FBI special agent testifies in Roberto’s trial
A Federal Bureau of Investigation special agent testified yesterday in the ongoing jury trial in federal court of former acting Division of Fish and Wildlife director Raymond B. Roberto.
Joe McDoulett said he was one of several FBI special agents involved in investigating Roberto.
Roberto, 40, is on trial on three counts of enticing three underage girls to engage in prostitution and one count of witness tampering.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Rami S. Badawy took just a few minutes to question McDoulett, primarily asking him to identify the prosecution’s exhibits that pertain to exchange of text messages between Roberto and the alleged victims.
Guam lawyer David J. Lujan, one of two private counsels for Roberto, was more extensive in his cross-examination of McDoulett. He will resume questioning the special agent today, Friday.
Responding to Lujan’s questions, McDoulett disclosed that he visited Parkville Motel in Gualo Rai thrice, including Wednesday night, as part of their investigation in Roberto’s case.
According to the allegations, Roberto brought the alleged victims to Parkville Motel several times.
The agent said he visited the motel Wednesday night just to observe the property. He said he just “turned around” after about five minutes and that he did not interview anybody there.
He said the first time he visited the motel was in August 2013 when police detective Melissa Bauleong showed him and FBI special agent Haejun Park the place in connection with their investigation.
McDoulett said they did not inspect the rooms in that visit.
He said the second visit was when he and other FBI agents served the subpoena to the motel management. He said Yoon Suk Chang, the owner of the motel, accepted the subpoena.
Chang completed his testimony yesterday morning.
McDoulett said he participated in the interview or investigation with one of the three alleged victims.
He said one of the girls told him that she ran away from the house of her father.
During the interview, he said the girl told him “the events that she suffered through.”
Lujan repeatedly asked the question whether the girl in their interviews stated that she ran away in March 2013 or in April 10 or 11, 2013.
McDoulett said the day mentioned was not April 10 or 11.
Lujan asked if the special agent remembers a letter from one of the girls, demanding payment of $400 from Roberto.
The prosecution objected. U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona Manglona directed the counsels for a sidebar.
On the alleged tampering allegations, McDoulett said Roberto, who was then under detention, directed Darlene P. Halstead to throw away or get rid of a SIM card for a cellphone.
In his opening statement on Wednesday, Badawy said that when the sex scheme was discovered, Roberto contacted a woman to get rid of evidence.
McDoulett said upon Roberto’s instruction, Randy Igisomar, an inmate at the Department of Corrections, contacted Halstead on the phone about getting rid of the SIM card.
Well, well, well. I guess the FBI don’t know that Parkville does not provide receipts to anyone. The fact that the FBI is alleging that there are receipts for those nights Roberto supposedly visited the establishment is already a clear indication that the FBI or its witness is lying. The defense team will surely come back to this witness once it completes its own set of visitation to the establishment under camera footage that the management does not issue any receipts upon utilizing its facility. The prosecution is so desperate to beat this case it is no longer interested in justice…just a win. But then again, Justice will prevail.
As we all know, reporters WILL spin any news to they’re liking and I am interested in fair reporting of what transpired in court. What is evident after reading this article is that it appears that the Judge did not allow this FBI agent to answer whether he remembers an extortion letter written by one of the girls, exposing a motive to accuse an innocent person (at this point and according to law, the defendant is innocent)…it begs 2 critical questions, 1) why is the judge preventing any response that may either exonerate the defendant or discredit the prosecution’s witness by revealing major inconsistencies or discrepancies in their statements? and; 2) is this really a “fair” trial given the judge’s refusal to allow a simple question to be answered, which may or may not exculpate the person being tried? Better the Judge just wear a coconut to court…brown outside but all white inside…
As we all know, reporters WILL spin any news to they’re liking and I am interested in fair reporting of what transpired in court. What is evident after reading this article is that it appears that the Judge did not allow this FBI agent to answer whether he remembers an extortion letter written by one of the girls, exposing a motive to accuse an innocent person (at this point and according to law, the defendant is innocent)…it begs 2 critical questions, 1) why is the judge preventing any response that may either exonerate the defendant or discredit the prosecution’s witness by revealing major inconsistencies or discrepancies in their statements? and; 2) is this really a “fair” trial given the judge’s refusal to allow a simple question to be answered, which may or may not exculpate the person being tried? Better the Judge just wear a coconut to court…brown outside but all white inside…
As we all know, reporters WILL spin any news to they’re liking and I am interested in fair reporting of what transpired in court. What is evident after reading this article is that it appears that the Judge did not allow this FBI agent to answer whether he remembers an extortion letter written by one of the girls, exposing a motive to accuse an innocent person (at this point and according to law, the defendant is innocent)…it begs 2 critical questions, 1) why is the judge preventing any response that may either exonerate the defendant or discredit the prosecution’s witness by revealing major inconsistencies or discrepancies in their statements? and; 2) is this really a “fair” trial given the judge’s refusal to allow a simple question to be answered, which may or may not exculpate the person being tried? Better the Judge just wear a coconut to court…brown outside but all white inside…