Kudos to Roth ADVERTISING Kudos to Roth I propose an alternative view to the one expressed by Mr. Mike Kagami about Prosecutor Mitch Roth’s logic in the Alexander Gambsky case. As a former district attorney (another state) who prosecuted several
Kudos to Roth
I propose an alternative view to the one expressed by Mr. Mike Kagami about Prosecutor Mitch Roth’s logic in the Alexander Gambsky case.
As a former district attorney (another state) who prosecuted several homicide cases to successful verdicts, as well as a couple ending without convictions, I know that assessment of the strength of a case changes between the time of charging and trial. That is even more likely in a cold case committed years ago where evidence is more difficult to retrieve and witness memories fade.
In this particular case, the reported forensic pathologist’s opinion “… that the death was undetermined but likely the cause (was) homicidal actions …” deprived the prosecutor of presenting to a jury or judge the instrument or method of death from which to infer the “deliberate premeditation” required by a charge of second-degree homicide.
A conviction for manslaughter is a homicide conviction under Hawaii statutes. In fact, it is the third-most serious of eight degrees of homicide. The penalty is an automatic sentence of an indeterminate term of 20 years imprisonment, with the Hawaii Paroling Authority determining if the actual time to be served will be less than 20 years.
The logic in this resolution has to be premised on what the prosecutor could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, to secure some degree of justice on these facts, or the lack thereof. A sentence of 20 years imprisonment, albeit indeterminate, is some justice, which is always better than none.
My foregoing perspective also is based on my 24 years as a circuit judge, during which I sentenced dozens for varying degrees of homicide as a result of jury verdicts, my verdicts and plea agreements.
I commend Mr. Roth for pursuing old cases and bringing them to justice.
Allan J. Deehr
Keaau
Mark the roads
Who were the persons who decided to make Highway 130 a four-lane highway? All they accomplished was to push the merge lane 2 miles farther up the road. Still the same roadblock. They also made it usable only three hours a day (3-6 p.m.).
They could have used this money to build an alternate road, which is greatly needed. Now that the boondoggle is almost completed, can the state or county get back to marking lanes that are so thin you cannot see the road during a rainstorm? They were constantly changing the lanes with new paint when they were so sorely needed elsewhere.
Please, start marking the streets, roads and highways.
Gene Gold
Hilo
