Acquittal in Honolulu bribery case sparks debate over campaign contributions
A federal jury acquitted former Honolulu prosecutor Keith Kaneshiro and several executives of Mitsunaga & Associates Inc. in a bribery case that captivated the Aloha state. The criminal charges revolved around allegations that the engineering firm funneled nearly $50,000 in campaign donations to Kaneshiro in exchange for prosecuting a former employee, Laurel Mau, on false theft allegations.
The verdict was reached last week following a two-month trial and two days of deliberation in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, located in the Prince Kuhio Federal Building in Honolulu. The court found Kaneshiro, Dennis Mitsunaga, the former CEO of Mitsunaga & Associates, and four company associates not guilty of conspiracy.
Defense attorney Thomas Otake commented outside the courtroom, “Calling something corrupt in Hawaii when it’s not, does just as much to harm the public’s faith in the system as actual corruption itself. And that’s what happened here.”
The acquittal highlights the legal complexities surrounding campaign finance and political donations, which the defense argued were constitutionally protected.
Allegations of Pay-for-Prosecution
Federal prosecutors alleged that between 2012 and 2016, Mitsunaga’s employees donated significant sums to Kaneshiro’s campaigns to influence his office to prosecute Mau, a former architect at the firm, who had sued for sex and age discrimination after her termination. According to the prosecution, the donations were part of a scheme to retaliate against Mau for her lawsuit. The accused faced potential fines and up to 15 years in prison on two separate conspiracy counts.
Defense’s Argument
The defense maintained that the donations were legitimate political contributions and that Mitsunaga and his associates genuinely believed Mau had committed theft. They argued that pursuing charges against Mau was based on this belief, not an illicit agreement.
More: When will the Trump trial reach a verdict? 'Anybody's guess' once jury deliberation begins
During the trial, it was revealed that prosecutors Dwight Nadamoto and Christopher Van Marter initially found no basis for criminal charges against Mau. However, the case was later reassigned and pursued, raising questions about the influence of political donations.
Courtroom Reactions and Future Uncertainties
The verdict was met with emotional reactions in the courtroom, with defendants and their attorneys breaking into tears, and applause from their supporters. Kaneshiro, expressing relief and vindication, criticized the federal prosecution for casting a long-standing cloud of suspicion over him and his co-defendants.
“The trial took two months. The jury came back in a day and a half,” Kaneshiro said outside the courthouse. “What does it say about the government’s evidence and its investigation? I feel vindicated. But how am I going to get back my reputation?”
When asked about a potential return to public office, Kaneshiro remained non-committal, while Mitsunaga humorously offered his support, sans campaign donations.
A Notable Legal Battle
The trial, prosecuted by San Diego-based Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Wheat, was part of a broader investigation into corruption in Honolulu. Wheat previously secured convictions in a major corruption case involving former deputy prosecutor Katherine Kealoha and former police chief Louis Kealoha. The loss in the Kaneshiro and Mitsunaga case marks a significant setback for Wheat’s team.
Despite the acquittal, Mitsunaga still faces potential charges of witness tampering and obstruction of justice related to efforts to alter witness testimony. A grand jury has been convened, but no charges have been announced yet.
Political Implications and Campaign Finance Scrutiny
The trial highlighted the extensive political donations by Mitsunaga and his associates, amounting to over $1 million to various candidates from 2006 to 2021. Evidence showed some donations were made illegally under others’ names. Subcontractors testified they felt pressured to donate to maintain business relationships with Mitsunaga’s firm.
Despite these revelations, the defense successfully argued that the donations to Kaneshiro, though substantial, were a small fraction of their total political contributions and not indicative of a quid pro quo arrangement.
Jeremy Yurow is a politics reporting fellow based in Hawaii for the USA TODAY Network. You can reach him at JYurow@gannett.com or on X, formerly Twitter @JeremyYurow
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Hawaii executives found not guilty in pay-for-prosecution case
