Attorney Alexandar Silvert joins producer/host Coralie Chun Matayoshi to discuss why two prolific and aggressive sexual predators recently received long prison sentences and how they both violated their positions of trust (Dwyane Yuen as a long-time basketball coach and Mason Jordan as a Honolulu police officer) to rape and traffic underage teenagers through harassment and threats.
Alexander Silvert is a former state and federal public defender who uncovered the Kealoha mailbox conspiracy and brought the case to federal authorities. His book, “The Mailbox Conspiracy” provides an inside look at the greatest corruption case in Hawaii’s history.
Q. Last month, two prolific and aggressive sexual predators thankfully received long prison sentences. Both violated their positions of trust (Dwyane Yuen as a long-time basketball coach and Mason Jordan as a Honolulu police officer) to rape and traffic underage teenagers through harassment and threats. Yuen plead guilty and received 33 years and Jordan struck a plea deal to receive 23 years in prison. What crimes did they commit and how are they similar?
They both plead guilty to sex trafficking and raping minors through coercion and enticement. Yuen harassed his victims with countless phone calls and texts, while Jordan cyberstalked victims using social media to lure children into working as prostitutes. Both produced child pornography. Jordan also accessed police databases to research his victims and monitor police investigations and used sophisticated techniques to evade detection by law enforcement. The fact that Jordan sexually abused his ex-girlfriend’s daughters in their own home and Yuen’s acts took place over nearly 2 decades is especially disturbing.
Q. In 2020, a civil suit filed by MMA fighter Ilima MacFarlane and UH basketball standout Shawna Kuehu against Dwayne Yuen and Punahou School alleged far worse behavior, including sexual assault and abuse. About 2 years ago, he was charged with one count of child pornography, but the indictment identified Yuen as a prolific, aggressive child predator who repeatedly targeted minors and suggested in a detention memo (a memorandum of law arguing why a person should or should not be released pending trial) that more serious charges might be added. That’s exactly what happened, right?
Yes. While Yuen remained incarcerated until his trial, the government aggressively went about obtaining warrants for phone, computers, and financial records and the FBI even created a hotline to encourage more victims to come forward. A superseding 6-count indictment filed on September 28, 2023, charged Yuen with Sex Trafficking of a Minor, Coercion and Enticement, Production, Receipt and Possession of Child Pornography, and Harassing Telephone Calls. The most serious charges were based on acts that occurred 20 years ago. An Information filed about year later on November 19, 2024, charged him with an additional 5 counts of Harassing Telephone Communications and 1 count of Obscene and Harassing Telephone Communication, all happening within the last 5 years.
Q. In December 2024, what charges did Yuen plead guilty to?
On December 12, 2025, Yuen plead guilty to a dozen federal offenses related to sexually abusing underage girls: sex trafficking Minor Victim 1 in 2005 and 2006; coercing and enticing Minor Victim 2 to engage in sexual activity in 2006; and producing, receiving and possessing child pornography involving Minor Victim 3 between 2020 and 2023. He also admitted to harassing Victims 4 through 10 through anonymous and obscene communications from 2021 to 2023.
Q. What kind of excuses did Yuen make for his behavior?
At the sentencing hearing, Yuen’s attorney read excerpts from Yuen’s psychological evaluation that noted he had the maturity of an adolescent and suffered from developmental disorders. This diagnosis, while not constituting a legal defense to the charges, can be considered by a court for sentencing purposes. It is unclear in this case whether this factor had any effect upon the court’s sentence (396 months), as the court sentenced Yuen towards the high-end of the Sentencing Guideline range (324-405 months) but did not grant the government’s request for an upward variance to 40 years (480 months).
Q. The government wanted Yuen behind bars for 40 years. Yuen pled guilty and got 33 years. If he had gone to trial, would he likely have received a longer sentence? Why didn’t he try to reach a plea deal?
Yuen would definitely have received a much higher sentence had he not pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility for his crimes. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant receives a three-level reduction towards his Sentencing Guideline range for pleading guilty. In this case, his Sentencing Guideline level was determined to be 41. Had he not pleaded guilty, it would have been 44, which would have increased his Sentencing Guideline range from 324-405 months to life. There is no parole in the federal sentence, so Yuen will serve almost all of the sentence imposed. Given the charges filed, there does not appear to have been any advantage or possibility for Yuen to have worked out a plea agreement. The government was not going to dismiss the most serious charges, and they alone would result in the Sentencing Guideline range he ultimately faced. Without a plea agreement, Yuen is free to appeal his sentence to the Ninth Circuit where he can only contest the reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Had he signed a plea agreement, he would have had to give up this right. In this case, it was best that he did not sign a plea agreement given he would have gained nothing from having done so.
Q. Ex-HPD officer Mason Jordan was facing a possibility of 30 years to life behind bars but ultimately received a sentence of 23 years. If he had gone to trial, would he likely have received a longer sentence?
Like Yuen, Jordan would have received a much higher sentence had he not pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility for his crimes. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant receives a three-level reduction towards his Sentencing Guideline range for pleading guilty. In this case, his Sentencing Guideline level was determined to be 42. Had he not pleaded guilty, it would have been 45, which would have increased his Sentencing Guideline range from 360 (30 years)-Life to a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole. Jordan signed a plea agreement which required the government to dismiss several of the charges, although it had little impact if any on Jordan’s ultimate Sentencing Guideline calculations. But it did make him “look” better in the eyes of the court because he gave up his right to appeal and admitted his guilt. In the end, the court granted a defense motion for a downward variance from the Guideline Sentencing calculations and sentenced him to 23 years (176 months) in jail, seven years below the low-end of his Sentencing Guideline range.
Q. Unlike state court there is no such thing as parole in federal court, so defendants need to serve their whole sentence. Is there any way that a sentence can get reduced?
Under federal sentencing law, a defendant can earn up to two months off a year for good behavior. Additional time can be earned off if you take various self-help and educational classes during your prison time. For example, Jordan will earn at least four years off his 23-year sentence if he behaves while incarcerated. In addition, every defendant is entitled to transition to a half-way house during the last 6 months to a year of their sentence. Finally, should a defendant encounter a severe life-threatening illness, they can be released early from their sentence under compassionate release laws, but only if a judge approves. Dr. Rudy Puana (brother of Katherine Kealoha), was released early after having a tumor surgically removed, and even though his compassionate release did not technically fit the legal definition (terminal or incurable condition), Puana was eligible to move to a halfway house within a month which probably played a role in the judge’s decision.
Q. In your long career as a state and federal public defender, you must have handled lots of sexual assault and abuse cases. Do they often go to trial and how difficult are they to prove? Are there any defenses? Would the accused rather have a jury or judge trial?
Many such cases end up with guilty pleas, mostly because the Sentencing Guidelines are so high that a defendant needs to get the three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility by pleading guilty in order to have any chance of having their sentence reduced. Cases that go to trial usually do so when the credibility of the victim(s) are at issue and a reasonable doubt can be raised as to their story. This is particularly true when there is no or little corroborating evidence. In my opinion, it is always better to have a jury trial where 12 people have to be unanimous in finding guilt rather than a judge trial where just one person, the judge, decides the matter.
To learn more about this subject, tune into this video podcast.
Disclaimer: this material is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The law varies by jurisdiction and is constantly changing. For legal advice, you should consult a lawyer that can apply the appropriate law to the facts in your case.