THE CNMI Supreme Court on Friday granted William Abraczinskas’ motion to stay trial proceedings in his case.
Abraczinskas, 34, a former law clerk of Judge Kenneth L. Govendo, has been charged with sexual assault in the first degree, assault and battery, and disturbing the peace. He has pleaded not guilty.
For the second time, Abraczinskas, through Chief Public Defender Douglas Hartig, asked the high court for a stay pending the court’s disposition on the defendant’s petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition to order the Superior Court to disqualify all its judges from the case and to appoint a judge pro tempore.
Citing a previous ruling, Hartig said a motion for a stay of proceedings is proper because “to wait for a ruling on the request for stay in the Superior Court” is “impractical.”
According to the high court, Abraczinskas has adequately shown that he has a substantial case for relief on the merits, or else has raised serious legal questions.
The defendant stated that if he is “required to proceed on motions, rulings and deadlines imposed on this case by [the] Superior Court… then all resources used during this time of financial strain will have been used for nothing — wasted — and the parties will have to revisit the issues all over again in front of a different judge.”
The high court stated that the “alleged waste of valuable time and resources for both the parties and the court, should we find in favor of the petition, while not constituting irreversible harm, does implicate this court’s ‘significant interest in supervising the administration of the judicial system.’”
Abraczinskas, highlighting the dates that the Superior Court has set in its pretrial scheduling order, said, “Significant matters of law in the proceeding will be decided before the Supreme Court issues its ruling.”
The justices acknowledged that their decision on the petition, which is “potentially outcome determinative, and could render futile any interim briefings, hearings, and rulings, represents a serious risk of waste.”
They added, “The allegations of harm articulated in the second motion for stay of proceedings are supported with sufficient evidence in the record to make them more probable than likely should Abraczinskas prevail in his petition.”
Abraczinskas said the Superior Court has “already decided in favor of remaining on the case and imposing [its] will regarding significant pretrial matters.”
He noted that the Superior Court has set a hearing for the government’s motion to quash the defendant’s subpoena for Aug. 25, 2023 — the same day that the Superior Court is set to hear the motion to stay proceedings.
“The fact that the court set both hearings for the same day and has ordered the parties to submit briefs in support and in opposition of the motion to quash before the hearing, is evidence of the court’s intent to deny Abraczinskas’ motion to stay proceedings,” the justices said.
“As such, it is more than a mere possibility that if we rule in favor of petitioner on the petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition, the alleged waste and prejudicial exposure of trial strategy will occur,” the justices added.
The order for stay was signed by Chief Justice Alexandro Castro, Justice John Manglona and Justice Perry Inos.
The government did not oppose the defendant’s motion for stay.
Following the high court’s order, Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho vacated the deadlines for the defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and the CNMI judiciary’s motion to quash subpoena and for a protective order, or in the alternative, modify subpoena.
Judge Camacho also vacated the motion hearing and pretrial conference set for Aug.25, and the jury trial scheduled for Oct. 16.
