The defendants are Richmond Keybond, 20, and Joseph Saimon, 44. They were arrested in 2018 with Christopher Saimon, 40, and the now-deceased Romeo Saimon.
Richmond Keybond
The alleged victim is the former girlfriend of Joseph.
Romeo took his own life last year, and Christopher was found to be incompetent to stand trial because of a mental disability, so both cases were dismissed.
Keybond is represented by attorney Cong Nie while Joseph is represented by Assistant Public Defenders Jean Pierre Nogues and Emily Thomsen.
The prosecutors are Assistant Attorneys General Coleen St. Clair and Heather Barcinas.
On Wednesday, the prosecution argued for Rule 404 regarding Saimon’s alleged prior acts of domestic violence against the alleged victim.
Rule 404(b)(1) of the NMI Rules of Evidence states that evidence of a crime, wrongdoing, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
The court denied the prosecution’s Rule 404 motion, saying that the prosecution was supposed to provide reasonable notice of such evidence before the trial, or show good cause for lack of pretrial notice.
Joseph Saimon
Friday, the courtroom fell silent as the alleged victim testified, breaking down in tears as she described what she recalled about the alleged rape two years ago.
She said Romeo, Keybond, and Christopher each took turns raping her while she was intoxicated and in and out of consciousness.
She said that Joseph and Keybond then got into an altercation, resulting in Joseph throwing a cooler at her and telling her to leave the compound.
Aided by her sister and nephew, the alleged victim left the home, not mentioning to anyone that she was raped multiple times.
The following morning, the alleged victim returned to work, still not disclosing the rapes to anyone.
She said Joseph then coerced her to leave work to go home with him, threatening to post nude photos of hers if she did not comply.
She said she left her workplace and followed Joseph who, she added, sexually assaulted her.
She said she silently cried during the assault, trying to keep quiet so as not to alarm Joseph’s two young sons who were home at the time.
Although the alleged victim had been informed that she was not to provide any testimony about domestic violence against her by Joseph, she said she was scared of what Joseph would do to her because he could become physical with her at times.
The defense then said that although the court had ordered the jury to disregard that portion of the alleged victim’s testimony, they could not unhear what had already been said, and so there was no way that Joseph could have a fair trial.
Nogues said the jury would consider that Joseph was violent in the alleged incident, just as the alleged victim indicated he was in the past.
The prosecution said the jury could just disregard the statement, adding that it lacked clarity.
St. Clair said the testimony could be clarified: the alleged victim could allude to prior acts of violence against her person, outside of the scope of matters of the trial.
But the defense moved for a mistrial, which Judge Kim-Tenorio granted.
Following this ruling, the jury was dismissed. A new trial will be scheduled with jurors.
Chief Prosecutor John Bradley, for his part, said, “While we respect the decision of the judge, we disagree with it. Unfortunately, there is not an effective way to appeal a decision granting a mistrial, because once the jury is released, there is no way to continue the mistrial.”
He added, “We will continue to seek proper verdicts in jury trials and argue on behalf of all victims of crime, but especially those victims who have suffered from physical or sexual abuse.”
