Attorney Myles Breiner Wins HUGE Case after Two Year Battle

Aloha y’all, it's your boy Nick, bail agent from A-1 Bail Bonds, back with a special issue of "Jail Mail." This edition will serve as a playbook for defendants facing sexual assault cases in Hawaii. Unfortunately, I've seen this scenario unfold countless times, and the clients who navigate the criminal justice system most successfully often understand the tactics and obstacles we will discuss. So let’s learn from the real life case of a defendant we'll call Paul, who keenly hired attorney Myles Breiner to ultimately win his case.

I chose to call our client “Paul,” as a modern abbreviation of the greek divinity HipPOLytus. I’ve been on a Greek mythology kick after watching BLOOD OF ZEUS (Netflix), and to provide context, Hippolytus was falsely accused of an attempted sexual assault by his stepmother, Phaedra, after he rejected her advances. This led to a cascade of tragic events, much like how an accusation lead to Paul’s subsequent legal battles. Here are three critical challenges Paul overcame, largely in part to his attorney Myles Breiner.

1. Preliminary Hearing and Grand Jury Indictment Paul was initially charged at the Honolulu Police Department, after a 48 hour investigation period. His preliminary hearing was set in District Court. Mr. Breiner, being an experienced attorney, anticipated that the prosecutor's office would opt for a grand jury indictment instead of a preliminary hearing to determine probably cause. This tactic is common in sex assault cases for two reasons: 1) to prevent the victim from having to testify and relive a traumatic event, and 2) to prevent the defense from scrutinizing and potentially poking holes in the complainant’s story. Mr. Breiner prepared Paul for this outcome, understanding this prosecutorial strategy.

2. WILDCARD - Bail Increase Tactic As predicted, the prosecutor's office took the case to the grand jury for indictment but as a surprise move, simultaneously requested a bail increase from $500,000 to $750,000. This tactic, viewed by most criminal defense attorneys as unnecessary and underhanded, is back en vogue after several years of absence following former City Prosecutor Keith Kaneshiro’s administration. Whether it's true or not, the strategy is viewed as a way to preemptively incarcerate defendants who happen to have already posted bail. The practice is viewed as especially devious when no violation of release conditions has occurred. Unfortunately, as we stand today, the prosecutor’s office can add additional lower level charges to any indictment request, and predictably raise a defendant’s bail at the grand jury level. It’s a “fait accompli” upon request since the defense is not present to rebut the validity of the new charges before the grand jury, so requests are all but certain to be confirmed by the court. This is a blindspot in the judicial system that is rarely discussed, but requires grace and restraint not to be abused by the government.

3. The Calculus of Bail and Public Safety The purpose of bail is twofold: to guarantee a defendant's return to court and to protect the public. I will concede in good faith that, at face value, the prosecutor's office may have believed raising Paul's bail monetarily would equate to increasing public safety. After all, putting him in jail assures he could not commit another crime against the public, by virtue of being in custody. However, I contest this presumption in this specific case, since Paul:

• Was not like Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, or Bill Cosby; there was only one complainant, not several. If multiple complaints had surfaced, it would indicate a serial pattern posing a greater public safety threat. In this case, the lack of such a pattern indicates that the situation did not warrant the same level of concern.

• Had not violated any term or condition of his release to merit a bail increase.

• Had already posted an excessively high bail the prosecutor’s office requested weeks earlier. What changed, besides the fact that bail was posted?

It's the same dynamics as a backroom deal, since changing the bail at the grand jury level removes the defense counsel's ability to rebut an unjust bail raise. If I ruled the world, bail increases would only occur at bail hearings, with the exception of truly severe cases, where a sentence of “life without the possibility of parole,” is on the table. If you want to geek out on “serious crimes” where bail changes at the grand jury level seem ethical and merited, click here:

(HOT TAKE) - LOVE/HATE: When Bail Raises Protect versus Punish: Raising bail without cause or a bail hearing is at best a questionable tactic. Off the record, most criminal defense attorneys see it as a means to financially incapacitate a defendant, preventing them from properly defending themselves by hiring attorneys and experts. There are many opportunities to ethically ask for a bail increase during a case. For instance, a bail review hearing is warranted if there is a violation of release conditions. Alternatively, if a defendant wants to travel, bail conditions can be revisited. Without such events, in my opinion, the most appropriate time to readdress bail is pending sentencing. If a defendant is proven guilty, then bail amounts, terms, and conditions can be modified; for example, a passport can be collected, or the defendant can be taken into custody forthwith to ensure justice for the victim and to protect the surety from unnecessary loss. Raising the dollar amount of bail alone does not increase public safety for compliant bail posters like Paul; I would argue that supervisory conditions and stay-away orders are far more effective. Just because a case transfers from District to Circuit Court, a 50% bail increase "just because" is "just bizarre."

Conclusion: Why Myles Breiner is on the Shortlist of Attorneys Qualified To Represent Defendants in Complicated Sex Assault Cases.

Unfortunately, the government often sways from, “tough but fair,” to “overzealous,” in matters of bail. Ultimately, the complainant would recant their allegations, move out of state, and provided no further cooperation in the case. Mr. Breiner reviewed hundreds of pages of discovery, found countless inconsistencies, and filed numerous motions to advocate for his client’s rights. After two years of fighting bail increase issues and ever-changing and invasive release conditions, the nightmare thankfully ended with a dismissal of all charges. Kudos to Mr. Breiner for stepping up as Paul’s advocate and achieving another favorable outcome.