Pago Pago, AMERICAN SAMOA — The government’s case against former Chief Immigration Officer (CIO), Peseta Dennis Fuimaono is now handed over to the panel of Judges to decide.

Associate Justice Fiti Sunia announced yesterday morning after counsels from both parties presented their closing arguments that the case is now under advisement and the court will issue its written decision at a later time.

The judges panel comprises Associate Justice Fiti Sunia assisted by Chief Associate Associate Judge Mamea Sala and Associate Judge Tunupopo A. Tunupopo.

Independent Prosecutor, David Vargas is prosecuting the case, while Togiola T. A Tulafono, who is also a senator, is representing the defendant.

In the case, it is alleged that as Chief of Immigration (CI), Peseta was behind the attempt to forcibly remove the alleged victim and her husband from the territory, sending them to Samoa on the Lady Naomi. The plan however did not eventuate, due to an Immigration agent who was on duty that day, and questioned the absence of written orders for the couple’s removal from the territory.

The charges against Peseta relate to a case involving the Governor’s Chief of Staff Fiu Johnny Saelua who pled ‘no contest’ to a reduced charge of third degree assault, stemming from allegations of sexual assault, made by a woman who had lived with Fiu’s family for decades.

CLOSING ARGUMENTS

While IP Vargas strongly believes that the government has presented enough evidence to support its case against Peseta, defense attorney, Togiola argued that none of the evidence connected his client to the alleged crime.

PROSECUTION

Vargas in his closing arguments pointed to the inconsistency in the statement by the defense’s only witness, while focusing on the evidence presented by Fiu Johnny Saelua and the female victim in this case, which demonstrated that the law was violated when the couple was taken from their home in Leone and transported to the wharf by two Immigration Officers (IOs), Ita’i Sataua and Jerry Gaisoa, on Dec. 1, 2016,

At the wharf, it was Immigration officer Sam Soliai, who was the acting supervisor that day, who didn’t allow the couple to board the vessel because they didn’t have the proper travel documents to travel.

Vargas recalled Fiu’s testimony — that he reached out to the defendant seeking his help regarding this couple that needed to be removed from the territory to prevent the female victim from filing charges against him.

Fiu, according to Vargas, clearly stated in court that he informed the defendant about his motive to remove the couple and the defendant understood the reason why he (Fiu) was seeking his help. And, when Fiu returned home, the defendant contacted him and informed him that the couple was on their way to the wharf.

Escorting the couple to the wharf in an attempt to forcibly remove them from the territory is a clear violation of the law — the crime of obstruction of justice by the defendant, according to the IP.

Vargas pointed out that the letter of termination of sponsorship was obtained by the two immigration officers at the American Samoa Insurance (ASI) office in Nu’uuli after they picked up the couple from Leone.

Vargas stated however that according to the testimony by the defense’s only witness, Paelo Puni Jr, it it was he who handed the letter of termination of sponsorship to Immigration Officer Sataua and instructed him to go to Leone and serve the couple.

But, according to the IP, evidence clearly states that when the two IOs went to Leone to pick up the couple, they didn’t have a letter of termination of sponsorship with them. They only obtained the letter at the ASI office in Nu’uuli after they picked up the couple from Leone. (The couple’s sponsor is said to own ASI.)

Vargas asked the court to carefully examine all the evidence and return with a guilty verdict against the defendant.

DEFENSE

In his closing arguments, defense attorney Togiola argued that no evidence presented by the prosecution connected his client to the alleged crime on Dec. 1st and the government fails completely to prove their case against his client. In particular, he pointed to Fiu’s hearing problem as casting doubt on his recall of events that happened in 2016.

Togiola recalled the testimony of Puni Jr, who stated that he ordered two IOs to go to Leone to pick up the couple and bring them into the office to discuss the issue of termination of sponsorship by their sponsor.

With regards to Fiu’s testimony, defense stated that Fiu has a hearing problem and he also had a hard time remembering events that happened in 2016.

For example, when questioned by the prosecutor, Fiu said he informed Peseta about his motive to remove the couple from American Samoa to prevent them from filing charges against him, however, when he was questioned in cross-examination whether he told Peseta about his motive, his response was, “I believe so.”

According to Togiola, Fiu is uncertain about events that happened in the past due to his hearing problem. Fiu’s testimony does nothing to connect his client to this case.

In closing, Togiola said that after all evidence presented to the court, the government failed to prove their case against his client beyond reasonable doubt.

DAY THREE TESTIMONY

The defense’s only witness told the court that it was he who instructed the two IOs to go to Leone and serve the letter in the matter regarding the couple who is the subject of this case.

Paelo Puni Jr, a supervisor at the Immigration Office was the only witness Togiola called for their defense.

It should be noted that the two IOs — Sataua and Gaisoa — no longer live in American Samoa.

Puni Jr testified that on Dec. 1st, 2016 he had a meeting with Sinu’u Toelupe, who came to ask about the termination of sponsorship process. As a result of their discussion that day, Toelupe handed Puni Jr a letter of termination of sponsorship and according to Puni Jr, he handed the letter of termination to Immigration Officer, Sataua and instructed him to go ahead and serve the person who is mentioned in the letter of sponsor termination.

According to Puni Jr, he ordered Sataua to go to Leone and bring the couple to the office to discuss the matter. He further stated that he did this with his authority as supervisor of the Investigation Division.

“On Dec. 1st, did your office have any action to deport the victim and her husband,” Togiola asked.

The witness said, “No, the order I gave Ita’i was to go to Leone and bring the couple to the office.”

The witness also stated that based on his discussion with sponsor Toelupe, the reason for the termination of sponsorship was that the couple is no longer living with her. According to Toelupe, the couple moved out from her residence and was living with another family.

In cross-examination, IP Vargas asked the witness if he knew who signed the termination letter handed over to him by Toelupe. The witness replied that it was Toelupe who signed the letter.

However, Vargas reminded the witness that Toelupe testified in court that she did not sign the termination letter.

The witness replied that he had no knowledge about that issue. All he remembers was that the letter that was handed over to him was signed by Toelupe.

When questioned by Vargas about his statement to investigators, the witness said he never made a statement to investigators. The only statement he made and signed was handed over to the Attorney General at the time, along with the Governor.

He never gave investigators a signed statement. They only discussed the issue on hand and the process regarding deportation and termination of sponsorship.

An effort by IP Vargas to have statements made by the immigration officer who is no longer on island included in testimony was objected to by defense attorney Togiola and sustained by the court.  Likewise with testimony for the prosecution by Ipu Lefiti was deemed not relevant by the court. The court stated Lefiti’s recollection of events that occurred on Dec. 15 and thereafter are not relevant to the charges against the defendant, which arose from an event that occurred on Dec. 1.