Aki jurors won't explain verdict
By David Waite
Advertiser Courts Writer
Only the jurors in the Christopher Aki murder trial can explain how they arrived at the lesser verdict of manslaughter rather than murder in the December 2002 beating death of 11-year-old Kahealani "Kahea" Indreginal.
And so far, they aren't talking.
Several of the jurors contacted after the verdict said they made a pact with one another not to discuss it publicly.
After a three-week trial and more than four days of deliberations, the seven men and five women on the jury concluded that Aki, 21, was guilty of reckless manslaughter instead of second-degree murder.
The jury picked the one verdict option that received the least amount of discussion during the trial and one that the jury was given to consider almost as an afterthought.
City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle, who prosecuted the Aki case with help from deputy prosecutor Glenn Kim, asked specifically that reckless manslaughter be included in the verdict options.
In his closing argument, Carlisle told jurors that reckless manslaughter was an option they could consider, but he quickly discounted that possibility by saying reckless manslaughter is a better fit in cases brought against drunken drivers whose actions result in the death of others.
"This is not a case of reckless manslaughter," Carlisle told the jury a matter of hours before deliberations began.
Aki's lead attorney, state deputy public defender Todd Eddins, who was assisted by deputy public defender Leilani Lujan, opposed the inclusion of the lesser offense, relying solely on the argument that Kahea was killed by an uncle after the girl went with Aki to a park at the top of 'Aiea Heights to confront the uncle about her claims that he was molesting her.
The defense argued that Aki falsely confessed to the crime because, after killing Kahea, the uncle put a gun to Aki's head and threatened to kill him and his family if Aki told the truth about what happened.
Carlisle and Eddins did not return phone calls for comment, but prominent Honolulu defense attorneys Howard Luke and Brook Hart both used the term "compromise" to describe the manslaughter verdict the jury finally settled on.
Under Hawai'i law, a person can be found guilty of reckless manslaughter if they do something they know has the potential to kill another although they are not intending to kill the other person.
Luke, a former city deputy prosecutor, said it is possible the jury believed portions of Aki's confession — one that he later recanted — when he said he accidentally spit on the girl, that she slapped him in response and that he "just snapped," knocking the girl out with a punch to the jaw.
Luke said he doubts that a single punch to the jaw would have been fatal. And even if the jurors viewed the punch as a spontaneous, unintended action that triggered a fatal assault upon the girl, "then how do you account for the pipe?" Luke said.
In his confession to police, Aki said he beat the girl repeatedly in the back of the head and neck with a pipe he found at the scene.
If the jurors believed Aki's confession to police to be true — that he hit the girl with the pipe, waited a few moments and hit her again after he noticed she was still breathing — it would appear that Aki acted "knowingly or intentionally," Luke said.
Under state law, a person commits murder if the person "knowingly or intentionally" kills another.
If the jurors believed Aki's confession to police was true, then the part about using the pipe to kill the girl would indicate that Aki was involved in a "hands on" murder, Luke said.
"It certainly is a very fascinating case and a very perplexing verdict," Luke said.
Hart said he believes Aki's lawyer succeeded in planting reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds by challenging the thoroughness of the investigation and claiming Kahea was killed by her uncle.
Hart said Aki's slight build and his age may also have worked in his favor.
"He's certainly not a very muscular person, and juries sometimes are reluctant to find a young person guilty of the ultimate crime," Hart said.
During deliberations, the jury was probably confronted with a number of highly technical issues usually far outside the reach of a lay person, Hart said.
"They deliberated for an extensive period and essentially came up with a kind of rough justice" by reaching a verdict that appears to be a compromise between finding him not guilty at all or finding him guilty of second-degree murder, Hart said.
The manslaughter verdict means Aki will face a prison term of no more than 20 years.
Had the jury found him guilty of second-degree murder, Aki would have faced a mandatory term of life with the possibility of parole.
Reach David Waite at dwaite@honoluluadvertiser.com or 525-8030.
