Previous Story
Businessman on trial for drug trafficking
|
Posted on Mar 20 2001
Members of the federal grand jury yesterday filled the jury box, signaling the start of a criminal case that has put a local businessman on trial for illegal drug-trafficking charges before the US District Court.
Defendant Leo Sablan Pangelinan has been indicted before the federal grand jury on charges of possession of controlled substances on four counts.
The charges include conspiracy to posses with intent to distribute crystal metamphetamine, its sale and distribution, and possessing with intent to distribute metamphetamine at different quantities.
Opposing camps respectively delivered their hard-hitting opening statements in front of the jury.
Addressing the jurors, Asst. US Attorney John Rice spoke in intricate details of the alleged illegal business operation run by the defendant.
According to the government prosecutor, Mr. Pangelinan has used his retail shop as a storefront that on the inset actually houses a crystal metamphetamine or “ice” packaging facility.
The prosecution mentioned two separate incidents in October of last year where customers allegedly trooped to the defendant’s establishment to purchase ice.
Mr. Rice appealed to jurors to keep an open mind about the pieces of evidence they were about to witness during the course of the trial.
The government has disclosed plans to present at least two key witnesses on the stand, including a confidential informant hired by the Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force.
Mr. Pangelinan’s business partner is also anticipated to take to the witness stand to share inside information on the alleged illegal drug operation, according to Mr. Rice.
The prosecution told jurors it is prepared to divulge before the court other pieces of evidence that would give credence to the defendant’s alleged involvement in the illegal activity.
Defense lawyer Joey Arriola, in his brief counter statement, warned jurors against taking evidence lightly.
He impressed upon the jury that cross examination by the defense team is equally important to the direct examination by the prosecution.
Mr. Arriola also asked jurors to withhold judgment until the trial’s end, where all sets of evidence may have already been presented and examined.
