Assistant Attorney General James Robert Kingman listens to a question from a reporter at the local courthouse on Monday.
Former Gov. Ralph DLG Torres, right, with his brothers, attorneys Joaquin and Vincent Torres, at the local courthouse on Monday.
“I’VE stopped being surprised about the delays — it’s very clear what the strategy is here,” Assistant Attorney General James Robert Kingman said after a hearing on Monday regarding the refiled contempt case against former Gov. Ralph DLG Torres.
“Once again Judge [Arthur] Barcinas decided not to have the arraignment,” Kingman said in an interview.
He said the defense made an oral motion that even though there is no requirement for a probable cause hearing, they are constitutionally entitled to one.
“This is the first time they raised this issue in this matter, but it’s actually a well-litigated issue. I disagree that the defendant is entitled to one; nevertheless the judge ordered a briefing on the issue. It will be interesting to see what their arguments are and what they are asking for. I wish I can say I was surprised,” Kingman said.
“It’s a well-established distinction in the penal code. Every other jurisdiction has a similar non-arrest misdemeanor process without probable cause hearing. This is not a complicated issue but certainly one that the defense will be happy to pretend not to know the answer to in order to delay [the trial] further,” Kingman said.
At the hearing, the former governor was represented by his brother, attorney Joaquin Torres, who said his client is entitled to a probable cause hearing.
According to the defense attorney, “Rule 4 of the criminal procedures [state that] when an arrest is made, a police officer will sign an affidavit and give it to the judge. The judge then determines to proceed if there is enough evidence. Here we don’t have [that]. We have a penal summons. We were served with a penal summons and an information, but we don’t have an affidavit of probable cause. We don’t have enough information to review documents or what information is available.”
Attorney Torres said his client is entitled to a “preliminary hearing or probable cause hearing so the court can have an opportunity to hear the matter and decide whether there’s enough evidence to proceed. Not having that would violate my client’s due process. We ask the court to give [the parties] some time to brief the issue and have the court make a decision if there’s enough evidence to proceed. I believe the rules requires an affidavit.”
Based on the merits
Judge Barcinas, for his part, said, “First, I am not conceding that there is an absolute right to this determination based on the merits and structure of law, but the question for the court is, does it arise to constitutional deprivation? … The defense is saying [they have the] right to probable cause. We need some time to brief that issue regarding…an information…filed without a detainer request, and why or how the defendant would lose a probable cause determination.”
The judge ordered the defense to file a brief on Feb. 5, while the prosecution was ordered to file a reply on Feb. 19.
Judge Barcinas said he will hear the parties’ arguments virtually on Feb. 26.
Update
Asked for an update on 22-0050-CR, the original case filed against the former governor, Kingman said, “We have neither a trial date [nor do we] have scheduling order dates. We provided our available dates multiple times. We got an outstanding ruling or two, and there has not been any sort of movement…. Yesterday evening, the defense team on that case objected to my request for a status conference and my request for a trial date to be set. We are operating without any sort of timeline or trial date.”
According to the defense team, “23-0127-CR is a separate and unrelated case that is not relevant to 22-0050-CR. This conclusion is supported by the prosecution’s decision not to amend the information in the instant case, and to file 23-0127-CR as a separate action instead. Mr. Torres’s legal defense team here is also comprised of different attorneys than his legal defense team in 23-0127-CR. The prosecution’s motion should therefore be denied.”
23-0127 CR is the contempt case refiled by the prosecution.
The original case against the former governor was filed by the Office of the Attorney General on April 8, 2022. The defendant was charged with 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 Diann T. Torres, his wife. The case also alleged one count of contempt for failure to appear in compliance with a legislative subpoena.
The former governor has denied the charges.
On Aug. 23, 2022, Judge Pro Tempore Alberto Tolentino dismissed without prejudice the contempt charge against the former governor. Without prejudice means that the charge can be refiled.
The judge said evidence indicated that the prosecutor, J. Robert Glass Jr., was exposed to “privileged information regarding non-appearance to a legislative subpoena as charged in Count XIV — Contempt.”
On Oct. 26, 2023, Kingman refiled a separate charge of contempt and misconduct in public office against the former governor.
On Dec. 19, 2023, Judge Barcinas directed the prosecution to refile the penal summons against the former governor.
