Visiting Senior Judge Michael A. Ponsor for the District of Massachusetts presided over the two-day trial.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric S. O’Malley, the prosecutor, asked jurors to return a guilty verdict, saying the prosecution proved elements of the crime as committed by Reksid.
Court-appointed defense attorney Mark B. Hanson argued that jurors should acquit his client, saying Reksid did not ask for a bribe, but borrowed money from AMPRO president John Scott, the defendant’s “friend.”
Reksid was the manager for the federally funded Brownsfield program, while AMRPO got the contract for the cleanup of unexploded ordnance for the Marpi homestead project.
Hanson said its “100 percent unrelated,” referring to Reksid’s loan from the contractor, and Scott’s AMPRO contract with DPL.
O’Malley said Reksid, as manager of federally funded Brownsfield project, was expected to be part of an “honest [CNMI] government,” but Reksid “abused his position and public trust for his personal gain.”
O’Malley asked jurors to return a guilty verdict to tell Reksid that what he did was “not all right.”
The prosecutor told jurors it’s all about the $3,000 and what had happened on Feb. 12, 2009, when Scott gave Reksid money for a purported loan.
O’Malley said Reksid thought it was a “perfect day to get money” from Scott, referring to contractor’s submission of invoices.
O’Malley said Scott didn’t demand immediate payment from Reksid, who in turn, “returned favors” for the contractor.
From the submitted copies of invoice by AMPRO, O’Malley said Reksid thought there would be “more money” from Scott.
But Hanson said the prosecution had a “fundamental misunderstanding” about the project involving Reksid and AMPRO.
Hanson said “there’s no connection” between Reksid and Scott, the contract and the borrowed money that was not a bribe and was taken from the contractor’s “personal typhoon fund.”
Hanson said Scott testified there’s no bribery, and that Reksid was being scammed.
Hanson said his client was not part of the selection committee that selected AMPRO, and “there’s expectation [AMPRO] will complete the whole project,” for the total amount of $550,000.
The prosecution said the contract ended in 2008, amounting to $297,152, but Reksid recommended a change order for the contract that eventually amounted to $497,152 in favor of Scott’s AMPRO.
But Hanson said there’s no expedited payments extended to AMPRO through Reksid’s representation as alleged by the prosecution.
O’Malley earlier told jurors Reksid extended three benefits to Scott: favorable treatment on invoicing, recommendation for extension, and improper routing of an amended contract.
Among the witnesses called by the prosecution were Lt. Gov. Eloy Inos, then-Finance secretary, former DPL Secretary John Del Rosario, and other former or current officials involved in the Brownsfield project.
Reksid was indicted last November. He denied the charge and was released after issuing a $25,000 unsecured bond.
