Man accused of rape continues fight for disqualification of CNMI’s judges

The defendant in an ongoing rape case in the CNMI Superior Court continues to fight for the disqualification of all sitting Superior Court judges from hearing his case and has, once again, requested a stay on court proceedings pending a Supreme Court decision.

William Abraczinskas, the defendant in the case, has filed another motion for a stay of court proceedings, this time with the Superior Court, pending the Supreme Court’s ruling on his petition to disqualify all sitting Superior Court judges from hearing his case.

Abraczinskas, through Chief Public Defender Doug Hartig, says a stay in the proceedings is necessary because the defense is actively contesting the Superior Court’s continued jurisdiction in the matter.

“The Supreme Court has set a briefing schedule on this issue, with the response from the Superior Court due by Aug. 21, and a reply response due by Aug. 28. As currently scheduled, this court would hear motions related to trial before the Supreme Court has even received all the briefings, let alone issued a ruling as to defendant’s challenge regarding this court keeping jurisdiction on this case. It is therefore unreasonable to hold a pretrial conference before the briefings are due in the Supreme Court, and before the Supreme Court is afforded a reasonable amount of time to rule on this matter,” states the motion.

Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph Camacho, for his part, set a hearing for Abraczinskas’ motion for stay of proceedings for Aug. 25, at 10am.

Previously, the defense filed its motion for stay of proceedings with the Supreme Court.

However, in a recent ruling, the Supreme Court denied Abraczinskas’ motion, stating that he must first file the motion in the Superior Court.

“To grant a stay, Abraczinskas must show that moving first in the Superior Court would be impracticable; or state that, a motion having been made, the Superior Court denied the motion or failed to afford the relief requested and state any reasons given by the Superior Court for its action. The motion lacks a showing it was impracticable to first apply for a stay, or statement that the court denied or failed to grant the stay and its reason. Accordingly, the court denies the motion to stay the trial proceedings,” the ruling stated.

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, through Hartig, 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.