Joaquina Santos’ counsel: What is the US gov’t hiding?

The U.S. government’s “request for secrecy” between the federal court and the prosecution over the notebook used during the jury selection in the trial of former Lt. Gov. Timothy P. Villagomez and co-defendants James A. Santos and Joaquina Santos, “is ridiculous,” according to Joaquina’s lawyer.

Attorney Ramon K. Quichocho asked the U.S. District Court for the NMI to deny the U.S. government’s motion for in camera inspection of its notebook.

“The government wants to have a secret with the judge. What is the government hiding?,” Quichocho stated in Joaquina Santos’ opposition to the U.S. government’s motion.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric O’Malley said the notebook would be submitted in response to arguments and allegations that were levied against the U.S. government.

A legal proceeding is “in camera” when a hearing is held before the judge in his or her private chambers or when the public is excluded from the courtroom.

O’Malley said specifically, Villagomez and the Santos couple have claimed that the U.S. government engaged in an organized and intentional effort to seed the jury with relatives of witnesses.

“There was no such effort. The notebook would be provided so the Court may decide for itself whether there is any truth to the defendants’ allegations,” he said.

The prosecutor explained that the notebook is a compilation of the information received by the U.S. government’s jury consultants; it has not been changed or altered since it was used at trial.

But Quichocho said essentially, the U.S. government seeks to have the defendants’ motion for a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct, denied without a hearing and without any further arguments from defendants.

Citing a precedent Ninth Circuit ruling, Quichocho said “absent such compelling justification, ex parte proceedings are anathema in our system of justice and, in the context of a criminal trial, may amount to a denial of due process.”

The defense lawyer said as pointed out, the U.S. government’s proffered purpose in seeking to submit its notebook in camera and ex parte is to save the court and the defendants’ time and resources.

He said an in camera inspection by a court in chamber can never be a better substitute to a full disclosure, open inspection and examination that is conducted more openly and in the presence of all parties interested in the case.

Quichocho said a full disclosure of the contents of the government’s notebook in an open and adversarial proceeding where all interested parties are present, and allowed to participate, is appropriate here.

Defendants have a pending motion to disqualify U.S. District Court for the NMI chief judge Alex R. Munson.

Quichocho said his client therefore, does not waive any right to have an impartial judge.

He said to allow Munson to conduct an in camera inspection first being determined would seriously compromise the disqualification motion itself, and more importantly, the other more substantive motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for a new trial that was filed in this case.

Last April 24, the federal jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts against Villagomez and the Santos couple.

Last May 1, the defendants filed several motions, including motions for a judgment of acquittal or new trial based on allegations that the defense had learned after the verdict that some of the witnesses were related to some of the jurors.