Grandpa accused of raping 8-year-old loses bid to obtain govt-paid experts

Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert C. Naraja has refused to provide government-paid experts for a 61-year-old man who is facing charges of repeatedly sexually assaulting an 8-year-old student.

In an order issued Thursday, Naraja said that Jose Ilo Santos failed to satisfy a two-part test for the court to appoint expert assistance.

In Commonwealth v. Perez, the CNMI Supreme Court ruled that the burden is on the defendant to establish (1) the existence of a reasonable probability that an expert would be of assistance to the defense and (2) the denial of expert assistance would result in a fundamentally unfair trial.

In this case, Naraja said that Santos failed to prove the existence of a reasonable probability that a forensic expert would find error in the doctors’ medical reports, or otherwise be of any assistance to his defense.

Santos also did not prove that the denial of expert assistance would result in a fundamentally unfair trial, Naraja said.

Santos, also known as Grandpa Ping, was charged with two counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree.

According to court records, on May 16, 2011, the mother of the 8-year-old victim went to police after her daughter admitted that Santos has been sexually assaulting her. That same day, a doctor at the Commonwealth Health Center confirmed signs of penetration. Another doctor similarly examined the girl and also found evidence of sexual abuse.

Santos, through the Public Defender’s Office, asked the court to provide him with a forensic expert to assist in his defense.

Assistant public defender Douglas Hartig claimed that he needs the assistance of an expert to evaluate the doctors’ examinations and their conclusions.

Hartig also asked the court to provide Santos with a government-paid expert in child witness suggestibility.

Hartig said the complaining witness is a minor who may be vulnerable to suggestion or coercion. He said it is important to appoint an expert to determine whether the allegations of sexual assault were implanted through improper interview techniques.

In denying the motions, Naraja said Santos can’t point to any particular facts or evidence to refute the doctors’ findings of sexual abuse, nor did he offer a reason to question the credibility or qualifications of the doctors.

Naraja said the defendant contends that an expert in child witness suggestibility is necessary to effectively present his argument that the sexual assault allegations could be the product of coercive, or otherwise improper, interview techniques.

This argument, the judge said, is nothing more than “mere hope or suspicion,” which does not constitute the requisite showing of a particularized need for an expert.

“Even assuming that an expert in child witness suggestibility would be beneficial, due process does not entitle defendant to such an expert at the government’s expense,” Naraja said.