Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Welcome, everyone, to the Judiciary Committee hearing this Friday morning. We have one agenda. Starts at 9:30. It's a governor's message and Judiciary communications agenda, which is for judges, for confirming judges and members of the Defender Council. If we have a catastrophic failure on the Zoom side, we'll try again on Tuesday, April 15th, at 9.30am again.

But it won't be in this room, it'll be in 225. So hopefully we won't. We do have a two minute limit on testimony both on Zoom and in person. But if you can stick around, Members often do have questions and... Oh yeah. So I'm planning to not vote. I'm planning not to vote on the GM and the two judges.

We'll put that off until Tuesday April 15 and 2:25 at 9:30. And the other two though for the Defender Council I do plan to vote today. Okay. First up is governor's message 767. This is Kauanoe Jackson for consideration confirmation circuit court judge for the third circuit for term to expire in 10 years.

First up on GM 767 is and Elise Wolf, President for the Hawaii West Hawaii Bar Association on Zoom. Good morning.

Good morning. My name is Annalisa Wolf. I am the current President of the West Hawaii Bar Association. The West Hawaii Bar Association consists of 113 Members. Our purpose is to serve the public and illegal community of West Hawaii by expanding legal resources and improving the legal profession in the state and County of Hawaii.

The 3rd Circuit Court needs a permanent judge. During the last year the courts have struggled to ensure that litigants receive fair and swift resolutions. Because of the vacancy in circuit court has been held by the permanent district court judge creating a cycle of per diem judges in district court.

This has created a ripple effect and a severe strain on the judicial system that affects everyone who comes before it. The Third Circuit deserves stability and consistency that can be restored by the appointment of a permanent judge. Upon Ms. Jackson's nomination to the Third Circuit, the members to evaluate Ms.

Jackson's qualifications in regard to category professional experience and judicial temperament in order to provide commentary to this Committee. As noted in our written submission, Ms. Jackson received high marks in all categories. Responses consistently noted her dedication to public service, her strong work ethic and her professionalism. Ms. Jackson was viewed in an extremely positive light by the respondents.

The West Hawaii Bar Association looks forward to continuing to provide input and advocacy the legal community we serve. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up is Anela Rosa, also on zoom.

Yes. Aloha Kakayaka. This Is. My name is Anela Rosa. I am actually a relative of Koanoi from the island of Maui. I live in Lahaina and also the Kahu of our esteemed church Waiola, who is the oldest church on Maui. I write on behalf of the. The of Koanoi Kalamai.

I'm so nervous and I'm so happy for her too. I did submit a letter and in the letter I do submit how responsible and how. How much Koanoi does for herself, her community, her. Her family and her character itself throughout her entire life, even as a young girl, throughout her. Her career and her schooling.

I was very fortunate to be there at many of her milestones. Her graduations from high school as well as her college. I watched her grow up. I've watched her get married. I've watched her raise her, her daughter and. And living the life that she does in fulfillment of the person that she is.

So I highly recommend her because of the person that she is in the. And in her wor. Work ethics. You can see just in the history of her life as her job and that she's been doing that. She's been an incredible. She's been doing an incredible job.

So I fully support her and appreciate everyone here that's here to support her as well. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Mayu, is it possible to turn the volume up just a tad for the next person? It.

Yes, I'll see what I can do.

Okay, great, thanks. Next is Ezra Witzman, also on zoom. Good morning. You're still on mute.

Okay. Can you hear me now? Yes.

Mr. Whitzman is first.

Okay.

Aloha Committee Members. My name is Ezra Witzman and I'm a retired social studies teacher from Kealake High School in Kailua, Kona. During my working years, I was a business person, a state prosecutor, a private practice attorney, and lastly, for 20 years, a teacher. My work experience gives me a unique perspective.

For more than 18 years, I have worked with students and mentors to compete in the we the People competition. This national competition is a mock congressional hearing related to various constitutional issues. For years, Kauanoe has been a mentor for the we the People program.

She has done a wonderful job working with students and collaborating with other mentors, including attending Saturday practices. As a mentor, she has assisted students in researching, writing and doing practice rounds. With my work background, I have had direct experience observing what it takes to be an outstanding judge. Ka' u Noi is hardworking, smart, personable, kind and diligent.

With these qualities, I'm Confident that Kauanoe will become an exceptional judge. Without hesitation, I give her my highest recommendation. Mahalo for listening to my testimony. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up is retired Judge Robert DS Kim. I think he's serious. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbert, Members of the Committee, the Judiciary Committee. I come as a private person today to support the nominee, Kuanoe Jackson. I've known her for decades as a private attorney. I did jury trials as a defense attorney with, with her. She was the prosecutor.

She was always prepared, diligent, intelligent, and also considered justice in her decision making. As we fought in court, as a judge, she appeared before me. She was always prepared. She is respected in the Kona community.

I would like to say that I was fortunate enough to take the seat left by Judge Ibarra, Ronald Ibarra, and I would be proud to leave that seat, Division 3, in Circuit Court to Kauanoe Jackson, because I know she will uphold the standards. I urge you to please consider her nominee favorably and consent to this nomination.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up is retired Judge Ibarra. I don't believe he's here. In support, Kelden Wal, the prosecuting attorney for Hawaii County. Also in support, Jennifer Long. In support. If anybody's here and wants to come testify, please say so. As I go through the list, Edith Maeda in support. Daniel yes or Jesser. In support. Kathleen Sakai. Oshiro.

In support. David Crothers in support. Terry Ujioka Lilly. In support. Alan Bartolome in support. Shauna Fergustrom in support. Jason Quiet in support. Craig Long in support. Linda Walto in support. Cynthia Ty in support. Andrew Kennedy in support. Jamie Takimoto in support. Doris Lum in support. Randall Hiranaka in support. Herman Heingartner in support. Ronald Sato in support.

Katherine Gibson in support. Dale Ross in support. Is there anyone else that's every. Well, that's not everybody that signed up. There's one more HSBA, but I'll take them last. Would anyone else like to testify in GM767? Yes. Come on up. Good morning.

Good morning. My name is John Olson. I've been practicing law in Kona for 52 years. I was deputy public defender and I was court appointed counsel and many felony cases. And I face off with Ko Hanoi often. She's a good lawyer and I strongly recommend that she get this appointment.

I think she'll be a credit to us all and she'll serve with distinction. I have seen her rise up through the prosecutorial ranks and she's experienced and capable, and she's a woman of her word. Her pleadings are timely and well thought out. She shows a broad understanding of the criminal law.

And I believe that Kohanoi's best trait as a judge is her humility. She has judicial temperament. It's hard in Kona being a judge and having people tell you all the time how great you are. So being humble is a good trait to hang on for as long as you can.

I was per diem judge between judges back in 1979, and I strongly support her and encourage any questions you might have.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Would anyone else like to testify On Governor's message 767, on zoom or in person? Okay, seeing them. We'll go ahead and go to the Hawaii State Bar Association. Mark Murakami, President, Good morning.

Hello. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard, Members of the Committee. I'm Mark M. murakami, the President of the Hawaii State Bar Association. The White State Bar Association has a rigorous and sometimes very quick screening process for judicial candidates to inform the President's testimony before this Committee on all judicial candidates. That process was gone through with Ms.

Jackson, and the board voted yesterday to provide its testimony that she was qualified for the position. I'm happy to answer any questions about our process, but we would request that you consider and favorably endorse Ms. Jackson's nomination and confirm her as a circuit judge for the Third Circuit. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, Members, questions for any of these testifiers? I do have one for HSBA, if you don't mind coming back. So your testimony states that the majority, the majority of comments and letters received from HSBA members reflected an affirmation of the appointee I.e. That.

It sounded a little less positive than sometimes the HSBA letter sounds. Can you give us some rough idea of what, how big the majority was?

We tend to. Let me kind of take a step back. When we receive the governor's nomination, we blast our membership, and that is 8,000 Members statewide, some who opt out of receiving emails from us. And we, we treat those Member comments that do come in confidentially. No lawyer board Member actually sees the raw content.

It comes in as an email to HSBA staff and it's scrubbed to make sure there's no specific details because we want to encourage our Members to provide that testimony free from the fear, which is a real fear.

I'm not sure that it's actually been borne out of retribution by commenting on someone that you might have to appear before someday. And so we did receive comments both like you've seen here today. We did receive negative comments. We tend not to keep scores in terms of. And we don't rank vote it.

We read the comments, we go over those comments twice with the nominee and the board gets to ask the nominee about, you know, pros and cons. Usually they, they can be case specific and, and we have, we get to determine whether or not we think the nominee has. That meets the character of the criteria.

And so I don't want to. I'm not sure I actually know the scores. We did receive both negative and positive comments. And I can say generally, you know, we don't. The comments matter more than the numbers, I guess is my point. One bad comment could derail somebody if it reflected upon their judicial character.

Was there any concern raised about the fact that most of her. Most of the. The appointees. Experiences on the criminal side.

Among the judicial traits or characteristics we do look at is experience. And the. The board definitely considered her background. I don't think being a lawyer is kind of tough because you tend to gravitate towards specialties and experience levels. And so because you track towards criminal litigation or civil litigation, your exposure to the other world is very limited.

The neighbor islands, unlike First Circuit, the judges do all. And so I think that for the rural county courthouses, we look for folks who have expressed a willingness to learn and a capacity to make good decisions.

I think given the breadth of the law that a circuit court judge might have to face and opine on, I think it's unrealistic to think that anybody's going to be the perfect candidate with requisite.

So is it fair to infer that. Whatever. Whatever. I hate to use the word deficiency. That's what comes to mind. Whatever deficiency there is on the civil side is something that, I mean, is it fair? And further, whatever, whatever.

Your weakness on your resume is that you has the capacity to overcome it and be a good judge on the civil side, which is probably where she'd be put in the immediate future because of conflicts on the criminal side.

I don't think it's written down anywhere. But my understanding and my observation is that usually when judges come over from the criminal side, they're given only civil cases for two years. I think some of the most noteworthy judges on the bench in Hawaii came from the prosecutor's office and had very noteworthy civil careers as a judge.

And so I practice civil law and I do have cases in Kona. And so it is in our interest that we have judges that can adjudicate civil matters, too. And so the bar stands ready. I do think that nominee can learn. And. And do great things. All right, great. Thank you. Any other questions?

Yes, Senator San Buenaventura, go ahead.

So how many people responded?

I don't actually have that number on top of my head. I. We have a, we have a sub-commitee or a Committee that gets appointed of three directors, including members from the, the circuit. And they scrub, do due diligence, they call all the references, and they review every single piece of paper. The YesC application.

So it could be as little as five?

Yes, ma' am. I don't have the number at the top of my head.

Only three said yes. I mean, it, it matters, right? When we have thousands in attorneys and everything is looking good for her. But I just want to know, percentage wise and if, if you said most of it is affirmative, but you don't know how many people responded. I mean, how credible is your testimony?

I think my testimony is pretty credible. I sat with her twice yesterday for hours. We did review. We. The process that judicial nominees go through with us is very rigorous and.

Okay, so how many do you know?

I don't know.

Okay. And you don't. I wasn't on the Committee. Okay. How many negatives?

I don't know. I don't know. You don't know?

I do know that affirmatives. You don't know how many negatives. You don't know percentages. So basically your testimony. And I've sat with her and, and I'm impressed with her. And in fact, I went against her early on in her career, so I, I'm.

But I'm looking at your testimony as it also applies to all the other judicial nominees. Right. You don't. Okay.

I. Candidly, if it was one comment that said she, you know, a nominee lied to the court, we would spend hours on that and, and would have qualms about that. And so the numbers of negative comments, I think, don't matter as much in our process because FLAG was raised, unpacked.

The Members are afforded the opportunity if they want to engage more outside of a confidential process. To our knowledge. No. No motions. You know, they didn't. Nobody came to testify here live. And so I do think that our process is fair and it's what we've consistently done over the years. And I think each time you come.

Here, I ask you how many and each time you don't have a number. And so just. Interesting.

Thank you. Okay, Other questions, Members, if not, could I have Judge Kim back up for a moment? Back to the civil versus Criminal question. You're. You express great confidence in the nominee. You don't. You. You believe that.

All right, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it would appear to me that you believe that she will be able to make the transition from primarily a criminal practice to, at least for a couple years, will be primarily civil.

Yes, and let me tell you why. Okay. Let's say, for example, we have three judges. Circuit Court Judge Nakamoto, he came from civil. He practiced civil law his whole career. He does criminal law, and he does probate. Judge Kubota did probate most of his career, didn't do trials. He's a circuit court judge.

He's doing all of that and doing well. Just like Judge Nakamoto. Wendy Deweese practiced family law and then was a public defender. She handles the tobacco litigation. She handles all the civil matters. A judge needs to be able to learn the areas that they didn't practice in helping the judges.

We have a benchbook which helps the judge through those areas. And you have your fellow judges. When you need to rely on discussions, all of us judges, we talk, we share ideas. I call Honolulu judges if I have a concern as to the thought process.

I believe that the nominee, because of her trial experience, she was one of the lead trial lawyers in Kona. I oversaw serious felony cases. She has the capability to understand and to learn the civil practice. Lastly, if I could say the attorneys are smart.

If they know that they have a judge that is coming on board that may not have had civil experience, they're going to write their motions to win or lose to explain to that judge why they should win.

Judge Deweese commonly tells them, hey, you gotta basically bring it down for me so that I can understand the issues and make a good decision. So that's why I feel confident, because of her work ethic, that she would do a fine job.

Okay, thank you very much.

Members, any other questions?

If not Ms. Jackson, if you don't mind. Coming up. And if you'd like to make an opening statement, you're more than welcome.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard, Senators Chang, San Buenaventura, and.

I'm sorry, before you could really get going, can you just pull the mic a little closer? Yeah. Thank you. Okay.

I'm blessed to have the support of my family. I am thankful for the countless sacrifices that both my mom and dad have made for my siblings and I to better ourselves in life. They moved to Kona 43 years ago and made Kona our home.

I am thankful to my siblings, Kapena, Kekaha and Kavaila, two of whom are here. Like my parents, they have constantly supported me and challenged me to do better, just as my husband Eric and my daughter have. I can only hope, if allowed, my time on the bench will further inspire my daughter to push herself to challenge herself.

She is running track and the coaches tell her, push yourself until you're uncomfortable, because soon that uncomfortable will be comfortable. For the past 18 years, I've have. I have appeared before the Circuit Court of the third Circuit, various judges as a public servant committed to that.

I've appeared in front of them as a litigator, as a zealous advocate. And so why at this time make this decision to attempt to serve as a Circuit court, circuit court judge? Now I'm here pushing myself to feel uncomfortable again. It's a hard thing to do, middle of your career, to want to do that.

I first started in the prosecutor's office and each time I moved, I did something different or expanded my casework. I pushed myself into that uncomfortable role because I wanted to do better. I wanted to see what that unfamiliar era was like. I wanted to master it and master the skill to do that job.

Now I asked this Committee to confirm me, to allow me to serve this community in this new role. At first, that role will feel uncomfortable. I will not know civil law and you know that. I understand those concerns and the uncertainty it brings.

But as I have done before and like others, I am committed to learning and familiarizing myself with all areas of the law as efficiently as possible. In addition to researching, I will take advantage of the seminars, conferences that are available, benefit from online recorded, pre recorded proceedings. And recently some good advice was given to me.

Be humble enough to ask for further briefings, to ask for mentors, or ask other judges, what do you know to begin? Where I need to go. And I commit to doing that.

I'm fortunate to have learned so much from the judges, Judge Kim, Judge Ibarra and so many others that I have appeared before the attorneys that I've worked with, like Andrew Kennedy and those who I've litigate, litigated cases against. Those judges and attorneys not only expanded my knowledge, but they taught me how to practice with civility.

Appearing before all those judges for so many years, I see and appreciate the depth and the consequence of their rulings. Those rulings shape and impact our community for all time. From watching the bench and the time as a supervisor, I'm constantly learning useful tools to managing and effectively managing matters and people.

Managing a docket will be new for me, and doing that efficiently is challenging already.

Given my observations in court, my frequent court appearances, and having seen the consequence of the delays caused by Covid, I understand that managing a docket is something that has to be at the forefront and I believe actively participating in calendaring the matters, actively participating in status conferences and prompt dispositions on my part, if allowed, are factors that will be useful tools in managing that docket.

I come before you as a nominee with imperfections. I hope that my career exemplifies my capability and dedication to learning and improving in all aspects of my work and the dedication I have to my community.

I hope that my work in Kona speaks for my unwavering commitment to uphold the Constitution into studying, learning and interpreting the rule of law fairly and impartially.

I ask that you see that I am qualified not based upon what I know now or what I know in the past, but what I am capable of knowing in the future. It has been an honor to serve the public for the past 18 years.

If confirmed, I commit to continuing continuing that service for the next 10 years with the Circuit Court of the Circuit Court Circuit. But regardless of this, my service will continue. I am here and available to answer any questions you may have.

Great. Thank you. Members questions. Let's see. I think most of the, most of the. My concerns have been addressed by other people. I. I guess I would ask, have you already had discussions with the judiciary about which calendars you think you will be getting? And are you looking.

The question would be, well, that's a question, I guess, but which calendars are you getting and which ones are you looking forward to and which ones are you, you know, not so thrilled about?

I will be, I believe, getting civil cases. The civil docket. We don't have any other division except a criminal case. Civil case. And so I will be for the next two years on a civil calendar that would range from probate, guardianship, torts, complex litigation. It'll. There's no other breakdown.

Okay, so you're. You'll get the whole. You'll get the whole gamut. Is there. Are there particular areas that you're interested in, ones that you're particularly. I don't know. You know, I understand you. You do what you have to do. But it's some. Do some of them sound more interesting than others?

As I've been looking at the calendars that are before the circuit court because they email them all to members. I am interested in the foreclosure arena because it's happening quite often. And so that is something I'm excited about because I'd like to learn more and see what the process is. And I'm starting to learn more.

There are wonderful mentors in our community that have found that their expertise and so conversing with that person would be helpful. But that is an area that I am interested in at the forefront because it is, it is something that. Is. Often heard in the calendars.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Other questions, Members?

I guess so. Thank you for interviewing with me earlier. And I agree with a number of these testifiers. It sounds like you will commit yourself to learning the law, especially since you are going to be judging cases that you are not experienced with.

My request is will you commit to be fair and have the decorum needed even when attorneys in front of you frustrate you?

I commit to that.

I think every litigator and if necessary, do a recess in case they get to you. Okay.

And, and the other commitment is, and I think you've already said that, is if you really don't know, commit to basically have the humility to accept the fact that you do not know and make sure that the attorneys brief you on what you do not know.

So I do like the fact that you are a litigator because to me, that is the nettle of a trial court judge is to make decisions on the fly at the time when motions are occurring during litigation. And we cannot have indecisive judges not know what the rules of evidence are. So I do like that.

So for that, I will be recommending, I will be voting up on this nominee. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Other questions, Members, if not, thank you very much for coming up and everybody who came to testify today. And we'll go ahead and move on to the next item on the agenda, which is Judiciary communication number 28. This is Sonia H.

Sonya H. Toma for consideration and confirmation to the District Family Court of the Second Circuit, which is Maui County, and for term to expire in six years. First up on JC 28 is Marilyn Yamamoto for the Hawaii Coalition for Child Protective Reform. I thought she was going to be here, but no. She's in opposition. Melody Rolnick, are you here? On Zoom. Go ahead. Good morning.

Hello. Good morning. My name is Melody Rolnick, and I'm testifying in strong opposition to the confirmation of Ms. Toma to the District Family Court of the Second Circuit. Ms. Toma previously served as the Deputy Attorney General representing Child Protective Services in Family Court proceedings. And in that role, CPS was her direct client and she argued in support of their positions and their decisions.

If confirmed, she would now be presiding over cases where CPS is often a party. That presents a clear conflict of interest and undermines the appearance of judicial neutrality. Maui families deserve a judge who brings a fresh and unbiased perspective to the bench, not someone who has built a career advocating for one side that regularly appears in front of the court. I respectfully urge you to vote no on this confirmation. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Michelle. I'm sorry, I don't know how to pronounce your last name. Lelle. In person. On Zoom. Good morning.

Hello. Can you hear me? Okay. Thank you very much. And hello to Mike Gabbard. You and I work together a lot on hemp legislation and. Hello, Joy. You're very familiar with my previous case. I am writing an opposition. I'm reading a statement here. I'm writing an opposition to Sonya Toma becoming a family court judged in Maui County.

I am one of the 81% of the families in the state who had a child removed that was never harmed prior to entering the family court system. My child was removed from my home when I was naked changing in my bedroom without a court order and without a warrant. When I located the agent, I was tricked into believing that I was...

He was going to transport my son to a treatment center that I had arranged for prior. In fact, the agent drove away with my son and I watched him drive away. And when I left, thinking that he was safe on his way to treatment, the agent drove back to the parking lot and met police claiming that I drove off and that I was a danger to my son without ever seeing me, without ever seeing my son.

Within two and a half minutes, according to the body cam footage, the police officer took the word of the agent and signed away my custody, destroying my family forever. And Sonya Toma was the Attorney General during the entire case that dragged on for almost two years. During the case, Sonya Toma repeatedly signed under penalty of perjury that my son was safe under Hawaii supervision.

I believe this is grounds for her not being appointed. During my son's captivity under the State of Hawaii, he was starved for the first three weeks in foster care. He lost 21 pounds in those first three weeks and then rushed to the hospital after my many pleas of begging for them to weigh my son as he was telling me about the abuse.

I had recordings, and I still do, where my son shared with me that the agent told him it was okay to lie and that he, If he said he didn't feel safe living in my home that he would allow him to smoke cannabis in the foster home and he told me that they let him. My son's neglect and abuse and the system only escalated. To make things worse, I also had him read pre-written statements in court.

I'm sorry, your time has expired. You may, questions may come your way. So if you can hang around that would be good. But thank you very much for testifying. Next up is Lori Tsuhako in support. R. Hermann Heimgartner in support. Wendy Hudson in support. Daniel Kunkel in support. Adriel Menor in support. Jessica Takitani-Moses in support. Setsuko Regina Gormley in support.

Ronson Ibarra in support. Barbara Sauer in support. Jennifer Oana in support. Reginald Yee in support. Marcus Sierra in support. Sally Tobin in support. Loren Tilley in support. Other than HSBA, that's everybody who's signed up for to testify. Anybody else wish to testify in JC 28 on Zoom or in person? Okay. If not, Members, questions? I do have a question for Michelle Lelle, if you're still there.

Tales in the in the written testimony I submitted.

Can you, can you just tell us... If you could be brief, but if you could please could you finish your story?

Yes. Thank you. It reminded me of a hostage situation in the United States where they claim her terrorist. Within a couple months of being in the system, he ran away and was on the streets. And when he respond he tested positive for meth and declared that he tried to hang himself and and slit his own wrist. Despite having court orders in Colorado against my ex husband to not even have unsupervised phone calls, let alone visits.

Despite the fact that he owed over $130,000 in back child support, and without ever meeting my ex husband in person, without ever inspecting his home, and ignoring the court orders for reunification in Colorado that I presented to the courts under Sonya Toma supervision, they purchased my ex husband a plane ticket and took my son to Colorado without following federal ICPC protocols.

My ex very quickly abused my son verbally and berated him for his sexual orientation. And again I made pleas in the court that fell on deaf ears by Sonya Toma. Within six weeks, my son had been arrested for cannabis at school and ran away. Despite him becoming homeless, and no missing persons or Amber alert report was made and nothing was filed.

Sonya Toma continued to declare false narrative drafting multiple orders granted under the penalty of perjury declaring that he was safe under Hawaii supervision with my ex husband In Colorado receiving services. But he did not receive any services ever in Colorado. And he was declared a dropout.

And after a few weeks of terrifying phone calls in the middle of the night, it began escalating. He called me telling me he was freezing on the side of the highway in a tent too weak to stand. I pled for him to get up and get on a public bus because it had heat and the temperatures were below freezing. Then he called me and told me he was going to leave the country with a transsexual Russian that he met on the streets.

A week later he called me and told me he was robbed with a gun on a train that they rode to Texas and back in a freight car. The following week, he told me he fell on a cactus running down a hill as he was hearing a woman get murdered. And he slept in an elevator with homeless people smoking fentanyl. A week later he was witnessed a murder. And when I was contacted, he was working in a circus in Alabama and she didn't care. All of this was declared to the courts.

Yet under penalty of perjury, orders signed by Sonya Toma consistently declared that he under penalty of perjury that he was safe in receiving under Hawaii supervision receiving services in Colorado. And after he was located, he fled in the middle of the night and ended up in Florida where he slipped deeper into drugs despite my pleas of the court declaring that he was self dosing Schedule 1 drugs like DMT, Psilocybin, LSD, and cannabis.

I think, I think... Can I ask, you did get your son back eventually?

Two years to the day, I found him in the ghetto in Southern California. He was never returned to me by the state. He, they, when they closed the case, the person that they gave him a guardianship to bought him a one way ticket to Denver, and he dumped him into a crack house.

Then I found him in South Carolina and then I called the police. CPS picked him up there and dumped into me at the airport without even checking my ID. He was never returned to me. And he is a homeless person right now, in and out of hospitals and on and off the streets, addicted to fentanyl and heroin. And I have no options because he's so distrusting of the system now because I tried to help him.

Can you, can you explain a little more why you think it's Ms. Toma that was responsible for this?

She was the Attorney General and I gave her overwhelming evidence. I cited the laws. I showed her where, you know, and I, when I pleaded. Any child...

You don't you don't think it was Child Protective Services fault?

No, no. She was the person that was signing the orders. And in one time I said she, this is complete fraud. He's not even in Colorado. And she stood there in court and said, we know he's not in Colorado. Air quotes. And there's DVDs of these hearings. Also, federal ICPC is a law that is...

Thank you very much. Really appreciate it. Members, other questions? Okay. Seeing none. HSBA, you're next. Thank you. Good morning again.

Morning, Chair Rhoads, Members of the Committee. I'd early testified about our process. The HSBA board yesterday did go through that same process with Ms. Toma and rigorously went through her application to the JSC. We have our own application. We checked all her references and the board voted to provide, authorized me to provide testimony that she was qualified for a Second Circuit Family Court judgeship. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. If you'd stay there for a second. Members, any questions?

Yes. So how many people responded to your...

I don't have numbers on that one either. We did get comments. I don't, I don't think we got any negative comments though.

You didn't have, you did not have negative comments on this one? I mean, basically my concern is you come up here claiming to represent Hawaii State Bar Association, but if only five people respond to your survey, you're only really representing those five people.

I wouldn't contribute it that way. The member comments are mere one input. We are not a democratic process. We are a board of 20 plus seasoned attorneys on both sides of the aisle from all different groups from all over the state. And we take our obligation on this role, we take it very seriously.

And we've had controversy over the years with the Senate over judicial nominees. And so if we don't have to have any comments is one factor and one, you know, issue. So I'm not just repeating what the member comments did. We go through everything and the board exercises its independent, every board member exercises their independent philosophy.

Does each board member interview all of the judges?

No, we have, we have, we appoint a three person, two or three person committee.

So how many people interviewed her?

Well, she came to the whole board yesterday and everybody got a chance to interview her. So what I'm talking about is interviewing the references. So our committee interviews all the references and then gathers all the materials and checks and everybody that's listed on their, on their resume, and the JC application gets a phone call from a committee member.

And we end up the committee goes over all the judicial criteria, which are the ABA criteria for judges. Then that the nominee comes into the full board and it's like a full firm interview with 20 people asking questions and going through their judicial philosophy, their temperament, their experience, questions or concerns they might have about their...

So my concern about this one, and it's my concern with every family court judge that gets appointed that has no experience in family court. In this case, it's very limited to CPS, is their capacity to learn. And that was not reflected in your report. Because family court, especially for divorce, is super...

It's all case driven and it requires a specialized knowledge. And in the CPS arena, because I'm Health and Human Services Chair, and I just had an informational briefing this week regarding failings of the CPS. The Deputy Attorney General's concerns and what they do is a huge impact on what CPS does.

So I do take seriously the negative testimony that has occurred here. And that's the reason I'm asking, how do you folks vet these people? And are there any people in the 20 board... I don't know the people in the 20 board. I don't know whether or not any of them. It obviously because you said no negative comments, were able to hear the victims of Sonya Toma. Did they? Probably not.

Unless they're members of the HSBA. That's our lens. And so I don't know that they're members of HSBA.

No, probably not. Okay.

So we do have family law practitioners on our board.

But, you know, I would like to know though, however, I mean, if you keep going forward claiming to represent HSBA and not just the 20 people...

I won an election. And so...

Yeah, well, yeah, but sometimes it's because there are people like me who just whoever was willing to run for HSBA President. Okay.

Those are the best elections to win sometimes.

So anyway, I would like to know how many people actually respond to each of these. Okay. That way we have at least a gauge of how many attorneys are interested in that position in that particular judge. Okay. I mean, I'd like to know. And if you said like in... I, because I'm from the Big Island, I know a number of these people who have testified. I trust their, the integrity of their, of their testimony.

I've gone up against her. I really don't have any qualms whatsoever about Ms. Jackson. But I don't know Toma, and I don't know a number of all these other people. So I would like to know that, if you are an HSBA representative, I want to know how many people respond to your, to your request and your remarks and not just have an interview of 20 people. Thank you.

Other questions, Members? I do have one more for you. So with regard to the negative testimony that you heard today, was that something that you guys considered when you were... Was that information forwarded to you at some point for the HSBA to consider it?

So part of our process, we, I do think that. And I'm sorry, we have a lot of judges on our plate right now and a lot of material coming in. If sometimes disgruntled or folks complain to the Office of Disciplinary Council, and that question is included in our, our application.

And so usually it's when it gets reported to regulator or a criminal action, or there's a civil claim or a sanction request or something, that's what gets disclosed to us. So in this case, probably not. I wish. I. We have a lot of judges. I do think that there were.

I recall that there was a claim to the Disability Council and that they did nothing. And so we have others. Prosecutors usually are the target of such claims. And, and usually the disparate council, you know, dismisses those claims without further inquiry. Sometimes you don't even know about it. The disparity council.

You only find out about it when you come and ask for your record. Yeah.

Okay.

All right, thank you. I do think she has divorce experience as a family lawyer, so.

Okay, thank you very much. Members, other questions? If not, Ms. Delmay, you can come on up and make an opening statement if you'd like. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard, and the Members of the Judiciary Committee. I appreciate your time today. Thank you for considering my nomination. Just some introduction. I'm from Maui. I grew up from Maui. I moved there when I was 12 years old. Before that, I was living here on Oahu. My father's from the Kaimuki Kapahulu area.

My grandmother was born on Maui, and she grew up there, her and her seven siblings, when she was a young woman. After World War II, the family moved over here to Oahu. I started my law journey at my dad's law office. I worked with him first as a court, court runner, when I was in middle school.

And by the time I graduated high school, I was working as a legal secretary. I went to college, and it was then I decided I wanted to practice law. And what I wanted to do then was be a public defender.

So I went to law school at the UH Richardson School of Law, and I became a public defender. First I clerked for Judge Richard Bisson, who is now mayor of Maui County. And then I went to the public defender's office in Hilo.

I made my way back to Maui at the public defender's office, and then I joined my father's law firm where I practice family law, divorce, custody, child support, all of the things involved with that. I was there for with him for about three years. Then my family and all of us moved to Las Vegas.

In Las Vegas I practiced primarily family law. I was with a law firm that did only family law. I practiced divorce custody, I did child support matters and everything involved with that.

I also worked with the Legal Aid center of Southern Nevada in their family law self help center which is similar to the service centers that we have here in Hawaii.

And what I did there I didn't directly represent clients, but the whole purpose of that office was to help self represented litigants in family court go through the process, file their cases. And we provided forms from the beginning to the end.

And it was in every single family law area including guardianships, adoption, even a civil involuntary commitment matter. Private parties could file that there. So during my time there I co managed the center with the managing attorney and we oversaw 10 non attorney staff in helping with the public.

So I did that for a few years and then I came back to Maui in 2021 and that's when I joined CPS or not CPS, but the Department of the Attorney General which primarily the cases there are involving Child Welfare Services and representing DHS.

But what they also do is file involuntary commitment petitions, adult guardian petitions, represent the Department of Developmental Disabilities, represent the office of the Public Guardian. So I handled several matters there. I was there for a little less than two years.

I joined the County of Maui as a corporation counsel, a deputy corporation counsel and then later I joined the prosecutor's office where I have been for approximately it will be two years in July and there I currently am assigned to the family court criminal calendar. I'm also doing circuit court matters, felonies and things of that nature.

So I do have an extensive family law background. I have practiced in divorce court and on Maui. I've practiced in every single area of family law. So I believe I do have the experience, I have the understanding, I have the knowledge.

Maui is a small place so I have, you know, many colleagues whom I have worked with as opposing counsel in family court. Although you know, the last couple years I've been in, in the criminal realm as a public defender. I also was in family court. I did, I handled juvenile matters.

I've also handled family court criminal as a public defender. So I believe I have the experience to be a family law judge. I understand what they do, I understand the process, I understand how contentious things can be between parties, between, you know, with, with pro se litigants. I sympathize with pro se litigants.

That's one of my, my Passion, I guess, is to assist with that. If I am judge, I want to support the Self Help Center. Since Covid that sort of participation by attorneys has declined. We have not had in person meetings at the Self Help Center. Everything is by phone. It's very difficult to find volunteer attorneys.

I'd like to assist in that effort. Another thing that I would like to help with if I am appointed is to look at the family court forms, join the forms Committee, and try to improve that experience for pro se litigants at this time. I know there are many forms online.

There's also sort of a turbo tax type of questionnaire that legal aid supports for family court. I think that's great. And so I want to work to improve that, to make the experience better for litigants in family court. I would like to address the criticism by Ms. Lely and Ms. Rollnick.

Unfortunately, I cannot directly respond to the facts that were presented because those cases are inherently confidential. I do want to state my disagreement with the way that Ms. Lely represented what occurred in the court. There were other parties involved. Ms. Lely was represented by counsel during the proceedings.

I am very sorry that she feels that way about her experience at the time. That was my job. My job was to represent the Department of Human Services, and that was my role. I represented them in that case. I understand as a judge, my role would be different.

I think my experience with those cases make me more ready to handle them. I understand the public's perception of bias in those kinds of cases. If I had represented them before, well, wouldn't I just rubber stamp everything they do? That's not the case. I can be fair and impartial. I understand the process.

I believe that parties should be heard. I think a lot of misunderstanding comes when parties are not heard. When I make decisions as a judge, if I am appointed, I will do my best to make sure that the parties understand the process, what's happening, and they understand why I made the decision I made.

I'm not going to make everyone happy. Our system is inherently adversarial. So there will be people that, you know, are essentially, for lack of a better term, they lose the case. They don't get what they want, they don't prevail, and they will be unhappy.

I have been a litigator for most of my career, and I think it's just typical of our job where there would be people that would be unhappy with whatever type of participation that we have. I think, though, my background is not just those two cases or those two testifiers. Opposed to my nomination.

I have a career in public service. I am very mindful of my community. I'm sympathetic to the party's concerns and I just want to emphasize that to you today. One thing I didn't mention, and this should have been in my introduction, but I would like to thank my family. My father, Joe Thoma, my husband Derek, my children.

They are what sustained me. I wouldn't be here without them. And so I'm not just my resume or my legal background. I have a family. I'm rooted on Maui. And I hope for your support. Thank you for your time. I would also like to mention, I think that this process works.

I recognize that there will be criticism and I think that's a good thing. I think people should be allowed to say what they want as a judge. Judges are evaluated in certain periods and they are often subject to criticism. I think that's a good thing.

And I believe in feedback, in taking what others say and becoming better from it. And so with that, thank you very much.

Thank you. Members, questions. I do have a question about your role in the. So I understand you, you can't talk about the facts of the case or of the cases that were raised in opposition, but can you just talk about your role? You were a deputy Attorney General and.

Your client was a DHS Child Welfare Services. That was the client.

Okay. And then. So I, I never having practice in that area. How does that work? Can you just give us a sort of a hypothetical standard case and how, how, how it would come to your attention or how you would become involved and at what point.

So from like the beginning to. Through your. Just the process, just the pro.

What your role in that process is. But a little background on the process.

Would be helpful, I think just as brief as possible. And I may be leaving out some steps, but what happens is a report is made to Child Welfare Services either through their intake hotline or from somebody usually, sometimes that's anonymous. The person can say, I don't want to be known. I want this to remain anonymous.

Once the, the Child Welfare Services gets that report, they investigate, they contact the parties, they sometimes go to the residents, you know, view what's happening.

You're still not. I'm not involved at this point. At this point.

Okay. And they do an investigation. Generally if they decide that they, they must remove the child, they will contact the Police Department to assist with that. And then once the child is in their custody, they have to file a petition within 48 hours. That's called the Petition for Temporary Foster Custody.

And once that's filed in the family court, that's filed in the family court.

And you would make that motion?

I. Yes, I would. I would. Based on the report that's presented to me from Child Welfare Services, I would file the petition as a deputy Attorney General, and we would attach the Safe Family home report as, you know, as an exhibit or as evidence. And the case would be initiated that way.

And from that point on, I would be involved in the case. There are several due process steps, so the Department has to approve first. Temporary foster custody is appropriate. There's a standard for that.

And then after that's established, if it is, then the parents are entitled to an adjudication hearing, which is an evidentiary hearing where the Department has to prove that foster custody should continue. And those are milestone steps in the case. And that's where the parents are afforded due process at the initial hearing, which has to be.

And I'm sorry, I forget, I think it's within 72 hours. But, you know, within a few days of the filing of the petition, there is a temporary foster custody hearing scheduled in court for the parents to appear. And that is when the judge appoints the parent and attorney.

So at that time, they are given counsel to represent them.

Okay, so even if they can't afford it, somebody will be appointed.

Yes, there they are. It. It's not exactly in the same way, but similar to a criminal defendant. The parents will have an attorney.

Okay, are there depositions taken of the parents somewhere along in this period, or is it all. Is the evidence you're hearing that's the deposition?

Yes. There is no deposition. The attorneys represent the parents, and there's an evidentiary hearing where the. The Department has a burden to.

And then there's various outcomes. I guess you could permanently take the children away. You could give them back. Well, are you involved in that decision making at all?

I'm not involved in the decision making. What I do is just appear in court and represent what the Department wants. They are behind the scenes monitoring the child, monitoring the child's placement, interacting with the parents.

Do they ever ask you for legal advice? Well, can we do this? Can we do that? Or what would. Yes, they do. What would happen if we wanted to send one parent, one child to a grandparent and another one to a different grandparent or something like that?

It would be up to them. My role would just to be to advise them whether or not it's legal. There was the mention of the ICPC, that's the Interstate Child Protection Compact, and all states are required to follow that they work together. If a child is going to be moved out of a jurisdiction, then certain.

Certain things need to be done. The. The two jurisdictions have to interface with each other. There needs to be a court order. Certain, certain protocol needs to be filed before the child is able to advise.

Your client on whether that's legal and how they're supposed to.

Absolutely. And there's also the. The court as well.

All right. All right, thank you. Questions, Other Members? Yes, Senator San Buenaventura, go ahead.

So I'm looking at you. I. I haven't. For some reason you. You didn't want to come in or you didn't choose to be interviewed separately, if I may.

But if I may, I did email you and I called your office. Okay.

And I got to talk to my staff, then do what happened. But I'm looking at your resume and I don't see here where you work as a Deputy AG. When was that? I see prosecuting attorney. I see Corp Counsel.

It was before Corp. Council from April 2021 to January 2023.

Unless I'm missing a page. I got after Corp. Council, I got Joseph Thoma.

Oh, that's.

And after. That was PD's.

Yeah, that. It appears the page is missing.

Okay. So when did you work as a deputy AG?

From April 2021 through January 2023.

Okay. And as a deputy AG, all you did was CPS work?

No, I also did involuntary commitments, adult guardianships. We represented the Office of Public Guardian in those petitions.

Okay.

Other. Other things quashing subpoenas that were served on the judiciary branch, the Adult Client Services branch and the juvenile probation.

So one of the main concerns that has come up when a number of Child Protective Services and was touched on by those who oppose is the. Is by the children just being taken away without a petition to the court. Are you involved in any of those?

You mean as a Deputy Attorney General?

Yes, as a deputy attorney. If a child is the advice. I mean. I understand, I understand. Well, let me just ask that question.

If a child is removed from the home, then a petition must be filed. Must be filed.

So for every instance where child is removed that you were involved in, a petition was filed. Correct. Is it. Do you consider your role as a Deputy AG also like a prosecutor and using your discretion as to whether or not to file a petition or as.

Or do you limit your role as a Deputy AG to what you had testified to? Basically whatever CPS wants.

I believe I misspoke there. I agree with you. Well, I see it more like a Deputy Prosecuting attorney in that if there's something clearly wrong with their request, I would advise them as to that. Okay.

Have you at any time counseled CPS or refused to file the petition where you have found that it did not rise to imminent harm?

I don't recall a time when I thought that their position was incorrect as to the removal of a child.

Okay. So every time you file the petition, you have seen that there was sufficient cause that it has rose into imminent harm.

That's correct. Okay. Now the CPS also files petitions for family supervision. So that would be for the child to stay in the home but be court monitored. And so the process for that is a little different. And so it's not. There's not a choice of just remove the child or not.

Sometimes they do investigations and they decide it doesn't rise to the level of filing any petitions, they would refer those cases to what's called voluntary case management. And the parents can agree to participate in services in order to, you know, kind of resolve whatever issues had CPS investigate in the first place.

Okay. My other question is regarding. And regarding your divorce work, because it's. If you've ever done divorce, you know, it's super specific and it's all, all case driven. There's. It's not statutory.

So if I can clarify that, since you don't have my full resume. Yeah. When I was with my father, Joseph T. Thoma, I did do divorce work. That was about half of my practice. So I did divorce work and I did criminal defense work. Most of it was court appointed for the criminal defense side.

But I did do divorces, custody, child support. I did that on Maui.

And then when I, when I moved to Las Vegas, I was with a firm for two years, which is, that's also missing. And I apologize, I don't have a copy for you. But I did represent many clients. What I counted was in preparation for this process, 89 clients in Family court while I was in Las Vegas.

Okay.

And so I handled property division and you know, relocation cases, custody, divorce. I've handled those matters. And I apologize that you're. You're not, you don't have that information.

Okay. But the property division for Nevada, which is a community property state, is very different from.

Correct. It is different. But I also practice. Practice divorce here and I, I handled property division as well. I understand that process.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you. Members, other questions. Have you had any complaints from pro. I mean, I understand that someone's appoint. If they can't. If the Parents can't afford an attorney. They can have one for free. But do some of them choose to represent themselves?

It's very rare and the court cautions them. There was a recent. Well, there was a case that said parents not having attorneys is structural error in those cases. So the court is very careful about appointing attorneys for parents involved with CWS matters.

Have you ever had any complaints? Have you ever litigated against a. Or I guess I don't know, maybe not against is the wrong word in that context, but have you had to. Deal with self represented parents not in the CWS realm? Okay.

I do also want to clarify. Mr. Murakami mentioned ODC and that there was a complaint, but that I just like to correct him, which I did present to your staff all of my ODC records for all the jurisdictions I'm licensed in, which is Hawaii, Nevada, inactive, Indiana inactive. All three came back with zero disciplinary history.

Yes. Understood. Okay, members, any other questions? If not, thank you very much. And we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which is Governor's message 726. It's Andrew Kennedy for a consideration confirmation to the Defender Council for term to expire June 30, 2029. First up on GM 726 is Haley Chung for office public defender in person.

Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard and members of the committee. On behalf of the Office of the Public Defender, we strongly support the nomination of Andrew Kennedy to the Public Defender Council.

As the First Deputy, I can convey to the committee the importance of having a council comprised of Members who are committed to our office, who understand the mission of our office, who care about our attorneys and understand the inner workings of our office.

Andrew, as indicated in our testimony, as I'm sure the committee has seen by his resume, was a former deputy public defender in our Kona branch. He continues to remain close with the office. He's a very active litigator in Kona and in fact all of the circuits. He's regularly on Oahu and other islands practicing.

And I know he has a comprehensive understanding of not only the system but of our office. He demonstrates his commitment to our mission and the service that we do by staying connected with us, helping with trainings and things of that nature.

So I believe he will be a great addition to the council and will work collaboratively with our Administration and, and with our attorneys. I will remain available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much for being here. Next is R Herman Hermgartner- Heimgartner, in support. Craig Jerome in support. Ben Lowenthal in support. Sat Friedman in support. James Tabe in support. Doris Lum in support. Katherine Gibson in support. If any of you are here, want to testify, that's everyone who signed up on GM 726.

Would anyone else like to testify in GM 726 on Zoom, or here in person? If not, any questions for Ms. Chang? Okay. Seeing none. Mr. Kennedy, if you don't mind coming forward, like to make an opening statement. You're more than welcome.

Thank you very much, Senator. Chairman Rhoads, Vice Chairman Gabbard, Senator Buenaventura, and Senator Chang. First, thank you for considering me for this position. I've spent most of my adult life as a criminal defense attorney, and much of that work has been in representing the indigent, those who cannot afford an attorney.

I believe strongly in the mandate of Gideon vs. Wainwright, that everyone deserves competent legal help, no matter their financial situation when they're accused of a crime. Some of my most memorable moments have been with the public defender's office. My time spent in Kona at the public defender's office. It's a great office.

Not just the Kona office, but the entire office. And not just because they have great attorneys who zealously advocate for their clients, which they do. But the office in General takes great strides in trying to improve the quality of legal defense, criminal defense throughout the state through trainings, internships, collaboration among other attorneys, brainstorming things of that nature.

So I appreciate the opportunity to help forward their mission. And I again appreciate your consideration in this position.

Thank you very much. Members, questions? I don't have any questions either. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much.

On to the next.

Let me ask some questions.

All right, go ahead.

Okay, thank you. So, Mr. Kennedy, Big island, right?

Big island since 2012.

Okay. Yeah. So, like I was talking to Koi Jackson, as well as former Judge Kim. 704 issues. How do you as defense- if you're in the defender council, what's your experience in 704? For members, that's basically insanity plea or ineffective. I mean, well, you can go. You can explain.

So basically, there's two aspects with 704. It's the capacity of an individual to stand trial, fitness at the or fitness to stand trial at the present time or their capacity at the time of the offense to understand the to- to right versus wrong form state of mind. I have a lot of experience in 704 cases.

I think it's. If you're going to be a public defender in Kona, you're going to run across those. And I've definitely had cases where, you know, higher level cases, not sure where what your question is with respect to it.

So as chair of Health and Human Services as well as member of the Judiciary Committee, I have a lot of interest in 704 and one issue is the length of time a 704 defendant remains in the Hawaii State Hospital, which at this time is overcrowded because there are awaiting examiners.

What do you see as the public defenders or as a defense counsel job in ensuring that examinations at least occur on time so that they don't just sit in the Hawaii State Hospital? No, that's the examinations.

And I think you have to distinguish as well, you know, the misdemeanors. There's only the one Doctor the state designate where the felonies. You have multiple doctors. I do know in my felony experience, the appointed doctors are generally on top of things, or you hope they're on top of things.

Sometimes this the state hospital, those doctors are bogged up. They have the larger caseloads and it can take time. Defense counsel, I think it's a case by case basis. I mean sometimes the client would rather be there than they would in jail. So they're okay with the delay. But sometimes they really don't want to be there.

And obviously the state hospital is overcrowded and the state hospital doesn't want to have people there that don't belong there. I think defense counsel, you know, well, I think one thing that they need is you have to have frequent status conferences. The courts have to address it. Really.

There's not much that the individual defense counsel can do to make that wheel move cleaner.

But you would not be against, I mean as a policy, because as defender counsel, it's policy to have more frequent status conferences for those 704 defendants who have not been fully examined by the 33 person panel.

I think that would be a good thing.

Okay. We don't have judiciary here. Who was against that. But. So we'll talk about that later. Second question.

Yes.

I don't think we have acts yet in on the Big island. Or do we?

What do you mean by act? Okay, so, but yeah, I haven't.

The community treatment courts.

Zero, so are you talking like a drug court or a veterans court?

No, in family court.

Okay. No, I, I don't know.

I didn't think so.

Yeah.

So one of the issues is diversion.

Okay.

And whether, I mean how, how aggressive do you feel the defender counsel should be in creating policy to collaboratively agree with the prosecutor to divert defendants out of the, out of the system.

I think they should be aggressive in creating the avenue that it becomes available. Again though, it's a case by case basis because some cases the defendant might not want to go that route. In that case, well, we're not going to go there. But having the avenue available, I think is the important thing.

I think that's where the push needs to go.

Well, okay. Because you're going to be statewide. Okay. My question would have been in Kona. Do you see whether or not at least with a sort of new prosecutor, you folks are able to divert more?

I think that generally speaking there's a good relationship between the defense bar and the prosecutors in Kona.

Okay.

And they do work to.

And, and lastly, sorry, we, we had testimony here about the court appointed fees not being so high to the point where you folks are not. The courts are not able to find court appointed attorneys.

That is a problem.

So what do you feel is the defender counsel's position in drumming up the bushes or you know, trashing the bushes to get some court appointed attorneys.

To actually find court appointment?

I mean, or train paralegals to at least become more.

I mean, it's difficult. I mean, at the end of the day, it's a capacity issue as well. I mean, so we come from Kona. There's not a large defense bar. There's not 100 attorneys to choose from. There's like maybe 10 that are willing to take it.

There's only so many hours in a day they're passing on other work. I don't know how much they can do to like drum up local support. I know in the past I've been willing to get names of Oahu attorneys and pass them on to say Judge Kim or Judge Deweese.

Ike these attorneys, I said if you're. Going to be in defender counsel, what do you folks see as your policy towards something like that, that issue?

Well, obviously advocating for the fees that are commensurate with other court appointed. I do a lot of federal work where the fees are way higher, obviously. So, you know, coming up to par with the national standard on that type of stuff. Yeah, I think working with the courts and making sure that the courts know who's available.

I mean it's, it's a, it's a body issue. There's only so many attorneys. So keeping them, keeping them informed. So thank you.

Sorry. Thank you.

Okay, other questions. Thank you very much. We'll move on to the last item on the agenda, which is Governor's message 737.737 is Satsuko Gormley for the Defender Council as well for term to expire 6/302/027. First up, sorry, first up is Haley Chung from Public Defender. Morning again.

Good morning again. Like with Mr. Kennedy, the office of the Public Defender strongly supports the nomination of Ms. Gormley to the Defender Council. As the Committee knows she this would be her second term.

She diligently served out her first term, regularly came over from Maui to attend Public Defender Council meetings, sat with us, sat with our attorneys, was involved in the process to appoint our current state public defender, and if on another term will likely be involved in appointing the next.

She has been working well with our author office, is approachable, brings insight to from the Maui Circuit, and again, we believe has been highly collaborative and we are asking for your support in confirming her nomination. All right, thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Melanie Rolnick. She didn't sign up, but she's in support. Wendy Hudson in support. Alan Alameda Jr in support. Sat Friedman in support. Ben Lowenthal in support. And James Tabe in support. That's everyone who signed up on GM737. Would anyone else like to testify on 737?

If not, any questions for those tested for the one testifier? If not, let's go ahead and go to the nominee, Ms. Gormley. Onzu. Good morning. And you're welcome to make an opening statement.

Thank you. Good morning. Senator Rhodes, Senator Gabbard, Senator Chang and Senator Buenaventura. My name is Gina Gormley. My first name is Setsuko. However, I do vote by Gina Gormley. This is my second term. I started my first term in 2020 and I've been a holdover, I think, for a year or two. I'm not quite sure.

I'm honored to be here. It's been an honor to serve on the Defender Council. Brief background. I was a public defender for four years. I did two years on Oahu and two years on Maui. I'm currently a solo practitioner. I practice family law, criminal defense. I've worked often with Sonia Thoma. She's an excellent attorney.

I think she'll be great as a judge. I also am a volunteer attorney with the Hawaii Innocence Project. We just recently had a case, Gordon Cordero, who was. His conviction was recently vacated in February of this year. I currently sit as a Vice Chair for the Defender Council.

And it was a, you know, it was a good experience process that we just went through in nominating our current public defender in October, November of last year, we did the interviews and did the selection process. You know, I support the Office of the Public Defender. I enjoyed my time there. It's a great office to work for.

There's great camaraderie. There's a lot of issues that the office, statewide or individual offices face on a daily basis, and everybody comes together. For example, you know, in Maui, when we had the fires, even though, you know, all of that, it was a tragedy, it was heartbreaking.

A lot of the public defenders still drove out to Lahaina, put up chairs and benches on the beaches and met with clients, potential clients, anybody who needed help or just needed to vent or just needed to have their questions answered.

Even attorneys from the Oahu office flew over and again put up tents, put up chairs, put up benches, and met with people on the beaches. A lot of the fire victims who had issues or just simply just needed to talk or just needed who to call. And so. And it's an honor. You don't quite see that.

You don't see that quite often with many offices, but with the Public Defender's office, I, you know, I have to say this with my time there and since being there, you know, I still have a relationship with many of the attorneys there, even attorneys that have left there.

But we all come together and help out the community when need be. I am asking that my second term that I be confirmed to serve and carry out my second term that I believe ends in 2027. There's a lot of issues that. That the Defender Council faces.

Lack of resources currently, you know, we're having a difficult time keeping the staff full. Right before, you know, people were lining up to apply for the Public Defender's office, and now it's, you know, it's kind of hit or miss. Sometimes we're fully staffed, and sometimes we're not. There's a lack of resources issues.

There's a lot of policy issues that need to be addressed. But, you know, as a whole, as an office, you know, we come together and we tackle those issues.

And that's what the Defender Council is about, right, Is that we're here to listen to the issues that the offices have statewide and then come together and decide how to tackle those issues. And I welcome any questions. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Members, questions. I do have a question for you. So you've been there five years now. You touched on some of the things that you felt were challenges, which for those of us who are paying attention, not particularly new.

I do think that my recollection is that the, the public defender has actually stopped taking certain kinds of cases on in the Third Circuit, Is that correct?

I'm not familiar with what cases that the Third Circuit has stopped taking. I know that over the years since I've been on defender council because of shortages that. I know the. I think it was the, it was either the Kona office or the Hilo office at 1.0 was not fully.

There were some issues that we were dealing with. And so they had stopped taking on some court appointed. I'm sorry, started to stop taking on some cases, but that's what I'm familiar with.

You had also mentioned that at 1.0 it was actually kind of hard to get a job at the public defender's office, but now it's more difficult. Is that, is that, do you believe that's purely a monetary issue, that public defender salaries have dropped below prosecutors or age, deputy ags, or is there something else going on too?

I think that, I think there's a lot, A lot of variables. When I worked for the public defender's office, I mean, I. I felt like at that time, and this was back in 2008 was.

I felt like people were lining up, you know, like you were lucky if you got offered a position because there were so many people that were applying for just one position. Like if one. If it was announced that there's an opening on whatever island.

I mean, people were lining up to apply, and so it was difficult to get a position. Nowadays, I feel like we're. We're kind of reaching out to everyone, you know, saying, like, hey, do you know anyone who wants to apply? Like, if you do, let me know. Or like, can you tell so and so to apply?

Or kind of just getting the word out there that because we need people. And why is that? I think that salary has, you know, that's a factor, right? It's. It. When you're fully.

When you're fresh out of law school and you have all this school debt, this, you know, all this loan debt, and you got to pay your rent and whatever it is, you know what's more appealing at the time? Right. It's. Some people know. Fresh out of law school. Yep.

I want to be a PD or I want to be a prosecutor, or I want to be an AG or whatever it is. But some don't and some want to get trial experience. And so if the prosecutors are paying, you know 1020, $30,000 more, I mean, that's way more appealing. I think that's one factor.

I think the second factor is that the retirement package over the years is getting smaller and smaller and smaller. And again, you know, it's expensive to live here. We have to think about retirement. And so you look at that. And whereas in my time, the retirement package was very appealing, even before my time, it was very appealing.

But I think that with the retirement packages getting smaller and smaller and smaller, it's become less appealing. And then I just think another factor is that in recent years, and I don't know what's the reason, but I think government positions are not as stable as they once were.

And I don't know what that's about, but I think that that has also made it less appealing. So those are just some factors, to name a few.

All right, thank you, members, other questions.

My question is. Thank you. Have you heard the questions I've had, I've heard, I've made with Mr. Kennedy regarding 704 Act? Do you have anything to add to that?

What I, I agree with Mr. Kennedy. I think that we, the doctors, everyone that's involved in the Seminole 4 process, you know, they're doing the best that they can do. But I think one of the issues that we have as well is again, lack of resources and that makes it difficult.

And everybody's doctors, attorneys, everybody's busy, the court's clogged up. And so sometimes, like, we can't always get the process done in X amount of time. Right. We need more time and more time and more time just because of the docket being full, attorneys being busy, doctors being busy. And that's unfortunate. And so.

But I do agree that, you know, if we had more pre trial conferences or status hearings in the 704 process, I think maybe that would streamline the process a little bit more. It's kind of like mental health court, right.

Where you get frequent court hearings in the mental health court, which is very good because then it keeps everybody on top of what's going on and it also helps to narrow out and flesh out the issues and kind of streamline the process. Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you. Other questions, Members. All right, if not, we'll go ahead and. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Gormley. Thank you. I don't if we're kind of beyond testifying.

I just wanted to clarify about what I said about this, that I was wrong.

Okay, sure. If you want to correct the record somehow.

I did check my record and I was wrong about the ODC issue.

So. Okay. There weren't any.

There weren't any. Okay, thank you. I apologize. Thank you.

As I mentioned at the beginning of the hearing we will not be voting on the two judges today. We'll put that vote off until Tuesday, April 15th at 9:30am in room 225.

Okay. That's the catastrophic failure.

Okay, I'm sorry, 10:00 am, which is better. We all get to sleep in an extra half an hour. 10 am on April 15th on Tuesday in room 225. So that's upstairs. Okay. So, we will vote today on the two - Defender Council Governor's messages.

First up is GM 726 for Andrew Kennedy for the Defender Counsel for term to expire on June 30th, 2029. The recommendation here is to advise and consent questions or concerns. If not, Senator Gabbard for the vote.

On GM726, recommendations to advise and consent. [Roll Call]. Measure is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is GM737 this is Setsuko Gormley for a Defender Council position as well for term to expire on June 30, 2027; same recommendation to advise and consent. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Gabbard.

With all members present, are there any no votes reservations? Hearing none. The measures adopted.

Thank you very much members and thank you everyone for being here. We're adjourned.