John Stancil, who is Mike Miske’s younger half-brother as well as a co-defendant in the pending federal criminal case, won’t be getting released from Honolulu’s federal detention center anytime soon. In a decision filed in court this week, Magistrate Judge Kenneth Mansfield denied several parts of a motion filed by Stancil’s attorney which had sought his release on bond.

Miske, Stancil, and five other remaining co-defendants face a total of 22 charges including conspiring to break federal racketeering laws, murder-for-hire, kidnapping, drug trafficking conspiracy, armed robbery, bank fraud, and obstruction of justice.

Six additional co-defendants have already pleaded guilty, and a seventh is now scheduled to change his “not guilty” plea next week.

Trial in the case is scheduled to get underway in January and last as long as five months.

It’s likely Stancil’s attorneys never expected to win his release, but were trying to create a record in court in case it becomes useful for a future appeal.

But Stancil didn’t come away empty handed.

Mansfield found “that two changes to the current situation are necessary to ensure Stancil’s ability to adequately prepare for trial.”

First, Mansfield ordered the Federal Detention Center to allow Stancil “access to a non-internet connected computer, tablet or laptop with word processing capability, containing the discovery, for up to eight hours per day.” His order also authorized the use of federal funds to purchase and set up a suitable laptop.

In addition, Mansfield ordered the government to work with lawyers for all of the remaining defendants, and the administration of the federal detention center, “to find an immediate solution to the problems, reported by Stancil’s counsel, of Stancil’s ability to meet with his attorneys.”

Further, he directed all parties to work with the federal detention center “to coordinate a schedule that permits Stancil, as well as his detained co-defendants (Mike, Dae Han Moon, Preston Kimoto, and Jarrin Young), to have all of the attorney-client visits they reasonably request.”

He directed them to advise the court if these visits cannot be accommodated.

Stancil’s motion had asked Mansfield to reconsider an earlier decision requiring the defendant to remain in custody until trial.

Mansfield referred to the law allowing a detention hearing to be reopened if the court finds that “information exists that was not known…at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will
reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.”

However, Mansfield concluded “that the facts justifying Stancil’s detention have not materially changed…with the result that detention remains appropriate” under the law.

In an important part of the ruling, Mansfield found that although Stancil and other defendants have been detained since their arrest three years ago, the scope and amount of evidence to be processed and disclosed to the defendants and their attorneys has been the primary reason for continued delays, and did not constitute a due process violation.

Finally, Mansfield also denied the request to vacate orders that require certain defendants to be separated from other defendants.

Stancil’s attorneys had argued that separation orders prevented joint defense meetings among all of the co-defendants and their lawyers.

Mansfield first ruled Stancil had not exhausted his administrative remedies through the Board of Prison’s grievance process.

Further, according to Mansfield’s order, “…the parties have not addressed how often these joint defense meetings might take place, who would participate, where the meetings would occur, or whether FDC guards would be permitted to maintain security in the meetings (and how that would impact the attorney-client privilege. With seven defendants (five detained) and ten attorneys, these meetings would appear to involve significant planning and coordination with FDC Honolulu, and of course a large, secured space. Stancil has not provided any of this information to the Court.”

During the earlier hearing on Stancil’s motion, Mansfield said his consultation with U.S. Marshalls determined it would not be feasible for the large group of attorneys and their clients to meet together in one of the federal courtrooms. Similarly, Mansfield indicated suggestions for using the visitors area at the federal detention center would likely be unmanageable, as it would deny all other detainees their regular visiting rights.

“Lastly, the Court has found no authority holding that pretrial detainees have a right, particularly a constitutional right, to conduct joint defense meetings with their counsel despite CIM (Central Inmate Monitoring) separation orders.”

Miske’s attorneys quickly filed a separate motion “to modify conditions of detention to permit defendants to prepare for trial with reasonable schedule of joint meetings of defendants and their counsel.” A hearing on this new motion is scheduled for August 9.