Posted on: Thursday, October 10, 2002

ELECTION 2002
City prosecutor defends advocacy

By James Gonser
Advertiser Staff Writer

City Prosecuting Attorney Peter Carlisle said accusations that his office is improperly spending thousands of dollars of city money and passing out brochures to subpoenaed witnesses at court to advocate a yes vote on a proposed constitutional amendment are "stone-cold false."

Any money his office spent to advocate the amendment is legitimate, he said.

But state public defender Jack Tonaki said using any city money or workers for political purposes is unethical. He called the proposed amendment "a political

issue, a political question, and does not allow us to use government facilities, equipment or money — taxpayers' money — to advocate on behalf of this issue."

Tonaki said he had prohibited his staff from campaigning or using state equipment or time to advocate on the issue.

The proposed amendment would let the attorney general and prosecutors initiate felony criminal charges by filing written documents. Currently, defendants can be brought to trail only if indicted by a grand jury or as the result of a preliminary hearing.

The amendment would allow sworn affidavits to be submitted to a judge, who would decide if there was sufficient evidence to bring someone to trial on felony charges.

Just once, when grand jury members requested information, were brochures on the amendment distributed by a deputy prosecutor at the courthouse, Carlisle said.

"Is there a systematic handing-out of brochures to witnesses to the grand jury in the courthouse? Hell, no," Carlisle said. "They are trying to make something out of nothing."

Tonaki said he had been told of witnesses being handed brochures after being subpoenaed to testify.

"I'm concerned if it makes any mention of witnesses being victimized by the system, it may have a tendency to taint their testimony," Tonaki said. "I don't think their neutrality should be tampered with in any way."

Carlisle strongly defends active support of the constitutional amendment by himself and his deputies.

"We checked this out beforehand," he said. "We covered this stuff before we did anything. We knew we would look particularly bad if we screwed up."

He said he had sought approval from the Honolulu Ethics Commission and Hawai'i State Ethics Commission before allowing any prosecutors to advocate passage of the amendment.

"The ethics laws do not prohibit (the prosecuting attorney) from using city resources to advocate for the passage of the direct filing amendment," according to a June 7 response by Charles Totto, executive director of the Honolulu Ethics Commission.

"It appears that the use of state agency resources to support a ballot issue that a state agency endorses would not violate the Hawai'i State Ethics Codes," wrote Daniel Mollway, executive director of the State Ethics Commission, on July 1.

Carlisle said the amendment would streamline the judicial system and protect victims' rights. Criminal defense attorneys say it would erode the due-process rights of the accused.

Carlisle said an estimated $1,000 in city labor and materials had been spent printing brochures in support of the measure, and that the expenditure was legitimate. Other promotional materials — including bumper stickers, signs and advertising — are paid for through a public issue committee called the Victim's Voice.

Tonaki said that just the time Carlisle and his deputies spend advocating the issue amounts to a public expenditure.

"I understand that it is pretty extensive, the amount of city resources being expended by the city prosecutor's office," Tonaki said. "I really question that. ... It is clearly to me a political issue. They are using taxpayer money to advocate for one issue. The whole think reeks of impropriety to me."