Camacho directed to recuse self from sex assault case

The Supreme Court has ordered Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph Camacho to recuse himself from hearing a “he-said, she-said” sexual assault case between two Superior Court employees and directs the Superior Court to reassign the case to another judge

Supreme Court Justices John A. Manglona and Perry B. Inos ruled yesterday in favor of William Abraczinskas, a former Superior Court law clerk, granting his petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition that essentially disqualifies all Superior Court judges from handling his case and ordering the appointment of a judge pro tempore instead.

Specifically, by issuing this writ of mandamus, the Supreme Court orders Camacho’s recusal from this case.

The high court order explained that even though a motion to disqualify all five judges is overbroad, Camacho, at least, must recuse himself due to the appearance of impropriety that comes from a judge of the Superior Court presiding over a case involving two Superior Court employees.

“This opinion vacates the lower court’s denial of a motion to disqualify all judges of the Superior Court. [Camacho] must recuse himself from presiding over a case involving two employees of the Superior Court,” said the order.

Abraczinskas is being accused of sexually assaulting his co-worker but he claims he was the one who was sexually assaulted and that he had filed a complaint with the CNMI Judiciary’s Human Resources prior to the rape complaint being filed against him.

According to the Supreme Court order, the Superior Court committed clear error by failing to grant the petitioner’s motion for disqualification.

“The balance of the Tenorio factors weighs in favor of granting mandamus. The Superior Court committed clear error by failing to grant petitioner’s motion for disqualification under 3308(a). Petitioner has no adequate means of obtaining the desired relief because he risks damage or prejudice in a way not correctable on appeal. While the error is not one that is oft-repeated or manifests a persistent disregard for the rules, it does raise new and important problems and issues of first impression. For the foregoing reasons, Abraczinskas’ petition for writ of mandamus is granted, and the Superior Court’s order denying the motion for disqualification is vacated. The Superior Court shall reassign Abraczinskas’ case to another judge,” states the order.

Abraczinskas had argued that all Superior Court judges should recuse themselves because the case involves two court employees.

Abraczinskas argued that the Commonwealth Code requires that a judge recuses when a reasonable person would find that the judge’s continued presence over the case would create the appearance of impropriety.

“The Supreme Court emphasized the extraordinary and unique circumstances of the case. Though judges may typically decide on their own recusal, the court found that this issue presents new and important problems, justifying this extraordinary type of relief,” a press release from the Supreme Court states.