Retiring teacher, coach urges Colony grads to ‘find their 68’
By Jeremiah Bartz Frontiersman.com A football coach using a hockey reference as the centerpiece for his keynote address may
PALMER — Superior Court Judge Gregory Heath granted a defense request allowing accused murderer Duyvu Nguyen to be released into the court-appointed third party custody of his brother and sister-in-law during a bail hearing on Wednesday that had been continued from a Nov. 13 hearing.
Over the objections of the prosecution in the first-degree murder case, Heath allowed Nguyen to be released directly from jail to Alaska Monitoring Services, a representative which testified on Wednesday that it could adequately ensure its steel cuff GPS monitoring service would virtually ensure Nguyen does not flee prior to his court date, the next of which is a pre-trial conference on Jan. 16.
Prosecutors had argued that Nguyen shouldn’t be released to his family members, who have stepped in to keep Nguyen’s nail studio in the Northway Mall in Anchorage, because they might want to call those, and possibly other family members, as witnesses in trial.
Heath did not find those arguments compelling, and said his greatest hesitation to granting the bail request concerned the defendant as a flight risk.
Confident that the GPS steel cuff and the attention of Alaska Monitoring Services, which said it had strong relations with the Anchorage Police Department as well as airport police at Ted Stevens International, Heath reduced the bail amount to $250,000 upon the requirement that Nguyen and his immediate family turn in their passports. The monitoring device would activate should Nguyen come close to an airport or a liquor store.
Nguyen is facing up to 99 years in prison resulting from an incident on Oct. 30 when Nguyen allegedly drove from his home in Anchorage and to the Palmer apartment of Tuan Q. Nguyen, 32 (no relation), and shot him three times in the back of the head. Duyvu ‘Vu’ Nguyen then called police from the scene, telling them, reportedly, that he had committed the act because his wife had told him Tuan Nguyen had sexually assaulted her.
According to court documents, at 9:58 a.m. Duyvu Van Nguyen, 41, called 911 and reported that he had just killed Tuan Nguyen in an apartment building behind the Palmer McDonald’s. The report says Duyvu told the dispatcher his wife told him the victim had sexually assaulted her at a previous date. He then drove from his residence in Anchorage to Tuan Nguyen’s residence in Palmer and shot him, police say.
When police arrived, Duyvu was on the front porch of the apartment, sitting with his hands up. Next to him was a 1911 .45-caliber handgun, according to court documents.
Officers found Tuan Nguyen dead in the bedroom of the upstairs apartment. He had multiple bullet wounds to the head.
In speaking with Nguyen’s wife, police said she made no mention of having been sexually assaulted by the deceased.
Given the circumstances of the incident heading into court proceedings, prosecutors argued that they would need to ‘cast a wide net’ when it came to listing witnesses.
“Given the facts and looking at the evidence… this was an unprovoked attack,” the assistant district attorney argued. “This isn’t about who did it? This is about why he did it. And because of that, that means we have to cast a wider net of witnesses.”
Nguyen’s attorney, Brooke Alowa has filed documents invoking husband-wife privilege, and intent to file for justification of shooting due to duress.
Nguyen’s brother Trang Nguyen and his wife Van moved into Vu Nguyen’s home shortly after he was arrested and began helping keep his business, L.A. Nails afloat. The prosecuting attorney asked how often Trang Nguyen was in contact with his brother, the victim and his brother’s wife before and after the incident. Trang Nguyen said he met up with his brother’s wife after hearing the news at the mall and described her demeanor as “quiet.”
Prosecutors, on Wednesday, remained concerned about the family members as reliable custodians, leading them to contend the situation “leads the state to believe his loyalty is to the court-appointed third party and not the court.”