“BORN TO RUN”:

Abstract

The Supreme Court of Washington's decision in State v. Pang that Martin Pang could not be tried for murder involved an erroneous application of the doctrine of specialty. This Note contends that this decision was based upon the court's overly broad reading of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Rauscher. The Supreme Court of Washington implied terms into the extradition treaty because of the court's incorrect interpretation of Rauscher, which prevented Washington from prosecuting Pang for murder. In addition, the court failed to take into account the policy rationales behind the doctrine of specialty, which favors allowing the State to prosecute Pang for murder. This Note concludes that the Supreme Court of Washington misread the terms of the US.-Brazil extradition treaty, and Washington had the right to prosecute Pang for murder. A fire broke out at the Mary Pang Food Products warehouse in south Seattle on January 5, 1995.1 The blaze, which was declared an arson,2 took the lives of four firefighters.3 The fire at the Pang warehouse was the biggest tragedy in the Seattle Fire Department's history.4 In an arson investigation, Mr. Martin Pang, son of the warehouse owners, became the main suspect.5 Pang fled to Brazil, and the United States immediately sought to have him extradited back to the State of Washington for trial on the charges of arson and four counts of murder.6 The Supreme Court of Brazil granted an order of extradition for Pang, but only for the single count of arson.7 The tragic and unnecessary loss of four lives in the fire, the cowardly but dramatic escape from U.S. borders to Brazil, and Brazil's absolute refusal to extradite Pang for the four counts of murder brought state and national attention to the situation.8 1. State v. Pang, 132 Wash. 2d 852,856,940 P.2d 1293, 1295, cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 628 (1997). 2. Id. at 865, 940 P.2d at 1300.