Villanueva loses bid to evade criminal trial

CNMI Superior Court Presiding Judge Roberto Naraja dismissed Shayne Villanueva’s attempt to evade his criminal trial by asserting technicalities in the contempt charge he faces.

In early March 2024, Mr. Villanueva appeared before the CNMI House anti-corruption investigative committee and refused to answer all but one of the panel’s questions.

“At the hearing, [Villanueva], on the advise of his counsel, invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to every question asked by the Committee but one,” Judge Naraja wrote in his order denying Mr. Villanueva’s motion to dismiss the case and another motion he made to strike portions of the charging document he believes were “surplusage.”

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, among other rights, the right of a person in custody to not incriminate himself. Defendants also have rights to be assisted by lawyers in criminal proceedings. The Commonwealth’s laws dealing with testimony before a legislative investigative committee also allow those under question by legislators to be assisted by lawyers. Mr. Villanueva appeared before the House investigative panel because the panel subpoenaed him to testify regarding his role and his business’s role in the scandal-ridden Building Opportunity, Optimism, and Stability Together (BOOST) federally funded program.

According to the charge filed against him and reiterated by the judge in his ruling today, states:

“Shayne Blanco Villanueva owns Roil Soil.
“Villanueva was in charge of BOOST Farmer/Fisher/Rancher grant applications, which he reviewed at the Bank of Saipan.
“Villanueva was allowed to review applications and Non-Stop and Roil Soil employees were brought in to help with the program.
“Villanueva applied for BOOST.
“Villanueva marketed the BOOST program as a subcontractors.
“Villanueva submitted invoices for services rendered and for travel related to BOOST.”

The defendant, who was charged by corruption prosecutor Jim Kingman on March 28, 2024, wanted the judge to dismiss the case on allegations that the anti-corruption committee violated his right to counsel and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

 

“[Villanueva] was neither a criminal suspect nor a criminal defendant,” Judge Naraja wrote in his discussion leading up to his denial of Mr. Villanueva’s motion to dismiss the case. “He was a witness in a legislative hearing. As such, the scope of his right to counsel is far more limited.”

Mr. Villanueva contended that his right to counsel was infringed because the legislature had his attorney sit behind him, and not with him at the table. “It is also unclear that any injury resulted from the seating arrangement,” Judge Naraja wrote. “He was permitted to consult with his counsel before the hearing and during recesses, and stated that he was pleading the Fifth ‘on the advice of [his] counsel,'” the judge found. “Given that other courts have imposed outright bans on ‘communication between a defendant and his lawyer during a brief recess,’ this seems to be a perfectly reasonable limitation.”

According to the ruling, Mr. Villanueva has argued that he was “entitled to a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege relieving him of the obligation to answer any BOOST-related questions,” the judge wrote, pointing out that Mr. Villanueva refused to answer such questions as where he attended college.

“Under federal law, blanket invocations of the Fifth Amendment are strongly disfavored,” the judge wrote.

“[Villanueva] argues that a blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment is proper as long as a witness’ testimony ‘put[s] them at a crime scene,'” the judge wrote, adding, “However, this mischaracterizes the exception to the prohibition on blanket assertions of the privilege against self-incrimination.”

The judge laid out in his ruling what lawmakers and several Kandit readers and viewers have commented and suggested: That Mr. Villanueva’s invocation of his perceived Fifth Amendment right to not answer questions stems from his fear that the answers he gives could reveal his criminal conduct.

“Defendant argues that any and all BOOST-related questions are potentially incriminating because hypothetically, if he had committed any violation of Commonwealth law, admitting to it before the legislative committee could expose him to criminal liability,” the judge wrote. “However, the prosecution has not stated any intention to pursue a criminal investigation into Defendant, nor is he named in the Information or the 2023 Referral Report.”

Judge Naraja delved into the matter of Mr. Villanueva’s refusal to answer questions from the legislators fundamental to forming foundations about his qualifications to run parts and market all of the BOOST program.

“If the questions about Defendant’s educational background revealed that he lacked the credentials for his position as a marketer of the BOOST program, it could furnish a link in the chain of evidence that those who hired him were misusing public funds,” the judge wrote. “It is not remotely evident to the Court that the two questions to which Defendant plead the Fifth could result in injurious disclosures. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss the Information based on Defendant’s right to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is DENIED.”

 

Motion to Strike

Mr. Villanueva prevailed on one part of his motion to strike assertions made by the prosecutor in the charge against him. According to Judge Naraja, a paragraph in the charging document concerning a question by anti-corruption committee chairman Ralph Yumul “describes uncharged criminal behavior that goes beyond the scope of the Information. The Court agrees that this is immaterial to the contempt charge, and the Government in its opposition does not address,” (that particular assertion).

Barring other potential pre-trial questions, the judge’s denial of Mr. Villanueva’s motion to dismiss now sets the case on a path to trial.