GOVERNOR Ralph DLG Torres’s legal team has objected to the Office of the Attorney General’s request to prohibit certain evidence and witnesses during his jury trial.
On April 8, 2022, the Office of the AG filed criminal charges in Superior Court against the governor, alleging 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 first lady Diann T. Torres. The AG also alleged one count of contempt for failure to appear in compliance with a subpoena.
Torres has denied the charges and has asked the court to dismiss them.
Torres’s attorneys — Viola Alepuyo, Victorino Torres, Anthony H. Aguon and Matthew Holley — have also asked the court to deny the Office of the AG’s motion in limine which is “a motion, discussed outside the presence of the jury, to request that certain testimony be excluded.”
According to the governor’s legal team’s objection, the OAG did not articulate or explain how each evidence it seeks to exclude is: 1) highly prejudicial; 2) does not relate to any confrontation of a prosecution witness; 3) does not tend to negate an essential element of each offense charged in the information [filed against the governor]; and 4) is not relevant to any defense theory.
“In effect, the in limine motion fails to show that excluding the requested evidence does not deprive Governor Torres of his Sixth Amendment confrontation right or right to present a legally cognizable defense,” his lawyers said.
“Likewise, the prosecution does not explain how curative instructions can address its purported concerns. Instead, it appears that the prosecution is trying to use the in limine motion to preclude Governor Torres from using evidence to effectively challenge the prosecution’s proof as well as support his defenses,” his legal team added.
These requests seek to preclude the introduction of evidence relating to other governmental officials who traveled on a first class, premium class or business class airline ticket, the governor’s lawyers stated.
“They seek to deprive Governor Torres of key evidence to rebut essential elements of counts 1-13 which relate to the issuance of airline tickets,” they added.
They noted that the Legislature did not impose a civil monetary fine on a person who traveled in first or business class.
Instead, the Legislature imposed a civil money penalty on the government employee who “caused” the issuance of a ticket in violation of § 7407. 1 CMC § 7407(f).
Gov. Torres’s defense to counts 1 -13 include showing that he did not cause the issuance of a ticket in violation of § 7407(f).
“This means that Governor Torres, as a defense, can show that someone other than himself caused the issuance of the tickets at issue,” his lawyers said.
“Evidence concerning tickets relating to the travel by other governmental officials in first class, business class or other premium class is necessary to show the commonality or consistent thread regarding the issuance of airline tickets to establish that someone other than Governor Torres or the person traveling ‘caused’ the issuance of airline tickets for government travel,” his lawyers added.
“Depriving Governor Torres of such evidence precludes him from proving that ‘issuance’ of airline travel tickets for all Commonwealth travel is within the exclusive domain of a particular agency and if Governor Torres is not an employee of that particular agency or department, then he did not violate § 7407. Moreover…,Governor Torres has the right to challenge the deficiency of the investigation into his travel as well as to confront and challenge the person(s) who conducted or otherwise assisted in the investigation,” his lawyers stated.
The evidence relating to travel by other governmental officials also supports the affirmative defense of public authority, the defense attorneys added.
“This is particularly so, given the travel of other governmental officials without any consequence, the travel policy the OAG adopted in its 2016 office manual, and the lack of any advice or guidance from the OAG regarding the Commonwealth’s travel policy.”
The prosecutor, Chief Solicitor J. Robert Glass Jr. of the Office of the AG, filed his motion in limine on June 6, 2022, seeking to bar the following items from the trial:
• Motion In Limine #1. To bar defendant from introducing evidence, making arguments, or otherwise mentioning any potential penalties or collateral consequences defendant faces if convicted, including but not limited to the $1,000 civil penalty associated with violations of 1 CMC § 7407(f), the effect a conviction may have on defendant’s current position as governor of the CNMI, defendant’s ability to run for governor or other elected positions if convicted, and any possible impeachment that could result from a conviction.
• Motion In Limine #2. To bar defendant from stating or arguing that the prosecution is politically motivated. A prosecutor’s job is to do justice, not seek convictions, and such argument undermines that idea and is an argument for jury nullification.
• Motion In Limine #3. To bar defendant from mentioning the upcoming 2022 general election as such has no bearing on any fact that would be relevant for this trial. A prosecutor’s job is to do justice, not seek convictions, and such argument undermines that idea and is an argument for jury nullification.
• Motion in Limine #4. To bar Frances Dela Cruz (Governor Torres’s special assistant) from pleading the Fifth while testifying to relevant facts and circumstances of this case. Ms. Dela Cruz’s contempt charge was declined for prosecution, and therefore she does not face any danger of criminal conviction for the alleged contempt. Any involvement with the current case is at most a civil infraction for violation of 1 CMC § 7407(f) and not a crime.
• Motion In Limine #5. To bar defendant from any mention of a 2019 inquiry into the CNMI government for first, business, or premium class airfare by the Office of the AG. Any 2019 inquiry by the OAG into the CNMI government’s purchasing of first, business, or premium class airfare has no relevance to the current investigation that gave rise to this criminal case. Further, any mention of a 2019 investigation would only serve to confuse the jury as to the investigation that took place in this case.
• Motion In Limine #6. To prohibit defendant from accusing other current or former government employees of traveling in first, business, or premium class air travel prior to approaching the judge outside the presence and hearing of the jury and obtaining a ruling.
• Motion In Limine #7. To prohibit defendant from attempting to introduce travel authorizations, travel vouchers, itineraries, boarding passes, or other travel documents of current or former government employees for first, business, or premium class air travel prior to approaching the judge outside the presence and hearing of the jury and obtaining a ruling.
Glass also informed the court that he will introduce evidence showing that the defendant “intentionally caused himself to fly first class.”
For their part, the governor’s attorneys filed a motion to have the AG’s office withdraw or be disqualified as prosecutor in the case.
They said the “AG is prosecuting [the] governor for an alleged violation in which the AG provided legal advice.”
Judge Pro Tem Alberto E. Tolentino recently vacated the jury trial set for July 5, 2022, and instead scheduled a pre-trial conference on the same date at 9 a.m.
The judge also set another hearing for all the motions for June 30, 2022, at 9:30 a.m.
Variety learned that Gov. Torres’s travel authorizations were signed by Lt. Gov. Arnold I. Palacios.
