Judge rules James Santos presented no new issues

U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Alex R. Munson has denied a motion filed by former Commerce Secretary James A. Santos, saying the defendant presented the same arguments that the court had earlier ruled on.

Munson said Santos’ motion in limine does not present any new issues or rationale for the court to consider.

“Accordingly, the court finds that the 1998-2000 transaction, and all of the overt acts alleged within that transaction, are not barred by the statute of limitations because the indictment alleges at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy within the limitations period,” the judge said.

James Santos, a co-defendant of Lt. Gov. Timothy P. Villagomez in a Commonwealth Utilities Corp. fraud case, has argued that the “overt act” issue would confuse the jury and would be contrary to law.

Victorino DLG Torres, counsel for Santos, asserted in the motion in limine that it would be confusing to the jury for the prosecutor to argue that the “overt act” that occurred between 1998 to 2000 is a basis for a conviction.

Motion in limine refers to a request submitted by a party in a case to the court before trial in an attempt to exclude evidence from the proceedings.

Torres argued that the U.S. government should be prevented from submitting evidence or referring to any of the defendants’ alleged acts that constitute the “1998-2000 transaction.”

Torres based the motion on the argument that the 1998-2000 transaction is barred by the five-year statute of limitations.

The prosecution, on the other hand, has argued that there was one ongoing conspiracy—one ongoing agreement that began in 1998 and went dormant for a period and was reactivated in 2007.

In denying the motion, Munson noted that a conspiracy charge is barred by the statute of limitations if no overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy fall within the relevant limitation period.

Munson said the defendants are charged with a single conspiracy beginning in 1998 and continuing through 2008.

The judge said the most recent alleged overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred on Jan. 16, 2008, which is well within the limitations period.

The prosecution alleged that on Jan. 16, 2008, co-defendant Joaquina Santos, wife of James Santos, deposited a CUC Operations Fund check into a Blue Pacific account.

James Santos was the alleged owner and operator of a company named ISLAS, which supplied CUC with Rydlyme, a descaling chemical. ISLAS was then allegedly reconstituted under a different name, Blue Pacific.

Munson noted that this precise issue in the motion has already come before the court in the original indictment.

Munson said the issue was fully briefed by both sides, the court held a hearing and then ruled on the issue.

The judge said James Santos’ argument that every overt act must fall within the statute of limitations misconstrues the law.

Citing a previous court decision, Munson said the court held that it must find at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy within the five-year period.

“The holding emphasizes that the statute of limitations begins to run when the last overt act is committed. Accordingly, all overt acts may be considered by the jury as long as the conspiracy as a whole falls within the limitations period,” he added.

The jury trial of Villagomez, James, and Joaquina Santos will begin on Monday, March 30.