“We did not clearly err or work a manifest injustice in denying leave to file an amicus brief,” said Chief Justice Alexandro C. Castro, Justice John A. Manglona and Justice Perry B. Inos in their ruling.
“We denied the OPD’s previous motion on the basis that it had previously conflicted out of representing [the defendant, Rudolph] Rudolph.”
There has been no change in the controlling law since their previous order, the justices added.
The Attorney General’s Office has asked the high court to deny OPD’s request to file an amicus brief, adding that court rules do not allow for such a brief in a petition for a writ of mandamus.
The OPD, in its motion, said it represents most criminal defendants in the CNMI, and that its brief would be desirable because it can bring to bear broader defense experience than the defense attorney of the defendant.
The justices, however, noted that the OPD did not disclose that it withdrew from representation of the defendant on Aug. 5, 2020 due to a conflict of interest.
“It would be inappropriate to permit the OPD to assist a party via the backdoor [when] it was precluded by conflict rules from representing directly,” the justices said.
This is particularly so since the OPD failed to disclose its prior representation or explain why conflict rules do not preclude participation as an amicus, they added.
The AG’s office petitioned for a writ of mandamus, requesting the high court to review the order of Judge Joseph N. Camacho who issued a discovery in a preliminary hearing of Rudolph.
The defendant was charged on Aug. 5, 2020 with three counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree and four counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree.
The AG’s office wants the high court to direct Judge Camacho to rescind his previous order granting the request of Rudolph to have all tangible materials used by law enforcement to establish probable cause.
Judge Camacho said Rudolph has the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses at a preliminary examination hearing “to weed out groundless claims.”
The judge said the defendant is entitled to the tangible materials in possession of the Commonwealth that relate to the government determination of probable cause so that the defendant can fully and properly cross-examine the government witness.
In a preliminary hearing, the AG’s office said that the court lacks jurisdiction to compel discovery.
Rudolph is represented by attorney Anthony Aguon.
