������Ƶ

Vernon Branco’s title in the Honolulu prosecuting attorney’s office was investigator, but he apparently did very little investigating in the theft case against Laurel Mau.

About a decade ago, Mau, a former employee of Mitsunaga & Associates Inc., had been accused by her employer of doing side jobs on company time. The firm fired her and asked then-prosecuting attorney Keith Kaneshiro to take up the case, which he did.

What the office did not do is investigate the company’s claims, according to testimony Branco gave Tuesday in the criminal bribery trial against Kaneshiro, former CEO Dennis Mitsunaga and several Mitsunaga associates. Mitsunaga’s team is accused of steering tens of thousands of dollars in campaign money to Kaneshiro, whose office then pursued the allegedly meritless theft case against Mau.

In recent days, prosecutors have sought to show the jury that the prosecution of Mau was unusual.

Indeed, Jacob Delaplane, a deputy prosecutor at the time, tried to file charges with the court based entirely on information provided by Sheri Tanaka, then an attorney for Mitsunaga’s firm. Delaplane testified on Monday that a judge rejected that filing because it lacked the backing of a law enforcement officer, so Delaplane asked Branco to step in.

On the stand Tuesday, Branco said Delaplane wrote a declaration describing Branco’s ostensible investigation into Mitsunaga & Associates’ claims, and Branco signed it, swearing under penalty of perjury that it was true.

But in reality, there was practically no investigation, according to Branco.

“I went over it really quick and then signed it,” he said.

In response to questions from Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Wheat, Branco acknowledged he interviewed only one witness, Rudy Alivado, by phone for perhaps five to 10 minutes. Branco said he interviewed no other witnesses and reviewed no documents.

There are questions as to whether the conversation with Alivado even happened. Alivado previously testified he has no memory of being interviewed, and Branco’s cell phone records, introduced into evidence on Tuesday, showed no record of a call to Alivado. Branco said he didn’t take any notes of the conversation or prepare any report on their discussion.

In court, Wheat took Branco line by line through his declaration — a legal filing that paved the way for four felony theft charges against Mau. The declaration states that his “investigation revealed the following” and listed statements supporting the theft case.

But in answer after answer, Branco indicated he had no knowledge of the information he had sworn to be true.

The declaration suggested that Branco had interviewed Tanaka. According to the declaration, Tanaka had “indicated to me” — meaning Branco — the date on which the firm had discovered the theft. That is an important fact because it would determine whether the statute of limitations for theft had expired.

But Branco said he had no memory of speaking with Tanaka, and there are no records that such a conversation occurred.

In general, Branco said he had “no idea” where the facts in the declaration came from.

“Did you swear under penalty of law that the facts in this declaration are correct?” Wheat asked.

“Yes I did,” Branco said.

The allegations regarding Alivado hinge on the idea that he was a client of Mitsunaga who was paying the firm for work on his home. So when Mau allegedly asked him for a cash payment, which she kept for herself, it supposedly represented theft from Alivado and the stealing of time from the firm.

However, Alivado testified earlier that he never paid Mitsunaga for any work and that he’d lied under oath about being a victim of theft in earlier proceedings. Alivado and Mitsunaga are longtime friends and business partners who agreed Alivado would receive free services.

If someone had interviewed Alivado more extensively, they might have discovered that arrangement. But Branco testified on Monday that he never asked Alivado about his billing arrangement with the firm.

“No I didn’t,” Branco said. “I didn’t think it was that important, I guess, at the time.”

Branco said when he considered that Mau wanted to be paid in cash, rather than a check, he figured it was because her intention was theft.

“I’m an investigator. I assume a lot of things,” he said.

When you assume things, Wheat asked, do you make mistakes?

“Correct, I agree,” Branco said.

On cross-examination, defense attorney Tommy Otake noted that Branco could’ve called Alivado from his office phone, but those phone records were not presented. And Otake noted earlier statements by Branco that Kaneshiro never spoke to Branco about the Mau case.

Branco said he received the assignment from Carol Nakamura, Kaneshiro’s longtime assistant.

On Monday, prosecutors also played audio for the jury that captured the remarks of state court judge Karen Nakasone on the day in 2017 when she permanently dismissed Mau’s theft charges.

Nakasone noted it was out of the ordinary for a theft case to be filed without an investigation by the Honolulu Police Department and “no one else independently gathering facts.”

“Your investigator just takes what is given to him by the parties’ lawyer,” she told then-prosecutor Chasid Sapolu, who also appeared in court on Tuesday.

In the audio, Sapolu acknowledged cases do normally originate with HPD and then get transferred to prosecutors, but he said it “doesn’t matter.” That may be the usual practice, he said, but it’s not a legal requirement.

But Nakasone was not swayed. She said the prosecution of Mau was a threat to the judicial process and denied the defendant due process. The judge said it was unusual that Mitsunaga’s attorney, Tanaka, appeared to have “orchestrated the vast majority of the investigation.” The prosecutor’s investigator — Branco — was “little more than acting as the recipient of the complainant’s submission,” the judge said.

Nakasone said the case “illustrates the danger” of charging cases by felony information, a process that doesn’t involve a grand jury or a preliminary hearing, which is a proceeding before a judge who would determine whether there is probable cause.

On Tuesday, jurors also heard from Rick Sing, an attorney who represented Mau during her theft case. He testified that during his own investigation of the matter, he discovered that Mitsunaga & Associates employees who had attested to Mau’s theft were campaign donors to Kaneshiro.

Those individuals — Mitsunaga, Aaron Fujii, Chad McDonald and Terri Ann Otani — are some of the criminal defendants now on trial.