Just days after the seventh anniversary of a brutal assault on Koko Crater Trail, Nicholas Iwamoto was sitting at a hearing table, telling lawmakers how the state had treated him as an outsider in the prosecution of his own case.

His attacker had accosted him while hiking, stabbing him multiple times and shoving him off the cliff. The fractured skull, the broken neck, the knife wounds all threatened his life, but the trauma didn’t end there, he said.

“I lived. My survival has been accompanied by its fair share of agony and anguish, but the support of the good people of Hawaii has been amazing,” Iwamoto said. “It’s got me through a lot of dark times.

“But the silence of the state has been absolutely devastating,” he continued. “For the last seven years, on and off, I’ve been left out of the loop. I was told my testimony would have no impact on any legal proceedings, which is true.

“The only reason I testified is because my mom told me, ‘You have to do this. You have to do this for yourself. People need to hear your story.’

“So those who were supposed to fight for me would not even let me fight for myself.”

Iwamoto was one of a long line of crime victims who stepped forward last week to press for an amendment to the state Constitution, based on what’s come to be known as Marsy’s Law (see Page E4 for details on the Hawaii amendment proposals and process, and on the history of the national movement).

There’s a national push for variations of the law, described as a victim’s bill of rights, a campaign funded by the organization Marsy’s Law for All, founded by electronics entrepreneur and philanthropist Henry Nicholas.

The organization has a branch, Marsy’s Law for Hawaii, and an agent, longtime lobbyist Bob Toyofuku, working to advance the cause in this state.

Like many states, Hawaii does have statutory protections for victims. At issue here is whether enshrining as constitutional the rights of crime victims — concerning notification about and access to proceedings related to their cases — conflicts with the defendant’s right to a speedy trial.

Two versions of the proposed amendment were introduced last year in the state Legislature. As of Friday, it was the House version, House Bill 1144, that was advancing. Toyofuku noted two competing Senate versions; one of them — a more expansive measure, Senate Bill 3034 — was reported out of its committee.

There are 32 states that have adopted the basic language of Marsy’s Law, which adds language ensuring that victims have rights, essentially, “to be notified, to be present, to be heard,” said Meg Garvin, a Portland, Ore., attorney and advocate for the constitu- tional amendment.

There’s usually also a right to “proceedings free from unreasonable delay,” as HB 1144 describes it. Both defendants and victims are known to invoke this right, she said: Victims often feel traumatized by prolonged proceedings and seek closure and resolution so they can move on.

Garvin added that the argument about defendants’ and victims’ rights coming into irreconcilable conflict overstates the problem: If the defendant’s rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution are invoked, they will prevail over any state constitutional provision such as Marsy’s Law.

“A victim could assert their right to a speedy trial, or ‘right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay,’” Garvin said in an interview before last week’s hearings. “The defense would say, ‘Under U.S. Constitution, I’m not prepared to go to trial.’ … The federal constitutional right, of course, prevails.

“But what the victim’s rights would do is, the court would interrogate: ‘Why are you asking for a delay? Is it a reasonable continuance?’

“If it’s not a reasonable continuance, or it’s not necessary for a constitutional reason, then your request for a continuance is down here” — Garvin tipped an imaginary scale lower in one hand and higher in the other — and my right prevails.”

Making the victim’s rights a constitutional issue would compel the court to consider the wider impact of delays.

“And then, what that does is hold the defense to articulating a reason,” she said.

“It also explains to a survivor the ‘why’ of a delay, as opposed to what happens right now, which is, ‘Hey, it’s been continued for six months. … We’ll issue a new subpoena to you in six months to appear.” Garvin said. “We have the victim now understanding process in a way that they’re, like, ‘Oh! That makes sense — I’m not as upset about a delay.’

“And so the system, from a procedural justice standpoint, makes sense, is working — because everyone sees the system as transparent and fair.”

Both state Reps. Karl Rhoads and Joy San Buenaventura, respectively the chair and vice-chair of the House Judiciary Committee, are attorneys. Rhoads headed the effort to redraft the bill, patterned after the federal law, between sessions.

San Buenaventura, who ultimately voted for the bill “with reservations,” was among those raising concerns about the logistics of addressing rights when numerous victims are involved.

She said that when her own home was burglarized, the defendant had broken into 20 other homes. And she was unsure whether a constitutional amendment was necessary.

Instead, she said, better accountability for enforcing statutory rights could be the better response. Different counties handle victim rights differently, she said.

“Maybe what’s needed is an agency that would follow it from time of crime to release,” she said.

Other objections have been aired by the American Civil Liberties Union. Dan Gluck, ACLU attorney, agreed that government has not enforced victims’ rights as laid out in state law.

“The judges ought to follow those as well as they follow the Constitution,” he told the Star-Advertiser after the hearing. “The Constitution is the foundational document. That’s what we rely on in order to structure our government.

“Our view on these bills is that there’s nothing in here that the Legislature couldn’t do under statute.”

Rhoads said HB 1144 was streamlined to make it more flexible, a statement of rights. It would allow the Legislature to refine implementation with further laws.

These revisions have tamped down some of the concerns of the law-enforcement agencies.

The state Department of the Attorney General is among those that are more supportive of the House draft, even if it’s unclear how exactly this balancing of rights would work.

“If the Legislature and if the voters pass this as a policy, and it’s a very important policy, then really, that’s what the executive agencies are here for,” Attorney General Doug Chin told the panel. “We’ll figure something out.”

Rhoads acknowledged there’s uncertainty, but felt something had to be done.

“We have had a victims’ rights statute for years,” he said. “When you hear the stories coming out of the system right now, at some point you have to try something different.”

Rhoads said that the failure of the system to enforce statutes is a function of a criminal-justice system that’s simply overloaded, leading its officials to convey a sense of indifference to victims who appeal to them for information.

“It’s easy for overworked judges and prosecutors to say, ‘We have work to do, get out of our way,’” Rhoads added.

That said, Garvin did not want the issue to pit one side against the other.

“It’s no commentary on anyone being a bad prosecutor, a bad cop, a bad judge,” Garvin said. “You know the old saying, ‘It’s not about you,’ right? It’s about the victim.”

Who was Marsy?

The national movement for Marsy’s Law was started by Henry T. Nicholas, founder of Broadcom Corp. and philanthropist, named for his sister, Marsalee (Marsy) Nicholas, killed by her ex-boyfriend in 1983, while a student at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

A week after Marsy was murdered, her brother and mother were confronted by the accused in a grocery store, unaware the defendant had been released on bail.

Marsy’s Law for All is Nicholas’ organization, advocating for adoption of a victim’s bill of rights in state constitution. Hawaii is one of 18 states with no enumerated constitutional rights for victims.

Information: marsyslaw.us.