Supreme Court denied the govt’s motion in Ngiraingas case

Associate Justice Kathleen M. Salii denied the motion of the government asking the court to reconsider its June 12 decicion dismissing the case against Ngiraingas with prejudice.The Associate Justice in her decision dated June 24, said that the court finds no good cause to reconsider its earlier order which dismissed the consolidated cases with prejudice.Assistant Attorney General Michael Copeland on June 18 filed a motion for reconsideration after the court granted Ngiraingas motion to dismiss the case on June 12.The government in its motion moved the court to dismiss the case without prejudice instead of with prejudice to allow a new Special Prosecutor to carry on with the charges if the new prosecutor felt it was appropriate.The government argued that the court dismissed the case because the Republic has not taken the case to trial within the time frame established within the speedy trial act.The government in its motion explained why the Republic can’t take the case to trial.The government stated that the Attorney General’s Office currently don’t have a Special Prosecutor to try the case and it is the policy of the AGO not to handle the Special Prosecutor cases when the Special Prosecutor has already rested on.The government said the case was not dismissed due to any malfeasance on the part of the Republic, but because there was a problem that might cast the ability of the defendant to receive a fair trial in doubt.The government said the administration of justice will be negatively affected if the case is dismissed with prejudice.“The public needs to know that no one, regardless of their status or power, can skirt justice through procedural maneuvers. This is a case that should be decided on its merits whatever the result may be,”the government’s motion stated.But the Supreme Court in denying the motion for reconsideration said that the charges against Ngiraingas were filed in 2005 and nothing  in the file indicates any efforts by the Republic to proceed trial even after former Justice Miller issued his rulings on pending pre-trial motions in June of 2007.The Supreme Court added that “while the Speedy Trial Act seems to contemplate an indefinite continuance under x 403 (h)(9), at some point, a lengthy continuance would likely infringe on a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.”“The government’s proposed solution to dismiss the charges without prejudice to allow the Republic to remedy the problem in the future may have some merit if there were any way of knowing with some certainty the date that a new Special Prosecutor will be on board. But that does not seem to be the case,”Associate Justice Salii said in denying the motion.Ngiraingas was charged with misconduct in public office, ethics violation, aiding and abetting, bribery and misconduct in public office.He moved for the dismissal of the cases for violation of his right to speedy trial when the government failed to bring him to trial immediately.