By Gina Tabonares
Variety News Staff

BECAUSE the government prosecutor failed to present an evidence to the grand jury, the court was compelled to dismiss the first charge of rape case against a man who was indicted for sexually molesting two minors.
My-Love Kinareng who was charged with criminal sexual conduct after allegedly raping two minors was exonerated from one of the rape cases.
Superior Court Judge Arthur Barcinas ruled in favor of Kinareng after agreeing with the defendant’s lawyer that the government failed to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.
Kinareng through his lawyer Richard Dirkx asked the court to dismiss the first charge on the basis that Assistant Attorney General Emily Dawson failed to present to the grand jury the defendant’s statement to the police where he denied touching one of the minors.
Atty. Dirkx argued that the portion of the statement where Kinareng indicated that he did not touch one of the minors is exculpatory and that under the law , the government lawyer were required to present the statement to the grand jury.
The government, however, contended that it is clear that defendant denied the incident and the evidence was presented to the grand jury.
The court, however, ruled that the government conveniently ignored the fact that there were two different victims in the case and it could not say that it presented evidence and nowhere in the transcripts did the investigator testify to the grand jury that the defendant denied touching one of the victims.
Judge Barcinas said that the statement of the defendant to the police that he denied touching one of the victims is the type of evidence that would tend to indicate the defendant did not commit the crime for which he was charged.
“As such, it is the type of evidence that must be presented to the grand jury because it tends to negate guilt,” the court stated in a written order.
And because the government had in its possession exculpatory evidence that should have been presented to the grand jury, Judge Barcinas said the indictment was improperly obtained as to the Criminal Sexual Conduct Charge as the grand jury was unable to weigh the exculpatory evidence in possession of the government as required by the law.