L.A. judge hears arguments on Miura murder case

[B]TORRANCE[/B]—A Los Angeles County judge said Friday it would take him several weeks to rule on a motion to dismiss murder and conspiracy charges against a Japanese man who allegedly arranged for his wife to be killed in California more than a quarter century ago.

Kazuyoshi Miura is accused of conspiring to have his wife shot when they were visiting Los Angeles in 1981. Someone shot them as they stood by a downtown parking lot, hitting Miura in the leg and his wife, Kazumi Miura, 28, in the head. She died a year later from her wounds.

After a convoluted legal battle in Japan, Miura, now 61, was convicted there of murder, but that verdict was ultimately overturned in 1998 by the country’s high courts.

Superior Court Judge Steven Van Sicklen listened to lengthy arguments Friday about whether Miura, who was arrested while on a business trip to the U.S. territory of Saipan in February, should now stand trial in this country.

Miura, who waived his right to be present at the hearing via satellite link from Saipan, claims he should not answer to U.S. courts because he has already stood trial for his wife’s murder in Japan and therefore double jeopardy rules should protect him from a second trial.

Prosecutor Alan Jackson argued double jeopardy rules are not applicable because he never was tried in Japan for conspiracy to commit murder and because he never entered a plea under California law and was not tried here.

“The analysis comes down to this: The defendant never entered a special plea,” Jackson said.

Defense attorney Mark Geragos said the argument was “nonsense,” and that Miura does not need to have entered a plea here in order to be protected from a second trial.

“It’s quite simple,” Geragos said. “He was tried (in Japan) and he was acquitted there. That’s what triggers jeopardy.”

The judge said he would present a written ruling in court by Sept. 26.

The decision could be a split one, with a ruling that Miura can stand trial on the conspiracy charges but not the murder charge – or the other way round. Neither charge is restricted by a statute of limitation, Jackson said.

Loyola University law professor Stan Goldman, who viewed the hearing, said Van Sicklen seemed to be asking questions that were more probing of the prosecution than of the defense, a possible indication of his intent.

“I think the defense is going to sleep well tonight,” Goldman said. “(Van Sicklen) had a lot of problems with the prosecution.”

If Sicklen decides Miura should not stand trial, prosecutors would likely appeal the decision, Los Angeles County district attorney spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said. Goldman predicted the defense also would appeal any ruling unfavorable to them.

Though Miura has claimed the attack was carried out by robbers, authorities have long suspected Miura orchestrated the killing so he could collect on his wife’s life insurance.

As has been the case at every hearing, the courtroom was packed with members of the Japanese media. The tangled case has for decades captivated that nation.

Miura is also fighting his extradition from Saipan in separate hearings there.