Attorneys for accused racketeering boss Michael J. Miske Jr. lost another skirmish on Wednesday when Magistrate Judge Kenneth Mansfield denied their motion seeking joint meetings between Miske, his remaining five co-defendants, and their attorneys.

Miske’s co-counsel, Lynn Panagakos and Michael Kennedy, filed a motion on July 19 “to modify or rescind separation orders that prevent him and all co-defendants from having joint defense meetings to prepare for trial.”

The motion asked “that the Court order a reasonable schedule of joint defense meetings involving all remaining trial defendant separatees (if any) and counsel, together with pretrial released trial defendants and their counsel,” arguing that the court needs to facilitate such meetings “to ensure the underlying Sixth Amendment issues inherent in joint defense agreement or common interest agreements.”

The motion points to count 1 of the third superseding indictment in the case, in which all remaining defendants are charged with “ an expansive and sweeping RICO conspiracy which alleges specific racketeering activity in eighteen separate types of acts over more than twenty years.”

“The vacuums in the knowledge of each defendant as to the alleged acts over twenty- plus years in count 1 damage the ability to mount an effective defense impairing the credibility of the defense as a whole,” the motion argues.

Behind the demand for joint meetings is an attempt to invalidate “separation orders” which presently require Miske and his half-brother and co-defendant, John Stancil, to be separated from unspecified co-defendants, making joint meetings involving defendants, as well as attorneys, impossible.

Mansfield, however, counters that Miske “cites no authority for the proposition that the Sixth Amendment requires the Bureau of Prisons or the Court to facilitate joint defense meetings among co-defendants and their counsel in a RICO conspiracy prosecution.”

What Mansfield is asking for is the prior court decisions that set a precedent for such a constitutional requirement. In several attempts, Miske’s attorneys have failed to offer any cases directly on point.

It is not known what separation orders are currently in place for the Miske defendants held in Honolulu’s Federal Detention Center, or what the justifications for those orders are.

Mansfield denied the request “to vacate or modify the separation orders” in order to allow joint meetings to be accommodated, and found “no authority holding that pretrial detainees have a right, particularly a constitutional right, to conduct joint defense meetings with their counsel despite CIM separation orders.”

As a practical matter, Mansfield observed that any such meeting would require significant planning to deal with security concerns and coordination with the detention center, as well as “a large, secured space.” It had previously been determined that neither the U.S. Courthouse nor the U.S. Marshall cellblock are options, and the motion offered no suggestions of when, where, or under what conditions such meetings could occur.

Miske’s attorneys can appeal Mansfield’s ruling to Judge Derrick Watson, who is the primary judge handling all the related Miske matters, and they have not been shy in bringing such appeals in the past.

Order denying motion to permit joint meetings of defendants and their counsel by Ian Lind on Scribd