
Prosecutors must disclose obviously exculpatory evidence even absent a request from the defendant, and when Guyot interfered with a court order in an attempt to prevent the court ordered penal liability exam from potentially exonerating Pinkerton, and to suppress the question of Pinkertons liability from a court ordered mental examination is equivalent to the suppression of evidence, along with suppressing exculpatory evidence found on Pinkertons website, are grounds that disqualify him for immunity. See Brady v. Maryland373 U.S. at 87
Prosecutor Guyot and members of the County of Kauai Prosecutors Office have a professional responsibility to divulge the evidence favorable to the Plaintiff, when they learned from Pinkerton's website and failed to allow that information to negate Pinkerton's guilt, regardless if the evidence implicated several Kauai Police Officers.
Once again, no sanctions were ever brought against the Prosecutors Office or Guyot for with violating Rule 3.8(b) of the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rule 3.8. of the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct: Performing the duty of the public prosecutor or other government lawyer. A public prosecutor or other government lawyer shall:
(a) not institute or cause to be instituted criminal charges when [the prosecutor or government lawyer] knows or it is obvious that the charges are not supported by probable cause; and
b) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal. [emphasis added]" [Pages 9,10,11 of http://www.kpinkerton.com/08-00222/11-1.pdf ]