The trial of former Honolulu business owner Michael J. Miske, Jr. and seven remaining co-defendants has been delayed again.

The trial had been set to begin at the beginning of September, but has now been reset for April 2023. I described the latest delay in a story published at Civil Beat on Friday (“The ‘Miske Enterprise’: Trial For The Accused Crime Boss Is Being Postponed Again“).

Several comments left by Civil Beat readers appear to have assumed that the delays have been due to a strategy pursued by prosecutors, but that isn’t correct.

Here’s a summary of the series of decisions behind this series of trial delays.

The case was initially set to begin in September 2020.

In August 2020, prosecutors filed a motion to declare the case “complex” and to delay the trial for one year until September 2021. The motion was granted by Magistrate Judge Kenneth Mansfield.

In their motion, the government pointed to the factors justifying the case as complex.

This case involves eleven defendants who are collectively charged with racketeering conspiracy, various acts of violence (including one defendant charged with death-penalty-eligible offenses), chemical weapon attacks, firearms offenses, drug trafficking, and bank fraud. The racketeering conspiracy is alleged to have included a wide variety of criminal activities, ranging from acts involving murder, kidnapping, and arson to wire fraud, fraud in connection with identification documents, and obstruction of justice. The evidence includes Title III wiretap interceptions and voluminous amounts of electronic discovery. In light of the number of defendants and the nature of the prosecution, the Court should declare this case complex.

Miske’s attorneys did not opposed the request for the one-year delay, and added their own additional reasons why it was needed, especially the fact that Miske was facing the possibility of the death penalty.

Mr. Miske has no objection to declaring this case complex, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(7)(B)(ii), but in light of the complexity of the case, the fact that he is charged with death eligible offenses, the voluminous nature of the discovery that is expected to be produced on a rolling basis, and the difficulty of conducting necessary investigation and of consulting with Mr. Miske, investigators, and experts in the midst of a global pandemic, he cannot guarantee to the Court that he will be ready for trial in one year.

Then in May 2021, the government again moved to put the trial off until March 2022.

In their motion to continue the trial to a later date, prosecutors said they had conferred with defense attorneys.

Based on its conferral with defense counsel, the government understands that Defendants Michael J. Miske, Jr. (01), John B. Stancil (02), Kaulana Freitas (03), Lance L. Bermudez (04), Dae Han Moon (05), Preston M. Kimoto (06), Harry K. Kauhi (08), and Norman L. Akau, III (09) (the “Moving Defendants”) join in this motion. Defendant Hunter J. Wilson (10) has already pleaded guilty and therefore takes no position on the motion. Counsel for Defendants Michael Buntenbah (07) and Jarrin K. Young (11) have indicated that their clients do not join in the motion and might file an opposition to the motion….

Counsel for the Moving Defendants have indicated that they need additional time to review discovery, consider and file possible pretrial motions, confer with and competently advise their clients, and prepare for the trial itself. Their request is reasonable in light of the nature of the charges in this case and the scope of discovery.

Mansfield again approved the delay, which was justified in his order of June 28, 2021.

The Speedy Trial Act provides that certain periods of delay in the proceeding to trial “shall be excluded in computing the time within which . . . the trial of any such offense must commence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h). One appropriate basis for the exclusion of time is an “ends of justice” continuance—that is, a continuance based on a judge’s finding that “the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” Id. at § 3161(h)(7)(A). The Speedy Trial Act provides that a judge should consider, among other things, the following factors in determining whether to grant an “ends of justice” continuance: (i) whether “the failure to grant such a continuance in the proceeding would be likely to make a continuation of such proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice;” (ii) whether “the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by this section;” and (iii) whether “the failure to grant such a continuance . . . would deny the defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel, would unreasonably deny the defendant or the government continuity of counsel, or would deny counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.”

Then in October 2021, Miske again filed a motion seeking a further delay, this time until March 2022. Again, the reason for the request was the complexity of the case, the evidence, and the preparation for trial.

Trial is currently scheduled for March 21, 2022.

Because of the complex nature of this case, the current trial date leaves insufficient time to: 1) review the voluminous discovery in this case; 2) complete all necessary investigative work; 3) prepare and litigate pre-trial motions; and 4) prepare for trial.

Defendants Michael Buntenbah and Jarrin Young objected, but were again overruled. The trial date was moved to September 2022.

And then came the most recent request to delay, this time from co-defendant Delia Fabro-Miske. It was again approved by Magistrate Judge Mansfield, over objections from to other defendants, John Stancil and Jarrin Young.

All of the delays were reviewed and approved by Mansfield, and were initiated or supported by most of the defendants.

That’s probably way more than you even wanted to know about how and why it has taken so long to get this racketeering case to trial.