Maui doctor loses bid for new attempted murder trial

Gerhardt Konig claimed the jury admitted to not being unanimous on his attempted manslaughter conviction and that they had been communicating with an outside party during deliberations.HONOLULU (CN) — After the final three jurors from the panel that convicted Gerhardt Konig returned to a Honolulu courtroom and told a state judge they had not discussed the case or verdict with anyone outside the jury room, the Maui doctor was denied a new trial on Friday.Each of the 12 jurors answered “no” when asked whether, during deliberations, they were aware of any juror communicating or discussing the substance of the deliberations with someone outside the jury room.They also denied knowing of any juror communicating or discussing the jury’s verdict with an outsider before it was received in court.First Circuit Judge Paul Wong rejected Konig’s claims that the jury had been improperly influenced when he was convicted convicted April 8 of attempted manslaughter based on extreme mental or emotional disturbance. He had been charged with second-degree attempted murder over a March 2025 attack on his wife, Arielle Konig, on Oahu’s Pali Puka Trail.Konig, a Maui anesthesiologist, admitted to striking his wife with a rock but said he acted in self-defense. He has remained in jail without bail. He sought a new trial based on two separate claims of juror misconduct.The first cited an anonymous commenter who posted to a Law&Crime YouTube livestream of the trial during jury deliberations that they had been texting with one of the jurors and that the jury was “going for count three, attempted manslaughter.” Attempted manslaughter was the third option on the verdict form, a term the jury instructions never used.His attorney, Thomas Otake, argued the comment was significant because it appeared while jurors were still deliberating.“The state has done nothing,” Otake said, arguing prosecutors never tried to identify the anonymous commenter.But Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Joel Garner argued the defense had never met its burden of showing outside influence occurred, calling the anonymous comment speculation rather than the specific, substantial evidence. He also said the obligation to identify the commenter never fell on the state without that threshold showing.Wong agreed, saying “The alleged communication is not from a juror, but an anonymous person watching the trial.”Otake’s second claim centered on an affidavit from the jury foreperson stating that the jury did not unanimously believe Konig intended to kill his wife. The foreperson said they personally didn’t believe Konig intended to kill her and didn’t believe he was guilty of attempted murder.Otake argued those statements described the jury’s actual verdict rather than the private mental process that led jurors to reach it.“It should concern them that a juror, a foreperson, has said the verdict was not unanimous,” Otake said.Wong disagreed, saying Hawaii evidence law barred him from probing the jurors’ internal deliberations. The rule allows inquiry into certain objective misconduct or outside influences but protects jurors from being questioned about their internal thinking.Wong also rejected the claim that the verdict itself was legally flawed because jurors may not have unanimously found an intent to kill.Hawaii law doesn’t recognize attempted reckless manslaughter, but it does recognize attempted manslaughter based on extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Wong said the jury’s attempted-manslaughter verdict did not require a unanimous finding that Konig intended to kill his wife.Wong said a pre-sentence investigation report must still be prepared before Konig can be sentenced. The court scheduled sentencing for Jan. 8, 2027.Prosecutors are seeking the maximum 20-year prison sentence. Otake said the defense plans to appeal.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads