Defense again wants OAG disqualified

The team of lawyers set to represent former governor Ralph DLG Torres in his pending criminal case has filed another motion for reconsideration, this time for the Superior Court to reconsider its decision denying the defense’s motion to disqualify the Office of the Attorney General as a prosecutor in this case.

With the ex-governor’s trial set to start on June 5, 2023, his defense team has filed another motion seeking reconsideration, this time regarding the court’s Aug. 23, 2022, decision to deny the defense’s motion to disqualify the OAG.

In addition, the defense also wants Superior Court judge pro tem Alberto Tolentino to disqualify special prosecutor James Kingman, whom the OAG hired last month to assist in prosecuting this case.

“Mr. Torres respectfully requests that the court reconsider its order granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion for Office of the Attorney General to withdraw or be disqualified as prosecutor, dated Aug. 23, 2022; and disqualify the special prosecutor and the Office of the Attorney General from prosecuting the remaining counts [against Torres],” said the motion.

Back in August 2022, Tolentino granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion for the OAG to withdraw or be disqualified as prosecutor.

According to the August 2022 order, the court granted the dismissal of the contempt charge filed against Torres, ut denied the request to disqualify the OAG as prosecutor in this case.

However, the defense now argues that the court’s previous order was interlocutory (meaning non-final or temporary) and the defense may ask for reconsideration if there is grounds to justify a reconsideration. The motion also states there are grounds to justify reconsideration of the court’s decision not to disqualify the OAG.

“Here, there are grounds for the court to reconsider its disqualification order because of the need to correct clear errors and to prevent manifest injustice,” states the motion.

One of the arguments made by the defense in its 17-page motion was that Torres was deprived of his right to a meaningful hearing—“a constitutional violation in clear error and a manifest injustice” that warrants reconsideration.

“A meaningful opportunity is especially crucial in this motion as disqualifying the OAG in a criminal prosecution is an extraordinary judicial act. Mr. Torres was not afforded a meaningful hearing for his disqualification motion because he was prevented from presenting witnesses and testimony to fully develop the record and substantiate the need for the extraordinary judicial act of disqualifying the OAG,” said the motion.

“Mr. Torres was denied the opportunity to call the investigators of the OAG as witnesses. Those witnesses would have provided further testimony on the scope of advice the OAG provided the governor and the CNMI Executive Branch on premium class travel during the relevant time periods. Mr. Torres was also denied the opportunity to call members of the Travel Committee assigned to update the CNMI Travel Policy, who would have testified on the advice on premium travel that was provided by the OAG as counsel. The testimony would not only have fully developed the record for the court, but it would have also provided substantial evidence to show why disqualification was appropriate. The need for such witnesses was imperative, especially because Mr. Torres’ first and most important witness, Lt. Gov. Arnold Palacios, suffered a severe medical condition at the beginning of his testimony which incapacitated him and rendered him incapable to testify,” the motion added.

Other arguments made by the defense include allegations of non-existent screening on the OAG’s part.

“The OAG has previously represented to this court that a ‘screen’ or ‘wall’ had been erected within its office to shield this case from AG Manibusan and other assistant attorneys general. The procurement of the special prosecutor and the [Open Government Act] request demonstrate that is simply not the circumstance,” the defense argued.

Meanwhile, in the same motion, the defense asked that the court disqualify Kingman “because he was not properly screened” as required by law and was exposed to the knowledge and conflict of interest attributable to Manibusan.

“The Feb. 28, 2023, contract with the special prosecutor conclusively establishes that AG Manibusan was directly involved in the discussions and negotiations with the special prosecutor, even though he was supposedly screened from this case. The contract also unequivocally establishes that the special prosecutor is the lead prosecutor for this case. It should be noted that the contract does not state that the special prosecutor will assist the current AAGs that are handling this case. Most importantly, though, the contract expressly provides that the special prosecutor will be the ‘responsible attorney for this engagement’ and that the special prosecutor would report directly to AG Manibusan,” the defense argued.