In his order issued on Monday, U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Alex R. Munson denied both motions after finding that the evidence presented during the trial was “sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for each count in the indictment.”
The defendants were found guilty of wire fraud, theft, bribery and conspiracy.
In a separate order, “the court finds that the defendants fail to allege facts sufficient to support a credible claim of actual or implied juror bias,” hence the motion for a new trial based on juror and prosecutorial misconduct was denied.
The defendants and the prosecution appeared in court for a hearing on June 25.
Villagomez’s attorneys were David J. Lujan and Leilani V. Lujan.
James A. Santos was represented by Victorino DLG. Torres while Joaquina V. Santos’s counsel was Ramon Quichocho.
U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Strand appeared on behalf of the federal government.
The motions for a new trial and/or judgment of acquittal or jury misconduct claimed that seven jurors were blood relatives of the prosecution’s witnesses and they failed to inform the court of this relationship.
But Munson said the juror bias allegations are not sufficient and the evidence does not show actual bias.
He said the defendants failed to present a colorable claim of dishonesty to support their allegations that “the jurors failed to honestly answer a material question.”
The defendants, moreover, failed to fulfill their burden of demonstrating to the court that any of the jurors were intentionally dishonest, the judge said.
Even if the court found that the allegations of dishonesty were true, the defendants must also demonstrate that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause, Munson added.
The evidence also does not show implied bias based on the defendants’ arguments, he said.
“The evidence of the alleged relations is not convincing, and there is no evidence that the jurors were aware of these alleged relationships.”
The court also found that the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are not sufficient.
