StarBulletin.com

Ka Loko jury listens to dam expert


By

POSTED: Wednesday, November 19, 2008

LIHUE » After a couple of hours of legal wrangling, a second special grand jury into the Ka Loko breach began yesterday afternoon.

No indictments were handed down after about three hours of testimony by one witness—University of Hawaii engineering professor Horst Brandes.

The grand jury will continue this morning, probing whether criminal charges will be filed regarding the March 2006 dam breach that killed seven people.

Yesterday, however, it was unclear whether the grand jury would convene at all because of a push by Ka Loko Dam owner James Pflueger to disqualify the Attorney General's Office from handling the case.

Pflueger, represented by attorney William McCorriston, Attorney General Mark Bennett's former law partner, argued the whole of the office should be disqualified from the “;manslaughter grand jury”; because they are representing the state in a number of civil cases relating to the dam break.

Pflueger is specifically suing the state Department of Land and Natural Resources in regards to the breach, and Pflueger and multiple state agencies and departments are codefendants in a number of other cases regarding the catastrophe.

McCorriston said there is a definite appearance of a conflict of interest, and that Bennett should step aside and let another jurisdiction or a special prosecutor take the criminal case.

“;It looks bad, it smells bad, it is bad,”; McCorriston argued before Circuit Judge Randal Valenciano.

However, he added, if the Attorney General's Office would reveal that the grand jury was not focused on his client, he would be happy to withdraw his motion.

Deputy Attorney General Mark Miyahara declined to do so.

The first special grand jury, convened in July, had subpoenaed numerous Pflueger employees and asked them specifically about Pflueger's involvement in allegedly filling the dam's spillway, a safety feature, in 1997 or 1998.

Miyahara, who handled the morning's special proceeding hearing by himself but had Bennett with him during the grand jury testimony in the afternoon, argued that the attorney general had set up an “;ethical wall”; to keep the criminal and the civil cases separate.

However, McCorriston provided evidence that Bennett had, in fact, received depositions that were part of the criminal cases, something Bennett admitted in a statement to the court.

“;I don't think there is any wall,”; McCorriston added.

However, Miyahara said the criminal attorneys were not “;huddling”; with the civil attorneys in the office and were not sharing strategy. They had received information about depositions that had taken place, and, like in any other case, had asked for copies of those depositions.

Valenciano eventually sided with the attorney general, but said “;there should not be a gate”; within the ethical wall.