Quantcast
  

Wednesday, April 23, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 41 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Defendant 'likely' to testify about McDonald's homicide

By Ken Kobayashi

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 09:44 p.m. HST, Jul 17, 2013


U.S. State Department special agent Christopher Deedy is expected to testify during his murder trial in the 2011 shooting of a Kailua man in Waikiki, his lawyer disclosed in court Tuesday.

Defense attorney Brook Hart said it is "highly likely" Deedy will take the witness stand, although the attorney added that the defense could change its mind after the prosecution pre­sents its case.

The jury trial is scheduled to open Monday with opening statements to the jury.

Deedy, 30, of Arlington, Va., was here to provide security for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference when he fatally shot 23-year-old Kollin Elderts in the chest at about 2:45 a.m. Nov. 5, 2011, at the McDonald's restaurant on Kuhio Avenue.

Deedy had been drinking, he instigated an altercation and ended it by shooting Elderts, according to prosecutors.

Deedy's defense is not disputing he fired the shot, but is maintaining Elderts attacked Deedy and tried to grab the agent's gun, leaving Deedy with no choice but to fire his weapon in self-defense.

During the hearing to sort out what evidence can be introduced at trial, Circuit Judge Karen Ahn ruled that the defense can introduce a cellphone video taken by a passer-by after the shooting.

The defense says it shows Deedy rendering aid to Elderts and trying to stop the flow of blood.

Ahn said she will rule later on:

» Whether the defense can introduce Elderts' 2008 disorderly conduct conviction, which the defense says involved a drunken Elderts resisting arrest outside a Kailua bar and swearing at police, who had to subdue him.

» Whether the defense can introduce the toxicology report that shows Elderts had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.12, which is above the 0.08 legal limit for drunken driving. The report also said Elderts' system had traces of cocaine and marijuana use.

A surveillance video by McDonald's security cameras of the altercation isn't in dispute by either side and will be shown to the jury.

Ahn had granted a request by city prosecutors to keep the video under seal until the trial to avoid tainting prospective jurors.






 Print   Email   Comment | View 41 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(41)
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.
Mythman wrote:
War time clouds judgments as when we are not at War - we are at war and the line between deadly force and otherwise is not as clearly defined. In Hawaii, we are in a permanent one sided war against the United States for taking away the monarchy and taking away all the lands of the Hawaiian people, then giving them to the public via the state. One wrongful act precipitates another. Where is Justice? Nowhere to be found, especially in a War Zone.
on July 3,2013 | 05:53AM
allie wrote:
huh? The monarchy, which had acted illegally to change the constitution without legislative agreement, was overthrown by a domestic coup hon.
on July 3,2013 | 06:44AM
holokanaka wrote:
I can see you still haven't read the material I have suggested hon, you are still an i d i o t!!!!
on July 3,2013 | 07:11AM
allie wrote:
oh i have
on July 3,2013 | 08:56AM
holokanaka wrote:
allie, if you still believe the "overthrow" was a "domestic coup" you did not read the material and therefore you are a liar. show me one person who can dispute the fact that there is no treaty of annexation and that these Islands are not under a prolonged occupation.
on July 3,2013 | 02:06PM
false wrote:
She's incompetent.
on July 3,2013 | 04:35PM
holokanaka wrote:
oh and hon was the bayonet (1887) constitution legally enacted with "legislative agreement"?
on July 3,2013 | 07:51AM
8082062424 wrote:
your still stuck on stupid
on July 3,2013 | 08:07AM
GorillaSmith wrote:
"your still stuck on stupid" I think you meant "you're", my intellectual friend.
on July 3,2013 | 01:34PM
eoe wrote:
Maybe you should go hang out someplace like Syria for a month, then come back and write a letter to the editor describing the similarities between that war and the one going on Hawaii.
on July 3,2013 | 08:07AM
lee1957 wrote:
That's an awfully big chip on your shoulder.
on July 3,2013 | 11:35AM
holokanaka wrote:
truth and facts truth and facts thats all. can you dispute it?
on July 3,2013 | 02:09PM
lee1957 wrote:
I don't waste my time with people who claim to be victims of something that happened over 100 years ago. Boo hoo, boo hoo.
on July 3,2013 | 06:33PM
holokanaka wrote:
a true punk out.
on July 3,2013 | 08:41PM
false wrote:
5th paragraph "Deed.....instigated an altercation" says it all. What's with report Elderts' blood alcohol but not Deedy's? Yes, we have some long time hostility left in us over the historical events of demoralizing the native peoples and taking over this land. Still we are entitled to equity of due process under the law. Elderts represented everything that plagues youth in these economic times of social liabilities but Deedy was right there with him, DRUNK. Elderts didn't have a gun. But locals can sure shoot you down with the mouth. Probably all we have left is oratory. That we can fire with barbs attached. Mythman is right, we are a historical war zone of hurts and dismissals. We who cultivated this land and made it hospitable are the seen as the lowest of the low. Bitter.
on July 3,2013 | 06:05AM
allie wrote:
HUH? The events of 1893 had nothing to do with the altercation of two drunks. Elderts is white as is deedy. Neither one was heroic that night
on July 3,2013 | 06:45AM
8082062424 wrote:
Elderts is white really? so do you consider your self white since you are half white
on July 3,2013 | 08:10AM
allie wrote:
he is 90% white
on July 3,2013 | 08:57AM
8082062424 wrote:
and what facts do you base that statement on? i know that you do not know the family or no any more thnen you have read . so prove that statement
on July 3,2013 | 01:39PM
allie wrote:
SA article
on July 3,2013 | 01:48PM
8082062424 wrote:
your saying a SA article stated he is 90 % percent white. will prove it share a link
on July 3,2013 | 03:52PM
sak wrote:
There's "White" and then there's, "Poragee"!
on July 3,2013 | 04:18PM
sparkyzane wrote:
Read the whole paragraph. "...according to the prosecution."
on July 3,2013 | 07:57AM
lokela wrote:
I do believe in the some of the cultural aspects of our society. However, I don't think this case has anything to do with cultural. It was simply a 'barroom fight' except it happened at a restaurant. We need to just get to the bottom of it and move on. It's been dragging on for almost 2 years. Just determine who was wrong and not wrong that's all. Just wasting our money.
on July 3,2013 | 06:45AM
sayer wrote:
Thank you - agreed.
on July 3,2013 | 06:58AM
mrluke wrote:
First intelligent comment posted about this case in a long time!
on July 3,2013 | 08:25AM
allie wrote:
agree
on July 3,2013 | 08:58AM
stingray65 wrote:
Whoever has the gun won!! Person who is drunk should stay home and get drunk again.
on July 3,2013 | 04:53PM
joseph007 wrote:
Yea believe a lawyer what he says
on July 3,2013 | 08:44AM
cojef wrote:
A similar scenerio being played out in Florida, except the racial card is more noticeable in the former, and the local case involve both being inebriated resulting in a death. In Florida, the prosecution case very weak, based on their witnesses and experts thus far presented. The local case has not even begun and has been tried by public opinions, and lack any meritorious comments worth noting. Will wait for more details.
on July 3,2013 | 11:38AM
hapaguy wrote:
There is nothing similar between the two cases other than two people are dead. In the Florida case I believe that the young man, Trayvon Martin was "standing his ground" when he confronted a strange man following him (Zimmerman). He (Martin) had every right under Florida's stand your ground law to confront a strange man that was following him. Unfortunately for Martin he was unarmed....
on July 3,2013 | 02:15PM
stingray65 wrote:
He should Arm himself!
on July 3,2013 | 05:00PM
stingray65 wrote:
Florida has totally different Gun Laws. You can excercise your second ammendments right in Florida, but not in State of Hawaii. What this State need is the Right Conceal to Carry. Then, that is when the crime goes down...
on July 3,2013 | 04:59PM
gobows wrote:
Rule 1. No be stupid when dealing with a guy carrying a gun.
on July 3,2013 | 01:05PM
hapaguy wrote:
Rule #2 No be stupid and drink when you are carrying a gun.
on July 3,2013 | 01:47PM
hapaguy wrote:
Mark my words: he will never testify. He would have to explain what he was doing that night. All that drinking he did before he shot Elderts will hurt his case....
on July 3,2013 | 02:39PM
Mei mei wrote:
Would be keen to see that video footage taken @ Mcdonald's - think that will speak volumes in itself !
on July 3,2013 | 04:36PM
false wrote:
He can't testify because he started it the challenge. If he just let it fly with the words but know he wanted the physical, why? Because he had the gun.
on July 3,2013 | 04:41PM
Mythman wrote:
This is for the guest in our midst, allie, who has no aloha. the university you attend and the hotel you work at, every inch of this land, used to be native Hawaiian land. The US screwed us when it took possession of it and then gave all of it to the state to own under certain conditions. She the lands I referenced that benefit you, you are the "public" for whom these lands were said by the US to be in trust to the state for the benefit of. Not us, we get nothing, zero, zip, nada, except abuse from ingrates like you and these politicians who promise pie in the sky by and by but know due to laches it is an impossible promise to keep. What you learned at U of H is old scholarship, not updated knowledge. If you were as smart as you think you are, you would know the difference and this might motivate to you seek out the truth.
on July 3,2013 | 02:59PM
Rivergrouch wrote:
The truth is you will never get anything, So move on people,
on July 25,2013 | 01:53AM
DA_HANDSOME_CHINAMAN wrote:
By dis bradda, I ask, why did Deedy draw his weapon? When Elderts attacked Deedy, the gun was out and he (Elderts) just wanted to disarm him. If Deedy didn't draw his weapon, Elderts wouldn't have attacked him. Catch on Captain! Elderts would bust him up, but not shoot him. Deedy, being trained as a government agent should have known better to draw a weapon in a family restaurant. There was no cause to do that, Elderts didn't have a weapon. But you locals and mainlanders watch da outcome of dis trial.
on July 3,2013 | 04:45PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Latest News/Updates
Blogs