EDITORIAL
Clyde Arakawa trial: A bad taste lingers

Former Honolulu police officer Clyde Arakawa placed his fate in the hands of a jury of his peers, and they dropped him. Hard.

Having decided that Arakawa was responsible, after a night of heavy drinking in October 2000, for the crash that resulted in the death of 19-year-old Dana Ambrose, the jurors selected from a broad palette of charges, from mild to harsh, for their verdict. They chose the most severe, manslaughter, a charge rarely sustained in Hawai'i motor vehicle accidents.

By now it may be dawning on Arakawa that he could have saved himself, his family, the police force on which he served, his community and — most especially — the Ambrose family an incalculable amount of grief had he taken responsibility, from the moment he staggered out of the smoking wreckage, for this tragedy.

Had he acknowledged what testimony suggests was a nasty drinking problem, professed remorse for Ambrose's death and asked for mercy instead of demanding justice, he might have emerged with lighter punishment. Now he faces a 20-year maximum prison term.

But more important, he wouldn't have felt the need to mount a defense that could portray him as innocent only by painting Ambrose in the most offensive terms. The trial was not just a dispute over who had the green light. Arakawa also had to sue the young victim's estate for damage to his vehicle; to have his lawyer suggest with no evidence whatever that she was high on drugs even though the medical examiner's report showed she was not.

He wouldn't have felt the need to mount the absurd "experienced drinker" defense, a theory that rivals San Francisco's famous "Twinkie defense." It appears to have been an attempt, not to sway jurors with logic, but to confuse them.

Arakawa also was in a position to spare his Police Department from even more embarrassment than it had already incurred immediately following the fatal collision.

Public outrage was the result when Police Chief Lee Donohue first denied and then had to acknowledge a few days later that Arakawa received special treatment from fellow officers at the crash site.

That was bad enough, but Arakawa's defense alleged that police mishandled evidence, that expert prosecution witnesses manipulated their testimony and that police officers who testified against Arakawa have been promoted while those who showed him compassion have been demoted.

A defendant is entitled to great flexibility in challenging the charges against him. But there's no denying that Arakawa's tactics badly offended a community that ordinarily has enormous respect for police officers.

Not only has Arakawa's defense proved futile, but it has left a bad taste not soon to be forgotten.