HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0434.013 2000-2002 P. 01
i'~
B tf't r ~ _
Re: testimony on I-ICC Resolution 154 41 ~L G
and exhibit Senate ~i>rls S.~A06 and S.B.997
i
~~lf! ~ 1 - , it ~ ,
Y .f
u"
Deeember 3 2001
bear Hawazi County Council members,
"OtiF With their I-~[eads!" Cried the Queen. "Sentence first, trial later".
You have been asked to pass a solution purporting to be a step toward an amendmen to
the l:Iawaii State Constitution to "allow the direct filing of felony charges".
I suggest that you oppose this rrceasure at every step of its proYrtotion, from your chain rs
to the possible plebiscite to amend the Constitution.
There are so maoy reasons for not supporting this xxreasure that the xnirad boggles from he
weight of theta.
T'he amendment is said to be "to allow direct fili»,g of felony Charges" and ozLe as
encouraged to suppose, that they are to be directly filed, by the .prosecutor (or Actor ty
General) or at least a deputy prosecutor, or at least a .lawyer.. k3ut no, the proposed ill
peR'naits the Prosecutor, or Attorney General, tb designate any person. Under
proposed law you could in e4Fect be "indicted" and jailed on the mailed letter o a
secretary or investigator in the prosecutor's office, or even . Osama Bin Laden. he
"designee" doesn't even have to be an Axraez~ican citizen, or even present in the coon
Tuey coyly omit saying plainly that the prosecutor is to take respoz~sibiUity for this "dir ct
filing". 'T'hat is because it is not so intezaded. Notice that page three of the propo ed
enabling act defines "prosecuting o~cex" as anyone the prosecutor can foist the job ff
on. This could be a secretary in his office, an investigator, safely' it will soon become he
arresting officer, who urill swear to the sufficiency of his owi~ zegwr~, ot• perhaps j st
somebody on a power trip to whom the Prosecuting attorney owes a favor. Any of th se
choices of "prosecuting oi~icer designee" could have you jailed and initiate a full sc 1e
criminal trial under the proposed law and arztettdrnent to our Constitution
.Another efi;'eet oftlxis proposal is to revel the timirxg of eonfinexnerat az~d judgment. e
have all been teased to think, "Judgment fast, confinement later upon judgment" 13ut t 's
measure w~71 result in the accused being confined upon potentially bogus "probable ea "
first, and only afrer that given the right to a fair ,probable cause hearing .This `Might" t a
probable cause hearing is said only to be "at some reasonable time" later, while he
accused is still confined. This is wrong. VVlte~n we are confined without indictment or
File N®. •
Itef. ~o~~
Ref. i)ate L ~ ~ Q~
_ _
P. 02
contested hearing, our most basic Arnericatt tights are swept away. At the later he g
we may be able to show that probable ca~ise does not exist and that we should be rele d!
After what amounts to false img~risonment! A,s children we were taught to laugh at he
wicked Queen of karts ixt Alice and iYonderland who sca~eeched "sentence fist, sal
later". That Queen would surely have enjoyed our justification of this proposal on he
grounds that it is to "strearciline" the systeno,.
`This change is proposed in order to save money, but it most surely will xnot. The exis iu~$
system sotneti~nes turns down the prosecutor's claim that probable cause exists to h' a
person over for trial, 'This means that sometimes the prosecutor asks for trial when t re
isn't even Cnoetgh probable cause to hold, a person pending trial. iNith this change he
prosecutor will have his trial and a probable not guilty verdic4, atad the resulting e
expense wltieh this proposal is suposed to be avoiding. It will Also impose hid us
expenses on the innoeerlt accused. Ax best the prosecutor will drop the charges and rel
the accused, who will then have been punished without a trial. Ur perhaps you folks '
appropriate enough money to th® Public Defender's o4~ee to insist on a probable e
hearing in every case? If so then the prosecutor saves inoatey, but the taxpayer does ot,
and innocent accused persons will have spent souse "reasacnable" time ixn jail aws3i ing
probable cause hearings to see if they should beheld in jail!
Although the innocent poor will surely suffer from this, the most dramatic instances wit be
when public officials whom the authorities dzslike are hauled o~ foz a week in jail ile
they await a "~+easonable tixte" to show that there exists no probable cause for their her
incazceration
This proposed chaaage will lock in and secretly decide without public involvemen an
ongoing legal debate about the legitimacy of the use of hearsay evidence. The State
federal Constitutions give criminally accused persons the right to confront witne ses
against thenra.. This "right" is already under attack with the use by police of s refi
informants who can not be eallcd and crass-examined to show that they are teats.., d
they often are, in as much as they ace often drug addicts and thieves) but naw they w uld
have Yxobable Cause found without the right, in advance of confinement, to cross a ine
the police officer to whom the hearsay was originally given, to see whether he is telling the
4ruth about the iafornaant. Acid further )naw, even the prosecuttttg attorney is not t be
p;ysically present at a hearing to swear that the policeman told the proscutor what the
polieetaaara was told by his inforrraaztt. Indeed, as noted above, under this change, the
policeman may also swear to the truthfulness of his own swearing of truthfulness, if me ely
be is "designated" as a ``Prosecuting officer" by the Prosecutor. Wow! 'V6~hat word ul
"strcattnlining": secret witnesses who can't be exaetni>aed giviz~ testimony to police o ens
who can't be exaanined wino give their second hand story to "prosecuting officers", ho
also are not presexxt to be ~exinined, and who mecd not even be attorneys, who then wri e a
letter to the court, ensuring that even they ca:anot be questioned by the accused peso to
judgment and confiatemez~t.
P. 03
E
The amount of money the prosecutor claims that this zzteasuze will save is small comp ed
to the expenses the prosecutor and police have runt up twcvtxstitutionally selecting or
prosecution those people who exercised their constitutional rights to advocate charter itt
ttte laws, indeed the prosecutor has only recently settled for 575,000 just such a ~ ;
Barad one need Scarcely naeutiom the hilt the Couaaty will get as a result of the disgra 1
behavior of the former Chief of Police azad his cronies with respect to racketeering
gaud,
For goodness sake, don't let the cost of
justice be your reason for denying it.
Our cuhure and society are now under attack from without. 'Their purpose is to get us to
initiate and tolerate an attack from within. Please don't let them win.
Don't give an inch. I won't. Please don't you either.
1~
/2u~t
Bruce A. Anderson
]P.U. box 473
K~?a tistown, Hi 96760
inactive attorney licensed to practice law in the state of 13awaii
and in the Federated States of Micronesia
~~z- ~o~~