Opinion ID: 2960719
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Second trial proceedings

Text: The second trial, which is presently at issue, commenced on March 7, 2011.4 The presentation of evidence began on March 10, 2011, and continued for eight days. The evidence from the second trial was substantially similar to the evidence from the first trial, except that Ju Wong Woo and Duckworth’s brother, James Duckworth,5 testified at the second trial only. Teo and Woo were the State’s key witnesses. Deguair also testified. Teo testified that around midnight on March 27, 2008, 4 The Honorable Glenn J. Kim presided. 5 James testified that Deguair accused Duckworth of implicating Deguair in a 2007 home robbery. James also testified that Deguair had twice threatened him and Duckworth. 5  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  he saw Deguair bring Duckworth to a sport utility vehicle (SUV) and that Duckworth’s mouth was covered with duct tape, and his arms were taped behind his back. When they arrived at Yokohama Bay, Teo heard Woo tell Deguair to shoot Duckworth. Teo testified that he saw Deguair shoot Duckworth and kick him off the cliff, all without untaping Duckworth. Woo testified that he did not tell Deguair to shoot Duckworth, but that he saw Deguair point a gun at Duckworth’s head and heard a gunshot, though he looked away before the gun fired. Woo also testified that Deguair did all of this without untaping Duckworth. Deguair testified that he taped Duckworth at the direction of Teo, and that he untaped Duckworth before putting him in the back of the SUV. Deguair testified that he drove until Teo told him to pull over in Nânâkuli, and that Teo walked off with Duckworth, leaving Deguair and Woo at the SUV. Deguair testified that more than an hour later, Teo returned alone. The apparent implication of this testimony was that Teo murdered Duckworth. Duckworth’s body was discovered that day by a lifeguard, who testified there was no duct tape on Duckworth’s body. The photographs taken of Duckworth’s body at Yokohama Bay, which were received into evidence, did not show any tape on Duckworth’s body. In addition, the doctor who conducted an autopsy of Duckworth’s body found adhesive residue on Duckworth’s 6  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  arms and hand. Three additional witnesses testified that Deguair taped Duckworth. Jury deliberations began on March 31, 2011, and continued for two and one-half days. On April 5, 2011, the jury notified the circuit court via “Communication No. 4 from the Jury” that it was “unable to come to a unanimous decision on Counts 1, 3, and 4, and is unlikely to do so.” The circuit court, with concurrence of both counsel, responded by asking whether more time would assist the jury in reaching a unanimous verdict on Counts I, III, and IV. The jury responded in “Communication No. 5 from the Jury” that “[n]o, the jury has unanimously decided that more time will not help.” In “Communication No. 6 from the Jury,” the jury asked, “[c]an the jury submit its verdict for Count #2 even though it is not unanimous on the interrogatory questions?” The circuit court, with concurrence of both counsel, answered: If the interrogatory questions you are referring to are the questions on page 32[6] of the jury 6 Page 32 of the jury instructions states: If you find that the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the offense of Kidnapping, then you must also answer the following three questions on a special interrogatory which will be provided to you:
doubt that prior to trial the Defendant did not release Jermaine Duckworth voluntarily?
doubt that prior to trial the Defendant did not release Jermaine Duckworth alive and not (continued...) 7  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  instructions, then you may not return a verdict on Count 2. If, however, the interrogatory questions you are referring to are not those on page 32, then please advise the court exactly what interrogatory questions you are referring to. The circuit court reconvened with the parties outside of the presence of the jury. The circuit court reviewed the jury communications it had received thus far, including Communication Nos. 4, 5, and 6, and the circuit court’s responses. At the close of this discussion, the circuit court explicitly asked both 6 (...continued) suffering from serious or substantial bodily injury?
doubt that prior to trial the Defendant did not release Jermaine Duckworth in a safe place? Your [sic] must answer each of these questions separately. Your answer to each of these questions must be unanimous. Though not included in the jury instructions, HRS § 707-720(1) provides, in pertinent part: (1) A person commits the offense of kidnapping if the person intentionally or knowingly restrains another person with intent to: . . . (d) Inflict bodily injury upon that person or subject that person to a sexual offense; (e) Terrorize that person or a third person . . . . (2) Except as provided in subsection (3), kidnapping is a class A felony. (3) In a prosecution for kidnapping, it is a defense which reduces the offense to a class B felony that the defendant voluntarily released the victim, alive and not suffering from serious or substantial bodily injury, in a safe place prior to trial. (Emphases added). 8  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  counsel if they had “anything for the record on anything the court just put on the record?” Both counsel stated that they had nothing further for the record. In “Communication No. 7 from the Jury,” the jury stated, “Re. Communication #6, the jury is not unanimous on Question #2 on p. 32 . . . .” The circuit court again reconvened with counsel outside the presence of the jury. The circuit court stated: [s]o they are not unanimous on all three of the questions on page 32, as they have to be to return a verdict. So basically, no matter what they did with that verdict form, the court will not be accepting a verdict on Count number II. The upshot of that is it looks like they’re hung on all four counts essentially. It’s going to be a mistrial declared on all counts again. (Emphases added). The Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (DPA) indicated the State was ready for the circuit court to bring in the jurors. Defense counsel, however, questioned whether and how the jurors’ votes would be determined. MR. HUNT: Your Honor, are we going to be able to determine from the record where they stand? THE COURT: I’m going to go in and talk to them right after we finish. MR. HUNT: Because I think it would be-- THE COURT: I’m going to go and talk to them right after we finish because I need to get that at least from them. And I-- MR. HUNT: Thank you. THE COURT: I normally talk to them anyway. And then you know the rules, counsel. I mean you can talk to them if you want to afterwards. I’m not going to make them wait around though. 9  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  MR. HUNT: Are you going to ask them where they-- THE COURT: Well, I’ll just-- MR. HUNT: --numerically stand? THE COURT: I’ll just tell them sometimes the attorneys like to talk to the jurors. You can talk to them if you want to, and I’m going to leave it up to you. MR. HUNT: As far as where they stood numerically? THE COURT: Oh, no. No, that, I’m going to ask specifically. MR. HUNT: You’re going to ask. Okay, that would be fine. I’d appreciate that. THE COURT: That, I’m going to ask them specifically. Obviously, I think it’s germane. And I’ll report it to both of you, too. As soon as I find out, I’ll let you know. (Emphases added). The DPA raised concerns about his availability to speak with the jurors. MR. BELL: I’d like to just inform the court that after the verdict--well, after the decision is received and the court makes the appropriate findings and makes its declaration and we take care of other procedural matters, I do have another matter before another court at 3 o’clock, and I don’t want to keep that other court waiting. I just say that because if it was the defense [sic] intention to speak with the jurors after the court has concluded its conversation with them, I cannot say that I would be immediately available and ready to do so. I say that because I’m going to be in another courtroom. But if it is the defense intention to speak with the jurors, if they choose to do so before they disperse, then I’ll stay and-- THE COURT: Well, you guys work that out, because as you know, you can talk to them--both counsel don’t have to be there. You can call them up days later if they’re willing to speak to you, I mean, you know, because the rules had changed a long time ago on all of that, and I think you’re both aware of the ethical rules as far as that goes. So that, you need to work out among yourselves. I will tell you this. I am not going to have them stay in the jury room and bring one or both of you in. I’m going to talk to them, and then I’m going to release them. And then it’s up to you, I mean if you want to wait in the hall there, 10  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  catch them as they come out or something. Whatever you guys want to do is up to you, but I’m just going to leave that to you all, okay? Okay, bring them in. (Emphases added). After the jurors were called into the courtroom, the foreperson confirmed that the jury was “unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to Counts I, III, and IV” and that “more time would not help the jury to reach a unanimous decision on those counts.” With respect to Count II, the foreperson handed to the bailiff what the jurors “believe[d] to be” their verdict, noting, “[w]hether or not it would be accepted or not is the question.” The circuit court called both counsel to the bench, where the following discussion occurred outside the presence of the jury: THE COURT: Everything else except those three is blank, as it should be, because they were unable to reach unanimous verdicts. I’m showing counsel--for the record, I’m showing counsel the three verdict forms that the jury did fill out. They are Count II, kidnapping, the interrogatories for Count II, and also the interrogatory on the enhanced sentencing for use of a firearm for Count II. For the record, they returned a verdict of guilty on Count II. However--and I will clarify this with them in a second--they checked off 1 and 3 “Yes” on the interrogatories but just made dashes in number 2 along with their last jury communication. And I will confirm that, for the record, that means they were not unanimous on that question. And the interrog as to firearms kind of is moot, but they were not unanimous as to that one either. So what I intend to do for the record is to clarify that, in fact, they were not able to reach unanimous answer as to question number 2 of the three interrogatories pertaining to kidnapping and that, in fact, they were not able to reach a unanimous verdict 11  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  as to the use--well, possession of a firearm or semiautomatic firearm. And given that, I am not going to receive the verdict as to Count II. That’s the court’s intention. Mr. Bell. MR. BELL: I understand that, Your Honor. I’d ask the court to consider the following. What the court has presented is what the parties, I believe, inferred what was going to transpire. For the purpose of establishing kidnapping as a class A, the prosecution only has to establish one of those three has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Before they reach the interrogatories, they have to establish as a matter of fact that the defendant knowingly or intentionally restrained Jermaine, and then there’s those two alternatives. Only after they’ve made a unanimous finding as to the two counts of kidnapping-- two elements of kidnapping do they consider the interrogatories. So the prosecution is asking the court to consider this. Inasmuch as they’ve already reached a verdict as to the kidnapping as charged, questions of fact, and they do not reach the interrogatories until they made those findings and because they found at least as to one question a unanimous verdict as to yes, then there is a factual basis for the court to receive that verdict as to kidnapping as a class A felony. THE COURT: Mr. Hunt. MR. HUNT: Your Honor, can I see the verdict form again. No, I disagree. I agree with the court’s position. THE COURT: Okay, you made your record on that-- MR. BELL: Thank you. THE COURT: --Mr. Bell. I believe all three questions have to be answered unanimously in the affirmative, and they’re simply not. I think that’s required under the applicable statutes as contained in the Penal Code. So as I say, you’ve made your record. I’m respectfully not going to accept the verdict on Count number II, and I’m going to declare a mistrial due to manifest necessity on all four counts. MR. BELL: I understand, Your Honor. Just on the last point, is the court’s reading of 707-720 that each of the three questions have to be answered in the affirmative? Is that what the court just said? I thought--I mean the law is one of the 12  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  three, not all three. That’s just the prosecution’s perspective. I just want to understand–- THE COURT: No-- MR. BELL: --what the court said. THE COURT: --I’m not going to commit myself to an answer on that. I am saying that on the verdict form which the jury was provided with, the clear instructions to them is that the answer to each of these questions must be unanimous, and one of them was not. So, you know, I suppose you can file a writ seriously if you feel strongly enough about it. And if the appellate--the Supreme Court agreed with you, then maybe you could reinstate--maybe they would reinstate the verdict in Count II. After all, the verdict is in unambiguously, and it’ll be preserved for the record. But at this point, I’m going to declare a mistrial. I’m not going to accept the verdict. I’m going to declare a mistrial on Count II as well as the other three counts, and we’ll take it from there. MR. BELL: Thank you. (Emphases added). In the presence of the jury, the circuit court further discussed with the foreperson the verdict form on Count II. THE COURT: Okay . . . just so the record is very clear, on the verdict form containing the three interrogatories pertaining to Count II, the “Yes” box is checked off very clearly and unequivocally on questions 1 and 3. However, question number 2, there are just a couple of dash marks after both “Yes” and “No.” And my understanding based on your communication to the court on this issue is that the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to question 2, is that correct? THE FOREPERSON: Correct. . . . . THE COURT: All right. Well, in that case, then, I’m not going to receive the verdict as to Count II. And because the jury has informed the court and all of us on the record just now that, despite their efforts, they’re unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to Counts I, III, and IV, I’m going to find manifest necessity, and I’m declaring a mistrial as to all four counts in this case, Counts I, II, III, and IV. (Emphases added). 13  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  Thus, the circuit court did not accept the jury’s guilty verdict as to Count II, and declared a mistrial based upon “manifest necessity” on all four counts. There were no objections made by either counsel, and both counsel indicated they had nothing further for the record. Because the circuit court did not accept the verdict as to Count II, the circuit court did not poll7 the jury with respect to Count II at that time. The circuit court indicated it would meet with the jurors in the jury room, and twice stated that the jury was “discharged.” The circuit court did not instruct jurors to refrain from discussing the case with others or that they could potentially be recalled. The circuit court then scheduled a retrial, and there were no objections made by either counsel.