Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 12, Number 12, 1 December 1995 — Simple Justice [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Simple Justice

by Kīna'u Boyd Kamali'i Trustee-at-large I do not share many of Dennis "Bumpy" Kanahele's political beliefs. I don't agree that the Congressional passage of an apology to the Hawaiian people for the overthrow

rendered American jurisdiction over Hawai'i illegal. I don't agree that the best future for the Hawaiian people is full independence from the United States. In fact, it is because of my disagreements with

Bumpy. that I must testify on his behalf in the United States federal court. As an American, I believe in the basic precepts of fair and just treatment: such fundamental beliefs as "you're innocent until proven guilty," and that "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it." The U.S. Constitution and laws seek to embody those

beliefs. Fundamental to the success of such protections is the setting of bail and a fair trial. Bumpy has been denied both. To deny bail requires the court to find the individual charged with an offense to be a danger to the community, or a poor risk to retum for trial. Bumpy is not a

danger to our eommunity. He is passionate in his beliefs. but he is not violent. The danger is that somehow the judieial system ean be used to silence such passion. Bumpy is not a risk for flight, of

leaving Hawai'i to avoid prosecution. His whole life and being is intertwined with the land and spirit of the Islands — to leave would be a greater punishment than any court is capable of imposing. To re-try Bumpy is likely "double jeopardy" — unconstitutional exercise of putting someone on trial twice for the same crime.

Bumpy has been tried. Mistakes in the federal administration of the jury system resulted in a situation where a verdict could not be reached because the judge declared a mistrial. Federal failures to properly screen jurors is not truly a mistrial, but an averted miscarriage of justice. That fatal flaw was not Bumpy's doing, but could arguably result in his being tried twice for the same crime. Such fine points of law must also be decided by the courts. The ability to appeal or ehallenge such serious rulings as the constitutionality of retrial would require time. Perhaps more than a year would be needed to eome up on the court calendar and get a decision. Would Bumpy stay in jail that whole time, awaiting a trial that might itself be ruled unconstitutional? And would Congress then apologize to Bumpy? The case and possible outcome get too complex. It is my hope that by the time you read this eolumn, Bumpy is free on bail. That would be right. That would be fair. That would be simple justice.