Column: Kealohas entitled to impartial judgment, free of media bias

Many reviewing the media reports concerning former Police Chief Louis Kealoha and his wife, Katherine Kealoha, have already concluded that they must be guilty. Why bother to waste time with an actual trial?

No doubt, many felt the same way in 2015 when Katherine Kealoha, accused of stealing from her uncle and grandmother, went to trial in the civil case they filed against her. Reviewing the breathless media reports leading up to, and during, the trial, there seemed to be no doubt that she would lose, and lose big.

Maybe they were surprised by the trial’s outcome. After weeks of carefully examining the evidence, a jury of 12 thoroughly rejected the claims of both the uncle and the grandmother and found that Katherine Kealoha did nothing wrong. And the jury did even more: by “clear and convincing evidence,” they found that the claims made against Katherine Kealoha were based upon false statements, and awarded her $659,000, including $210,000 in punitive damages against the uncle. The court also awarded her an additional $18,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs against the grandmother. Little of this received media attention.

Now, the Kealohas are again facing imminent trial. In the federal system, few dare to go this far. Federal defendants who choose to contest the charges and testify in their own defense often face harsher penalties if convicted than those who strike a deal. With unlimited resources and an army of investigators at their disposal, federal prosecutors have the power to ratchet up the pressure by charging family members, seizing the family home, and piling on yet more charges against the defendants.

Federal prosecutors can also greatly control the narrative prior to trial, and influence the resulting mindset of potential jurors. They control the wording of the indictment, what evidence is published in pretrial proceedings, and what titillating tidbits can be offered which make for good press. Steady leaks of confidential grand jury information to favored reporters help to contribute to that narrative. Prosecutors can threaten and cajole witnesses in ways that, if done by a defendant, would be considered a serious crime. And while prosecutors must disclose to the defense all exculpatory evidence, it is they who get to first choose what is exculpatory and what is not.

The power of the federal government is so lopsided that it can sometimes be used to force even the innocent to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit. The Aloun Farms case is only the most recent example in Hawaii of that sad fact, and the defendants in that case might be in jail today but for the discernment of a courageous judge.

But even with the deck stacked so heavily against them, the Kealohas and their co-defendants have chosen to go to trial. Despite the almost daily media reports that assume their guilt, the defendants in this case will place their faith in jurors from this community who, they pray, will impartially and carefully review all the evidence and decide their innocence.

In our American system of justice, we don’t convict a defendant on media reports. A defendant enters the courtroom with the presumption of innocence. And unless the government proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant is entitled to leave the courtroom as an innocent person. The Kealohas and their co-defendants, like all of us, are entitled to a fair chance. They are entitled under the law to a jury of impartial citizens who have not already made up their minds, and who will review all of the evidence with impartiality. Let’s give them that chance.

Kevin Sumida was the attorney for Katherine Kealoha, who won a $650,000-plus judgment against her uncle and grandmother in a 2015 trial.