Wiseman slams DPS, OAG for lack of standards

Superior Court associate judge David A. Wiseman slammed the Department of Public Safety and the Office of the Attorney General yesterday for their lack of coordination and cooperation in investigating cases.

“It is a complete waste of government resources and expense to have suspect criminals arrested and placed in a judicial prosecutorial process, only to have it all fall apart as a result of an absence of rigid standards of coordination and cooperation to be adhered to with respect to the investigations of DPS and the Criminal Division of the Attorney General’s Office,” Wiseman said.

Wiseman expressed disappointment with DPS and the OAG after the government moved to dismiss an “ice” trafficking case against Fu Zhu Lin since the detective handling the case has left the island for a new job and there is difficulty in obtaining his file or report on the case.

“Although the court grants the government’s motion to dismiss, it does so regrettably, in view of what it deems to be a systemic problem of a serious magnitude,” said Wiseman in a two-page order dismissing Lin’s case without prejudice.

Dismissal without prejudice means the the prosecution is allowed to re-file a new case on the same claim in the future.

Without a standard in place at DPS and OAG, Wiseman said that such dismissals will repeat themselves and may compromise the rule of law.

“With this dismissal, which I may add, is not the first to occur for similar reasons, the court hopes to send a strong message to DPS and the OAG that a diligent pursuit should be made to remedy this situation for future practice.”

Police said members of the CNMI Drug Enforcement Task Force and other members of the DPS Criminal Investigation Bureau conducted a buy-bust operation against Lin on Oct. 29, 2010, in San Jose, Tinian,

Investigation revealed that Lin was allegedly distributing “ice” out of the Tinian Dynasty Hotel and Casino, where he was then employed.

Officers allegedly bought $200 worth of “ice” from Lin. The OAG filed on Nov. 3, 2010, an information, charging Lin with trafficking of controlled substance, illegal possession of controlled substance, and resisting arrest.

The jury trial was set for yesterday, April 25, 2011.

The OAG then filed a motion to dismiss the case based on its inability to obtain the necessary investigative and other materials needed for the prosecution of the case.

A prosecutor told the court that the problem lies with DPS in failing to provide the OAG with the items of evidence.

Assistant public defender Richard Miller, counsel for Lin, in his motion to dismiss, asserted that the prosecution has failed to prosecute this case, letting it lie dormant almost from the time they brought the information eight months ago.

Miller said that, on Nov. 5, 2010, on behalf of his client, he made a general discovery request, asking for any statements or criminal record of Lin, notice of intent to use other-acts evidence, documents and tangible objects, disclosure of experts and scientific evidence, names and contact information of government witnesses, and tape recordings.

Miller said the prosecution provided 10 pages of discovery, but two pages are merely an extra copy of the information and the remaining eight pages are a two-page “synopsis” of the investigation, a one-page “arrest report,” a two-page “surveillance report,” and three pages of identity cards and papers purportedly belonging to Lin.

The defense lawyer said that on Jan. 27, 2011, he sent the prosecutor an 11-point request for additional specific discovery. The points included, among other things, the names and contact information of the two confidential sources, lab test results and related documentation, chain of custody on any contraband evidence, and complete information on the identification procedures used in this case.

Miller said the prosecution did not respond.

“Mr. Lin cannot prepare a complete defense without these disclosures. With respect to identification procedures, disclosure is needed to protect Mr. Lin’s constitutional due process rights through an appropriate motion to suppress based on inadequate or suggestive procedures,” Miller said.