Tag Archives: honolulu

Can you get a DUI on a bicycle

Can you get a DUI on a bicycle

UPDATE NEWS:

Another attorney pointed this out to me, seems very apt for today’s news. Here’s today’s news:

October 13, 2013 Woman killed on a bicycle

I hope she figures out which attorney to get.

Original post:

Can you get cited for Driving Under the Influence while on a bicycle?

Absolutely not. If your bicycle has a motor, you are on a moped, and the answer is YES, you can get a DUI on a moped, on a bicycle? Absolutely not.

It shocks me how many people think that you can get a DUI on a bicycle. Just this week I was with a group of attorneys who do a lot of DUIs, make a living on them. And one said to the group “Do you know you can get a DUI on the bicycle? It’s true!”

The group agreed. Probably to be more polite than anything. But one person even said that they saw someone convicted of a DUI! But you can’t, at least not the way the law has been for the last ten years. Let me explain how lawyers (should) look at laws:

I. Read the Law. Again.

The most useful skill I learned in law school was not in a criminal law class, but in a business law class. The teacher called in Close text interpretation, at least, I think that’s what he called it.

II. Close Text Interpretation

The rule we learn at the Public Defender’s office is this: “Re-read the law, every time.” Every time a new case lands on your desk, re-read the law, every time. You’ve done 1,000 DUI cases and there’s another one on your desk? Re-read the law, every time. There’s always something new that shows up.

III. DUI law

In Hawaii, the DUI law is called Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant.  Here we’re going to call it DUI, since everyone I know, even the judges, call it DUI. Most laws get one statute, DUI has evolved to have it’s own section of statutes. Any statute that begins with 291E have some relation to the DUI law.

a. The DUI law is HRS 291E-61

The definition of DUI is held in Hawaii Revised Statutes sec. 291E-61 and reads below:

 

A person commits the offense of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant if the person operates or assumes actual physical control

 

This is not the FULL text of the DUI law. This is just the charging section. This is the part that is relevant to today’s issue.  Actually, we can reduce that part to a shorter section:

 

Hawaii Revised Statute 291e-61 defines DUI as: A person commits the offense of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant if the person operates or assumes actual physical control

 

And here’s where the confusion lies:

Notice the first sentence: “VEHICLE” what does that mean? Notice most laws talk about “Motor Vehicle”. But we’re not talking about Motor Vehicle here. Why?

BUT before we get to the problem, let’s finish the close text analysis. The rule is Definitions, ALWAYS definitions.

b. Read the Definitions in HRS 291E-1

Hawaii makes definitions easy, they’re almost always (ALMOST!) in the first section of the same statute. here we find vehicle. The definition is found in Hawaii Revised Statute sec. 291E-1:

Vehicle is defined as (1) Motor Vehicle. (2) Moped; and (3) Vessel. The Definition of Vessel is a boat on the water.

III. Answer:

Vehicle means Motor Vehicle. Is a bicycle a motor vehicle? no. Case closed.

If you get drunk on a bicycle, don't drive into traffic.

YOU CANNOT GET A DUI ON A BICYCLE. (as long as it doesn’t have a Motor.)

Addendum: Answers are easy, why the confusion?

Confusion is more fun to figure out.

Here’s why, the Hawaii Revised Statutes criminal traffic sections define “Vehicle” no fewer than three times!

There’s the above.

There’s HRS Sec. 291C-001:      “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a roadway or highway, including mopeds and bicycles, but excluding toy bicycles, devices other than bicycles moved by human power, and devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

And there’s HRS sec. 286-002:   “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, but excludes devices moved by human power or devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks and mopeds.

And then I got tired of looking things up.

Three sections, three different definitions, SAME WORD. Notice, for 291C-1, both bicycles and mopeds are vehicles. For 286-2, both bicycles and mopeds are NOT vehicles. Whoever the attorneys were who believed that you can get a DUI on a bicycle, got their definition statutes confused.

Hawaii laws that can be enforced on both a bicycle and a car.

On closer look, the charges you CAN get while riding a bicycle include

  1. speeding ticket
  2. racing charge

On the other hand if you get a Hawaii Revised Statutes sec. 291-2 Reckless Driving charge while on a bicycle, now there is a problem, because which statutory definition of “Vehicle” applies, since there is none! Horse on the other hand is explicit. Guilty!

And that’s the long way to say, Drink and Bike is legal, just make sure your balance is good enough to you don’t land face first!


Deedy and Jury Deliberation: And the Prediction

Deedy and Jury Deliberation: And the Prediction

Jury deliberation in the Deedy case is entering its fourth full day, so what does that mean? The answer: absolutely nothing. The only thing it means is everybody who told you that this was an obvious case, that it’s a slam-dunk, that either Deedy is going to prison or the defense is obviously going to win, they are all wrong.

The First Five Minutes in the Jury Room

Often, juries work like this: They first go in and take a few minutes to an hour for everybody get comfortable. While they’ve been together for a month, and spoken about life and TV and the Warriors, they still haven’t spoken about the only thing that has brought them all together, the case. The first reaction is always testing the waters, not pissing the other jurors off. They are willing to give soft noncommittal directed suggestions of what they think is probably the right outcome. And while they are willing to say which direction they are leaning, very rarely, very rarely do they immediately assert one side is completely correct. That is, unless it is obvious that one side is completely correct.

What is interesting about the flow of this case is the way the general public, as the first testimony came out, said “oh wow guaranteed he’s guilty. How do you get drunk and then need to pull a gun during a fistfight? Until four days later, and all of a sudden, starting with the emergency room doctor Deedy wasn’t even drunk.  Then you get to the Security Guard, who all but canonized Deedy. And once Deedy testified credibly, it seemed to be universal that people were were just waiting for the “not guilty” verdict.

Anybody who told you that this will be a slam dunk-quick not guilty, all of those people were wrong.

Reporting on Jury Trials

Reporting on a Jury trial is naturally deficient. News can report what witnesses say, but it is impossible to report what juries believe. A newspaper can report the facts, but it cannot report on the credibility of them. Did the witness testify honestly or horribly? TV News can show you a six-second blurb, but credibility often turns on one mistake, one look, or one change in emotion. For that reason we who follow along the newspapers can read what people say happened, but we can never know the credibility of the story.

For Example

Remember in high school when you asked a friend why she started vicious rumors about you? She swore she never did. She told you who really did it,  the place and date, and the situation and who was there. You heard everything she said, but you didn’t believe a word. A newspaper would report what was said, but the only thing that is important is what was believed. Clearly, that cannot be reported accurately.

Long Deliberations

So what we are left with when a jury is out a minimum of three or more days, no matter how much evidence is accepted, is at least two people disagree about the outcome of what the evidence is. I don’t care how much evidence has been brought into a case, or how many days or how many experts or how many eyewitnesses exist. Juries may spend a day going over evidence just to be conscientious, but more likely they’ll decide quickly. But no one is being conscientious for three days when everyone agrees, a verdict that takes this long people are discussing what evidence actually came out. There are at least two different sides and people want to discuss what happened in that McDonald’s.

Will the Deedy Trial be a Hung Jury

The interesting thing about hung juries as there’s often no jury instruction set says okay to have a hung jury. There’s no jury instruction that says if you can’t reach a conclusion let us know, and the judge will let you go home and make everyone try again. Juries figure this out for themselves when they just can’t come to a conclusion. Is that what is happening in this case?

Is a hung jury something that benefits in the prosecution or defense. I posit in case like this a hung jury would benefit prosecution, and the reason why is to do another trial of this magnitude, Deedy would probably have to pay his lawyers as well as experts an additional fee. What that means is sometimes you can’t afford the same lawyer, so you get a cheaper lawyer for the second go around. In addition often you have to use the experts transcript, instead of the experts themselves. What that means is the next jury can’t hear the expert himself, or factor in the expert’s credibility on the stand.

Another important thing to factor in is, have there been any jury communications.

Law

The Ten Commandments

Facts and Law in Jury deliberations

Jury communications are often not reported until later, because they are discussed in the back. But it is always interesting when jury communications get sent. It is the only method, after selection, juries can communicate with the court and the lawyers. Now, rarely are there jury communications about facts. For example, rarely will juries ask, “what happened, was it A or B”, and if they do, the judge will admonish them to look to their collective memory to decide.

On the other hand if the question is a question of law, ie “Is it okay for Defendant to defend himself IF ______?” That is a much more common jury communication. And this is a question of the application of facts to law.

Remember, juries have two duties, the first is to determine “What happened”, the second is to determine “Is what happened illegal as described by the law the judge has presented to us”.  Juries often do not disagree too heavily about the “What happened”. They heard the same evidence, they saw the same “tells” from the witnesses, and if one person is confused

Generally the way it breaks down is this, they won’t hang over what happened, they WILL hang over whether what happened meets the law. Put another way, they’ll all agree whether Deedy shot first, said “I’m going to kill you”, or kicked Elderts. But, if they hang, they’ll disagree on whether (for example) the kick is what triggered the fight, or Elderts grabbing for the gun is what triggered the need for self-defense.

 

Lord-a Mercy

Miss Cleo

 

Deedy Prediction

My prediction, we’ll get a Not Guilty verdict before noon. If the jury goes past 2:00 pm, the jury will be hung. And it will all be done today.

1 Comment

Deedy surveillance video — Honolulu Trial

Deedy surveillance video -- Honolulu Trial

A quick update: late yesterday the Star advertiser published the two videos that the defense and the prosecution I wanted to put in the evidence on the Christopher Deedy case. Both of these videos are linked below. Watch on your own. After you watch the videos please read on to see what I think about them. And then, let me know if my analysis is crazy, or close to correct:

Hawaii News Now – KGMB and KHNL

 

Hawaii News Now – KGMB and KHNL

Deedy’s surveillance video changed my mind.

I don’t for any reason think this video exonerates Deedy. Yes, at one point he is on his back, but that’s not when the confrontation starts. The issue here is about the beginning of the confrontation. Does Deedy start or exacerbate the trouble in this case? Because if he did, he probably can’t claim self-defense. Put another way, was it legally allowed or him to do so? Watching this video I don’t think the answer is certain I definitely don’t think this is a slamdunk quote no”.

Another way to put it, “but for” Deedy getting involved, would someone die or be substantially injured here? That’s not exactly the standard, but that’s the common sense close version.

Deedy is not allowed to use deadly force if he precipitates the necessity of deadly force. The question for the jury is whether Deedy exacerbated the fight to that level disproportionately. On the other hand if Elderts reactions to what was going on was unreasonable, and it precipitated the deadly force,  then it may be that Deedy’s in the clear. This video doesn’t clear Deedy for me.

To me part of the problem in this video is the fact that while Deedy was supposedly  acting as a police officer, a female who he came to McDonald’s with is standing between him and Elderts. What that means is the female does not think he’s acting as a police officer!  If she thought he was acting as a police officer she wouldn’t be involved. She’d be in the back, letting him handle what’s going on. But she doesn’t let him handle what’s going on. She’s trying to hold him back. That means his own friend believes he is not in control of his own person enough to make the correct decision. His own friend doesn’t think he is in a state  to act as a police agent.

At this point the final evidence really comes down to Michel Perrine. Perrine is the guy who Elderts was purportedly bullying before Deedy got involved. So the question becomes: how bad was the bullying. If Elderts is needling Parrine, no way Deedy gets to come over. If Elderts is really scaring Perrine, who is really scared for his own safety, actual physical safety, then Deedy may be legally justified in the shot.

Very glad I am not a member of the jury in this case. No matter what, no one wins.


Christopher Deedy, George Zimmerman, and Opening Statement Strategy

Christopher Deedy, George Zimmerman, and Opening Statement Strategy

Today the trial of Christopher Deedy started with their opening statements. To listen to one side, he was a law enforcement officer protecting an innocent. To believe the other, he was a drunk haole initiating and escalating a confrontation. Luckily today I was able to watch most of the opening statements of both the Prosecution and the Defense. The purpose of today’s blog is not to regurgitate their arguments or decide who is correct, I’ll leave that to other outlets. The purpose of this short entry on my website is to talk about why they Prosecution or Defense chose to couch their arguments in certain ways.

I want to make clear from the outset, if you’re related to either side or invested in either side winning, this article is NOT for you. It is not meant to be a critique of the merits of the case or about who is correct. It’s meant to explain to someone not knee deep in trial work why an experienced attorney would argue things a certain way.

That being said, as always, let’s begin with a story: (click more for the rest)

Read more »

3 Comments

Solving Prostitution Part II

Solving Prostitution Part II

Update…

This all started because I read a petition that used sensationalism over substance to achieve a visceral reaction to gain a signature for a petition. A member of the Pacific Alliance to Stop Slavery told me that he agrees with me that the law DOES undisputedly contain a a way to detain juveniles without criminalizing them.

But that part of the petition remains unchanged. Which means they still choose pretty fiction over uncomfortable fact.

Earlier this week I sat down with the Pacific Alliance to Stop Slavery. After explaining everything to them, After their representative saying they AGREE with me on my point about the law, they amended a PART of their petition (to something that is still wrong). But the first sentence of their petition is still WHOLLY A LIE. It’s absolutely not true. I showed EXACTLY where in the law they can “detain juveniles without criminalizing them”, and they prefer to keep it as the lead in their petition. Probably because it is effective. It is only effective to people who don’t know what the law reads.

Basically there have three responses once they are made aware:

  1. “Marcus, we won’t change it because you read the law wrong. HERE IS WHY you read the law wrong, HERE IS WHERE the law says something different than what you say.”
  2. “Marcus, you read the law right, so we will change the petition to be intellectually honest.”
  3. “Marcus, its a great pitch, why should we change it?

Guess which they’re going with so far? Change it to be honest with the people you’re attempting to convince. They’ll quote you, they’ll then get corrected. Then they’ll blame you for leading them on..

(and the one edit they did make is wrong, here is the correct chart of the park closure vs. prostitution punishments:)

wpid-548666_457289240975801_310775165_n-2012-10-5-00-30.jpg

Intellectually disingenuous.

Read more »

Leave a comment

Pacific Alliance to Stop Slavery – Landsberg Law Office

Pacific Alliance to Stop Slavery - Landsberg Law Office

I read something on a friend’s webpage today, a friend who I trust and respect to use the brain and best judgment. And when I read it, it literally blew my mind.

I. Here is where I lose friends.

What I’m talking about is a petition by the Pacific Alliance to Stop Slavery, read it first here: http://www.change.org/petitions/pass-safe-harbor-end-demand-for-prostitution-laws-in-hawaii. Read that first for the context. I don’t think I’ve thought this hard about potential new laws since the Food Truck mess. I would point out, after my post on Bill 59 (still one of the most popular posts on my minor webpage) Tulsi Gabbard took the bill back into committee and made pretty much 100% of the changes I advocated. This is tough love. I post this to help you.

After reading that petition and reviewing the PASS – PACIFIC ALLIANCE TO STOP SLAVERY webpage, I immediately reached out through the network of professionals I deal with everyday in the Juvenile justice system. The network includes Prosecutors and Defense attorneys; their experiences and their contacts, including actual cases and Probation Officers. The juvenile justice system in Hawaii is confidential, meaning I can’t betray names or individual cases, but I can talk about specifics using generalities to explain particular points. I’ve also written about the juvenile justice system here before. I have also been published in the Star-Advertiser with my views on the Juvenile justice system.

II. The Pacific Alliance to Stop Slavery Petition:

The very first sentence of that above webpage reads: “Currently, Hawaii has no protocol to legally detain juveniles rescued from prostitution without criminalizing them.” The first sentence is the first misstatement of the law.
Hawaii Revised Statute 571-31 “Taking Children into custody; release; Notice;” reads
Read more »


Lawyer Headlines in Honolulu DUI

Lawyer Headlines in Honolulu DUI

I had the most wonderful visitors in my office last week.  After visiting during my one-year anniversary party, Nonstop Honolulu Online Entertainment and Hawaii: In Real Life decided to do a profile of me.  During my time helping out the food trucks I got to know Melissa Chang and Russ Sumida through another attorney I commonly associate with, Ryan K. Hew Esq., and they all became familiar with my work. After speaking to a couple of the people I defended, and getting to see me speak before the City Council, they decided I needed to be one of the local businesses they profile in their online magazine every week.

For me, even being considered to stand with the ranks of local businesses like Leonard’s Bakery, Brasserie Du Vin, and Hank’s Haute Dogs is a humbling experience.  I also appreciate the crew stepping out of the regular comfort zone of restaurants and retail, to profile a business that so many people want to divert with the joke “well, I hope I never need your services”.  So I kind of chuckled and stumbled my way through two videos, both of which went almost double overtime.

Read the profile! Click here->Nonstop!

Look at the tip of my pen, don't move your head. -- Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus

The first video is something we could do quick and easy.  DUI is something I’ve been doing for years, and it is always fun to sit around and give each other the Field Sobriety Test. Actually, while reviewing the tape, I think I might’ve changed Melissa’s score (I noticed a couple extra clues I missed because I was thinking about the camera.  She’s lucky she got away with a warning!

Here’s the video with the DUI test:

And here’s the video with us just talking. Mainly just explaining the story about how a lawyer used the law to save my family’s lives. The inspiration behind me going to law school and moving up. Also, it’s one of the few times I think you might actually be able to tell I’m nervous.  Usually I’m much better at hiding it!

 Now to update both the DUI pages of the website as well as the Press sections of the website. And while this is a great way to start July, be careful out there. The Honolulu Star-Advertiser just updated their breaking news with this:
For more frequent updates, follow us on twitter, Melissa Chang says!

Food Trucks in Hawaii — Honolulu Food Truck Bill 59

Ice Cream, Popsicle, Police, Alex Garcia

There’s nothing I like more after having a heated argument in the Supreme Court building, than some nice cool ice cream. Please don’t get between me and my Ice Cream.

Run a red light? Go to Jail.

Rolling stop? Go to Jail.

Didn’t feed the meter? Jail, Jail, JAIL.

People keep asking me for my comments on the new Bill 59.  That’s because I’m still the only attorney in the State of Hawaii that’s gone to trial under that law and won.

Bill 59 is the bill Tulsi Gabbard introduced to change the an old law that stops food trucks from parking on a corner for longer than fifteen minutes.  This old law is a carryover of simpler times in Honolulu, when mom would steam the Manapua while the kids made the Musubi on the kitchen table.  The law predates the other section of the Hawaii Revised Ordinances that govern peddling, and it definitely predates all the regulations on having a commercial grade kitchen for the prep work that Food Trucks now require.  So when when a sweet woman who simply wanted to sell popsicles outside the Supreme Court building came to me and told me the police were harassing her, I couldn’t turn her down.

It was a very simple case.  One cop out of the entire force decided she shouldn’t sell popsicles. He didn’t care that she had her peddler’s license and that all her paperwork was in order.  He admitted that he wanted to give her a peddling ticket, but he couldn’t so he gave her this ticket.  He didn’t care that the law plainly didn’t apply.  She was on the sidewalk, this law was in the traffic code.

So when Kathy asked if this is something I could help with, I took the case.  We did some research and scheduled the case for trial.  And then I started hearing from more and more food trucks: the same officer was threatening the lot of them, but only Kathy got the ticket. She was the guinea pig.

So we went to Court and the Office of the Prosecutor fought against us tooth and nail.  Three Prosecutors are on the record arguing against us. One would get their argument beaten up and then the next one would start.  And they ended with their favorite argument “C’mon, Judge, please, please, PLEASE.”

But luckily we had a fair judge who threw the case out of court.  She looked at the law, heard the arguments of the Prosecutors and told them “The way this law is written, it’s too vague. It doesn’t give ordinary citizens who apply for peddler’s licenses and do what they’re supposed to do, notice that what they’re doing is illegal.” And that’s it, the case is thrown out.

Two days later, when Kathy is back in her regular spot, another police Officer comes over and threatens her with the same ticket. “I just won” she protested.  But the Officer scares away her customers. Smart officers know thought, they won’t write her a ticket.  If they do, she just has to go to court again.

And so I became the attorney for the Trucks, in spirit if not in contract. And I was able to go to a meeting between the food Trucks and Councilwoman Tulsi Gabbard.

Image

The Councilwoman

So the first meeting went over great. Her staff explained they wanted to change the words “15 minutes” to “two hours”. We asked three times, “Are you changing anything else? Are you changing anything else? Are you changing anything else?”

And they assured us. “Absolutely not”.

And we were very clear, “If you change anything else to make it worse for the food trucks to serve, you’ll be doing them a DISSERVICE. Please don’t change anything else.” And we all shook hands, exchanged cards, and left happy with some sweet potato pie.

And then I read the rewritten Bill.

ImageImage

And it took me a day to think about it.  And the next day I emailed.  And a week later I emailed again.  I had grave concerns.  I still have grave concerns.  I write this because I still have these concerns and they haven’t been addressed.  Since the Bill went through first reading today, I want to make sure anyone who is interested understands the problems with the new bill. Here they are:

An assistant who helped draft this bill, assuredly with the best of intentions, in spite of the promise to us that NOTHING else would be changed, added Sub-paragraph 3.  Sub-paragraph 3 includes two clauses: The first guts any protection the extended time limit was meant to create. Police no longer need to wait 15 minutes, why? The ill-advised and undefined “hazardous condition or public nuisance” standard doesn’t exist. That means any truck anytime.  More importantly it’s not even creating a public nuisance, it’s “In reckless disregard of the RISK…” well, isn’t there always a RISK of public nuisance. The business is finished.

But the second is even worse:

Let’s say you steal a lady’s purse. Well, if you’re carrying a gun, the punishment is much worse.  Knowing this, read Sub-paragraph B again. Catch it?

If you overstay a parking meter as a food truck, guess what? Jailable.  Roll through a stop sign? Petty Misdemeanor. Park slightly out of a stall. It goes on your permanent, CRIMINAL record.

“Comply with… all rules relating to traffic, parking”

And if you don’t, it’s now punishable by THIS statute, which makes it jailable if you didn’t feed the meter.  This bill, no matter how well intentioned, gives the few vindictive police, power to arrest and charge for ANY violation.  Even a standard unpaid meter. Even a “rule” which is neither a defined Statute or Ordinance. just a “rule”.

If you enjoy food trucks, get your meals now.  If this new Bill passes as written, they’re finished.


Bishop Street Address — Hawaii Lawyer

Playing the law like a harpsichord since 2004

Eagle-eyed observers have seen the address on the sidebar has been updated.  Yes, the new physical location of the Landsberg Law Office has opened!  It is a soft open: we’ll slowly be making the house a home, but during that time, we’re celebrating!

It’s been a long time looking for just the right office.  We’ve looked at more than one, some we were ready to settle on. But:

This one’s perfect.

Come check it out.  Now taking appointments!

Leave a comment

Hit-and-Run, my very first trial

trial, accident attorney, hit-and-run, hit and run, storyHe was a nice elderly Japanese gentleman.  I asked him his job and he said he was a pastor, but he also a photographer and a fix-it man.  What I’ve learned since is that the more jobs your Defendant tells you he has, the fewer jobs he depends on.  He wore a frayed brown coat, over a mismatched check shirt.  Corduroy jeans and a corduroy tie. I was surprised that much was matching.

He was accused of a hit and run.  The elements of a hit and run are, basically, there’s an accident, there’s damage to something and one party drives away without giving information.  He drove away from the scene, but he was adamant about one thing: he was chased away.

You’re not required to be abused, bullied, or harassed.  You don’t have to give your information to someone who wishes to do you harm.  He was scared, and he wanted to tell the judge how scared he was, but he never got the chance.

My questioning of the complaining witness went like this:

Now, you had the option to tell the prosecutor what the damage you your car was, right?

I told him, there were scratches to the bumper.

And your car wasn’t brand new?

No.

And you had the option to get your bumper fixed.

Yeah.

And you told the prosecutor how much your bumper was worth.

No.

‘Cause, c’mon, there was really no damage.

Not really.

I sat down so hard the chair broke. BROKE.  She just admitted there was no damage.  With no damage the judge had to dismiss the case.  Of course.  That meant my sweet defendant couldn’t testify.

He wanted to testify, he just wanted anyone to hear his story.  No one would listen.  The other party wouldn’t listen (they were screaming).  The police wouldn’t listen (they were arresting him).  And now his attorney wouldn’t listen (I was winning, get out of the way!).

SO the judge made the right decision and dismissed the case.  Many people don’t understand how serious these cases are.  While the jail penalty is low, between insurance and restitution, we’re talking penalties upwards of $10,000 or more dollars.   Potentially the value of a car and a halfway verdict for use in civil court.  His case was dismissed.

And my poor defendant followed me around the courthouse all day, just trying to find someone to  listen to his story.

While I was walking around the courthouse, just trying to find someone to listen to how I won!


Hawaii Criminal Defense: The Legal Blog

Issues in Hawaii Law.

Below is a collection of Articles I've written about Hawaii law.  Most are about criminal defense, Honolulu trial work, or future legal trends. Courtroom experience is probably the most common.  Others are comments on local or national law.  Hopefully there is something for you to find and enjoy.  If nothing else, you'll see the way I feel about certain issues, and the thought processes I put into legal problems we solve.

And some stories are just too funny NOT to tell.......

Recent blog posts

Contact us now:

Facebook   Message   Twitter  

Contact an Attorney Now!