Students weigh in on hearing

By JOHN BURNETT

Tribune-Herald staff writer

Students from several local high schools and the University of Hawaii at Hilo witnessed attorneys arguing a real case before the Hawaii State Supreme Court on Tuesday at the UH-Hilo Performing Arts Center.

It’s believed that the arguments presented in the appeal of property division in a Big Island divorce case, Colleen P. Collins vs. John A. Wassell, mark the first time the high court has convened to hear a case on the Big Island. The proceeding is part of the state Judiciary’s Courts in the Community outreach program, which aims to educate students and the public about the judiciary’s role in government and its function in resolving disputes in a democratic society.

“The point for us being here today was to allow students to see justice in action in the real world as opposed to in the abstract,” said Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald. “You can talk about what the separation of powers means, you can talk about the role of the courts, you can talk about the rule of law. But when you actually see it in action, the students can see how it works, understand our role, understand the parties’ role, understand the truth-seeking function that the courts engage in, which is asking probing questions of both sides, trying to get both sides of the story, trying to ultimately have everything that we need to be able to make a fair and just decision in the case.”

After the arguments were made by Hilo attorneys Joy San Buenaventura for Collins, who appealed the division of property, and Andrew Iwashita for Wassell, the students asked the lawyers and justices questions in sessions closed to the media and public. The judiciary hand picked four Waiakea High School students who witnessed the arguments to talk to the media.

Chelsea Lee said she learned “divorce is a struggle.”

“I feel she should have gotten more,” Lee said. “They were together; they were a couple. Things should have been equal. Even though his house wasn’t built, she paid for his things. She gave him things. She built his house. She helped him. She had her own kids and she tried to benefit from both sides. I understand she didn’t want to pay the (full) tuition for her kids’ college, so that’s why they didn’t get married (at first). Good thing they didn’t officially get married. But then they did and that’s why they’re here today.”

Justus Mikkelsen noted there was no written contract, such as a prenuptial agreement.

“Partnerships never go too well,” he said. “Sometimes … there’s conflicts and money’s the root of all evil. That’s what it all boiled down to, money. The difference is when they were in the marriage they kept their assets separate and he took advantage of her, but it’s not a crime.”

Kiani Kamai said there were “a lot of conflicts between the two (former) partners.”

“They both should get what they deserve,” she said. “Because if one person put in more than the other they should get more.”

Kainalu Bachiller said he was impressed by both parties’ lawyers and the five Supreme Court justices, who peppered the attorneys with pointed questions throughout the arguments.

“They’re really good at remembering case law …,” he said. “And I think it’s amazing that they can have a memory like that, where they can memorize and think right off the top of their heads, just like that, without having to look at their papers, and being able to argue … without having to constantly look back at their previous research.”

Email John Burnett at jburnett@hawaiitribune-herald.com.