Not long after the racketeering trial of former Honolulu business owner Michael J. Miske Jr adjourned for the day Friday afternoon, a lengthy draft of instructions that will eventually guide members of the jury through their deliberations was filed in court.

The jury instructions are the detailed explanations of the law that will frame their eventual decisions on guilt or innocence. This draft runs for 176 pages, a reflection of the complexities of the case and the complications in the racketeering and conspiracy charges.

The court’s draft is based on instructions that were agreed upon by the government and the defense, as well as their arguments they made when there was disagreement. Additional legal arguments will be considered by the court before this set of instructions is finalized.

With the trial expected to take several more months, there’s ample time to sort out the remaining issues.

For those looking at this case from the outside, these instructions are a reminder of the tension between the rights of the defendant and the rule of law.

The first 26 instructions are concise statements of legal basics necessary to do the job of the jury.

The indictment describes the charges. It is not evidence.

The government has the burden of proving every element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, but not beyond all possible doubt.

What lawyers say is not evidence, and it is not binding on the jury.

The jury must consider both direct and circumstantial evidence, and can give both equal weight, and must decide to what extent each witness is credible or believable.

The list seems to go on and on.

Use the link below to read through these first twenth-six broad instructions.

Tomorrow, a look at the complexities of RICO, or the Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act.

jury instructions 1-26 court draft

The racketeering trial of former Honolulul business owner Michael J. Miske Jr. won’t resume until April 1 due to the illness of a jury member, according to a notice from the federal court Tuesday afternoon.

In the meantime, a comment here on Monday raised several good questions that deserve a reply.

Did Young actually serve any time in prison, or was the”time served” at home? I thought they were all released after they pled guilty, while awaiting sentencing.

BTW, it seems very strange, that ANY of them were released after pleading guilty. I’ve alway supported release prior to trial in almost all cases, but release after pleading guilty? Why is that? We’ve already seen one of them use the time to beat someone up! What’s to stop the others from settling whatever scores they have, or, for that matter, intimidating witnesses?

Miske and the first 10 co-defendants were indicted in June 2020. The indictment was originally sealed to allow time to organize the defendants’ arrests, most of which were done in a simultaneous pre-dawn sweep by federal agents on July 15, 2020. I’ve heard allegations that HPD wasn’t involved because the FBI feared their plans would be leaked to Miske, although I’ve seen no evidence to support this.

Jarrin Young was held in the Federal Detention Center from the time of his arrest until he was recently sentenced to time already served, and released. He still will remain under court supervised release for three years.

I think only two defendants, Preston Kimoto and Hunter Wilson, were quickly released pending trial based on pretrial reports by the court’s pretrial services office, both subject to specific conditions.

Michael Buntenbah was released on bond three months later following a successful appeal of his continued detention to Judge Derrick Watson.

Jason Yokoyama and Delia Fabro-Miske, who were added as defendants in a superseding indictment, were also released pending trial.

In order to justify continued detention, the government must prove either that the defendants are flight risks and may attempt to disappear before trial or sentencing, or that they pose a risk to the community that cannot be mitigated using routine procedures, including location monitoring, prohibition on contact with anyone involved in the case, staying out of legal trouble and avoiding legal or illegal intoxicants, etc.

Those who were free on bond and later entered guilty pleas had their status reviewed after their plea, again with input from federal pretrial services applying generally the same standards.

In two cases, violations of the terms of release led to new arrests, return to detention, and in one case to an additional charge that resulted in a guilty plea, demonstrating the consequences when defendants abuse conditional release.

Preston Kimoto was free when he was rearrested for witness tampering after threatening a witness in his case. Following this arrest, he entered into a plea deal with prosecutors and pleaded guilty, but remains in detention pending sentencing.

Michael Buntenbah remained free after his guilty plea, but was rearrested earlier this year after attacking a man in a Waikiki bar. His release on bond was revoked, and his bail was forfeited by court order.

Most of those who have entered guilty pleas as part of deals with prosecutors have agreed to testify against their former associates if requested, and are on the government’s list of potential witnesses against Miske.

Two of those former co-defendants, Preston Kimoto and Kaulana Freitas, have already appeared in court and testified against Miske as government witnesses. Others are likely to be called later.

A Valentine’s Day motion filed by federal prosecutors asks that Michael Buntenbah, also known as Michael Joseph Buntenbah Malone, forfeit his $250,000 bond, after his release on bond was revoked following an assault in a Waikiki bar last month. The bond is secured by a mortgage on his Kaneohe residence, which is now at risk.

Buntenbah, one of the original 10 co-defendants in the racketeering case targeting former Honolulu busines owner, Michael J. Miske Jr., pleaded guilty in March 2022 and had been released on bond pending his sentencing.

According to the government’s motion:

For the reasons set forth below, the Court should find that the conditions of the bond in this case were breached when the Defendant instigated and committed a violent and unprovoked assault on an innocent victim who was peaceably drinking with friends in a public restaurant – stomping on the victim’s back while he lay helpless and passive on the ground – and order that bail be forfeited pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(1)(1). The Court should not set aside the mandatory forfeiture of the bond pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(1)(2) because the Defendant cannot demonstrate “that justice does not require bail forfeiture.”

The assault, which took place in the Moani Waikiki Island Bistro and Bar in the International Marketplace on January 20, was described here in a February 5 post (“Defend Hawaii owner back in federal custody after instigating a Waikiki brawl“).

According to the new government motion:

On January 30, 2024, the Defendant was arrested for assaulting an individual at a local restaurant on January 20, 2024. The Defendant, his two sons (including the son appointed as his third-party custodian), and several other men approached the victim’s table while the victim was seated with friends having drinks. The Defendant called the victim a “rat” due to the victim’s past history with co-defendant Michael Miske. The victim remained seated as the Defendant initiated a verbal altercation with the victim, and the Defendant’s associates then began to beat the victim, who remained seated, as well as a second individual who was sitting at the table with the victim. The Defendant began hitting that second individual, while the Defendant’s associates grabbed the victim and dragged him to the floor. The Defendant then proceeded to stomp on the victim, who was curled up on the ground. The assault was captured on security camera video footage and further corroborated by the victim. The victim stated that he initially did not report the incident because he did not want to be involved, have further issues, or be viewed as a “rat,” and he knew the Defendant was on federal probation and would return to prison if he reported the assault. [citations omitted]

Prosecutors argue that forfeiture is mandatory “where a defendant breaches a condition of his bond,” although the court may decline to order a forfeiture if “it appears that justice does not require bail forfeiture.”

“The deliberate nature of the Defendant’s violent conduct and the lack of any mitigating factors strongly weigh against setting aside the mandatory forfeiture,” the government argues.

“The Defendant, knowing he was released on a secured bond and subject to clear conditions of release, nonetheless attacked a defenseless victim while he was seated in a chair, along with a second individual. What is perhaps more galling for the Court is that the Defendant’s brutal attack on the victim is analogous to the beatings he inflicted on others on behalf of the Miske organization, the very conduct for which he was on conditions of release.”

The prosecution memo accuses Buntenbah of a “blatant and egregious disregard of this conditions of release,” one of which was that he not violate any federal, state, or local law while on release.

“Moreover, there are no mitigating factors to suggest justice does not require forfeiture. The video footage of the assault speaks for itself. The Defendant (bringing with him numerous associates as backup) instigated a violent and unprovoked assault against a victim, who did not fight back even as the Defendant stomped on the victim’s back while he was curled up on the ground,” the motion argues.

Buntenbah had been released from custody on October 9, 2020, after providing a secured $500,000 mortgage on a Popoki Street residence in Kaneohe, currently valued for real property tax purposes at $1,703,400. Property records show Buntenbah has claimed an owner-occupant tax deduction since 2015.

The amount of the secured bond was later reduced to $250,000.

The mortgage, filed in the Bureau of Conveyances, explicitly authorizes the government to file a foreclosure action “if the terms and conditions” of the bond are not met.

But if the terms and conditions of the aforementioned Appearance Bond are not observed and performed by the aforesaid MICHAEL J. BUNTENBAH, the Mortgagee may foreclose this Mortgage by civil action, with the immediate right to a receivership pending foreclosure, or, as now provided by law, either by entry and possession, or (with or without entry and possession) by advertisement and sale of the mortgaged property or any part or parts thereof at public auction, and may in its own name or as the attorney-in-fact of the Mortgagor, for such purpose hereby irrevocably appointed, effectually convey the property so sold to the purchaser or purchasers absolutely and forever, and any foreclosure shall forever bar the Mortgagor and all persons claiming under the Mortgagor from all right and interest in the property, at law and in equity; and out of the proceeds of any foreclosure sale, the Mortgagee may deduct all costs and expenses of foreclosure and/or suit, and retain or be awarded all sums then payable by or chargeable under the terms of the aforementioned Appearance Bond rendering to the Mortgagor the surplus, if any. If such proceeds shall be insufficient to discharge the same in full, the Mortgagee may have any other legal recourse against the Mortgagor for the deficiency.

The court set a February 21 deadline for a response by Buntenbah’s attorneys. A hearing on the forfeiture motion is then scheduled before Federal Judge Derrick Watson on the afternoon of February 27.