Isle high court
voids fast track
to trialsThe ruling says voters had
"misinformation" on the amendment
The Hawaii Supreme Court has overturned a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2002 that would have let prosecutors lodge felony charges against a suspect without presenting evidence and witnesses to a grand jury or judge.
The Supreme Court threw out the amendment yesterday on grounds that the ratification process was flawed.
The high court did not address the merits of the proposed procedural changes for bringing felony cases to trial. That issue was not before the court.
"We hold that the amendment was not validly ratified in accordance with the mandate" of the Hawaii Constitution, the court's decision said.
The court found the process was flawed because voters were provided "misinformation regarding the amendment" and due to "knowing misconduct by election officials."
As a result, the court found that the process failed to comply with constitutional requirements governing the publication of voter education materials explaining the amendment for four consecutive weeks prior to the election.
Honolulu Prosecutor Peter Carlisle, an advocate of the amendment, said last night he needed more time to review the decision before commenting. He plans to answer questions later today.
Criminal defense attorney Brook Hart, who opposed both the content of the amendment and its ratification process, said, "The key problem was it (the published voter education material) failed to accurately describe the amendment."
Hart said election officials did not adequately explain the amendment and did not properly advertise an accurate description for four consecutive weeks prior to the election.
"The amendment of our constitution is a serious matter, and we can't ignore constitutionally required procedures to inform voters," Hart said.
Under the current criminal process, witnesses testify under oath before a grand jury or, in the case of a preliminary hearing, a judge. The job of the jury or judge is to decide whether there is enough evidence or probable cause to proceed with a trial.
Under the alternative process, called direct file or information charging, the need for witnesses testifying would be eliminated until the actual trial. Instead, the prosecutor would file a document detailing the evidence. A judge would review the paperwork and decide if there is enough evidence to go forward with a trial.
Prosecutors say the process is fairer to victims and witnesses because they have to show up only for the actual trial. They also say it gets defendants to trial faster.
But critics say there are no safeguards to protect the rights of the accused. The American Civil Liberties Union and criminal defense lawyers have vehemently opposed the provision.
"The whole point of the grand jury or a preliminary hearing is to screen facts in a contested hearing rather than handing a judge a bunch of sworn statements so he can decide," Hart said.
He said the "current system works well, even though it is cumbersome."
During the 2002 legislative session, both houses passed a bill calling for a constitutional amendment that would give prosecutors the power to use direct file in addition to using grand juries or preliminary hearings to pursue felony charges against someone.
According to the court's decision yesterday, Hart alerted election officials to "alleged inaccuracies relating to the amendment in the voter information pamphlet" on Oct. 4, 2002.
The document said election officials referred the matter to the Attorney General's Office. In a letter dated Oct. 14, 2002, the Attorney General's Office noted that the materials had already been printed and that absentee voting had also commenced. The letter said, "We have reviewed your concerns but believe the materials can be defended as written."
On Nov. 5, 2002, the direct-file amendment passed, garnering 220,829 votes or 57.3 percent of the vote.
On Nov. 22, 2002, 46 people, including members of the ACLU, filed suit in state Supreme Court alleging that constitutional procedures had not been followed and that the amendment should be invalidated.
