Two separate motions to dismiss federal charges against former Police Chief Louis Kealoha and his wife, former ranking city prosecutor Katherine Kealoha were rejected earlier this month by Judge Michael Seabright, according to court records.

The attorney for the former power couple had filed two separate motions. One motion sought to suppress evidence and statements the couple had given to the Honolulu Ethics Commission during its investigation several years ago, claiming that use of these during their federal criminal trial would violate “their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.“

The other motion asked that the indictment against the couple be thrown out because of alleged “prosecutorial misconduct” during grand jury proceedings.

The Kealohas’ attorney, Cynthia Kagiwada, argued in the first motion that the couple only appeared before ethics commission investigators because of city and state laws requiring employees to cooperation with official investigations or face possible dismissal from their jobs.

However, Seabright found no evidence to support that position.

The Kealohas fail on two basic fronts. First, there is simply no evidence that Katherine or Louis Kealoha was compelled to make any statement to the Commission. In fact, they appear to have answered some questions, but not others. Second, there is a similar lack of evidence that either Kealoha was compelled (or even asked) to waive their immunity.

Further, Seabright concluded:

Finally, there is simply no evidence that the statements made by Katherine or Louis Kealoha to the Commission were involuntary. As the United States points out, the Kealohas’ civil attorney sent a letter to the Commission on behalf of his clients that refused to answer some of the Commission’s questions.

Likewise, the Kealohas have presented no evidence that they either: (1) were threatened with losing their jobs if they refused to make a statement; or (2) thought that they would lose their jobs if they refused to make a statement.

Accordingly, Seabright dismissed the motion, but “without prejudice,” meaning that it could be refiled if additional documents from the Ethics Commission investigation appear to support the allegations.

The second motion regarding “prosecutorial misconduct” cited two brief moments during the extending grand jury proceedings.

In one brief exchange, an assistant U.S. Attorney referred to the fact that Katherine Kealoha’s uncle, Gerard Puana, had denied being the person seen in a surveillance video taking the couple’s mailbox from in front of their Kahala home. The AUSA disclosed in passing that Puana had taken and passed a lie detector test, while acknowledging that such tests cannot be used as evidence in court.

In a second exchange, according to the motion, misconduct occurred when “the prosecutor allowed a grand juror to tell a witness that Ms. Kealoha’s grandmother’s house had been foreclosed on,” and the statement was not corrected.

However, Seabright noted, the meaning of the juror’s question wasn’t clear and, further, the U.S. Attorney “had no duty to interfere with an appropriate question from the grand juror.“

“Accordingly,” Seabright concluded, “the court finds no basis to dismiss the Indictment for a violation of constitutional due process or under the court’s inherent supervisory power.”

Two other defendants, Derek Wayne Hahn and Minh-Hung Nguyen, had piggybacked on the Kealohas motion, and were also denied.

The trial of the Kealohas and three police officers on charges of conspiring to frame Puana for the theft of the chief’s mailbox, and related charges, is scheduled to proceed next month.