Good Evening Everybody! This is Marty from Dawg’s Blog. Tonight’s podcast for 9/4/2018. It is a Motion Day today. I’m sure many of you listened to the noontime report, many people did.
One thing that I wanted to repeat from the morning session. A gentleman by the name of Jared Jordan, a former deputy DA, in 2017 he was prosecuting a case that involved Michael Maunakea Jr. He was charged with burglary of someone in his apartment complex. Jared Jordan, a former deputy DA, (he is a public defender now) said he watched the surveillance video, taken from the apartment complex, showing the burglary taking place. Jared Jordan did not feel that Mike Maunakea Jr. was involved in the burglary or committed a crime. But he still took a plea for a criminal act. Mike Maunakea Jr was in the video, but did not see him carrying any of the stolen property. There was about $3600 worth of property taken in the burglary.
To me, this shows the mentality of the DA’s office. As a DDA, he felt there was no crime committed by this individual but still took a plea on a criminal charge instead of dismissing the charges. Now this young man has a criminal record. Think about that for a second. It is a serious issue. I think several people need to know about it, the Bar Association, the Attorney General’s office. This is serious in my book, it sounds simple but it’s not. It is a basic violation of rights.
The afternoon continued on the 402 Maunakea hearing. They are trying to say Mike Maunakea Sr. has been an informant. He tried to work off beefs in the past, for his son and his wife. This is a Percy Martinez motion. He wants to bring up these issues of trying to work off beefs in the past for himself and his family.
The jury was supposed to come in at 1:30. They ended up cancelling the jury, but two of the jurors still showed up because they didn’t get called in time.
Percy Martinez was arguing that Mike Maunakea Jr. never received a deal, but the issue is that Mike Maunakea Sr. attempted to gain a benefit for his son and that is the issue. He said Mike Maunakea Sr. shows emotion on the stand when Korey Kauffman’s name is mentions (Mike Maunakea Sr. does start sobbing whenever Korey Kauffman’s name is mentioned, that is an absolute fact) But he didn’t contact anyone for years. It was 2017 when he finally contacted someone. He went straight to the DDA in charge of his son’s case and offered information on the Carson case. He was directed to Kirk Bunch and a phone call was made to Kirk Bunch and also some emails exchanged subsequently. But he didn’t contact anyone for years. He testified on the stand that when his son was being prosecuted and he was trying to obtain private counsel, but ended up keeping a public defender the whole time. He never contacted law enforcement, the DA’s office, or Turlock PD. He talked to the DDA in charge of his son’s case that day when he was in court. Percy Martinez said the crime was a serious felony (it was a burglary of an occupied dwelling) and the jury should be allowed to determine what validity all this has.
Judge Zuniga said she read Mike Maunakea testimony from previous hearings. On cross he says there was no cases dismissed and no one knew he had come forward. Judge Zuniga was reading the transcripts and looking at his rap sheet and his probation actually ended 2 years prior to that. She said he also talked to a bailiff and the bailiff didn’t want the information. He didn’t talk to law enforcement because probation officers told him not to talk and Turlock PD would beat him up and tell him not to talk. She said Jared Jordan appeared to be very truthful (I thought he was very straightforward, truthful type of guy) and he saw Mike Maunakea Jr on the tape was not necessarily involved and didn’t see a crime. The DA didn’t make the offer of a plea bargain, the defense attorney did. The defendant took a deal, saying he didn’t commit the crime. Judge Zuniga said: Mike Maunakea said many different things and is impeachable. He’s said many things. The fact the DA did nothing, as far as making a deal for his son’s case, iis not relevant. The fact is that Mike Maunakea Sr. did try to make deal for his son and that is allowed. She said the nature of the case is not relevant, so the Jury can decide because it may be suspect. (I’m not totally sure what she meant by that. Maybe the charges themselves aren’t relevant, but the jury can decide what they believe about him approaching the DA).
They went on to another 402 Hearing, an evidentiary hearing. A 402 Hearing let’s them know what they are going to be allowed to ask in direct examination and cross examination.
Percy Martinez brought up an issue in a sidebar in July. Percy Martinez: There was good faith belief that Mike Maunakea Sr. offered to work off his beefs in the police report. This is another report. This goes back to 2010-2011 on a couple of cases. Mike Maunakea Sr. tried to work off an arrest, he was willing to give up another dealer who was bigger than him. He was trying to deflect attention from his wife and protect his family. (His wife was charged in this case too). His wife was actually convicted, but on lesser charges. But he was trying to work off the beefs for everybody involved. He tried to provide information in an effort to get out of going to jail that night, but they told him he was going to jail anyways. He was apparently talking about numerous, other dealers. Percy Martinez says It gives the defense a good faith belief of Mike Maunakea Sr. normal habit of behavior and customs when he gets into these types of situations.
Remember that is what they talk about, normal habit, customs and behaviors. They do with 1101 with defendants. Judge Zuniga says 1101 only applies to defendants, but Percy Martinez says it can apply in other situations too.
Jai Gohel argues there was demonstrable lie told by Mike Maunakea Sr., which was proven by his wife’s guilty plea, this was a specific act of untruthfulness by the witness, so he can be impeached. He gave some citations of case law and Judge Zuniga said she was familiar with them.
Marlissa Ferreira said the wife didn’t have a conviction. Judge Zuniga interrupted her and said she’s looking at the rap sheet and says it is the same case. She took a plea to some lesser charges (I believe), but the Marlissa Ferriera argued just because she may have given a plea doesn’t mean she knew what he was doing, and it does not make what Mike Maunakea Sr. said untrue. There must be a specific set of circumstances, so the defense argument fails. They cannot prove a lie, just because the wife plead to a charge. Judge Zuniga says they have the wife on a wire making a transaction with a Confidential Informant, she was reading a report from Turlock PD. Marlissa Ferreira was still trying to argue and the saying the sections do not apply to the situation of 1105, which is prior bad acts. It goes back to the relevant question was he lying for a benefit of some sort.
Percy Martinez argued that reading 1101, subsection C (I believe) said it does apply. Judge Zuniga said 1101 (prior bad acts) only applies to defendants. Percy Martinez says it applies to witness’ or anybody else in addition to defendants. It goes to habits and customs. If you have a guy that uses a certain type of weapon to attack people, it goes to habits and customs. If you take someone who has a penchant for knives, they use knives all the time, it is their habit. Percy Martinez said Mike Maunakea Sr was trying to protect his family by shifting blame to him and trying to give up other dealers to avoid going to jail.
Hans Hjertonsson: Steve Jacobson interviewed Mrs. Maunakea. In the drug charge plea she told Steve Jacobsen she was there to watch his (her husband’s) back to protect him from any attacks and in addition Korey Kauffman regularly exchanged property for drugs. So they were drug dealers and the wife was involved and had definite knowledge.
Jai Gohel argued it has been showed clearly that Mrs. Maunakea was involved and Mike Maunakea has lied and is definitely impeachable. He said the 1101 is not limited to just defendants but applies to anyone who states unknown facts that shows consistent behavior.
Marlissa Ferriera argued they are talking about impeachment of a witness, which can be done with priors. They cannot get into the facts of the crime, they can just talk about some of the acts. It comes down to what benefit Mike Maunakea Sr. has received: None. This case did not exist in 2011 so it is not relevant. It is prior to Korey Kauffman going missing. All this information is not relevant and there is no connection to the case. They are limited to the facts of this case and 1101 is not relevant.
They go back and forth, everyone wants to have the last word.
Percy Martinez argues that it is a challenge to Mike Maunakea Sr. credibility and dealings with law enforcement officers, as that is what he has a history of doing.
Jai Gohel offered this is more basis of evidence of a lie. The DA is trying to box everything into a small area, a very thin area. Any lie can be used for a credibility issue.
Judge Zuniga says this argument is what one would use for a informant or snitch on the prior two occasions, it’s now moved to a moral issue and it keeps morphing. She saying that every time they argue more issues become involved, instead of just the fact that he made contact, but he only did so in 2017, which she notes also. Judge Zuniga: The individual offered some information prior to Korey Kauffman case being started and she said that is an issue. Mike Maunakea Sr, was acting in a certain way, may be relevant and could be used like it was against the defendants (she mentioned the Athwals and their prior bad acts), but that is in the record. The fact that he was an informant, trying to go behind the scenes and get deals and benefits and what-have-you. He can be impeached. He’s already been impeached and now trying to cover for his wife. She is saying the wife issue is not relevant, the fact that he went to the DDA for his son in 2017 is what is relevant. She says side issues are not relevant, in regard to his wife. She advised Percy Martinez and Hans Hjertonsson not to address this in front of the jury, very sternly admonished them not to bring it up. They were done with that 402 hearing.
Then they bring up a mistrial motion that has been requested by the defense. I think it’s fascinating. Hans Hjertonsson has requesting information from Marlissa Ferreira because they have software on their emails that give particular information when an email comes in and goes out. He wants the information from when Jim Cook sent her that email on August 21, 2018, a Tuesday night. Jim Cook sent Marlissa Ferreira an email with the mapping he did on Google Earth Maps with their tools (not an eyeball and protractor – which is so 50’s). He sent two maps to Marlissa Ferreira. Hans Hjertonsson wants the email with all the information on it. Marlissa Ferreira has acknowledged that she received it on Tuesday night. On Wednesday (the next day) when Jim Cook testified he said he never used the Google software at any time. He said he never used it. The DA never advised on Wednesday, August 22, 2018 the receipt of the new maps. On August 23, which was the next Thursday, they received discovery of the two maps by Jim Cook (which the DA received on Tuesday night). She brought Jim Cook back in when he was supposed to be done on August 23, 2018 after the DA realized she needed to turn this over to the defense. Jim Cook took the stand again.
Percy Martinez is arguing the DA advised it was August 22 when she received the email. Marlissa Ferreira did clarify that she received them on August 21. She misspoke in chambers when she said it was on August 22nd.
The defense is saying that Marlissa Ferreira allowed Jim Cook to testify that he never did any mapping on Google Earth maps on Wednesday, August 22, 2018. She never corrected Jim Cook. She had an opportunity in redirect and she didn’t do it, so they are saying she allowed Jim Cook to commit perjury. She suborned perjury. This could end up being a big problem, I don’t know, but it’s an interesting point.
Marlissa Ferreira argued she did receive it on August 21st and she did turn it over August 23rd, two days later. But Jim Cook was on the stand August 22nd. So, they are going to write briefs. The defense is requesting a mistrial. Many of these mistrial requests are for legal purposes, I think this a legitimate issue (Not that there haven’t been before).
Jai Gohel said they need to brief it, provide transcripts. Jim Cook gave false testimony and the DA sat on her hands and said nothing.
It has been scheduled and this is going to be a fiery one. The filing date for the defense is September 18, 2018. The DA response is due on September 26, 2018. The defense response to the DA filing is on October 3, 2018. The hearing is scheduled for October 16, 2018.
It is an interesting point that will be argued and will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Also, of note, Kevin Valine was in the courtroom today. He wrote a pretty good article today, pretty accurate. I compliment him on it. He writes better than Rosalio does, IMO.
If you have anything to say or any questions, now is the time!