Judged orders extradition of Miura

Superior Court Associate Judge Ramona Villagomez Manglona denied Kazuyoshi Miura’s petition for habeas corpus yesterday and ordered his extradition to Los Angeles, California, where he is facing charges in connection with the killing of his wife in 1981.

Manglona also denied a request by Miura’s lawyers to stop the execution of the order as they are appealing the decision to the CNMI Supreme Court.

These decisions prompted William M. Fitzgerald, one of Miura’s three lawyers on Saipan, to file yesterday afternoon with the CNMI Supreme Court an emergency motion for a stay of extradition and removal, pending their appeal.

Just as Manglona was concluding her oral decision, seven Corrections officers entered the courtroom and six of them ranged themselves behind the 61-year-old Miura, who was silently sitting beside his interpreter and three lawyers.

Further arguments, however, ensued when another Miura lawyer, Bruce Berline, stood up and showed the court copies of their motions to stay and appeal.

Fitzgerald argued that the court should wait for just two weeks because the California court is expected to issue a ruling in Miura’s motion to quash the warrant and dismiss the case by Sept. 26.

“It’s common sense that that we should simply wait [for] that decision,” Fitzgerald said.

In denying the petition for habeas corpus, Manglona said she thoroughly reviewed all the pleadings and precedents mentioned in the case.

Citing previous 9th Circuit rulings, Manglona said it is clear that the whole double jeopardy issue cannot defeat the habeas petition proceeding in the courts of an asylum state.

Manglona said she finds the arrest of Miura under a governor’s warrant valid and that since all the requirements of the extradition statute have been met, she has the mandate to order his extradition.

“I agree with the arguments of the prosecution that some points are not contested,” said the judge, referring to the issues whether the extradition documents on their face are in order, whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state, and whether he is a fugitive.

Manglona said Miura has the right to appeal and that she is going to issue a written decision.

At this juncture, Berline informed the court that they have a motion to stay and appeal.

“If removed, he will lose his appellate right and the appeal will be moot,” Berline asserted.

Assistant Attorney General Jeffery Warfield Sr. asked the court to deny the motion to stay, arguing that it has no merit and that it is only intended to further delay the case.

“There is no ground for appeal. Your court can’t ignore the law,” Warfield told Manglona.

Fitzgerald joined in the argument: “I’m not asking you not to follow the law! I’m asking you to follow the law!”

Warfield said that Miura’s extradition should take place at once because his lawyers have not presented any legal arguments that they’re likely to succeed before the Supreme Court.

“Our statutes require and appellate court rules require that an appeal must be taken in good faith. You have to have some success or some possibility of success of winning on the merits,” Warfield said.

In a later interview, Warfield said they’ve already stated before that, in reviewing a habeas corpus petition in an extradition matter, there are only four questions that a judge should consider.

“One, is it the right person that’s named in the warrant? He can basically say it, ‘Yes I’m Kazuyoshi Miura,’” the prosecutor said.

The second, he said, is whether or not Miura was present in California when the crime was committed.

“We all agree and he agreed that, ‘Yeah, in 1981 I was there with my wife.’ Did he leave California after the crime was committed? Yes, he did he went back to Japan,” Warfield said.

The other issue is, whether or not Miura is charged with the crime in the state of California.

“We have a valid arrest warrant from the State of California charging him with murder and conspiracy to commit murder,” Warfield pointed out.

And the fourth question, he said, is a technical issue—whether all the paperwork sent from California are appropriate and sufficient.

“The court found that yes, it is. And that’s it. That’s the only thing the court can look at. They [Miura’s lawyers] continually tried to argue that he couldn’t be prosecuted in California because of double jeopardy but our courts could not look at double jeopardy issues,” he said.

Warfield said it is up to the California court to rule if there is a double jeopardy defense.

“That’s not for us to decide. We don’t look at his guilt or innocence. The only thing that we look at is: Is he the person wanted by the State of California? If he is, we’re obligated by the Constitution. We have to send him [there],” he added.

Warfield said he does not know when Miura will be sent to California.

After yesterday’s hearing, Warfield said he called the L.A. District Attorney’s Office to inform them about Manglona’s ruling. He said the LADA will contact the L.A. Police Department to let them know that Miura is now ready for extradition.

“It is up to them to make the flight arrangements to get him back to California. I have no idea when they are going to come,” he said.

In the emergency motion filed with the Supreme Court, Fitzgerald said the appeal raises serious issues and the hardship of extradition would weigh heavily against Miura.

Fitzgerald said in order to preserve the high court’s jurisdiction and Miura’s right to appeal these substantial due process questions, the court should immediately stay the extradition.

The high court, he said, should order that Miura be not removed from the CNMI until a mandate of the court is issued.