At 1 p.m. Tuesday, a text from the federal court in Honolulu announced that the parties had rested in Phase II of the trial of Mike Miske, in which the jury has to decide whether the prosecutors have proven that millions of dollars in real estate, cash, and collectible cars owned by Michael Miske were tied to the racketeering enterprise he operated and, as a result, must be forfeited to the government.

It took just a day and a half for both sides to present their respective cases and turn the matter over to the jury.

Here is the jury instruction regarding what is required justify forfeiture of the assets. It appear that the third element is the one mostly at issue in the Miske case.

Under federal law, any defendant convicted of racketeering conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962, shall forfeit to the United States any property that constitutes: (1) any interest the Defendant has acquired or maintained in violation of Section 1962; (2) any interest in, security of, claim against, or property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of influence over any enterprise that the defendant established, operated, controlled, conducted, or participated in the conduct of as part of the offense; or (3) any property constituting or derived from any proceeds the Defendant obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity.

Unlike the earlier phase of the trial, where government charges had to be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard of proof required in this second phase is lower, “by a preponderance of the evidence.”

According to the instructions read to the jury by Judge Derrick Watson:

To “establish by a preponderance of the evidence” means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim is more probably true than not true. This means that something is more likely present than not present. To put it differently, if you were to put the government’s evidence and the Defendant’s evidence on opposite sides of a balance scale, the government’s evidence would have to make the scale tip slightly on its side of the balance. If the government’s evidence fails to do this with respect to any item of property, then the government has not met its burden of proof with respect to that item of property.

The list of property at issue in this forfeiture stage of the trial can be found in this post from last month.

The jury will continue deliberating on Wednesday morning.