Previous Story
US govt won’t oppose testimony of PH-based witness
The U.S. government will not oppose having a key witness of one of the six defendants in a CW-1 case who is currently in the Philippines from testifying via video conference.
Assistant U.S. attorney James Benedetto, counsel for the U.S. government, informed the U.S. District Court for the NMI that he was inclined to oppose this, but will not do so since the defense counsels have been accommodating and have agreed to U.S. government transcribers appearing by video teleconferencing to deal with authentication issues.
Janet H. King earlier asked the court to allow the witness of her client, Analyn Nunez, to testify from Manila via videoconference.
According to the minutes of a pre-trial conference last Tuesday, Benedetto said he was inclined to oppose that motion because it would be necessary to cross-examine that witness, perhaps vigorously. However, he said he will not oppose the motion.
That paved the way for designated Judge John C. Coughenour to allow the testimony.
In Nunez’s motion to allow the video testimony, King said their key witness, an employee of TBK Auto Cares & Repair, had left the CNMI.
King said the witness is unable to appear personally in court because he is currently in the Philippines and cannot enter the CNMI until his I-129 CW-1 visa is approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
King said the witness’ testimony at trial is crucial to the defense, that the alien workers from Bangladesh employed by TBK had asked the witness how to marry a “local” and obtain “green cards.”
The indictment charged Nunez with one count of mail fraud and one count of misuse of visas and permits.
Coughenour set the jury trial and her four co-defendants on Aug. 28, 2017.
Coughenour also discussed interpreter issues with the parties’ counsels at the pre-trial conference.
Nunez co-defendants are Muksedur Rahman, Md. Rafiqul Islam, David Trung Quoc Phan, and Shahinur Akter. A sixth defendant, Zeaur Rahman Dalu, had already pleaded guilty.
Benedetto stated in court documents that integral to the defendants’ scheme to defraud was the collection of large amounts of money—roughly between $15,000 and $20,000—from each of the 12 named victims in this case.
