PINKERTON VS. COUNTY OF KAUAI, KAUAI PROSECUTORS OFFICE AND MARC E.
GUYOT
KAUAI POLICE &
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT EXPOSED
U.S. FEDERAL COURT CASE# 08-00222HG-KSC (FILED MAY 15, 2008)
PROSECUTORS HAVE CONSPIRED TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, CONSPIRED TO
INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS AND HAVE INTERFERED WITH A COURT ORDER.
PROSECUTORS HAVE ACTED MALICIOUSLY IN ORDER TO SHELTER THE COUNTY OF
KAUAI, THE COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE AND KAUAI POLICE OFFICERS FROM
CIVIL LIABILITY AFTER LEARNING OF THE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE FOUND ON
THIS WEBSITE. THIS WEBSITE WAS CREATED TO SHOW THAT WHEN POLICE
CONSPIRE AGAINST CITIZENS, THERE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE A PROSECUTOR
WHO VIOLATES ETHICAL AND PENAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN ORDER TO WIN AT
ALL COSTS.
Disclosing Officer Misconduct Is A Constitutional Duty
Reports from Hawaii police departments reveal just how many officers
were disciplined over the last year.
Kauai reports no discipline for any of
its officers for the year 2005.
Kauai was the only department to report
no incidents.
Important Fact: The Mental Evaluation was ordered by
Prosecutor Guyot, not the Defense.
It is obvious that the Defense attorneys want to
minimize the actions on behalf of Prosecutor Guyot in order to claim he and the
County qualify for immunity.
I have posted the §704-404 Mental
Examination results by Dr. Farkas, Dr. Sampsell, and Dr. Gerald McKenna in a single
PDF file
The Defendants Attorneys in this case state that
the Mental Evaluation never occurred, as shown below in their Memorandum in
Support of Motion To Dismiss Complaint filed by Defendants Attorneys Becky T.
Chestnut, David J. Minkin, Matthew S.K. Pyun, Jr on 07-07-08:
So if the Mental Evaluation never occurred, then why
are there 3 Doctors reports detailing the evaluation? And why defend
Guyots actions so vigorously if the Mental Examination never occurred?
My thoughts as to why Guyot ordered the Mental Exam was
done in hopes of committing me to a Psych Ward at the State Mental Hospital.
But as the evaluation reports indicate,
only 1 of the 2 doctors thinks I have some sort of "defect or disorder" and that
particular Doctors opinion is quite entertaining, though I would have to
disagree with his diagnosis. That would be Dr. Gerald McKenna
If I was mental unfit, then he would have every
legal means, however unethical, to have me committed to the State Mental Hospital for "treatment" of the
"disorders".
In reality this failed tactic would have
allowed them the opportunity to further suppress the truth of police abuse and
continue their campaign of Malicious Prosecution.
INVOLUNTARY HOSPITALIZATION:
Hawaii Revised Statutes §334-60.2
Involuntary hospitalization criteria.
A person may be committed to a psychiatric facility for involuntary
hospitalization, if the court finds:
(1) That the person is mentally ill or suffering from substance abuse;
(2) That the person is imminently dangerous to self or others, is gravely
disabled or is obviously ill; and
(3) That the person is in need of care or treatment, or both, and there is no
suitable alternative available through existing facilities and programs which
would be less restrictive than hospitalization. [L 1984, c 188, pt of §3; am L
1985, c 75, §2; am L 1986, c 335, §4]
Hawaii Revised Statutes §704-404
Examination of defendant with respect to
physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect. (1) Whenever the defendant has
filed a notice of intention to rely on the defense of physical or mental
disease, disorder, or defect excluding responsibility, or there is reason to
doubt the defendant's fitness to proceed, or reason to believe that the physical
or mental disease, disorder, or defect of the defendant will or has become an
issue in the case, the court may immediately suspend all further proceedings in
the prosecution. If a trial jury has been empanelled, it shall be discharged or
retained at the discretion of the court. The discharge of the trial jury shall
not be a bar to further prosecution.
(2) Upon suspension of further proceedings in the prosecution, the court shall
appoint three qualified examiners in felony cases and one qualified examiner in
nonfelony cases to examine and report upon the physical and mental condition of
the defendant. In felony cases the court shall appoint at least one psychiatrist
and at least one licensed psychologist. The third member may be a psychiatrist,
licensed psychologist, or qualified physician. One of the three shall be a
psychiatrist or licensed psychologist designated by the director of health from
within the department of health. In nonfelony cases the court may appoint either
a psychiatrist or a licensed psychologist. All examiners shall be appointed from
a list of certified examiners as determined by the department of health. The
court, in appropriate circumstances, may appoint an additional examiner or
examiners. The examination may be conducted on an out-patient basis or, in the
court's discretion, when necessary the court may order the defendant to be
committed to a hospital or other suitable facility for the purpose of the
examination for a period not exceeding thirty days, or such longer period as the
court determines to be necessary for the purpose. The court may direct that one
or more qualified physicians or psychologists retained by the defendant be
permitted to witness the examination. As used in this section, the term
"licensed psychologist" includes psychologists exempted from licensure by
section 465-3(a)(3).
(3) An examination performed under this section may employ any method that is
accepted by the professions of medicine or psychology for the examination of
those alleged to be affected by a physical or mental disease, disorder, or
defect; provided that each examiner shall form and render diagnoses and opinions
upon the physical and mental condition of the defendant independently from the
other examiners, and the examiners, upon approval of the court, may secure the
services of clinical psychologists and other medical or paramedical specialists
to assist in the examination and diagnosis.
(4) The report of the examination shall include the following:
(a) A description of the nature of the examination;
(b) A diagnosis of the physical or mental condition of the defendant;
(c) An opinion as to the defendant's capacity to understand the proceedings
against the defendant and to assist in the defendant's own defense;
(d) An opinion as to the extent, if any, to which the capacity of the defendant
to appreciate the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct or to conform the
defendant's conduct to the requirements of law was impaired at the time of the
conduct alleged;
(e) When directed by the court, an opinion as to the capacity of the defendant
to have a particular state of mind that is required to establish an element of
the offense charged; and
(f) Where more than one examiner is appointed, a statement that the diagnosis
and opinion rendered were arrived at independently of any other examiner, unless
there is a showing to the court of a clear need for communication between or
among the examiners for clarification. A description of the communication shall
be included in the report. After all reports are submitted to the court,
examiners may confer without restriction.
(5) If the examination cannot be conducted by reason of the unwillingness of the
defendant to participate therein, the report shall so state and shall include,
if possible, an opinion as to whether such unwillingness of the defendant was
the result of physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect.
(6) Three copies of the report of the examination, including any supporting
documents, shall be filed with the clerk of the court, who shall cause copies to
be delivered to the prosecuting attorney and to counsel for the defendant.
(7) Any examiner shall be permitted to make a separate explanation reasonably
serving to clarify the examiner's diagnosis or opinion.
(8) The court shall obtain all existing, medical, mental health, social, police,
and juvenile records, including those expunged, and other pertinent records in
the custody of public agencies, notwithstanding any other statutes, and make
such records available for inspection by the examiners.
(9) The compensation of persons making or assisting in the examination, other
than those retained by the nonindigent defendant, who are not undertaking the
examination upon designation by the director of health as part of their normal
duties as employees of the State or a county, shall be paid by the State. [L
1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1973, c 136, §4(b); am L 1974, c 54, §1; am L 1979, c
3, §1 and c 105, §64; am L 1983, c 172, §1; am L 1987, c 145, §1; am L 1988, c
305, §5; am L 1992, c 88, §1; gen ch 1993; am L 1997, c 306, §1; am L 2006, c
230, §6]