Hawaii Justice Eddins Rebukes Roberts Court in 91-Page Ruling as Conviction Is Overturned
Updated
Updated · Fox News · Jul 18
Hawaii Justice Eddins Rebukes Roberts Court in 91-Page Ruling as Conviction Is Overturned
3 articles · Updated · Fox News · Jul 18
Summary
A 91-page Hawaii Supreme Court opinion ordered a new trial for a man convicted in 1990 of kidnapping and sexual assault, finding FBI hair-and-fiber testimony used at trial relied on discredited forensic science.
Justice Todd Eddins used about eight pages of that ruling to argue Hawaii courts should not follow the Roberts Court's reading of the federal Constitution, accusing the six-justice conservative majority of weakening rights, democracy and civil-rights protections.
Eddins cited decisions on abortion, campaign finance, gerrymandering, presidential immunity and gun rights, and wrote that Hawaii's constitution provides stronger safeguards than the U.S. Supreme Court now recognizes.
Legal observers called the attack highly unusual for a state high-court opinion, with critics including Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan and professor Jonathan Turley saying it lacked judicial restraint.
The opinion landed weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling against Hawaii in Wolford v. Lopez, struck down the state's gun-carry 'vampire rule.'
When judges openly criticize higher courts, does it uphold the law or undermine public trust?
As federal rulings shift, are state constitutions becoming the new battlegrounds for fundamental rights?
Is relying on centuries-old history the best way to protect modern constitutional rights?
Hawaii Supreme Court Overturns 1990 Conviction in Granillo Case, Redefines "False Evidence," and Challenges U.S. Supreme Court Authority
Overview
On July 15, 2026, the Hawaii Supreme Court overturned Daniel Granillo’s 1990 conviction for sexual assault, recognizing that the forensic evidence used against him—microscopic hair analysis—had since been scientifically discredited. This landmark decision not only gave Granillo a new chance at justice after more than thirty years but also set a major precedent for how 'false evidence' is defined and challenged in Hawaii. The ruling highlights the court’s willingness to revisit old convictions based on unreliable science, signaling a broader commitment to fairness and evolving standards in the state’s legal system.