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.