Quantcast

Wednesday, July 30, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 50 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Jury selected for Deedy's Honolulu retrial

By Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 02:59 p.m. HST, Jul 09, 2014


Jurors and alternates have been selected for the retrial of a federal agent charged with murder in a shooting at a Waikiki fast-food restaurant.

A state Judiciary spokeswoman says the jury consists of five men and seven women. The four alternate jurors are three women and one man.

The jury selection process was completed Wednesday.

Opening statements will begin Thursday in State Department Special Agent Christopher Deedy's retrial.

Deedy claims he shot Kollin Elderts in self-defense during an altercation inside McDonald's in 2011. The agent from Arlington, Virginia was in Honolulu providing security for an economic summit. He was off-duty when he went to the McDonald's after a night of bar-hopping with friends.

His first trial ended with a deadlocked jury nearly a year ago. The judge declared a mistrial.






 Print   Email   Comment | View 50 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(50)
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.
makiki123 wrote:
What a waste of money!
on July 9,2014 | 02:56PM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
Not really because the only waste of money is if Seedy hired private lawyers. All Judges, Public Defenders, and Prosecutors are on-call and getting paid anyway, so it's better that the taxpayer is getting their money's worth. Another jury means more pay for a jury, except jurors don't get paid much.
on July 9,2014 | 04:47PM
lee1957 wrote:
Maybe if we didn't waste on money on unwinnable cases we wouldn't need as many judges public defenders and prosecutors, did you ever think about that?
on July 9,2014 | 06:47PM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
No however do we think about planned parenthood, in that can we stop people from having unwanted, undesirable, and unreliable children? You seem educated enough to know of the statistical Bell Curve, where the norm of society falls within 67% of the median. In other words, what you are saying is what Adolf Hitler advocated for his Third Reich: just have one's own preconceived notion that only certain types of Super People are eligible to live and function in society and that anyone not meeting certain criteria are "exterminated", which really occurred in The Systematic Removal of Jewish people from Germany. I hope you are not thinking in those terms, except when you want to limit numbers of people, it really is similar to what was the crux of World War II.
on July 10,2014 | 12:54AM
false wrote:
lee1957, without Brook Hart as Deedy's defense lawyer, Deedy will be convicted within a blink of an eye.
on July 10,2014 | 05:11AM
tigerwarrior wrote:
Would you say the same if one of your family members was a victim of a homicide, manslaughter or murder? Even if we do put a price tag on justice--as some on this thread insist on--who has the right to dictate where we draw the line?
on July 9,2014 | 05:47PM
lee1957 wrote:
That is the DA's job.
on July 9,2014 | 06:47PM
Upperkula wrote:
Tiger warrior is right if it were one of your family members that was shot to death by a off duty federal agent that was drunk because he went bar hoping with friends and possed a firearm in a state that does not have a conceal carry law, you would not be running your mouth. I don't know any of these people in this case but if I was on the jury and I was the deciding vote I would vote GUILTY. Federal agents are not above the law. Now if that agent was sober and was protecting someones life even his own that would be a different story,than I would have to vote differently. BUT INTOXICATED AND CARRYING A GUN, NOT A GOOD IDEA.
on July 9,2014 | 07:44PM
scooters wrote:
No legal proof that he was drunk. Only speculation...
on July 9,2014 | 07:58PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
That's only because he refused to cooperate with the investigation. Meanwhile, the victim had the fluid sucked out of his eyeballs to test for drugs.
on July 9,2014 | 09:13PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
Look up the fifth amendment. The cops had every right to get a warrant but were either helping a fellow LEO or just plain lazy. If anyone is to blame than blame the incompetent HPD.
on July 10,2014 | 01:16AM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Where's Kollin Eldert's fifth amendment? He didn't even shoot anyone and he had his blood tested and the fluid sucked out of his eyeballs.

I don't blame the HPD, I blame the man who could have aided the investigation and instead stonewalled until he had time to sober up.


on July 10,2014 | 04:07AM
false wrote:
Kailuaraised, you cite the wrong amendment, its the fourth amendment that controls the necessity of getting a warrant.
on July 10,2014 | 05:16AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Hope he's not wearing a State Dept. Lapel pin.
on July 9,2014 | 09:25PM
false wrote:
Kalaheo1, the cops didn't need a warrant to take fluid samples from Eldert, so said the U.S. Supreme Court in Schmerber v. Calif. in 1966. The same goes for Deedy. I don't practice crimnal law so I don't know if the Hawaii Supreme Court has a more restrictive rule than the rule in Schmerber. If it doesn't, then you are right, it was law enforcement illegally taking of law enforcement --- but what else is new?
on July 10,2014 | 05:22AM
Bully wrote:
I second that, Hawaii's judicial system is a pathetic waste of tax payers money.
on July 9,2014 | 03:08PM
serious wrote:
I agree with both of you, but we have the Democratic mentality #1 in every negative aspect for the USA. A President on a fund raiser in Texas won't go to the border since he considers it a photo op and when Bush didn't do Katrina under the same premises --he as put to the torch. Color do manner!!
on July 9,2014 | 04:02PM
localguy wrote:
Wait until someone files charges against you and you know you are innocent. See if you say the same when your tail is on the line.
on July 9,2014 | 06:06PM
richierich wrote:
True dat
on July 9,2014 | 09:33PM
RandolphW wrote:
Let's get set for a very entertaining summer and fall with this latest series. We are sure not to be disappointed in this series, and hopefully, none of us will be too taken aback by the proceedings. We need this diversion after so much SA time has been spent on the rail.
on July 9,2014 | 03:32PM
gobows wrote:
OJ trial all over again.
on July 9,2014 | 04:05PM
tigerwarrior wrote:
So are you comparing Deedy's actions to O.J.'s and are you implying--hypothetically speaking of course--that if Deedy is acquitted as O.J. was in the criminal trial that the Elderts family would then sue Deedy for damages based on the preponderance of evidence--and yes there was much evidence (i.e., video, witness testimony) to hold Deedy liable for damages in the wrongful death of Elderts?
on July 9,2014 | 05:57PM
gobows wrote:
If Deedy pulled out his gun and just shot Elderts, he'd be guilty of murder. But, because Elderts went and knocked Deedy down and was mounted on top of Deedy and punching him, reasonable doubt is justified.
on July 9,2014 | 04:15PM
gobows wrote:
Can Elderts be guilty of lack of common sense?
on July 9,2014 | 04:19PM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
Many of us are guilty of that.
on July 9,2014 | 04:48PM
kk808 wrote:
Yes, but hopefully our lack of common sense does not cause injury or death to someone.
on July 9,2014 | 07:51PM
8082062424 wrote:
he already been found guilty of that and paid the price
on July 9,2014 | 05:07PM
tigerwarrior wrote:
So are you implying that you do not have a problem when police or other law enforcement agents shoot those who are mentally ill or lack common sense? According to the U.S. Department of Justice, those who are mentally ill are four times as likely to be shot by police in comparison to the general population. Even more staggering is that half of all people who are shot by police are mentally ill! Shouldn't we do a better job of protecting those who cannot always protect themselves?
on July 9,2014 | 06:10PM
lee1957 wrote:
Was Elderts mentally ill?
on July 9,2014 | 06:49PM
Upperkula wrote:
Tigerwarrior: you da man or women
on July 9,2014 | 07:47PM
gobows wrote:
So if Elderts was mentally ill AND lacked common sense....he was overdue?
on July 10,2014 | 09:05AM
Surfer_Dude wrote:
It's not illegal to be stupid.
on July 9,2014 | 06:05PM
2NDC wrote:
It is illegal to be drunk, high and to threaten others.
on July 9,2014 | 06:11PM
tigerwarrior wrote:
It is likewise illegal to be drunk, high, throw the first punch(kick) in a physical altercation and then shoot an unarmed man who is simply trying to defend himself. Of course we will never know for sure whether or not Deedy--who had been going bar hopping in Chinatown earlier that day--was in fact drunk or high on drugs. However, because the findings relating to Eldert's blood work won't be allowed in this trial, neither can the defense claim de facto that Elderts was drunk or high on drugs either.
on July 9,2014 | 06:34PM
gobows wrote:
An unarmed Elderts bull rushed Deedy, a man pointing a gun at him. Got on top of him and started pounding. What else was Deedy suppose to do?
on July 10,2014 | 08:57AM
tigerwarrior wrote:
Who's lacking the common sense in this picture? Please be objective. Keep in mind that a witness has yet to come forward to testify whether Deedy identified himself as a law enforcement agent. How was Elderts to know who Deedy was if he did not identify himself as such. Security informs Deedy that HPD was on their way. Despite this, Deedy takes it upon himself to confront Elderts and initiate a physical altercation with Elderts who is sitting quietly at his table, minding his own business. After Deedy kicks Elderts, Elderts defends himself and manhandles Deedy in the process. Deedy then responds by shooting up this McDonald's restaurant, with the final shot killing Elderts at pointblank range--all the while knowing full well that this would all be captured on surveillance video.
on July 9,2014 | 07:00PM
waokele wrote:
Elderts came forward and identified himself as a punk that was drunk and wanted to show the haole what a big shot he was. He just did not realize someone had a bigger shot.
on July 9,2014 | 07:50PM
Upperkula wrote:
tigerwarrior: I'm with you on this all the way,
on July 9,2014 | 07:51PM
2localgirl wrote:
I'm local, so let's not forget that...but, I agree, he's got the not too smart attitude that he's ''larger than life'' and look where it got him, death. Deedy is not blameless but I don't feel that Elderts was the brightest bulb in the room. He took on a bravado attitude and he lost. Another trial, too much waste of money and time. He was not convicted the first time. Deedy needs to get back to work. I think he's learned a lesson the hard way, stay outta HNL when you wear a suit. :C Doubt you'll see him here again...
on July 9,2014 | 08:22PM
lokela wrote:
Glad I wasn't mailed a letter for this jury selection. Just a waste of time and money.
on July 9,2014 | 04:56PM
2localgirl wrote:
amen!
on July 9,2014 | 08:23PM
8082062424 wrote:
I know some one on the jury. i feel for him and the rest
on July 9,2014 | 05:03PM
2NDC wrote:
Bruddah is gonna walk once more.
on July 9,2014 | 06:09PM
krusha wrote:
Waste of time and money... Going to be a deja vu trial after this is all said and done.
on July 9,2014 | 06:13PM
tigerwarrior wrote:
Hard to ague against this statement if the jurors selected for the retrial are not given the manslaughter option.
on July 9,2014 | 06:27PM
scooters wrote:
Not Guilty already...wasting our tax money..
on July 9,2014 | 07:56PM
brusselsprouts wrote:
Deedy refused to take an alcohol test. In many states that is enough to get your license suspended and can also be used against you in a court of law. Further, a HPD Officer clearly stated that he smelled alcohol on Deedy's breath and that his eyes appeared glossy along with slurred speech. The Officer is not a dirtbag so I'm goinna give him some cred. Witnesses also stated that Deedy behaved drunk. You have Deedy, an honest Cop, and witness all pointing to the same conclusion. That doesn't sound like speculation but rather deductive reasoning to reach a premise that Deedy was under the influence of alcohol. As a Tax Payer I approve this retrial.
on July 9,2014 | 09:07PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
Like I said above, the fifth amendment protects Deedy. HPD could have gotten a warrant but either covered for Deedy, were lazy, or possibly didn't think it would be approved. It's not illegal to carry and drink just like it's not illegal to drink and drive. It's illegal to be intoxicated or over the legal limit. None of which can be proven.
on July 10,2014 | 01:19AM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
And none of that can be proven because Deedy refused to cooperate with the investigation. You can argue that it was his right to do so, but it's reasonable to ask why Deedy didn't submit to having his blood alcohol tested.

If you were sober, wouldn't you want to prove it? If Deedy considered the blood alcohol test too unreliable, then isn't it too unreliable to say the Elderts was intoxicated too?


on July 10,2014 | 04:14AM
gobows wrote:
I think the Feds teach their guys to not take the test, if they know they've been drinking and just fired their gun, killing someone in the process. Fed Training 101.
on July 10,2014 | 09:03AM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News