THE CNMI Supreme Court has granted Assistant Attorney General James Kingman’s request for a 14-day extension to file his appeal brief in former Gov. Ralph DLG Torres’ contempt case.
Associate Justice John A. Manglona, in an order issued on Jan. 7, said the Commonwealth failed to provide an adequate need for a 31-day extension.
“The motion is hereby granted in part with a 14-day extension. The Commonwealth’s brief shall be due on or before January 24, 2025,” Justice Manglona said.
He noted that the initial filing deadline for the opening brief was Dec. 11, 2024, which was automatically extended to Jan. 10, 2025, upon the Commonwealth’s request.
“Now, the Commonwealth seeks another extension, citing numerous reasons, including importance of the issues on appeal, various personal and professional time commitments, and recent annual holidays,” Justice Manglona said.
Kingman said additional time is needed because the two justices pro tempore “may be unfamiliar with certain aspects of CNMI law,” necessitating a “thorough and careful explanation of some of the particular legal structures of the Commonwealth.”
Justice Manglona said, “These reasons do not support the request and verge on lacking appropriate regard for the Court. Both justices pro tempore have extensive experience as judicial officers.”
He said, “Chief Justice Robert J. Torres Jr. has been serving as a justice pro tempore for over two decades. He has served on more than forty separate appeals, including numerous criminal cases. In addition, Chief Justice Torres has been a justice of the Guam Supreme Court for 20 years. Justice Sabrina McKenna has served as a justice of the Supreme Court of Hawai’i since 2011 and served as a trial court judge for 18 years before that. She has assisted the Commonwealth as a justice pro tempore since 2023, with this matter being her fourth appointment to the role. Both justices pro tempore are well-versed in Commonwealth law and are experienced bench members.”
“Their combined experience in, and connections with, the Commonwealth, and with the Pacific region in general, expand well beyond that of Appellant’s counsel,” Justice Manglona added.
“Counsel is reminded of his duty to present the law adequately, regardless of who is presiding over any specific matter. (ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3.) The justices pro tempore do not require a greater showing of advocacy skills than any other sitting panelists and should be shown the respect earned not only by their positions, but also by their willingness to assist their sister jurisdiction when requested,” Justice Manglona added.
He said it is the responsibility of an attorney to appropriately manage their docket and personal obligations to meet filing deadlines.
“This is particularly true for time commitments known well in advance, such as many of those listed by Appellant’s counsel. Despite counsel knowing of these various obligations before they occurred, this discretionary motion was only made one week before the filing deadline,” Justice Manglona added.
He also noted that the Commonwealth requested that this extension be considered by a designee of the Clerk of Court because of a conflict of interest with this matter.
The CNMI Supreme Court clerk is the sister of the former governor.
“All staff of the Supreme Court follow the necessary and appropriate screening procedures under the Rules of Ethics and Judicial Code of Conduct,” Justice Manglona said. “It is the standard practice of the Supreme Court Clerk of Court’s Office [that] when the Clerk has a personal conflict, to assign all duties and direct all communications only to the Deputy Clerk, or vice versa. It is clear through the previous filings in this matter that these screening procedures have been followed to date. Discretion in determining extensions such as this still remains with the Office of the Clerk of Court, unless the Clerk or her Deputy directs the issue to the Court.”
“Neither the Clerk nor this Court need be reminded of our ethical obligations, absent evidence of a breach of such duties,” Justice Manglona added.
Last year, Judge Pro Tem Arthur Barcinas disqualified the CNMI Office of the Attorney General, including Kingman, from prosecuting former Gov. Ralph DLG Torres, who was charged with misconduct in office.
In a 16-page order, the judge granted the defense motion for reconsideration and motion for the OAG to withdraw or be disqualified as prosecutor in Case No. 22-0050-CR.
Judge Barcinas declined to appoint a new special prosecutor and being unable to appoint the Office of the Public Auditor to prosecute in lieu of the OAG, the court instead deferred to the executive branch to “execute its prosecutorial authorities in the case.”
The judge also disqualified the OAG and Kingman from prosecuting a related case, the refiled separate charge of contempt and misconduct in public office against the former governor (23-0127-CR).
Kingman filed an appeal with the CNMI Supreme Court.
Background
In December 2021, then-Governor Torres, a Republican, was found by a Democrat-Independent-led House Judiciary and Governmental Operations Committee in contempt of a legislative subpoena for refusing to appear before the panel, which was investigating his public expenditures.
On April 8, 2022, the OAG charged Torres with 12 counts of misconduct in public office and one count of theft relating to the issuance of airline tickets for business class, first class, or other premium class travel for himself and/or Diann T. Torres, his wife. The OAG also alleged one count of contempt for failure to appear in compliance with a legislative subpoena.
The former governor denied the charges.
On Aug. 23, 2022, Judge Pro Tem Alberto Tolentino dismissed without prejudice the contempt charge against the former governor.
The judge said evidence indicated that the prosecutor, J. Robert Glass Jr., was exposed to “privileged information regarding non-appearance to a legislative subpoena as charged in Count XIV — Contempt.”
On Oct. 26, 2023, Assistant Attorney General James Robert Kingman refiled a separate charge of contempt and misconduct in public office against Torres, CR 23-0127.
