STORYTELLING EVENT UPCOMING HO'ĀLA HOU (REBIRTH)

JOin us on April 26th at 6pm 

Come for an immersive evening of music, storytelling, and poetry at Waiwai Collective in Mōʻiliʻili.

 Our theme for the night is "Hoʻāla Hou." 

In ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi, hoʻo is a causative—“to make” or “to cause”; āla means “to awaken,” “to rise up,” “to renew”; and hou means “again,” or “to return.” 

Together, Hoʻāla Hou speaks to rebirth.

In a time of profound change—when birth, life, and death are our only constants—Hawaiʻi remains a ray of hope in the face of tyranny, imperialism, and oppression. As Kupuna Pilahi Paki once said:

“The world will turn to Hawai‘i as they search for peace, because Hawai‘i has the key... and that key is Aloha.”

We are living in that time now.

Come listen to stories and poetry from kanaka, expats, diasporic voices, and more—each sharing reflections on the power of this place to inspire Hoʻāla Hou: to heal, to remember, and to begin again.

Reserve Your Spot Here

Who should fund travel to ensure that an indigent (poor), out-of-state criminal defendant can attend their criminal trial?

The Issue and Ruling:

The issue of who should pay for an indigent (poor), out-of-state criminal defendant to attend their own trial recently went up on appeal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals ("ICA") and to the Hawaii Supreme Court.

Hawai`i Supreme Court, Honolulu

Prior Appellate Ruling:

Poor people are out of luck and have no choice but to fund their own travel.* 

Caveat: if you are poor and refuse to attend your own trial, then a bench warrant will be issued, the State will pay to send two officers to arrest you out-of-state, including room and board, the State will pay to hold an extradition trial in the other state, and then the State will pay for all - the two officers and the defendant - to fly back to Hawaii.

Questions presented to the Sp Crt: 

Does this make any sense?

Do we care about the poorest among us?

Is Hawaii different from the other States?

Does Aloha still exist, or is it only for those who can afford it?

The Case:

In State v. Campbell, the defendant, Campbell - indigent, with no income, no savings, no assets - travelled to Maui for a vacation after her father passed and left her a $5k inheritance. She spent the inheritance on the trip because she had fond memories of her father taking her to visit Maui as a youth. While there, she unfortunately celebrated her father's life too much, got black-out drunk, and racked up a criminal charge for fighting with a police officer (a felony).

As the case progressed, Campbell was granted release from jail and was allowed to return to her home in Massachusetts while her case pended. Ultimately, the trial court ordered Campbell to return for her trial.

Campbell's appointed attorney moved the court for the State to pay Campbell's travel costs. She cited Hawaii Revised Statute ("HRS") § 621-9(b), which reads in relevant part: 

“Whenever the presence of a defendant in a criminal case or in a proceeding […]who is outside the judicial circuit is mandated by court order or bench warrant to appear, the cost of airfare, ground transportation, any per diem for both the defendant or petitioner and sufficient law enforcement officers to effect the defendant’s or petitioner’s return, shall be borne by the State […] (emphasis added).**”

At hearing on the motion, Campbell's indigency was established via testimony and evidence. The trial judge, initially ruled in Campbell's favor, and ordered the costs paid by the State, but then later the judge reversed course after the fiscal department of the judiciary told the court it would not pay. The matter then went up on Appeal.

The Intermediate Court of Appeals ("ICA"):

In its decision, the ICA, despite the clear language in the statute, ruled that its reference to "law enforcement",

“strongly suggests that HRS § 621-9(b) applies solely to extradition proceedings, [or] at the very least, [it] creates an ambiguity as to whether the statute applies to voluntary returns not affected by extradition.”

Looking at the legislative history for the statute (only reachable if the statute is in fact ambiguous), the ICA stated that because "extradition" was a primary component of the statute, then the statute only applies to extradition and not to voluntary returns by indigent defendants.

This Interpretation is Wrong:

The ICA's interpretation of the statute is wrong as it creates an anomalous result where only indigent defendants who are in custody, may have their travel costs paid by the State through extradition. This elevates an in-custody defendant over an out-of-custody defendant which is an absurd result.

Moreover, the ICA's reading overlooks the final sentence of the statute, which reads:  

The court may order the nonindigent defendant or petitioner who was returned to the State of Hawaii to reimburse the State for the costs of such extradition or return as specifically described above. (emphasis added).

This expands the statute beyond extradition as it states that reimbursement from a nonindigent defendant may apply “for the costs of such extradition or return[.]” If the statute only applied to extradition, then the sentence would have stopped there. Instead, the legislature expanded the statute to apply beyond extradition to include any “return” of the defendant to the state for court process.

Worse still, the ICA's interpretation overlooked the case of Anzalone, a case where the judiciary found that the entire purpose of the statute is “protecting indigent defendants from [ ] undue financial burden[.]” State v. Anzalone, 412 P.3d 951, 961 (Haw. 2018) (finding also that the 1988 amendment added “an additional procedural safeguard” for indigent defendants.). If the entire purpose of the statute is to protect indigent defendants from undue financial burden, then why is the State not doing that? For the ICA and the State to skirt this requirement of aid is not only miserly, but it is antithetical to our constitutional process.

What About the Constitution?

Before the trial court, Campbell's appointed counsel only argued the statute above rather than also raising specific Constitution-based arguments. The ICA still should have addressed the all-important Constitutional rights issues, but instead the Court punted, stating it would not address said arguments as they were waived.

Given their extreme importance, the ICA still should have reached the Constitutional issues under plain error review. Indeed, the “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965). This means that these rights permeate every aspect of a case, even in instances where they were not specifically raised.

Our State and National Constitutions guarantee an accused the right to be present at their own trial. What good is this right if you are poor and have no means to exercise the right? This is analogous to the indigent's right to counsel. They cannot afford such, so the State foots the bill given the gravity of the right in question. Is this not so with the right to confront your accusers? Does the Constitution apply only to the rich and not the poor?

What of a defendant's constitutional right to travel? See State v. Hershberger, 5 P.3d 1004, 1010 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000) (“The federal Constitution recognizes a fundamental right to interstate travel.”). This ruling by the ICA means that poor people risk more by traveling given the possible long-term and catastrophic financial results that could come from a mishap while traveling. 

What of our purported morals as a nation

(the current Administration notwithstanding)?

Vice President Humphrey aptly stated:

“[t]he moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped. ”

This case was that test yet again and we failed.

Does the maxim “innocent until proven guilty” apply to rich and poor alike? Does the right to be present at trial only apply if you can afford it? Does the right to confront witnesses apply to those “in the shadows of life[?]”

What of Hawaii's Morals - Is Aloha Yet Alive?

Article IX § 10 of the Hawaii Constitution specifically references Ke Kānāwai Māmalahoe, the law of the Splintered Paddle, citing our great king, Kamehameha I, who proclaimed, in the spirit of Aloha: “[l]et every elderly person, woman and child lie by the roadside in safety.” Haw. Const. Art IX § 10. Campbell never cited this principle in her motions before the trial court; has she waived its protections then too? 

What Should Criminal Practitioners Do?

Hawaii is a tourist state, so this issue is likely to resurface. If you have a criminal indigent defendant who is out of state, 1) get them released on bail or supervised release, 2) ask the court to allow them to return home to their own state pending trial, 3) when trial comes, move the court for travel payment both under the statute above and under the Hawaii and US Constitutions, 4) ask for a hearing specifically on the client's indigency, and 5) if the motion is denied, then ask for leave to file an immediate appeal per HRCP Rule 54 (and call me).  

Final Thoughts:

With the Nation's government in tatters, with the rich running everything and politicians pitting the left against the right while they grab, grab, grab power, it is now, more than ever, that Hawaii and Hawaiians must lead.

Indeed, Auntie Pilahi Paki famously said: 

This decision by Hawaii's Appellate Courts does not exhibit Aloha. It does not take care of the those who need help the most. Instead, the decision puts State coffers first, elevating the Fiscal department above the individual. It is, unfortunately, just another case of "delay, defend, deny."

Hopefully, Aloha can win out. Hopefully, the right case will come along to challenge the above. And, hopefully, justice will someday care for rich and poor alike.

 ——————————————————

 *The Hawaii Supreme Court declined to take action on the case following the ICA opinion.

** Noting that the subsection goes on to note that “[t]he court may order the nonindigent defendant […] to reimburse the State[.]” (emphasis added). 

The Hīkoi, the Lono Run, and Maunakea: Lessons in Peaceful Resistance Across Moananui

January 14, 2025, marked the closing of public submissions to the Parliament of Aotearoa (New Zealand) regarding the Treaty Principles Bill, legislation aimed at redefining the Treaty of Waitangi, an agreement from year 1840 preserving and protecting Māori cultural rights while allowing British governance.

Though the Bill has not yet been killed, there has been strong opposition thereto by many in Aotearoa and across Pasifika.

Many will remember the unforgettable moment in late 2024 when Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clark, the youngest Member of Parliament, aged 23, and a member of Te Pāti Māori, tore the Bill in half on the floor of the House before breaking into a haka that would reverberate around the world. This iconic haka happened against the backdrop of the Hīkoi, a 10-day march by the Māori people across Te Ika-a-Māui (the North Island) in opposition to the Bill.

These protests foreshadowed a time of protest in Hawai’i as January 17, 2025 marked 132-years since the US Government illegally overthrew the peaceful Kingdom of Hawaii.

Indeed, Hawaiians are no strangers to protest. While the Hīkoi was occurring across the Pacific, another march was underway at the same time 4,000 miles away on Moku o Keawe (Big Island). This march by Kānaka (Hawaiians), called the `Aha Pule `Āina Holo, is a march of celebration for Lono, an akua (god) associated with peace, fertility, and rejuvenation.  

While these two events, the Hīkoi, a march of protest, and the `Āina Holo, a celebration of peace, may seem antithetical, Māori and Kānaka recognize them as being one and the same.

‘But how can an act of protest also be an act of peace?’ many might ask.

Hana-Rāwhiti’s haka provides a good example. She was criticized by the far-right government for such cultural expression during legislative assembly and even briefly suspended, but to Māori this was exactly the time for an emphatic expression of emotion through culture.

Tali Te Ohowawe Tawhai Feu’u (of Iwi Te Whānau a Apanui, Te Whakatōhea and of Taga, Palauli), a 16-year-old youth activist from Auckland said, "the haka is the best expression of our anger, our sorrow, and our pain; it is always an appropriate expression of Māori emotion."

The Hīkoi likewise was an act of peace. Following the final march on parliament in Pōneke (Wellington), with more than 100,000 in attendance, co-organizer Rawhitiroa Bosch (of Iwi Ngāti Kahu, Ngāpuhi ki Whangaroa) was told by a resident that the Hīkoi “brought peace to the city.”

Screenshot from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL49WPetlbc uploaded by nzherald.co.nz, fair use

Paula MacEwan, working the Parliament barricade that day as a Māori Warden (a volunteer organization safeguarding Māori communities) described the Hīkoi marchers as “overwhelmingly peaceful.” “Peace is a discipline,” she said, “and we decided to let the elements do the talking for us,” as near hurricane-force winds battered parliament behind her.

Similarly, the `Āina Holo, also known as the Lono Run, was both an act of peace and of protest. The Run began in November of 2014, just as groundbreaking for the Thirty-Meter-Telescope (TMT) on Maunakea was to occur. This Mauna (mountain) is kapu for Kānaka, or sacred. Māori would call it ‘tapu.’ 

The run followed a ceremonial route around ka moku (the island). ‘Ai pono (healthy eating) was the standard. And communities around Big Island met the challenge, preparing meals from the 'āina for the procession as it passed. 

On Moku o Keawe (the Big Island of Hawaii), Tahitians and Hawaiians hold their annual Lono Run while standing in solidarity with their "Māori cousins". Photo/Kapulei Flores

They sent their mo’opuna, their youth, to join the run as the lead runners carried the Ki’i (totem) called the Lono Kūkini Pule - the Ki’i of the Prayer Runners, to sacred sites along the route where ‘oli, hula, and pule were offered. Indeed, Lono himself was the kūkini (runner/messenger) of Kāne, one of the foremost akua of Hawai’i. 

Lanakila Manguail, the organizer of the `Āina Holo and co-organizer of the Maunakea demonstrations in 2015 and 2020, describes the run as “medicine” for the people. He said it is a call, yearly, for Kānaka to “come back and stand for the 'āina.”

Māori have a proverb that echoes this call. It says, “you may forget your maunga [(mountain)], but your maunga will never forget you.”

Shortly after that first 2014 run, TMT construction was halted by the elements. In January and March of 2015, record-breaking snowstorms pelted the Mauna, halting construction. The 'āina had answered back. 

Thereafter, Lanakila put out a riddle to his followers online: “the feathers of the hawk are rustling, yet there is no wind.” Five individuals understood the kaona (hidden meaning) and contacted Lanakila. They held the first of many meetings strategizing how best to protect Maunakea.

This meeting would kick off some of the most impactful and meaningful, peaceful protests of any indigenous people. In 2015, and then again in 2020, Kānaka, led by Lanakila and others, organized protests on the Mauna that have successfully stalled the installation to this day.

Most of the early protestors had been part of the Lono Run. They felt the kahea (the call), and they answered. “How could we not do something for the Mauna, after just running around the entire moku,” Lanakila said. 

Some of the Hīkoi participants had also been protestors on the Mauna. 

Kahua Julian, a kanaka from Maui, now teaching at a Te Reo (Māori language) immersion school in Napier, Aotearoa, travelled more than 300 kilometers to Pōneke for the final Hīkoi. Kahua had also been on the Mauna in 2020. He said the atmosphere of the two demonstrations, the Hikoi and the Mauna, were the same: “both were mālie, calm; aloha was the feeling.” 

Indeed, in Hawaii we call it ‘aloha’; our cousins in Aotearoa have a similar word, ‘aroha’.

Hīkoi co-organizer, Rawhitiroa, had also been on Maunakea in 2020. He said the power of peace and ceremony in protest “is something I learned on the Mauna, actually.” 

As both marches neared their conclusion, the Hīkoi on the steps of parliament, the `Āina Holo on the steps of Maunakea, Hana-Rāwhiti (recently named one of BBC’s top 100 women of the year) addressed the crowd in Pōneke.

She said: “the whole world is watching; and all of our indigenous brothers and sisters around Pasifika are watching.” 

Indeed, though the mayor of Big Island recently acknowledged his support for, as he calls it, the “new version” of TMT, kia’i (guardians/protestors) for the Mauna iterate that there is no “new version” of TMT, only the same version which will again and again be met by well organized, peaceful resistance. 

The only change, the kia’i note, is that TMT’s own reports show that China is pulling funding for the project and that the National Science Foundation is expected to follow suit. 

Hana-Rāwhiti’s words ring true. The whole world is watching. All of Pasifika is watching. 

“E hui ana nā moku (the islands will unite);

E kū ana ka paia (the walls will stand firm).”  - Kahuna Kapihe.