v.
SMITH SIAUMAU, Defendant.
High Court of American Samoa
Trial Division
CR No. 108-00
November 22, 2000
[1] In deciding whether to
grant defendant a bond the court may consider:
(1) defendant’s demonstrated propensity for violent behavior toward
others, (2) attempts to contact and influence victims, (3) efforts to deceive
the court in obtaining release on bond, (4) the nature of the charges and (5)
the attendant circumstances as deposed to by the arresting officer in his
affidavit in support of the arrest warrant.
[2] Bond may be denied where
it appears defendant not only committed an infamous crime but that he is a
danger to the complainant and society if released on bail.
[3] Bond denied to
defendant, charged with multiple assaults, where defendant had demonstrated a
propensity for violent behavior toward others, has attempted to contact and
influence the victim in protective custody with the government, and presented
fraudulent bail documents to the court.
Before KRUSE, Chief Justice,
LOGOAI, Associate Judge, and
ATIULAGI, Associate Judge.
Counsel: For Plaintiff, Suzanne Tiapula, Assistant Attorney
General
For Defendant, Bentley Adams III, Assistant
Public Defender
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION
FOR BAIL REDUCTION AND
GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NO
BAIL
This matter came on
regularly for arraignment on November 8, 2000, following the defendant’s waiver
of preliminary examination before the District Court. The defendant is charged
with multiple counts of assault ranging from third degree to first degree
assault charges. The complainant is his wife who is presently under protective
custody with the government.[4ASR3d248]
Following arraignment, the
defendant orally moved to reduce bail, set by the District Court at $50,000, to
$25,000 arguing that he was not a flight risk. The government countered with
its own oral motion to reinstate the initial order of “no bail” as set out in
the warrant for the defendant’s arrest. The government referred to the
defendant’s history of violent behavior toward his immediate family and
additionally alerted the court to an attempt made on the defendant’s behalf to
contact the complainant by way of a letter and $20.00 while she remained under
the protective custody of the government. We took both motions under
advisement.
The day following
arraignment, and pending a decision on the oral motions addressing bail, the
defendant tendered proposed sureties purporting to cover the amount of bail
here before set in the sum of $50,000. The
supporting documents for sureties are facially dubious in many respects. First, the Kelly Blue Book values, readily
available on the Internet, for some of the automobiles tendered as collateral
were outright fabrications. Second, the
valuation estimates attributed to ASCO motors are unsigned, undated, and simply
looked suspicious. Upon investigation by the Court’s probation office, the ASCO
Motors’ valuations proved to be bogus. See
Affidavit of Chief Probation Officer filed Nov. 16, 2000.
[1-3] The
defendant is quite obviously a desperate character. Having regard to the nature of the charges
against the defendant and the attendant circumstances as deposed to by the
arresting officer in his affidavit in support of arrest warrant, the
defendant’s demonstrated propensity for violent behavior toward others, see
Am. Samoa Gov’t v. Siaumau,
DCCr. 62-95; Am. Samoa Gov’t
v. Siaumau, DCCr.
67-95; and Am. Samoa Gov’t v. Siaumau,
DCCr. 47-88, and in light of the bail sham tendered
by the defendant, we find the presumption great that the defendant not only
committed (an) infamous crime(s) but that he is a danger to the complainant and
society if released on bail.
Accordingly, the defendant’s
motion for bail reduction is denied, and the government’s motion for no bail is
granted.
It is so ordered.