Shayne Villanueva
SUPERIOR Court Presiding Judge Roberto C. Naraja has placed under advisement the motion to dismiss the contempt case against Shayne Villanueva.
At a motion hearing on Tuesday, Villanueva appeared with his counsel, Keith Chambers, and asserted his right to plead the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination to all BOOST-related questions posed by the House Special Committee on Federal Assistance and Disaster Related Funding.
BOOST stands for “Building Optimism, Opportunities and Stability Together,” a $17 million federally funded program of the previous administration.
In his opposition to the motion to dismiss, Assistant Attorney General James Robert Kingman stated that “Complying with a subpoena to testify to a legislative investigative committee is not a circumstance which will in all circumstances result in admissions which require a waiver of Fifth Amendment rights.”
“To determine this matter, the court must see what questions are asked and how the responses were made to make the ruling,” Kingman said.
“The defense asks the court to consider the alleged facts in the Information and rely on its own declaration to make its ruling regarding the Fifth Amendment as applied to specific questions. But the inquiry also requires evidence from the prosecution,” he added.
Kingman said the “defendant asserts that the questions about Question One and Question Three call for self-incriminating answers.”
Question One was asked three times: “Can you please tell us a little bit about your post-secondary educational background?” Then, “Again Mr. Villanueva, please tell us about your post-secondary educational background.” Then, “Again Mr. Villanueva, please tell us about your post-secondary educational background.” Question Three was “Do you have a degree or any certification in marketing or advertising?”
Kingman said the “defendant asserts that those answers could potentially be violations of 6 CMC §1705 regarding false representations in business. Applying the idea that any admission could conflict with any unknown statement at any other place and time is far too broad of a test. Theoretically, any possible question asked by any investigative committee could be a violation of the perjury statute 6 CMC §3306, if there was testimony or representations under oath, known or unknown, to the committee.”
According to Kingman, “This assertion, taken at face value, would undermine the entire ability of the Commonwealth to carry out its investigative function.”
“This motion to dismiss is improper and should be denied,” he added.
“If there is going to be an assertion that the Fifth Amendment privilege was invoked properly, it requires a factual determination that involves prosecution evidence and an individualized inquiry by the finder of fact,” he said.
‘Crime scene’
According to Chambers, his client was subpoenaed to testify about the BOOST program.
“Words should not be minced; the BOOST program is a crime scene. Mr. Villanueva denies any wrongdoing. However, the fact remains that the BOOST program is under investigation federally and locally. Furthermore, the Commonwealth has openly stated that those involved in the BOOST program, both administrators and BOOST recipients, have criminal exposure,” Chambers said.
“A trial of the facts is not necessary if all the facts alleged in the charging document, here the Information, are assumed to be true and the Court is asked to determine whether the charges can be sustained as a matter of law,” the defense attorney said.
“Here, the questions, the setting in which they were asked, and Mr. Villanueva’s answers are all provided in the Information. Because these facts are assumed to be true, the Commonwealth’s arguments…that ‘to determine this matter is [sic] necessary for the Court to see what questions are asked and how the responses were made in order to make the ruling’ is misplaced because the Court already has…assumed to be true facts to determine whether Mr. Villanueva had the right to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege.”
Chambers added, “Regarding the questions at issue here, Mr. Villaneuva had reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer to those questions because Mr. Villanueva’s truthful answers to Question One and Question Three could themselves be incriminating to Mr. Villanueva….”
“The Commonwealth appears to argue that the Legislature can trump a person’s Fifth Amendment rights by passing a statute that criminalizes a broad spectrum of activities, which is not true,” Chambers added.
He asked the court to dismiss the Information as a matter of law.
Other motions
Judge Naraja also heard arguments regarding the defense’s “Motion to Dismiss on the Grounds that the Special Committee on Federal Assistance and Disaster-Related Funding Violated his Right to Counsel Under 1 CMC § 1303(a) During the Investigative Hearing,” and the “Motion to Strike Certain Portions of the Information Pursuant to Rule 7(d) of the Commonwealth Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
Villanueva is the owner of Roil Soil Marketing, which the administration of then-Gov. Ralph DLG Torres contracted to help implement the BOOST program in 2022.
According to the House Special Committee on Federal Assistance & Disaster-Related Funding, the documents it gathered indicated that Villanueva was paid $215,000 “at the very least,” by the previous administration for implementing the program.
On March 5, 2024, Villanueva appeared before the committee and invoked his Fifth Amendment right when asked questions about BOOST. After the committee found him in contempt, Speaker Edmund S. Villagomez transmitted to Attorney General Edward Manibusan a “certification of statement of contempt” pertaining to Villanueva.
On March 22, 2024, Villanueva self-surrendered at the Department of Corrections after an arrest warrant was issued against him for contempt. He posted a $1,000 bail for his release.
During an arraignment on April 2, 2024, Villanueva pled not guilty to the charge of contempt of Legislature.
