Ads by Google Ads by Google

Woman convicted of marijuana possession charged with parole violation


Pago Pago, AMERICAN SAMOA — The Deposition Hearing for the woman who violated conditions of her 5-year probation is continued to Feb. 01, 2019. The court needs more time to monitor her new counseling program, which just started.

Musu Failauga, who was convicted of unlawful possession of marijuana, appeared in High Court last week for a Deposition Hearing. She is represented by Public Defender Michael White, while prosecuting the case is Assistant Attorney General Christy Dunn.

According to court filings, Failauga failed to comply with conditions of her probation, which include the successful completion of a drug counseling program.

White asked the court to adopt the recommendation by the Probation Office, which was included inside the Pre Sentence Report (PSR), to allow his client to remain on probation, and to attend the drug counseling program for which she is now being re-enrolled.

Chief Justice Michael Kruse smiled and asked White, “Are you saying that we should forgive and forget?”

White said all he’s asking for is to give his client more time to prove that she can finish her counseling program.

Prosecutor Dunn asked to continue Failauga’s deposition hearing for another time, so the court can monitor her actions — whether she is going to comply with conditions of her probation or not.

Kruse agreed with Dunn and said, “That makes sense.”

He then ordered Failauga to appear in court on Feb. 01, 2019 and reminded her that she has already failed to comply with conditions of her probation, which means, there is a chance the court can revoke her probation and order her to serve the period of detention that was suspended last year.


Failauga was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, to wit; marijuana, under a plea agreement with the government.

In exchange, the government agreed not to file any charges against her for signing a stolen check for $180 and cashing it at a Nu’uuli store.

The government also agreed that it would argue for the defendant to only repay the $180 to the store involved, as part of any court sentencing recommendation.