The Hawaii Supreme Court filed an opinion Thursday that found the Schweitzer brothers, whose convictions were overturned by the Circuit Court in the infamous 1991 murder and rape of Dana Ireland, will no longer have to seek a declaration of “actual innocence” in order to pursue their wrongful-­conviction compensation case.

“This court recently identified a possible flaw in the law,” the high court opinion says. “We reasoned that ‘actual innocence’ would be nearly impossible to satisfy,” quoting from its recent decision in Jardine v. State, “because that is not the legal standard under which it vacates a conviction or orders a new trial.”

The court interpreted Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 661B-1 “based on its plain meaning,” that “‘actually innocent’ means that a person did not commit the crime.”

The Schweitzers, Albert Ian and younger brother, Shawn, are seeking compensation in the amount of $50,000 a year for each year they were wrongfully imprisoned. But in order to receive that compensation, it appeared from the statute they must prove they are innocent, as stated in Hawaii’s wrongful-conviction compensation law in HRS Chapter 661B.

Attorney General Anne Lopez wrote the Schweitzers on Feb. 27 that to begin their compensation case, the criminal court must find “actual innocence,” and she did not think Ian was “actually innocent” since the charges were dismissed without prejudice (meaning charges could be refiled).

This set off a series of missteps by the criminal court judge and the parties, the high court noted.

The Supreme Court said criminal court does not need to write those two words for a petitioner to file a compensation claim, but an order supporting factual innocence or innocence of the crime would fulfill the necessary requirement.

It said the Schweitzers must pursue their compensation claims as a separate civil case, not in a post-­conviction proceeding with the criminal court. They must serve the attorney general with the document and wait for a response before making a request for discovery documents from law enforcement.

“The statute was so poorly written, so they interpreted the statute for everyone,” said Keith Shigetomi, attorney for Shawn Schweit­zer. “So now that everyone knows, we can move forward.”

“We don’t need the “actual innocence” determination,” he said. It “clarified the procedure and it also eliminated one of the steps we needed to take. In the balance it actually was beneficial.”

The Schweitzers, in an attempt to have the criminal court declare them “actually innocent,” demanded the Hawaii County Police Department and prosecutor’s office turn over materials relating to the crimes they were wrongly imprisoned for, which they said might contain information to prove their innocence.

They refused, and the Police Department sought to block a subpoena by the lower court requiring it turn over documents by petitioning the Supreme Court in Hawaii Police Department v. Judge Peter Kubota and Albert Ian Schweitzer and Shawn Schweitzer.

The Supreme Court took the extraordinary step of issuing a writ of mandamus, an order to the Circuit Court to transfer the case to a civil court, saying the lower court should not have compelled civil discovery in a criminal proceeding. It also orders the court not to release the discovery documents, and to allow the new civil court judge, who might well be Kubota, in his civil capacity, to make a determination on its release.

It said the Circuit Court should not have compelled civil discovery in a criminal proceeding.

“Confronted by a complex and baffling legal landscape, the parties and the court inadvertently made significant procedural missteps,” wrote Associate Justice Todd Eddins on behalf of all five justices of the court. “We correct those missteps. We reorient the proceedings and set the Schweitzers on a more straightforward path to the discovery they seek. And the compensation they feel is deserved.”

The Supreme Court ordered the lower court to invalidate the Schweitzers’ motion to subpoena the Police Department, and ordered it transfer the Schwei­tzers’ petition for relief under a new civil case.

The court clarified that law enforcement has no qualified privilege in Hawaii, but could seek a protective order to ensure confidentiality of sensitive information.

Shigetomi said no one knew about the “Jardine” case, since the Supreme Court’s “Jardine” decision came out after it heard oral arguments Sept. 12 in the Schweitzer case.

In the “Jardine” case, Shigetomi said, the “court vacated the conviction and the prosecutor’s office dismissed the case once the conviction was set aside because the court order didn’t have the magic words.”

Hawaii County Police Chief Ben Moskowicz said the department respects the court’s “quick judgment and opinion in this matter.”

“I especially appreciate the Supreme Court’s detailed guidance on the path forward. As the 661B process plays out in civil court, it is my sincere hope that we will be able to share more information with the parties as our investigation into Dana Ireland’s murder moves forward.”

Following the attorney general’s direction, the Schweitzers had gone to the criminal court asking for the actual innocence determination, and asked the Police Department and prosecutor’s office for material regarding a new suspect.

Kubota, the Hilo Circuit Court judge, instructed the Schweitzers to file a motion to compel the Police Department to turn over the materials, granted the motion, then directed them to prepare a subpoena directed to the Police Department.

During oral arguments the deputy corporation counsel representing the Police Department argued new suspect Albert Lauro Jr., whose DNA matches the DNA found at the crime scene, had committed suicide July 23 just before the subpoena was served Aug. 1, and the investigation was in “its infancy.”

The police and prosecutor’s office refused to turn over investigatory information until the investigation is complete.

The police filed a petition with the Supreme Court to block the subpoena.

The Schweitzers, along with Frank Pauline, were convicted of the crimes against Ireland, who died Christmas Day 1991. Pauline was killed in prison before their convictions were overturned.

The Supreme Court outlined the underlying case.

The Schweitzers were indicted Oct. 9, 1997, in the murder, sexual assault and kidnapping of Ireland, but DNA test results of crime scene evidence excluded them as the source of the DNA, so all charges were dismissed Oct. 20, 1998.

But based on an in-custody informant’s testimony, they were reindicted May 1999.

Because of a confession by Shawn Schweitzer, the case was split into two.

A jury convicted Ian Schweitzer on Feb. 16, 2000, on murder, kidnapping and sexual assault charges.

On May 9, 2000, Shawn Schweitzer took a plea deal, pleading guilty to manslaughter and kidnapping, and was sentenced to one year in jail and probation.

The Supreme Court also detailed the post-conviction proceedings.

On Jan. 23, 2023, Ian Schweitzer petitioned the Circuit Court under Rule 40 of the Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure to vacate his conviction, order his release and dismiss his indictment.

The prosecutors stipulated to a set of facts of newly discovered evidence, which gives reason for relief from criminal judgment:

>> Post-conviction DNA testing connected “Unknown Male #1” to the crime and excluded the Schweitzers.

>> Bite mark evidence used at trial was unreliable.

>> Tire tread evidence at the crime scene did not match Ian Schweitzer’s car, which the prosecution had alleged at trial hit Ireland while she road a bike.

>> Shawn Schweitzer recanted his prior confession, maintained his innocence and passed a polygraph test.

The Circuit Court held an evidentiary hearing after the parties stipulated to the facts, vacated Ian Schweit­zer’s convictions, dismissed the indictment without prejudice and set him free.

The court order said a new trial would likely reach a verdict of acquittal.

Shortly after, Shawn Schweitzer and prosecutors filed a stipulation to withdraw his guilty plea and to vacate his conviction, which the court granted.

Meanwhile, a genealogy expert identified Lauro as a possible match for the unknown suspect. Police clandestinely collected his DNA from a discarded fork.

Police took a cheek swab July 19 and found it matched the crime scene DNA.

On July 30 the Circuit Court ruled the Lauro investigation was relevant to determine the Schweitzers’ innocence, and ordered police to produce the documents for review by the judge in his chambers to allow him to decide whether it should be disclosed to the Schweitzers.