Attorney Alexander Silvert, author of the Mailbox Conspiracy, joins the producer/host of Coral Chun Mataioshi to discuss topics used by the prosecutor’s office and defense, to consider the evidence pointing to the wines of Eric Thompson, including motifs, DNA, cadres for observation. The jurors are considering), and a civil claim filed by John Tokhara’s mother against Thompson and his wife for misconduct, inflicting emotional suffering and negligence from Joyce in the risk of her husband.
C. The first process of Eric Thompson to kill Acupuncturist John Thakhara ended in a jury. Now the jury in his second process has found him guilty of killing his wife’s lover, as well as charges of firearms, which are both criminals. Before we got into the evidence, I wanted to do a quick anatomy of the test. What is the purpose of an introductory statement?
The introductory statement is a roadmap of facts that each country intends to prove. What the lawyers say in their opening statements is not proof, but declarations of what they believe will show the evidence. Introductory statements were given at the beginning of the test and The prosecutor in the criminal process goes first because the government has the burden of proof.
C. At the end of the test, each country gives its final argument. What is the purpose of the final argument?
Like the introductory statement, the closing arguments are not evidence. They are an attempt to persuade the jurors to interpret the evidence in a way that favors their country (ie a sentence to guilty to the prosecutor or not guilty of defense). Final arguments arise after all witnesses have shown and all evidence is presented. In principle, lawyers summarize the key evidence presented during the process emphasize the strengths of their case and address any weaknesses in the argument of the opposite party. They may also remind the jury of applicable laws and the burden of proof. In the criminal process, the prosecutor’s office first presents their final argument, followed by the defender. Then the prosecutor has the opportunity to rebutt and usually is entitled to the last word because the government has the burden of proof.
C. So, at the beginning of the arguments, at the beginning and closure of arguments, at the beginning, at the beginning and closure, but the most important part is the presentation of the evidence between them. And although jurors may be convinced to consider evidence in one way or another on both sides, their sentence should be based on evidence and nothing else. But since so much evidence is presented in the process, it is sometimes difficult to follow everything. In this way, each country often uses a topic to tell its story about what happened. What topics did the prosecutor and defense use in this case?
The prosecutor’s office described Thompson as a controlling Who tried to correct his marriage through murder to restore his perfect life. Thompson works hard to start a successful business and buy a $ 2 million home in East Oahu. When she found out about his wife Joyce with John Trayhara, he made her admit to her parents, apologize to them for the affair, and urged her not to see the psychic anymore, because the psychic obviously told her that it was good to have an affair with the tone. He also made her sign a post -collection agreement, saying that if they divorced, he received the house and the sole custody of their child.
Defense complained of this Shodi police work It led to pollution of DNA evidence, did not track all customers and HPD focused on all Thompson investigation into the exclusion of other possible suspects. They also claim that the surveillance frames do not coincide and that Thompson has alibi.
C. The defendant in a criminal case does not need to prove his innocence. It is the prosecutor that is the burden to prove that the defendant committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Much of the evidence was indirect because there is rarely an eyewitness to murder. NdLet us discuss the key evidence in the case.
-
Motive – Although the prosecution should not prove a motive, the jurors are made up of people who naturally want to know why something happened. If they cannot find a pronouncement explanation why the defendant would kill someone, for example, may create a reasonable doubt that can lead to justification. In this case, the prosecutor’s office claims that Thompson has a strong motive to kill his wife’s lover. The nature of firearms (4 bullets to the person) at close range showed that the murder was personal and that the perpetrator probably knew the victim. There were no signs of fighting and a bag containing $ 4,000 in cash was left untouched, doubting it was a robbery.
The defense claims that others may have had a motive to kill Tahara, including the spouses of other wives who were romantically engaged to Tokahara, or maybe it was someone who wanted to gather in gambling.
-
DNA Evidence – Observation footage shows that a man dressed in a white bucket hat enters and leaves the Tokahara clinic during the murder. The bucket’s hat fell on the road when the man quickly left the clinic, a homeless man lifted him and the police restored him. Prior to the second test, DNA from the hat was sent to an external testing laboratory, as an audit of the HPD LAB of Crime has found some on issues that can question the results of DNA. The external laboratory had more opportunities than HPD crime at that time and prosecutors wanted to ensure that DNA testing was reliable. DNA testing of the bucket hat shows that Thompson is 16.4 trillion times more likely to contribute DNA than two contributors to the control sample. The laboratory also excluded the DNA belonging to Daryl Fujita (the ex -boyfriend of someone participating in John Thakhara), who finds the chance of DNA to be Fujita, is October 13.8. The power of DNA evidence is that it can include and exclude suspects of a crime.
-
Observation footage and time line – Observation footage shows that one enters and exits the Tokahara clinic during the murder (6:15 pm) and left around 6:23 pm east in a white truck of Chevy Silverado. Thompson owns such a truck. A burned pot in a stroller discovered by Police at Thompson’s home could have been used to destroy evidence, and the fire flashes were seen in a neighbor’s monitoring video that evening.
The defense claims that the surveillance footage shows the “hat man” and the white truck in different places at the same time, and that the murder took place later that evening. Thompson claims he was at Waimanalo’s landfill during the disposal of murder bricks, bought some items at Longs drugstore using cash (credit or debit card would provide proof of his whereabouts) and that he had lit a factor of Tiki this night.
The prosecutor’s office denied this argument by saying that Detective had banished both routes to measure how long it took to go to the dump opposite the Tokahara cabinet, and time showed that it was much more likely that Thompson had gone to the Tokhara office than to the landfill.
-
Firearm Training – Thompson has a .22 caliber pistol, the same type of firearm used in firing and admitted that it went to the scope for targeted practice.
-
After collecting an agreement-an agreement, the couple concluded an agreement that Thompson would receive the house and sole custody of their daughter if they were divorced. The prosecutor claims that Thompson had made his wife sign the agreement to silence her. In addition, a note was found on Joyce’s desk that “the unfaithful husband would not show remorse,” something the prosecutor said shows that Thompson is still upset by the affair.
The defense claims that it is the idea of Thompson’s wife to conclude the agreement to prove his faithfulness. Their relationship was almost normal and they enjoyed family time during the holidays. But the prosecutor’s office asked why Joyce would “give up his motherhood.”
C. Why didn’t Thompson Joyce’s wife call to testify? She could tell the jurors whether her husband went to throw away bricks or buy groceries and could tell the jurors if the flames viewed in video footage are indeed a Tiki torch or something that is burned in a stroller.
According to the spouse’s privilege rule (Rule 505 of Hawaii’s evidence rules), the defendant’s husband has the right to refuse to testify and that is that the spouse is that it is that sole decision. However, if the spouse will talk about married privileged communications then or The spouse can invoke the privilege. So, Eric Thompson Joyce’s wife could have testified, but if she was talking about marriage communications, Eric could stop her (ie Joyce could testify to what she could have seen or heard, but not what Eric could tell her, which would be privileged marriage). This marital privilege applies when the defendant and the spouse are married during the prosecutor’s office and do not experience the termination of marriage.
C. Now that he is convicted, what sentence can he face Thompson?
-
Second degree: Life imprisonment with the possibility of conditional release.
In cases where the crime is particularly disgusting, the defendant committed a murder before or involved in a firearm crime, the defendant may receive an increased sentence for life imprisonment without the possibility of conditional release if they pose a danger to the public. The jurors in this case decided not to impose an increased sentence for imprisonment without the possibility of conditional release.
-
Carrying or using a firearm when committing a separate crime: up to 20 years or more depending on the circumstances. This is a Class A crime that requires a separate sentence from that of the main crime, but the court has a judgment to impose a simultaneous sentence.
C. This is not the end. Thompson is likely to appeal, but the grounds for appeal should be mistakes in how the law is applied, not a dispute about the facts correctly?
The main grounds for appeal in a criminal case include legal errors from the court court, such as incorrect instructions of the jurors or the admission of evidence, insufficient evidence, a prosecutorial violation, a violation of the jurors or the ineffective assistance of the lawyer.
Question: John Tokhara’s mother filed a civil claim for misconduct, inflicting emotional suffering and negligence against Joyce Thompson for not refraining from behavior that would create an unjustified risk of harm through her husband’s behavior. Since the burden of proof is more in civil than a criminal case, what do you think will happen?
The evidence presented in the criminal process is admissible in the civil case and since the burden of proof is lower, the plaintiff is likely to prevail.
To learn more about this topic, set up this video podcastS
Cancellation: This material is intended only for information purposes and does not represent legal advice. The law varies depending on the jurisdiction and is constantly changing. For legal advice, you should consult a lawyer who may apply the relevant law to the facts in your case.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material cannot be published, emitted, rewritten or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports and streaming video, focus on KHON2.