I have to admit now knowing quite what to think when I read about the mistrial triggered by Honolulu Police Chief Louis Kealoha’s testimony this week in the federal trial of a relative of his wife accused of stealing the mailbox from the Kealoha home.
The judge in the case declared a mistrial after Kealoha referred to a prior criminal case involving the defendant.
The defendant’s attorney told reporters after the trial that Kealoha testimony was deliberate and intended to force a mistrial and a resultant delay in the case of a number of months.
The federal court case is tied to a lawsuit that involves Puana and his mother against Katherine Kealoha. The Puanas allege that hundreds of thousands of dollars entrusted to Katherine Kealoha have not been accounted for, and they claim she used some of the money for her own purposes.
Katherine Kealoha denies the allegations. Both she and the chief accuse Puana of stealing their mailbox in order to get records sent to the Kealohas’ home.
“It was very unexpected that the chief of police, who knows the rules of evidence and the rules of the court, would make a comment like that,” said Silvert.
The civil lawsuit pitting the Puanas against Katherine Kealoha is scheduled to go to state court in a couple of weeks.
Yesterday a friend called. He’s a lawyer. A litigator. And he was rabid about what Kealoha did.
“This is Trial Testimony 101, you don’t testify about a defendant’s prior criminal record,” my friend said, referring to this being one of the first and most basic guidelines for police officers when they testify in criminal cases. The chief is no novice, and this should have been elementary.
So count my friend among those who believe it must have been deliberate, because an experienced officer would not make this kind of entry-level error.
It does certainly underscore the difficult situation the police chief finds himself in.
But there were other trial details that I found only in an AP story about the mistrial by Jennifer Kelleher, which was picked up in national news on the mainland.
For example:
Silvert’s opening statement in the trial raised allegations of misconduct in the mailbox investigation, including falsified reports and off-the-books surveillance.
The first witness, retired Officer Niall Silva, conceded that he altered a report about the surveillance footage taken from the Kealoha home. When Silvert asked him if what he did was proper, he said: “What’s done is done, sir.”
The new trial promises to expose “a lot of misconduct in this case … from the top to the bottom,” Silvert said. “This is only the tip of the iceberg.”
I’m anxious to know more about that iceberg. It seems that both Honolulu Police and prosecutors are now facing growing lists of serious questions.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The chief is indeed in a pickle. Is it safe to say that from here on out, this story now has the full attention of the local media outlets now that the stench of Louis and Katherine Kealoha’s dirty laundry has become apparent?
It’s interesting that the chief’s employment contract was reportedly renewed shortly before this trial began, and that the police commission reportedly found that he “exceeded expectations.”
Was the contract renewed per a normal schedule or did the commission speed things up in anticipation of trial controversy and the pending civil case?
It’s a fair question, especially since the reporting on these matters has been so laughably thin.
It was also reported much earlier that shots were fired at the door of the chief’s home prior to the mailbox caper, and that the chief made no official report of that incident. Presumably, the police commission was not informed either.
Stunning if true.