Ads by Google Ads by Google

Allegation of police brutality leads to unusual jail sentence

Another allegation of police brutality inside the Tafuna Correctional Facility led the High Court to order that Leuma Malala be incarcerated somewhere aside from the jail. Malala appeared before Chief Justice Michael Kruse for sentencing in connection with a case wherein he shot his wife last year May.

 

Malala was initially charged with attempted murder, two counts of first degree assault, two counts of second degree assault, unlawful use of a firearm and third degree assault. In a plea agreement with the government the defendant pled guilty to second degree assault and unlawful possession of a firearm. In return for defendant’s guilty plea the government moved for the High Court to dismiss the much more serious charges. 

 

During sentencing the defendant apologized for his actions. The defendant also informed the court that he was assaulted by police officers inside the jail.

 

In the middle of Malala’s apology, Kruse yelled out to the TCF Officer, asking him why he was laughing. Kruse further asked the TCF Officer Fauolo Fuimaono if he wants to wear the orange jumpsuit.

 

The defendant then continued, further apologizing to the government, his family and especially his wife who was injured as a result of his actions.

 

Assistant Public Defender Mike White, who represents Malala asked the court to consider placing the defendant on probation, which would allow the defendant to return home to his family. The prosecutor, Assistant Attorney General Tiffany Oldfield however asked the High Court for the defendant to be jailed for ten years, given the severity of the case.

 

Kruse and Associate Judges, Logoai Siaki and Fa’amausili Pomele took a lengthy time elaborating on an appropriate sentence in this case and Kruse called the Chief Probation Officer Tauili’ili Silivelio Iosefo. 

 

Upon returning to the bench, Kruse said it’s clear that Malala has anger management issues. He said the defendant’s record from the District Court indicated his anger problems.

 

He said there was an incident between defendant and his wife where the police tried to help them. Kruse said when the police arrived and investigated the matter the police uncovered a live bullet inside a small bag that belonged to Malala.

 

The defendant was then charged with possession of live ammunition. Kruse stated that when the defendant was asked by the District Court on the whereabouts of the gun the live bullet, which was was found on him, belonged — Malala said he threw away the gun.

 

Kruse pointed out this was a lie, as this is the same gun which led him before the High Court. He said despite an order by the court for Malala not to have in his possession a firearm, yet when another incident occurred the defendant went and dug up the gun to threaten his wife and her brother — and as a result, injured his wife.

 

Regarding the police brutality issue, Kruse pointed out to the prosecutor that if Malala’s safety inside the jail is uncertain — and the prosecutor is asking for a 10-year jail term — where will the defendant serve his jail term?

 

Kruse then sentenced Malala to seven years in jail, however execution of sentencing was suspended and defendant placed on probation for seven years under certain conditions. He ordered Malala to serve 28 months in jail, under certain conditions and told Acting Commissioner Save Liuato Tuitele to look for a place to have the defendant serve his time, and it must be a place where the defendant cannot connect with police officers/correction officers or inmates.

 

Malala was further ordered to pay a $5,000 fine, and attend and complete an anger management course. He is also forbidden to have any firearms or live ammunition in his possession. 

 

Prosecutor Oldfield asked the court if the defendant can serve his time at the TCF but in a separate cell, because the government is unclear at the moment of where to house the defendant to serve his jail time.

 

Kruse replied that in the past a Judge ordered the Commissioner of Police to pay for the defendant’s stay at the Rainmaker Hotel to serve his jail time, because the government had no options as to where to house the inmate at that time.

 

Court filings say the defendant had walked into his bedroom and saw his common law wife. The couple argued and the wife stood up, pushed the defendant and pulled his hair when she heard a loud pop sound. According to the government’s case, the couple’s son was present and he shouted to his mom that her shirt was stained with blood and she then saw blood on her chest. The government alleges “Defendant walked out of the room and shouted from outside, 'We are over!'”

 

The wife told police she got into an argument with her husband, and he had shot her with a 22 hand gun. Officers contacted the defendant via cell phone and the defendant surrendered himself. It is alleged he told the officers that the gun was inside the pocket of his shorts. Court filings say the gun was immediately removed from his pocket and secured as evidence under police custody. 

 

Court filings say the defendant told police he had accidentally shot his wife, when she tried to remove the gun from him, but his intention was to kill his wife’s brother. He alleged he never thought of hurting his common law wife. Defendant stated that he had a verbal argument with his common law wife over a glass of milk and when he threw the glass of milk at his wife, she began to mention her fearless brothers.

 

He said that's when he got angry at his wife for bragging about her fearless brothers and he approached his wife’s brother. Court filings say this was when the defendant went into the young man’s bedroom and strangled him twice, after which he went outside and dug up the hand gun to shoot the brother. However, when he entered the young man's bedroom, he was not there.