LIHU‘E — Fifth Circuit Court Judge Randal Valenciano granted attorney Matt Mannisto’s motion to continue a Kapa‘a resident’s trial initially scheduled for Feb. 1.
Jonathan Herrera, 31, faces charges of terroristic threatening and open lewdness, and had the request for an ex parte motion to advance the hearing date to today.
Mannisto requested a motion to compel discovery, where the court enforces a request for information from prosecutors relevant to the case.
The court continued the trial date so that the state had an opportunity to produce items Mannisto requested, and to give him an opportunity to review it in advance of trial.
Mannisto is requesting body-camera videos from the complaining witnesses’ prior arrests and convictions for the act of violence.
The precedent was established under Brady vs. Maryland, where the state was constitutionally required to disclose “material, exculpatory evidence.”
Mannisto argued that there was a body-worn camera video from the complaining witness before the arrest, among other things, that he claims as “material, exculpatory evidence,” and he said he felt the court agreed with him.
Last November, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Loos gave a written request for disclosure to Mannisto.
Loos’s letter requested the following information be disclosed: the names and addresses of any person who the defendant intends to call as witnesses, with written recorded statements.
The report requested “all statements by experts, including the results of physical or mental evaluations, scientific tests and experiments the defendant intends to introduce as evidence at the trial or which were prepared by the defense witness whom the defendant intends to call to testify for the trial.”
The memorandum, written on Jan. 27, stated that there is no showing by the defense that the body-camera footage would be relevant to the Brady rule.
The complaining witness has a history of violence, and the history is disclosed for the protection of the alleged victim and complaining witnesses’ privacy, Mannisto argued.
The pertinent disclosures regarding the complaining witness’ previous criminal cases were made, including the production of police reports in prior cases, and that motion was denied.
Mannisto argued the parties are always required to disclose certain information before the trial for a variety of reasons.
One of those reasons, aside from Brady vs. Maryland, is Rule 16 of the Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure.
In previous hearings, there were arguments on whether to refer to the defendant using “he/him” or “she/her” pronouns, as Herrera is transgender. Valenciano granted the defendant’s request to use she/her pronouns during the hearing.
On record, the defendant is referenced by he/him pronouns. Valenciano stated that he will try to refer to the defendant using the correct pronouns, but acknowledged he might accidentally make a mistake due to how the defendant is referred to on other records.
Herrera also faces a separate case after being charged with assault in the third degree. A pretrial conference in that case has been set for Feb. 17.
That trial has been pushed back to May 17.
•••
Jason Blasco, reporter, can be reached at 245-0437 or jblasco@thegardenisland.com.
