Immediately after, protesters took to the streets decrying Elderts’ death and blaming APEC.

There was also speculation about the circumstances leading up to the shooting. Was Elderts bullying Deedy and his friends, using racial epithets to rile the visiting federal agent? Or was it Deedy who was the aggressor, asking Elderts if he wanted to get shot and escalating a verbal argument into one that ended in tragedy.

While part of this response was due to the highly charged atmosphere created by APEC, Deedy’s attorney, Brook Hart, argues in court documents that much of it can also be attributed to increased media scrutiny and underlying socioeconomic and cultural issues facing the people of Hawaii.

In a recent phone interview, he also noted that “some pretty strong anti-mainland, anti-haole sentiment” has arisen since the shooting.

“The case involves many aspects and they go well beyond the particular incident in McDonald's,” Hart said. “We have a strong and vibrant community of local folks who have very negative feelings about actions that the federal government have taken over the years and those might well be translated in animosity toward an agent of the federal government.”

Michael Green, the attorney representing Elderts' family in a civil suit against Deedy, disagrees with Hart's assertion, and says race hasn't become a legitimate factor in the case.

"He's trying to create any type of an issue that he thinks might help him at trial," Green said. "He's doing his job as a lawyer."

Hart didn’t want to delve into details, saying that he wants to save his comments for the courtroom. He added that he hasn’t made a decision yet on whether to ask for a change of venue. Trial has been set for September.

But in his May 14 court filing that asks for permission to more thoroughly question jurors about their potential bias, Hart describes some of the outside influences on the case and how those were latched onto by groups, such as Moana Nui, (De)Occupy Honolulu and the Hawaiian sovereignty movement.

“This case became a symbol of the federal government wrongfully exercising jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Kingdom; it became a sign of the 1% oppressing the 99%; it became an example of a mainland 'haole' allegedly expressing malice and prejudice towards a local Hawaiian,” Hart said in his motion.

READ MORE: http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2012/06/19/16103-can-a-white-fede...