Wednesday, July 30, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 46 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Deedy seeking to limit later use of his testimony

By Nelson Daranciang

LAST UPDATED: 01:42 a.m. HST, Dec 22, 2012

If State Department Special Agent Christopher Deedy's court testimony on his request to have his murder charge dismissed can be used against him later in his trial, Deedy might decide not to testify at the hearing or might even withdraw his request to dismiss the charge, his lawyer Brook Hart said in state court Friday.

Deedy, 28, is awaiting trial in April for second-degree murder for the Nov. 5, 2011, shooting death of 23-year-old Kollin Elderts in a McDonald's restaurant in Waikiki.

Circuit Judge Karen Ahn had scheduled a Jan. 22 hearing on Deedy's request to dismiss the charge. She rescheduled the hearing to Feb. 25 after Hart handed her new legal papers Thursday asking her to limit the use of Deedy's testimony in the hearing to his request to dismiss the murder charge. Ahn pushed back the hearing date to give the state time to respond.

Ahn said she doesn't believe Hawaii courts have ever considered such a request.

The February hearing may be the first opportunity for the public to see the McDonald's surveillance video of the shooting and the events leading up to it; Ahn has prohibited its release.

Both sides have given their interpretations in legal papers of what led to the shooting. The state points to Deedy as the one who started the fight and the primary aggressor. Deedy says it was Elderts who started the fight and was the primary aggressor.

Deedy was in Hono­lulu to provide security for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference, which drew world leaders to Waikiki later that November. He claims the murder charge against him should be dismissed because he was performing his duties as a federal law enforcement officer to protect the lives of himself and others at the time of the shooting.

Hart also presented Ahn with a proposed 78-item questionnaire for prospective jurors. He said the questionnaire will make it easier for the court to weed out people who may have already formed an opinion about Deedy's guilt or innocence because of their exposure to pretrial publicity about the case or other reasons.

The state proposed a 23-item questionnaire.

Ahn rejected both and said she will instead have a simple, seven-item questionnaire mailed to the homes of about 1,000 prospective jurors on Oahu.

"I don't want them to necessarily know that the one-month case that they're being called for is this case, because my fear is that they're going to go onto the Internet or talk with other people about the case. And that's the very thing we are trying to avoid," Ahn said.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 46 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
MalamaKaAina wrote:
Plea deal with probation or removal to fed court and dismissal. Either way junior g-man walks.
on December 22,2012 | 12:58AM
hapaguy wrote:
That will never happen. To high profile of a murder for a plea deal that allows Deedy to walk and to late for removal to Fed court...
on December 22,2012 | 02:10AM
MalamaKaAina wrote:
The federal statute commonly known as the Westfall Act accords federal employees absolute immunity from tort claims arising out of acts undertaken in the course of their official duties, 28 U. S. C. §2679(b)(1), and empowers the Attorney General to certify that a federal employee sued for wrongful or negligent conduct "was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose," §2679(d)(1), (2). Upon such certification, the United States is substituted as defendant in place of the employee, and the action is thereafter governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act. If the action commenced in state court, the Westfall Act calls for its removal to a federal district court, and renders the Attorney General's certification "conclusiv[e] ... for purposes of removal." §2679(d)(2).
on December 22,2012 | 03:23AM
50skane wrote:
Aren't you referring to civil suits stemming from an alleged criminal act. The Westfall Act should have no bearing on the outcome of Deedy's criminal trial whether it is held in our State or Federal courts. It may give him immunity from a civil suit but that's all.
on December 22,2012 | 06:39AM
wiliki wrote:
Malama doesn't care about the distinction. They're all the same to him.
on December 22,2012 | 07:04AM
localguy wrote:
MalamaKaAina - Nice try but Deedy's shooting incident did not happen as part of his official duties. He was off duty, partying in town, failed to follow guidance to not bring his weapon with him. Fact is Deedy is incompetent, not fit for his job, should be prosecuted, do prison time, lose his job. All he had to do was back off and call 911, he failed. Be afraid of prison Deedy, ex federal agents are very popular after lights out.
on December 22,2012 | 06:59AM
allie wrote:
on December 22,2012 | 08:10AM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
I think the video will show that Elderts was the agressor and caused his own shooting by mouthing off to a federal officer pointing a gun at him. If it were the way the state alleges, they would just release the video showing Deedy was the agressor. They haven't done that have they?
on December 22,2012 | 09:58PM
allie wrote:
true but he was not working on official duty.
on December 22,2012 | 08:10AM
KekoaBradshaw wrote:
But one of the points his high-priced attorney is making is that Deedt was on official duty jst by vietue of being in Hawaii at the time. I don't agree with that, but a criminal defense lawyer will try to make any points, not mo matter how illogical, hoping to delay and delay the case so the public fuss dies down and eventually a plea deal is worked out between the defense and the prosecution. And, Deedy has hired Brook Hart, one of the State's best (and most expensive) defense attorneys.
on December 22,2012 | 11:40AM
peanutgallery wrote:
He may deserve to walk. Let's see the tape.
on December 22,2012 | 04:53AM
serious wrote:
Now, the NRA would have a simple solution--have armed security at all McD's.
on December 22,2012 | 05:50AM
bender wrote:
Haha. Yes, let's arm those hamburger flippers.
on December 22,2012 | 05:58AM
lee1957 wrote:
There was, his name was Deedy, and he rode a pale horse.
on December 22,2012 | 06:35AM
peanutgallery wrote:
We had one, and he used it.
on December 22,2012 | 04:58PM
Grimbold wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on December 22,2012 | 03:48AM
wiliki wrote:
People who carry guns should be responsible. If a Japanese tourist did the shooting, then wouldn't people doubt his motive of self defense even if attacker was two times his size?
on December 22,2012 | 07:16AM
copperwire9 wrote:
Your comment says infinitely more about YOU than about anyone else.
on December 22,2012 | 07:49AM
prest1948 wrote:
I don't understand why you had to bring up the race card. This is not about race. Deedy interferred when he shouldn't have (he appeared to be intoxicated at the time). If he was acting as a federal law enforcement officer, he should not have been consuming alcohol. How was he going to protect the dignitaries who were in town for the APEC conference? In most government functions, consumption of alcohol while on duty is a serious offense. This is a case of stupidty on both sides cause by alcohol. The possible reason for wanting the trial in federal court is he may be treated better in federal prison than he would here.
on December 22,2012 | 11:19AM
Mythman wrote:
Oh, Oh: Judge Ahn just messed up big time, projecting an opinion about what jurors might or might not do. Mistrial. Change of venue. Change of jurisdiction. It's a wash. The slain local boy's family sues McDonalds after the local prosecutors are moved aside - McD's is liable. Also state should have provided adequate briefing to Deedy and others about how f*cked up the local attitude is about the United States due to years of propoganda about "illegal occupation" and "overthrow" put out by the ali'i trusts to obstruct federal law encoded in Title 25.
on December 22,2012 | 05:04AM
wiliki wrote:
Not a lawyer but how can the family sue if the guy is found guilty of attacking a law officer?
on December 22,2012 | 07:12AM
wiliki wrote:
What's more... IIRC wasn't the attacker drunk?
on December 22,2012 | 07:25AM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
wiliki wrote: "What's more... IIRC wasn't the attacker drunk?"

At this point we don't know who the attacker was. And because Mr Deedy declined a breathalzer and HPD choose not to pursue it, we don't know if Mr Deedy was intoxicated that night. The dead man wasn't able to refuse to have his blood tested.
on December 22,2012 | 03:05PM
Mythman wrote:
One of the guys is dead and he contributed to his own death. McD contributed to his death by not having security on the premises.
on December 22,2012 | 08:26AM
wiliki wrote:
Security? You're kidding right? No fast food place has security.
on December 22,2012 | 10:17AM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Actually a lot of fast food places have armed security on the mainland, including McDonalds. I don't know how they decide whether or not an individual restaurant gets it or not.
on December 22,2012 | 03:06PM
bender wrote:
Seems like Attonrey Hart wants it both ways for his client. Wants him to be able to testify but doesn't want that testimony considered later on. Doesn't Hart know that anything you say can be used against you, or is he trying to change that rule. Maybe Deedy can testify with his fingers crossed then it wouldn't count.
on December 22,2012 | 06:01AM
wiliki wrote:
Hart doesn't know how the testimony will turn out. The prosecutor may make him look bad on the witness stand. Why would Hart want that used against his client in court. Worse yet, what if the prosecutor wants to use that testimony as the basis of a different criminal trial against Deedy or use it to expand the charges against Deedy?
on December 22,2012 | 07:10AM
Waimanalodayz1 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on December 22,2012 | 06:26AM
lee1957 wrote:
What's a Haulie?
on December 22,2012 | 06:37AM
wiliki wrote:
on December 22,2012 | 07:22AM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
Person who rents a U-Haul truck.
on December 22,2012 | 07:29AM
sak wrote:
Time served, record cleared in 2 Months if you stay out of trouble. Have a nice trip back home Mr. Deedy.
on December 22,2012 | 06:31AM
localguy wrote:
Sak - For the rest of his life, anyone can Google his name and find out what Deedy did. What goes on the net stays on the net.
on December 22,2012 | 07:01AM
wiliki wrote:
Not quite... I'm sure this has been an expensive nightmare for Deedy and his family.
on December 22,2012 | 07:20AM
KekoaBradshaw wrote:
Poor baby... "An expensive nightmare". What was Deedy doing at 2:00 a.m. in McDonald's after partying hard anyway?
on December 22,2012 | 11:45AM
wiliki wrote:
Judge Ahn is dreaming.... all the media and the internet is talking about this case. Who does NOT know?
on December 22,2012 | 07:02AM
mcc wrote:
Deedy was drinking and carrying a gun. If Secret Service are allowed to drink on the job, he was on the job, if not, and I do not think the Secet Service allows drinking on the job, he is GUILTY!
on December 22,2012 | 07:20AM
allie wrote:
agree..there are no heroes here and no innocence
on December 22,2012 | 08:11AM
serious wrote:
mcc--good point, but the facts of Obama's South American trip with the SS agents doesn't hold true. Remember he said he'd get to the bottom of all this--that was what 6-8 months ago? Same as Clinton getting those who bombed the embassies and the Cole to be brought to justice--what 10-12 YEARS ago? Remember the hostages in Iran during Carter's administration?? Presidents say anything, but they never get their feet to the fire. Now having an affair with an aide--that's different!! National security--who cares?
on December 22,2012 | 08:20AM
residenttaxpayer wrote:
Agent Deedy was not on duty the night he shot Elderts at the Waikiki McDonalds...therefore he didnt have qualified immunity that on duty law enforcement and goverment agents have while in the performance of their duties. Otherwise the police department wouldnt have arrested him and the Justice Department would have stepped in and provided Deedy with legal representation. Brook Hart is just blowing smoke.
on December 22,2012 | 08:31AM
hawaiikone wrote:
I'm waiting for the tape and all evidence before making my own decision, which will be meaningless anyway, but you bring up an interesting question. Do police that are off duty who interfere in a crime receive immunity from their actions? A lot of law enforcement carry off duty, so the situation must have occurred already. Does a more obviously correct use of police powers while off duty warrant immunity? Just wondering.
on December 22,2012 | 09:12AM
cojef wrote:
The location, the tape, the time of the evening, the witness accounts of seeing him drinking at different night spots prior to the shooting all indicate he was off-duty. The location, McDonalds, seriously cannot be construed as security post. Hart shot his own foot by claiming immunity and now must cover his tracks before the trial begins. Methinks, Mr. Hart will have hard road to hoe when the trial begins. HAve my own opinions, but it's not for sale. ha ha.
on December 22,2012 | 09:59AM
serious wrote:
Those of us who were in the service it was 24/7---but having said that, if you were drinking--under the influence, per se you should disqualify that defense. But, we haven't seen the video as to what happened. If Deedy was protecting the public from this local--how much force is needed? Back up? Christ, in Honolulu, I see the police getting a backup car for a jaywalker!!!
on December 22,2012 | 10:46AM
Mythman wrote:
Wasn't the deceased local boy engaged in a racial crime by attacking others not of a race he likes, verbally and then physically? The fed should have been briefed by APEC that this is what goes on in Hawaii, on the street and everywhere - it's just part of the history. Mr. Deedy's aim was bad, that's for sure but he was acting as a law enforcement officer trying to make an arrest, wasn't he? He just happens to be, in local terms, the "wrong" kind of law enforcement agent.
on December 22,2012 | 08:31AM
cojef wrote:
oops, got shot down for expressing an opinion unworthy of SA sensibities. McDonald tape, time of the evening, witness accounts of Deedy's drinking escapades at other night spots, all points out that the crime scene was not an official security post, thus he was not on duty. Thus the immunity plea was not accepted, nor did the AG intercede on Mr. Deedy's behalf. Now, the immunity plea becomes an issue and the defense is retrenching. The PA now can become more aggressive in prosecuting the case. Whether, the immunity plea weakens the defense case remains to be seen.
on December 22,2012 | 10:07AM
MightyMakiki wrote:
I like that.. One month trial. Brook Hart is trying to pull his magic. This should have been adjudicated a long time ago. Why all this hub bub?
on December 22,2012 | 11:08AM
Changalang wrote:
Judge Ahn has not been accommodating to Brook Hart. She appears to be posturing to hold this in State as an expressed preference. A judge does not posture like this if they are getting ready to roll over. All bets are off, in my humble opinion. Never under-estimate the power of Green in the Hawaii Courts; Mike Green that; the Big Kahuna Esq.
on December 22,2012 | 06:28PM
Latest News/Updates