‘Investigation on Villagomez done by the book’

The U.S. government did not violate any due process procedures in its investigation of Lt. Gov. Timothy P. Villagomez and his three co-defendants, according to a U.S. government lawyer.

Assistant U.S. attorney Eric O’Malley said the conduct described in Villagomez’s motion alleging “outrageous” government conduct “was not excessive, flagrant, scandalous, intolerable, or offensive.”

“The motion identifies no case, statute, regulation, code, rule, philosophy or ethical stricture that was violated by the government’s investigation. Consequently, there was no violation of due process,” said O’Malley.

The prosecutor made the argument in the U.S. government’s response to the motions filed by Villagomez and co-defendants James A. Santos and Joaquina V. Santos to dismiss the indictment.

In Villagomez’s motion, attorney David J. Lujan stated that the U.S. government’s conduct in bringing the charges against him was “outrageous.” Lujan said the charges against Villagomez were fabricated and that the federal court should dismiss the indictment.

The Guam lawyer said the U.S. government used “deceptive and coercive” means to fabricate a charge against the lieutenant governor.

“Specifically, it used the Public Auditor of the CNMI to create the appearance that witnesses—most, if not all, government employees of the CNMI—were compelled to cooperate with the United States,” he said.

Lujan also alleged that the U.S. government coached, instructed, and trained Anthony Guerrero, one of the defendants, to attempt to entice Villagomez to commit a criminal violation of some sort to fabricate a case against him.

Lujan also filed motion for a bill of particulars and a motion to dismiss indictment for failure to state an offense. The co-defendants joined in the motions.

In the U.S. government’s reply to the motions, O’Malley pointed out that the sufficiency of an indictment is not determined by whether it can be more definite or certain.

“Rather, an indictment is sufficient if it contains every element of the charged offense, fairly informs a defendant of the charges against him, and enables him to claim an acquittal or conviction to bar future prosecution for the same offense,” he said.

A bill of particulars, the prosecutor said, is not needed if an indictment provides enough detail to inform the defendants of the charges against them and full discovery has been provided.

In this case, O’Malley noted, the U.S. government has turned over, or has made available for inspection, all discovery materials in its possession.

He said there are roughly 100 documents directly related to the transactions at issue and that the U.S. government has already reviewed those documents with counsel for each of the defendants.

O’Malley said the U.S. government has explained to the defense lawyers its theory of the case.

“In short, the U.S. government has done more than is required to advise the defendants as to the nature of its evidence,” he said.

The indictment charged Villagomez, former Commerce Secretary James Santos, his wife Joaquina Santos, and former CUC executive director Anthony Guerrero with wire fraud, conspiracy, and theft involving federal funds.

Guerrero has already pleaded guilty. Villagomez and the Santos couple have maintained their innocence of the charges.