An informal poll was published by the Honolulu Star-Advertiser after the press conference held by the City and County of Honolulu’s prosecutor following state Rep. Sharon Har’s acquittal. It showed that only 9% of those polled agreed that the case should have been dismissed, 77% of respondents believed that the “judge erred,” and 14% agreed “somewhat, but could’ve let the charge be refiled.”

The purpose of this commentary is not to defend my client. That has already been accomplished in court. In our justice system, this is the only place where the evidence — and the truth — matters.

Rather, it is to explain why the presiding judge in the trial came to the correct decision in granting the defense motion for a judgment of acquittal.

Only the judge presiding over the trial, the court staff, the deputy prosecutor representing the state, and the attorneys defending Rep. Har were present throughout the trial. Only we heard and viewed all the evidence.

I never had a trial before the presiding judge. I didn’t know him personally. I had heard that he had integrity and judicial ability. Further, if the evidence showed my client was guilty, he definitely would convict her.

After the conclusion of the press conference presentation, a reporter asked the question, “how can a judge get it so wrong?” The response began with “your guess is as good as mine.” If the prosecutor had sat through the trial, there would be no need for guessing.

The prosecutor said that granting a judgment of acquittal meant that the case “shouldn’t have been brought in the first place.” This is a misleading statement of the law. The judge must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution after it rests its case. If the judge is convinced that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the motion must be granted.

There were numerous grounds for reasonable doubt. Here are a few:

The claim was made that Rep. Har ordered four bottles of beer. The server called by the prosecution testified that another individual kept ordering rounds for the table. Rep. Har consumed only a few sips, not below the neck of each of three bottles. She didn’t drink any from the fourth. The amount she consumed was less than half a bottle.

The claim was made that she had attempted to turn the wrong way on Piikoi Street. She only started to move toward that direction after observing a police officer’s hand gesture to do so. When verbal clarification to enter the parking lot to her right was made, she backed up and turned into the parking lot.

There were major inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. For example, the odor of alcohol was not said to have been detected by the officer who was in closest physical proximity to Rep. Har. The testimony of other officers was significantly contradicted by their police reports.

The judge found that the most important evidence consisted of the body-camera videos. They showed Rep. Har’s ability to walk without any problem the considerable distance to the awaiting police vehicle, despite wearing very high heels. She entered and exited the police vehicle, while handcuffed behind her back, without any problem.

She was very cooperative with the police throughout the arrest.

Because of the misleading narrative provided in the press conference, two questions should be asked and answered:

Is it OK to disagree with the decision of a judge? Absolutely.

Is it fair to explain that disagreement on a flawed, misleading representation of the evidence? Absolutely not.

Howard K.K. Luke is a Honolulu attorney, representing state Rep. Sharon Har.