Attorney Thomas Otake, whose motion seeking court approval to step down as counsel to Michael J. Miske Jr. was denied on January 18 by Magistrate Judge Kenneth Mansfield, replied today to a government motion asking Mansfield to reconsider his decision.

Otake said Mansfield’s denial came despite Otake’s best effort to explain his rationale for asking to withdraw as Miske’s counsel.

Otake’s reply, in the form of a sworn declaration, said that on January 12, “Attorney Ken Sorenson, informed me for the first time that they believed a conflict existed because “Cooperator 1” told them in December, 2022 about a meeting with me that he says took place some 9 years ago.”

“During this January 12, 2023 conversation, Mr. Sorenson told me in no uncertain terms that the Government viewed me as a witness in this case and planned to call me as such at trial,” Otake wrote.

Otake said he request and received a copy of the FBI 302 “Report of Interview” form for the interview during which Cooperator 1 disclosed their 2014 meeting.

“”I remain concerned about being called as a witness at trial,” Otake wrote in his declaration. “If the Government is successful in their attempt to have Cooperator 1 provide testimony at trial about the meeting he described to the Government, I could potentially be called to either confirm or refute such testimony depending on what Cooperator 1 says.”

The government’s motion for reconsideration also raised “for the first time” conflicts raised by Otake’s former representation of two others expected to be called as witnesses in Miske’s trial, now scheduled for September.

The clients are referred to simply as “Client 1” and “Client 2.”

Client 1 appears to be Catherine Nicole Zapata, who was arrested on drug charges in August 2018 along with her boyfriend, Timothy Taboada, and Jacob “Jake” Smith.

Taboada told investigators Smith and Hunter Wilson had been his primary suppliers of methamphetamine, which he then sold in Kaneohe and around the island. Smith and Wilson have both pleaded guilty to being part of a racketeering enterprise headed by Miske, and participating in a drug trafficking conspiracy that was part of the enterprise.

Zapata admitted assisting Taboada, but was a deemed a “minor participant” who had been involved through her personal relationship with Taboada.

From an earlier post about her case:

Zapata pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute meth, which carries a maximum term of 20 years in prison plus at least three years of supervised release. She agreed to forfeit $21,940 in currency seized from the Ko Place residence where Zapata and Taboada were living at the time of their arrest. She admitted the money was derived from their illegal drug sales.

In the plea agreement, prosecutors agreed to seek a two-level “downward adjustment” for accepting responsibility, while Zapata agreed to cooperate by answering questions and testifying truthfully against “co-defendants and others” as requested.

Court records confirm she was well represented by Otake. Zapata was sentenced in April 2022 to 3-months imprisonment followed by three years supervised release. She was, according to a transcript of her sentencing hearing, employed full time while taking online classes toward a vocational certificate, and well regarded by her employer.

In his deposition this week, Otake said government attorneys have been aware he was representing Miske since 2017, and certainly knew he had represented Zapata, since her case was prosecuted by Michael Nammar, one of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys handing the Miske prosecution.

“Not once did Mr. Nammar, or anyone else from the Government, tell me that they saw my representation of both Mr. Miske and ‘Client 1’ as a problem,” he wrote. Otake said he first learned Client 1, believed to be Zapata, would be called as a witness on January 17, days after he had already filed his motion to withdraw from the Miske case.

“It is not as though they were unaware of this issue prior to me raising it with them,” he wrote.

“Nevertheless, if the Government does call ‘Client 1’ as a witness in their case against Mr. Miske, this would be problematic for me for obvious reasons as well.”

No hearing on the motion to reconsider has been set, and it isn’t clear whether a hearing will be required.