The defense in the the racketeering trial of former Honolulu business owner, Michael J. Miske Jr., got off to a rocky start on Wednesday, when the trial resumed after a week off.

Before the jury entered, prosecutors objected to a defense witness scheduled to testify, arguing that a list of proposed defense exhibits were received too late to be reviewed prior to his testimony.

The witness, Kenneth J. Hines, is a former Internal Revenue Service criminal investigator who was with the agency in a variety of positions from 1991 through 2015. In a declaration filed in court in 2020, Hines said he is a certified fraud examiner and anti-money laundering specialist. He holds a Master of Science degree from the University of Washington in accounting, and teaches forensic accounting at the University of Washington, according to his resume.

Hines is expected to challenge prosecutors’ assessment of what they said were questionable aspects of the Miske companies’ finances.

Hines was retained by one of Miske’s attorneys in January 2019 “to examine the books and records of Kama’aina Termite and other entities related to Mr. Miske in anticipation of an expected indictment,” according to a declaration previously filed in the case.

In his declaration, Hines said he found no evidence in the business and tax records he had reviewed “of money being siphoned off to hidden or unknown entities.”

Echoing recurring themes in Miske defense so far, Hines’ declaration mentioned a laundry list of large termite treatment jobs completed by Kamaaina Termite, and commented on its positive contributions to the community in employement provided and taxes paid.

The disputed defense exhibits include a number of so-called “1006” summary reports. Assistant U.S. Attorney Aislinn Affinito told Judge Derrick Watson that a few were sent to prosecutors about 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, and additional documents provided later, including the latest at 1:50 a.m. Wednesday.

Rule 1006 of the federal Rules of Evidence provides:

The proponent may use a summary, chart, or calculation to prove the content of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs that cannot be conveniently examined in court. The proponent must make the originals or duplicates available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and place. And the court may order the proponent to produce them in court.

Affinito said prosecutors must have time to review the summaries as well as the underlying documents to validate their contents.

Although Lynn Panagakos, one of Miske’s co-counsel, argued that the underlying documents have long been available to the government, Judge Watson said he government’s request for additional time to review the documents was not unreasonable, and said he shared the same concerns.

Watson then ruled that Hines would not be allowed to testify on Wednesday or Thursday. In addition, he gave attorneys on both sides a deadline of “no later than the close of court” on Thursday, but preferably at the start of the day, to provide their arguments in writing with citations to legal authorities. He will then determine whether Hines testimony will be permitted to begin on Friday, or whether a delay until next week or beyond will be required.

After the jury was seated, the defense case began by calling five witnesses involved in forensic evidence analysis for the Honolulu Police Department. I’ll defer to Civil Beat’s Madeleine Valera, who has an excellent concise review of their testimony.

Due to the dispute over Hine’s testimony, Wednesday’s court session was cut short just after 10:30 a.m., and the trial will resume Thursday morning at its regular 8:30 start time.

After the jury was dismissed for the day, Miske’s lead defense counsel, Michael Kennedy, said he expects the defense case in chief will take from 7 to 15 trial days, and could be completed before the trial breaks for the 4th of July holiday.