CHIEF Public Defender Douglas Hartig said a jail sentence or order to pay restitution isn’t of much effect if the person ordered is not here.
He is referring to the recent ruling of the CNMI Supreme Court denying the petition of the Attorney General’s Office, which wants the high court to direct the trial court to continue the sentencing of Jiang Hong Sheng who has already fled the CNMI.
“I would just note that a sentence ‘in absentia,’ which is what was asked for, doesn’t have an effect whereas the issuance of a bench warrant, as was done here, might,” Hartig added.
“We are not the mainland and so we should not be expected to apply all the rules of the federal criminal justice system here. Even on the mainland states have rules that differ significantly from the federal system,” the public defender said.
“But maybe we should consider supporting some rule changes trending on the mainland,” he said, “such as requiring a prosecutor to give police reports and witness statements to accused people sooner; applying evidence rules at court hearing like probation revocations to ensure a more fair process; requiring a preliminary hearing or grand jury indictment in all felony cases to root out unwarranted accusations before trial; the elimination of cash bail so that people are not in prison before proven guilty; and increase rather than restrict, as is increasingly done here, access to parole to encourage, rather than stifle, self-improvement and reform while in prison.”
These are trends that may be worth consideration, Hartig said.
In their ruling, CNMI Supreme Court Chief Justice Alexandro Castro, Justice John Manglona and Justice Perry Inos Sr. held that Superior Court Associate Judge Kenneth L. Govendo did not err in not sentencing the defendant in absentia.
In response to the ruling, Chief Prosecutor John Bradley said: “The Supreme Court ruled that the current version of the rules of criminal procedure do not authorize sentencing in absentia, even though federal rules, which are the source for CNMI rules, have been modernized to allow for it.”
Bradley added, “We can only hope that the Supreme Court or the Legislature will move with great speed to update the law to match the modern approach to proceeding with sentencing for criminals that deliberately flee the jurisdiction after conviction.”
The defendant’s jury trial was held on May 14-21, 2018. He was found guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery, and disturbing the peace.
The case stemmed from an apartment rental dispute between the defendant and another person that turned violent.
Sentencing was set for Nov. 27, 2018 but because of the devastation caused by Super Typhoon Yutu on Oct. 24-25, 2018, and the time it took the Office of Adult Probation to prepare the pre-investigation report, sentencing was reset for March 26, 2019.
Prior to trial and during the pendency between conviction and sentencing, the defendant was released on a cash bail of $6,250.
After he failed to appear for the March 26, 2019 sentencing hearing, a bench warrant was issued, and his cash bail was forfeited.
