ATTORNEY Richard Miller said new evidence discovered by the defense will show that the rape victim lied when she testified at trial that she was raped.
Miller represents William Abraczinskas, 36, who was found guilty of sexual assault in the first degree, assault and battery, and disturbing the peace by a jury on Sept. 13, 2024.
Abraczinskas was scheduled to be sentenced on April 28, 2025. However, on the same day, his attorney filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence.
Presiding over the case, Superior Court Judge Pro Tem Elyze Iriarte delayed the sentencing and scheduled an evidentiary hearing for June 23, 2025 at 10 a.m.
According to Miller, the new evidence “involves personal knowledge of relevant conversations sometime after April 8, 2023, and before the case was in the news, between the victim and a judicial clerk who has been assisting the trial judge at trial and in post-trial matters.”
“On April 24, 2025,” Miller said, “the defense received a tip that a judicial clerk, Eva Calvo, had exculpatory evidence based on conversations she had had with the victim.”
Exculpatory evidence is favorable to a defendant in a criminal trial, helping to prove their innocence or reduce their culpability.
Assistant Attorney General Frances T. Demapan has opposed the defense’s motion for a new trial and asked the court to deny the request.
She said the defense provides no credible explanation for why the alleged “new” evidence could not have been discovered prior to trial through the exercise of reasonable diligence.
“At all times prior to trial, Defense was aware that the victim was a long-time employee of the CNMI Judiciary who worked closely with other courtroom clerks and judicial assistants at the Superior Court,” Demapan said. “Defense should have conducted a more thorough investigation into other employees who work in close proximity to or directly with the victim. Defense’s generalized assertions of why they could not locate the ‘new’ evidence prior to trial falls short of showing actual diligence,” she added.
Citing Commonwealth Rule of Evidence 615, Demapan said the defense would be unable to call Calvo as a witness.
“This rule is intended to prevent witnesses from tailoring their testimony and to promote truthfulness by ensuring testimony is based on the witness’s own knowledge, not the testimony of others. In this case, Ms. Calvo sat through the entire trial as the assigned courtroom clerk and heard testimony from all of the Commonwealth’s witnesses, including the victim. Allowing Ms. Calvo to testify goes directly against the rule of sequestration, which serves to discourage fabrication and improper influence at trial,” the prosecutor said.
Demapan added: “The newly discovered evidence is merely impeaching and cumulative.”
“In this case, the evidence is cumulative because the parties already stipulated at trial to the admission of multiple pages of WhatsApp messages between Defendant and the victim detailing their conversations and memorializing their interactions leading up to the assault, the day of the assault, and in the days following the assault. The Commonwealth also called other witnesses at trial who testified to their interactions with the victim following the assault, such as Judge Kenneth L Govendo, CNMI Judiciary Human Resources Officer Michelle Guerrero, DPS Detective Shannon Dela Cruz, and DPS Officer Hector Efraim. Taken together, the jury considered all of this evidence during its deliberations, when it ultimately found the defendant guilty of all three criminal offenses,” she said.
In his reply to the prosecution’s opposition, Miller said, “Ms. Calvo’s evidence is not cumulative. It is not offered to show that the victim and Mr. Abraczinskas were together on the day of the alleged rape, but to show that the victim lied when she testified she was raped.”
He added: “In this case, the only evidence of a rape is the complaining witness’s testimony, unsupported by any physical evidence or the testimony of other percipient witnesses. A key weakness in the Commonwealth’s case, therefore, was the victim’s lengthy delay in reporting a sexual assault. Evidence that the victim’s explanation for the delay was false is material, not cumulative, and not merely impeaching.”
According to Miller, contrary to the prosecution’s picture of shame and embarrassment, the victim openly chatted about her time with Abraczinskas on the day of the alleged rape, “and shamelessly showed a picture she had on her phone of a male genital.”
