Following the verdict, San Nicolas again moved for acquittal, and he also moved for a new trial based in part on the trial court's refusal to poll the jurors. Specifically, the Motion for a New Trial argued that this court's decision in People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22, requires the trial court to poll the jury when the media publishes inadmissible "extraneous information" during the pendency of trial. RA, tab 98 at 2-3 (Mem.

[*P11] We review a Sixth Amendment constitutional speedy trial claim de novo. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 9; People v. Mendiola, 1999 Guam 8 ¶ 22. By contrast, "[a] trial court's denial of a defendant's motion to dismiss on statutory speedy trial grounds is reviewed for an abuse of discretion."

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial . . . ." U.S. Const. amend. VI. The substance of the speedy trial right is defined through analysis of the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 41. In evaluating a claimed speedy trial violation, this court employs the four-part balancing test set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972).

We review a constitutional speedy trial claim de novo. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 9 (citing People v. Mendiola, 1999 Guam 8 ¶ 22). IV. ANALYSIS

The People opposed Guerrero's motion, arguing that Guerrero had sufficiently waived his rights to a speedy trial, both at oral argument and in writing. Moreover, the People argued that any delay was caused by Guerrero himself, and therefore the motion should be denied under the good cause standard expressed in People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22. Guerrero submitted no reply. The trial court heard argument less than three weeks after the People filed its opposition brief.

This court reviews the trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial based on purported discovery violations for abuse of discretion. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 59 (citing United States v. Brandao, 539 F.3d 44, 64 (1st Cir. 2008)). The trial court's legal conclusions regarding alleged Brady violations are reviewed de novo.

Whether a Brady violation warrants a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 59 (quoting State v. Wilson, 200 P.3d 1283, 1292 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008)).

We review the denial of a motion for mistrial for an abuse of discretion. See People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 9 (citing Caston v. State, 823 So. 2d 473, 492 (Miss. 2002)).

A trial court's denial of a statutory speedy trial claim is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 9. We also review the trial court's admission of prior bad acts under GRE 404(b) for abuse of discretion.

Second, the instant case deals with superseding indictments, which differ from reindictments or new indictments in terms of their effect on speedy trial calculations. This court, in People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22, discussed the differences between these events. "A superseding indictment is an indictment filed before the original or underlying indictment is dismissed," whereas a reindictment "is a new indictment . . . filed when the original or underlying indictment or charges are dismissed."