A Hawaii Circuit Court judge dismissed a felony theft case Monday against a Honolulu architect after voicing grave concerns about the circumstances that led to the charges.

Judge Karen Nakasone described the case as 鈥渉ighly unusual,鈥� 鈥渋rregular鈥� and a 鈥渢hreat to the judicial process.鈥�

She also said it 鈥渋llustrates the danger鈥� of allowing prosecutors to file charges via information, meaning it鈥檚 not vetted by a grand jury or a judge during a preliminary hearing.

The key players in the case are Mitsunaga & Associates, an architectural and engineering firm with a long history in Hawaii politics, and Laurel Mau, a former employee who had filed a sex and age discrimination lawsuit against the company in 2012.

Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Keith Kaneshiro is also a central figure, if only because his top political donors include several members of Mitsunaga & Associates.

Kaneshiro told Civil Beat on Monday that Nakasone鈥檚 ruling was 鈥渃ompletely wrong鈥� and that he plans to file an appeal.

His office charged Mau with four counts of second-degree felony theft in December 2014 after representatives from Mitsunaga & Associates told city prosecutors she stole money from the firm by performing side jobs on company time.

The charges also included allegations Mau told one of her clients that she was working on behalf of Mitsunaga & Associates when she was not.

If convicted, Mau could have faced up to five years in prison for each of the four counts.

鈥淥rdinarily, law enforcement agencies, such as (the Honolulu Police Department) could have and should have conducted the investigation, but that was not done in this case.” 鈥� Judge Karen Nakasone

But Judge Nakasone said representatives of Mitsunaga & Associates appear to have 鈥渙rchestrated the vast majority of the investigation鈥� that was relied upon by prosecutors.聽

She said the affidavits and witness statements used to support the charges against Mau looked to have been prepared by Mitsunaga & Associates鈥� own attorney, Sherri Tanaka.

Tanaka represented Mitsunaga & Associates in Mau’s lawsuit against the company. She was also part of a counter-claim in which the firm accused Mau of a “breach of duty of loyalty.”

Mau鈥檚 claims of discrimination were denied in July 2014, and the company was awarded $1 in damages. Its request for more than $73,000 in attorneys fees and other costs in October 2014.

Nakasone said there appeared to be little vetting in the criminal case by either the city鈥檚 investigator, Vernon Branco, or deputy prosecuting attorney Jacob Delaplane, who signed off on the charging documents.

More concerning to Nakasone was the fact that the prosecuting attorney鈥檚 office brought this case on its own, without any outside help from law enforcement.聽

There was no grand jury or preliminary hearing in front of a judge to determine probable cause.

鈥淥ther than the complainant Mitsunaga & Associates鈥� own in-house investigation, no independent, outside investigatory body appears to have been consulted in this case,鈥� Nakasone said.聽

鈥淥rdinarily, law enforcement agencies, such as (the Honolulu Police Department) could have and should have conducted the investigation, but that was not done in this case,” she said. “In fact, no law enforcement agencies, such as HPD or the Department of the Attorney General or any other state or federal law enforcement, was involved.鈥�

Nakasone鈥檚 ruling stemmed from a motion filed by Mau鈥檚 attorneys, Howard Luke and Richard Sing, who had flagged a number of peculiarities in the charging documents.

That motion described how there was no independent review of the case outside of the prosecuting attorney鈥檚 office.

It also indicated that there was no evidence that Branco interviewed any of the pertinent witnesses who were involved in the case.

Instead, they said the prosecuting attorney鈥檚 office relied heavily on Tanaka and the information she provided to help 鈥渆xplain the case鈥� for the office.

Mau’s attorneys also highlighted the 鈥渆xtraordinarily close鈥� and 鈥渉ighly suspect relationship鈥� between Mitsunaga & Associates and the prosecuting attorney鈥檚 office, particularly as it relates to campaign donations to Kaneshiro.

Mitsunaga & Associates is a major campaign donor in Hawaii politics, and has occasionally found itself the subject of speculation about pay-to-play politics.

Hawaii campaign spending data shows that from 2012 to 2016, representatives from the company donated nearly $40,000 to Kaneshiro鈥檚 campaign, which makes up about 10 percent of his total contributions during that time.

Nakasone鈥檚 ruling did not address Kaneshiro鈥檚 political ties to Mitsunaga & Associates.

She did, however, note that the felony information and thousands of pages of exhibits that were used to support the charges, including portions of transcripts from legal proceedings and depositions, were 鈥渉ighly selective鈥� and took on the tone of a 鈥渢hird lawsuit.鈥�

Sing agreed with the judge, although he didn’t have to spend much time arguing his case since she made it clear from the beginning of Monday’s proceeding how she planned to rule.

“It looks different from any discovery I’ve ever reviewed in 20 years,” Sing said. “It’s very unusual, very out of the ordinary and very selective.”

鈥淥f course they鈥檙e going to bring up whatever they feel is necessary to tarnish anybody鈥檚 name, but that doesn鈥檛 make it true in any fashion.” 鈥� Sherri Tanaka, attorney for Mitsunaga & Associates

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Chasid Sapolu, who was arguing the case on behalf of Kaneshiro鈥檚 office, admitted in court that the way the case was handled was not the norm.

He told Nakasone that the Police Department is the agency that brings 鈥渢he bulk of the investigations鈥� to the court via the prosecuting attorney鈥檚 office.

But Sapolu also defended his office鈥檚 right to file charges via felony information. He noted that even though there was no grand jury proceeding or preliminary hearing, a district court judge still had to sign off on Mau鈥檚 arrest warrant.

鈥淚t may look different,鈥� Sapolu said. 鈥淏ut that doesn鈥檛 mean it was wrong.鈥�

Kaneshiro defended his office鈥檚 handling of the case, saying that there was no political favoritism. He also stuck up for his office鈥檚 right to file charges without first getting approval from a grand jury or a judge during a preliminary hearing.

鈥淭he case was made because there is evidence of criminal conduct and it was evaluated on the basis of criminal conduct,鈥� Kaneshiro said. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 look at who makes a complaint. We鈥檝e handled cases where complainants, some of them, were criminals.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 look at lists of who donated to my campaign or who contributed to my campaign to decide whether to file a charge,” he said. “It鈥檚 based on evidence.”

Tanaka similarly denied any wrongdoing on behalf of herself and Mitsunaga & Associates. She said that whatever course of action the prosecuting attorney鈥檚 office pursued against Mau was the result of the agency鈥檚 own decision-making.

Tanaka called Nakasone鈥檚 statements unfounded, and said that many of the allegations put forth by Mitsunaga & Associates were based on Mau鈥檚 own admissions in court and in depositions.

She added that there鈥檚 nothing to the allegations that the case was brought as a political favor.

鈥淥f course they鈥檙e going to bring up whatever they feel is necessary to tarnish anybody鈥檚 name, but that doesn鈥檛 make it true in any fashion,鈥� Tanaka said. 鈥淲e really didn鈥檛 have any involvement whatsoever. Both opposing counsel and the judge鈥檚 statements and speculations are false.鈥�

Read the motion to dismiss here:

Read the prosecutor’s response here: