Ruling unlikely to affect Hawai'i
By Curtis Lum and David Waite
Advertiser Staff Writers
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling last week that said juries, not judges, must decide all aspects of a person's guilt when it results in harsher sentences, could have far-reaching effects in federal courts, but should have little impact in state courts in Hawai'i.
That's the opinion of legal experts here following a ruling Thursday by the Supreme Court. The court overturned an extended prison term based on sentencing guidelines for a Washington man who had pleaded guilty to kidnapping.
Typically, judges are authorized to give a convicted criminal more prison time based on the circumstances of the crime.
But in a potentially far-reaching decision, an unusual alliance of conservative and liberal justices called that system unjust and a violation of the basic principle that juries decide all aspects of a person's guilt.
Federal Public Defender Peter Wolff Jr. said it's too early to say what effect the decision will have. But he said "the decision restores large parts of the right to a jury trial that had been eroded over the past two decades."
Wolff said sentencing guidelines have given federal prosecutors "tremendous amounts of power" to determine a defendant's sentence, while the defendant had "little or no ability to do anything to counter the power." With the ruling, he said, facts that could lead to stricter sentences will now have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. "There's a potential far-reaching impact, but exactly what it will be or how things will develop remains to be seen," Wolff said. "A lot of it depends on the response from the Department of Justice."
U.S. Attorney Ed Kubo could not be reached for comment.
On the state level, the ruling isn't expected to have a big impact because Hawai'i has fixed sentences for the most part.
If the prosecution intends to seek a sentence longer than is usual for a particular crime because it was heinous or cruel, that intention must be made clear at the time of indictment, said John Tonaki, head of the state Office of the Public Defender. He said a Hawai'i Supreme Court decision involving a particularly cruel murder made it clear that a jury must decide whether a longer than usual sentence is appropriate.
"That's been the practice the last 10 years or more," Tonaki said. "Anytime (the prosecution) wants to claim aggravating circumstances, the questions have been going to the jury to decide."
Honolulu Prosecutor Peter Carlisle said his office is analyzing the decision but that he did not expect it to affect any cases where extended prison terms have been handed down.
In cases where his office seeks an extended prison term, the jury must answer yes to questions, called interrogatories, about the defendant's actions in the case for extended sentencing to apply, Carlisle said.
The case of Miti Maugaotega, who was recently sentenced to life in prison without parole for shooting a Punchbowl man in the chest at point-blank range while burglarizing his home, is a good example, Carlisle said.
Maugaotega was convicted of attempted second-degree murder, which normally results in a sentence of life with the possibility of parole, but the judge sentenced him to life without parole at Carlisle's request.
"That's because the jurors were asked if he used a semi-automatic firearm in the commission of his many and various crimes and they answered 'yes'," Carlisle said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report. Reach Curtis Lum at culum@honoluluadvertiser.com or 525-8025. Reach David Waite at dwaite@honoluluadvertiser.com or 525-8030.
