Hawaii Criminal Defense Legal Questions

I'd recommend that your son retain a lawyer. If he cannot afford a lawyer, the court may appoint him a lawyer if he's charged with a criminal offense. Ultimately, he has the same rights as adults charged with a criminal offense. Those rights include the right to council, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and all the other applicable rights.... Read Answer

Do not speak to the police without legal representation. The innocent are the ones who need the protection of a good lawyer the most. The police may have decided you are guilty and will couch the interview on their terms. Do not let that happen. Statements can intentionally or unintentionally be misconstrued. What you believe is helping you may be used to hurt you. I have seen it happen many times. You need a strong lawyer in front of you.... Read Answer

A temporary restraining order can seriously interfere with your life, especially if you are in the military or trying to enter the military. The first option can be to challenge the issuance of the order and another option is the subsequent modification of an order already in place. An experienced attorney can assist you with those options.... Read Answer

If a bench warrant has not issued already, hiring a civilian criminal defense attorney who can appear for you and set a court date and keep the court informed as to when you expected to return from deployment, should be your best option. If a bench warrant has issued, an experienced criminal defense attorney will also be your best option.... Read Answer

Yes. The law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is testimony from a witness about what he saw, heard, touched or felt. It is information that was obtained from his own senses. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence of proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact. Circumstantial evidence allows a juror to use his or her reason and common sense to make deductions, draw an inference or reach a conclusion about other facts that must be established in the case. Juries are usually instructed not to be concerned with these terms and to consider all the evidence presented at trial. However, it is up to the jury to determine how much weight to give to direct and circumstantial evidence. For example, let's say you are about to leave a movie theater and haven't yet made it to where you can see outside. The people filing in to see the next showing of the movie are all carrying wet umbrellas. You have no direct evidence it is raining outside, since you haven't seen it or observed it yourself, but the wet umbrellas are circumstantial evidence that it is raining or recently rained. It is up to you, as a juror, to determine what weight to give the wet umbrellas in making a decision, using reason and common sense, as to whether it has been proven it is raining outside. In all instances, however, the jury will be instructed that they cannot find someone guilty unless they are convinced the government has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant has committed the crime with which he is charged.... Read Answer

49 states plus the District of Columbia have mandatory seat belt laws. The lone exception is New Hampshire. Attempts to have mandatory seat belt laws declared unconstitutional have been argued on several grounds: as a violation of individual liberty; as a prior restraint on the right to determine one's own personal safety and health care standards; on Due Process grounds; and as violative of the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of the right to be secure in one's person. None have met with success. First, the privacy rights that courts recognize as deserving of heightened constitutional protection include those pertaining to marriage, procreation, child rearing, education or family. Seat belt laws do not fall within this group. Second, the ability to drive on a public street or highway is considered an entitlement, not a right. It is subject to reasonable regulation under the state's police power. "Police power" refers to a legislature's inherent authority to pass laws that promote the public health, safety, and welfare. Seat belt laws have been upheld as a valid exercise of this power. In other words, as you learned in Hawaii, "click it or ticket."... Read Answer

Both the federal and state governments prohibit the possession and sale of illegal drugs as well as conspiracy to possess or sell drugs. Often, the federal and state drug agents work together, sometimes as part of a joint federal-state task force, and sometimes informally. This is legally permissible, as long as the decision whether to charge to charge the individual in state or federal court is not completely arbitrary but based upon some kind of reasonable standards. Thus, it is legal for a federal agent to be present during the execution of a state search warrant. It is also legal for the agents to "turn" a person arrested for a drug crime so as to get that person to inform on his or her supplier. Often, the local police or federal agents will wire the newly arrested person, direct her to make and record conversations in which she sets up a meeting with her supplier, surreptitiously accompany the arrested person to the meeting, record the buy, and when it is completed, arrest the supplier. This tactic is referred to as a "controlled buy" and is not only legal but busines-as-usual in the official drug war. A conspiracy is nothing more than an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime. In federal court, it is not even necessary that anyone commit any any acts in furtherance of the drug conspiracy. A buyer-seller relationship, without more, does not establish a conspiracy. However, if the drugs are fronted, meaning the buyer doesn''t pay for them until a later date, presumably until after he or she has re-sold some or all of them, the courts will find that a conspiracy exists because more people are involved than just the buyer and seller. Since the federal and state agents were not committing a crime in being present during the execution of the search warrant, arresting and "flipping" one of the persons present and arranging for her to set up her supplier, the agents are not guilty of conspiracy. The supplier may have other valid defenses to the charges against him or her, however, and should contact an attorney to explore them. Since federal and state laws can differ significantly, if the person is charged in federal court, it is wise to seek the services of a lawyer who is experienced in defending federal drug cases. If the person can not afford a lawyer, the federal court will appoint one for him or her.... Read Answer