https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/09/09/state-supreme-court-calls-murder-case-against-kalihi-man-unlawful/

The state Supreme Court put a halt to a murder case on Thursday against a Kalihi man who killed a 16-year-old boy in 2019.

The ruling could have broad ramifications on the state’s criminal justice system.

Richard Obrero claimed he shot Starsky Willy in self defense back in November 2019 after Willy and a group of teens broke into his Kalihi home and shot BBs or airsoft guns at his house.

“He’s very relieved,” said Obrero’s attorney Thomas Otake. “Everyone, including the Obreros, wished this whole incident didn’t happen and could have been avoided. As tragic as it was, it was the result of him defending his home.”
Prosecutors could not get an Oahu grand jury to indict Obrero so they charged him by criminal complaint and got a judge to sustain the murder charge.


His home was in shambles last time I saw it.

Let me see if I have this right.  The Hawaii State AG couldn't get an indictment the LEGAL way, so they circumvented the LAW by charging him with a "criminal complaint."  That, even though the law requires all serious felonies to be indicted by a grand jury.

Sounds like prosecutorial misconduct, abuse of power, and a willful, intentional violation of existing law.

But, that's not a big shocker.  Seems like they've been doing this for a long time and for many other cases.

With hundreds of defendants charged by complaint, some prosecutors believe many class A and B
felony cases will have to taken back to grand juries, causing chaos in the court system.

“What about the victims? What about our community, public safety concerns, all of these things need
to be taken into consideration,” said Big Island Prosecutor Kelden Waltjen.

Honolulu Prosecutor Steve Alm said he was “disappointed” by the decision which creates “unwarranted
restrictions.”

Um, what about the Constitution?  What about the law? What about due process?

Since the 16 year old isn't alive to be charged for the things he and his gang did to Obrero, the prosecutors still feel the need to prosecute somebody.  So they charge the man DEFENDING HIMSELF for having the arrogance and self-reliance to not wait for the Cops while hiding in a bedroom.

The Big Island prosecutor makes it sound as if the real victim in this -- Obrero -- is a criminal for defending himself.  And the people attacking him and his property were his victims.

The biggest sin you can commit against the state is to act as if you don't need them.  They can't be in control of your life if you don't surrender your independence.

BTW, the "unwarranted restrictions" are in the LAW!  If the restrictions exist, they exist for some reason.  If he doesn't like it, have the law changed.  Ignoring the laws you think are "unwarranted" make these prosecutors themselves criminals.

But, we're used to seeing corruption and law-breaking in the AG office, huh?

Hawaii: the Kumbaya State where rules are made for you.  Not for "them".

Another fumble by Alm. Skykap 2.0. The grand jury declined to indict the officers, so Alm still went after them.  Seems like he has a soft spot for Micronesians who commit crimes.

I hope the homeowner sues the PROSECUTORS

The majority of comments on the Hawaii News Now Facebook page are positive! 
https://www.facebook.com/HawaiiNewsNow/posts/pfbid0eDDsHfMe7ey4oakzcSvXV9xXTm5H7awQEuZNxsB1mCBbbemnsXjzWqy8mwMKS83dl

I went to school with Richard Obrero. He is a good guy. I hope he can be fully free of this legal mess.

I don't like the principle of it, it defeats the purpose of having a grand jury and lead to unjustified prosecutions.  I'm not sure why it's needed or how it works in other states.

But this was passed in a constitutional amendment in 1982.  That was when violent crime was rising, so I'm assuming it was a good idea at the time, even from gun owners.

Maybe it's a good idea under certain circumstances, but I dunno.  It's separate from the main issue of possible wrongful prosecution of Obrero's self-defense shooting. 

I don't like the principle of it, it defeats the purpose of having a grand jury and lead to unjustified prosecutions.  I'm not sure why it's needed or how it works in other states.

But this was passed in a constitutional amendment in 1982.  That was when violent crime was rising, so I'm assuming it was a good idea at the time, even from gun owners.

Maybe it's a good idea under certain circumstances, but I dunno.  It's separate from the main issue of possible wrongful prosecution of Obrero's self-defense shooting.

A grand jury is normally 23 members, and 12 votes are needed to indict. 

A grand jury not only decides if the evidence supports the prosecutor's charges, but they also have an investigatory function.  They can subpoena witnesses and documents, ask questions of witnesses (something a trial jury can't do), and they serve as a shield against malicious or oppressive prosecutions.

According the the 5th Amendment to the Constitution:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ..."

This is why grand juries are usually reserved for felony cases especially those involving homicide.

If the state or federal prosecutors don't have the facts to convince a grand jury the accused likely committed the crimes alleged, then it unlikely they will be able to prove their case before a trial jury.  So, unless the grand jury indicts, the accused is spared the time, embarrassment and expense of a trial.

Without this system, prosecutors could simply use the courts themselves to go after anyone they want and for any reason at all.

A grand jury is normally 23 members, and 12 votes are needed to indict. 

A grand jury not only decides if the evidence supports the prosecutor's charges, but they also have an investigatory function.  They can subpoena witnesses and documents, ask questions of witnesses (something a trial jury can't do), and they serve as a shield against malicious or oppressive prosecutions.

According the the 5th Amendment to the Constitution:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ..."

This is why grand juries are usually reserved for felony cases especially those involving homicide.

If the state or federal prosecutors don't have the facts to convince a grand jury the accused likely committed the crimes alleged, then it unlikely they will be able to prove their case before a trial jury.  So, unless the grand jury indicts, the accused is spared the time, embarrassment and expense of a trial.

Without this system, prosecutors could simply use the courts themselves to go after anyone they want and for any reason at all.

Thanks for this post, I was gonna google "what is a grand jury".

The case was a bad one to start. This guy had a pretty decent argument for self defense, not ideal but pretty decent.

Having said that I think the prosecutors office thought they were doing the right thing with the limitations of the grandy jury but in the end the law and rules give a specific way these cases are supposed to be handled and the law cannot be flouted. If the law is broken then fix it, don't skirt it (a frequent course of action on the left)

I read through the decision and the dissent today.

It is not some clear case of officials skirting a law and abusing authority.  Rather it is a more complicated issue where there are conflicting laws. Basically an older law says grand juries are necessary while the newer one says grand jury or preliminary hearing can be used. The majority opinion and dissent are disagreeing on how the two laws work together and which one supersedes the other and how. The majority opinion held a particular interpretation style where the old law was stronger and not negated by the new law.

I read through the decision and the dissent today.

It is not some clear case of officials skirting a law and abusing authority.  Rather it is a more complicated issue where there are conflicting laws. Basically an older law says grand juries are necessary while the newer one says grand jury or preliminary hearing can be used. The majority opinion and dissent are disagreeing on how the two laws work together and which one supersedes the other and how. The majority opinion held a particular interpretation style where the old law was stronger and not negated by the new law.

Going solely on what you posted the key is "can be used". Which means up to Alm. So either way, he dropped the ball again. The first time was the Skykap cops. I wonder if SHOPO will still support him.

According the the 5th Amendment to the Constitution:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ..."

This clause is one of the few that SCOTUS has not incorporated under the 14th amendment, so the states do not have to follow it.

My takeaways from the shooting:

1.  A good attorney is worth it.  His attorney is highly rated and I don't think a public defender would've been successful.   Obrero could be off the hook since the initial grand jury declined to indict and same is likely if they try again.  It might be hotly contested in the legislature when they try to correct it so may take years to pass.  Then we may have a new prosecutor that doesn't want to pursue the case.

2.  If involved in a self-defense shooting, shut up until you talk to an attorney.  He made some utterances to the neighbors that may have been used against him.  Know your rights and the laws for self-defense.

3.  This is like the Waianae self-defense shooting in that the police didn't do anything to stop repeated criminal acts, so they acted to stop the criminal acts from happening again.  I don't think they intended to shoot anyone but were prepared for any circumstance.

4.  This case probably cost him $250,000+ in bail and fees.  Self-defense insurance is good to have even without CCW.

5.  SCOTUS should incorporate the grand jury requirement to the states.  It'll be more costly for state's to administer and some criminals may slip through, but it's the right thing to do to prevent abuse by prosecutors.  It'll also save the defendant costs of going to a sham trial.

This clause is one of the few that SCOTUS has not incorporated under the 14th amendment, so the states do not have to follow it.

Yeah, and the HI State Constitution was changed to include either a grand jury OR preliminary hearing.

The hearing is actually beneficial to the defendant, since it's an open hearing vs. a secret grand jury.  Plus, the defendant and his lawyers are allowed to cross examine the prosecution's witnesses, present evidence beneficial to the defense, and it allows the defendant to be present.  The bad:  all that needs to be proven is probable cause.  Most judges will lean toward agreeing with the prosecution that probable cause exists and should go to trial.

Grand Juries are less like a trial and are supposed to evaluate if (1) a crime was committed, and (2) the defendant is the most likely person to have committed it.

Either way, it's difficult to avoid being charged in either circumstance unless the prosecutor simply lacks the evidence needed to establish the fact pattern they are trying to sell their audience.

The public rarely gets to hear about ALL the evidence and history behind cases like this unless it goes to trial, and even then some evidence is either not admitted or just not offered for whatever reason.

IMO, this case plays into the very biases and political agendas supported and pushed into policy here.  When you defend yourself with force, you're going to be scrutinized by the entire state and asked why you couldn't have -- no ... TOLD why you should have -- let government protect you.

Going solely on what you posted the key is "can be used". Which means up to Alm. So either way, he dropped the ball again. The first time was the Skykap cops. I wonder if SHOPO will still support him.

From Article 1 Section 10 of Hawaii's constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury or upon a finding of probable cause after a preliminary hearing held as provided by law or upon information in writing signed by a legal prosecuting officer under conditions and in accordance with procedures that the legislature may provide, except in cases arising in the armed forces when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy; nor shall any person be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself.

He was following part of the Hawaii constitution and this practice has apparently been going on for quite a while. Where he overstepped was in trying to use one method when the first method (grand jury) didn't have the desired outcome. Section 10 doesn't mention whether more than one method can be used so he didn't really violate the law directly but the court used other cases to decide that this was not an acceptable practice.

I must admit I didn't explain it accurately in my previous post, I concentrated more on the conflicting sections and didn't cover the part I am trying to cover now. It wasn't only conflicting statutes.

This clause is one of the few that SCOTUS has not incorporated under the 14th amendment, so the states do not have to follow it.

I was wondering the same thing. I would have to do some digging but I wonder if this has never been tested or if the SCOTUS heard such a case and tossed it. It would seem pretty clear a grand jury is a clear requirement in the constitution.

no matter what law, procedure or constitution was followed or not a family man who did nothing but defend his family is out of a house and was already persecuted by the neighborhood next door. His house is gone. The irony is that the housing we all pay for and used by those perhaps less fortunate were the ones that destroyed the peace in that neighborhood. Those kids weren't supposed to be drinking alcohol on a public sidewalk. Because of parental failure both parties lost. I used to live across the street from Kam IV. It is was a nice neighborhood.
My dad would make sure we were home by 6pm every night for dinner. He'd ground us if we missed that time.

Does ccw insurance also cover home self defense? I expect things are going to get worse soon and it’s something I’d like to get, but only if it’s useful.

no matter what law, procedure or constitution was followed or not a family man who did nothing but defend his family is out of a house and was already persecuted by the neighborhood next door. His house is gone. The irony is that the housing we all pay for and used by those perhaps less fortunate were the ones that destroyed the peace in that neighborhood. Those kids weren't supposed to be drinking alcohol on a public sidewalk. Because of parental failure both parties lost. I used to live across the street from Kam IV. It is was a nice neighborhood.

I think we are all in agreement on this. I hope he had good insurance because I don't know if he could make a strong case for damages.

What do you mean his family is out of a house? Did he have to sell it to make bail?