Was’ Up Keith? Was’ Cooking?
Keith Kaneshiro, Honolulu City Prosecutor’s comments and criticism
of the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) procedures for handling
officer-involved shootings are disingenuous, self-serving, materially
misdirected and self-incriminatory.
In the Star Advertiser, Sunday, September 14, 2014 article, Police
shootings prompt questions - Criminology experts criticize how HPD
has handled recent officer-involved fatalities, Prosecutor Kaneshiro
states his reasons for establishing independent investigations by the
prosecutor’s office, “I had instituted this policy in the 90’s because we
wanted to maintain the integrity of law enforcement investigation. It
is important that people do not lose their respect for law enforcement
by thinking that there’s cover-up, and if there’s misconduct they
(police) won’t be punished. … If we only rely on an investigation by
the police, then that determination may be tainted.”
Prosecutor Kaneshiro should be reminded that verified reports and
complaints of prosecutorial misconduct have become increasingly
rampant under his leadership of the Honolulu City Prosecutor’s
Office ranging from reconstituted evidence, missing material
evidence, evidence destroyed by direction of the Honolulu City
Prosecutor’s Office, failure to disclose exculpatory evidence to the
defense and over-the-line witness coaching to elicit desired testimony
favorable and necessary for conviction.
Noteworthy in the article is the following excerpt, “The prosecutor’s
office vigorously pursued murder charges and is prepared for a third
try against Christopher Deedy, the federal agent…”
Respectfully to the family members who seek closure, my comments
are directed solely to the competency and capability of the Honolulu
City Prosecutor to prove all elements of the crimes charged in the
Grand Jury Indictment.
The major difference in Deedy I and Deedy II is the enhanced and
changed witness testimony.
Criminologists and former HPD officers who level disparaging
remarks against the Honolulu Police Department and procedures
miss the mark.
The use of forensic science and testing techniques by the Honolulu
Police Department are not mentioned by University of Hawaii
Criminology Professors and former HPD officers who may have long
left the mainstream and police force, have marginal understanding of
forensic science and testing techniques such as DNA, other than what
they have witnessed on TV, heard on radio broadcasts or from talk
story with friends.
The Star Advertiser article goes on to report, “Kaneshiro said he
cannot recall a murder charge against a police officer against a police
officer, but the office has prosecuted police officers in both felony and
misdemeanor cases.” The crime of Murder under Hawaii Revised
Statutes is classified as a Felony.
While the elements of a crime may differ, proof of Intent, mens rea, is
essential for a murder conviction. Expansively and inclusively, to
prosecute the crime of murder - Motive, Opportunity, Intent, Plan,
Perpetrator, Knowledge, Identity, and Act (MOIPPKIA).
Sacred and protected by the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution is the Officer’s right to forego providing a Statement to
the Honolulu Police Department Administrative Investigation Team.
Even in cases where the Officer provides a Statement to the Honolulu
Police Department Administrative Investigative Team, the Honolulu
Police Department Criminal Investigative Team does not have access
to the Officer’s Statement.
The Star Advertiser article goes on to report, “After an officer-
involved shooting police immediately contact Kaneshiro, who goes to
the scene with an investigator from the prosecutor’s office. They
have complete access to the scene, collect information, take photos,
interview witnesses as well as the officer or officers involved.
Kaneshiro said there is an advantage to his office handling it versus a
review board. In any criminal investigation, “you need to start the
investigation as soon possible. You need to go to the scene.” He
added, “Nothing can capture what you see. To have a review board
come in later on, you lose that.”
There is no mention by Prosecutor Kaneshiro of first taking steps to
preserve the scene of the event to insure preservation of material and
relevant evidence, collecting evidence (other than “collecting
information” and “interview witnesses as well as the officer and
officers involved”, there is absent mention of a forensic team in the
Prosecutor’s Office, a forensic laboratory in the Prosecutor’s Office,
calling in the Honolulu City Corner in the event of a death.
Noted as reported is the Prosecutor and/or the Investigator from the
Prosecutor’s Office questioning the officer or officers involved. The
elements of intimidation, undue duress, coercion by reason of being
the Chief Honolulu Prosecutor and Investigator from the Honolulu
Prosecutor’s Office are presented. The voluntariness of any
statements provided by an officer or officers involved is highly
suspect. Unless the Prosecutor and Investigator from the
Prosecutor’s Office reads the officer or officers involved their
Miranda Rights, such action by the Prosecutor and the Investigator
from the Prosecutor’s Office constitutes an apparent infringement
and abridgement of their 5th Amendment to the United States
Constitution and actionable under,
Title 18 United States Code § 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under
Color of Law.
“Whoever, under color of any law … willfully subjects
any person in any State ... to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States … shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
Procedurally, I agree with Prosecutor Kaneshiro that being on scene
advantageous for media-hype. As stated above, any evidence
garnered by Prosecutor and the Investigator from the Prosecutor’s
Office based on procedures established by Prosecutor Kaneshiro is
constitutionally tainted, inadmissible for any purposes, irrelevant
and immaterial, and evidence are subject to exclusion by the Court
upon presentment of Motions In Limine or Motions to Suppress.
The two-prong procedure followed by the Honolulu Police
Department is in accord with the Law.
The business of criminology is diminished and in the City & county
of Honolulu by the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor’s Office taking
charge.
Prosecutors are skilled in legal aspects and trial of cases.
Unless, in rare cases, a prosecutor and the investigator from the
prosecutor’s office are both attorneys, degreed and certified medical
practitioners with access to an in-house, state-of-the-art forensic
laboratory, possess knowledge, experience, skill and capable of
performing forensic testing, Chief Prosecutor Kaneshiro should
openly acknowledge that his rightfully place and that of his
prosecutors are in the review of evidence collected by the Honolulu
Police Department and the forensic test results provided, to
determine whether there is sufficient evidence of criminal conduct
and/or conduct warranting disciplinary action, organization of the
evidence to seek disciplinary action and if warranted criminal
indictments. Thereafter, being advocates for the State of Hawai`i at
disciplinary hearing and/or trial, and appellate proceedings.