So any thoughts on the fact that Judge Ahn is throwing in manslaughter now?

Not sure how this is applicable when Deedy knew he was likely to cause death by pulling his pistol. To me those actions fall under murder in the 2nd territory.

So any thoughts on the fact that Judge Ahn is throwing in manslaughter now?

Not sure how this is applicable when Deedy knew he was likely to cause death by pulling his pistol. To me those actions fall under murder in the 2nd territory.

If this was the EXACT same circumstances and a HPD officer, this case would have never seen a court room.

If this was the EXACT same circumstances and a HPD officer, this case would have never seen a court room.

...
Perhaps.
Imho, both men are guilty of something.
One is unable to do jail time.
The other is.

So any thoughts on the fact that Judge Ahn is throwing in manslaughter now?

Not sure how this is applicable when Deedy knew he was likely to cause death by pulling his pistol. To me those actions fall under murder in the 2nd territory.

during the last trial, i always wondered why the prosecution didn't have manslaughter as a lesser included offense
i thought this was an error on their part
it gives the jury an "out", so their choice is not only murder or acquittal
they can say, "deedy killed him, he needs to be punished, but i cannot vote for murder and put him away for a super long time. oh, look, let's do manslaughter"
then i found out it is the judge that decides if it is included or not, but the prosecutor did not ask for it last time
if i read it correctly, the prosecutor's office is still against manslaughter, but for a specific reason
i have to go back and read the article from thursday or friday about the jury instructions to clear it up
there is now some debate if there is going to be an even lesser included offense, assault

I don't understand.  IANAL, so why is it that they can keep tacking on charges until one of them stick?  Don't you have to address each charge and be able to make a plea/case? 

I don't understand.  IANAL, so why is it that they can keep tacking on charges until one of them stick?  Don't you have to address each charge and be able to make a plea/case?

It's a joke.

"We basically lost the first trial, so let's try and add some additional charges."

So bullshit.

The prosecution should not be allowed to tack on additional charges in a last ditch effort to get something to,stick.

Yeah, I agree. It's either Deedy is guilty for 2nd degree murder (the charge the prosecution is going after him with) or not. Throwing everything you can at him just get "something" to stick is not what we should expect from our judicial system.

I think the more the judge and prosecutor do things to confuse the jury (like possibly changing the charges multiple times), they are opening up more avenues for appeal if a conviction does come.

Neither the judge nor the prosecutor are doing the state's case any favors with their apparent lack of agreement regarding the charges they want the jury to consider.

It's not like they didn't already have a dry run, as well as another year to hash all this out!  You'd think the judge and the prosecutor would be on the same page at this point. 

I don't believe its the judge's job to be on the same page as the DA.   The judge's job is to judge,  not take sides.  Were are dem lawyer types?.......   

I don't think the prosecution is asking for additional charges.

If I'm not mistaken, Judge Ahn just got reamed TWICE this year by the State Supreme Court for not allowing juries to consider lesser charges in 2 cases in which the convictions were both overturned.
(Although in those cases I believe the defense requested the lesser charges be considered )

She's sticking finger at the HI State Supreme Court.

I don't believe its the judge's job to be on the same page as the DA.   The judge's job is to judge,  not take sides.  Were are dem lawyer types?.......   

If the judge has the discretion to add charges, why would the judge and DA NOT discuss this before the trial -- in the presence of the defendant, of course? 

By adding more charges, the judge is taking sides.  She's trying to give the jury more options to convict, even though the DA didn't feel the lesser charge was warranted.

Sound like the judge is trying to help the DA get a conviction.  This decision was after the judge listened to the bulk of the prosecution's case.  I think she sees either another mistrial, or an acquittal for the murder charge, and is over-ridding part of the DA's discretion.

Her timing stinks of judicial overreach.

If I'm not mistaken, she would only add the additional charges at the time of jury instructions, which is where they're at now.
If he gets convicted of Murder and she didn't allow the lesser charges, it could be overturned just like her 2 prior convictions that were overturned this year by the State Supreme Court.

I am no lawyer, but that's my understanding of it.
Wolfwood or any other lawyers pitch in.

the reason why manslaughter was not allowed for the first case was because the prosecution didn't lay a proper foundation to include the lesser charge of manslaughter.

the difference between murder second and manslaughter is the degree of the mens rea element.

within the last year, there were three cases that addressed the inclusion of the lesser charges these cases were Adviento, Flores, and Kaeo.  In all three cases, the Supreme Court held that, if the difference between the charges are a difference in degree of the elements, and the facts support the lesser charge, then it should be included.  When Deedy was tried the first time, these cases did not exist, so it was up to the discretion of the Judge Ahn.  In this second trial, Judge Ahn is almost required to give the jury instructions for the lesser charges.

State v. Adviento, 132 Hawai'i 123 (2014)
State v. Flores, 131 Hawai'i 43 (2013)
State v. Kaeo, 132 Hawai'i 451 (2014)

the reason why manslaughter was not allowed for the first case was because the prosecution didn't lay a proper foundation to include the lesser charge of manslaughter.

the difference between murder second and manslaughter is the degree of the mens rea element.

within the last year, there were three cases that addressed the inclusion of the lesser charges these cases were Adviento, Flores, and Kaeo.  In all three cases, the Supreme Court held that, if the difference between the charges are a difference in degree of the elements, and the facts support the lesser charge, then it should be included.  When Deedy was tried the first time, these cases did not exist, so it was up to the discretion of the Judge Ahn.  In this second trial, Judge Ahn is almost required to give the jury instructions for the lesser charges.

State v. Adviento, 132 Hawai'i 123 (2014)
State v. Flores, 131 Hawai'i 43 (2013)
State v. Kaeo, 132 Hawai'i 451 (2014)

Interesting, but still doesn't sound right, nor constitutional.  IMO it is the job of the prosecution to levy the proper charges, Not the court. Otherwise why even have a prosecution attorney?   I understand it is a good thing to get bad guys off the street, one way or another.  It's the another that makes me worry. 

You can argue with me all you want, but I just told you what the law is and I provided the proper citation to the cases I mentioned. In the Kaeo case, the court looked at the rationale behind the model penal code, which is the statutory framework criminal code that Hawaii adopted. The court stated that the holding was consistent with the intent of the drafters.

You can argue with me all you want, but I just told you what the law is and I provided the proper citation to the cases I mentioned. In the Kaeo case, the court looked at the rationale behind the model penal code, which is the statutory framework criminal code that Hawaii adopted. The court stated that the holding was consistent with the intent of the drafters.

Not arguing with you.  IANAL.  Just stating my opinion on the matter. 

I think that we should focus on other aspects of the trial. Maybe we should ask ourselves if we should allow police officers to carry offduty? Should offduty law enforcement officers be allowed to intervene in situations where it appears that the situation might be escalating?

Putting yourself in the shoes of a victim being bullied and outnumbered, would you want an off duty officer to diffuse the situation, or would you prefer that they just walk out the door and mind their own business?

In a state where citizens are told that they should put faith in law enforcement and LEO's ability to handle situations that arise and that citizens are told not to open carry, or concealed carry, should we be punishing off duty LEOs for getting involved?

I think that we should focus on other aspects of the trial. Maybe we should ask ourselves if we should allow police officers to carry offduty? Should offduty law enforcement officers be allowed to intervene in situations where it appears that the situation might be escalating?

Putting yourself in the shoes of a victim being bullied and outnumbered, would you want an off duty officer to diffuse the situation, or would you prefer that they just walk out the door and mind their own business?

In a state where citizens are told that they should put faith in law enforcement and LEO's ability to handle situations that arise and that citizens are told not to open carry, or concealed carry, should we be punishing off duty LEOs for getting involved?

IMHO:

COPs, just like military, don't turn into different people just because they are out of uniform.  They have the same training, skills, authority, and duties whether they are working a scheduled shift or out getting an apple pie at McDonald's.

Therefore, we can't "tailor" the level of trust we place in them based on their attire or duty status.  If they can be trusted to be armed on duty, there is absolutely no reason to question their trustworthiness while off duty.

For example, if you are being mugged, and a COP is watching, do you expect him to perform the duty he swore an oath to, or should he call 911 and let the night shift try and get there in time?

This is the same "should we limit CCW?" argument the anti-gun crowd uses.  They create "gun free zones" to disarm the people they supposedly trust with concealed carry every other place.  Why?  Are these not the same people regardless of location? 

The decision to disarm licensed concealed carriers is devoid of any logic.  All it's designed to do is placate the nervous feelings of the anti-gun visitors who blame their irrational feelings on others who are not breaking the law or acting irresponsibly.

I think that we should focus on other aspects of the trial. Maybe we should ask ourselves if we should allow police officers to carry offduty? Should offduty law enforcement officers be allowed to intervene in situations where it appears that the situation might be escalating?

Putting yourself in the shoes of a victim being bullied and outnumbered, would you want an off duty officer to diffuse the situation, or would you prefer that they just walk out the door and mind their own business?

In a state where citizens are told that they should put faith in law enforcement and LEO's ability to handle situations that arise and that citizens are told not to open carry, or concealed carry, should we be punishing off duty LEOs for getting involved?

Absolutely off duty police officers should carry firearms.

Most police officers are well trained and skilled in de escalating situations without the need for a gun but if the SHTF, you want as many good guys armed as possible.

Absolutely off duty police officers should carry firearms.

Most police officers are well trained and skilled in de escalating situations without the need for a gun but if the SHTF, you want as many good guys armed as possible.

i'm not disagreeing with you.