Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Okay. Welcome everyone to the Judiciary Committee hearing on three district court judge confirmations here in 016 on March 31, on Tuesday. We will not be voting on the the appointments today. We'll be voting on Thursday, February 2at 10:20AM in this Room 016. Again, it's Thursday.

Sorry. February. Did I say February? April. April. I don't wanna go backwards.

I wanna go forwards. April 2 in this Room 016 at 10:20. We do have a two minute two minute limit on testifiers both on Zoom and in person. And with that oh, and if we have a catastrophic crash on the Zoom side, we'll try again tomorrow morning, April 1at 9AM here in 016. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen very often.

Okay. First up on this agenda is judiciary communication 23 for Kirsha Ka'uukani Milianani Durant for consideration confirmation in the district court of the first circuit for term to expire in six years. And first testifier on JC 23 is John Nagato of the Public Defender for his designee. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, and Members of the Committee. I am here on behalf of the Office of the Public Defenders. I will also be testifying later in my personal capacity. Mister Yukinaga apologizes for not being here as he really wanted to be. From the offices from our offices perspective, Mr.

Rand is extremely qualified. We've outlined in our written testimony the breadth of her experience during her sixteen years at the office. And what I would like to highlight for the committee is she handled cases at all levels, of our courts. That's district, family, circuit, appellate, including ICA and in front of the Supreme Court.

She possesses all of the qualities that will make a good judge, her temperament, her preparation, her legal knowledge, and most importantly, her understanding of how the court system works and the nuances that face the people who appear in front of the courts every single day.

So we are strongly supportive of her nomination. We ask this committee to confirm her. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I will be available for any questions.

Great. Thank you. Next up is for Native Hawaiian Bar Association on Zoom, maybe. Oh, no?

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Not present. In support, Jesse Keola Mai Kalani Minier, Dean executive chief executive officer officer for King Moon Legal Trust and Home in support. Makalika Nahoowa for executive director for Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, also in support. Jamie Miller, co-executive director for Eikolumea Nui in support. Hawaii Women's Lawyers, also in support.

Mark Kavika Patterson for Native Hawaii Hawaiian Legal Corporation in support. It's my retired judge, Marsha Waldorf, First Circuit, also in support. Retired judge Summer Bao Odo, First Circuit, District Court, also in support. Henderson Huihui. Good morning.

Good morning. Aloha, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, and Members of the Committee. My name is Henderson Huihui. I'm a staff attorney at the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, but I'm testifying in my personal capacity. I have practiced law for five years and four of those five years Miss Kersha Durant has been my supervisor and I've had the pleasure and privilege of working under her leadership.

In that time, Miss Durant has demonstrated the highest levels of legal reasoning, diligence, and moral integrity. When she first arrived at Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, Miss Durant came from a criminal law background. She was not yet familiar with native Hawaiian rights law or civil procedure, but she quickly mastered every or many of the areas of practice at NHOC from the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act to the protection of e v kupuna and cultural sites to quiet title actions and intellectual property law issues.

Her ability to learn and command new areas of law is extraordinary. Miss Durant's legal acumen, her ability to dissect issues, synthesize complex theories, and anticipate practical concerns is something I strive to develop in myself as an attorney.

Her experience across both civil and criminal proceedings make her exceptionally well qualified for the district court bench. I've also witnessed her character firsthand. She handles difficult clients with grace and compassion. She never compromises her civility even with the most challenging of opposing counsel. On a personal note I am the attorney that I am today because of her mentorship.

She taught me to strive for excellence in serving our community and this land we call home. I will miss her as a supervisor and a mentor but as an officer of the court it is my duty to ensure that justice is administered fairly and Miss Durant's judicial temperament, legal acumen, and her commitment to the rule of law make her an excellent choice. I wholeheartedly support her appointment and ask that you recommend her to the Senate. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Haley Chang in a per personal capacity. I don't usually let people do this, but since you need to use your whole two minutes, I'll I'll give you another minute. How's that? Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, and, again, members of the committee. I don't get to appear often in my personal capacity, but I am here today on behalf of my dear friend and close personal friend, mister Rhett. And I apologize for getting emotional, but, I've been a close friend of hers for almost twenty years now. I am so honored to be able to speak on her behalf today. There is truly, no one more deserving to be here.

And it's not just because of all of the accomplishments that she's, that have been outlined for this committee today. It is truly because of the person that she is in her dedication to public service, how thoughtful she has been about this decision. She Harabedian encouraged to apply for years.

And even though she is my close personal friend, I have such a deep respect and passion for the law that I would not sit here before this committee and advocate so fiercely for her unless I truly believe she was qualified and ready to take this job head on. So I appreciate the opportunity to testify again.

Thank you very much. Next is, Tyler Iokepa Gomes. Good morning.

Thank you.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, testifying my personal capacity and support. I wrote put in my rest written testimony that Kershaw second shared my very first jury trial. It was a nightmare of a trial. I'll try and be fast. I know it's two minutes.

My client showed up late and ran in in front of the prospective jurors for his domestic violence trial in a white tank top, which I don't refer to as a wife beater, but other people do. He would not put on the Aloha shirt that I brought for him. Kersha forcefully dragged into the bathroom and got him in that shirt.

During jury selection, a juror told the whole courtroom that she could not be fair because she'd been the victim of a road rage incident that morning in front of the courthouse. It was my client who had been the one who had road rage her.

I just was in a state of shock and panic. Kershaw had already stood up and asked to approach to have the juror dismissed for cause. I don't know what I would have done. During the prosecution's case, my client started mumbling, but it ended up becoming quiet shouting insults and slurs at the prosecutor and the judge. I could not get him to stop.

Krisha gave him a a legal pad and asked him just write whatever he wanted as vulgar as he wanted on that paper. I've saved it. It is in my nightstand to this day. As a reminder that the tools you give people are reflection of the privilege they do or don't have. And I use that in every trial after that because this man just didn't know how to express how mad he was.

We knew he was innocent. The jurors didn't. During my cross examination of the client, she began swearing at me because her case fell apart. It took all of Kershaw's physical force on my client to stop him from screaming I told you so from the defense table. And amongst all of that, these people had witnessed this incredibly rugged looking native Hawaiian man from the West Side covered in tattoos, just presenting the worst possible case of himself, and they found him not guilty in less than two minutes.

It was the fastest verdict of my whole career. And I just wanna I'll try and be very quick. I'm gonna go over. When I my first job was clerking for judge DeRosario, and he said it is the responsibility of everyone on the Justice Committee.

Go over.

I've been, I apologize. Thank you very much. Governors before.

So thank you.

I respect you, Chair Rhoads. Thank you so much. I support.

Next is Noah Detwiler Pavia in support, Raji Tolentino in support, and then a long list of individuals in support, excluding ancient Hawaii State Bar Association. There were 61 in support, zero opposed, and the one comment, which is HSBA. So, members, do you have any questions for these? Oh, there's another person too. Go ahead.

I can't see what your name is, but go ahead. Good morning.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Good morning. My name is Ka'a Hill Kaho'ohala. I serve as the president of the Native Hawaiian Bar Association. I'm here today in strong support of the confirmation of Krisha Durant to serve as district court judge of the first circuit.

District court judges are often the first point of contact many people have with the justice system. It is critical that those judges listen carefully, treat everyone with dignity, and make decisions that are both principled and practical. Miss Durant has demonstrated that she has the temperament and judgment to do exactly that. For native Hawaiians and other underserved communities, confidence in the judiciary depends on judges who understand the broader broader context in which people live.

Miss Durant has shown that she understands, respects, those perspectives and is committed to fairness for all people in Hawaii.

For those reasons, the Native Hawaiian Bar Association respectfully urges this committee to support and confirm her nomination. I have personally worked with Kersha, in the Native Hawaiian Bar Association, as she is also a board of director there. I'm happy to answer any questions that the committee may have, if you need any additional information as to her character or her work experience. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Does anyone else wish to testify in JC 23? Yep. Please come on up. Good morning.

Good morning. Aloha. I my name is Maka Lika. I submitted my testimony in writing, but if it's okay, I'd also like to say something. Alright.

So to everyone, on this committee for this opportunity. My name is Makalika Nahuilava, and I serve as the executive director for the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation. I speak today on behalf of myself, our board, and the organization as a whole. Many of us submitted written testimony in support of mister Ant's confirmation, and I just wanna reinforce two themes from that testimony that may be top of mind for this committee. The first is her ability to transition from an advocate to a jurist.

Every new judge has to make that transition at the start of their judicial career. There is no reason in my mind to discount Mr. Rand's ability to do that successfully. I've worked alongside her intensely for four years while she's been at NHLC. And in my fifteen years as an attorney, I've worked with hundreds of lawyers.

That's not an over exaggeration. Ms. Durant cares about getting to the right answer in the law. She cares about fairness. She cares about people, and she cares about the rule of law and the integrity of the law.

And in her world view and in her practice, those do not conflict. She can deliver a hard message. I've seen her do that. She can deliver a disappointing outcome for people even when she cares about them, even when she's peely with them. Right thing to do.

And that's what judges are called to do every day. The second thing I'd like to speak to is for readiness. So no new judge comes having done it all, but Ms. Durant has done a great deal. Her resume reflects that, and she's challenged herself at every stage to grow.

She served sixteen years as a public defender, and then she took on complex civil litigation and a lot of different agency kinds of work at NHLC involving land, water, cultural rights, trust and estates, IP. There's a lot of different things that fall under our umbrella. And she's rizzed from rose quickly from staff attorney to firm wide litigation director. So she does not know everything, but she has proven she can learn anything. So I'm honored to speak on her behalf, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Great. Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify in JC 23? Come on. Good morning.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Daisy Hartsfield, and I'm testifying in my, personal capacity. I've known Krisha Durant for a number of years, starting from the public defender's office. We worked together last fall in, completing applications of expungements and, setting aside bench warrants.

And I wanted to share what many people may not know and that that's that mister Rand is a beautiful hula dancer. And the same attributes that excel in a halal are the same attributes that we would demand in a judge. Patience and listening. A hula dancer must listen to the rhythm and the chant before they can move. As a judge, mister Rand will bring that same active listening to the bench, ensuring every pro se litigant or a seasoned attorney will truly feel heard.

Balance and poise, hula requires physical and mental equilibrium. In a high tension courtroom, Miss Durant possesses the innate ability to remain calm, centered, and impartial under pressure. Cultural context, her deep roots in our cultural traditions provide her with a vital understanding of the people she serves. She understands that the law exists not to exist in a vacuum, but affects the daily lives of families and the legacy of our islands.

The role of a judge is to be a steady hand in the Miss Durant has spent her life bridging those two worlds, the structured and a political world of law and the disciplined soulful world of hula.

And this combination makes her uniquely qualified to dispense justice with both a sharp hand and a compassionate heart. And for all those reasons, I strongly support her confirmation and appointment. Mahalo.

Thank you, representative. Anyone else like to testify on JC '23? Seeing none, members questions? I in fairness, I do have a question for the person I cut off, Tyler. If you can remember what you were about to say, I'd like to hear what you had to say.

It's I appreciate it. My my apologies. I forgot about the mics. My first job after law school was a clerkship with judge De Rosario. And he said that it was the responsibility of everyone in the justice system to, no no matter what side you're on, to look for the light in the people before you because most often they can't find it or they don't know how.

And I think I told that story not to emphasize what it took to win, but more so Kershaw's firm belief in process. I think there's a misconception that public defenders in particular make soft judges on crime or soft judges on defense. And that's furthest from the truth because for every win there is, there are hundreds of guilty people that we've sat with. And instead, you know, we are navigators of processes that can be unfair.

And so what I wanted to highlight was, Krisha is not pro defense or pro defendant.

She's pro process, pro fairness. And I I have no doubt that whoever's in front of her, she will be able to identify that light and and administer the law fairly. Thank you very much.

Great. Thank you. Members, other questions? If not, HSBA, if you're I'm not sure who is I hear mister Murakami. I was in.

President Mark Murakami for the Hawaii State Bar Association. Morning.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair Gabbard, Senators. Mark K Murakami on behalf of the Hawaii State Bar Association. As written in our testimony, we've gone through our rigorous process. We've, requested comments from our members. We've interviewed the candidate, and we find her qualified.

Good. Thanks very much. Thank you. Members' questions? Sorry.

Okay. I think we're I think we're ready for you, Miss Durant. So if you'd like to come up and make an opening statement, you're welcome. Morning.

Good morning.

Aloha, Nui, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, Chair Cheng, and Chair San Buenaventura. For the opportunity to meet with some of you prior to today's hearing. As you know, my name is Kersha Kulukane Melianani Durant. I was raised in Central Oahu, in Wahiawa, and Mililani, and now call Ka'elepulu in Kailua, also known as Enchanted Lakes, my home. Service is in my blood.

I come from four Hawaiian grandparents who gave their lives to their communities. A police sergeant, an educator who helped to develop the Department of Education's Kupuna program, a federal administrative worker, and a Paniolo from Makena, Maui who worked in the millet served in the military before retiring from the Hawaiian Electric Company. That legacy flowed into my parents. My mother was a lifelong educator in our public school system, and my father retired from the US Army as a Lieutenant Colonel.

In my ohana, service was never something you chose.

It was simply who you were. I went to college thinking I would become a social worker and that was how I would serve my community. But that changed during my senior year internship at the Refugee Law Center, which was a small nonprofit in Boston serving asylum seekers. These were people fleeing gender based persecution, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, and unimaginable harm.

We had almost nothing in the way of resources, but I watched one committed attorney change the lives of the people she helped and the systems that govern them.

I saw firsthand what the law can do in the right hands, and I saw what kind of attorney I wanted to be. And I've never looked back. That understanding has guided everything since. After clerking for the honorable Marcia J Waldorf, I spent sixteen years at the office of the public defender, and I now serve as a litigation director at the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation. Across more than two decades, I've appeared before courts at every level, across the Pa'aina, in both criminal and civil practice.

But no matter the court or the case, my approach has never wavered. Show up prepared, treat every client with dignity, and never lose sight of the human behind the case. District court calls me back to where I began, where I first learned to advocate, where mentors taught me what this profession could be. For many people who walk through the doors of district court, this will be their only experience with the justice system, and I want that to mean something.

I want them to leave feeling heard, treated fairly, and respected.

And I hope to be the kind of presence for younger attorneys that those early mentors were for me. Before I close, I want to mahalo those who are here watching from afar, who submitted testimony, and who supported me through this process. I am truly humbled by I'm truly humbled by the aloha shown to me from each of you. I also want to acknowledge two people.

To my partner, Shrod Johnson, your love and support make it possible for me to be to show up as my best self in every context.

And I don't take that for granted. And to my five year old son who is in his preschool right now, blissfully unaware of what his mother is doing in this moment, you are my reason. You carry the name of your great grandfather, The from McKenna who helped plant the seeds of service in our family. My hope is that you carry not just his name, but his values and that one day you will pass them on as they were passed to me.

If confirmed, I will bring to the bench the same things I've tried to bring to every courtroom.

Humility, preparation, and an unwavering commitment to treating every person with fairness, dignity, and aloha. This legacy of service from my grandparents to my parents to me and now to my son is why I'm here. I humbly ask for your support and the opportunity to carry that legacy to the bench. It would be an incredible honor, and I'm ready to give everything that I have to that.

Thanks very much. Members, any questions? Yes. Senator San Buenaventura. Go ahead.

So, so, so thank you. Thank thank you very much for meeting with me beforehand. I'm impressed with your resume. I am asking you really for a commitment. One of the testifiers pointed out that you need to transition, and we talked about that, from being a litigator to being a judge.

So my and unlike the prior testimony testifier, I really want you to, as a judge, to go beyond the process and not just be part of the process. Because as, you know, as a litigator, sometimes the process requires advocacy on both sides, and it could be never ending, and that really will, bog down the system.

And especially as, as a lit as as a legislator now and beyond that as a and I'm asking you is one of those process I want you to go beyond is actually look is diversion. A lot of the judges we have we've talked to was not aware of the Supreme Court justice Supreme Court seminar about five, seven years back where we brought where Supreme Court justice Brechtinwald brought in judge Littman from Florida. And he is really an epitome of a judge who went beyond the process.

So he saw the need for diversion. He brought the parties together, and that is what I meant as I want your commitment to be a judge and not a litigator should you be confirmed. I want a commitment for you to look beyond the process of advocacy, to look at the process of justice, at the parties, as well as the judiciary, And that's the commitment I'm requesting. Will you be able to do that?

Yes. I will.

Thank you very much.

Other questions, mayors? I have a couple. So I'm I'm my anticipation is that you'll spend some time in district court, not in probably will not be transferred to family court. Is that your understanding?

I haven't heard otherwise. You haven't

heard otherwise. Okay. So one one of the things that I I don't think it's just the district I represent, which is you're in it here in Chinatown downtown all the way up to the top of the poly.

One a frustration that's expressed to me over and over again, and I think it's true pretty much statewide at this point, is that you get defendants who typically don't have anything may you know, what we would normally view as a major crime, but they have a whole bunch of them. You know, they'll have 30 or 50 or sometimes a 125.

And what I'd like you to discuss is well, first of all, let me just preface it by by saying that there's an awful lot of frustration with that. People just do not understand, and they think that every and and it's true that, you know, the stats show that there's a revolving door. And it it this is really building on what Senator San Buenaventura said about the diversion project. I mean, I some of these people are mentally ill, and it's difficult.

Until that underlying need is addressed, we're they're gonna keep evolving.

So with that as background, I'd say, what what's your what's your approach? When you get when you get somebody in, you you convict them of something, you know, a petty misdemeanor, say, and then then you look at their criminal record and see that they have 34 convictions and 60 arrests. What do you do?

And I think first, you start with the law. 706606 gives very clear guidance on what factors to consider when imposing the appropriate sentence. But to your point, Chair Rhoads, about the underlying issue, you know, I think if the goal is really to reduce recidivism and to not have a revolving door, addressing the underlying contributing factor, to the conduct is should be at the forefront of that consideration.

So availing, or at least evaluating what are the diversion options available, in the jurisdiction where it's happening, whether or not that is tailored to that individual's needs. That would definitely be an approach that I would consider as part of the fashioning of the sentence.

I think particularly because I've seen firsthand how when you address, for instance, mental health issues, substance abuse issues, issues related to houselessness, that that can sometimes be the pivotal change in deterrence and conduct.

Okay. So in terms of okay. So there's a certain number of them, the people that you're gonna be across the the I don't know when you sitting on the bench in front of is, you know, it is mental illness or it is drug abuse, but there's some that it's not. And and I guess in terms of the the the criminal justice side of that, what do you what do you do with people that you you don't see an underlying cause?

You just see a a series of choices that have resulted in a multitude of of crimes.

I mean, I think it's still looking at the the law, the guidance with respect to the factors that are set forth in our statutes. It's a case by case situation. And I think that a good judge will look at the facts presented in that particular scenario, and one of them is criminal record. And so that may impact how a a sentence should be fashioned. But there are other characteristics that need to be balanced and considered as well.

And as a judge, I would evaluate those things to determine the most appropriate sentence.

Good. In terms of what you view your your inherent judicial powers as, What can you do do you believe that you can attach conditions to a sentence? That's probably not quite the way to phrase it. What what's your understanding of your inherent power? Can you go beyond just the traditional put them in jail or put them on probation?

With respect to the offenses, if we're talking about criminal offenses, in the district courts, we're talking about petty misdemeanors and misdemeanors within the context of probation. I believe that the court has the discretion to impose terms and conditions of that probation that can be tailored to address specific needs of that individual.

With respect to jail terms, if it is a jail term that is consistent with the probation an available probation sentence, meaning that's a petty misdemeanor that has five days or less of jail because beyond that, it would be a straight jail term. There is no probation available. Then, again, there could be terms tied to that jail sentence that's being served as part of a term and condition of probation.

I'm I'm not sure if the question is as part of the jail sentence, could there be additional terms? As a judge, I would I would consider all of the options that are available to me under the law. I understand that there are certain programs where perhaps in lieu of a sentence, there is a referral to other type of programming, for instance, the ACT.

So if there was a situation like that, which would not be tied to a sent sentence, then I would evaluate the appropriateness of that type of of approving that type of deferment or diversion.

Okay. Alright. Members, other questions?

So Understand why not sure.

Yes.

And I wanna fall want want to follow-up on that because in our off the record discussion, I had informed you that I was disappointed that not not with you in particular, but with the judiciary in particular, new judges not being aware of the legislative acts like act 26, ACT, that is within their power, that the legislature has imbued the judges with the power to divert and and treat.

So will will we have the kind of commitment from you, I I guess, to that if the legislator gives you the in in district court, especially, because that's the people's court. That's more the people's court than circuit court or appellate courts are, where you will be facing a lot of these mentally ill or challenged, you know, like what, Gomes rep had referred to in his in his experiences.

Will you be able to use the powers given to you by the by the legislator to go beyond the advocacy? And will we have that commitment?

Because as I had informed you when we when I did a look back as to whether or not the judiciary had in fact made use of act 26 and other powers, it was the percentage was disappointingly low, leading to a super big rise, frankly, of an overpopulated Hawaii State Hospital. So we all had that commitment for me to act to actively use diversion and act 26 and whatever powers that the the legislator gives you.

And be aware of them when every year when we come up with new laws to give you such powers.

Yes. And if I just may add a little bit to that yes. I think one thing that's important and has really framed my entire career is my clerkship with Judge Marshall Waldorf. Okay. So she actually, at the time when I worked with her, was the drug court judge for the circuit court.

She also is the judge that created the mental health court. And when I was clerking with her, I was there during that process. Her approach to responding to the underlying issues contributing to why someone enters the criminal justice system probably informed the way that I approached every single client when I was at the public defender's office for sixteen years. But I also share that because just like the mental health summit and Miami Dade and the examples that they brought, the creativity, she did that Okay. Good.

In creating the the mental health court. And that was part of my experience with her that I truly ama admired about it. So in the same way, I would like to emulate that as a judge to be solution oriented, to find ways to use the resources to help the people that come before us. Not because in an advocacy format, but because it's addressing the concerns of this revolving door. Thank you.

K. Thank you. Other questions, members? If not, we'll go ahead and move on. Thank you very much.

We'll move on to JC 24, the submitting for consideration and confirmation in the district court of the first circuit judicial nominee, Simeon Olin, Olivia Colani, and Hune Mariano for a term to expire in six years. First up on j c 24 is Hawaii women's Hawaii women lawyers in support. Stacy O'Hara in support. Marita Golangam in support.

We'll move on to JC 24, the submitting for consideration and confirmation in the district court of the first circuit judicial nominee, Simeon Olin, Olivia Colani, and Hune Mariano for a term to expire in six years. First up on j c 24 is Hawaii women's Hawaii women lawyers in support. Stacy O'Hara in support. Marita Golangam in support.

And a whole bunch of individuals in support.

So 54 in support, zero votes, and one comment from HSBA. So at this point, I'll just open it up. Does anyone wish to testify in HC 20 I'm sorry, JC 24? Yep. At least representative coming up.

Morning again.

Good morning again.

Thank you again, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Daisy Hartsfield. I am the representative for House District 36, which is Waipahu, But I am testifying in my personal capacity today. And I felt compelled to testify, not just because I've known, Miss Mariano since law school, but because she is also, a former resident of Waipahu, so she grew up in Waipahu, and I feel that she would be an excellent or she is an excellent role model for young people of Waipahu.

What I wanted to share is her work ethic.

Growing up in Waipahu, which is from a plantation village, as children, we were raised to understand that justice is not just about theories, but about the heavy lifting of of the work that needs to be done. And, you know, in her capacity as a judge, she will be expected to review evidence, research case law, and ensure due process for every individual, which she currently does as an attorney. Living in Waipahu as a child, it provides you a grounded perspective.

Having been raised in a hardworking, diverse community, she possesses a common sense approach to the law, and she understands the real world struggles of the families who appear in the courts before her and will treat everyone with the same level of dignity. The bench needs more people like her who are more than just a legal scholar.

They need someone who understands the pulse of the community and Miss Mariano represents the best of Waipahu. She is resilient, humble, deeply committed to the concept of Kuleana. And she doesn't see this judicial appointment as a position of power, but rather as a position of service. She wants to give back. She understands that the decisions made on the bench in our courts affect the fabric of our town and our state for generations.

And I'm confident that if confirmed and appointed, she will be an excellent judge who will be creative and innovative and find ways to better serve our community in the justice system. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on JC's 24? Yes. Two people sorry. Can we?

Okay. That's great. Good morning. Good morning. Okay.

Good morning, Chair Rhoads and Members of the Committee. My name is Daniel Kadila. I'm the president of the Hawaii Filipino Lawyers Association, and, and testifying on behalf of, our board and our 100, plus members, asking for, the support of, confirmation of Miss, Miss, Matriano to the bench. She's been a long time, member of HEALTH LA. We've known her to be someone just as the prior testify had spoken, someone who understands the community, very deeply and wishes to serve, which we believe is critical.

Her resume obviously speaks to herself. She has broad experience and understanding, and we're we're confident that she will serve with distinction and honor in her position if she's appointed.

Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Gaye Tanaka. I'm a deputy attorney general. I but I'm here I took vacation this morning to come and support my friend in a personal capacity. I've been a deputy attorney general for 25 years and this April, and I wanted then so I worked with Cindy the whole time that she's been with our division and with our office.

So I wanted to give you three points, the behind the scenes look at Miss Mariano. First of all, she's always prepared. She always does the work. She's never the one in the office late frantically preparing for court the next day. Two, she listens to everyone with respect and compassion.

She negotiates in good faith. And I know from interacting with everyone that she has earned the respect of, the parents' attorneys and for the guardian ad litem that represent the best interest of the child. And three, she's the most even tempered person I know. She is the definition of grace under pressure. You would never know that stressed or behind by the way she behaves because she's always above board and very professional.

So if the law is about applying facts and statute, and justice is about the pursuit of truth, I know that the person I had been working with for the last decade is about truth and about the pursuit of justice. I'm sad because you'll be taking away my friend and my sounding board, but I would but I do know that the judiciary would only benefit from my friend Simi being confirmed to the district court bench, and I know that she would serve with dignity, humility, and integrity.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to testify in JC 24 on Zoom or here? If not, members, questions for these testifiers? If not, Mister Murakami, would you like to come up? Morning again.

Good morning again, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, Senators, Mark K Murakami on behalf of the Hawaii State Bar Association. As written in our testimony, we went through our rigorous process. We, got comments from our members. We interviewed the candidate, and we found her qualified.

K. Great. Members' questions? I I do have a question for you. So Miss Mariano currently sits on the HSBA's board, and her name is on the letterhead that HSBA submitted on her appointment.

The HSBA letter states that her appointment was treated equally as all judicial nominees. Can you just tell me how that works? Which where she is What what happens when

a board So, yes, Senator. So if a candidate is on our board, we treat them we go through the same process that we do for every other candidate. We have a recusal process if any of our and this goes for all candidates. So if any of the if any of our board has reason to recuse or abstain, they are given that opportunity at the beginning.

And in the in the instance of our board, generally speaking, knowing a member of the board is generally not grounds for recusal, but, obviously, it's an individual decision on the part of each board member to make that choice.

Okay. So so what does that mean? Does there was

So what that means is

was she did she didn't evaluate her

He's giving she she is not part of the process in terms of the evaluating. She is the person being evaluated, so she is not Okay. Part of the process.

And what about the other two the other two appointees? Was she involved

in the evaluation of those two? Yes. She was, but I can't recall if she recused herself on

I I can ask her when we get to that point. Okay.

Yeah. But she was involved in the process with respect to the other candidates.

Okay. So is that is that's I realize this is not an election where only the the top person who gets the most votes wins, but it does seem I don't know. It it feels a little funny to be

Well, I I I mean, the the question would be if I guess, fortunately and, unfortunately, our board is a pool of candidates who are qualified. If we were to take the position that because the candidate was on our board that we would all recuse ourselves or we would all have to recuse ourselves, then there would be no one to vote on the candidate. So we are all bound by the ethics of lawyers, and we have to fulfill those duties.

And in those duties, we have ethical responsibilities. We have moral responsibilities.

And if, for example, if one of our Board Members is a childhood friend of the candidates, it goes beyond being on the board that they feel they could not be impartial, then they would have the opportunity and generally would recuse themselves.

Okay. So but that also means that there's another the next jc 25 is also on your board. Is that correct?

Correct.

So he he recu he was not

on his own panel, but

he was on the panel for the others.

He was on the panel for the others. I can't recall if he recused, but as far as his own, he was the candidate. He was not involved in the process.

Alright. Thank you. Are there any other questions? If not, thank you. And we'll go ahead.

And and Miss Mariano, if you'd like to make your opening statement. Good morning.

Good morning again, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, Senator Chang, and Senator San Buenaventura. My name is Simeona Liliuokalani Mariano. And, of course, I would like to introduce my family here. I have my husband, Kono, my mother, Darlene, my father, Harold, my sister, Serena, and my nephew, Aiden, and also my cousin, Samuel, here supporting me. This morning, I would humbly ask that you you confirm my appointment to the district court for the first circuit.

I was born and raised in Waipahu as you heard earlier with my younger sister by these two amazing, loving, and hardworking parents of ours. We went to August Aaron School, Saint Joseph's, both in Waipahu. Eventually, we moved to Ewa Beach to live with our grandparents. From there, I commuted to Saint Francis in Manoa to attend high school. By this time, I knew without a doubt I wanted to be an attorney.

After high school graduation, I decided to go to college on the Mainland. I went to Seattle University, Washington. I became the first in my family to go to college. After earning a bachelor of science in biology, I was determined to return home to work on my law degree because I wanted to practice here in Hawaii. Lucky for me, I was accepted into the William S.

Richardson School of Law and also fortunate to be a part of the preadmission program, now known as the Ululehua Scholars Program. Following law school, Pono and I moved to Kauai where I clerked for the honorable George Masulka. He handled the civil calendar there, so I learned a lot about civil cases. But I also was fortunate to occasionally clerk for the honorable Clifford Nakea. He handled the criminal calendar.

That exposure to criminal law is what's made me want to join the prosecutor's office on Kauai. So I applied and was hired. I was vertically prosecuting cases in district court, family court, and the circuit court. And this is where I began my journey as a government attorney and a public servant. I believe that I chose this path of public service because of my parents that you see before you today.

My dad is a retired truck driver. My mother is an administrative assistant at the Ka'imilo Elementary School. They're the most generous people that I know. I've never seen them tell anyone no when they're in need of help. Families, friends, neighbors, they all know they can rely on my parents and they would always be there to help.

I believe that this value of helping others has been instilled in myself, my sister, even now my nephew, Aiden. I want to continue this concept of helping people in my new role if appointed as a district court judge. District court, as we've heard, is the people's court. District court is often the place that people come with their first encounter with the court system and maybe hopefully, they're only one. And I'll be mindful of that if I were be to be appointed as a judge.

I wanna do the best job that I can because the people, the litigants, the attorneys that come before the court expect and deserve that. I pride myself on being prepared, respectful, a good listener, and very diligent. And I would bring these traits to the district court if I am privileged enough to be appointed.

I hope to make a difference in the district court one litigant at a time, finding swift and just resolutions, holding people accountable, but also finding them the help they may need in order for them to not be reoffending. I wanna work with colleagues to increase access to litigants, improve the system, the process, and the proceedings.

I also look forward to making an impact on the community, the community that we're appointed to serve. Being a part of specialty programs, maybe doing more volunteer work, and just continuing the work that is about giving back. Like, the work that we do on the different committees I've been a part of, access to justice, judicial administration committee, and also being a board member with the HSBA. This process of becoming a judge is pretty intense.

It's been an emotional roller coaster to say the least, but I'm beyond grateful and excited to take on all the responsibilities that are expected of a judge.

I am very thankful to acting chief justice Sabrina McKenna for this opportunity and having faith in me to serve as a judge. Also to all of my ohana, my friends, and my colleagues who have been supportive of me through the years and have sent me so many well wishes that I'm really overwhelmed in a great way. I feel truly blessed. I don't take this appointment lightly or the process as well. I'm the eldest grandchild on my mother's side and my father's side.

I've been raised to be a really good role model for everyone. I'm always mindful of the choices that I make. I have a younger sister, many cousins, and they all have children of their own now. They call me auntie and my husband, pono, uncle. They look to a look they look up to us.

Me as the auntie that's an attorney and their uncle Kono as a successful air traffic controller. He's also a retired veteran with the military, and we always have a family in mind. And we always want them to know, my all of my nieces and my cousins, that they can do what we do. You can be successful as long as you put your hearts and minds to it.

Thanks very much. Members' questions? Yeah. Sorry.

Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. I, I just you've heard my questions of the prior candidate. Will we have your commitment to go beyond that of advocacy and, you know, and see whether or not we can do diversion more?

Okay. Go ahead.

Yes. I would I would commit to that tonight.

Okay. So one of the things I I wanna point out, and and I don't know if and I and I don't know if I brought this up with you at the time when we talked before coming here. I was a prior judge per diem, youngest at the time, short short lived.

But I know that there is a balancing you need to do, and especially when we are asking you as a legislature to push for diversion and use those because pushing for diversion means requiring both parties to come to an agreement. And sometimes and that's where the balancing comes in.

Sometimes and you know this as an advocate. Sometimes pushing parties implies advocacy one way or the other. Will you do you think you'll be able to, I guess, balance, to thread the needle, to push for settlements and diversion, and still not be an advocate because you are gonna be a judge.

Yes. I will commit to that. And if I may add, you know, I am familiar. I obviously had to, you know, do my research prior to coming here today in regards to the jail diversion and the various programs and, you know, outlets for the judges in order to make a sentence that would fa be, I guess, fashion or tailor to that specific person. And so, you know, in family court, I am the family drug treatment court, formerly known as the family drug court deputy.

And I feel it's a similar process in where, you know, we have families coming into our program. They usually come in with, you know, problems with addiction and substance abuse, but they also do sometimes come in with mental health issues. And so as a team, you know, we're making sure that this parent is getting the treatment that they need in order for them to be the best parent to their children and be able to reunify and provide them a safe home.

And so, you know, in working with that program, I could see that possibly being, you know, something I could take into my role as a district court judge. You know, you have to look at the bigger picture and looking at the underlying issues and try to see and find ways to help this person in order for them not to be coming back into the system or languishing in the hospital because of their mental illness and disorder.

So I would promise and commit to, you know, trying that, you know, being aware of all the different types of opportunities or ways that we can try and help a person and not just, you know, basically throw my hands up and say, you know, we just have to put you in prison and not have to, you know, deal with you that way. I would prefer trying to work out something in order to make sure that they get the help that they need.

K. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Other members questions? Senator Gabbard.

Miss Mariano, in your remarks, you mentioned about helping people. So why do you wanna be a district judge? That's what I want. What and if you were confirmed, what would be your top priority?

My top priority in district court, as we said, people's court is, again, you know, going back to, helping people. I my first experience as an attorney was working in district court on Kauai. I handled two smaller calendars, the Kaloa and the Hana Lake calendar. And I was a deputy prosecuting attorney. And a lot of the times, the people that come before the court are self litigants.

And the prosecutor, I felt we had the role of being that person to talk to people who were did not have the attorneys, explaining to them the process, explaining to them why they're there, what they're charged with, what penalties they might have to, you know, face if they, you know, admitted to a certain offense.

And, you know, I just felt this role of being, the a good listener, being able to explain things to them, not only just being the prosecutor in in the in the case and trying to basically, you know, find them guilty.

But I do I want to be the judge now in that similar role where we are listening to the people, making sure that they're heard, explaining the situation to them, but also making sure that, you know, they are making right decisions and hopefully coming away from the court, having learned something. Even if they, you know, made a did an offense or committed a crime, that they learn from it and that, you know, their punishment suits what is exactly before me.

But also, you know, leaving there not feeling frustrated when they came in probably.

And that, again, they're being heard by the judge and make sure that if anything, they need any if it's any type of help they may need with regards to addiction or mental health that they also leave feeling like they got the help they need. But also the other side of that too is that if there is a complaining witness or victim, I wanna be able to have that person heard and make sure that they're also hopefully made whole after the situation is resolved.

Thank you. Thank you, Steve.

Thank you. Other questions? I have a couple for you. So you you were on the HSBA panel to evaluate the other two nominees in the room today. Did did you recuse yourself?

I did not. And I explaining to the other board members, I asked whether or not I I needed to. And in the within the ruse, it says, just because you're a board member, that doesn't automatically raise the issue of being recused. And so I chose to sit through the both of the processes for the other nominees, and I, you know, made sure I asked myself if I would be fair and impartial.

I I, again, just made sure that I asked the board other board members or at least the president and the executive director if it was okay for me to sit there.

And they said that even just because I'm a board member, that doesn't automatically mean I need to recuse my seat.

Switching back to more well, other a different line of questioning. So similar to what I asked Miss Durant, Durant, I'm I'm totally in on board with what others have said on the panel about diverting people who where there's an underlying problem that really won't be addressed by putting them in jail. But the question I asked Mister Randt was, sometimes you're you're gonna have a defendant in front of you who there's no there's no obvious there's no obvious underlying problem.

He's just he or she has just committed a bunch of crimes. Why wouldn't you throw the book at at someone like that who doesn't appear to you know, it it appears that they've made a choice that, okay.

You know, I'm I'm personally, I'm sorry that you feel like this is the the life that's your best option at this point. But for the rest of us, you can't really put up with someone who's just decided to be a criminal. Why why wouldn't you throw the book at somebody like that?

Well, as a judge, you know, again, we have those sentencing guidelines. And I think even if, like, Senator earlier said, there there is multiple multiple, prior offenses. You know, there's guidelines that we still need to look at the type of offense, the circumstances surrounding this person, committing this certain crime. And, you know, I understand there may be situations when we just decide, a straight jail term may be appropriate for this person.

But, you know, I see an, I guess, an opportunity in placing the person perhaps on probation.

As earlier stated, you know, you could put certain conditions But

in these but in in a in a in a case like that, a probably person's probably been on probation 10 times before. I mean, some of these cases are literally literally dozens of convictions.

Yes. I understand, Senator. But I guess, you know, with regards to that, you know, I still would treat this case on a case by case basis and make sure

I understand that. That's fine. But I mean I'm talking about the sentencing phase when you've already decided that whatever it was, they did it.

I mean, it could be that this one time, we we don't know if this is the time it's, you know, for a change, and we would look back at this person's, you know, maybe more recent history. Has there been, you know, a chance and a and a attempt by this person to, you know, rehabilitate and, you know, become a law abiding citizen and perhaps do certain things within their own lives to make sure there is change?

And, you know, I just I guess I just wanna make sure that I give them the opportunity to tell me and explain to me as the judge that I'm remorseful. I wanna make a change. And, you know, and at that point, taking all of everything into consideration and make a decision whether or not it's appropriate to just do a straight sentence or perhaps, you know, give them another opportunity at probation.

But I understand what the Senator you're saying, Senator Rhoads, but I I guess I do not wanna just put myself into one, you know, space and make sure that I treat every case

of strengths. I understand you have to take them case by case, but when I'm I'm narrowing down the so I I guess this isn't a question. It's just a comment. There there is a lot of frustration out there about judges who give people chances over and over and over and over again.

And I I think at some point, it becomes you you also there there's there's lots of cynicism in the world, but you don't wanna give people the an excuse to be cynical about the the branch of government that's supposed to be impartial and enforce our laws.

So that's just a comment. Take it with you as you move forward, please.

I will. Thank you.

Yeah, I wanna follow-up.

Oh, okay. Go ahead.

And thank you. And and I appreciate your response. We we do have legislative guidelines for those people who do commit over and over again, and those are extended sentencing guidelines, other guidelines, basically, that allows for the prosecutor to to up the the offense. K? We already have them.

And so, frankly, I appreciate the fact that you are using already your potential judicial ability because there are going to be pressures on you from the public, from from well meaning people who want you to just throw the book. And so so thank you for for maintaining your judicial impartiality.

Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Okay. So I do have one last question. So this also means actually, maybe Mister Kennedy better come up for this one too. So did you recuse yourself from the from the panel? You're you're on the HSBA board.

I am on the HSBA. I I sat through Miss Durant's. And then so it it was a long day. We went from about 11:00 to two. I sat through Miss Durant's.

I did mine. I had court in, in federal court when Miss Mariano was going, so I did not appear on hers.

Okay. Okay. Alright. And I don't have a question for you. I was gonna ask you if you're okay with Mister Kennedy sitting on the because it's really the one that is potentially harmed would be you.

But if he wasn't on the board, then that's an irrelevant question. Thank you very much. If there's no other questions for this appointee, let's go and move on to JC 25. But before we do, Mister Randt, can you come back up? So you've heard that Mister Kennedy was on your panel, which I guess you knew.

This are are you okay? Are you is that acceptable to you? Do you because I if if anybody is gonna be prejudiced by this, it would be you. And if you're not if, you know, you're on the record here, it's it's on a recording. If if you're okay with it, then I'm not gonna worry about it.

Oh, say for the record, the HSBA provided me with their rules regarding participation by members who might be selected as nominees and the ability for them to participate if there was no concerns about impart partiality. I had no concerns or objections to Mister Kennedy or Miss Mariano participating in my evaluation process with the HSBA.

Okay. Thank you. Let's see. I'm just trying to find out think of if there was any other no. Okay.

Mister Kennedy, go ahead. Come on. I'm sorry. We're going on to J, JC 25. Sorry about that.

I'm just trying to sort short circuit the process you made. Okay. Moving on to judicial communication 25, submitting for consideration confirmation this recorded the third circuit, island Hawaii, judiciary nominee Andrew Michael Kennedy for term to expire in six years. Okay. First up on JC 25 is John Ikenaga, public defender. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. I did submit the written testimony. I'd just like to say that the OPD office of public defender strongly supports the confirmation of Mister Kennedy. As you've seen from his professional and academic credentials, he's highly qualified for this position. He did work as a deputy public defender at the Kona office, and this was a time that where there was a lot of attrition, strife.

The office was kind of, you know, going through a lot, and he was one of the pillars of that office. I wanted some some adjectives to describe him, insightful, thoughtful, professional, well respected. The character of the person and their professional reputation is especially important in a small community like Kona. Mister Kennedy is well respected and often serves as a resource for other attorneys in the community and actually in the state.

Leaving all the objective reasons aside, which I feel all support confirmation, one of these things that this committee must consider is the character of the person before them.

Will this person bring honor to the profession to the position, I'm sorry, you're confirming him to, and will this person confirm that this committee made the right decision? I have no hesitation in saying that Mister Kennedy will not let you down and that he will bring honor to his position. Thank you. Thank you

very much. Next up is Rachel Thompson, president for West Hawaii Bar Association in support. Retired judge Robert Diaz Kim, third circuit chief judge.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, Members of the Committee. I come to you today, Robert Kim, as a private citizen in my individual capacity. But I draw upon my many years as a trial attorney on the Big Island as well as a circuit court judge and as the chief judge of the third circuit. Mister Kennedy represents a individual of high integrity and commitment to service.

He alone is a one man army taking on the indigent criminal defense cases, not only in Kona, not only in Hilo, but in Honolulu, in the federal court.

He is known as a person of integrity. He is respected by the judges and the attorneys. He is a man of even temperament, and I wanna focus on that. A lot of times when we are litigants, we advocate strongly, But he always maintains his even keeled understanding of what is before the court. And I can tell you in being the chief judge, in talking to my colleagues on the third circuit, they know that he is gonna be a straight shooter, and he's gonna follow the law.

And he's going to be a judge if confirmed by this honorable body who will bring honor to the judiciary. And before my ten seconds is up, I wanna say that having sat here as a former judge, I wanna thank acting chief justice Sabrina McKenna for an outstanding selection of nominees. I can answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up is judge Ronald Ibarra, third circuit chief judge, also retired in support. Frederick Manansala Makafinlak. In person there we are. Good morning.

I apologize for butchering your name.

Not at all. Thank you very much, Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard, as well as, members of the committee. My name is Frederick Manantala Makapinlak. I am currently a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for the County Of Hawaii. I took the day off, and I am testifying in my personal capacity.

I first met miss, I'm testifying in support of Andrew Michael Kennedy's appointment to the district court judge position, and and strongly in support of his confirmation. I first met Mr. Kennedy back in 2014 as a deputy public defender, and I was on the docket for the Kona District Court for three and a half years. In in addition to my written testimony, I just wanted to share a personal anecdote.

When I first started, one of the things that, mister Kennedy did was to, spend a whole weekend with me, and he and I, had reviewed over a 100 of my cases.

He offered his insight and, analysis on how to approach those cases. He's been a part of the Kona community for since 2012. He is aware of all the issues and struggles that, people who go through the district court face, and I, know him both as a coworker as well as opposing counsel as well. I have no doubt in my mind that he will be fair and impartial to all the parties as well as, any, pro se litigants.

And, I, again, strongly urge this committee to confirm mister Kennedy's appointment, and I'm willing to take any questions.

Thank you very much. Next up is Ezra Witzman on Zoom. Kat, anyone there on Zoom?

Can everyone hear me?

Yep. Yes.

Can everyone hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Aloha, committee members. My name is Ezra Witzman, and I'm submitting testimony in support of Andrew Michael Kennedy. Before my retirement, I was a high school social studies teacher for more than 21 years.

Prior to teaching, I practiced law for approximately fifteen years, and I've also been a business person. For more than twenty years, my students participate in the We the People competition. This national competition is a mock congressional hearing. Students write essays on various constitutional issues. After reading the selected essay, students are asked questions about various constitutional issues.

To help students prepare for the competition, there is a mentor assigned for each unit. Mentors are local attorneys or judges. They help the students research and write their essays. Also, they help students read their essays and answer questions. Andrew was one of the attorneys who volunteered to be a mentor.

He also worked well with the students to prepare them for the competition. The students expressed to me that they enjoyed working with Andrew. As part of the students' preparation, the mentors attended several Saturday practices. Due to my work history, I am in a unique position to evaluate Andrew's aptitude to become a judge. It is my opinion that Andrew has the characteristics to become an excellent judge.

With full confidence, I give Andrew my highest recommendation, and I'll take any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's everybody who signed up for in person or Zoom except for HSBA. There were 33 people in support, zero opposed with one comment on which was HSBA. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in JC 25? Anyone on Zoom?

Anyone else on Zoom? Okay, seeing none of the members, any questions for these testifiers? Okay. With that, mister Murakami for HSBA. Morning again.

Good morning again. So Mark K Murakami on behalf of the Hawaii State Bar Association as set forth in our written testimony. We went through our normal rigorous process. We, got comments from our members. We interviewed the candidate and found him to be qualified.

Great. Thank you. Members, any questions? If not, thank you. And, Mister Kennedy, if you'd like to make an opening statement, you're more than welcome.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, Senator San Buenaventura, Senator Chang. I'm humbled to be here today seeking confirmation for the position of district court judge in Kona. My wife, Lauren, who is with me today, and I moved to Hawaii in 2012. In 2011, we visited Hawaii to visit family and attend a wedding.

We fell in love with Hawaii. I took the next available bar exam, and I moved out here as soon as I could. We have lived in Kona since our arrival in Hawaii. We love Kona, and we call Kona home. During my time in Kona, I've involved myself in the community as much as possible.

As you heard from mister Witzman, I volunteered with the local high school for the We the People competition. I've assisted with the judiciary's courts in the community program. I caddied for a junior golfer for a number of years on the Big Island Junior Golf Tour. My firm supports the judiciary's annual access to justice high school scholarship essay contest. We support the local humane society.

We support the University of Hawaii Hilo Athletics, as well as Hilo High School Athletics, and we support the Hawaii Symphony Orchestra. Within the legal community, I've been president of the local bar association, the West Hawaii Bar Association numerous times. As noted. I'm the current West Hawaii director for the Hawaii state bar association. I've contributed to pro bono legal work, not just indigent defense or the Kona self help desk, but other pro bono work in 2025.

I was named, or awarded the Hawaii State Bar Association's award for outstanding pro legal work in the community. I currently serve as a member of the State Defender Council. I am the current United States District Court CGA panel district representative for Hawaii. I'd like to be a district court judge. District court is the face of the judiciary.

The cases may be considered small by legal standards, but to the people appearing in the district court cases and the people affected by district court cases, they are important cases. Many of the people who appear in district court are normal members of the community. They face difficult situations. Many are unfamiliar with the legal process. Many are scared.

Some don't even know where the courthouse is. It is the court where young attorneys often start. They begin their careers, where young prosecutors, young public defenders, young private attorneys often begin.

I believe I can do a good job over this community presiding over this community court in a manner that shows appreciation for the law and respect to those who appear before me, showing respect to the pro se litigants, showing respect to the young attorneys, and doing so in a way that encourages them to be the best attorneys they can be. I would be honored to be confirmed as next district court judge in Kona, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you. Questions, members?

Sorry. One moment. Sorry.

Oh, go ahead. I just

Thank you. Okay.

You hesitated, so I Yeah.

I wasn't gonna understand that before you spoke. Okay.

Thank you. Well, you know what? I've been asking. So same questions I've asked you, the the prior nominees, except, you know, I practiced in third circuit courts. So the the ability to divert is far less in third circuit court than it is in first circuit court.

So what when when I asked when I asked you like, I asked the prior nominees, are you still committed to divert? And and I know that that judge Kim, back when he was a judge, was advocate advocating for another state hospital over in third circuit court, which isn't gonna happen. We just don't have the money. But what are your ideas regarding diversion in third circuit?

Well, for starters, it's district court, so the term of supervision would be shorter than felony court, obviously.

Thank you.

I think supervision can work. So I don't know if Senator Rhodes has been asking about a lot about the persistent offenders. I think generally in district court, you have three types of defendants. You have the young defendants or not necessarily young, but the ones who haven't appeared very often. They've made a mistake.

They are amenable to some sort of, corrective treatment. There are then the ones who suffer from the mental health issues, and that's its own can of worms. And then there are the persistent offenders who just generally don't show respect for the law and keep, committing crimes over and over again.

So with respect to the ones who well, this might be their first time in, and we can fashion a sentence that's constructive rather than destructive, or the mental health one, defendants, which I think you have a strong concern for diversion or maybe the people that don't quite reach the level of seven zero four, issues, fitness or capacity. I think there while the resources on the Big Island are a little different than Oahu, we're a little limited.

We don't have the hospital. I do think probation sentence is tailored with supervision, actual supervision, meaningful supervision. You know, in the federal system, we have a very meaningful supervision, wherein the state system, the resources sometimes are a little more strained. But I think it's not necessarily placed all the supervision on probation, but maybe more frequent proof of compliance hearings. Maybe having ways where if they do, go off off off to bad side for a little bit, there's a quicker means of accountability.

That accountability doesn't have to be throw the book at them, but at the same time, if they have shown an inability to comply with probation time after time, they don't need a fifth six chance. Sometimes it is here's your sentence and learn from it. But in the mental health aspect, I think identifying it early and I do think we have a generally a a reasonable prosecutor's office on the Big Island. I think it's a smaller community.

I think Kelvin Wald lead Waldgen does a good job, and Chase Murray does a good job supervising in Kona.

But I think more frequent proof of compliance, meaningful supervision can help to achieve some of the goals that that you're

K. May I do a follow-up?

Okay. So you're referring to and you know I used to practice.

Yep. Sure. Sure.

Yeah.

So you're referring to post sentencing, though.

Right.

When I when I talked about diversion

Right.

I really wanna do it before sentencing and using the sentencing as a hammer should they not. I mean, what are your ideas with diversion beef even even hopefully before arraignment?

No. I I I hear that. And and I don't think that the the idea of get a conviction for the sake of conviction to put it on the record is necessary. I think that, you know, deferred prosecution, sometimes we call it where where the concept of, okay, they're in, we continue it out, waive your speedy trial for six months. Let's see if we can get the ship going in the right direction.

And if things work properly, then if the prosecutor's amenable to dismissing a case, that type of situation.

Okay. So and and and I know you're gonna come in as a freshman versus being an administrative judge, and maybe you could talk to the to who is a Kona judge, the administrative judge now in circuit court, to see whether or not you folks can have prehearing conferences before arraignment so you can do the kind of diversion that judge Lightman over in Miami Dade Well, in Florida. I don't know if it's necessarily Miami Dade. Did. Is is that something you'd be open to?

This is what I was No.

Absolutely. Going beyond the process.

Yeah. Absolutely, Senator.

Okay. Thank you.

Other questions, members? If not, I did wanna ask you a similar question to what I'd asked the other appointees. Was was miss Mariano on your panel when you Yes.

She was on my panel, and I don't have an objection.

Objection. No. That's that's all I want. If you don't care, then that's No. That's fine.

Not at all. And then returning back to the well, third circuit, of course, is a little different because you don't you my understanding is you will have both a civil calendar and the criminal criminal calendar at

the same time? And there may be some overlap with some family court where it does overlap the FTCR, the involuntary commitments of the

So in terms of the I mean, you've heard what I said about the about people's absolute frustration with what they view. It's been in many cases, unfortunately, rightfully so, as a revolving door where it's only to commit a fairly minor crime. Three weeks later, they're back with the same thing, and it just never seems to end. So I I don't really have a question about that. You heard what I said.

I I I wouldn't I can't I can't overstate how unhappy people are about it. What I am curious about, though, is well, we have a fairly unusual, if not unique, system of nominating judges. Most states, like 40 of them, just elect them. And so the pressure on judges is significantly greater on those states to be tough on crime because if you aren't tough on crime, if you're viewed as not being tough on crime, you don't get elected the next time.

So I, I, my point in this is that because we have a somewhat insulated system, I think it's easier for judges not to not to feel the not to feel the pressure that elected elected officials feel, which is if you don't keep your constituents happy, you're not coming back.

So I I would just say that it it the the revolving door is a serious issue, and people not being given chances over and over and over and over again is not viewed very well by the public. It won't the the results for the judiciary won't come as quickly as they would in a system where you just get elected, but there is pressure in that direction. So just be aware of that as we we as elected officials, we can't the power does derive from everyone.

And if they don't like something, eventually, it will change. And I I would really like to avoid having the the judiciary system in Hawaii changed to an elected system because I don't think it's a good system.

So just be aware that there is some political aspect to this too, that if we don't keep all of our constituents happy to a to a certain level anyway, there will be pressure to change it in ways that I don't think are good ways to change it. That's understood. Thank you. The other thing I I'm afraid I I think I need to bring it up is years ago now, you had an incident where you were charged with a crime. Can you tell us about that?

So so about over twenty years ago, I had a misdemeanor offense in New York. I think one of the biggest things I took away from that was the judge sentenced me to community service. I didn't have to do probation, and I didn't do jail or anything of that nature.

And I think what I gained from that was he allowed me to choose what I was going to do for my community service, and I chose to do legal pro bono work with a homelessness outreach clinic in New York City. And I did about ninety five hours of community service where it was mainly section eight appeal.

So someone would lose their housing administratively and we do the appeal. One example that sticks out is an elderly lady whose son was arrested for a crime, and therefore, he had to that she was gonna lose her house, and we had to go and do a a appeal on that nature. I think that that that meant a lot to me in terms of real I mean, I was doing securities litigation at the time.

I didn't come out of law school with this as my, public defenses, my career path. But that meant a lot to me in showing that constructive sentences for people who make a mistake or find themselves in an unfortunate situation can work, can benefit everybody, and can help people move forward.

Tell us again how long ago that was. What you did?

Thousand five, I believe.

It might have been four.

Alright. Thank

you. Members, other questions? Yep. Alright. I think we are as I mentioned before, we will not be voting on them on Nissan appointees today.

That will be on Thursday, April 2at 10:20AM in this room. So we are adjourned. Until then, Thank you all for being here. Members, we do have a Hey. Thanks, everyone.

We're-- this is the Judiciary Committee. This is-- we're moving on to our 10:30 agenda, which is a decision-making only agenda. We have one, two, three, four, five bills to vote on. First one is HB 389. This clarifies the applicable felony offenses for using an uncrewed aircraft and the furtherance of the commission of a felony. Recommendation here is--excuse me--pass as is. Questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair.

On HB 389 SD 1, the recommendation is to pass unamended. [Roll call]. Motion is adopted.

Great. Thank you. Next up is HB 968. This establishes strict liability for crimes against elders with respect to the--

Wait.

I'm sorry. 963. 963. I'm just-- whatever. I can't explain it. HB 963, right, establishes strict liability for crimes against elders with respect to the attendant circumstances that the victim was seven years-- eight years of age or older and only applies to assaults. Recommendation here is to pass with technical amendments only. Questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair.

HB 963 SD 1: recommendation's to pass with amendments. With all members present, are there any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is HB 1163; amends requirements to commercial driver's license qualification standards to meet current federal regulations to allow the state to issue a non-domicile commercial learner's permit and a non-domicile commercial driver's license for applicants who are unable to complete proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residency. Recommendation here is also to pass with text only. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Gabbard.

HB 1163 SD 1: recommendation's to pass with amendments. Are there any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure is adopted.

Great. Thank you. Next up is HB 1510; conditions the issuance of the certificate of inspection upon a vehicle not being equipped with any cover or shield installed over the license plate. The recommendation here is to pass as is. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Gabbard.

HB 1510 SD 1: recommendation to pass as is. Any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure's adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up is HB 1523. It removes references to countdown timers as it relates pedestrian control signals, including the requirement that pedestrians must begin crossing a roadway before a countdown timer begins. Recommendation is to pass-- I don't think we can pass this as is because--

You need <unintelligible>.

We need a different date. Okay. I'll pass with a different effective date-- a different defective date. That'd be March 22, 2075. Questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair.

Recommendation on HB 1523 is to pass with amendments. Are there any no votes or reservations?

No.

No vote for Senator Awa. The measure's adopted.

That's it. Thank you for being here. We're adjourned.