The attorney for the former director of the American Samoa Historic Preservation Office, Epifania Suafoi-Tauai, contends that his client has been denied due process and equal protection of the law offered under the American Samoa Constitution.
Attorney Neal Connors Tuesday filed a motion to dismiss the criminal case against Suafoa-Tauai, who is charged with public peace disturbance—a Class B misdemeanor, and third degree assault—a Class A misdemeanor. The defendant is accused of slapping a cashier at Kruse’s store on February 16, 2025.
In his filing before the District Court, Connors said it appears from all evident facts in this case that “a rush to judgment has occurred” in the filing of the subject complaint.
He said from the outset, commencing with the filing of a written complaint, defendant’s subsequent arrest, and booking on criminal charges, and ASG’s subsequent application for appointment of an independent prosecutor over two months later, ASG has violated his client’s due process rights in failing to comply with the express statutory requirements for this particular case.
He said Suafoa-Tauai, who, at the time, was an appointed director of ASG was a covered person subject to the provisions of Title 4 of the American Samoa Code Annotated, particularly Sections 4.0801-4.0803, which calls for a preliminary investigation with respect to certain covered persons to include “any appointed contract, or career service director, office/agency head or other public official.”
He lays out that the defendant was charged by criminal complaint, arrested and taken into custody less than 10 days after an incident in the community, which involved allegations of both a Class A and Class B misdemeanor. “While the statute calls for a preliminary investigation, except when it involved Class B or Class C misdemeanors, or infractions, handling of the defendant’s case has been so patently violative of the statute to such a degree that the defense believes that the complaint on both charges is deficient and should be dismissed with prejudice,” argued Conners. He added that defendant’s employment contract as a director with ASG was terminated as a result of the initiation of legal proceedings “without just cause” on March 2.
Connors cites the High Court ruling denying the Attorney General’s Office application for an independent prosecutor. “Although ASG has curiously captioned its application as an investigation, we find that the preliminary investigation with respect to certain covered persons as contemplated by the enactment is not indicated on the underlying facts before us.” Connors said, in short, ASG put the cart before the horse in failing to properly initiate or conduct a preliminary investigation, for in the very next sentence of the same order, the court writes, “We take judicial notice of ASG’s pending prosecution in the District Court against defendant Epifania Tauai which has been ongoing as of February 25… This course of action undeniably bespeaks the antithesis of a section 4.0801 preliminary investigation, the antecedent of a meaningful referral to an independent prosecutor.”
District Court Judge Jon Clemens has set a hearing on the motion to dismiss for July 28.
