Previous Story
OUT OF 14 CASES REVIEWED BY HIGH COURT
OAG: 12 of judge Camacho’s ruling were reversed, vacated
Of the 14 times the CNMI Supreme Court reviewed Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho’s rulings, the high court reversed or vacated his decision-making 12 times, according to the Office of the Attorney General’s evaluation on the criminal appellate record.
Camacho said the OAG list was “incorrect and incomplete.”
According to OAG’s evaluation obtained by Saipan Tribune yesterday, since June 25, 2014 the Supreme Court decided 29 criminal cases and that 14 of those were Camacho’s cases.
A source from the OAG said this means that in the 2 1/2-year period since the high court first reviewed Camacho’s decisions, it has spent 48.28 percent of its time reviewing his decision-making.
“That is roughly half of its time dedicated to reviewing the decision making of one out of the five judges,” the source added.
By comparison, according to OAG’s evaluation, the high court reviewed then-associate judge David A. Wiseman nine times (31 percent), and three others—Associate Judges Kenneth L. Govendo, Presiding Judge Robert C. Naraja, and then-Associate Judge Perry B. Inos—were reviewed twice each (6.9 percent).
Associate Judge Theresa Kim-Tenorio was reviewed zero times.
Of the 29 criminal cases, according to OAG’s evaluation, the high court reversed or otherwise vacated all or a portion of any Superior Court judge’s decision 17 times.
Accordingly, the source said, Camacho’s reversals account for 70.59 percent of all such reversals in this jurisdiction since June 25, 2014.
OAG evaluates the criminal appellate record of judges who are up for retention on the bench. Camacho ascended to the bench in November 2011. He is seeking retention this Nov. 8 election.
OAG evaluated only criminal cases decided by the Supreme Court on or after June 25, 2014 to today’s date since that is the first opportunity the high court had to evaluate one of Camacho’s cases.
It means that OAG did not look at decisions from 2012 and 2013 because the high court had not begun reviewing Camacho’s decisions those years.
