All five judges of the CNMI Superior Court have recused themselves from hearing a lawsuit filed by former Judiciary law clerk William Abraczinskas against the Office of the Attorney General, citing potential conflicts of interest.
Abraczinskas sued the OAG under the Open Government Act, alleging the agency unlawfully denied his request for 233 pages of public records.
Presiding Judge Roberto C. Naraja stated in his recusal order that his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Judge Kenneth L. Govendo cited his prior working relationship with Abraczinskas, who served as his law clerk.
Judge Lilian Tenorio said the requested documents relate to case CR-23-0081, during a period when she was employed as deputy attorney general. Judge Teresa Kim-Tenorio recused herself due to the case’s involvement with Judiciary employees.
Judge Joseph Camacho, who previously presided over CR-23-0081, referenced a Supreme Court order disqualifying local judges from handling the matter.
A pro tem judge from Guam is expected to be assigned.
Abraczinskas, 37, was found guilty by a jury on Sept. 13, 2024, in case CR-23-0082, of first-degree sexual assault, assault and battery, and disturbing the peace. He denied the allegations and had pleaded not guilty.
Sentencing was scheduled for April 28, 2025, but his attorney filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, alleging the victim lied during testimony. Following a June 23 evidentiary hearing, Judge Pro Tem Elyze Iriarte granted the motion and released Abraczinskas on a $100,000 appearance bond with house arrest conditions. The prosecution appealed, and the Supreme Court has yet to rule.
On Oct. 30, Abraczinskas filed a petition for writ of mandamus, asking the court to compel the OAG to release the withheld records or submit them for in-camera review.
According to the petition, Abraczinskas submitted an OGA request on Oct. 21 seeking records tied to five Judiciary-originated case numbers, including CR-23-0082 and CR-23-000336. The OAG responded on Oct. 28, acknowledging possession of 233 pages but withheld all documents, citing exemptions under 1 CMC § 9918(4), (7), (8) and 6 CMC § 9111(b).
“The OAG confirmed that no additional responsive records exist for the remaining case numbers but did not provide an index, segregation log, or explanation of how each exemption applies,” the petition stated.
Abraczinskas argued that the exemptions no longer apply, as the investigation has concluded and he seeks verification of document authenticity—not discovery for trial. He also noted that he is indigent and under supervision, and that the records pertain directly to him.
The court recently granted his request to waive prefiling and service fees.
