HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0701.001 1998-2000 ERNEST AARON ANDERSON v. COUNTY OF HAWAII,
CASE NO. 95-01026 (DAE)
Trial Date: June 6, 2000, United States District Court Court, Honolulu
Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the right of the
people... to petition the Government...
FirstAmendment, US. Constitution
No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
FourteenthAmendment, US. Constitution
THE CHARGING DECISION IS THE HEART OF THE PROSECUTION FUNCTION...
A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS NOT DONE THAT IT SHALL WIN A CASE, BUT THAT
JUSTICE SHALL DE DONE.
Principle Goals, Hawaii County Prosecutor's Policy Manual, Screening Unit Guidelines
Settlement Offers
Par[v Date Amount Status
County 02/23/96 $ 500.00 rejected
Aaron Anderson 10/07/96 $ 250,000.00 no response from County, lapsed
Aazon Anderson 12/27/99 $ 500,000.00 no response from County, lapsed
Aaron Anderson 04/05/00 $ 1,000,000.00 open through 4/05/00
Federal Magistrate Judge Bany M. Kurren is willing to speak directly to County Council
members in Executive Session about his views regarding settlement.
Case status
•Aazon's federal civil rights claims aze scheduled for trial June 6, 2000 before a federal
court jury in Honolulu.
•The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has twice ruled in favor of Aaron and against
the County on the County's theoretical defenses to liability. Aazon is entitled to prove County
liability by showing Prosecutor Jay Kimura was deliberately indifferent to or ratified the illegal
prosecution. Moreover, based on additional information developed during discovery, Aaron will
also show County liability due to inadequate training and supervision.
Comm. No. ' DOI
1
File No.
Ref. To: CDU11G' r.
Kef. Date APR 5 2000
•Through depositions, Aaron and Roger have learned that the Prosecutor's office turned
over consideration of Aaron and Roger's constitutional rights to Deputy Corporation Counsel
Steven Christensen in 1995. This appears to violate the County Charter, State law and the
Prosecutor's manual. Aaron will name Mr. Christensen as a witness. The County will likely
need to hire outside counsel
•ln January, 2000, trial judge David A. Ezra rejected the County's argument that all hemp
products aze illegal.
• There are two more cases coming down the pipe. Aaron Anderson's and Roger
Christie's state law claims have been filed in separate civil actions now pending in Third Circuit
Court. These claims include violation of Hawaii constitutional law, abuse of process, and
malicious prosecution. Punitive damages are sought against both Prosecutor Kimura and former
Deputy Prosecutorlopa.
Summary of claims
In 1991, Aazon purchased hemp seeds from a licensed seed broker. This was not a crime.
Roger and Aaron intended to use the seeds to make food products to support the activities of the
Hawaii Hemp Council. This was not a crime.
Even if these were crimes, under United States law, persons accused of crimes cannot
lawfully be singled out for prosecution based on their race, religious beliefs, or political
expression. Aaron and Roger claim that County prosecutors charged them for commercial
promotion of marijuana, a B felony (up to 10 years prison) because of their exercise of political
speech.
Last year, however, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Aaron can
prove County liability by showing either that Prosecutor Kimura ratified Iopa's conduct or was
deliberately indifferent to it. Aazon can show both. Aaron can also now show a third basis for
liability, that Deputy Iopa was inadequately trained and supervised.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to heaz the County's petition to overturn the Ninth
Circuit's decision.
The prosecution in State ofHawai'i v. Roger Christie and Ernest Aaron Anderson
Criminal No. 92-100 lasted 6 yeazs and continuously violated the First Amendment and
Fourteenth Amendments, United States Constitution. Aaron is seeking damages at trial of
$ 3,000,000. If Aaron prevails at trial, in addition to damages, the County must pay Aaron's
attorney's fees and costs, now estimated at $ 280,000.00. 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
2
Aazon and Roger will seek additional damages, including punitive damages in State
Court. Moreover, Roger is considering refiling his federal claims under the recently decided case
of Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, U.S. Supreme Court (Feb. 23, 2000), in which the Court
recognized a claim for violation of equal protection rights based on an allegation of azbitrazy and
preferential treatment by a government authority.
Points to Consider
1. The Hawaii County Prosecutor is sworn to uphold the Constitution and seek
justice, not just conviction.
Preamble, Hawaii County Prosecutor's Manual.
2. Prosecutor Kimura makes policy for the County of Hawaii.
Christie v. Iopa, 176 F.3d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir. 1999).
3. In its policy manual, the Hawaii County Prosecutor lists several factors which
must be considered before beginning a criminal prosecution. The manual does not mention fair,
equal or constitutional treatment of accused persons as a factor.
Hawaii County Prosecutor's Manual; Kimura deposition
4. According to case law in the United States Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, a municipality may be liable for violations of a person's civil rights where
the municipal policymaker showed:
• DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE,
• RATIFICATION or
• INADEQUATE TRAINING /SUPERVISION
relative to the alleged violation of Constitutional rights.
Christie v.lopq supra..
5. The Hawaii County Police Department has considered pro-mazijuana advocates a
"problem" they needed to solve:
"There is, in the County of Hawaii, awell-organized group of pro-
marijuana advocates who continue to expound the virtues of marijuana.
These advocates continue to lobby for marijuana/and or hemp These
advocates also lobby for "medical marijuana," and the decriminalization of
marijuana."
Statewide Narcotics Task Force Concept Paper October 01, 7996 at p. 6, ¶ 17.
3
6. Prosecutor Kimura has also identified pro-mazijuana advocates as a problem:
The system needs more resources. Other azeas which need to be addressed aze
the pro-marijuana groups, the sovereignty issues, and groups such as the Freemen, who
aze using the civil system to intimidate public officials.
Prosecutor Kimura's remarks before the Governor's Committee on Crime, August 2Q 1996,
excerpt attached
7. As a participating member of the Statewide Mazijuana Eradication Task Force, the
Hawaii County Police Department has been "able to present a united front against the
legalization of hemp movement and the growing harm reduction movement."
State Attorney Genera1,1995 Annual Report on the Edward Byrne Memorial, excerpt attached.
8. Hemp seeds have long been readily available for purchase at retail stores
throughout Hawaii County, yet no other importers, sellers nor buyers of hemp seed have been
prosecuted.
County's Answers to Admissions, Damerville deposition, Garcia records deposition.
9. Since at least 1987, Aazon and Roger have been very vocal, very outward
advocates for the legalization of marijuana, the decriminalization of marijuana, medical
marijuana and industrial hemp. Prosecutor Kimura knew that Aaron and Roger were pro-
marijuana advocates before there were prosecuted in 1992.
County's Answers to Admissions Admissions, Kimura deposition
10. Currently, 86% of the Hawaii County's citizens and 77% statewide favor medical
marijuana.
Q Mark Research and Polling, February 3-13, 2000
11. In 1991, Aazon and Roger attended a hemp expo in San Francisco. Upon their
return, Aazon ordered sterilized hemp seeds to grind into flour to make food products. Hawaii
County Police Officer Dennis DeMorales seized the hemp seeds and arrested Aaron and Roger
and took their statements.
In Roger's statement to Officer DeMorales, he said:
"[ROGER] CHRISTIE related that he and Aazon ANDERSON, belong to the Hawaiian
Hemp Council. He (CHRISTIE) informed me that he is active in legalizing mazijuana
and stopping the war on mazijuana and putting this wasted of energy to rest."
Police Report No. D-57716, May 1 Q 1991
4
12. In Aaron's statement, he said:
"ANDERSON related that Hawaiian Hemp Counsel (sic) was planning to order tons of
these seeds to make food products to be given to `the people'. ANDERSON said that,
`This will throw the piss test out the window.' "
Police Report No. D-57716, May 09, 1991.
13. The case against Aaron and Roger was investigated by Officer Dennis DeMorales.
At the time, Officer De Morales was the boyfriend of former Deputy Iopa. Officer DeMorales
first presented the case to former Deputy Prosecutor Ricky Roy Damerville, who rejected it.
Officer DeMorales then presented the case to Deputy Prosecutor Lincoln Ashida, who screened
the case and passed it on to former Deputy Iopa.
Damerville deposition.
14. In a Declaration under oath made February 6, 1998, Mr. Ashida states in part:
¶ 6 "Prior to indictment, I reviewed the relevant portions of Hawaii County
Police Report No. D-57716 for screening."
¶ 20 "I did not know Ernest Aaron Anderson or Roger Christie personally, nor
was I aware of their views concerning hemp.
Ashida declaration.
15. Mr. Ashida now recognizes that his federal declaration is inaccurate. So does
First Deputy Charlene Iboshi.
Ashida deposition; Iboshi deposition
16. Ms. Iopa also read Police Report No. D-57716, yet she has claimed at the time
that at the time of the indictment, she may not have known about Aaron and Roger's stances
regazding marijuana legalization.
Charlene Iboshi Deposition, vol. 1 at pp. 26-27, excerpts attached.
17. Prosecutor Kimura knew that Aazon and Roger were pro-mazijuana advocates
before he prosecuted them.
Deposition of
Jay Kimura
18. Prosecutor Kimura knew that his office was prosecuting Aaron and Roger from
the very beginning. Prosecutor Kimura never disapproved the prosecutions.
Defendant Hawaii County's Answers to Plaintiffs' First Requesd for Admissions,
Jan. 3Q 1998, Admission Nos. ll - 14. attached
5
19. As a participating member of the Statewide Marijuana Eradication Task Force, the
Hawaii County Police Department has been "able to present a united front against the
legalization of hemp movement and the growing harm reduction movement."
State Attorney General ,1995 Annual Report on the Edward Byrne Memorial, excerpt attached.
20. Former Deputy Iopa explained the reason for selection of Aazon and Roger for
prosecution to now-retired Judge Shunichi Kimura in 1992:
As a practical matter, no, we're not going to go out, bust the little old lady
that's got a bag of bird seeds just because there is one marijuana seed in
there. Um, when you get twenty-five pounds within an order for five
hundred pounds or more, going to, um, a hemp grower, that is very vocally.
very outwardly advocating the legalization of marijuana.
Transcript of'Hearing November 20, 1992.
21. Former Deputy Iopa's boyfriend, Dennis DeMorales, allegedly tried to grow
Aaron's hemp seeds at the police station. The test was not performed by the Hawaii County
criminalist, whose job it is to test evidence. The test was performed without a Drug Enforcement
Administration permit, and was not conducted according to federal guidelines. Numerous
persons had access to the test area. No other tests were performed by Hawaii County Police on
any of the hemp seeds available at Miranda Country Store, Aikane Ranch Supply, Longs, Wal-
Mart or other stores in Hawaii County.
Iboshi deposition; Kimura deposition
22. In 1991-1992, Deputy Iopa served as the County Drug Task Force Prosecutor.
The Drug Task Force included the Hawaii County Police Department. At that time, Hawaii
County drug prosecutions suffered from a lack of focus, training and coordination. Cases were
passed to different deputy prosecutors who were not completely knowledgeable about the
background of the cases. Specialized training was not available, equipment was outdated,
procedures were inconsistent, and coordination with county police departments was minimal.
State Attorney General, 1995 Annual Report on the Edward Byrne Memorial, excerpt attached
23. Former Deputy Iopa received no specialized or other training in equal protection
or First Amendment defenses, even though the Prosecutors are each chazged with evaluation of
potential defenses anaccused may have.
Prosecutor's policy manual; Iopa deposition.
24. During his deposition, Prosecutor Kimura repeatedly referred to his belief that his
office had sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Christie and Mr. Anderson and that he was therefore
not concerned with any violation of Mr. Christie and Mr. Anderson's Constitutional rights.
Kimura deposition.
6
25. Prosecutor Kimura lacks an understanding of what constitutes selective
prosecution:
Q: Can you define selective prosecution?
A: I guess its selective, tazget a particular individual for prosecution regardless of
whether there is sufficient evidence I guess.
Kimura deposition vol. 1, p. 27 (February 23, 2000)
26. During the course of Criminal No. 92-100, former Deputy lopa repeatedly
misrepresented evidence, falsely claiming test results showed proof of germination. When the
seeds seized from Aazon Anderson were tested at the University of Hawai' i by the State
Department of Agriculture, the seeds showed showing zero germination. A test was also
performed on hemp seeds seized from Clarence Baber, who lived in West Hawaii. The Police
Department did not test Mr. Baber's seeds themselves, but sent them directly to the State
Department of Agriculture. Mr. Baber's seeds tested the same as Aazon's.
Seed testing worksheets, State Dept ofAgricuiture
27. While the Prosecutor kept on prosecuting Aaron and Roger, the Prosecutor
declined to prosecute Mr. Baber. Former Deputy Prosecutor Iopa reported the test results for Mr.
Baber's seeds to Hawaii County Police Department Detective Emest Saldua as "sterile."
Police Report No. D-88030/K1V excerpt attaached,' Ernest Saldua deposition.
28. For yeazs, Miranda Country Store has imported and sold thousands of pounds of
hemp seeds in Hawaii County. Under subpoenas, Robert J.K. Gazcia, attomey for Miranda
Country Store produced invoices showing (1) Miranda's purchase of hemp seeds from Leach
Grain & Milling and (2) that Leach Grain & Milling Co. purchased hemp seeds from Specialty
Commodities, Inc. ("SCI").
Robert Garcia written deposition, pp. 3, S attached
29. Aaron Anderson purchased his hemp seeds SCI, too.
Invoice from SCI to Hawaiian Hemp Council
30. In February, 1993, the Hawaii County Prosecutor's Office made a deal with
Miranda Country Store through its attorney, Robert J.K. Garcia. Under the terms of the deal, the
Prosecutor's Office agreed not to prosecute Miranda Country Store for importation and sale of
hemp seeds. The deal was confirmed in a letter from Attorney Garcia to the Prosecutor which
states in part:
"Following our phone conversation on February 5, 1993, my current understanding of the
course of action to be taken by your office is that my client is not subject to prosecution for
importing and selling feed quality hemp seed under the current methods he uses."
Robert Garcia written deposition, p 10 attached
7
31. Multiple times, both Prosecutor Kimura and former Deputy Prosecutor Iopa
threatened Aaron and Roger's defense witnesses with prosecution if they testified about their
purchase of hemp seeds and products containing hemp seeds from Hawaii County retail stores.
In 1997, Prosecutor Kimura referred potential chazges against public defender's investigator
Layne Yoshida to the Police Department for further investigation. The deal with Miranda
Country Store was still in place. As a result of prosecution threats, witnesses declined to testify
in favor of Aazon and Roger.
Francis Akamine memorandum
32. In June, 1994, Judge Nakamura required the Prosecutor's office and Aaron to try
to reach a plea agreement. Aaron offered to waive his civil claims against the County in
exchange for immediate dismissal of the felony charge against him. Deputy Prosecutor Iopa
rejected Aaron's offer, requiring as a condition of any agreement that Aazon Anderson and Roger
Christie write no more letters to the newspapers.
Affidavit ofNeilani Graham attached
For years, Aazon and Roger had written numerous letters to the newspapers about the
human costs of the so-called waz on drugs, medical mazijuana, and other hemp and marijuana
issues. In a declazation under oath, Deputy Prosecutor Iopa claimed that she did not remember
trying to prevent Aazon and Roger from writing any more letters to the newspapers and if she
did, it was suggested by the Judge. In a recent investigator's interview with Judge Nakamura, the
Judge states that he did not make and would not have made such a suggestion.
Investigator's report, attached
33. When the issue was brought to Prosecutor Kimura's attention, he claims he
counseled Deputy Iopa. Prosecutor Kimura admits, however, that he did not investigate the
situation, never talked to the Judge or other counsel present at the chamber's conference, and did
not make a further plea offer without the "no mote letters" condition.
Kimura deposition.
34. Similazly, First Deputy Chazlene Iboshi accepted former deputy prosecutor Iopa's
version of events and conducted no further investigation.
Iboshi Deposition, vol. 2, , pp. 12-24, excerpts attached
35. Prosecutor Kimura received a letter from citizen Robert L. Williams in October,
1995. Mr. Williams complained of misuse of public funds in Cr. No. 92-100. He also
complained that threatening prosecution of defense witnesses was obstruction of justice. Mr.
Williams complained that the Prosecutor was violating the United States Constitution by
suppressing Aazon and Roger's First Amendment rights by selectively prosecuting them and
trying to get them not to write more letters to the newspapers. In response, Prosecutor Kimura
did not investigate the alleged constitutional violations and turned the matter over to Ms. Iopa.
Robert L. Williams letter attached; Kimura deposition
8
36. Prosecutor Jay Kimura was served with a copy of Aaron's federal complaint
alleging unlawful selective prosecution in 1995.
Kimura depo.
37. Prosecutor Kimura did not investigate the claims raised in the federal civil rights
complaint. He tamed it over to Corporation Counsel Steven Christensen and gave no further
attention to any Constitutional claims raised by Mr. Anderson.
Kimura depo.
38. Prosecutor Kimura forced Aaron to stand trial in 1997. After the prosecution's
case fell apart, the jury deadlocked 9 to 3 in favor of acquittal and a mistrial was declared.
County prosecutors tried to force Aazon to stand trial a second time before Judge Nakamura
finally said no and dismissed the case.
39. During the trial, Prosecutor Kimura offered to reduce the B felony chazge against
Aaron to a petty misdemeanor with no fine. He also offered to publish a written statement that
the Prosecutor's Office would never again prosecute anyone for possession of sterilized hemp
seeds.
Brian De Lima Declaration attached
40. Mr. Christensen brought two sepazate motions to disqualify Aazon and
Roger's attorney. Mr. Christensen also brought multiple motions for
summary judgment, each of which were ultimately denied. In those
motions, Mr. Christensen argued that Hawaii County Prosecutors were
really State agents. Denied. Mr. Christensen also azgued that all hemp
products were illegal in the County of Hawaii. Denied. Mr. Christensen
argued that Prosecutor Kimura was not a policymaker for the County of
Hawaii. Denied.
9
Discovery
Aaron has taken depositions of former and current Jay Kimura, Chazlene Iboshi, Lincoln
Ashida, G. Kay Iopa, Ricky Roy Damerville, police officer Ernest Saldua, and Attorney Robert
Garcia and Miranda Country Store. In addition, Aaron has obtained multiple admissions from
the County, Kimura and Iopa. The County failed to respond to Aaron's second requests for
admissions, which are now deemed admitted.
The County conducted no discovery. Aaron agreed to submit to a deposition in his State
case, but will ask the federal court to exclude its use at trial in June, consistent with its prior
discovery orders.
The Court rejected the County's late discovery objections, requiring the County to turn
over all prosecutor's files, including claimed work product.
Experts For Aazon:
Matthew Mazlin, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, Duquesne University
Dr. Marlin's report was previously provided. Aazon's business economic loss
equals $ 369,000.00
Leonard Licht, Ph.D., Psychology, Clinical Practice
Dr. Licht will testify concerning the impacts of the illegal prosecution on Aaron's
emotional health. Dr. Licht's report was previously provided.
Experts For the County:
The County has identified no experts and its deadline has passed.
10
Proposed resolution
In exchange for settlement of all claims against all Defendants, Aaron and Roger will accept:
• One million dollars.
a. Aaron and Roger will commit two hundred forty thousand dollazs to create
and operate a civil rights education and training center to serve the public and
County personnel and support the hemp movement. Through its First Deputy, the
Prosecutor's office has already requested civil rights training.
b. Aaron and Roger will commit ten thousand dollars
to the Hiccup Circus for its peer drug awazeness program.
and,
• A four year exclusive license for use of the County seal and terms "COUNTY OF
HAWAII" and "COUNTY OF HAWAII- APPROVED" for mazketing of
commercial products, including clothing. The license will also extend to
production and distribution of medical mazijuana, once such product is legal under
Hawaii and federal law.
The license will require prior approval by the County for use on specific
products. Aaron and Roger will pay the County of Hawaii a 5% royalty on gross
revenues. At Aaron and Roger's option, the license may be renewed for an
additional four year term.
COST SAVINGS TO COUNTY
County expenses
Aazon will list Steven Christensen as a witness concerning County efforts or lack thereof to
investigate/correct violations of Aazon's rights. The County will likely be forced to hire outside
counsel at significant expense, i.e., not less than $ 250,000.00 for the federal case.
The attorney's fees and costs of the County's defense of the two pending State cases is estimated
at $ 500,000.00.
11
Saved damages
Aaron
• Business losses /income $ 369,000.00
• Impairment of emotional health $ 750,000.00
• Damage to reputation $ 750,000.00
• Punitive damages, State case $ 1,000,000.00
Roger
• Business losses /income $ 250,000.00
• Impairment of emotional health $ 250.000.00
• Damage to reputation $ 250,000.00
• Punitive damages, State case $ 1,000,000.00
Attorney's fees, expert witness fees
and costs to trial, federal case only $ 280,000.00
Additional County expenses.
Aaron will list Steven Christensen as a witness concerning County efforts or lack thereof to
investigate/correct violations of Aaron's rights. The County will likely be forced to hire outside
counsel at significant expense, i.e., not less than $ 250,000.00 for the federal case alone.
The County will save an additional estimated $ 500,000.00 in attorney's fees and costs in defense
of the two State cases.
This statement is provided pursuant to Rule 408, Federal Rules of Evidence In an attempt to
compromise a disputed claim.
12
..u .r..~~~i ~X~
v c-
i •G O ~~yy r . b^
4~rn t0' In (
ray ~ zr ~ 4r~~ Z~;i rn „rkr
~wL W ~N' ~j 1 O" N 1
A
f1`v d' u jw^l O1 CJ r~~a.,
1 r~ "J, O CJ ~ .
s.~ r
i~
.a. 2_. ;~1 T
rat?
L,
6~~ N. „t°t,f 1 ~y~ " r
. y ,~f"d•
~V1. O ~F y,S, Q. .`yi Wy~ I .
:OJi W 1 R'CG~. 0. .,.Vi., r
f ~ M lu ~ '1~'~•' ~ 4
~yy~f~y,`r r ~
~~.~"+a u 1• Y 2 M¢ O I U
D l
J ~~~'Xd a
itdl
t'> .fmra yI ~".r.:~ ry tl~~ n ~ S~A
cror
y;~ H vQi
} F, ~'C`S~eN~...dlti~~,g ~ ~ r ri fr r "t a.
t ,N ..rR 9 `n t o. r- ~ p y
'r ~ 5. rv. ~.1~ - v.. wz.• N .
,,pp,, ~1r'~ .a. O+
tr lo°•tn;~C~ lYjen
ia~au'y~ 5~q ;4oc:. 1~ 0
yr>ti'~' fix; '~.:-~'J wa •
a-~r t~
n w
io ~.c" F, . ~ ° J ~
u .o - -;.r. p w n
z rn ~ w o ~
- rg jl.d W u7
E ~
o x .~y ~ x w
n n A LL N d N tin to . ~ lY H aX
InM-rj Ohm Ha1W~L '~{~+~a.~ Q; ~ww
rn n s G x F's
Uhvv4i w~v5 X004 ~~5 U ~U`
Q~... U~r:• oat
6 4
OLsY {c 1 QO GN~ ~ .
~d.~~ OaLL p .,,ry tr
~ •1
' S5'h w
1 a ~ Z :~x'.. y~ cn
. S.iy,Y ar O
lC9l LU IYIAY.' Alddfl$ 3JiIf0 QIIV ~NI1NItlJ Yli y
Wt
- i 'JI I' !,L1~]Ol~lblfl2 .l L~!~1'J3d' IdO IJ E~~;Lti z66i-T~-l
~~p~
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
3 ROGER CHRISTIE and ERNEST ) CIVIL NO. 95-01026 DAE
AARON ANDERSON, )
4 )
Plaintiffs, )
5 )
vs. )
6 )
G. KAY IOPA, in her personal)
7 capacity, JAY KIMURA, in his)
personal capacity, the )
8 COUNTY OF HAWAII, and DOES )
1-10, )
9 )
Defendants. )
10 )
11 DEPOSITION OF ROBERT J.K. GARCIA
UPON WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES
12.
13 Taken on behalf of the Plaintiff, Aaron Anderson, at the
14 law office of Robert J.K. Garcia, Hale Kea Farms, Kawaihae
15 Road, Kamuela, Hawaii, 96743, commencing at 10:40 a.m. on
16 Monday, February 28, 2000, pursuant to Notice.
17
18 TAKEN BEFORE: ANDREA VASCONCELLOS, CSR 356, RPR
Notary Public, State of Hawaii
19
20
21
22
23
RECORDS OF: OBTAINED FROM:
24
MIRANDA COUNTY STORE ROBERT J.K. GARCIA, ESQ.
25
HILO REPORTERS (608) 935-5119
DEC - 1 0- 9 2 T H U 1 6 0 3 L A H G R•p I N 3. M I L L I N G P 0 1
u)
I j Z. UH ;~''.1' f 'rnlu ~~ri n I (71 r
~ F- ~ lU ':xs fl Z F.
I~I "L r- ,f,. 'ICI m ~ fU
\J " 1r~Y l,' l~l~~s~
u .z. ,o y~;l, r~
1 ' .r... kt:~.~ rkpr
~~/,"J
V~ 1U';0( Te'kj L , ;
? z N . b.' k:~ O II.
~.v. .4.~1 a'
J'; CG i 1
f
• N y y
471 1Y! tIY
. 0 f yr';+r i( ' Ij D;: rl~l?ly't~ - 1TI tL
1 ~ o ~ a /3~ Ir Ot kl~G~:'• J _J _J J _J J r
rt' c l,i Y j. I ~ O . ~ . ~rf t~Ei G O O G •A ~ II
~ o. J i "a: iT~';y U7 J O I~ O li
l
i S O, +t'~' (11 U Ifl CO U] Cll
E '>,.a~ ..w.,e
Z .r
1 " ~ 2r~Oam
~~~+til{. (1J ~ r r~
~ „ n iq~:'~i~'~ O I. py yY IY
I vl °rLL.. I.pb?
41 L) P I I r , ;qP. :U: V l ~
tS. u.u4~ri~ r-1 4 S~1 D ~'r r v U7
J U, ,~Zai N U"1 V'l iC ~
t
• li,~l ~n~ N a~~0'~li W C¢7 SI ~ ¢ ~ c o- i ::I
U? ('4:~i ~~=•f6; Oak CU 11 it: I li
E ¢ a i~ ' l,l a .y; • o I Iii J .
E xq"• ~>=wI-lOZn•J I
il., `r I ,i`~ t' ~ W I,l iA ttl q lLl J Z fA - I Z ~.I
n Z' U ~ :
[ IJ1 ' ,q~ U) :L UJ iC J ~ F- I l..
b LL„l,o C.l 7_ ;,0, U7 h~. y'' l,J IL ~ CC U p U) W I V .1
. s n a p) 3 ~y~ z W ~ Z LU ~L U 3. J I U
' O n Itl • O ~'ly A r~ ~ r-r IJ U 1 I ._.1 J ~ •
i. r vii j a m J fA A ~ S :7 O .-I r-~ Q lf, I r
c0 p.
~ I I !P,
~LiJC ~,t , 4:
~ II r.
~ ~ ~T~,~.i 1. r
iV ~ 0 0 0 i~ ..G O iU G
~V~.O ~ COOlC9M• ron] 7 .
m z~O ~i OvO0 O•~.
w~ o ~s:• ~a ~ fA I
F`61 V .d n•o d- O•G N O ~r
t ~ ?iz~ O~Q Cq h] .U ti .U t\
. UUU
...r~.....~.~....~..~...•.........
2 t3
/ .%~Y LEACH t;R~'~1 & MILLING CO., INC. ~°~'j~ ~~r ~r~~~~?
/8171 PIVOT Si. PHONE 8401 • FA% (217) 869-4941 UOWNEY, CALIF. 50241 - 59dP!1!zll
i
somlo_ MIRANUA COUNTRY STORE
Address
Customer Or4er No. Tarms F.O.B. Dale
NET 14 Shi ed 9/15/92
PIGEON FEED
~
\ ' lifl~
I ~50/50i1 SUPER RACE 3 IJ~
50 50~ RACING FEED 8.25 412 50 TIABLE-
' PIGEON GRIT
430 SOp CHAVEZ MIX 7,gU 3354 UU
a9Bdr'5U@ U Eiree r P lle s •8 265 2U
~ SOM RABBIT PELLETS
2~J SOY MASH ~ 5.50 110 U(1
SCRATCH FEED -
5 506 Rec. Oarle 5.50 27 50
i 1 506 Hem Seed _ 35 OU
_ BOp 4-WAY
1 5Ul~ Ra a Seed -ll ~
2 50 FINCH MIX ~ 11.65 ~Q_._
M M 30 25
2 50 PARAKEET MIX 2 8.78 i7
° " ° 4.60 90-
5 50ff q2~
~ LG. HOOKBILL MIX
) 0_?5 2U 50
10 506 SM. HOO1~(BILL h11x 'G' Il~
3) 10 26 _ ~ fS.15 -L.1L
i
CANARY SEED
SV NFLOWER 50 Y '
2YCsa _ S ra Millet 30# - r 611
9 J9 7L
SHAVINGS %jU~~ Y31 UJ
Q PARROT
i 25 ' , 11 30
~ l 5 5'0' COCKATIEL MIX
_RO LL EIp~I?(_ I•.IDSI" - /v 1 GZ
/I _ Jam) 7a
'+..!-..aa@ WILDB MIX ________________~)c,J.___.___._-. 6.50
BIRD HEALTH GRIT
40 50~ CORN 11- 196 OU
~[5/t30ft- Lr.-Co
UNITS Ltttual F nrina RCF
UUO
PAYMENT RECEIVED 5 ? CHECK p ? CASH ? BALANCE
1'h%SERVICE CHARGE PER MONTH ON PAST DVE ACCOVNTS.
ROBERT J.K. GARCIA
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. BOX 279
KAMUELA, II.AWAII 96743
TELEPHONE: (808) 885-7471/5961
February 5, 1993
Office of the Prosecuting Attorney
County of Hawaii
I
75 Rainbow Drive
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
ATTN: Kay Iopa
Re: STATE v. Christie/Anderson, Cr. No. 92-0100
Dear Ms. Iopa: 1
Pursuant to the Court's order of February 4, 1993, my client has been ordered to retain
records and materials subpoened by the Office of the Public Defender pending the outcome of
various issues currently on appeal. Although a "stay" order has not technically been issued, this
monster will surface its head once the appeals are completed and disposed of.
Following our phone conversation on February 5, 1993, my current understanding of the ~
course of action to be taken by your office is that my client is not subject to prosecution for
importing and selling fe,-d quality hemp seed under the current methods he uses. To avoid any i
taint on his conduct and business, my client and I discussed the possibility of having a percentage
from each batch of hemp seed he imports tested by the Hawaii Police Department, Department of i'
Agriculture, or other agency to be designated by your office. Once your office has arranged for
testing to be done, please notify me at the above-listed phone numbers, or you may contact my
client dierectly at S.` 5-4457, asking for either Wayne or Keli Miranda. li
Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
I'
/s/ ROBERT J. K, GARCIA
Robert J.K. Garcia
cc: Miranda Country Store ~ ~ 1 U
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE Tt1IRD CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
STATE OF liAWAI'I ) CR. 170. 92-100
I
vs. ) AFFIDAVIT OF NEILANI GRAHAM
)
ROGER CHRISTIE AND )
ERNEST AARON ANDERSON, aka )
"AARON," )
Defendant. )
AFFIDAVIT OF COUNBEI,
STATE OF ttAWAI ~ I )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HAWAII )
NEILANx GRAHAM, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and
,says than
1. Affiant is the Deputy Public Defender aeaiyned to
regresont Defendant SRNEST AARON ANDERSON i.n the above-entitled
Cabo]
2. Affiant ie informed and of the btlief that:
a. On or about June 14, 1994, the Honorable Greq
- K. Nakamura presided over a status conference in the abovo-entitled
case, attended by the State of Hawaii, through Deputy Prosecuting
Attorttoy G. Kay Iopa; Steven 6trause, Eeq., aouneel for Defendant
Rogex Christie; and Affiant, aounaol for Co-Defendant Exnest Aaron
Anderson;
b. Following the conference, Affiant, Me. Iopa and
tar. Strauss continued to discuss possible xcsolution of the case;
c. Mr. 6trauss stated that if the State of Hawaii
agreed to dismiss this vase against hie client, ha would recommend
that hie client waive any civil action against the stata~
d. Me. Iopa'e response to the above statement was
that any efforts to resolve this case must include an agreement
that neither Defendant Christie nor Co-Defendant Anderson write any
more letters to the newspapers about their views on this care.
FURTHER, Affiant rayath naught.
NETLANI GRAt
Subraribed and sworn to before me
this day of ,7A~~ /995.
Notnr Public, state of Hawaii
My oommiaeion expireet 3 1
L5.
.,,rr..~.....,~,..
~
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
3 ROGER CHRISTIE and ERNEST ) CIVIL NO. 95-01026 DAE
AARON ANDERSON, )
4 )
si Plaintiffs, ) VOL 1
5 )
vs. )
6 )
G. KAY IOPA, in her personal )
~ 7 capacity, JAY KIMURA, in his )
personal capacity, the COUNTY)
8 OF HAWAII, and DOES 1-10, )
9 Defendants. )
10
DEPOSITION OF LINCOLN ASHIDA
11
Taken on behalf of the Plaintiff, Aaron Anderson, at the
12 Law Office of Steven D. Strauss, 190 Keawe Street, Suite
31, Hilo, Hawaii, 96720, commencing at 9:01 a.m., on
13 Saturday, February 12, 2000, pursuant to Notice.
14
15 TAKEN BEFORE: ANDREA VASCONCELLOS, CSR 356, RPR
Notary Public, State of Hawaii
16
C
17 APPEARANCES:
18 For the Plaintiff STEVEN D. STRAUSS, ESQ.
Aaron Anderson: 190 Keawe Street, Suite 31
19 Hilo, Hawaii 96720
20
For the Defendant STEVEN K. CHRISTENSEN, ESQ.
21 County of Hawaii: office of Corporation Counsel
101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325
22 Hilo, Hawaii 96720
23
24
25
M HZLO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
41
1 Q. You understand that you're appearing pursuant to the
2 subpoena and that notice that's identified as Exhibit 2?
3 A. Yes.
4 (Exhibit 3 was marked for Identification).
5 Q. (Mr. Strauss) I show you what's been marked as
6 Exhibit 3 entitled First Amended Complaint for Injunctive
7 Relief and Damages filed in the United States District
8 Court, District of Hawaii, and captioned case number
n
9 95-1026 DAE. Have you ever seen that document before?
4'~
t{
10 A. I may have but I don't have a specific recollection
I
11 of whether I did or not.
12 Q. Do you remember under what circumstances you may
13 have reviewed this document?
14 A. No, I don't.
' 15 Q. Okay. In Mr. Christie and Mr. Anderson's case,
i
16 criminal number 92-100, your office prosecuted Mr. Christie
~ 17 and Mr. Anderson for commercial promotion of marijuana in
18 the second degree?
I'k
A'
19 A. That's my understanding.
20 Q. That was a case that was screened by you?
w` 21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Were you aware at the time that other persons were
rv~23 allegedly engaged in conduct similar to Mr. Christie and
rp!
'24 Mr. Anderson's regarding importation of hemp seeds?
25 A. I was not.
" HILO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
43
1 Q. would that have entered into your course of
2 conduct once the case was assigned to you?
3 A. If I was the trial deputy?
4 Q. Correct.
5 A. I received it from another screener?
6 Q. Right.
7 A. And I got this information that you just presented
8 to me?
9 Q. Correct.
10 A. It would have been something I would be concerned
11 about.
12 Q. Why?
13 A. Well, for the reasons that you've stated. If other
14 similarly situated defendants were not prosecuted, I would
15 want to know why.
16 Q. Okay. Assuming that you were the trial deputy?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And the information that others similarly prosecuted
19 or similarly situated had not been prosecuted only arose
20 after the case had already been assigned to you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. would you still have been concerned?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. I'll show you what we can mark as Exhibit 4 and tell
25 me whether you recognize that approximately two-inch stack
HILO REPOR'T'ERS (808) 935-5119
r.rcr.....~.o...».M
~ C~~G'~
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
3 ROGER CHRISTIE and ERNEST ) CIVIL NO. 95-01026 DAE
AARON ANDERSON, )
4 )
Plaintiffs, ) VOL 1
5 )
vs. )
6 )
G. KAY IOPA, in her personal )
7 capacity, JAY KIMURA, in his )
personal capacity, the COUNTY)
8 OF HAWAII, and DOES 1-10, )
9 Defendants. )
10
11 DEPOSITION OF CHARLENE IBOSHI
y 12 Taken on behalf of the Plaintiff, Aaron Anderson, at the
Law Office of Steven D. Strauss, 190 Keawe Street, Suite
13 31, Hilo, Hawaii, 96720, commencing at 1:00 p.m., on
Saturday, February 12, 2000, pursuant to Notice.
14
15 TAKEN BEFORE: ANDREA VASCONCELLOS, CSR 356, RPR
Notary Public, State of Hawaii
16
APPEARANCES:
17
For the Plaintiff STEVEN D. STRAUSS, ESQ.
18 Aaron Anderson: 190 Keawe Street, Suite 31
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
19
20 For the Defendant STEVEN K.CHRISTENSEN, ESQ.
County of Hawaii: Office of the Corporation Counsel
21 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
22
23
24
~ 25
HILO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
26
1 I'm sorry the prosecutor's function of the county and
2 Ms. Iopa?
3 A. I'm not sure of the function of the prosecutor but
4 there was discussion because of the filling of the state
5 complaint.
E
6 Q. I see.
7 A. And I guess that's when the issue of whether or not
8 Ms. Iopa could be represented by an independent counsel.
9 I'm not sure of the reason why the state complaint would
10 trigger that as compared to the Federal complaint.
11 Q. I understand. Was there any other discussion of Ms.
12 Iopa's conduct or behavior?
13 A. Yes. That an earlier point in time Ms. Iopa had
14 explained that whatever the behavior was that was the
15 subject of this lawsuit was in response to a question by
16 Judge Kimura and that her intent was never to prosecute
17 these defendants selectively because of their advocacy.
18 And in fact at the time the case was charged, she may not
19 have known about their stances regarding marijuana
20 legalization or whatever. Her intent was to respond to the
21 court's question.
22 Q. This is a discussion of Ms. Iopa's defense of her
23 conduct, is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Ms. Iopa was not there?
HILO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
27
1 A. Right, Ms. Iopa was not there.
2 Q. And who presented Ms. Iopa's version of the history?
3 A. I did.
4 Q. And what was that based upon, your presentation?
5 A. My recollection of a conversation in which Ms. Iopa
6 said that.
7 Q. Okay. Anything else at the meeting discussed
8 concerning Ms. Iopa's conduct or behavior?
9 A. Pretty much that. Her position had been from the
10 beginning of this matter that she did not intend to
11 selectively prosecute these particular defendants. That it
12 had been well, kind of a frustrating experience for her
13 to be involved in a civil lawsuit.
14 Q. Okay. Was there any rejoinder to the presentation
15 that you provided to the group of Ms. Iopa's version of
16 history?
' 17 A. I don't believe so. When you say rejoined, what do
18 you mean?
' 19 Q. Did anyone else say, well, I'm not sure that is the
' 20 case or I heard differently, or, yes, I agree. Was there
21 any response?
22 A. I think Mr. Kimura, I think he agreed that that's
23 what was related. As far as Mr. Ashida, I believe that he
24 believed the same thing. I don't remember if Mr. Sumida
25 said anything.
' HILO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
~ U~ U i
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
a~
3 ROGER CHRISTIE and ERNEST ) CIVIL NO. 95-01026 DAE
AARON ANDERSON, )
4 )
Plaintiffs, ) Vol 2
5 )
vs. )
6 )
G. KAY IOPA, in her personal )
7 capacity, JAY KIMURA, in his )
personal capacity, the COUNTY)
8 OF HAWAII, and DOES 1-10, )
9 Defendants. )
10
11 DEPOSITION OF CHARLENE IBOSHI
12 Taken on behalf of the Plaintiff, Aaron Anderson, at the
13 Law Office of Steven D. Strauss, 190 Keawe Street, Suite
14 31, Hilo, Hawaii, 96720, commencing at 1:26 p.m., on
15 Thursday, March 23, 2000, pursuant to Notice.
16
17
TAKEN BEFORE: ANDREA VASCONCELLOS, CSR 356, RPR
lg Notary Public, State of Hawaii
4
19 APPEARANCES:
20 For the Plaintiff STEVEN D. STRAUSS, ESQ.
Aaron Anderson: 190 Keawe Street, Suite 31
21 Hilo, Hawaii 96720
t
22
For the Defendant STEVEN K. CHRISTENSEN, ESQ.
23 County of Hawaii: Office of Corporation Counsel
101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325
24 Hilo, Hawaii 96720
25 Also present: Aaron Anderson
i
HILO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
a'
12
1 Federal pleadings filed before the conclusion and the trial
p "^~i,,
.
2 in this case?
3 MR. STRAUSS: Let's go off the record.
of
4 (Discussion off the record).
5 Q. (Mr. Strauss) Back on the record. While the case
6 against Mr. Anderson, criminal number 92-100, was still
7 pending and after you had notice that a Federal complaint
e for violation of civil rights including 1st Amendment
9 rights had been filed, did you take any steps to
10 investigate Ms. Iopa's statement that the judge initiated
11 this condition of not writing anymore letters to the
12 newspaper?
13 A. I know there were discussions about it in the office
14 and Mr. Kimura was present.
15 MR. STRAUSS: Let's go off the record. Let me see
16 if that's your office.
17 (Discussion off the record).
18 (Mr. Anderson enters the room).
19 Q. (Mr. Strauss) I understand there were discussions,
20 Ms. Iboshi. My question specifically is whether after you
21 had notice of the Federal complaint during the pendency of
22 criminal number 92-100, did you take any steps to
23 investigate the truth of what Ms. Iopa had told you and
24 others that the judge initiated this condition or suggested
25 this condition of no further letters to the newspaper?
HILn RFPnRTERS (A~8) 9~,-F119
13
1 A. I know I was present during the meetings. I didn't
2 investigate per se. There were meetings regarding that, I
3 was expressing just as the telephone rang. Mr. Kimura was
4 present. I would have been present. Ms. Iopa would have
5 been present. Possibly Ms. Iopa's direct supervisor who
6 would have been changed over a period of time, would have
7 been included, Mike Kagami, Brenda Carreira, and possibly
8 Mr. Christensen.
9 So to determine what the basis of the Federal
10 lawsuit was and any allegations that were made then, there
11 were meetings. And so I did not independently you asked
12 the question earlier, did I independently call the court?
13 No, I did not because I don't think it was appropriate.
14 Q. Did you take any other steps to investigate
15 A. There were discussions. I'm sorry.
16 Q. Let me finish my question. Did you take any other
17 steps to investigate the truth of what Ms. Iopa told you j
I
18 and others about the judge initiating this condition of the ~
19 plea agreement or plea offer?
20 A. Could you break it down into what part? ~
21 Q. Yes. My understanding is that you became aware of a
22 potential plea agreement or offer in which Ms. Iopa
23 required as a condition of any plea discussion or agreement
24 that Mr. Christie and Mr. Anderson not write anymore
25 letters to the newspaper. You had '
HILO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
c,
14
I.
1 A. Wait wait.
2 Q. available to you perhaps Ms. Graham's affidavit
3 to that effect. My understanding is further that Ms. Iopa
4 in explanation said, the judge suggested that, not me.
5 A. (Nods head).
6 Q. My question is, what steps if any did you take to
7 investigate the truth of what Ms. Iopa was telling you
e knowing that there was a Federal complaint for civil rights
9 violations of Mr. Christie's and Mr. Anderson's 1st i
10 Amendment rights?
11 A. Okay. To answer your question meetings were called.
12 Mr. Christensen would have been involved as far as the
13 Federal case. We did not have the affidavit of Ms. Graham
14 at the time. I know Mr. Christensen probably had it at F
15 some point in time. I'm not sure exactly when. There were
16 discussions. Ms. Iopa said it wasn't her idea just so
17 we're clear on it. It wasn't her idea and it was initiated
18 in chambers. The actual thought, idea came from the court. 1
19 So as I mentioned to you earlier, I would never call
20 the court. So the only three people would be the other
21 attorneys. Mr. Christensen was taking that portion of the
22 case that dealt with the underlying Federal charge. That's
23 why it complicates it; it was kind of woven together. My
24 understanding is that Mr. Christensen or someone from the
25 Corp. Counsel, whoever who was going to be handling the
HILO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
15
1 case, was going to look into that portion of the case, was
2 going to take whatever necessary steps, advise us as to
3 what to do regarding those allegations.
4 Earlier on I had mentioned to you we had had
5 meetings about the comments during the motion to dismiss.
6 And during that time we called in Ms. Iopa. I think I
7 mentioned to you earlier. I think Mr. Kimura had asked for
8 a copy of the transcripts and at some point in time
9 transcripts were gotten. So I'm trying to put that in J
10 context. There were discussions earlier just about those g
11 statements that were made during the original motion to
12 dismiss I guess it was.
13 Later on when the Federal suit was filed, it was III
1~1 only then that I became aware of these allegations. Mr. r
i
15 Christensen, and I can't recall if Mr. Kamelamela at some N
16 point was involved, came up and that's when there were more
17 discussions on the actual basis of the lawsuit. And that's
i
18 where a lot of it was in the Corp. Counsel's hand as far as
19 directing us as to what to do.
2p There were discussions with Ms. Iopa as to when were
21 Y_hese statements made. In that way it was investigated.
M 22 'There were meetings about it. And it came down to
23 basically she said that the court had initiated it. If she
24 made the statements at all they would have been in response
25 to that.
HILO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
16
i
I~
1 And so it was an awkward situation where because
i
i
2 there was a civil lawsuit, we cannot talk to the judge
3 directly. Mr. Christensen was taking care of the civil
i
4 lawsuit portion of the case, which would include
5 affidavits, depositions or whatever the discovery process
6 is. My understanding of what we were going to do is Ms.
7 Iopa again stated her intent would not be to just prosecute
8 these people because of their beliefs. And that if any
9 statement she made to counsel regarding not making
10 statements to the media would have been initiated by Judge
11 Nakamura.
12 And so with that in mind, we did investigate it. I
13 consider that kind of an investigation, trying to figure
14 out what Ms. Iopa is saying, what the facts were. And so
15 we did do an investigation. As far as corroboration of it
I
16 that and so forth, because Mr. Christensen had the civil
I
17 case going, I felt we'd have two levels. One, is we're
18 doing an inquiry in our office and because we had the
19 overlay of the civil case that would have been done through
20 deposition, through whatever and whatever facts would be
i
21 revealed during that process would then be related to us. ~
22 Q. So as I understand it, your testimony is that you ~
23 did not personally perform an investigation, i.s that
24 correct?
25 A. Other than the meetings, that's right.
HILO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
17
1 Q. There was a meeting in which Ms. Iopa told you her
2 view of things, correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And you did not conduct an investigation personally
5 to probe the truth of what she was telling you, correct?
6 A. That's correct. ~
i;
7 Q. You relied on whatever work may have or may not have ~
8 been done by Corporation Counsel to explore any problems
9 that Ms. Iopa's statements to you and the group may have
10 presented, is that correct?
11 A. We would have I think I said this before, we
12 would have taken some kind of response based on the
13 recommendation of Corp. Counsel.
14 Q. Did Corp. Counsel provide you any recommendations?
15 A. Not to me personally. I can't say.
16 Q. Are you aware of any recommendations that were
17 provided to anyone in your office by Corp. Counsel?
18 A. I do know not a recommendation necessarily. I do
19 know during there were consultations in preparation for
20 responses to interrogatories, I know that. So I know
21 affidavits were prepared.
22 Q. Okay. Did you request that Ms. Iopa take a
23 polygraph?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did you initiate any contacts with Neilani Graham?
HILO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
18
1 A. No.
2 Q. To determine the truth of what Ms. Iopa told you?
3 A. I don't think so. I may have talked to her but I
4 don't know that I did.
5 Q. Did you attempt to contact any clerk who may have
6 been present during these allegedly judge-initiated
7 settlement negotiations to determine the truth of what Ms.
8 Iopa was telling you?
9 A. Generally the clerks are not present.
10 Q. So you did not?
11 A. No. Also you I'm not sure if you were the
12 counsel of record at the time and you initiated the civil
13 suit. It was an awkward situation because it was overlaid
14 by the fact you were representing at one point, I'm not
15 sure when, but you were representing one of the
16 co-defendants and then you filed a lawsuit, the civil
17 lawsuit. It's an awkward situation. Even if I wanted to
18 talk to different people because of the lawsuit, because it
19 could compromise the integrity of the Federal claims that
20 you were making, I decided I'm not going to do anymore than
21 find out from Ms. Iopa what was her position.
22 Q. Did Corp. Counsel advise you not to investigate by
23 attempting to contact Ms. Graham, myself or anyone else?
24 A. No. I told you the reason why.
25 Q. Okay. There was no investigation that your office
HT~~n RPPORTRRS (AOfl) 935-519
-
19
R. '
1
1 attempted to undertake that was frustrated by Corporation
2 Counsel, is that correct?
3 A. As I mentioned earlier, we had a meeting which was
4 the investigation. The next phase or the next steps to
5 Corp. Counsel as far as how we should initiate it, with the
6 hope that during the process of preparing for the Federal
7 case, the civil case, the facts would be revealed through
8 this process I guess.
9 Q. Okay. Again, you were not frustrated in any
10 attempts to investigate the truth of what Ms. Iopa had told
11 you by Corporation Counsel, is that correct?
12 A. What do you mean by frustrated? I'
13 Q. Corporation Counsel did not tell you don't contact
14 Neilani Graham, is that correct?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. Corporation Counsel did not tell you don't contact '
17 Mr. Strauss?
18 A. That's correct. Again, it's not a matter of
19 frustration. It was a matter of we had done the basic
20 inquiry. we're looking at it. There were facts given to
21 us. These facts apparently were going to be litigated on
22 the Federal side. It was going to be developed during the
23 Federal civil discovery. We left it at that. We weren't
I
24 frustrated by any efforts by statements by <'orp. Counsel.
" 25 Q. Okay. And despite the allegations that you were
I HILO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
20
1 aware of that this prosecution, criminal number 92-100,
2 violated the lst Amendment rights of Mr. Christie and Mr.
3 Anderson, you left it up to Corp. Counsel to determine
4 whether an allegation related to such a claim was true,
5 correct?
6 A. At that point in time my analysis was that that's
7 what they were, allegations. It had to be investigated but
8 they were not true.
9 Q. It was an investigation that your office did not
10 conduct, correct?
11 A. As I mentioned to you earlier, as far as the
I
12 statements that were made in the hallway or statements made
13 in chambers, that was part was embodied by the Federal
14 lawsuit. The statements made to Judge Kimura on the record
15 were done at an earlier point in time. And w}ien we
16 investigated that, those people who were closest to the
17 case, who knew the facts of the case, from the reason for
18 prosecuting the case would not have been because of
19 selective prosecution or their advocacy. So I think we
20 were all satisfied that it was not being prosecuted because
21 of Mr. Christie's or Mr. Anderson's beliefs only.
22 Q. I understand that, Ms. Iboshi. My questions relate
23 to the investigation and the nature of the investigation,
24 if any, that you did to determine whether that was in fact
25 true.
HILO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
21
"r
i
' 1 A. Right. I'm trying to distinguish the two separate
i 2 behaviors we're talking about or statements and the basis. I
3 It would be, one, statements made on the record to Judge
4 Kimura during that motion to dismiss.
5 Q• Okay.
6 A. Those, we did inquire about that. Mr. Kimura asked
' 7 for a transcript at some point in time.
' 8 Q. We discussed that in your prior deposition?
9 A. Right.
' 10 Q. My questions aren't directed to that.I
' 11 A. You're talking about the second? j
12 Q. Yes.
' 13 A. If you're talking regarding comments .in the hallway
' 14 that were allegedly attributable to Ms. Iopa?
15 Q. Let me tell you exactly what I'm talking about.
' 16 A. Okay. 1
I 17 Q. I'm showing you what we'll mark as Exhibit 6, a
18 declaration of Kay Iopa, paragraph 16.
I 19 A. Okay. You want me to read it?
' 20 Q. Sure.
21 A. Okay.
' 22 Q. Now, this statement of Ms. Iopa, paragraph 16 of her
' 23 declaration signed February 5, 1998 is based on my
24 understanding of what you've told me what she told you,
' 25 correct?
HILO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
.
z2
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. She told others?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. In a meeting?
i
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. That meeting constituted the sole investigation that
7 you personally did with regard to the allegations that Ms.
8 Iopa had conditioned a plea agreement on Mr. Christie and
9 Mr. Anderson not writing anymore letters to the newspaper,
10 correct?
11 A. There may have been more than one meeting. There
12 would have been meetings regarding this statement and
13 that's what she stated to us.
14 Q. When you say this statement, you're referring to
15 paragraph 16?
16 A. That's correct.
1~ Q. That statement, paragraph 16, even though it's dated
18 February 5, 1998 this is what she told you in the context
19 of the first time that the issue concerning the plea
I
20 agreement was raised to you, correct?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. While the suit against your office I'm sorry '
i~
23 while the Federal lawsuit was pending and while Mr.
24 Anderson's trial was still pending, is that correct?
25 A. Yes, that's correct. Is that Mr. good afternoon.
HILO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
- - -
23
1 MR. STRAUSS: Yes. Let the record reflect that Mr.
2 Anderson has joined us.
3 Q. Okay. And in that meeting being the sole ~
4 investigation, I want to make sure we've already covered
5 some of the persons that you didn't talk to including Ms.
6 Graham, myself, the judge and any law clerk of the judge?
7 A. Uh-huh.
g Q. Ms. Iopa was not asked to take a polygraph, is that
9 correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. And the decision was made by you and/or Mr. Kimura
12 to allow the Corporation Counsel to further investigate the
13 allegations that were raised concerning this plea condition
14 not being raised by the judge but by it being raised by Ms.
i
15 Iopa, correct?
16 A. To determine whether or not Judge Kimura would say
17 no, excuse me Judge Nakamura would have said the same
ii
18 thing. Is that what you are asking?
19 Q. No. My question is that after this meeting or
20 meetings in which Ms. Iopa gave you her perspective on
21 things, at which Corporation Counsel Christensen may have
22 been present?
23 A. Uh-huh.
24 Q. The decision was made to allow those aspects of 1st
25 Amendment violations, alleged 1st Amendment violations, t:o
HILO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
24
1 be investigated by the Corporation Counsel and dealt with
2 by Corporation Counsel in the context of the Federal case,
3 correct?
4 A. That's correct. As far as any follow up other than
5 Ms. Iopa saying she didn't say it that way and so forth.
6 And at some point in time I was under the impression that
7 was pretty much how it occurred, that it was initiated by a
8 judge.
9 q. Was Mr. Kimura involved in that decision to limit
l0 the investigation performed by your office concerning the
11 allegation that Ms. Iopa attempted to place such a
12 condition on plea negotiations to the meeting or meetings
13 that you had?
i
t
14 A. Okay. Mr. Kimura did not tell me affirmatively, do
15 not. do anything else. It's more in terms of what we
16 understood it to be, that portion of the matter would be
17 handled by the Corporation Counsel.
i
lg (Discussion off the record).
19 Q. (Mr. Strauss) Ms. Iboshi, when Ms. Iopa determined
20 that the case against Mr. Christie should be dismissed, you
21 opposed that determination, correct, you felt the case
22 should go forward?
23 A. I don't have a recollection of it.
24 Q. You don't recall telling Ms. Iopa that you did not
!I
25 agree and that the case against Mr. Christie should go
i
HILO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
36
e~•..
. 1 had buds on them.
2 Q. Yeah.
3 A. That's all I know there. It was viable.
4 Q. Even assuming that to be true and you had no
5 independent knowledge that was true, correct?
6 A. As far as?
7 Q. That there were seeds grown from the seeds seized
8 from Mr. Anderson seeds seized from Mr. Anderson that
9 grew into marijuana plants, allegedly having buds, you
10 don't have any independent knowledge?
11 A. I didn't see them. No, I didn't see them. I see
12 them in the report and I remember it came up.
13 Q. Okay. And had you reviewed those statements in
14 police report D-57716 that we just talked about by Mr.
15 Christie and Mr. Anderson, would you have agreed with Ms.
16 Iopa's statement to you that she did not have any knowledge
17 at the time that she brought this case to indictment, that
18 Mr. Christie and Mr. Anderson were advocates for the
19 legalization of marijuana?
20 A. I probably would have asked her, what do you mean by
21 that so I would have a better understanding in the context
22 of are you doing this maliciously, are you selecting them
23 to prosecute them because of advocacy. She made it very
24 clear that she wouldn't do it for that purpose.
25 Q. She also told you that she wasn't even aware that
HILO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
37
1 they were advocates at the time that they were indicted,
2 correct? r
3 A. Okay. That's my recollection. It may have been in
4 the context of, look, I don't know these guys personally. '
5 I don't know what their advocacy position is, you know,
6 other than they're and I'm saying I'm trying to figure
7 out why she would have said that.
g Q. Because it doesn't make sense, does it, Ms. Iboshi?
9 A. No. No. It actually maybe this is a as a ~
I 10 prosecutor, what we're looking at is we're going to look at
I 11 defenses, okay. I think we would look at that. Again, we
12 would not prosecute people based on their advocacy but it
I 13 goes to their state of mind.
I lq He's presenting a possibility. We have to explore
15 it. We have to see if it germinated as the police explored
I 16 and the police germinated and it looked like it germinated.
I 17 The interesting legal issue as I presented to you the last
18 time I got deposed, one, is this penal code is clear. It
I 19 says seeds. It doesn't talk about whether or not it
I 20 germinates or is sterilized or is otherwise. It just says
21 seeds.
I 22 There's another part of the Chapter 329 that talks
I 23 about germination and sterilization. And at the Federal
24 level they have some other kind of language. So to me,
I 25 that's the interesting legal issue that's presented in this
' HILO REPORTERS (808) 935-5119
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER ~ /
80 PAUAHI STREET, ROOM 201
HILO, HAWAII 96720 J/`/S E~~'- "
TELEPHONE: 933-4571
FAX: 933-4649
SAC 97-~22/February 2`, 1997 C~""'~ `~b
TO: THE HONORABLE GREG R. NAKAMURA ~.~g~.
JUDGE, FIRST DZVISI ~~~11
CIRCUIT COURT OF TH THIR RCUIT Q a
FM: FRANCIS P. AKAMINE ® ~J
SUPERVISING DEPUT PUBLIC. DEFENDER
RE: AARON ANDERSON/CR. NO. 92-100/CONFLICT ANALYSIS
1. CONFERENCE OF FEBRUARY 25, 1997
a. The trial court convened a conference with Jay T. Rimura,
"Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Hawaii and me, to determine
whether there is a lawful, ethical alternative to withdrawal of the
Office of the Public Defender [OPD] as Mr. Anderson's counsel in
• the face of the possibility, raised by Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
G. Ray Iopa [Iopa], of criminal prosecution of Layne Yoshida for
his purchase of marijuana seeds from Miranda and Walmart as evi-
Bence in Mr. Anderson's defense.
b. At the conference on February 25, 1997, Mr. Rimura in-
~,~;iformed the trial court and me that the Office of the Prosecuting
- Attorney [OPA] cannot categorically state that it will not prose-
' =•^cute Yoshida for conduct undertaken as an agent under the direction
kof OPD.
n,.• ,
x.~;,h ~ c. OPA s position at the February 25, 1997, conference is
' that:
~ ~ a~. i. It is unlikely that OPA would prosecute Yoshida in
~ view of the circumstances of Yoshida's purchase of marijuana seeds.
r..° .X
ii. If marijuana seeds purchased from Miranda and Wal-
e ~~a~:''mart by Yoshida mature into "budding" plants, however, OPA may then
- prosecute Yoshida.
~ „ d. I informed the trial court and Mr. Rimura that I would
"pie-examine the issue of conflict of interest raised by Yoshida's
•exposure to criminal prosecution for an alternative to OPD's with-
- drawal.
2. WITHDRAWAL UNAVOIDABLE
I conclude that OPD cannot avoid withdrawal due to conflict of
interest without impairment of Mr. Anderson's defense by OPD.
OG4174
l
SAC 97-022/February 28, 1997
THE HONORABLE GREG R. NARAMURA
RE:. AARON ANDERSON/CR. NO. 92-100/CONFLICT ANALYSIS
Page 2
3 . lII2. ANDERSON' S CASE
a. Mr. Anderson is an advocate'of marijuana's legalization
for legal rather than illegal uses.
b. Specifically, Mr. Anderson seeks the use of marijuana
seeds for human consumption as flour without marijuana's deleter-
ious effects on human behavior.
c. SCI of Fargo, North Dakota, offers marijuana aeeds for
sale to the public.
d. Under federal law, sterilized marijuana seeds may law-
fully be placed in the stream of commerce.
e. SCI offers sterilized marijuana seeds for sale in the
stream of commerce.
f. Mr. Anderson learns of SCI's lawful distribution of
marijuana seeds at an agricultural exposition in 1991.
g. In 1991, Mr. Anderson orders sterilized marijuana seeds
sold by SCI for delivery in Hilo.
h. HCPD intercepts delivery of SCI's marijuana seeds to Mr.
Anderson in Hilo.
i. HCPD believes that SCI's marijuana seeds violate Hawaii
law.
j. HCPD arrests Mr. Anderson when he attempts to take deliv-
ery of marijuana seeds offered by SCI for lawful sale to the pub-
lic.
k. HCPD refers its investigation of Mr. Anderson's attempted
receipt of SCI's marijuana aeeds to OPA.
1. OPA initiates a felony prosecution of Mr. Anderson.
m. OPA does not initiate prosecution against SCI.
n. Mr. Anderson applies for OPD's services and is accepted
as a client.
4. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
a. OPD assigns Deputy Public Defender Neilani Graham [Gra-
ham] to defend Mr. Anderson.
G(~417~
SAC 97-022/February 28, 1997
THE HONORABLE GREG R. NARAI~RJRA
RE: AARON ANDERSON/CR. NO. 92-100/CONFLICT ANALYSIS ~ .'il,'.-'
Page 3
b. Yoshida is an investigator for OPD.
c. Yoshida resigned his tenured position as a criminalist
for HCPD to take the position of the sole investigator for OPD in
the county of Aawai'i.
d. Yoshida is by education, training and experience accepted
even by HCPD as an expert qualified to identify marijuana seeds.
e. Graham submits an investigative request to Yoshida for
approval by Akamine.
f. Akamine approves Graham's investigative request.
g. Yoshida investigates and informs Graham that marijuana
seeds are offered for sale to the general public by business en-
tities in Hilo.
h. Yoshida seeks authorization from Graham for purchase of
marijuana seeds offered for sale to the general public by business
entities in Hilo.
i. Miranda is one such entity in Hilo.
j. Graham consults with Akamine regarding Yoshida's request
for purchase.
k. Akamine instructs Graham to instruct Yoshida to make the
purchase and authorizes expenditure of OPD funds for the purchase.
1. Yoshida purchases a felony amount of marijuana seeds from
Miranda in 1992.
m. Yoshida makes the purchase as Graham's agent.
n. Graham acts as Akamine's agent.
o. At the hearing on December 11, 1992:
i. Graham offers marijuana seeds purchased by Yoshida
as evidence by Anderson through OPD at the hearing on December 11,
1992.
ii. Iopa raises the possibility of Yoshida's vulnerabil-
ity to criminal prosecution for Yoshida's purchase of marijuana
seeds from Miranda.
iii. Richard Garcia, AAL, counsel for Miranda, informs
004170
SAC 97-022/February 28, 1997
THE HONORABLE GREG R. NARAMURA
RE: AARON ANDERSON/CR. NO. 92-100/CONFLICT ANALYSIS
page 4
the trial court and all present at the hearing, including Iopa,
that, as far as Miranda is concerned, Miranda lawfully offers
marijuana seeds for lawful purchase by the public.
iv. The trial court sus svonte retroactively confers
transactional immunity on Yoshida and OPD for the purchase from
Miranda.
v. Miranda's declaration on December 11, 1992, places
Zopa on notice that Miranda knowingly sells marijuana seeds for
lawful sale to the public.
p. At the pretrial hearing on September G, 1995:
i. Anderson offers as witnesses, Yoshida and a citizen,
regarding their purchase of marijuana seeds offered for sale to the
public in stores in Hilo.
ii. Iopa raises the issue of criminal liability for the
citizen and Yoshida.
iii. Counsel appointed for the citizen informs the trial
court and Iopa that the citizen would have testified that the citi-
zen bought seed for consumption by birds at a store in Hilo, that
the seed contained marijuana seeds, and that other stores in Flilo
offer marijuana seed for sale to the public.
iv. Due to the possibility of prosecution, the citizen
asserts the right of silence.
v. Mr. Anderson loses testimony of the citizen.
I
vi. Due to the possibility of prosecution of Yoshida,
OPD declines to offer Yoshida's testimony about the sale of mari-
juana seeds to the public by stores in Hilo.
vii. Mr. Anderson loses testimony of Yoshida.
viii.Iopa does not raise the possibility of criminal pro-
secution of the stores, such as Miranda and other retail outlets,
which offer the sale of marijuana seeds to the public.
q. The Hawaii Tribune-Herald [Sep. 7, 1995] and the Ka'u
Landing [Oct. 1995) both publish for reading by the general pub-
lic, articles about the September 6, 1995, hearing.
r. As a result of the articles published by the Hawaii
Tribune-Herald and Ra'u Landing, the public is put on notice that
00417"t
SAC 97-022/February 28, 1997
THE HONORABLE GREG R. NARAHURA i~
RE: AARON ANDERSON/CR. NO. 92-100/CONFLICT ANALYSIS
Page 5
stores in Hilo sell marijuana seeds.
s. On February 10, 1997, at the direction of OPD, Yoshida
purchases marijuana seed from Miranda and Walmart.
t. At the hearing on February 10, 1997, Graham offers Yoshi-
da's testimony regarding Yoshida's purchase of marijuana seeds from
Miranda and Walmart on February 10, 1997, in support of Mr. Ander-
son's pretrial motions.
u. The issue of Yoshida's criminal liability arises again.
v. During a chambers conference on February 10, 1997, Iopa
makes the following representations:
i. OPA wants to attempt to germinate marijuana seeds
from the seeds purchased by Yoshida on February 10, 1997, from
Miranda and Walmart and, should the marijuana seeds germinate, OPA
may have to prosecute Yoshida in order to avoid a claim of selec-
tive prosecution.
ii. Iopa distinguishes Yoahida's purchase as "knowing"
whereas Miranda and Walmart may have sold out of ignorance or out
of a mistaken belief that hemp seeds were not marijuana seeds.
iii. Iopa ignores representation of Miranda's counsel at
the December 11, 1992, hearing and ignores or is unaware of publi-
cation of articles regarding the September 6, 1995, hearing.
w. As of February 27, 1997, OPD is unaware of any effort by
OPA or HCPD to warn sellers or buyers of marijuana seeds in Hilo
that such conduct may violate state or federal law and may result
in a criminal prosecution.
x. For only witnesses for the defense, Yoshida and the citi-
zen, has the State raised the specter of criminal prosecution.
y. It may be possible for OPD to adduce evidence for pretri-
al motions and for trial, without Yoshida's further testimony at
pretrial .or trial hearings.
z. Sellers of marijuana seeds in Hilo who offer marijuana
seeds for lawful sale to the public can be subpoenaed as witnesses
to offer testimony that sellers such as Miranda, Walmart, Woolworth
and Longs offered marijuana seeds for sale to the public in Hilo in
1992, 1995 and 1997.
aa. Query: will Iopa then raise the possibility of prosecu-
OG41~8
SAC 97-022/February 28, 1997
THE HONORABLE GREG R. NARAHURA
RE: AARON ANDERSON/CR. NO. 92-100/CONFLICT ANALYSIS
Page 6
tion for sellers?
ab. If Yoshida is unavailable due to assertion of his right
of silence, OPD can offer transcripts of Yoshida's prior testimony,
under full and fair cross-examination, as substantive evidence.
ac. A transcript of Yoshida's testimony lacks the force, in-
tegrity and credibility of testimony given by him live from the
witness stand.
ad. HRS § 621C-2 [1993] authorizes only OPA or the Hawaii
Department of the Attorney General to move for transactional im-
munity.
ae. If Yoshida were granted transactional immunity by a Ha-
wai i trial court, Z rely upon State v. lSiyasaki, 62 Haw. 269, 614
P.2d 915 (1980), for the conclusion that Yoshida is immunized from
federal prosecution.
af. I do not know if transactional immunity may be granted
retroactively to Yoshida.
ag. If transactional immunity may be granted retroactively to
Yoshida, will, may or can transactional immunity be granted to Gra-
ham and Akamine, retroactively?
ah. Under Iopa's theory of criminal liability for Yoshida, so
are Graham and Akamine vulnerable to criminal prosecution.
ai. Yoshida acted under the instruction of Graham.
aj. Graham acted under the instruction of Akamine.
ak. Yoshida acted with knowledge made available to Graham and
Akamine.
al. Under Iopa's theory of criminal liability, Graham and
Akamine are criminally liable as Yoshida's principals, as hie con-
spirators or as his solicitors.
am. Iopa's reference to the possibility of prosecution of
Yoshida applies to Graham and Akamine.
an. If exposed to the possibility of prosecution, OPD's rep-
resentation of Mr. Anderson is compromised, if not in fact, in the-
ory, for acts of commission and omission in Mr. Anderson's defense.
ao. Alternatives to withdzawal do not resolve the issue.
OG4173
SAC 97-022/February 28, 1997
THE HONORABLE GREG R. NARANURA
RE: AARON ANDERSON/CR. NO. 92-100/CONFLICT ANALYSIS
Page 7
5. SUCCESSOR COUNSEL HAS A CLEAN SLATB
With OPD's experience in this case, successor counsel can take
prophylactic action in at least the following respects:
a. use an investigator to confirm facts, those revealed by
Yoshida and Graham thus far and to discover the possibility of new
ones;
b. do not allow an investigator to purchase marijuana seeds
offered for sale to the public by retailers in Hilo;
c. file pretrial motions for:
i. issuance and service of subooenae daces tecum on
all sellers of marijuana seeds in Hilo and elsewhere in support of
Mr. Anderson's motions for dismissal on the ground of vindictive
threat of prosecution of defense witnesses and selective prosecu-
tion of defense witnesses and Mr. Anderson;
ii. admission of Yoahida's pretrial testimony at trial
in support of a defense of mistake o£ fact on the ground of u:~a-
vailability;
iii. recueal of OPA, the Prosecuting Attorney and Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney G. Ray Iopa, on the ground that, as parties
defendant to Mr. Strauss' civil suit for violation of Mr. Ander-
son's § 1983 rights, OPA is in conflict of interest because these
parties defendant are incapable of objectively fair and impartial
prosecution of Mr. Anderson, a bona fide purchaser of marijuana
seeds placed in the stream of federally-regulated commerce by SCI
and by the general public in Hilo from Miranda, Walmart, Longs,
Woolworth and others.
c Richard W. Pollack, Public Defender fax
Jay T. Kimura, Prosecuting Attorney jacket
Successor Counsel jacket
Steven B. Strauss, AAL jacket
Aaron Anderson mail
Layne Yoshida _
fps/1353
OG4180
RICIIARD D. WURDEMAN 911
Cort~oralion Counsel
STEVEN CHRISTENSEN 863
Deputy Corporation Counsel
County of Hawaii
Milo Lagoon Cenlrc
lOl Aupuni Street, Suite 325
Elilo, Hawaii 96720
Tel. No. 961-8251
Attorneys for Defendants G. Kay Iopa,
Jay Kimura and the County of Hawaii
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR"f
FOR THE DISTRIC"t OF HAWAII
ROGER CHRISTIE and EIZNEST Civ. No. 95-01026DAE
AARON ANDERSON,
DEFENDANT COUN"fY OF HAWAII'S
Plaintiffs, ANSWERS TO PLAINT'IFFS' FIRST
v. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS DATED
JANUARY 8, 1998; CERTIFICATE OP
G. KAY IOPA, in her personal capacity, SERVICE
et al.,
Defendants.
a \christic\aJmi~.wpJ
DEFENDANT COUN"fY OF HAWAII'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS'
FIRST REQUEST POR ADMISSIONS DATED JANUARY 8. 1998
Defendant County of Hawaii, by and through its undersigned counsel, submits its
answers to plaintiffs' first request for admissions of the following facts:
-I-
i`°'
REO~T.EST POR ADMISSION NO. 1
Admit that during the lime period January 1, 1991 to present, the I Iawai'i County
Prosecutor has never prosecuted anyone for possession of a product comprised in part or
in whole of hemp fibers, including articles of hemp clothing.
Answ r: County of Hawaii admits as to "articles of hemp clothing", deny remainder.
REQUEST POR ADMISSION NO. 2
Admit that during the time period January 1, 1992 to January I, 1997, the I lawai'i County
Prosecutor has been aware of entities marketing articles within the County of Flawai'i comprised
in part or in whole oC hemp fibers, including articles of hemp clothing.
Answer: County of IJawaii admits that Prosecutor Kimura, at sometime within the period
specified, the precise date(s) being uncertain, heard that such activity was
occurring within the County.
i REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3
Admit that during the time period January 1, 1991 to present, the Ilawai'i County Prosecutor has
been aware of sales to the public of hemp seeds, including products containing hemp seeds,
within the County of [iawai'i, at retail establishments doing business within the County of
I Iawai'i.
Answer: County of Hawaii admits that Prosecutor Kimura, at sometime within the period
specified, the precise date(s) being uncertain, heard that such activity was
occurring within the County.
REQUEST TOR ADMISSION NO 4
Admit that during the time period January I, 1991 to present, the Flawai'i County Prosecutor has
never adopted a policy that possession, use or manufacture of all products derived from cannabis
(marijuana) is unlawful in the County of I-Iawai'i.
Answer: County of Hawaii denies request No. 4 in that all products derived from cannabis
(marijuana) are proscribed under the Ilawaii Penal Code.
_2_
R~iIF.ST FOR ADMISSION NO 10
Admit that during the time period January 1, 1991 to present, the I[awai'i County Prosecutor had
policy making authority for the County of Ilawai'i in selection of cases for criminal prosecutions
initiated by the I Iawai i County Prosecutor.
Answer: County of Hawaii can neither admit nor deny request No. 10 in that a legal
conclusion is called for rather than a factual issue.
REOEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11
Admit that during the time period January 1, 1992 to present, hlawai'i County Prosecutor Jay
Kimura did not disapprove criminal prosecution of Ernest Aaron Anderson in Cr. No. 92-100.
Answer: Admitted as to period from and after election of Mr. Kimura in December 1992.
REOLJEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12
Admit that from its inception in 1992 to present, Hawaii County Prosecutor Jay Kimura was
~ aware of criminal prosecution of [rnest Aaron Anderson in Cr. No. 92-100.
Answer: Assuming inception is synonymous with indictment, Prosecutor Kimura became
aware of such at or about that time.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSTON NO. 13
Admit that from its inception in 1992 to the date of its dismissal, Hawaii County Prosecutor Jay
Kimura was aware of criminal prosecution of Roger Christie in Cr. No. 92-100.
Answer: Same as response to No. 12.
REtIUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14
Admit that from its inception in 1992 to the date ofdismissal, Hawaii County Prosecutor Jay
Kimura did not disapprove criminal prosecution of Roger Christie in Cr. No. 92-100.
I
Answer: Admitted.
-n-
111 ll-'~~-Llbi ~!~tV L~ i_ '[!as ~IiU F.UI
LYMAN' S INVSS'T'IC31t1'I'=ONS
239 I'twlpolena Road
Hilo, Ha watt 96720
Phone 969-3481 or (Psx) 935-4770
To: Steven D. STRAUSS
From: William K. LYMAN
Subject: Re: US District Court CHRISTIE/ANDERSON v IOPA
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
ASSIGNMENT
Ou 2-28-00 you requested my assistance in interviewiny 3rd
Circuit Court Judge Greg NAKAMURA with regard to this case,
Arrangements were made, and on 3-2-00 I :interviewed Judge NAKAMURA
in his chambers.
NAKAMURA stated that although he speaks to me now, he may at
a later time ask the Attorney General's Office to quash whatever
he says at a later date. He said he would talk to me at this time.
I inquired as to his recollection of why there was no attempt
to prosecute Mirattda Country Store, and/or Wal Mart. Judge
NAKAMURA said there was never any representation made to him to
prosecute Wal Mart, and/or Miranda. He recalled that according to
Kay IOPA there was no evidence presented to the State via Wal Mart
and/or Miranda Country Store. Further remembered that there was
talk of a possible prosecution against Lane YOSHIDA for the
purchase of the seeds.
With regard to the Chamber conference, after reading the
Declaration of Kay IOPA, NAKAMURA did not recall saying that the
parties would nat disclose the terms of any settlement. NAKAMURA
said it is unlikely that he said that because all changes in pleas
have to be on the record. Said he does not have recollection that
terms would not be disclosed.
When asked about the terms of CHRISTIE and ANDERSON not going
to the newspapers, NAKAMURA said he did trot say anything like that.
It was not his recollection that that was brought up in chambers.
Further- that it was something that he would not say.
II hIIF'LIL EII FI F!IH Li ~bB -'z ~l Pf~~ F' J1
NAKAMURA said that the declaration by Kay IOPA is not what he
said.
FOR YOUR PERUSAL AND DISPOSITION.
Will m K. LYMAN
March 3, 2000