What follows is the complaint Carrie filed against her attorney, Deputy Public Defender, Nailani Graham with the Office of Disciplinary Council (ODC). The ODC received the complaint on August 23, 2011, we’ll post their response as soon as we get it.
On February 23, 2010, Deputy Public Defender Nailani Graham is assigned to my case.
March 23, 24, and 25, 2010, I recorded 3 phone calls made to me by Kevin Walters (the complainant). In these phone calls Mr. Walters has admitted both physical and property crimes he has committed against me, relates that he couldn’t believe he didn’t get arrested on 11-1-09 because he knew what he did, and states if he tells the truth then he will be prosecuted too. He says his actions were preemptive retaliation because he thought I would have wanted to do it to him. States he was angry with me because I would not buy him his marijuana and makes many other self-incriminating statements.
March 25, 2010, Ms. Graham tells me to turn in the recordings to the police because “otherwise it’s just he said/she said.” I turned the recordings in to the police and Ms. Graham on March 29, 2010.
April 6, 8, and 12, 2010, I leave messages to Ms. Graham regarding my seeing video evidence.
She finally returned my calls on April 12, 2010. Ms. Graham informed me that she had not listened to the tapes, and then said “what is on the recordings mean very little”. Later she said “more importantly than any tapes is the fellow himself going to the prosecutor…”, and finally stated that she “has no idea if recordings can come in at trial”. In violation of HRPC Rules 1.1 and 1.3, she never bothered to learn that pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Evidence, Chapter 626, Hawaii Revised Statutes, recordings are allowed to ascertain the character, bias, interest, and motive of the complainant. In violation of HRPC Rules 1.1 and 3.1, Ms. Graham ignored evidence of perjury committed against me. Whenever I would ask specific questions or points of law, it would elicit comments from her such as “I don’t consider you my legal colleague”, in violation of HRPC Rule 1.4(a) and 1.4(b). Also on this date Ms. Graham said that she and her investigator “would attempt to interview the complainant”, yet never did, in violation of HRPC Rules 1.1 and 1.3.
May 4, 2010, I left a message for Ms. Graham regarding a missing 911 call.
May 5, 2010, Ms. Graham returned my call and said the second 911 call doesn’t say much; it’s just a hang up. I explain what is missing, it’s on the video. She says she will make the request yet never did, in violation of HRPC Rules 1.1 and 1.3.
June 3, 2010, I called Ms. Graham after one month of no communication from her. I once again asked her about the missing 911 call and she twice states she will make the request for it. In violation of HRPC Rules 1.1 and 1.3, she has never made the request. Ms. Graham also states that she still believes it to be a dropped call and is aware that I don’t agree. In violation of HRPC Rules 1.1 and 1.3, Ms. Graham is obviously incapable of listening to her client, verifying phone records, or watching a video and understanding what is occurring. On this date Ms. Graham also informed me that she “received some extra discovery” which she believed to be police reports regarding my TRO modification hearing. In actuality it was in regards to an additional charge leveled at me. However, in violation of HRPC Rules 1.1 and 1.3, I still have no idea of the status of this charge even after numerous inquiries, the last time being on the morning of November 12, 2010.
Also, during this same conversation of June 3, 2010 Ms. Graham asked me to give her a chronology of my history with my ex-husband which I gave her on June 8, 2010. Ms. Graham also has a copy of my divorce papers in which item #6 quite clearly states the reason the complainant lost his parental rights was “The defendant…has grossly neglected his children by placing them in dangerous situations; and frequently and habitually engages in substance abuse.”
On August 10, 2010, I delivered a letter to Ms. Graham and sent a copy to her Senior Supervising Attorney, Michael Ebesugawa and also to Chief Public Defender John Tonaki. In violation of HRPC Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 Ms Graham’s response was to leave me two voice mails to set up an “interview”. I responded that I did not request an interview. I requested a meeting with her, Mr. Ebesugawa and myself and if that was not going to occur I would appreciate a call. Ms. Graham and her superiors all chose to ignore me, thereby putting the interests of their firm above their client rather than attempting to resolve a contentious and antagonistic situation.
On September 28, 2010, in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.2(c), 1.3, 1.4(a), and 1.4(b), Ms. Graham is aware she is being recorded and states she has a strategy planned which she will pursue with or without my cooperation. However, she will not give me any information as to what her strategy is. When I ask for a broad overview she claims it is “attorney work product”, says I can “sit there and watch it unfold”, and I “can just experience it”. When I say I need to know something is being done for my defense, her response is “you don’t need to know”. Her behavior is arrogant and antagonistic towards me, then she states numerous times if I am not happy I can be my own attorney. When asked a direct question, not once does she give me a direct answer. She also made a thinly veiled threat to me when she said “I would suggest you be very careful about your behavior toward me in court.”
On November 10, 2010, In a meeting with Ms. Graham to discuss a plea deal, she explained to me the process of a PSI report and stated that this was the opportunity to present the Judge a summary of the facts and present our theory of self-defense. This was also the first and only time she ever acknowledged to me that she was aware of the complainant’s perjury. However, she failed to present anything close to this in her PSI input.
On November 12, 2010, I arrived at the courthouse to be blindsided by a new development; the complainant is not happy with the plea deal. In a 23 minute and 33 second meeting between Ms. Graham and myself, prior to entering the court room, I inquired four times as to the implication for me. Four times she has knowingly lied to me and assured me that I have a Rule 11 guarantee, nothing would change, worse case 30 days. As I entered the courtroom I was once again blindsided as Prosecutor Rick Dammerville stated that he knows the court always considers the input of the victim in deciding whether or not to bind themselves to the Rule 11. He stated that he contacted Ms. Graham at home the night before so she could communicate that also to me. However, in violation of HRPC rules 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4, Ms. Graham never attempted to contact me prior to my arriving at court and once she did inform me of the situation, she quite clearly lied to me. Further, in violation of HRPC 3.3(a)(1), Ms. Graham did knowingly make a false statement of material fact to the court when she stated that I was consistent in my acceptance of the plea deal, since she intentionally failed to inform me of the consequences. Outside of the courtroom, Ms. Graham informs me that the new situation is the Judge can abide by the Rule 11 or not. If not, then we either arrive at a new deal or go to court in two days. In violation of HRPC rules 1.1 and 1.3, she also makes it clear that the complainant’s perjury is inconsequential and she is not defending me in pre-trial conferences and in chambers meetings. According to Ms. Graham the only opinion being presented is the prosecutor’s opinion.
When I arrived back at court on the afternoon of November 12, 2010, I had less than three minutes to decide if I was going to accept the plea without the Rule 11 guarantee and face a maximum of 5 years in prison, or go to trial with Ms. Graham and be guaranteed 10 years in prison. Ms. Graham’s numerous violations of HRPC rules 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4, effectively amounted to extortion against me.
In violation of HRPC rules 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4 the next contact I had with Ms. Graham was on January 20, 2011 when I arrived at court for what I thought was going to be my sentencing for up to 5 years in prison without my having even seen the PSI. Ms. Graham never even approached me in the courtroom, she instead stood on the other side of the room and glared at me. When Judge Hara announced there would be a continuance, I inquired as to what was going on. Judge Hara explained the delay was due to the PSI not being done. I then turned to Ms. Graham and twice asked “How long have you known?” She responded we will discuss it later. After the proceedings were over, Ms. Graham and I went into a conference room. I once again inquired as to why I was not notified, how could she be so cruel as to let me sweat it out thinking I was arriving here for sentencing. Her response was to instead read the letter the PSI writer sent to the court requesting the continuance. I once again inquired as to why I was not given the courtesy of a simple phone call, and she pushed by me and walked out of the room.
On January 27, 2011, I called Ms. Graham to inquiry of the PSI report. In violation of HRPC rule 1.4, Ms. Graham stated she’s had it for several days, yet failed to inform me and blamed the lack of communication on her secretary.
On January 31, 2010, I arrived at Ms. Graham’s office to view the PSI report and, in violation of Rules 1.1, 3.1, 3.3(a)(1), and 3.5(a), discovered that on December 8, 2010 Ms. Graham wrote her 3 page PSI input to the court regarding her sentencing input for me. In spite of all the information she had, and previously acknowledged, Ms. Graham was unable to keep the basic facts straight, then intentionally and vindictively presented an inaccurate portrayal of me to the court. Ms. Graham never once asked me any questions about my personal history and her knowledge of such is as equally lacking as my knowledge of her history. However, she presented numerous statements to the court as if she had the knowledge and used them to call me a liar and put my sanity in question. i.e. “Carrie was unforthcoming about life before Kevin. It is as if she did not exist until meeting Kevin.” “…Carrie remained close to Kevin’s parents, so close that Kevin’s mother appointed Carrie executor of her will.” “Those from happy families cherish and share their memories. The dearth of information about Carrie’s family suggest that the nuclear family was something she survived rather than enjoyed.” “Her only human connection is to Kevin’s [long dead] parents, rather than to members of her own family or to friends made in college or at work.” “She has invested Kevin with Machiavellian skills sufficient to turn the criminal justice system, and certainly the truth [emphasis added], on its head.” “She has invested Kevin with demon powers,… and for the near loss, but for her own resourcefulness [emphasis added], of life itself.” “Jail will not help Carrie. She will merely incorporate it into her skewed vision of reality [emphasis added].” “Yet she is unable to separate from him. The two continue to engage.” However, there is not one instance of my contacting him, but dozens of instances of his contacting and attempting to contact me. Furthermore, she mentions three times that I never remarried nor relinquished my married name. However, she ignores that I was married in 1983 and did not add my children’s name until 1986.
Additionally, she ignored the perjury the complainant committed against me (which Ms. Graham did acknowledge to me in our meeting on November 10, 2010), minimized his actions; i.e. “His parental rights were terminated for failure to pay child support or maintain contact [emphasis added] with the children.” “…arguments began to escalate from verbal to physical, with Kevin either pushing or poking…[emphasis added]” “…fell into her either deliberately or by accident…[emphasis added]”
On February 14, 2011, in violation of HRPC rules 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, and 3.3, Ms. Graham stated in court that she put a lot of thought into her PSI input and then used the complainant’s psychopathic diagnosis against me. Further, she states that I felt physically threatened by the complainant, yet never mentions the complaint’s 17 videoed threats against me, including a threat on my life. Additionally, in violation of HRPC rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, Ms. Graham neglected to inform me that a condition of my probation would be that I not have any direct or indirect contact with my children or grandchildren.
On April 27, 2011, I gave probation officer Rose De Lima a notarized letter from my children clearly stating their wishes.
On May 10, 2011, Ms. Graham filed for a modification of probation.
On May 19, 2011, a hearing was held, in which I was not present and in violation of HRPC rules 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4, Ms. Graham never notified me of the hearing.
On July 21, 2011, I called Ms. Graham to inform her that my probation officer is trying to violate me for my legally recording conversations which I am a party to. The hearing was set for July 28, 2011.
On July 27, 2011, I was forced to hire another attorney since I never heard from Ms. Graham, in violation of HRPC rules 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4.