Verdict may change
Schweitzers’ strategyAll of the blame might be
By Crystal Kua
shifted to Pauline, and his
confession may be barred
Star-Bulletin
The Schweitzer brothers weren't there; it's all Frank Pauline's fault.
What's next
Oct. 14: Frank Pauline Jr. will be sentenced by Judge Riki May Amano for second-degree murder, kidnapping and first-degree sexual assault in the 1991 killing of Dana Ireland. Prosecutors say they will ask for consecutive extended sentences. Virginia residents John and Louise Ireland, Dana's parents, say they will not return to the Big Island for sentencing.
Yesterday's guilty verdict against Frank Pauline Jr. paved the way for such a defense strategy as the focus of the Dana Ireland case now switches to brothers Albert Ian and Shawn Schweitzer. They, too, are charged with abducting, raping and killing Ireland in 1991.
"If I were defending them, shift much of the blame to (Pauline): 'He confessed. He did it. Not us,' " said Hilo defense lawyer Stanton Oshiro, who sat through parts of Pauline's 5-week trial.
Ira Leitel, who was Shawn Schweitzer's lawyer until prosecutors got him removed from the case, also said that if Pauline did do it, as the jury found, "he did not do it with the Schweitzers. The Schweitzers were not there."
Big Island criminal lawyers familiar with the case and its players -- and familiar with what it's like to litigate in a Hilo courtroom -- assessed the trial's outcome and forecast what could be in store when the Schweitzer trials commence in November and March.
Pauline's confession to police -- that he later recanted -- was one of the strongest pieces of evidence prosecutors had, Oshiro said.
"It's tough to refute a confession," said Oshiro. "It's tough to overcome when a defendant has to say, 'Yeah, I did it.' "
That confession also implicated the Schweitzers. But whether that confession -- in one form or another -- can be admitted into evidence at the brothers' trials remains to be seen.
A confession can usually be used as evidence only against the person who gave it. That confession would be inadmissible against someone else because it's considered hearsay.
About the only way prosecutors can get Pauline's confession into the Schweitzer trials is through Pauline himself.
"They have to call Pauline (to the stand)," Leitel said. "They cannot offer Pauline's confession through other cops against the Schweitzers."
Although some legal experts said Pauline loses his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination with the verdict, Oshiro said he would argue to a judge that the right doesn't end until the appeals process is exhausted. He would also advise a client in the same situation to refuse to answer incriminating questions because of the adverse effect it could have on his appeal.
The confession, coupled with the guilty verdict, could cause problems for the Schweitzers' defense.
By Dennis Oda, Star-Bulletin
Jury forewoman Gwen Kaneshiro shows the
strain of the trial as she talks about the jury's
deliberations in the Pauline case
"Twelve people said Frank was with the Schweitzers," Oshiro said. "To what degree, now that's the question."Leitel said his strategy when he was Shawn Schweitzer's lawyer was to be the first to go to trial because he believes the case against the Schweitzers is weaker than the case against Pauline. Without a conviction against Pauline and without a statement implicating the Schweitzers, it would be tough to convict the brothers, Leitel said.
Kay Iopa, who until recently was a Hilo deputy prosecutor, said the strength of the prosecution's case was the prosecutor's office as a whole.
"Everyone has played some role in it," she said. "A lot of resources of the office were put into the case for a number of years."
But Iopa said that's not to diminish the work of the two deputies who prosecuted the case -- Lincoln Ashida and Charlene Iboshi.
Defense attorney Clifford Hunt did a good job in preparing the jury for Pauline and Pauline's testimony, Oshiro said. "(Pauline) wasn't going to sound like your best friend or neighbor."
"They didn't think he was going to be a choir boy," Hilo defense lawyer Steve Strauss said.
Both Oshiro and Strauss said Hunt had no choice but to call Pauline to the witness stand even though some spectators thought the move was a mistake given that Pauline did not come across well.
"He had to give his side of the story. ... 'Yes, I lied.' But he had to explain why," Oshiro said.
Oshiro said from the evidence presented, the verdict was a toss-up.
"Both sides had strengths," Oshiro said. "(The verdict) wasn't really a surprise from what I saw. It could have gone either way."
Most criminal lawyers agree that one thing the Schweitzer lawyers must try to do is get the case transferred to another jurisdiction because of the outcome of Pauline's trial and the publicity surrounding the case.
But the consensus is, it's not going to be an easy task.
"In my 10 years of practice here, I haven't seen any case transferred out of here," Strauss said.
Dana Ireland Archive
Trial witnesses summary
