State of Yap v. Isaac Tuluk

STATE COURT OF YAP

IN THE

TRIAL DIVISION

cite as Yap State v. Tuluk, (Yap, 1994)

[page 1]

THE STATE OF YAP,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

ISAAK TULUK,

Defendant(s).

Case No. 1994-139 & 1994-237

RULING ON MOTION

Although many arguments have been presented about dismissal of information where a prosecutor has a conflict of interest, we find no such conflict in this case. While we agree with the defendant that if a conflict of interest exists an information filed due to such conflict should be dismissed, we find no conflict in this case. Simply because the victim might be related to the prosecutor filing the information does not create a conflict that would require dismissal in Yap. To remove a prosecutor, and thus dismiss an information, more must be shown in order to show a conflict of interest.

We must also take this opportunity to say that this court is quite disappointed by the actions of the counselors. The Yap Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 49(d), says that all filings in criminal matters shall be filed in the manner provided by the Civil Rules of Procedure. The Civil Rules of Procedure, Rule 6, states that a motion shall be filed within 14 days of the hearing and a response thereto shall be filed within ten days of receipt of such motion. This gives the Court four days to consider the motion. The rules do not consider any further response or

[page 2]

replies. However, since both parties have felt the need to flood this court with responses to replies to motions, an responses to responses to replies to motions, and then a limited response thereto, we will continue along the presumption that parties have been given more than enough opportunity to be heard. If the parties, by their own actions, wish argument to be had by redundant paperwork then this court will continue the tradition and dispense with oral argument.

Evidence allowed and trial will continue.

Dated: 12/12/94

/s/

Justice -Yap State

Filed: 12/14/94

/s/

Clerk of Courts


	STATE COURT OF YAP IN THE TRIAL DIVISION cite as Yap State v. Tuluk, (Yap, 1994) [page 1] THE STATE OF YAP, Plaintiff(s), vs. ISAAK TULUK, Defendant(s). Case No. 1994-139 & 1994-237 RULING ON MOTION Although many arguments have been presented about dismissal of information where a prosecutor has a conflict of interest, we find no such conflict in this case. While we agree with the defendant that if a conflict of interest exists an information filed due to such conflict should be dismissed, we find no conflict in this case. Simply because the victim might be related to the prosecutor filing the information does not create a conflict that would require dismissal in Yap. To remove a prosecutor, and thus dismiss an information, more must be shown in order to show a conflict of interest. We must also take this opportunity to say that this court is quite disappointed by the actions of the counselors. The Yap Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 49(d), says that all filings in criminal matters shall be filed in the manner provided by the Civil Rules of Procedure. The Civil Rules of Procedure, Rule 6, states that a motion shall be filed within 14 days of the hearing and a response thereto shall be filed within ten days of receipt of such motion. This gives the Court four days to consider the motion. The rules do not consider any further response or [page 2] replies. However, since both parties have felt the need to flood this court with responses to replies to motions, an responses to responses to replies to motions, and then a limited response thereto, we will continue along the presumption that parties have been given more than enough opportunity to be heard. If the parties, by their own actions, wish argument to be had by redundant paperwork then this court will continue the tradition and dispense with oral argument. Evidence allowed and trial will continue. Dated: 12/12/94 /s/ Justice -Yap State Filed: 12/14/94 /s/ Clerk of Courts