Latest news with #TheMailboxConspiracy
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kealoha buyout plea deal explained
Attorney Alexander Silvert, author of 'The Mailbox Conspiracy,' joins producer/host Coralie Chun Matayoshi to discuss charges in the original and superseding indictments, how to prove a conspiracy, evidence of the charges, elements of the plea agreements, and why each side was willing to strike plea deals and end the Kealoha conspiracy saga. Q. It's been 3 years since former Corporation Council Donna Leong, Police Commission Chair Max Sword and City Managing Director Roy Amemiya were indicted for Conspiracy to Defraud the United States in connection with police chief Louis Kealoha's $250,000 severance payout. What were the three defendants charged with in the original indictment on December 16, 2021? The defendants were charged with Conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. Section 371, which is a felony because the purpose of the conspiracy was to knowingly and without authority convert $5,000 or more from a program receiving federal funding [18 U.S.C. Section 666(a)(1)(A)] or obtain funds under false pretenses [18 U.S.C. 1343], both of which are felonies, and conceal the source of the funds from the Honolulu City Council and public. Felony conspiracy is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine up to $250,000. Q. What is a conspiracy? A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Conspiracy is a separate offense than committing the crime itself. For example, one who conspires with another to commit Burglary and in fact commits the burglary can be charged with both conspiracy to commit burglary and burglary. The law seeks to punish conspiracy as a substantive crime separate from the intended crime because when two or more persons agree to commit a crime, the potential for criminal activity increases, and as a result, the danger to the public increases. Therefore, the very act of an agreement with criminal intent, along with an overt at is considered sufficiently dangerous to warrant charging conspiracy as an offense separate from the intended crime. It is not necessary to show actual loss by government as a result of defendant's actions. Q. What kind of evidence did the federal prosecutor have to prove the charges? The three defendants allegedly manipulated the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) to pay for part of Chief Kealoha's settlement with funds that were supposed to be used for vacant funded positions. They then allegedly made 'materially false and misleading representations and omissions' to the Honolulu City Council to reallocate city funds to cover the Kealoha payment. They allegedly persuaded HPD to tell the City Council that their request for additional fourth-quarter funds was because of a 'salary shortfall.' When HPD refused to pay for the settlement out of their budget, Leong allegedly told HPD that City Council approval could be circumvented by 'falsely claiming HPD had used the money to hire new employees,' then request additional money from the Department of Budget and Fiscal Services (DFS) to cover the shortfall. DFS could then fill the alleged shortfall without City Council approval. The City Council would only have to be 'notified' of the monetary transfer by DFS. Funds would also be split into three parts to fall below the $100,00 level that would require City Council approval. When the City Council asked Sword whether the payment was going to be presented to the full Council for a vote Sword allegedly replied that the settlement 'was primarily based on Kealoha's employment and retirement concerns and did not solely or primarily concern the use of federal funds.' HPD leadership continued to push back saying they could not afford the payment without slashing services and asked why they needed to make payment to Kealoha. 'Oh, the reason it's very simple,' Sword allegedly said, according to the indictment. 'So you don't have to go to the seven bananas, I mean nine bananas up at the Council.' The indictment indicates that Amemiya was not involved in the decision regarding Chief Kealoha's severance but allegedly told acting Chief Cary Okimoto that he was 'burning bridges' by objecting to pay the settlement out of HPD's budget and not to raise the topic of the payment at the upcoming Council meeting. Q. A superseding indictment filed on March 17, 2022, contained some additional charges. What were they? Former Corporation Council Donna Leong was charged with 5 counts of making materially false and fictitious and fraudulent statements to the FBI regarding her secretly taped conversations with the Acting HPD Chief concerning the Kealoha's payout agreement in violation of U.S.C. 1001. Q. All three defendants initially pled not guilty, and several trial dates were set before a plea agreement was worked out to avoid trial and draw the case to a close. What did the defendants agree to? Leong and Sword will plead guilty to misdemeanor conspiracy to deprive the residents of Honolulu of their rights, and each pay a fine of $100,000 and serve one year of supervised release. Charges against Amemiya will be reduced to same deprivation of rights misdemeanor and he will enter into a deferred prosecution agreement that requires two years of supervised release, community service, and a $50,000 fine. Charges against him will be dismissed as long as he is not convicted of a crime and abides by all the terms of his supervised release. The total the three defendants will pay is $250,000. The same amount lost to the taxpayers by the payout to Chief Kealoha to retire. All three are due in federal court on March 4 for a waiver of indictment, arraignment and plea, and Leong and Sword will also be sentenced that day. Q. Why do you think both sides were willing to enter into a plea deal and why did it benefit both parties? This was a case where it appeared the verdict could have gone to either party, which is unusual in a federal criminal trial where the prosecution usually has built a very solid case. Each defendant had a viable defense: Sword could have argued that he was only a civilian following the legal advice of the chief civil attorney for the City and County: Leong. Amemiya could have argued that all he did was follow the direction of the mayor by getting Kealoha to retire but had no idea as to how the $250,000 payment was going to be made. Leong could have argued that she was only following the advice given to her by the chief of the Department of Budget and Financial Services who had told her this is how the City and County had done this kind of thing before. And, if Sword and Amemiya were found not guilty, then there was no 'conspiracy' no matter what the jury believed about Leong's intent because a conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more people. Given these defenses and the uncertainty of gaining convictions against all three defendants, the government was willing to negotiate. Entering into the plea agreement where all three of the three defendants admitted wrongdoing, with two being convicted of lessor charges was the compromise that worked for both parties. Moreover, the agreement assures that the three defendants will pay back the $250,000 that was given to Kealoha through the wrongful actions of the defendants. To learn more about this subject, tune into this video 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
03-03-2025
- Yahoo
Love triangle murder guilty verdict explained
Attorney Alexander Silvert, author of 'The Mailbox Conspiracy,' joins producer/host Coralie Chun Matayoshi to discuss themes used by the prosecution and defense, examination of the evidence pointing to Eric Thompson's guilt including motive, DNA, surveillance footage, firearm training, and post-nuptial agreement, likely reasons why Thompson's wife Joyce didn't testify, what sentence Thompson is likely to receive (including enhanced sentencing which the jury is deliberating over), and civil suit filed by Jon Tokuhara's mother against Thompson and his wife for wrongful death, infliction of emotional distress, and negligence by Joyce in creating a risk that her husband might do harm. Q. Eric Thompson's first trial for the murder of acupuncturist Jon Tokuhara ended in a hung jury. Now the jury in his second trial has found him guilty of killing his wife's lover as well as firearms charges, which are both felonies. Before we get into the evidence, I wanted to do a quick anatomy of a trial. What is the purpose of an opening statement? An opening statement is a roadmap of the facts that each side intends to prove. What the attorneys say in their opening statements is not evidence, but declarations of what they believe the evidence will show. Opening statements are given at the beginning of the trial and the Prosecutor in a criminal trial goes first because the government has the burden of proof. Q. At the end of the trial, each side gives their closing argument. What is the purpose of a closing argument? Like the opening statement, closing arguments are not evidence. They are an attempt to persuade the jurors to interpret the evidence in a way that favors their side (i.e. a guilty verdict for the Prosecutor or a not guilty for the Defense). Closing arguments occur after all of the witnesses have testified and all of the evidence has been presented. Attorneys generally summarize the key evidence presented during the trial, highlight the strengths of their case and address any weaknesses in the opposing side's argument. They may also remind the jury of the applicable laws and the burden of proof. In a criminal trial, the Prosecution presents their closing argument first, followed by the Defense counsel. The Prosecutor then has an opportunity for rebuttal and is usually entitled to the last word because the government has the burden of proof. Q. So, there are opening statements in the beginning and closing arguments at the end, but the most important part is presentation of the evidence in between. And although the jurors can be persuaded to view the evidence one way or another by either side, their verdict must be based on the evidence and nothing else. But because so much evidence is presented at trial, it is sometimes hard for jurors to keep track of everything. Thus, each side often uses a theme to tell their story of what happened. What themes did the Prosecutor and Defense use in this case? The Prosecution described Thompson as a controlling perfectionist who tried to fix his marriage through murder to restore his perfect life. Thompson worked hard to start a successful business and purchase a $2 million home in East Oahu. When he found out about his wife Joyce's affair with Jon Tokuhara, he made her confess to her parents, apologize to them for the affair, and admonished her not to see psychics anymore because the psychic apparently told her that it was okay to have an affair with Tokuhara. He also made her sign a post-nuptial agreement saying that if they divorced, he got the house and sole custody of their child. The Defense complained that shoddy police work resulted in contamination of DNA evidence, didn't follow up on all leads, and HPD wrongfully focused their entire investigation on Thompson to the exclusion of other possible suspects. They also argued that the surveillance footage didn't match and that Thompson had an alibi. Q. The defendant in a criminal case does not need to prove his innocence. It's the Prosecutor who has the burden of proving that the defendant committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Much of the evidence was circumstantial because rarely is there an eyewitness to a murder. Now let's discuss the key evidence in the case. Motive – although the Prosecution does not have to prove motive, jurors are made up of human beings who naturally want to know why something happened. If they can't find areasonable explanation for why the defendant would have, for example killed someone, that can create reasonable doubt which can lead to an acquittal. In this case, the prosecution argued that Thompson had a strong motive to kill his wife's lover. The nature of the gunshot wounds (4 bullets to the face) at close range showed that the killing was personal, and that the perpetrator probably knew the victim. There were no signs of a struggle and a bag containing $4,000 in cash was left untouched, casting doubt that this was a robbery. The Defense contended that others might also have had a motive to kill Tokuhara, including husbands of other wives who had been romantically involved with Tokuhara, or it may have been someone seeking to collect on a gambling debt. DNA evidence – surveillance footage showed a man wearing a white bucket hat go in and out of Tokuhara's clinic at the time of the murder. The bucket hat fell onto the road as the man hurriedly left the clinic, a homeless man picked it up, and the police recovered it. Ahead of the second trial, DNA from the hat was sent to an outside laboratory for testing because an audit of HPD's crime lab had found some concerning issues that could cast the DNA results into question. The outside lab had greater capabilities than HPD's crime lab at the time, and Prosecutors wanted to ensure that the DNA testing was reliable. DNA testing of the bucket hat indicated that Thompson was 16.4 trillion times more likely to be the contributor of the DNA than two control sample contributors. The lab also ruled out DNA belonging to Darryl Fujita (the ex-boyfriend of someone involved with Jon Tokuhara) finding the chance of the DNA being Fujita's was 13.8 octillion. The power of DNA evidence is that it can include and exclude suspects of a crime. Surveillance footage and timeline – surveillance footage showed a man go in and out of Tokuhara's clinic at the time of the murder (6:15 pm) and driving off at about 6:23 pm eastbound in a white Chevy Silverado truck. Thompson owns such a truck. A burned-out pot in a wheelbarrow found by the police at Thompson's home could have been used to destroy evidence, and flashes of fire were seen in a neighbor's surveillance video that evening. The Defense argued that surveillance footage showed 'the hat guy' and the white truck at different places at the same time, and that the murder took place later that evening. Thompson claimed that he was at the Waimanalo dump at the time of the murder disposing of bricks, bought some items at Longs Drugstore using cash (a credit or debit card would have provided proof of his whereabouts), and that he lit a tiki torch to play outside with his daughter that evening. The prosecution rebutted this argument by saying that a detective had driven both routes to measure how much time it took to go to the dump versus to Tokuhara's office, and the timing showed that it was much more likely that Thompson had gone to Tokuhara's office than to the dump. Firearms training – Thompson owns .22 caliber guns, the same type of firearms used in the shooting and admitted to going to the range for target practice. Post-nuptial agreement – eleven days before the murder, the couple entered into agreement that Thompson would get the house and sole custody of their daughter if they divorced. The Prosecutor alleged that Thompson made his wife sign the agreement to silence her. In addition, a note was found on Joyce's desk that 'an unfaithful spouse will not show remorse,' something the Prosecutor said showed that Thompson was still upset over the affair. The Defense argued that it was Thompson's wife Joyce's idea to enter into the agreement to prove her faithfulness. Their relationship was nearly back to normal, and they were enjoying family time during the holidays. But the Prosecution questioned why Joyce would 'give up her motherhood.' Q. Why wasn't Thompson's wife Joyce called to testify? She could have told the jury whether her husband went to dump bricks or buy groceries, and she could have told the jury if the flames seen in video footage were really a tiki torch or something being burned in a wheelbarrow. Under the spousal privilege rule (Rule 505 of the Hawaii Rules of Evidence), the spouse of the accused has a right to refuse to testify, and it is that spouse's sole decision. However, if the spouse is going to talk about marital privileged communications, then either spouse can invoke the privilege. So, Eric Thompson's wife Joyce could have testified, but if she spoke about marital communications, Eric could have stopped her (i.e., Joyce could have testified to what she might have seen or heard, but not what Eric might have told her which would be privileged marital communications). This spousal privilege applies when the defendant and spouse are married at the time of the prosecution and does not survive the dissolution of marriage. Q. Now that he has been convicted, what kind of sentence might Thompson face? Murder in the second degree: life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. In cases where the crime is especially heinous, the defendant committed murder before, or a firearms offense is involved, the defendant can receive an enhanced sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole if they would pose a danger to society. The jury in this case decided against imposing an enhanced sentence of imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Carrying or use of a firearm in commission of a separate felony: up to 20 years or more depending upon the circumstances. It is a Class A felony which requires a separate sentence from that of the underlying offense, but the court does have the discretion to impose a concurrent sentence. Q. This is not the end. Thompson will probably appeal, but the grounds for appeal need to be errors in how the law was applied, and not a dispute over the facts correct? Grounds for appeal in a criminal case include legal errors by the trial court, such as improper jury instructions or admission of evidence, insufficient evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, jury misconduct, or ineffective assistance of counsel. Q. Jon Tokuhara's mother filed a civil suit for wrongful death, infliction of emotional distress, and negligence against Joyce Thompson for failing to refrain from conduct that would create an unreasonable risk of harm through her husband's conduct. Since the burden of proof is lower in a civil than a criminal case, what do you think will happen? Evidence presented in the criminal trial is admissible in the civil case and since the burden of proof is lower, the plaintiff will likely prevail. To learn more about this subject, tune into this video 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
