Mahalo for supporting Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Enjoy this free story!

A state judge Friday said he was inclined to grant a new trial in the civil dispute between Katherine Kealoha and her grandmother and uncle, but the case needs to be sent back from an appellate court before the judge can do so, according to the attorney for the Kealoha relatives. Read more

A state judge Friday said he was inclined to grant a new trial in the civil dispute between Katherine Kealoha and her grandmother and uncle, but the case needs to be sent back from an appellate court before the judge can do so, according to the attorney for the Kealoha relatives.

Circuit Judge James McWhinnie at a hearing indicated he was inclined to grant a motion by Florence Puana, Kealoha’s grand­- mother, and Puana’s son Gerard for a new trial but couldn’t do so while the case was before the Intermediate Court of Appeals, according to Gerald Kurashima, attorney for the Puanas.

The Puanas are appealing a 2015 jury verdict that awarded Kealoha more than $650,000 in damages following a trial for a 2013 lawsuit the Puanas filed against Kealoha, a former deputy prosecutor. They accused her of stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from them.

Kealoha recently was convicted of conspiracy and obstruction of justice in a federal criminal trial, and evidence that U.S. prosecutors produced during that proceeding was cited by Kurashima in his motion to argue for a new trial.

Kealoha; her husband, former Honolulu Police Chief Louis Kea­loha; and two police officers were convicted in the federal case of trying to frame Gerard Puana in the alleged 2013 theft of the Kealohas’ mailbox and then lying to federal authorities about their actions.

The 2013 lawsuit that the Puanas filed against Katherine Kealoha was a motive for the Kealohas to try to frame Puana, federal prosecutors said.

Kurashima said new evidence presented in the federal case showed Kealoha, who is an attorney, lied when she testified in the civil trial that she did not prepare or recognize a trust document in Puana’s name.

Under the rules of civil procedures, an attorney who perjures him or herself commits a “fraud upon the court,” which warrants a new trial, Kurashima argued in his motion.

The motion was filed in Circuit Court because that court can hear new evidence while the appellate panel can consider only what happened leading up to the verdict.

Kurashima said McWhinnie agreed that a fraud upon the court was committed but could not order a new trial with the appeal still pending.

Kevin Sumida, who was Kealoha’s attorney in the civil case, argued at Friday’s hearing that Kealoha’s testimony did not constitute a fraud upon the court, according to Kurashima.

Sumida could not be reached for comment.