Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Changing Hawaii
AND so it begins, Honolulu's trial of the year. Just like the Dana Ireland case consumed the people of Hawaii County, Oahu residents will become caught up in the State of Hawaii vs. Xerox gunman Byran Uyesugi. Uyesugi trial has
already taken a tollThe courtroom proceedings commenced on Monday, before Circuit Judge Marie Milks, and were shown live on all four local television stations.
The defendant stood out among the barristers -- Uyesugi in an aloha shirt, the others in suits. Was it an admission of his limited wardrobe or a ploy meant to set him apart as a rebel, a weirdo?
Prosecutor Peter Carlisle made his opening statements first. Like a lawyer on a TV drama, he spoke directly to the jurors -- forcefully, clearly, with undeniable disdain for the crime. His November re-election is riding on this case and he knows it.
Carlisle was meticulous in his descriptions of the seven fatalities -- maybe too detail-oriented for the victims' survivors, who must have agonized while listening to the traumatic last moments of their loved ones.
Uyesugi was painted as a disgruntled employee, a whiner, a lazy bum with a bad temper. The defendant looked distressed while listening to the characterizations, but his side would soon be told.
Defense attorney Rodney Ching then took the podium. He read his opening statements and rarely looked up, managing to project a grave, emotionless and almost apologetic demeanor.
At the time of the shootings, Ching said his client was suffering from a mental illness called persecutorial disorder. He described Uyesugi's paranoid thoughts and behaviors, the "night demons" he battled, and how his family had unsuccessfully tried to get him medical attention.
Ching also hinted that Xerox and/or its doctors hadn't completed Uyesugi's treatment, a red-light warning to other human-resource personnel that a lack of follow-through can have potentially fatal consequences.
Listening to both sides resulted in a dark exhaustion. The public was burdened with the worst of both worlds: a heinous, unconscionable bloodletting, said the prosecutor; a severely disturbed member of society, said his defenders. Either possibility brought bleakness.
And so it will go on into the summer -- testimony from the widows, the eyewitnesses, the medical experts, the police. They'll take the stand and promise to tell the truth, as Uyesugi watches, scribbles notes and whispers to his lawyers.
Then, after all the evidence has been presented, and the defendant has had a chance to take the stand or invoke his right to preclude self-incrimination, the question will be asked: Is Uyesugi guilty of murder or manslaughter, or not guilty by reason of insanity?
And when the jury's verdict is ready, all four local TV stations will once again beam the decision live, across the state, so the people of Hawaii can strain for some closure and normalcy.
But is that possible? We've already been touched by this crime, especially the victims' families, friends and co-workers; the witnesses and Xerox employees; and those who will sit in the courtroom every day of the trial, like the jurors, courtroom personnel and even spectators.
Sadly, the same is true for the rest of us, too. Now, whenever there's a multiple killing at a workplace, we'll say, "Oh, no, another Xerox shooting," just like we refer to the rape and murder of a woman as "another Dana Ireland."
Mourn the loss of our innocence.
Diane Yukihiro Chang's column runs Monday and Friday.
She can be reached by phone at 525-8607, via e-mail at
dchang@starbulletin.com, or by fax at 523-7863.