all' charges because aff charges because the the jury jury was was empaneled empaneled and sworn in. See
inute Entry 9 Minute Entry (Apr. (Apr. 27, 27, 2021). 2021). However, However, the the jury jury was was deadlocked deadlocked on on Charge Charge One One (Five (Five Counts), Counts),
10 Charge Charge Two Two (Counts (Counts One, One, Two, Two, Three, Three, and and Five), Five), and and all all their their accompanying accompanying Vulnerable Vulnerable Victim
ll Enha 11 ncement nhancements. See Verdict Forms 1-16, 1-16, 19, & 20 (May 20, 20, 2021). 2021). Declaring Declaring aa mistrial as to those
12 charges charges was was the the only only feasible feasible option option considering considering all all the circumstances.
13 13 The jury's jury's revelation revelation that that it was unable to reach unanimous verdicts on those charges came 14 after after the the Court Court was was already already informed informed of of their their guilty guilty verdicts verdicts on Charge Two (Count (Count Four) and its its
15 accompanying accompanying Vulnerable Vulnerable Victim Enhancement. See Reporter's Reporter's Transcript of of Verdict Proceedings Proceedings at
16 16 2-4 -4 (Aug. (Aug. 15, 15, 2022). The The Court's Court's knowledge knowledgeofofthe thetwo two guilty guilty verdicts verdicts intensified intensified the coercive effect
17 of ofaa future future Allen charge, and prevented the Court from issuing one to the jury. See Brasfield Bras field v. US.,
18 18 272 72U.S. U.S. 448, 448, 449-450 449-450 (1926) (holding (holding that the Court's knowledge knowledge as as to how azury divided prevents jury is divided
19 further further jury jury deliberations deliberations due due to its coercive effect). effect). Although Although the the Court of how the Court was not informed of 20 jury ·ury was was divided divided as as to to the the remaining remaining charges, charges, its knowledge of of the jury's jury's unanimous unanimous guilty guilty verdicts verdicts
21 on onCharge Charge Two Two (Count (Count Four) Four) and and its its accompanying accompanying Vulnerable Vulnerable Victim Enhancement Enhancement fit fit firmly firmly into 22 Brasjield. rasfield. Permitting further jury jury deliberation deliberation would would incentivize a decision in line with the verdicts
23 already already revealed. revealed. This Thiscoercive coerciveeffect effect prevented prevented the the Court Court from issuing an Allen Allen charge or affording
24 the hejury jury more more time time to to reach reach unanimous unanimous decisions decisions on on the remaining charges.
25 The length of of time time the the jury jury deliberated deliberated and the the exhaustive exhaustive effect this had effect this had on them them also also 26 contributed contributed to the manifest manifest necessity necessity of a mistrial. mistrial. The The jury jury deliberated deliberated for for several several days days before before 27 determining determining they they were were unable unable to to reach reach aa unanimous verdict. This This is is aa sufficiently long enough time 28 toonecessitate necessitate aa mistrial mistrial without without additional deliberation. See Renico v. Lett, Left, 559 U.S. 766, 779 (2010)
Decision Decision and Order Denying Denying Defendant's Defendant's Motion MotiontotoDismiss Dismiss Superseding Superseding Indictment Indictment Due Due to Double Double Jeopardy CF0446-18, People People of ofGuam Guam v. Louis Louis Anthony Vargas Page Page 7 of8 / /, 1.: .: /" ... -':I.
/
1 finding that a deadlocked jury, after approximately five hours of deliberation, sufficiently necessitates 2 mistrial). The jury put forth a thorough and good faith attempt at reaching a unanimous decision,
3 despite not being able to ultimately agree. Because the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict after 4 heir exhaustive efforts to do so, it was necessary to declare a mistrial. 5 CONCLUSION
6 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion. The Superseding ~
7 Indictment will not be dismissed on either unfair prejudice or Double Jeopardy grounds. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED this November 5, 10
12 13 HONORABLE ALBERTO C. LAMORENA, III Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 SERVICE VIA EMAIL 24 I acknowledge that an electronic . copy o1 the original was e-maiJed to: 25 1t4,,. pesc 26 27 28
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment Due to Double Jeopardy CF0446- l8, People of Guam v. Louis Anthony Vargas Page 8 of8