Posts

Showing posts with the label jury selection

Anonymous jurors was harmless error, but standardized instructions on extended term sentencing was erroneous

  State v. Lafoga (HSC March 15, 2023) Background. Brandon Lafoga and Ranier Ines were indicted. Lafoga was charged with attempted murder in the second degree, conspiracy to commit murder in the second degree, carrying or use of a firearm while in the commission of a separate felony, kidnapping, and prohibited ownership of a firearm and ammunition. Ines was charged as an accomplice to attempted murder in the second degree, conspiracy to commit murder, and robbery in the first degree.   The circuit court—with the Hon. Judge Paul Wong presiding—ruled that the jury would be “innominate.” That is, everyone would refer to the prospective jurors by number, and not by name. the parties would conceal the jurors’ identifying information like their name, phone number, and address. The court alone had that information. Both the prosecution and defense counsel objected. The judge explained that in the past he encountered anxious jurors who would be too afraid to serve. The court co...

Anonymous jurors, a Rule 48 Reset, No Lessers, and Life Without Parole

OVERRULED IN PART  State v. Lafoga (ICA April 27, 2022) A note on the structure of this opinion. Judge Karen Nakasone’s ICA opinion addresses several different issues throughout these cases without a summation of the facts for each issue.   Background. Brandon Fetu Lafoga was indicted with attempted murder in the 2d degree, conspiracy to commit murder in the 2d degree, carrying or using a firearm in the commission of a separate felony, and other counts. Ranier Ines was indicted as an accomplice to attempted murder in the 2d degree, conspiracy to commit murder, and other counts.   At their trials, the complainant, Kele Stout testified. Stout testified that he worked with Ines at a custom countertop company. They were on a job in downtown Honolulu, when they got into an argument. As Stout was driving in a van, Ines pulled out a gun from his backpack and hit him in the head with it. Stout started bleeding. Ines ordered Stout to drive to Waianae. He threatened to sho...

Questionable Peremptory Challenges, Rogue Jurors, and Other Misconducts

Background. Joseph Pitts was indicted for attempted murder in the 2d degree. Pitts and his friend Jason Brown were driving to the airport to pick up a mutual friend. On the way to the airport, Brown asked Pitts to stop to see a person named “Niki” who lived under a tree. They stopped at the location and both got out of the car. Brown lit a cigarette and was hit. Brown testified he saw Pitts but was frantic. He was stabbed in the neck and arms. He ran down the hill to a guard in a shack and announced “a black guy up there . . . just stabbed me.” He was positive Pitts was his assailant. Prior to trial, Pitts moved to exclude evidence that Pitts accused Brown of raping or sleeping with his girlfriend and that he demanded Brown apologize to him. The prosecution noted that there was no evidence of Pitts’ suspicions before Brown was stabbed. The circuit court, presided by the Hon. Judge Rom Trader, granted the motion. During jury selection, a potential juror expressed herself abou...

The Flip Side of the Tachibana Coin

State v. Torres (HSC April 10, 2019) Background. Rinaldo Torres was indicted with robbery in the first degree and terroristic threatening in the first degree. Five days before trial, Torres submitted a form titled “Waiver of Indictment/Trial by Jury.” The form was signed by Torres and indicated a desire to waive his right to a jury trial and consent to a trial by the court without a jury. Prior to trial, the circuit court announced that Torres indicated that he wished to waive his right to a jury trial. The circuit court questioned Torres in open court about this waiver. The judge asked if Torres signed the waiver form. Torres said he did. He asked if he went over the form with his lawyer. Yes, said Torres. He also asked if he understood the form. “I believe I did. Yeah.” The judge questioned Torres if he understood his right to a jury trial, the right to select a jury, the right to a unanimous verdict, and the right to question potential jurors. Torres said he understood. He ...