Id. ¶ 41 (citing People v. Kitano, 2011 Guam 11 ¶ 10); see also Quinata, 2010 Guam 17 ¶ 48 ("[Defendant] failed to move for a continuance, thereby undercutting his claim of prejudice based on an inability to hire his own expert. If he felt he was entitled to more time to prepare to rebut the DNA evidence, he should have asked for the alternative remedy of a continuance rather than simply ask for the flat-out exclusion of all DNA evidence."); People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 66 (rejecting claim of prejudice over delayed disclosure of witness in part because "even with the information obtained[,] [defendant] did not request . . . a continuance or additional time to further prepare the defense"). Finally, in reviewing the appropriateness of a discovery sanction, the court may consider any other relevant circumstances.

We have previously interpreted this specific subsection of section 70.10 as being co-equal with the mandates of Brady. See People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 60 ("The protections afforded by section 70.10(a)(7) are equal to and not greater than those afforded by the Constitutional guarantee articulated by Brady and its progeny."); see also Campos, 2015 Guam 11 ¶ 27 (citation omitted). Moreover, 8 GCA § 70.10(b), like Brady itself, "imposes a general materiality requirement upon items before disclosure."

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.

"The trial court's denial of a defendant's motion for a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." People v. Leslie, 2011 Guam 23 ¶ 12 (citing People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 9).IV. ANALYSIS

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.

Katzuta was originally prosecuted by a superseding indictment. RA, tab 36 at 1-3 (Superseding Indictment); see People v. San Nicolas, 2016 Guam 21 ¶ 17 (quoting People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 18) ("A superseding indictment is an indictment filed before the original or underlying indictment is dismissed."). As such, Katzuta should be entitled to a twelve-person jury if he filed a written request before the start of the first trial or retrial.

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)).

To supplement the argument that the subject matter from San Nicolas I was the same subject matter as the Superseding Indictment, the government elected to file a "superseding indictment" rather than an entirely new indictment. "A superseding indictment is an indictment filed before the original or underlying indictment is dismissed." People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 18 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). "In a reindictment case, a new indictment is filed when the original or underlying indictment or charges are dismissed."

An alleged violation of the Sixth Amendment is reviewed de novo. United States v. Yazzie, 743 F.3d 1278, 1288 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 227, 190 L. Ed. 2d 172 (2014) (citing United States v. Ivester, 316 F.3d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 2003)); see also People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 P 9 (citing People v. Mendiola, 1999 Guam 8 P 22) (reviewing a Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim de novo). IV. ANALYSIS

Questions regarding the propriety of a rebuttal witness are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 117. A prior inconsistent statement may be admitted for impeachment purposes even when they are oral and unsworn.