Was Nakita Aguon the driver of the red jeep that destroyed Jerry Kitchen the evening of February 25, 2021 And if she was the driver, was she drunk? These questions remain one year into what has become the longest driving-under-the-influence misdemeanor trial in modern Guam court history. The prosecution has rested its case in chief, and the lone independent eye witness to the accident – a security guard named Ruthie Pachemwai – was not called to testify.
The three other occupants of the jeep the night of the accident – Ayesha Barcinas, Tracy Matanane, and an off-duty police officer named Joneen Terlaje – all told different versions of the events that night and could either not agree or not remember whether Ms. Aguon was drinking alcohol at all.
None of the police officers who testified could tell the jury Ms. Aguon was either the driver, or had been drinking alcohol.
One of the police officers wrote a report stating Ms. Terlaje lied to police in the second investigation into the crash.
The police officer, who responded to the crash, wrote a report stating Ms. Aguon was not intoxicated that night; and, the prosecution did not call him to the stand.
The only uninterested eye witness to the crash – Mr. Pachamwai – provided a statement to police that described the driver that night as someone other than Ms. Aguon.
And, just when the mayhem of the scandal reached its pinnacle, Ms. Aguon asked the court to dismiss the prosecutor, Grant Olan, accusing him of misconduct.
The trial ‘amnesia’ of the last two witnesses
Over the last two months, the jury sporadically was able to hear the testimony and cross examination of the prosecution’s final two witnesses: Ms. Barcinas and Jasmine Wenzel. Ms. Wenzel was dating Ms. Terlaje at the time of the crash.
Both told the jury Ms. Aguon was the driver. But, when pressed by defense attorney David Lujan, Ms. Wenzel admitted her then-girlfriend asked her to lie for her the night of the crash. As previously reported by Kandit, WhatsApp conversation between the two immediately before and after the crash show Ms. Terlaje admitting she was drunk and indicating she had crashed.
Prior to Mr. Lujan displaying the WhatsApp chat for the jury to see, Ms. Wenzel insisted she could not remember their conversation, or whether Ms. Terlaje asked her to lie.
Ms. Wenzel also said that after the four other women were released from the crash scene, she dropped three of the women back to their cars. She said Ms. Aguon did not appear to be drunk, and dropped her home. She testified to dropping Ms. Matanane to her “other half.” And she said that Ms. Barcinas appeared so intoxicated, both she and Ms. Terlaje were concerned when they dropped her to her vehicle at the Venue, the bar the women left before the crash.
Ms. Wenzel said she and her then-girlfriend decided to follow Ms. Barcinas, who was swerving and speeding, home to Oka, Tamuning.
Ms. Barcinas, questioned intensely by Mr. Lujan, repeatedly said “I don’t remember,” to nearly every question the attorney asked about her recollection of the evening.
And digging against her testimony that Ms. Aguon was the driver, Mr. Lujan questioned how she could remember anything if she didn’t even remember driving herself home that night, about two hours after the incident.
“So you were pretty, pretty, pretty drunk, right?” Mr. Lujan asked her. “I was drunk,” she replied.
In a police report, Mr. Pachemwai told police the woman who exited the driver’s door immediately after the crash was muscular, and had tattoos.
Ms. Aguon does not have any visible tattoos. And, according to surveillance footage that evening, was wearing a blouse with full sleeves.
Ms. Barcinas has an array of tattoos on her arm.
Despite Mr. Pachemwai’s lone eye witness account of the crash, Mr. Olan did not call him to the stand to testify. Neither did he call to the stand the police officer who responded to the scene, Christopher Champion.
Aguon: Olan threatened my right to a fair trial
During a break and in between testimony of Ms. Barcinas on August 15, Ms. Aguon alleges the prosecutor went on a prejudicial and vindictive rant against her while neither her attorney nor the judge were in the room.
Both Ms. Aguon and another witness to the alleged rant, Samde’lana Salas, wrote affidavits stating that after Mr. Lujan left the court room to retrieve files at his office, Mr. Olan began an angry rant.
Among their recollection of the alleged rant were, “I don’t care if this case takes five years, I will be here for five years;” and
“If I have to retry this case, I will retry this case.”
Ms. Aguon said that at some point, Mr. Olan looked straight at her and said, “I’m not going to let this go.”
“The fact that [assistant attorney general] Olan looked at Defendant when he said, “I’m not going to let this go” supports Defendant’s perception that he is personally biased against her and appropriately leads to the conclusion that Defendant will not get a fair trial if it is continued to be prosecuted by AAG Olan,” Mr. Lujan wrote in a motion to dismiss Mr. Olan from further prosecuting the case.
As part of the rant, Mr. Olan also made disparaging remarks about Mr. Lujan.
“The statements of AAG Olan … suggest that the Prosecutor’s pursuit of this prosecution for an alleged February 25, 2021 misdemeanor traffic offense for over two years, including several trial dates over the course of nine months, is motivated more by antagonism against Defendant and her attorney than a desire to see justice done,” Mr. Lujan wrote in his motion.
Judge Alberto Tolentino has scheduled the parties to argue the motion Tuesday.
3 Comments
Pedro
09/30/2023 at 12:20 AM
Troy, I have a question: is it not the AG’s role to do right by every living creature that roams Guam? I meant, how can the AG prosecute an innocent person knowing or after some facts surface on their investigation or on Mr. Lujan’s findings? Can the AG and staff sleep good knowing that they just sent someone to prison to save face? Who else is going to protect the innocence against the tyranny of the police force? Is it possible for the AG and Public Safety’s office to collude to protect the agencies and governor’s office? It seems like it is already happening.
Jesse Bautista Camacho
10/20/2023 at 11:00 AM
I understand the frustration with the delay in concluding this trial and the potential cover-up involved. It’s unfortunate when situations like this arise, as they can undermine trust in the justice system. It’s important to ensure that all the facts are thoroughly examined and that the truth prevails.
In cases like these, it’s crucial to have strong evidence and proper investigation to determine the truth. It’s commendable that Mr. Lujan has worked diligently to uncover all the facts and establish the innocence of Ms. Aguon. Transparency and integrity are indeed essential qualities for law enforcement officers to maintain.
While it can be disheartening to witness a lack of integrity, it’s important to remember that not all officers are the same. Many dedicated law enforcement professionals uphold the principles of justice and honesty. It’s crucial to address any misconduct and hold those responsible accountable, as it helps to maintain trust in the system.
In situations like these, it might be helpful to seek legal advice or support from organizations that work towards justice and fairness. They can provide guidance and assistance in navigating through such challenging circumstances. Remember, it’s essential to remain patient, persistent, and hopeful that the truth will ultimately prevail.
JESSE Bautista CAMACHO
12/06/2023 at 5:57 AM
This case has undoubtedly been heavily tainted from the very beginning, causing serious concerns and raising numerous questions. One of the glaring issues is the absence of any sobriety tests conducted during the investigation. This is alarming as sobriety tests are standard procedures in cases involving potential drunk driving incidents. The lack of such tests raises doubts about the credibility and thoroughness of the investigation.
Furthermore, it is quite unsettling to learn that police officers were among the passengers involved in this case. This immediately calls into question the impartiality and fairness of the investigation process. The presence of law enforcement officials in this manner undermines the accountability that should be expected in such cases.
Naturally, one cannot help but wonder where the accountability lies in this entire situation. It is clear that there has been a significant failure in holding those responsible for their actions. The lack of oversight and transparency is deeply troubling and indicates a glaring cover-up. Clearly, something is amiss here, and it does not require extensive education or expertise to recognize that there is a deliberate attempt to hide the truth.
The absence of a functioning justice system in this case is equally distressing. It raises concerns about the effectiveness and fairness of the legal system. One would expect that a case with such grave implications would be swiftly addressed and resolved. Sadly, this has not been the case, and the prolonged duration of this case only adds to the frustration and suspicion surrounding it.
In essence, it is evident that this case should have been dismissed right from the start. The presence of a notable individual involved indicates that there may be influential forces at play, prolonging the legal proceedings. This suggests that there is more than meets the eye, and the involvement of a “big fish” certainly contributes to the complexity and protraction of this case.
The implications of the misconduct by law enforcement officials in this case are far-reaching. It erodes public trust and confidence in the system, as it raises serious questions about the integrity of those tasked with upholding the law. It becomes increasingly challenging for individuals to trust and abide by the law when those in positions of authority demonstrate a lack of integrity.
In conclusion, the details surrounding this case, which has only occurred in Guam, exemplify a deeply concerning situation. The absence of sobriety tests, the presence of police officers amongst the passengers, the lack of accountability, and the obvious cover-up all contribute to the erosion of justice and fairness. Consequently, it diminishes public confidence in the legal system and raises concerns about the ability to enforce and adhere to the law.