First, a correction.

The Office of the Attorney General issued a news release on Tuesday, June 24, regarding the case of former Honolulu attorney Robert E. Chapman, featured in a post here on Saturday.

Indictment

The estimated $750,000 is about half the value of my original estimate. To arrive at my original estimate that the case involved a theft of about $1.5 million, I simply went through each of the counts and totaled the value of each transaction that was listed.

The AG’s lower figure seems to indicate that the indictment includes one set of charges stemming from the alleged thefts of cash or property from the estate of a deceased Honolulu resident, and a separate set of charges for stealing the same funds from the intended beneficiaries named in the victim’s will.

I have corrected my earlier post about the case to lower the total value of the property to the $750,000 figure used in AG’s news release.

Then there’s the presumption of innocence, raised in a reader’s comment on my initial post about the case.

The reader wrote:

I want to raise a concern that I believe is shared by others who care deeply about justice and fairness.

We must not lose sight of the principle that every person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. While your reporting on Chapman’s indictment is accurate and sourced, the tone and detail come across as adjudication rather than reporting. It leaves the reader with little doubt that Chapman is guilty, even though he has yet to have his day in court.

We must also remember that an indictment is a one-sided presentation by prosecutors, and grand juries do not hear defenses. Using these documents as narrative fact, especially when tied to disciplinary proceedings or unrelated past conduct, risks blurring the line between accusation and conviction in the public eye.

Your work reaches and shapes opinion, and with that comes responsibility.

I agree in part with the comment that everyone is presumed innocent of criminal charges until proven guilty, and as a result added a statement to the original blog post noting that an indictment is only one side of the story, it’s not proof of guilt, and Mr. Chapman hasn’t yet had his chance to respond in court.

But it seems to me there’s more to be said.

A news story isn’t a trial. My job as a reporter is to give readers a clear picture of the charges, the surrounding circumstances, and their significance, especially when we’re talking about a defendant who held a position of trust. Chapman wasn’t just another attorney—he was the managing partner of one of the biggest firms in the state, handling estates and trusts, offering himself and his firm up as protectors of their clients’ interests, entrusted with clients’ financial lives and access to their personal and confidential information.

That kind of position demands the highest standard of ethics, and when that trust is called into question, I believe the public deserves serious, fact-based scrutiny of the allegations.

Of course, it’s the court’s job to decide criminal responsibility, and juries are routinely asked to separate media reports from trial evidence. But that doesn’t mean we avoid reporting on the facts that are already public, especially when they raise legitimate concerns about how someone in power uses or abuses their position of trust.

In any case, I thank the reader for their thoughtful comment. It’s an important conversation to have.