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
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
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 , ~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
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
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
/ /,
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
11
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