HAGÅTÑA (The Guam Daily Post) — The judge presiding over the Guam Regional Transit Authority corruption case denied the prosecution’s motion to strike the record of evidence and testimony heard in an evidentiary hearing last week.
On Monday morning in the Superior Court of Guam, Judge Alberto Tolentino scheduled a hearing for board chair for Guam Transit Alejo Sablan, who seeks to have the Office of the Attorney General disqualified from prosecuting because of a conflict of interest.
Sablan faces corruption charges related to the hiring of the former interim executive manager of GRTA, Richard Ybanez, without “having a requisite college degree.”
The hearing on Monday was expected to be a continuation of the hearing which started on Wednesday, where Chief Deputy Attorney General Joseph Guthrie and Assistant Attorney General Tom Keeler testified about a potential conflict of interest with the Guam Transit case.
However, the hearing would not continue because Tolentino heard arguments on several motions filed by the AG’s office related to what evidence was presented and testimony was given during last week’s hearing.
One of the motions included the AG’s office wanting the record to be struck, due to some of the admitted evidence – which included emails between Guthrie, Keeler and Attorney General Douglas Moylan – being deemed covered under “attorney-client privilege” and “work product.”
Another motion was a request to allow Government Corruption Division attorney Gloria Rudolph to be present in the courtroom, after she became a witness and the defense asked that she be sequestered. The AG’s office argued the two other attorneys present after Rudolph was excluded were unprepared to represent the people of Guam in the matter.
Additionally, the AG’s office argued that employees, such as Rudolph and Attorney General Moylan, should not be asked to testify in the case.
Hearing
In response to the AG’s ex party motions, which typically do not give the opposing party time to respond, Sablan’s attorneys, Joaquin “Jay” Arriola Jr. and William Brennan, argued they should not be heard because they argued the prosecution did not follow the rules in submitting the motions nor did they identify the “emergency nature of the motion.”
Brennan in particular further argued the motions should not be heard because the prosecution had known since September that employees of the AG’s office were potential witnesses to be called and the documents submitted as evidence were turned over to them by the AG’s office during discovery.
“There’s 60 days that they’ve had notice we intend to enforce this, so I don’t understand how last Friday became an emergency,” Brennan said.
While suggesting Sablan’s defense should be given more time to respond to the motions due to the importance of the issues, Moylan, who appeared in person for the oral arguments, said just because documents were turned over to the defense doesn’t mean that it’s going to be introduced in open court.
“There was no opportunity. … Just because you get the document doesn’t mean that it’s going to be introduced as evidence in any evidentiary hearing before this court. So the ability to have the counsel prepare for the hearings – that was aware of the documents to be present – to be able to object is fundamental to the due process right and right of counsel,” Moylan said before Arriola responded the motions should be denied, and no further briefing should take place.
Denied
After hearing the arguments on the motions, Tolentino denied the motions over concerns with the AG’s office being notified months before the hearing that documents turned over may have been privileged information.
“If there was that concern that there was work product or confidential information that was being passed along and then deal with these motions of exclusions as motions in limine come trial time … that would have been, I think, the way that it should have gone,” Tolentino said before adding the motions could be filed again in preparation for trial.
Tolentino also said he’d be willing to seal the courtroom if a request was made by the AG’s office, which Moylan eventually requested.
Witnesses
Although the motions were denied and Tolentino was looking at having the evidentiary hearing continued later on Monday, Moylan argued he and Rudolph should not be called to testify since they had not been subpoenaed.
“I am not going to be asked to go into the court to testify. I have due process rights. I have the right to bring a motion to quash once I’m served, … so we’re not prepared to go forward with the evidentiary hearings because none of these witnesses that they’ve identified are here voluntarily,” said Moylan.
Arriola and Brennan again argued the Moylan and Rudolph had been notified they would be called to testify and agreements were made between Rudolph and Arriola in particular for her to testify.
Despite this though, Tolentino decided Moylan would not be ordered to testify, however Rudolph will. However, Moylan objected, which was noted by Tolentino, which meant Rudolph was still expected to testify on Monday.
Arriola told The Guam Daily Post the hearing would be held at 1:30 p.m. however the courtroom would be sealed from the public.
