Pang Can’t Be Prosecuted For Murder, Court Rules State Justices Say Suspect Can Be Tried Only For Arson In Connection With Blaze That Killed 4 Firefighters

The state Supreme Court blocked plans Thursday to prosecute Martin Pang for murder in the 1995 deaths of four firefighters in a Seattle warehouse fire.

The 5-4 decision drew anger from firefighters and a promise from King County prosecutors to appeal the ruling straight to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A lawyer for Pang called the decision a “no-brainer” given the terms under which Pang had been extradited from Brazil, where he had fled after the fire. The high court sided with Pang’s argument that terms of the extradition protect him from murder charges.

The court said King County can prosecute Pang only on the charge of first-degree arson.

“The state of Washington is obligated to follow the decision of the Federal Supreme Court of Brazil, which ruled that, as a condition for extraditing petitioner Pang to the state of Washington, he can be prosecuted only ‘for the crime of arson in the first degree resulting in four deaths …’ without the additional charge of four counts of first-degree murder,” said the opinion written by Justice Charles Smith.

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Barbara Durham wrote that the majority wrongly had rewarded “Pang’s calculated flight and ensures that neither nation’s will is done by immunizing Pang from any liability for the deaths he may have caused.”

Smith was joined in the decision by Justices Richard Sanders, Richard Guy, Charles Johnson and Barbara Madsen. Joining Durham’s dissent were Justices Phil Talmadge, Gerry Alexander and James Dolliver.

The majority agreed with Pang’s lawyers that a principle called the “doctrine of specialty” in international extradition law bars the state from prosecuting Pang “for crimes specifically excluded in the (extradition) order.”

The doctrine is intended to protect people from nations that request extradition for a particular charge as a ruse to try them for something else. It is intended largely to protect refugees from political persecution.

The majority said “good faith must be maintained in interpreting the terms and conditions of an extradition proceeding between signatory nations to a treaty.”

But dissenters said the majority simply does not understand the law and had stretched the meaning of the specialty doctrine far beyond its intent.

“The majority’s conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of the specialty doctrine and is inconsistent with the vast weight of authority,” the dissenters said.

“The majority’s decision not only violates the state’s unambiguous rights under the treaty but also fails to effectuate Brazil’s expectation that Pang will be held accountable for the deaths he may have caused.”

King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng was unavailable for comment. But his chief of staff, Dan Satterberg, said the office will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said he thinks that court will accept the case because it would provide an opportunity to reconcile divisions among the federal court districts in applying the doctrine of specialty.