PETER CARLISLE - PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii

Education 1977 University of California at Los Angeles J.D. 1974 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill B.A. Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu November 5, 1996 - Elected Prosecuting Attorney September 23, 2000 - Elected to a second term without opposition September 18, 2004 - Elected to a third term September 20, 2008 - Elected to a fourth term without opposition Teaching Activities Former Adjunct Professor, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Richardson School of Law Faculty Member, National Institute of Trial Advocacy, South Bend, Indiana Faculty Member, National Advocacy Center, Columbia, South Carolina Faculty Member, Hastings College of Trial Advocacy, San Francisco, California

Professional Organizations and Affiliations

• Hawaii Prosecuting Attorneys Association, former President, Vice-President and Treasurer
• Board of Directors, National District Attorneys Association

Awards and Honors

•  Law Enforcement Commendation Medal
• 1999 Sex Abuse Treatment Center Tommy Holmes Award which is presented to an individual who has greatly contributed to the lives of sexual assault victims.
• The 2000 Top Cop Judge C. Nils Tavares award was received by Carlisle on behalf of the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney. The award recognizes an outstanding local or federal law enforcement organization in the State of Hawaii.
• In 2001, he was inducted into the Hawaii Joint Police Association's Hall of Fame.
• The 2002 MADD National Criminal Justice Award was presented to Carlisle in Anchorage, Alaska.

Significant Trials

State v. Lankford (2008)
Murder in the Second Degree
Verdict: Guilty of Murder in the Second Degree
Sentence: Life imprisonment with the possibility of parole

Masumi Watanabe was a socially and mentally challenged 22 year old woman from Sado, Japan. Her parents allowed her to stay in Hawaii with a distant relative in hope of helping her develop the ability to live independently. Early one day this painfully shy girl was taking a walk alone on a country road on the North Shore of the island of Oahu. Around 9:30 in the morning Masumi entered a Haoli Pest Control truck driven by pest control technician Kirk Lankford. After entering the truck she was never seen again alive and her body has never been recovered.

When it was discovered she was missing a massive search for Masumi or her body was coordinated by the Honolulu Police Department. The search for her body continues to this day. The search and investigation has included media releases, road blocks in the area she was last seen, members from multiple divisions of the police department, fire rescue units, both police and fire department helicopters, canine units, officers from the Department of Land and Natural Resources, military scuba divers searching coastal waters, officers rappelling off cliffs to remote locations, a myriad of civilian volunteers and others.

Despite these efforts nothing today remains of Masumi Watanabe or what she was wearing on the day she went missing except a pair of glasses and small spots of her blood. The glasses and blood were recovered from the Pest Control truck driven by Defendant Lankford. The investigation by the police discovered three civilian witnesses. A woman saw Masumi getting into a Hauoli Pest Control truck while a man saw a person in a "white truck" talking to Masumi Watanabe who was "waiving him off." Neither of these witnesses could identify Defendant Lankford. The third witness, an admitted crystal methamphetamine addict who was doing odd jobs to survive and living in a Second World War bunker at the base of a cliff, saw and could identify the Defendant as a person who was digging a hole on an isolated area of beach just before midnight of the day Masumi Watanabe went missing.

Prior to trial the Defendant admitted that he had been in the area on the morning Masumi was last seen but denied having seen her walking and never allowed her in his truck. The seven week trial was based on entirely circumstantial evidence. Due to the lack of Masumi's body the Prosecution did not have evidence of precisely when where, how or why Masumi Watanabe was killed. The forensic evidence gathered by the Honolulu Police Department and presented to the jury by the State in its case in chief included traditional DNA and fingerprint evidence as well as GPS evidence recovered from the Termite Pest Control Company, eyeglass lens identification performed by Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command Anthropologist/Archeologist Dr. Greg Berg who developed the technique to identify remains of missing U. S. military service personnel, and nail mark identification using the Medical Examiner of the City and County of Honolulu. In rebuttal the State presented further expert testimony from an accident reconstructionist to disprove Defendant's version of the events that caused the death of Masumi Watanabe.

The trial received extensive publicity with television coverage and lengthy print articles nearly daily. According to many media and other observers a high point of the trial was the direct and cross examination of the Defendant. Direct examination took an entire day. The cross examination which consisted of over a thousand questions took slightly more than a day.

After the jury found the Defendant guilty as charged Defendant Lankford was sentenced to life with parole. The case had been of significant interest in Japan so much so that a Japanese Consul in Honolulu attended the trial regularly. At the sentencing hearing on July 31, 2008 not only was local media present but also media from Japan. The Japanese media evidenced an interest in not only reporting about the case but also asked about the American Jury system since the experimental use of juries may soon be implemented in Japan.
 

State v. Uyesugi (2000)
Murder in the First Degree
Verdict: Guilty of Murder in the First Degree
Sentence: Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole
 

Byran Uyesugi, a disgruntled employee with a history of mental problems, entered the Xerox warehouse on North Nimitz Highway in Honolulu and methodically shot and killed seven of his co-workers and attempted to kill an eighth employee. It was by far the most infamous incident of mass murder in the history of the State of Hawaii. According to a New York Times study of murder in the United States the Xerox Massacre was the 13th deadliest incident of mass murder in the final 50 years of the 20th century. The incident received national and international media attention. The Uyesugi trial was the first court case broadcast live by all of Hawaii's major television stations.

Uyesugi raised the insanity defense. Uyesugi had previously been committed to the state mental hospital. During the course of the trial the defense developed evidence that Uyesugi suffered from a delusional disorder, paranoid type, that caused him to believe that his co-workers were out to discredit him. His delusions were so severe that he believed that the buttons on his mattress were listening devises that were placed there by a co-worker. Uyesugi believed this co-worker was working for the federal government to spy on him at his home. He also revealed that he saw and was tormented by dark shadowy figures.

To bolster the insanity defense Uyesugi engaged the services of Dr. Park Dietz, one of the most prominent and accomplished forensic psychiatrists in the country. Dr. Dietz testified at the murder trials of John Hinckley Jr., Jeffrey Dahmer, Betty Broderick, Arthur Shawcross, and Joel Rifkin. In addition to being an advisor to the television show Law & Order, Dr. Dietz consulted for the FBI, the CIA, U.S. attorneys general offices across the country, the federal Drug Enforcement Agency, the U.S. military services, the Department of Justice, and more than 120 corporations. Dr. Dietz testified that Uyesugi did not appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and was legally insane.

Carlisle cross-examined Dr. Dietz for several hours. The transcript of that cross-examination has been requested by and made available to a number of different agencies across the country. Despite the testimony of this formidable defense expert witness Carlisle was ultimately able to convince the jury that Uyesugi "pumped 25 bullets into unarmed men and deliberately, methodically and maliciously became a mass murderer." After slightly over an hour of deliberations Uyesugi was found guilty as charged of Murder in the First Degree and Attempted Murder in the Second Degree.

Uyesugi was given Hawaii's most severe penalty, life without parole, on the Murder in the First Degree change and life with parole for the Murder in the Second Degree Charge. On the Murder in the Second Degree charge the Hawaii Parole Board set the mandatory minimum term at 235 years. Carlisle requested 235 years because it represented "One year for every year that the victims were expected to live. One year for every year Byran Uyesugi took away from the families and for what he stole from the families."
 

State v. Arakawa (2002)
Vehicular Homicide
Verdict: Guilty as charged of Manslaughter
Sentence: Twenty years imprisonment
 

Off duty Honolulu Police Officer Clyde Arakawa decided to celebrate his upcoming retirement with a drinking buddy. The two went on a seven-hour drinking binge. Arakawa drank at least 12 beers and a shot of hard liquor. On his way home Arakawa raced into an intersection against the red light and crushed into a car driven by 19 year old Dana Ambrose. Dana Ambrose, who had recently received a scholarship to the University of Hawaii, was killed instantly. Arakawa, driving a large and powerful police subsidized car, suffered no major injuries. At the scene he immediately denied responsibility for the collision and claimed it was Dana Ambrose who was responsible for what had happened.
 

A news cameraman arrived at the scene of the collision and filmed "courtesies" extended Arakawa by fellow police officers responding to the incident. Arakawa was not arrested. He was filmed wandering around and observing the crime scene. A uniformed police officer was filmed with his arm around Arakawa. The perception of favored treatment by the police of one of their own created a public furor and caused the parents of Dana Ambrose to question the integrity of the Honolulu Police Department and other government agencies including the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney.

Carlisle elected to personally take the case to trial despite the discomfort it caused the police department and the challenge presented by the family's suspicion of Hawaii law enforcement agencies. Carlisle also elected to charge Arakawa with reckless manslaughter rather a lesser charge of negligent homicide for killing a person while driving under the influence of alcohol.

During the five-week trial Arakawa presented expert evidence that Dana Ambrose had been speeding, that she ran the red light, that she was not wearing a seat belt and that Arakawa was not alcohol impaired because his liver eliminated alcohol from his system at an unusually high rate. The prosecution presented evidence that countered the defense experts, evidence of Arakawa's involvement in a prior alcohol related incident as well as testimony from emergency personnel at the scene that they had cut off Dana Ambrose's seat belt to extract her from her car.

The jury found Arakawa guilty as charged of the offense of manslaughter. At a press conference held the day after the verdict the parents of Dana Ambrose, who sat through the trial, praised Carlisle for focusing the jurors on the facts. "He was masterful," Rod Ambrose, Dana's father, said.

Arakawa was sentenced to the maximum term for manslaughter of 20 years. A negligent homicide conviction would have resulted in a maximum term of 10 years.

As a result of Carlisle's prosecution of the Arakawa case and other work in the area drunken and drugged driving, Carlisle was recognized at the national level by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. He was flown to the 2002 MADD National Convention in Anchorage, Alaska where he was presented with the MADD National Criminal Justice Award.

In 2004 and again in 2007 Carlisle was invited to the National Advocacy Center in Columbia, South Carolina and served as a faculty member of the prestigious Lethal Weapon: DUI Homicide course. This is the premier national course regarding the prosecution of those who kill while driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.
 

State v. Aki (2004)
The killing of an 11 year old child.
Verdict: Guilty of included offense of Manslaughter
Sentence: Twenty years imprisonment

Several weeks before Christmas 11-year-old Kahealani Indreginal, a popular and diligent sixth grade student, failed to return home from elementary school. An island-wide search was initiated assisted by a press conference held by her family pleading for information about her whereabouts and begging for her return.

Several days later the abandoned and decaying body of Kahealani was located near a popular hiking trail near a state park. Investigation revealed that she was last seen entering the car of her sister's boyfriend, Christopher Aki. DNA evidence was found in his car. After repeatedly denying knowing anything about the death of Kahealani, Aki accused two drug users with criminal histories of abducting her in his presence and used his car. Police were able to refute this version of events and asked Aki to submit to a polygraph test. Aki failed the test, was confronted with his lies and then confessed to the killing and indicated it happened when he was high on ice.

During the trial Carlisle offered expert testimony on the effects of ice that included hypersexuality, propensity for violence and insensitivity to others. During his testimony Aki recanted his confession and accused Kahea's uncle, a previously convicted sex offender and ice addict, of the killing. The defense called the uncle to the stand where he invoked his right against self-incrimination on advice of counsel. The trial court instructed and informed the jury that the uncle was unavailable to testify because he had invoked his right against self-incrimination. The jury nevertheless convicted Aki of manslaughter for causing the death of Kahealani. Aki received the maximum 20 years in prison when he was sentenced.

Carlisle used the Aki case and others as part of a presentation developed to help educate and promote community awareness and involvement in efforts to deal with Hawaii's crystal methamphetamine crisis. Topics included the production of methamphetamine in "user" clandestine drug labs, the stages of ice use and the physical and mental effects of ice addiction. The presentation was used extensively in Hawaii and then Nationally as Carlisle was invited to speak about crystal methamphetamine throughout the United States.

Carlisle also assisted the American Prosecutor's Research Institute in developing a drug prosecution and prevention program to enhance the knowledge and skill of American's state and local prosecutors who handle the majority of illegal drug cases that enter the criminal justice system. At the inaugural seminar presented by APRI in Alexandria, Virginia Carlisle was the initial presenter. Participant evaluations ranked Carlisle as the most informative presenter "by far."
 

State v. Conklin
Murder
Verdict: Guilty as charged
Sentence: Life imprisonment

In Waikiki, Honolulu's world famous tourist destination, police discovered the body of a prostitute on the floor of her apartment. Several days after the killing a soldier named William Conklin came to the police station and claimed he had witnesses the killing. He said he had been a client of Hayes and that her pimp came into her apartment and attacked her. He claimed he hid in the bathroom of the apartment during the killing due to his fear of the pimp. Police officers noticed injuries to Conklin and photographed them. The injuries appeared to be bitemarks. By this time Tammy Hayes' body had been shipped to her family in Georgia and buried.

Carlisle sent the photographs of Conklin's injuries to Dr. Norman "Skip" Sperber, a nationally acclaimed forensic odontologist. From Hawaii, Carlisle orchestrated the exhumation of Tammy Hayes' body in Georgia. Dr. Sperber flew to Georgia, recovered her jaws and took them to his laboratory in San Diego, California. Dr. Sperber confirmed that the bitemarks on William Conklin appeared to have been inflicted by Tammy Hayes. Dr. Sperber was called to testify during the trial. This was the first time bitemark evidence was accepted by a court and presented to a jury in a criminal case in the State of Hawaii. It was used as the basis of the prosecution's argument that in that her futile struggle for life Tammy Hayes marked and identified her killer with her teeth.

Carlisle began his opening statement in the trial of Michael Conklin as follows:
 

At the request of the Hawaii State Bar Association Carlisle authored an article on opening statements. The article was initially published in the Hawaii State Bar Journal. It was then reprinted in "The Prosecutor" for the NDAA. Both articles included the beginning of Carlisle's opening statement in State vs. Conklin. The same portion of the opening statement was quoted verbatim in an article published in the Journal of the Section of Litigation, "Litigation," of the American Bar Association. The authors, Brent O. E.Clinkscale, Riche T. Mcknight, and Kenneth C. Gibson of Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice used this portion of the Conklin opening statement as an example of how to "use imagery and evocative facts that lead the jury on its own to develop a sense of empathy for your client." The authors concluded:

William Conklin was convicted of Murder and received a life sentence.