Villagomez’s argument vs Munson ‘fanciful speculations’

The U.S. government described as “fanciful speculation” former Lt. Gov. Timothy P. Villagomez’s argument that U.S. District Court for the NMI chief judge Alex R. Munson deliberately placed the prosecution’s witnesses near the jurors as a ploy to persuade the jurors to convict.

Villagomez had claimed prejudice because of the placement of U.S. Marshals and security personnel inside the court, and because Munson did not allow Villagomez’s supporters to sit within “direct eye contact” of, and in “close proximity” to the jury.

In the U.S. government’s response to Villagomez’s motion to disqualify Munson, Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric O’Malley said the Sixth Amendment requires a trial judge to take reasonable measures to ensure that defendants get a fair trial that is free of prejudice and disruption.

“This may include restrictions placed on non-parties in his presence, as well as attorneys, parties, jurors, witnesses and court personnel outside the courtroom. A court may even exclude certain spectators altogether, provided there is a substantial reason,” O’Malley said, citing precedents.

In this case, he said, the security measures taken by Munson were “reasonable and well within practices accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit.”

Villagomez’s lawyer, David J. Lujan, stated in the motion that during the entire course of the trial, Munson allowed at least three to four U.S. Marshals and three to four security personnel inside the courtroom, all allegedly protecting the individual jurors and “providing the appearance that defendants and their families and friends were threats to the jurors’ safety.”

Lujan said no family or family supporters of the defendants were allowed to sit behind the government section during the course of the trial.

Lujan said these actions created the impression of the defendants’ prejudged guilt, and gave the government a strategic seating advantage—“to be in physical proximity to influence certain members of the jury.”

He also cited Munson’s alleged numerous comments demeaning the efforts of the defense counsel and reflecting his opinion regarding Villagomez.

He also alleged that the judge on several occasions helped the U.S. government in questioning witnesses and in the admission of evidence.

O’Malley said Villagomez’s claim of unfair treatment “fails on its face.”

O’Malley said the defendant gives no specific examples of unfair treatment, relying instead on counsel’s “opinion” that the judge’s demeanor was directed to the jury and was intended to imply guilt of the defendants.

He said it is the U.S. government’s position that Munson acted with restraint in the face of the defense counsel’s style of questioning, which was “repetitive, generally rude, often disrespectful, and at times offensive.”

To the degree that the judge expressed “impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, or even anger” with the defense, it was well within the bounds allowed by the Supreme Court, he said.

The jurors convicted Villagomez, his sister Joaquina Santos, and his brother-in-law James Santos on April 24 of conspiracy to commit offenses against the U.S., wire fraud, theft concerning a program receiving federal funds, and bribery.