Superior Court Associate Judge David A. Wiseman said in his written order that he “finds it extremely troubling that this motion…is a déjà vu similar to a motion for disqualification Mr. [Douglas] Hartig filed six years ago, where one of the grounds for that motion was similar to what is stated here, with respect to the defense counsel’s misconception and erroneous position regarding a judge’s use of any reliable information at sentencing.”
Wiseman dismissed the motion for recusal filed by Hartig on behalf of his client, John N. Namauleg, 37, charged with resisting arrest and disturbing the peace.
Hartig argued that Wiseman should be disqualified from hearing Namauleg’s case because the “court’s ability to impartially serve as the fact-finder at defendant’s trial might reasonably be questioned.”
Saying that the proposed terms of penalty were too lenient, Wiseman earlier rejected a proposed plea agreement.
Hartig described Wiseman as “hostile” to his client.
Wiseman said “the court is troubled” with Hartig’s assertion that the court should have rejected the plea agreement before allowing Namauleg to plead guilty.
Wiseman ruled that “such a contention is totally without merit.”
Last year, in a separate case, due to the inadmissibility of its evidence against the defendant, the Attorney General’s Office filed a motion to withdraw all charges against Namauleg for repeatedly stabbing a female garment worker, resulting in her being paralyzed.
The court granted the motion.
