James Santos’ counsel: Allegations would confuse jury

Former Commerce Secretary James A. Santos, the co-defendant of Lt Gov. Timothy P. Villagomez in the CUC fraud case, has argued that the “overt act” issue would confuse the jury and would be contrary to law.

Attorney Victorino DLG. Torres, counsel for Santos, asserted in a motion in limine that it would be confusing to the jury for the prosecutor to argue that the “overt act” that occurred between 1998 to 2000 is a basis for a conviction.

Motion in limine refers to a request submitted by a party in a case to the court before trial in an attempt to exclude evidence from the proceedings.

The prosecution has argued that there was one ongoing conspiracy, one ongoing agreement that began in 1998 and went dormant for a period and was reactivated in 2007.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric O’Malley stated in the indictment that on Dec. 7, 2007, James Santos signed a check in the amount of $15,000 drawn upon an account belonging to himself and his wife, Joaquina, and made payable to Villagomez.

O’Malley said that on that same day, Villagomez deposited the check into his personal bank account.

A day before that, Dec. 6, 2007, Joaquina Santos allegedly deposited a CUC Operations Fund check in the amount of $50,000 into an account belonging to Blue Pacific as payment for an order of Rydlyme, a de-scaling chemical.

O’Malley said that on Jan. 15, 2008, a co-conspirator, acting on behalf of CUC, authorized payment of $10,000 to Blue Pacific.

O’Malley said that on Jan. 16, 2008, Joaquina Santos deposited a CUC Operations Fund check into a Blue Pacific account.

The prosecutor said that on multiple occasions throughout the 2007 transaction, Villagomez, acting from the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, contacted co-conspirators, as well as other CUC officers and employees, and pressured them into concluding the contract with, and making the payments to, Blue Pacific and the Santos couple.

James Santos was the alleged owner and operator of a company named ISLAS, which supplied CUC with Rydlyme. ISLAS was then allegedly reconstituted under a different name, Blue Pacific.

Torres pointed out that the alleged “overt acts” must come within the statute of limitation from the date of the indictment and accordingly, all the alleged overt acts that allegedly occurred between 1998 to 2000 should be stricken.

“Such presentation or argument, if allowed to do so, would be highly prejudicial to the defendant in the minds of the jury in that they may believe that the alleged ‘overt act’ that occurred between 1998 to 2000 could be a basis for a guilty verdict,” he said.

The lawyer said an ordinary objection during the course of trial, even if sustained with proper instructions to the jury, will not remove such effect and an order in limine is necessary.

Should the court deny the motion in limine, Torres asked the court to instruct the jury that the alleged “overt acts” that occurred between 1998 to 2000 cannot be a basis for a conviction and that an “overt act” must come within the five years from the date of the indictment.

Torres said these allegations in the “overt acts” clearly fall outside the statute of limitations and cannot be a basis for conviction.

Citing a previous case, Torres said the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a conviction because it was impossible to discern which overt acts the jury relied upon in their conviction.

Accordingly, he said, it would be immaterial and unnecessary to the disposition of this case and contrary to the holding in the previous ruling to permit the prosecution from presenting arguments that the “overt act” could be any of the activities that occurred between 1998 to 2000 for purposes of a conviction.

Villagomez and his co-defendants had earlier filed several motions, but the court denied all of them.

The jury trial of the defendants will begin on March 30.