Last October, Mark Torre, Jr. his right to a speedy trial Now months later, the case has yet to head into trial.

An amended indictment charges Torre with negligent homicide and aggravated assault as third-degree felonies. He was arrested for the 2015 fatal shooting of fellow police officer Elbert Piolo.

This afternoon, two motions were argued--the underlying non-party's motion to quash a subpoena that was served by the defense on the Guam clerk of courts and the larger matter at hand--the defense's motion to dismiss the case with prejudice.

The administrator of the courts Kristina Baird said "the defense counsel is on a fishing expedition and the clerk of court is the fish."

Defense Counsel Jay Arriola stood up and said "Scary, Scary to hear the Superior Court Administrator lacks transparency. Hashtag transparency, Hashtag sunshine act."

Further, the defense counsel stepped behind his client, placed his hands on Mark Torre, Jr.'s shoulders and stated "Help!" and then went on to read the memorandum Judge Michael Bordallo sent on Jan. 8 notifying the court of his forthcoming resignation and asking for the case to be re-assigned to an available trial judge.

Initially, Torre was charged with murder, however in July 2019 the Supreme Court vacated his conviction, and now in the second try of the case, defense counsel Arriola has motioned for dismissal with prejudice on the basis that his client's right to a speedy trial has been violated.

Arriola argued the Superior Court failed to properly assign a new judge to the case upon the resignation of Judge Michael Bordallo. Arriola subpoenaed the clerk of court Danielle Rosete to provide testimony on the receipt from the January memo, the process of assigning a trial judge and the court calendar and Torre's case records from Jan. 24 to Feb. 20.

Baird and co-counsel Andrew Quenga represent the non-party (the superior court) and motion to quash the subpoena, arguing it's oppressive, unreasonable, a burden and that the information has been provided through the Sunshine Act.

In addition, the court attorneys argue that Rosete cannot be compelled to testify regarding her mental processes and told the defense to subpoena the presiding judge.

Ultimately, Judge Barcinas denied the motion and unwillingly Rosete took the witness stand, allowing for the overlying motion to dismiss with prejudice be heard.

During the testimony, Arriola questioned why Judge Elyze Iriarte was first assigned to the case and then after her disqualification, why Judge Anita Sukola was next in line when both are not general jurisdiction judges and do not have jurisdiction over a third-degree felony case. As well, Rosete told the defense counsel to ask the presiding judge.

Following her testimony, Arriola and Chief Prosecutor Basil O'Mallan made arguments on the motion to dismiss.

The defense went through the timeline from start to finish of the case detailing the various delays. Arriola concluded with, "I think after the clerk of court testified, we were all wondering what are you hiding?" Further, he stated "what goes on behind closed doors is what has to stop. Because that's why clients are not given their speedy trial rights, that's where a defendant's rights are being violated."

Judge Barcinas is taking the matter under advisement and will issue his decision.