Guam prosecutor testifies for Kim

Share

Guam assistant attorney general Benjamin M. Abrams testified yesterday as an expert witness for businesswoman Jung Ja Kim in her racketeering lawsuit filed in federal court against attorney Ramon K. Quichocho, his wife, and his law firm.

After Kim’s counsel, Robert T. Torres, completed his directed examination of Abrams, defense lawyers Michael Dotts, Quichocho, and David J. Lujan took turns grilling Abrams on the witness stand.

Dotts is counsel for Quichocho, Quichocho law office, Quichocho’s wife, Frances, and the couple’s office, Karissa LLC. Quichocho is counsel for himself. Lujan is counsel for Quichocho law firm.

Attorneys Torres and Colin Thompson represent Kim.

Lujan will continue questioning Abrams when trial resumes today, Wednesday, in the U.S. District Court for the NMI.

Saipan Tribune learned that Lujan questioned Abrams on the latter’s suspension in Chuuk during Trust Territory time for ethics violation, among others.

In his opinion, Abrams stated that Quichocho not only committed ethical transgressions but likely even criminal acts.

Abrams said the facts strongly suggest that Quichocho took unfair and unethical advantage of a client, Kim, by sexually victimizing her while she was on depression medication, thwarting her recovery, in an act of moral turpitude, and violative of the American Association’s Disciplinary Rules.

Kim earlier testified that her then counsel, Quichocho, raped her twice in 2008 while she was on medication due to depression and anxiety.

Ferdie De La Torre | Reporter
Ferdie Ponce de la Torre is a senior reporter of Saipan Tribune. He has a bachelor’s degree in journalism and has covered all news beats in the CNMI. He is a recipient of the CNMI Supreme Court Justice Award. Contact him at ferdie_delatorre@Saipantribune.com

Related Posts

Disclaimer: Comments are moderated. They will not appear immediately or even on the same day. Comments should be related to the topic. Off-topic comments would be deleted. Profanities are not allowed. Comments that are potentially libelous, inflammatory, or slanderous would be deleted.