Ads by Google Ads by Google

Man charged with sexual abuse fires attorney just as trial begins

“I want to fire this lawyer, I want a new lawyer,” said James Barlow who stood up and intervened when the prosecutor was calling their first witness to the stand in the bench trial for Barlow before Chief Justice Michael Kruse Monday morning. Barlow was referring to Mark Ude, who was representing him.

 

Barlow, a former American Samoa Community College (ASCC) instructor, is accused of giving three minors alcohol, having them watch pornographic movies and allegedly having sex with the three boys. He has been in jail with bail set at $100, 000.

 

He’s facing two counts of sodomy; three counts of deviate sexual assault; two counts of child sexual abuse; three counts of furnishing pornographic materials to minors; three counts of aiding a child to possess and consume alcohol; three counts of endangering the welfare of a child; a DUI; careless driving; and, non possession of a driver’s license.

 

Prosecuting this matter is Deputy Attorney General Mitzie Jessop.

 

Barlow was before the court for a bench trial, however before proceeding with the trial, Ude had filed several motions earlier in the day which included a dismissal motion due to ASG’s failure to provide exculpatory evidence, a motion to recuse the Chief Justice and a motion to suppress accomplice statements or testimony by the three young men involved.  Kruse denied all motions.

 

In his arguments, Ude pointed out his motion to suppress the accomplice statements or testimony to be offered by the three young men. According to the motion, Barlow claims the government failed to disclose who they intend to call as witnesses and defense anticipates the three teenagers will be called.

 

Ude argued the juveniles in furtherance of their previous written statements should be excluded from testimony as they should be considered accomplices of the very crimes they attempt to bear witness to on behalf of the government.

 

“If, in fact, the American Samoa Government desires to proceed in this matter in its ongoing attempt to prove the crimes occurred, the Plaintiff is barred from having such testimony being ruled admissible, as it is uncorroborated testimony by accomplices.”

 

When Deputy AG Jessop spoke out of turn, pointing out that these juveniles are minors, Chief Justice Michael Kruse fined her $100.  This followed a warning which he gave her earlier about speaking out of turn. 

 

Ude also argued the government failed to do their due diligence to provide full discovery for defense. He pointed out there were affidavits provided by former Public Defender attorneys Leslie Cardin and Donna Clement, indicating the juveniles had told them, that “nothing happened.”

 

Jessop argued as to why Ude had waited until the last minute and not presented this matter to the government, as part of his due diligence as an officer of the court. Kruse also asked Ude why he had waited until the last minute before presenting the affidavits before the court. Ude did not give a clear response to the question.

 

Regarding the recusal motion, Ude said defense believes the matter has escalated to a point where the Chief Justice no longer remains impartial, and the defendant believes there now exists an appearance of impropriety, where Barlow will not receive a fair trial before the Chief Justice.

 

According to Ude’s motion, the court has an obligation to conduct trials for the ascertainment of truth, fairness, and the economy of time — and in this case, has done neither, because Kruse refused to correct the error of the Court Reporter regarding one hearing.

 

By Kruse failing to correct the error, he (Ude) alleged the court has not only failed to uphold its duty, but said failure to correct has compounded the appearance of hostility to the defendant’s Counsel, leading Defendant to believe the Chief Justice no longer appears to be impartial.

 

Ude in his motion further asked that the court reporter be recused, because she has made multiple errors in the transcripts that have been ordered to date, and therefore the record is not clean. Another issue Ude brought before the court was that this case did not have a pre-trial conference.

 

The last motion the court ruled on was Ude's motion to withdraw as counsel, which was  brought up when Barlow stood up — just before the government was about to call their first witness.  Barlow told the court “I want to fire this lawyer, I want a new lawyer".

 

 Kruse granted the motion and asked Barlow how much time he will need to search for a new lawyer. Barlow responded he would need a minimum of two months.

 

The prosecutor, however pointed out that the government is ready to proceed with their case. Kruse then ordered a bench trial scheduled for a status hearing next year February.

 

This was the second time Ude attempted to withdraw from this case; District Court Judge John Ward denied it the first time in March 2012.

 

According to the government’s case, the defendant was pulled over for suspected DUI when the police saw young boys in the vehicle who were also under the influence of alcohol. The juveniles were charged with underage drinking while the defendant was charged with a DUI and other traffic citations. Later the government filed the sex charges against the defendant, following an investigation into allegations the defendant had sex with the boys.

 

ASCC terminated Barlow’s employment not long after he was charged.