{"id":410776,"date":"2024-07-09T14:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-07-09T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/?p=410776"},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"-0001-11-29T14:00:00","slug":"Villanueva-continues-fight-over-self-incrimination","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/Villanueva-continues-fight-over-self-incrimination\/","title":{"rendered":"Villanueva continues fight over self-incrimination"},"content":{"rendered":"

Shayne Blanco Villanueva asserted his right to use Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination during his appearance in Superior Court yesterday.<\/p>\n

Villanueva\u2019s hearing was with regards to the contempt charge filed against him by the Office of the Attorney General for refusing to answer questions during legislative investigation on the previous administration\u2019s Building Optimism, Opportunity, and Stability Together grant program.<\/p>\n

Villanueva and his attorney Keith Chambers II, along with assistant attorney general James Kingman, who represented the government, appeared before Superior Court Presiding Judge Roberto Naraja and presented arguments on not only the OAG\u2019s charges against Villanueva, but also the motions brought up by Chambers regarding the irrelevant information used in his client\u2019s case, and violation of Villanueva\u2019s right to legal counsel during the legislative hearing of the BOOST program.<\/p>\n

On the motion to dismiss Villanueva\u2019s contempt of court charge, Chambers said that Villanueva had the right to plead the fifth, justifying the move, and saying that the questions posed has been conflicting and possibly self-incriminating for Villanueva.<\/p>\n

\u201cBOOST is a crime scene,\u201d said Chambers, arguing that whether recipient or administrator of BOOST, both parties have a viable fear of prosecution, as it is under investigation. \u201cMy client had the right to plead the Fifth on all those questions.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chambers enhanced his stance, saying that fear of being prosecuted when involved in BOOST was normal. \u201c…. the Commonwealth is very open about the fact that everyone in BOOST has criminal exposure… it\u2019s not some program like Medicaid… this is a program that was shut down… it has multiple people being prosecuted for it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chambers listed several other cases, not completely the same, but similar to Villanueva\u2019s situation, in which the Fifth Amendment was applied and regarded.<\/p>\n

Kingman argued that Chambers\u2019 case citations were not the same situation as Villanueva\u2019s case, especially since it was a legislative hearing. He said that the decision of the court was most likely to set a president for other cases, and therefore there has to be factual inquiries made.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf there is going to be an assessment of how the Fifth Amendment applies to the Commonwealth in relation to legislative hearings, that is going to be of course the first impression,\u201d he said. \u201cIf this is going to be an issue it\u2019s going to be one that\u2019s going to have to be developed through factual inquiry.\u201d<\/p>\n

In regards to the questions which Villanueva pled the Fifth to, of his education and certification that had been asked Villanueva by the legislature, Kingman stated that the questions were regular questions everyone will be asked in court. Kingman also said it is a bit exaggerated to say that the Commonwealth said everyone that has touched BOOST has criminal exposure.<\/p>\n

The attorneys also reinforced the arguments marked in their legal brief. According to those documents, the Commonwealth outlined several key points; stating that the Commonwealth\u2019s primary contention is against Villanueva\u2019s reliance on the Fifth Amendment to dismiss the charges, arguing that such a defense does not hold in this context.<\/p>\n

Kingman stated in his arguments, the disagreement on legal basis, difference in circumstances, statutory differences, and a requirement for court inquiry.<\/p>\n

On a legal basis, Kingman stated that the defense\u2019s reference, set in United States v. Covington, is not directly applicable to this case, and that a mere legal argument is insufficient to resolve the matter without further evidence.<\/p>\n

He also noted that the Commonwealth emphasizes the need for a detailed, fact-specific inquiry, unlike the Covington case.<\/p>\n

He also highlighted differences in the statutes cited by the defense, the Commonwealth argues that these statutes should be interpreted in the context of Commonwealth law, which may differ significantly from federal statutes.<\/p>\n

Kingman also stated the Commonwealth insists that the court must conduct a thorough factual examination to determine whether the Fifth Amendment privilege is applicable in this case.<\/p>\n

As for the blanket privilege assertions, Kingman argued that procedural differences exist and that a blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment does not automatically protect Villanueva from self-incrimination.<\/p>\n

The Commonwealth points out that the questions directed at Villanueva regarding his educational background and qualifications do not necessarily lead to self-incrimination and, therefore, should not be grounds for dismissal.<\/p>\n

The Commonwealth then requested that the court deny Villanueva\u2019s motion to dismiss, allowing for a factual determination to proceed.<\/p>\n

In their legal briefs, Chambers, countered the Commonwealth\u2019s arguments by emphasizing Villanueva\u2019s right to assert the Fifth Amendment.<\/p>\n

Chambers outlined several critical points in Villanueva\u2019s defense saying Villanueva\u2019s response underscores his right against self-incrimination as the cornerstone of his defense.<\/p>\n

Chambers argued that Villanueva contends that he was not obligated to notify the legislature about his Fifth Amendment rights, noting that the Commonwealth has not cited any legal requirement to the contrary.<\/p>\n

He argued that the cases referenced by the Commonwealth are inapplicable because they involve different scenarios, such as immunity grants or document production rather than oral testimony.<\/p>\n

Chambers emphasizes that he was not offered immunity, which makes the \u201cIn re Grand Jury Subpoena\u201d case irrelevant. Similarly, cases involving document production, like United States v. Navarro, do not apply since his case involves oral testimony.<\/p>\n

Chambers instead pointed to cases where witnesses were permitted to assert a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege in situations involving crime scenes or potentially incriminating activities, seemingly analogous to Villanueva\u2019s involvement with the BOOST program.<\/p>\n

Chambers argued that due to the ongoing investigation into the BOOST program and the potential criminal exposure he faces, his blanket Fifth Amendment assertion is justified. He requests the court to dismiss the charges, upholding Villanueva\u2019s right against self-incrimination.<\/p>\n

Naraja said the court will take both parties\u2019 arguments into consideration.<\/p>\n

The contempt charge filed against Villanueva came after he refused to answer the questions of the House Special Committee Federal Assistance & Disaster-Related Funding that is investigating the federally-funded BOOST program of the previous administration. Villanueva appeared before the committee on March 5, 2024, and invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when asked questions about BOOST.<\/p>\n

Villanueva is the owner of Roil Soil Marketing, which the administration of then-governor Ralph DLG Torres contracted to help market and promote the $17-million BOOST program in 2022.<\/p>\n

According to the House committee that\u2019s investigating the BOOST program, the documents it gathered indicated that Villanueva was paid by the previous administration $215,000 \u201cat the very least,\u201d for marketing the program.<\/p>\n

After refusing to respond to the committee\u2019s questions, the committee found him in contempt, and Speaker Edmund S. Villagomez (Ind-Saipan) transmitted to Attorney General Edward Manibusan a \u201ccertification of statement of contempt\u201d pertaining to Villanueva.<\/p>\n

The speaker cited 1 CMC Section 1306(a), which states that \u201ca person shall be in contempt if the person\u2026having appeared fails or refuses to testify under oath or affirmation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Last March 22, Villanueva self-surrendered to the Department of Corrections pursuant to a Superior Court issued arrest warrant dated March 11. He bailed himself out soon after.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Shayne Villanueva greets a community member who sat in for his hearing yesterday in Superior Court in Susupe.<\/p>\n

-CHRYSTAL MARINO
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Shayne Blanco Villanueva asserted his right to use Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination during his…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-410776","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-local-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/410776","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=410776"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/410776\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=410776"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=410776"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=410776"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}