Visiting Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of California has denied the motion to modify the conditions of release of the 24-year-old Fitial.
Fitial has been incarcerated at the Department of Corrections facility since his arrest on June 11, 2010 on the charge of deprivation of rights under color of law when he used physical and verbal abuse against his victim who was sexually abused.
Carter heard the testimony of Fitial’s mother, Rita Reyes Fitial, who was the proposed third party custodian.
The prosecution called Federal Bureau of Investigation special agent Haejun Park as its witness.
Attorney Bruce Mailman, the court-appointed guardian for the victim, reported directly to the court.
Assistant U.S. Attorney James J. Benedetto is prosecuting the case.
Carter remanded Fitial to U.S. Marshals custody after denying the motion for bail “at this time.”
In his motion to withdraw representation, Sutton told the U.S. District Court for the NMI that Fitial advised him that his client “does not wish [Sutton] to represent [Fitial].”
“[Fitial’s] reasons are that he is disappointed and angry that he was not released on bail after his motion to modify conditions of bail was denied,” Sutton said.
Additionally, Sutton said Fitial perceives that his defense counsel’s statement to the defendant and members of his family “that the case is a difficult one and that [Fitial] faces a lengthy jail sentence if convicted as an expression that the case is a loser.”
Sutton said his client does not believe that his defense attorney “did all that could be done to have [Fitial] released on bail.”
Sutton said the motion was prepared and presented twice in federal court upon learning that the first proposed third party custodian had a criminal record, and Sutton asked the court to reset the matter at a later date.
“Counsel has attempted to speak with [Fitial] about the case and to go over the evidence with him and to attempt to elicit facts from [Fitial] to be used in his defense,” Sutton said.
“[Fitial] will not converse with [Sutton] stating only that he does not wish [Sutton] to continue to represent him,” Sutton said.
“Under these circumstances it will not be possible for counsel to put together a defense case for trial or to discuss a possible non-trial disposition with [Fitial],” Sutton said.
He added, “Based on [Fitial’s] right to effective assistance of counsel, it is submitted that under the circumstances where the defendant has indicated no confidence in [Sutton’s] ability to represent him, the court should allow withdrawal and appoint another who hopefully will be able to garner the defendant’s cooperation.”
Fitial’s jury trial is scheduled for Oct. 18, 2010.
