High court grants stay in rape case

The Supreme Court has granted a stay on the court proceedings against a man who is being accused of rape pending the court’s decision on the defendant’s previous petition to disqualify sitting Superior Court judges from hearing his case.

The Supreme Court has granted William Abraczinskas’ second motion to stay court proceedings in his ongoing rape case as it rules on the defendant’s previous petition to disqualify sitting Superior Court judges from hearing his case.

According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, because the Commonwealth has not alleged irreparable harm should a stay be granted in favor of the defendant, a stay can be granted.

“In considering the balance of the equities, the Commonwealth has not alleged, nor is there any evidence of irreparable harm to the Commonwealth should the motion for a stay be granted. Accordingly, the court grants petitioner’s motion, and orders the trial court to stay proceedings pending this court’s decision on the writs of mandamus and prohibition,” said the Supreme Court.

Abraczinskas has already filed twice his stay motion. The first motion he filed was denied because the Supreme Court stated that he must first file the motion in the Superior Court. After filing the motion for a stay with the Superior Court, Abraczinskas filed the same motion with the Supreme Court a second time.

“A motion for a stay of proceedings is proper because ‘to wait for a ruling on the Request for Stay in the Superior Court’ is ‘impractical.’ Under the standard set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court, to obtain a stay pending the disposition of a petition for a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must show ‘a fair prospect that a majority of the court will vote to grant mandamus,’ and that ‘a likelihood of irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay,” Abraczinskas’ motion stated. The Commonwealth did not file an opposition to the second motion. The High Court ruled in his favor the second time around.

The petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition essentially seeks a Superior Court order to disqualify all its judges and to appoint a judge pro tempore in the case.

Abraczinskas is a law clerk for Superior Court Associate Judge Kenneth Govendo and is a defendant in a rape case. He is accused of sexually assaulting a co-worker last April 8 and is facing charges of sexual assault in the first degree, assault and battery, and disturbing the peace,

The defendant recently filed a petition to disqualify all Superior Court judges from presiding over his case. Specifically, the defense requested the high court to issue writs of prohibition and mandamus, ordering Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph Camacho to make a finding consistent with the evidence presented at court, that the appearance of impropriety in this matter is unquestionable and that the trial court should recuse itself from this case.

The defense argues that the trial court order denying the defense’s motion to disqualify all Superior Court judges from this case, was erroneous as a matter of law. Abraczinskas, instead, wants a special judge to be appointed to hear this case instead.

Guma Hustisia