1.
EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW
All Men Are Created Equal
We have a system of justice that treats you better if you're rich
and guilty than if you're poor and innocent
Bryan Stevenson
The Problem—Criminalization of Poverty Overview
In the United States, wealth, not culpability, often shapes outcomes. From what is defined as
criminal behavior to how penalties are decided, our legal system punishes people who are
poor in America far more often and more harshly than the wealthy.
No person in America should be locked up because they are poor. Yet, every day we see
homeless people arrested for sleeping outside; parents who can't afford to purchase their
release from jail; and people who cycle in and out of jail because they can’t afford to pay old
fines as their debt grows from new ones. Meanwhile, cities and counties fill their coffers from
the fines and fees that are imposed on people who are struggling just to survive. We need a
criminal justice system that puts people over profit and helps to make vulnerable people more
stable, not less stable.
Criminal Justice Debt Problems
By John Mathews II and Felipe Curiel
American Bar Association, November 19, 2019
<https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/economic-justice/criminal-justice-debt-problems/>
STATE APPEARS LAX
IN REVIEWING THE CASES OF PEOPLE SITTING IN JAIL AWAITING TRIAL
For years Hawaii has debated what to do about accused lawbreakers who sit in overcrowded
jails — sometimes for many months or even years — because they cannot afford to post
bail. Now an important piece of that messy, expensive issue has landed on the docket of the
state Supreme Court. In a lengthy filing late last month, state Public Defender James Tabe
urged the court to enforce a 2019 law that mandates corrections officials review pretrial
detainees every three months to reconsider whether those prisoners should remain in custody,
or should be released.

2.
State Appears Lax In Reviewing The Cases Of People Sitting In Jail Awaiting Trial
Prison officials comply with a 2019 law, requires reviews of all pretrial detainees every three months
By Kevin Dayton, Honolulu Civil Beat, September 14, 2021
<https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/09/state-appears-lax-in-reviewing-the-cases-of-people-sitting-in-jail-awaiting-trial/>
WELCOME TO THE HAWAI`I ACCESS TO JUSTICE COMMISSION
<https://www.hawaiijustice.org/hawaii-access-to-justice-commission>
The Commission's primary purpose is to substantially increase access to justice in civil
legal matters for low and moderate income residents of Hawaii. [Emphasis Supplied]
Equal access to justice should not be a mere illusion.
We should be energized to meet the challenge of such equality.
Hawaii Supreme Court Associate Justice Simeon R. Acoba (ret.)
Former Chair, Hawaii Access to Justice Commission
The pursuit of equal justice for all is truly a noble endeavor.
Associate Judge Daniel R. Foley, Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
Former Chair, Hawaii Access to Justice Commission
______________________________________________________________________________
EQUAL JUSTICE FOR THE POOR, TOO
FAR TOO OFTEN, MONEY OR THE LACK OF IT
CAN BE THE DECIDING FACTOR IN THE COURTROOM
JUSTICE GOLDBERG
CALLS FOR A PROGRAM TO INSURE JUSTICE FOR ALL AMERICANS
New York Times, March 15, 1964
<https://www.nytimes.com/1964/03/15/archives/equal-justice-for-the-poor-too-far-too-often-moneyor-the-lack-of.html>
IN theory, all Americans charged with a crime are, so far as the law is concerned, equal before
the bar of justice in every American court. This is guaranteed by the “due process” and the
“equal protection” clauses to the Constitution, and the inspiration comes from the Bible: “You
shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but
in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” Justices of the Supreme Court and of many
state courts take oaths to “do equal justice to the poor and to the rich.”
Unfortunately, despite all these guarantees and safeguards, the poor often meet with less than
the same justice as the rich (or reasonably well off) in our courts. As Justice Black has stated,
“There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of
money he has.”

3.
It should not be forgotten that problems of equal criminal justice extend to the near‐ poor and
the average wageearner as well as the indigent, and that such problems begin well before trial
and continue after the appeal.
WHEN the police conduct a roundup of “suspects,” they generally do so in poor
neighborhoods, rarely in middleclass communities. As a result, more poor than rich are
arrested for crimes they did not commit. We donot know how many of these people lose or
fail to obtain jobs because of an “arrest record” resulting from guiltless involvement in such
episodes. Nor do we know how many poor people are even aware of their rights in such
situations: for example, their right to consult an attorney, to sue for false arrest, or to have
their arrest records expunged (in jurisdictions which have procedures permitting this).
Moreover, psychologists and sociologists tell us that young people who are close to choosing
criminal identities may have this choice confirmed by their repeated treatment as criminal
types.
After arrest, the accused who is poor must often await the disposition of his case in jail
because of his inability to raise bail, while the accused who can afford bail is free to return to
his family and his job. Equally important, he is free during the critical period between arrest
and trial to help his attorney with the investigation and preparation of his defense. In a recent
case a defendant was imprisoned well over two years between the time he was arrested and the
time he was ultimately acquitted on appeal, solely be cause he could not raise the small
amount of money necessary for bail. This is an example of justice denied, of a man
imprisoned for no reason other than his poverty. [Emphasis Supplied]
______________________________________________________________________________
ACLU OF HAWAI'I REPORT SHOWS CURRENT BAIL PRACTICES PRIORITIZE
WEALTH OF THE ACCUSED OVER RISK TO THE COMMUNITY
<https://www.acluhi.org/en/aclu-hawaii-report-shows-current-bail-practices-prioritize-wealth-accused-over-risk-community#:~:text=The
%20report%20follows%20ACLU%20community,'ahu%2C%2088%25%20statewide.>
<https://www.acluhi.org/sites/default/files/2018/01/aclu-of-hawaii-bail-report.pdf>
Like the U.S. Constitution, the Hawai`i Constitution prohibits “excessive bail” but does not
guarantee an absolute right to bail in all cases. In this context, the Supreme Court of Hawai`i
has stated that “bail is not excessive merely because [an] arrestee is unable to pay it, 'but he
is entitled to an opportunity to make it in a reasonable amount.
In Sakamoto v. Won Bae Chang, the Hawai`i Supreme Court held that where the state failed
to show a likelihood of conviction of murder in the first degree, where the trial court found
the arrestee to be “not [a] man of means, so that the pecuniary circumstances of the defendant
(petitioner) would not be the basis on which a high bail can be set;” also that “No evidence has
been presented that the defendant would not be present at any of these proceedings should he
not be held in custody,” since the State chose not to present any evidence on this issue.
Compared to jails nationwide, Hawai`i jails have extraordinarily long lengths of stay for
pre‐trial arrestees. Detention or release should not be conditioned on an individual's wealth
or income.
______________________________________________________________________________

4.
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
ALOHA
“The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and
essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our
state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and
substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which
every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the
poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.”
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
The Office of the Public Defender was established pursuant to Section 802‐B, Hawai`i
Revised Statutes, implementing Federal and State constitutional mandates that any indigent
person charged with a criminal offense or threatened with the loss of liberty shall be provided
with the assistance of legal counsel. The Office of the Public Defender became operational on
February 2, 1970 and has been administratively attached to the Department of Budget and
Finance since 1980.
The Office of the Public Defender maintains branch offices in each of the four judicial circuits
including two offices on the Big Island. Each office is responsible for providing legal services
to all qualified persons in all courts of the respective circuit or geographic area and before the
Hawai`i Paroling Authority. The Appellate branch of the Honolulu office handles appellate
cases generated by all of the office branches and cases where the office has been appointed as
substitute counsel for appeal. The main office, in Honolulu, handles all administrative and
fiscal matters for all branches statewide.
O`ahu First Circuit Court, Hawaii
Maui Second Circuit Court, Hawaii
Hawai`i Third Circuit Court, Hawaii
Kaua`i Fifth Circuit Court, Hawaii