Ex-lawmaker asks govt ‘to do it right’ in court

Former congressman Stanley Torres filed three motions in court yesterday asking for the removal of “highly prejudicial, inflammatory language” in the prosecution’s information, correction of messed up case numbering, as well issuance of clear and precise description of charges.

Lawyers Robert T. Torres and Perry Inos filed a motion to strike surplusage, referring to a preamble contained in the prosecution’s original information and amended information.

“This preamble is surplusage and serves no purpose, in addition to being inflammatory, irrelevant, and conclusory,” said the motion.

In the motion, the legal counsels urged the court to direct the Attorney General’s Office “to follow rudimentary and well-established principles governing the initiation of a criminal prosecution.”

They said that the preamble, “is unduly prejudicial toward Torres,” noting that it already sounds like a “verdict” of criminal acts rather than an assumption of innocence.

In the first amended information, the preamble “unfairly presumes and concludes guilt rather [than] innocence—at the very first instance of its charging document.”

Further, the defense said that the allegation mentioned “three individuals” instead of two defendants named and charged.

Torres served as representative for Precinct 3 on Saipan. He allegedly hired a “ghost employee,” Dorothy L. Sablan, in collusion with Frank Ada.

In the second motion, the defense said that the interests of justice and the CNMI Constitution require the prosecution to file a bill of particulars, which informs Torres “of the purported facts and circumstances of the allegations against him with sufficient particularity.”

The defense lawyers said that both federal and Commonwealth rules of criminal procedures require that information shall be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of essential facts constituting the offense charged.

The defense said that the AGO’s first amended information fails to identify what specific acts were allegedly performed by Torres that led to his “condoning and facilitating the receipt of money by an employee who was in fact not performing any function that would entitle her to wages to be paid from the coffers of the Commonwealth Treasury.”

Further, the information, according to Torres’ lawyers, does not specify what actions were allegedly taken by the congressman to constitute an allegation of conspiracy.

They asked the court to direct the prosecution to file a bill of particulars setting forth with sufficient particularity in what manner the alleged misconduct was committed, state the time and place when it was allegedly committed, in what manner he “condoned” the alleged act, state mental intent required under the statute, and identify alleged co-conspirators.

In the third motion, the defense said the government must correct its messed up numbering of charges in Roman Numeral System.

The defense noted that instead of writing Count XXXX for 40, the prosecution needs to correctly put it XL so that to indicate Count XXXXI for misconduct in public office, it should be Count XLI.

Alternately, they said, the prosecution could just use “COUNT FORTY-ONE (41)” for simplicity.

The Superior Court will hear the motions on Nov. 17, 2004 before Judge Juan T. Lizama.