On Sunday morning, January 10, Civil Beat published my latest story delving into the case of former Kamaaina Termite and Pest Control owner, Michael J. Miske, Jr., and ten co-defendants facing a 22-count federal racketeering indictment (“Miske Case Weaves Together Disparate Strands Of Past Crimes“).

That same evening, Andrew Walden’s Hawaii Free Press included a link, and a lengthy excerpt, in its “weekly news read” using a misleading and dangerously inflammatory headline. Walden’s headline for the item reads, “Miske-Related Case Shows How State Judiciary Protects Mafia.”

At his best, Walden is a tenacious document reporter who excels at telling a story based on disparate but connected documents. At his worst, his writing distorts reality in order to support a preordained ideological position.

That’s what happened here with Walden’s attack on Judge Karen Nakasone, who presided over Moon’s murder trial. In September 2020, Nakasone was appointed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals.

The Hawaii Free Press headline appears to have been triggered by these two paragraphs from my Civil Beat story.

There was lots of interest in the shocking murder, which occurred on a holy day in one of the most public and popular locations in Honolulu. However, Moon’s lengthy and well-publicized murder trial provided precious little information about the circumstances. Was it gang-related? Was there more than just a bag of marijuana at stake? Did the young men know each other? Had they gone there to fight? Why did this happen?

There were lots of questions but few answers, largely because pre-trial rulings by Judge Karen Nakasone narrowed the focus of the prosecution to the brief period when the shooting took place, and to evidence directly relevant to the shooting. She ruled prior contacts between those involved, their prior criminal records, if any, and previous drug use and drug deals, along with other less immediately relevant facts, were not directly relevant to the charges against Moon. They were therefore deemed off-limits in order to avoid biasing the jury. While it protected the rights of the accused, it made it difficult for the public to understand what was happening before that Christmas evening turned bloody.

The reasons for Judge Nakasone’s rulings that framed the case in the 2018 trial had nothing to do with protecting “Mafia,” and everything to do with protecting a defendant’s right to a fair and unbiased tribunal.

In this case, Dae Han Moon–only 2-years later linked to Miske by the federal indictment made public in July 2020–was accused of shooting Stevie Feliciano during a confrontation in an Ala Moana Center parking garage.

He was on trial for 2nd degree murder. Moon was not charged with being part of a “Mafia,” he was not charged with having a bad reputation or hanging around with “bad” people. Judge Nakasone understandably limited what the jury considered to evidence directly related to whether or not he pulled the trigger.

Why is that important? It’s really a pretty pretty simple issue. The right to a fair trial protects all of our constitutional rights, whatever our ideological or political orientations.

The basics are spelled out in the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

One basic component of the right to a fair trial is the presumption of innocence. There are a whole lot of specifics that, over time, have been recognized as violating the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury, even things like what a defendant is wearing during the trial. And limiting evidence considered by the jury is routinely necessary to insure that impartiality.

I really just wanted to note that Walden’s characterization of Nakasone’s trial ruling is dangerous because it encourages his readers to overlook or denigrate basic constitutional protections. The headline Walden and Hawaii Free Press used to link to my story gives a false impression of what I wrote. I’m sorry my Civil Beat story was distorted in this way.