Defense: The prosecution has not proven criminal intent

The defense team of former governor Ralph DLG Torres argues that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the former governor had the intent to commit acts that constitute misconduct in public office.

In its the motion for reconsideration of the order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to allege essential mens rea, or intent, the defense told the media through an official statement that Torres denies criminal intent and the prosecution has failed to prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

“The Office of the Attorney General must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Torres had the intent to commit the act, and did in fact commit the acts, that constitute the crime of misconduct in public office. This intent is called mens rea. For the travel at issue here, Mr. Torres travelled on behalf of the government and for a government purpose and denies having any criminal intent,” the defense told the media.

“The failure to clearly provide the mens rea, or the intent, is a violation of the Constitution, laws and case laws. Therefore, the team is requesting the court to reconsider its position and further, to provide clear guidance what mens rea the Commonwealth must prove in the case against Mr. Torres,” the defense further stated.

Meanwhile, the defense team also stated in their public statement that the attorneys employed by the Office of the Attorney General are not in compliance with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct as held by the CNMI Supreme Court in various other cases.

Torres’ team of lawyers, in a statement to the media, said they want the Superior Court to hold that the attorneys employed by the OAG be subject to and in compliance with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct as held by the CNMI Supreme Court in various other cases.

The defense claims that multiple “facts” prove that the Office of the Attorney General did not comply with the MRPC, like the “fact” that Attorney General Edward Manibusan, the complainant in this case, was not “screened” or “walled off” from the case.

“The team’s position has always been that the attorney general was the former governor’s attorney responsible for providing him with legal guidance. As such, the AG cannot represent a client, and then turn around and prosecute that same client right after. However, the OAG’s position is that AG Manibusan does not have to be disqualified because he has been ‘screened’ out of this case and is not involved in any way,” the defense stated. “During the hearing to disqualify the OAG from prosecuting this case, the prosecutors and AG Manibusan represented to the court that AG Manibusan was ‘walled off’ from the case because he was Mr. Torres’ attorney when he was governor. As such, the court denied the team’s request to disqualify the OAG from prosecuting this case based on the assurances that the OAG had a screen in place, whereby only Mr. Robert Glass and Mr. Steve Kessel, the attorneys prosecuting this case, had access to the case file.”

However, the team said one of the “facts” proving incompliance was Manibusan personally hiring special prosecutor James Kingman.

“Recently, the OAG hired a special prosecutor to assist in the prosecution of Mr. Torres. It was AG Manibusan who negotiated the agreement for legal services with the special prosecutor. It was also AG Manibusan who instructed Department of Finance to process and release the special prosecutor’s retainer paid for by public funds. In addition, the special prosecutor is supposed to report directly to AG Manibusan. These facts, and more, show that AG Manibusan is not screened off the case,” the team stated.