Trust Territory v Ogo [1967] TTLawRp 13; 3 TTR 287 (2 June 1967)

3 TTR 287

TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS,
Plaintiff

v.

MISAEL HOCOG OGO,
Defendant

Criminal Case No. 202
Trial Division of the High Court
Mariana Islands District

June 2, 1967

Defendant was indicted for offense pertaining to United States mails and moved for dismissal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and lack of prosecution. The Trial Division of the High Court, Associate Justice Joseph W. Goss, held that Trust Territory had jurisdiction of offense, and that accused suffered no serious prejudice beyond that which ensued from ordinary and inevitable delay in prosecution of case.

Motions denied.

1. Criminal Law - Double Jeopardy

Same act may constitute offense against two sovereignties and may be punished under laws of each.

2. Criminal Law - Rights of Accused - Speedy Trial

Court has discretion to dismiss information, complaint or citation if there is unnecessary delay in bringing accused to trial. (T.T.C., Sec. 492)

3. Criminal Law - Rights of Accused - Speedy Trial

It is burden of prosecution to take necessary steps to bring criminal matter to trial.

4. Criminal Law - Rights of Accused - Speedy Trial

If delay in prosecution of criminal case is result of deliberate or negligent actions on part of prosecutor and he fails to show accused suffered no serious prejudice beyond that which ensued from ordinary and inevitable delay, defendant's Sixth Amendment rights have been denied.

5. Criminal Law - Rights of Accused - Speedy Trial

Where delays in prosecution of criminal case are due in part to absences of Public Defender, District Attorney and essential witness from Trust Territory, and affidavits stating case would be dismissed enabled defendant to obtain employment, accused suffered no prejudice beyond that which ensued from ordinary and inevitable delay.

Assessor: HON. IGNACIO V. BENAVENTE
Interpreter: FELIPE SALAS
Counsel for Plaintiff: D. KELLY TURNER, ESQ.
Counsel for Defendant: ROGER ST. PIERRE, ESQ.

GOSS, Associate Justice

Arguments were heard on motions of the Defendant that the amended information be dismissed on the grounds of (1) lack of jurisdiction and (2) lack of prosecution. Memoranda of law, replies to motions and affidavits were filed on behalf of the parties.

With regard to the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction "because the offense if any is cognizable only in a United States Federal District Court", Defendant claims that offenses pertaining to the United States mails can only be prosecuted in United States courts.

[1] This position is not in accord with a long series of cases in which it has been held that the same act may constitute an offense against two sovereignties and may be punished accordingly under the laws of each. (See 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 394). The case of United States v. Amy, 14 Md. 149, Fed. cases Nos. 14,445(1859), 16 ALR 1231