Hawai'i

Overview

Hawaiʻi presents a striking case study in how isolation, centralized institutions, and cultural deference to authority can obscure significant gaps in legal transparency and prosecutorial candor. Despite having a unified statewide judiciary and relatively few law enforcement agencies, Hawaiʻi lacks any statutory requirement to maintain Brady or Giglio lists, does not mandate inter-agency reporting of officer misconduct, and provides only limited access to police disciplinary records through public records laws. The constitutional obligations imposed by Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States apply, of course—but their enforcement is left almost entirely to the discretion of local prosecutors and police departments. As a result, truth-telling in Hawaiʻi’s criminal justice system remains fragmented, discretionary, and largely invisible to the public.

Brief Description of Legal Landscape

Hawaiʻi’s legal system is centralized. The state has a unified court system under the Hawaiʻi State Judiciary, a single statewide Office of the Public Defender, and only four county-based prosecuting attorney offices: Honolulu (Oʻahu), Maui, Kauaʻi, and Hawaiʻi (Big Island). Law enforcement is similarly divided among four county police departments. The structure would seemingly support consistency in Giglio and Brady compliance—but in practice, no statewide disclosure protocol or public Giglio list exists.

Discovery in criminal cases is governed by the Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal Procedure, Rule 16, which requires disclosure of exculpatory and impeaching evidence. Prosecutors are also bound by Rule 3.8 of the Hawaiʻi Rules of Professional Conduct, mirroring the ABA Model Rules. However, there is no legal requirement that prosecutors track or disclose credibility concerns involving law enforcement witnesses beyond case-specific obligations, and defense attorneys frequently report delayed or incomplete disclosures.

Historical Context

Hawaiʻi’s geographic isolation, small population, and centralized governance foster a sense of insularity within its legal and law enforcement institutions. Historically, this has led to a high degree of trust in public institutions—but also a lack of external scrutiny or public pressure for reform. Police misconduct and prosecutorial overreach have occurred, but until recently, there has been little momentum for systemic transparency.

This changed in part following the Katherine Kealoha corruption scandal, in which the former Honolulu Deputy Prosecutor and her husband—then Chief of Police—were convicted of framing a relative and obstructing justice. The case drew national attention to the state’s fragile oversight mechanisms and the risks of unchecked authority. Still, even after the scandal, no statewide Brady List or mandated disclosure system was created.

Legal Framework and Precedents

Constitutional Provisions and State Statutes

Hawaiʻi’s Constitution provides due process and confrontation rights under Article I, Sections 5, 10, and 14, closely tracking federal guarantees. Prosecutorial disclosure obligations derive primarily from:

• Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 16: Requires the prosecution to disclose any evidence that is favorable to the accused or that may impeach a government witness.

• Rule 3.8(d) of the Hawaiʻi Rules of Professional Conduct: Mandates timely disclosure of all evidence that tends to negate guilt or mitigate the offense.

• Hawaiʻi Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA): Governs public records access, but permits broad exemptions for police disciplinary records, particularly where findings are not sustained.

No statute requires the development of Brady Lists, the tracking of Giglio-impaired officers, or mandatory inter-agency sharing of credibility-related findings.

Relevant Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

Hawaiʻi appellate courts have occasionally addressed Brady and Giglio, generally reinforcing federal standards but offering no state-specific expansion:

• State v. Matafeo, 71 Haw. 183 (1990): The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court affirmed the state’s Brady obligations and overturned a conviction due to failure to disclose exculpatory statements.

• State v. Fukusaku, 85 Hawaiʻi 462 (1997): Reinforced the need to disclose plea agreements with prosecution witnesses and adopted Giglio into state law.

• State v. Jackson, 81 Hawaiʻi 39 (1996): Emphasized that Brady violations must be assessed for materiality, applying the same standard as United States v. Bagley.

Despite these decisions, Hawaiʻi courts have not required systemic reforms or imposed structural obligations to maintain lists of impeachable officers or disciplinary findings relevant to testimony.

Implementation and Enforcement

Law Enforcement Policies and Training

Hawaiʻi law enforcement is divided among four county police departments—each autonomous and without a centralized oversight body. The Hawaiʻi Law Enforcement Standards Board (LESB) was created in 2018 to certify and decertify officers statewide, but implementation has been slow, and the board is still developing processes and reporting requirements. As of 2025, the LESB has yet to create a publicly searchable decertification or misconduct database.

Training curricula for police officers include general legal instruction, but there is no standardized module on Brady/Giglio obligations. Internal affairs investigations are conducted by each county department, and findings are often shielded from public view or not shared with prosecutors unless specifically requested.

Prosecutors in each county maintain their own internal policies—if any—regarding officer credibility issues. There is no statewide mandate to maintain a Giglio list, and only Honolulu has reportedly begun exploring the development of a Do Not Call protocol. Even so, no such list is publicly available, and disclosure depends on the internal judgment of each prosecutorial office.

Oversight Mechanisms and Accountability Structures

Civilian oversight varies by county. The Honolulu Police Commission is the most developed but has been criticized for lacking authority and transparency, especially during the Kealoha scandal. Other counties have limited civilian oversight capacity, and no commission has enforcement power over prosecutors or Brady compliance.

Hawaiʻi’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel oversees attorney ethics but has issued few public reprimands for prosecutorial misconduct. To date, no prosecutor in Hawaiʻi has been publicly sanctioned for Brady or Giglio violations, and there is no independent agency auditing disclosure practices.

The LESB, once fully operational, may offer a path to greater law enforcement accountability—but as of this writing, it has not assumed any role in tracking or disclosing Giglio-related findings.

Case Studies from the State

Significant Cases Illustrating Issues of Candor

1. Katherine and Louis Kealoha (2019) – The former Deputy Prosecutor and Chief of Police of Honolulu were convicted in federal court of framing a family member and orchestrating cover-ups using police resources. The case exposed systemic failures in internal accountability and undermined public confidence in law enforcement integrity.

2. State v. Ahn (2021) – A murder conviction was challenged after it was revealed that the prosecution had failed to disclose exculpatory statements from a key witness. The court vacated the conviction, emphasizing the duty to disclose favorable evidence even if the defense had not specifically requested it.

3. HPD Officer Darren Cachola (2014–2020) – Repeated allegations of misconduct, including caught-on-camera domestic violence, were internally adjudicated with little transparency. Cachola remained employed for years before eventual termination—raising concerns about the lack of consequences for repeat offenders and the absence of disclosure to prosecutors or defense attorneys in criminal matters.

Outcomes and Implications

These cases demonstrate that Hawaiʻi’s justice system remains vulnerable to abuse when credibility impairments go undocumented or undisclosed. The Kealoha scandal prompted widespread calls for reform but led primarily to internal personnel changes rather than systemic transparency. Defense attorneys across the state have called for better access to officer disciplinary records and Giglio material, but without a legislative mandate, disclosure continues to depend on informal processes, leaks, or civil litigation.

Challenges and Gaps

Identified Issues within the State’s System

• No Statewide Brady/Giglio List: Each county operates independently, with no uniform system for tracking impeached officers.

• Weak Public Records Access: UIPA exemptions shield most internal affairs findings from disclosure, even when misconduct is sustained.

• Incomplete Officer Certification Oversight: The LESB lacks enforcement capacity and has yet to publish actionable records on decertification or misconduct.

• No Standardized Training or Protocols: Prosecutors and police departments are not required to implement or adhere to disclosure protocols.

Legislative and Institutional Barriers

Hawaiʻi’s tight-knit legal and political communities have historically resisted external oversight, citing privacy, harmony, and resource limitations. Efforts to pass stronger police transparency laws have faced opposition from police unions and elected prosecutors. The Legislature has created accountability frameworks in theory, but slow implementation and minimal enforcement have dulled their impact.

Recommendations

Suggested Improvements in Law, Policy, and Practice

1. Enact a Statewide Giglio Reporting Statute: Mandate that all prosecutors and law enforcement agencies disclose officer credibility issues and maintain a shared, secure database.

2. Empower LESB with Oversight Duties: Require the Law Enforcement Standards Board to track sustained misconduct and link findings to certification status.

3. Amend UIPA to Allow Disclosure: Reform the state’s public records law to permit access to sustained disciplinary findings relevant to credibility and courtroom testimony.

4. Standardize Training: Implement statewide curriculum modules on Brady/Giglio obligations for police and prosecutors.

Recommendations for Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

1. Public Misconduct Registry: Create a public-facing database of officers with sustained findings of dishonesty or excessive force, redacted where appropriate for privacy.

2. Judicial Enforcement of Disclosure: Require trial judges to inquire into Brady compliance and independently review Giglio material before trial.

3. Independent Civilian Oversight: Expand civilian review boards in all counties and grant them access to internal misconduct investigations involving testimonial integrity.

4. Defense Notification Requirements: Require prompt notice to defense counsel when prosecutors learn that a testifying officer is under investigation for credibility-related misconduct.

Conclusion

Hawaiʻi’s legal infrastructure provides the opportunity for centralized and consistent implementation of Brady and Giglio duties—but the opportunity has yet to be realized. In the absence of mandatory policies or transparency measures, the justice system relies on discretion, trust, and silence. Misconduct may be discovered by accident or not at all, and even when known, it is rarely memorialized in a way that prevents future harm. For a state built on principles of harmony and accountability, Hawaiʻi must now extend those values to its courts, its prosecutors, and its law enforcement institutions—by making candor a structural, not merely personal, responsibility.