Manglona says Miura’s argument misses the mark

Superior Court Associate Judge Ramona V. Manglona says Kazuyoshi Miura’s argument that his situation presents special circumstances that allow for bail “misses the mark.”

Citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case that, according to Manglona, resembles in some respects to those of Miura’s as argued, “it is for the California courts to do justice in this case based upon its substantive law and procedures, not the CNMI courts,” she said.

Manglona gave the statements in a written order she issued yesterday, denying Miura’s motion for bail modification.

“Interpreting the omission of any provision for bail in the CNMI’s extradition statute as an implied acknowledgement of the Court’s discretion to allow bail, or to find special circumstances for the exercise of the Court’s inherent powers or the application of Commonwealth rules of criminal procedure on the basis of an assessment of the merits of the California charges, would constitute an unjustifiable judicial interference with the ‘summary and mandatory executive proceeding’ contemplated by the extradition law,” she said.

Miura’s counsel had moved to modify the bail. The defense counsel’s position is that denial of an opportunity for the 60-year-old Miura to obtain bail violates rights provided him under the U.S. and CNMI Constitutions.

In addition to due process rights to liberty, the defense also maintained that Miura is entitled to bail under the “special circumstances” doctrine.

In opposition, the Attorney General’s Office argued that the CNMI extradition statute explicitly states that someone who is charged with capital offense is not entitled to bail.

In the hearing of the motion on June 19, Manglona orally denied Miura’s bail modification request.

In her written decision yesterday, Manglona said provisions of the CNMI’s Criminal Extradition laws permit bail for a person detained on a fugitive warrant—a warrant issued prior to a governor’s warrant—unless the person is charged by the requesting state with an offense punishable under the laws of that state by death or life imprisonment.

The statute, the judge pointed out, does not address the subject of bail in connection with the detention of a person arrested pursuant to a Governor’s warrant of arrest.

These provisions, Manglona said, exactly mirror the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. The federal Extradition Act does not mention bail at all, she said.

“This leaves the issue of the availability of bail subject to judicial determination in states that have adopted the Uniform Act. There is no controlling decisional law interpreting the CNMI’s extradition statute,” the judge said.

Manglona said majority of state courts regard the determination of bail as a matter essentially within the jurisdiction of the demanding state and that the delay caused by any challenge to extradition cannot confer upon the fugitive a right to bail in the asylum state.

In this case, Manglona said, Miura did not qualify for release on bail pursuant to CNMI’s Criminal Extradition law because he is charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder in California, where the penalties for these offenses include death or life imprisonment.

She said even the minority of Uniform Criminal Extradition Act jurisdictions, where courts have allowed bail for individuals held on a governor’s warrant of arrest, “the courts generally do not construe the statutes to permit the release on bail of an individual who would not have qualified for release under the provisions applicable to their detention on a fugitive warrant.”

The State of California is seeking Miura’s extradition on charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder in connection with the killing of his wife in 1981. Miura has been in jail since he was arrested at the Saipan airport last February.