Being selected for a term of the year, the Grand Jury is picked by a list of nominees. Their purpose is to hear major criminal cases, such as felonies, presented to them by a District Attorney. After they hear the evidence given to them, the Grand Jury decides if there’s sufficient evidence for the accused person should have an indictment and be tried.
Unlike the Grand Jury, a preliminary hearing is held in the lowest local court system and is decided if a person charged with a felony should be charged for that crime. If there isn’t sufficient amount of evidence given, the preliminary hearing has the authority to dismiss the case. However, if they believe that the person who has committed the act should be tried for the crime committed, they send it to a higher court system (also known as superior, county, district or common pleas) were the trial would be most appropriate.
For Honolulu, Hawaii, it’s not quite obvious as to which method they use for their hearings. However, since it is a district court, chances are they use a preliminary hearing method since a district court is one of the lower local court systems in the state.
Unlike the Grand Jury, a preliminary hearing is held in the lowest local court system and is decided if a person charged with a felony should be charged for that crime. If there isn’t sufficient amount of evidence given, the preliminary hearing has the authority to dismiss the case. However, if they believe that the person who has committed the act should be tried for the crime committed, they send it to a higher court system (also known as superior, county, district or common pleas) were the trial would be most appropriate.
For Honolulu, Hawaii, it’s not quite obvious as to which method they use for their hearings. However, since it is a district court, chances are they use a preliminary hearing method since a district court is one of the lower local court systems in the state.
A California pastor was convicted of conspiracy for a second time in a scheme over the 2003 bankruptcy of Hawaiian Airlines. Spencer and Boghosian were charged with making false statements, including in depositions, concerning their ability to provide $300 million in new capital required for their plan. They solicited others to falsely support and invest in the plan, according to the indictment. Boghosian agreed to pay a $500,000 bribe to an undercover agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation posing as a New York hedge-fund manager in exchange for a $2.5 million loan from the fund, and Spencer executed a promissory note for the loan, according to prosecutors. One document submitted was a letter from two people falsely claiming to be officials of Amsterdam-based ABN Amro Bank NV confirming that Spencer had an account with $500 million, according to the indictment. None of the jurors were challenged for cause or preemptory challenges. All jurors stayed on the jury during the trial. The prosecution would want hard working people who make their money by working and not committing fraud. They wouldn’t like that Spencer and Boghosian committed fraud and tried to get extra money. The defense would want businessmen who know about business deals and how they work. They understand how business works and sometimes things go the wrong way and not in their favor.
According to Hawaii Legal News, in the case State vs. Line, two Hawaii police officers were obstructed from detaining a known criminal drug user. Initially, police came across Dean Line, who was caught with a crystal methamphetamine pipe, and agreed to set up a drug buy from his dealer. Dean then hid in his home, however, and a woman covered for him by saying he wasn’t there. The two officers, Perreira and Kikuchi, left the house, but returned three days later and spotted Dean outside his house, into which he quickly ran. The police officers followed, out of uniform, flashing their badges and weapons, and demanding entry to the house. Mrs. Line blocked entry by holding the door shut and, and when the police forced their way in without warrants, she struggled with them while Dean disappeared. In the aftermath, Perreira suffered a scratch and Kikuchi’s shirt was ripped (Lowenthal, 2009).
The charges of the case were those of hindering prosecution in the first degree, and assaulting a law enforcement officer in the second degree (Lowenthal, 2009). Direct evidence provided in the case would have been the testimony of both officers against Mrs. Line. Circumstantial evidence would likely be officer Kikuchi’s ripped shirt, which was damaged from the struggle with Mrs. Line. This evidence would have shown that at least Kikuchi was violently obstructed, and would support the assault charge. The testimony of the officers would have included the fact that they had no warrant to search the house, thus making the hindering prosecution charge much shakier in court. The ripped shirt, however, likely acted well as physical, albeit circumstantial, evidence in favor of the assault charge.
The charges of the case were those of hindering prosecution in the first degree, and assaulting a law enforcement officer in the second degree (Lowenthal, 2009). Direct evidence provided in the case would have been the testimony of both officers against Mrs. Line. Circumstantial evidence would likely be officer Kikuchi’s ripped shirt, which was damaged from the struggle with Mrs. Line. This evidence would have shown that at least Kikuchi was violently obstructed, and would support the assault charge. The testimony of the officers would have included the fact that they had no warrant to search the house, thus making the hindering prosecution charge much shakier in court. The ripped shirt, however, likely acted well as physical, albeit circumstantial, evidence in favor of the assault charge.
preliminary hearing. (2009). In law.com Law Dictionary. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1580.
Grand jury. (2009). In law.com Law Dictionary. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=828.
Grand jury. (2009). In law.com Law Dictionary. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=828.
Weidlich, T. (2008, November 21). Man convicted of conspiracy in Hawaiian Air fraud case. Star Bulletin . Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://www.starbulletin.com/business/20081121_Man_convicted_of_conspiracy_in _Hawaiian_Air_fraud_case.html
Lowenthal, B. (2009, August 20). Hawaii legal news. Retrieved from http://hawaiiopinions.blogspot.com/2009/08/hindering-prosecution-prosecution-not.html
No comments:
Post a Comment