Legal Expert Breaks Down Hawaii Doctor Accused of Trying to Push Wife Off Cliff | Crime House 24/7

Summary

---

Crime House 24/7 Podcast Summary

Episode: Legal Expert Breaks Down Hawaii Doctor Accused of Trying to Push Wife Off Cliff

Host: Vanessa Richardson
Guest: Kelly Hyman (Attorney and Legal Analyst)
Date: April 2, 2026

---

Main Theme

This episode provides an in-depth legal analysis of the high-profile attempted murder trial of Dr. Gerhard Koenig, a Maui anesthesiologist accused of trying to kill his wife, Ariel Koenig, during a hiking trip. Host Vanessa Richardson and legal expert Kelly Hyman deconstruct prosecution and defense strategies, evidence, and the immense personal and legal stakes involved.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Case Overview and Central Arguments

• Dr. Gerhard Koenig is accused of attempting to murder his wife, Ariel, during her birthday hike on Oahu.
• The case turns heavily on conflicting narratives: Ariel claims Gerhard attacked her with a syringe and a rock; Gerhard asserts self-defense, claiming Ariel was the aggressor due to recent marital issues (infidelity, ongoing divorce, custody battles).
• Quote [02:22] – Kelly Hyman:
  “It’s a he said, she said... She testified her husband had a syringe and was trying to hurt her... he was hitting her with a rock. Defendant’s standpoint is something quite different. He’s saying that in fact she was the aggressor, and they were having marital issues because she allegedly had this affair.”

2. Impact of Marital Drama and Motives

• Gerhard and Ariel were a high-achieving couple; underlying their public image was marital turmoil, especially after Gerhard discovered Ariel’s affair.
• The trip was framed as a fresh start but erupted into violence.
• The defense seeks to leverage the affair to elicit jury sympathy or establish motive for Ariel to fabricate her account for advantage in divorce/custody.
• Quote [04:09] – Kelly Hyman:
  “The prosecution has to prove the case... The jury has to be fair and impartial. But you never know what the jury hangs their hat on…”

3. Self-Defense Claim & Evidence Dispute

• The prosecution claims Gerhard’s actions were premeditated (alleged syringe as evidence).
• Defense says no syringe was found; healthcare providers on scene did not see one—arguing no intent and that he acted in self-defense.
• Quote [05:08] – Kelly Hyman:
  “According to the prosecution, the syringe was there... shows that it was planned, shows that it was premeditated. Defendant’s position is ... there was no syringe found.”

4. Ariel’s Dual Role: Victim and Divorce Litigant

• The defense is attacking Ariel’s credibility, highlighting financial moves (money transfer) and potential motives of gaining custody or assets.
• Jurors must weigh her testimony through the lens of these multiple, conflicting interests.
• Quote [07:04] – Kelly Hyman:
  “From a defense standpoint, it goes to her motive... she wanted sole custody... she allegedly transferred money from a joint account.”

5. Pivotal Evidence: The Son’s Testimony

• The son is expected to testify about receiving a FaceTime call from his father immediately after the alleged attack, during which Gerhard allegedly said, “I tried to kill Ariel, but she got away.”
• Defense counters it was a suicidal goodbye, not an actual confession.
• The son’s testimony is framed as emotionally charged and potentially case-defining.
• Quote [08:31] – Kelly Hyman:
  “We have first to think—a son who’s potentially going to testify against his own father... If the son testifies that way, that’s pretty powerful, that’s pretty credible.”

6. Physical and Forensic Evidence

• Visual evidence: Photos of Ariel bloodied at the scene, lava rock with DNA (single female contributor on stained side; two contributors on unstained side).
• By itself, DNA and blood evidence do not conclusively prove who started the altercation or assign intent—must be corroborated by testimony and context.
• Quote [13:13] – Kelly Hyman:
  “If you can’t establish [blame] that way, then you want to use other evidence to help substantiate that... the images... it paints a very powerful picture of what exactly she went through and the amount of blood.”

7. Eyewitness Nurses and Bystander Intervention

• Two nurse bystanders (Amanda Morris and Sarah Buchbaum) heard Ariel’s screams, saw Gerhard attacking her, and intervened.
• Their 911 call and in-court identification are highlighted as highly credible, unscripted emergency responses.
• Quote [14:57] – Kelly Hyman:
  “It is very powerful. Here, two strangers don’t know these people, come up and see this, hear her yelling for help, go and assist. And the 911 call by one of the nurses is so powerful because you’re listening to it in real time.”

8. Professional Expertise as Potential Evidence

• Prosecution leans into Gerhard’s knowledge as an anesthesiologist (access to drugs, medical tools) as evidence for possible premeditation.
• However, no syringe was recovered, which damages this line of argument.
• Quote [11:50] – Kelly Hyman:
  “It goes to what he knows and his knowledge, but also intent as well. Now, if in fact the syringe was found, that’s really strong evidence for the prosecution. But... the syringe was never found.”

9. Visual Evidence & Its Emotional Power

• Police bodycam footage shows Ariel’s injuries and the remoteness of the trail, supporting the prosecution’s timeline and theory of deliberate planning.
• Discussion of the danger (or value) of such footage: It can be compelling, but if the scene doesn’t look as remote, the defense could argue against premeditation.
• Quote [16:22] – Kelly Hyman:
  “It paints a very powerful picture... The fact that it looked potentially really remote and hidden helps establish the prosecution’s case... But just happily, there were two people who were starting a hike and just happened to be there at that moment.”

10. Strategic Calculations: Will Dr. Koenig Testify?

• Decision for Gerhard to testify is strategic and complex—his credibility on the stand could make or break the defense.
• Defense attorneys advise based on burden of proof, risk of prosecution cross-examination, and jury psychology.
• Quote [17:48] – Kelly Hyman:
  “Prepare, prepare, prepare... An attorney may say, you shouldn’t testify because the prosecution has the burden. But defendant will say, no, I want to testify... Once the defendant takes the witness stand, that opens up the prosecution to ask their questions.”

11. What’s Next—Trial Developments

• The road ahead: Son’s testimony likely pivotal; the order of witnesses can affect overall impact.
• The psychological toll on the family, especially the son and children, is immense regardless of outcome.
• Quote [23:23] – Kelly Hyman:
  “When you talk about the son, you think about the psychological effects... you have a young kid... going to have to testify potentially against his father... It’s sad that something like this happens and no matter the outcome, the long lasting effects on these children is saddening.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the ‘He Said, She Said’ Dynamic:
  “She is the star witness. Now, there’s also going to be another star witness that we’ll talk about... she testified... her husband had a syringe and he was trying to hurt her.” – Kelly Hyman [02:22]

• On Physical Evidence and the Scene:
  “The images when you see her being carried out arm in arm with the two healthcare providers... you see the blood on her, it paints a very powerful picture...” – Kelly Hyman [13:41]

• On Bystander Testimony:
  “The 911 call by one of the nurses is so powerful because you're listening it in in real time. This is exactly what’s happening...” – Kelly Hyman [15:11]

• On the Professional Implications:
  “If in fact the syringe was found, that’s really strong evidence for the prosecution. But see, the syringe was never found.” – Kelly Hyman [11:58]

• On the Emotional Stakes of the Son’s Testimony:
  “A son who’s potentially going to testify against his own father... that’s pretty powerful, that’s pretty credible.” – Kelly Hyman [08:31]

• On the Toll for the Family:
  “The long lasting effects on these children is saddening.” – Kelly Hyman [23:23]

---

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• Case recap & major parties introduced – [00:54–02:54]
• Legal strategies: self-defense, intent, motive – [03:01–05:40]
• Ariel’s credibility & motives for testifying – [06:34–08:02]
• Analysis of son’s potential testimony & prosecution evidence – [08:31–10:28]
• Professional expertise & premeditation argument – [11:10–12:37]
• Forensic/physical evidence discussion – [12:37–14:16]
• Eyewitness nurses and 911 call – [14:28–15:31]
• Police bodycam, visuals, and strategic risks – [16:01–17:31]
• Discussion: Should Dr. Koenig testify? – [17:48–20:09]
• What’s next in the trial, impact on family – [21:19–24:21]

---

Tone & Language

• The conversation remains factual, analytic, and sensitive to the emotional dimensions of the case.
• Kelly Hyman’s legal analysis is clear and methodical, providing examples and explaining concepts for the general audience.
• Vanessa Richardson maintains a tone of curiosity and empathy, pressing for clarity on complex points while respecting the gravity of the allegations and their effect on those involved.

---

Summary

This episode masterfully breaks down the complicated dynamics and legal nuances of the Dr. Gerhard Koenig attempted murder case. With expert commentary, listeners are led through evidence challenges, emotional family stakes, and the pivotal role of witness credibility. The looming testimony of the couple’s son, the presence of bystander healthcare professionals, and the intertwining of personal crises with forensic details make this trial—and this podcast discussion—riveting and multidimensional.

Transcript

[A]

Hi, listeners, it's Vanessa Richardson. Real quick, before today's episode, I want to tell you about another show from Crime House that I know you'll love. America's Most Infamous Crimes, hosted by Katie Ring. Each week, Katie takes on one of the most notorious criminal cases in American history. Serial killers who terrorized cities, unsolved mysteries that keep detectives up at night, and investigations that that change the way we think about justice. Listen to and follow America's Most infamous crimes Tuesday through Thursday on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever you listen to podcasts.

[B]

Good morning, everyone.

[A]

I'm Vanessa Richardson and this is crime

[B]

house 24 7, your home for breaking true crime news. Today we're taking a turn from our usual format for an extended discussion on

[A]

a case that has captivated the Crime

[B]

House community and national national headlines alike. The attempted murder trial of Dr. Gerhard Koenig, a Maui anesthesiologist accused of trying to kill his wife on a Hawaiian hiking trail on her birthday. To help unpack the legal dimensions of

[A]

this case, how prosecutors are building their

[B]

argument, what the evidence means and what

[A]

it reveals about trying an attempted murder case when the victim is the star witness.

[B]

I'm joined today by Kelly Hyman, an attorney and legal analyst.

[C]

Just a short break with something useful. Spring, summer or fall, there's always yard work to do. TikTok shows quick, easy gardening ideas you can use today. No experience needed. Download TikTok now.

[B]

Today on Crime House 24 7, we're unpacking the Gerhardt Koenig attempted murder trial with attorney Kelly Hyman. Kelly, welcome again to the show. Tell us a little bit about your background and walk our listeners through this case.

[D]

I am a TV legal analyst. You might have seen me on Court tv. I was actually on Court TV just

[E]

until a few minutes ago, cnn. I've been on Fox News as well breaking down legal issues.

[D]

And today we are talking about a case, as the defendants call it, a

[E]

he said, she said. And so that's kind of defendant standpoint. Defendant has been charged with the ATT attempted murder of his wife. And you point out that she is the star witness. Now, there's also going to be another star witness that we'll talk about as as well. But she testified that it was her birthday and that her husband and her went on a hike and according to her, her husband had a syringe and he was trying to hurt her.

[D]

They got into a fight and that

[E]

he was hitting her with a rock. Defendant's standpoint is something quite different.

[D]

He saying that in Fact she was the aggressor and that they were having

[E]

some marital issues because she allegedly had this affair. But he did not have the intent. Now that's definitely going to be key in this case. Did he have the intent to kill her? Ultimately the jury is going to decide whether or not he's guilty or not

[D]

guilty in this case.

[B]

It's such a multi layered case. I think one of the parts that's shocking most people is that Gerhardt and Ariel Koenig were a high achieving couple. On paper he's an anesthesiologist and she's a nuclear engineer. Their marriage I guess hit a wall in late 2024 as you mentioned, when Gerhardt discovered Ariel had been sending flirty texts to a co worker. They entered couples counseling. And this birthday trip to Oahu was supposed to be their fresh start. He even wrote her a card that morning calling her angel face. Could the affair be enough to make a jury sympathize with Gerhardt even if they believe he did it?

[E]

Ultimately they're going to weigh the evidence

[D]

and what's presented to them. But the prosecution has to prove the case. And if in fact a jury is

[E]

supposed to be fair and impartial and

[D]

based on the elements, but if the

[E]

prosecution, even though there might be some other factors, proves every element of the cause of action, then and ultimately the jury would find him guilty. But you never know what the jury

[D]

hangs their hat on of what stands

[E]

out to them in a case until after the fact. Sometimes, not always.

[B]

Yeah, definitely. And you mentioned also the self defense part. At the heart of the defense's argument is this claim that this was self defense. As far as Gerhardt's part, that Ariel hit him first and that he simply reacted. From a legal standpoint, how does a self defense argument hold up when when one party ends up in the hospital with 10 blows to the head from this rock and the other walks away,

[E]

it goes to the idea of whether

[D]

in fact that he had the intent. Now according to the prosecution, that he did in fact that there was a

[E]

syringe that was there as well shows that it was planned, shows that it was premeditated.

[D]

Defendant's position is in fact that there was no syringe.

[E]

There was no syringe found. The two hikers, healthcare providers, did not see any syringe. So defendant's standpoint is he in fact did not go there with this pre

[D]

planned motive to do it, that she

[E]

was the aggressor and that he was defending himself. That the people, the other hikers the healthcare providers saw him with the rock, but in fact, he was defending himself that he was not the aggressor as well. We'll have to wait and see if he's gonna testify because that could potentially be key for the jury of whether they find believable or not. Because they weigh the credibility of someone. They're the fact finders. And based on the facts, do they believe him, do they believe her? Or do they believe the son who supposedly is also going to testify to alleged facetiming after the alleged hitting happened, where, according to the prosecution, allegedly the defendant said that he was trying to kill his. His wife.

[B]

It will be very interesting to hear. I kind of want to hear that side that's so fascinating. Ariel Koenig is, as you mentioned also earlier, she's simultaneously the victim, the star witness, and a party in an active divorce and custody case. The defense made a point of highlighting that the outcome of this criminal trial could directly affect what she gets in the divorce, the house, full custody of the kids. How does that kind of entanglement affect her credibility as a witness?

[E]

From a defense standpoint, it goes to her motive.

[D]

It helps establish their narrative, their side of the story, which in fact, that she wanted sole custody. So the argument can be made that she was the aggressor. Also, the fact that she allegedly transferred money from a joint account to her

[E]

account to paint her in a different light, to paint a different picture of

[D]

a fact that she was in fact the aggressor, that she in fact, was someone who wanted sole custody of the kids, that she wanted all the financial and did in fact do this. So it ultimately will be up to

[E]

the jury of whether they believe that side of the story of painting her in those lights or painting her in

[D]

a different light of the fact that

[E]

she was not the aggressor, that her

[D]

husband in fact was the aggressor of the situation.

[B]

And this is another thing you mentioned a little earlier as well. One of the most striking pieces of prosecution evidence is what Gerhardt allegedly said to his own son right after the attack when he FaceTimed him. And he apparently he appeared covered in blood and reportedly said, I tried to kill Ariel, but she got away. So the defense says it was a suicidal goodbye, not a confession. How does something like that get litigated in court? And what does it take to turn a disputed phone call into reliable evidence?

[D]

It is a powerful statement. Let's unpack this because there's so much there to unpack. So we have first to think a son who's potentially going to testify against his own father for statements of his father allegedly did. Now, if in fact the son testifies

[E]

that way, that's pretty powerful. That's pretty credible.

[D]

Unless the defendants try and point out that the son has some kind of bias or that is doing it for a particular reason.

[E]

But we have to remember when we

[D]

testify, we testify under oath. And if you lied, that is a

[E]

criminal charge as well for perjury.

[D]

But the prosecution will argue, or has argued, that this is a statement against interest. And so what that means from an evidentiary standpoint is that he made these statements. He being the defendant, was in fact against his own interests. And if the son testifies, that really helps substantiate the prosecution's case. Because not only we have to remember that we have the wife's testimony, but also the two healthcare providers and their

[E]

audio as as well of them calling

[D]

911 and their rendition of what they believed happened, that the defendant was in fact trying to kill her. And then you have a son testify.

[E]

That's pretty powerful because the prosecution has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[D]

But that, as we say, helps substantiate the prosecution's case. Not only the wife is saying it, but the two healthcare providers, the nurses

[E]

that were there, but his own son

[D]

is saying the same thing.

[E]

That's a very strong case for the prosecution.

[B]

When we come back, more on the Gerhardt Koenig trial.

[F]

Your little one grew three inches overnight. Adorable. Also expensive. Sell their pint sized pieces on Depop and list them in minutes with no selling fees because somewhere a dad refuses to pay full price for the clothes his kids will outgrow tomorrow and he's ready to buy your son's entire wardrobe right now. Consider your future growth. Bird budget secured. Start selling on Depop, where taste recognizes taste. Payment processing fees and boosting fees still apply. See website for details.

[B]

Welcome back to crime house 24 7. We're discussing the Gerhard Koenig case with attorney Kelly Hyman. Well, Gerhard Koenig's former boss, Dr. Jonathan Waters, gave a media interview in which he said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that it would not be hard for an anesthesiolog to commit murder because the drugs in their field are specifically designed to take a patient to the edge of death. There was also a backpack allegedly found at the scene containing medical supplies. You mentioned those as well, that maybe there were not actually syringes in there. But how does a defendant's professional access to certain tools or substances favor into a prosecution's theory of premeditation.

[D]

It goes to what he know and goes to his knowledge, but then also the intent as. As well.

[E]

Now, if in fact the syringe was found, that's really strong evidence for the prosecution. But see, the syringe was never found.

[D]

And so defendant's standpoint, that helps substantiate their fact that there is no syringe, there's no intent.

[E]

He did not premeditate this because that is really key. Did in fact, was this planned or was just a. To celebrate a birthday and come together and go on a hike? Or did defendant plan, let's go to a remote area, I'm going to bring these syringes and deal with the situation.

[B]

The DNA evidence in this case is interesting as well. As you mentioned. Again, the bloody lava rock found at the scene. Lava rocks, by the way, are so sharp. And this is just for me, that was a really incredible kind of visual. It tested positive for a single female contributor on the stained side and two contributors on the unstained side. So the defense used cross examination to establish that DNA. Can't tell you how an altercation started or who struck first. How do prosecutors use physical evidence like this when it confirms something happened, but it doesn't assign blame necessarily.

[E]

So if you can't establish it that

[D]

way, then you want to use other evidence to help substantiate that. So you want to have the wife who testifies and that talked about what exactly happened from her perspective as well, because you want to help corroborate that, in fact, that it wasn't just one time, it was multiple times.

[E]

But the images, when you see her being carried out arm in arm with

[D]

the two healthcare providers, the two nurses,

[E]

and you see the blood on her,

[D]

it paints a very powerful picture of what exactly she went through and the amount of blood. And I could see the jurors thinking,

[E]

okay, with all that blood, was that

[D]

in fact one time being hit on

[E]

the head, or did that take multiple

[D]

times to have all that, the blood pouring down her face and then covered

[E]

all in her head? And so the jurors will also consider that as well.

[D]

And then if the, the prosecution has someone to help substantiate that, you, you don't have that much blood unless it's

[E]

multiple times, then helps the prosecution's case be stronger.

[B]

You mentioned those two healthcare providers, those two nurses, who very fortunately were just starting their hike right when this was happening. Amanda Morris and Sarah Buchbaum, they were complete strangers. They happened to be starting their hike just as the attack was happening, they heard Arielle scream. They saw a man hitting her with a rock, and were able to identify Gerhart in court. How significant is bystander eyewitness testimony like that in an attempted murder trial?

[D]

It is very powerful.

[E]

Here there are two strangers, don't know

[D]

these people come up and see this,

[E]

hear her yelling for help, go and assist. And the 911 call by one of

[D]

the nurses is so powerful because you're

[E]

listening it in in real time. This is exact what's happening, and this

[D]

is what they believed at the time.

[E]

And I believe during the.

[D]

The audio that they say that they

[E]

believed that defendant was trying to kill her.

[D]

That is very powerful testimony. Now defendants will argue, well, you came,

[E]

you didn't see the beforehand of what

[D]

exactly happened, because the defense is that she was the initiator of the fight,

[E]

only saw a portion, a. A sliver of what exactly happened. Ultimately, the jury will make a determination on who in fact, they believe that

[B]

call must have been very powerful. And the police body camera footage was also shown in court capturing Ariel bloodied and disoriented at the trailhead parking lot right after the attack. We know that visual evidence can be deeply affecting for a jury. How do prosecutors strategically deploy footage like that? And is there a risk it can blackfire?

[E]

So you need someone that's going to

[D]

testify that's going to help establish the authenticity of the evidence. So whether, if it's a body cam, whether the. The police officer, unless the defendants will say, okay, we're going to agree to

[E]

the admissibility, but it paints a very powerful picture because then you get to see what exactly the hike looked at. As someone who's an. An average hiker, from the parts that

[D]

I saw, it's like, wow, this is

[E]

really kind of remote, right? You're. You're walking through the parts that I saw.

[D]

I don't know if it's part of the trail and you have bushes on

[E]

both sides of you, and it's very, very remote as. As well. Now, it could potentially backfire if, in

[D]

fact, it was not looking as remote, right from the prosecution standpoint that it

[E]

was completely, you know, open that everyone could see. Then defendants would say, look, this wasn't. He wasn't trying to kill her. It was, you know, hike. Look how open it is. People walking up, you can look up, you can see everything. But the fact that it looked potentially really kind of remote and hidden helps

[D]

establish the prosecution's case that, yes, this

[E]

was planned because he. He wanted to make sure it was a remote area where no one could see. But just happenly, there were two people

[D]

who was starting a hike and just happened to, to be there at that moment.

[B]

Gerhard Koenig's defense attorney has said his client may take the stand. You mentioned this earlier. This is, we hope he does. What if he does, are the strategic calculations there?

[E]

Prepare, prepare, prepare. From a defense standpoint, you can advise

[D]

your client on whether or not it's,

[E]

it's a good idea to testify, but

[D]

ultimately it is that client's decision. Now, an attorney may say, you shouldn't testify because the prosecution has the burden. But defendant will say, no, I want to testify.

[E]

Or just the opposite.

[D]

A defense attorney said, you really, you

[E]

know, this is a Hail Mary moment for you.

[D]

As we, as we say, kind of

[E]

like in football, you really need to testify. You have to, to tell the jury

[D]

your side of the story. And defendant will say, no, I don't

[E]

want to do that.

[D]

Because it's also important to remember that once the defendant takes a witness stand,

[E]

that opens up the prosecution to come

[D]

in and ask their questions. Now, a defense attorney can prepare his client for their testimony and work with potentially a jury consultant and have that. But they might have an idea where the prosecution is going and prepare.

[E]

But in real time, you don't know. And is a defendant believable? Is the defendant credible? Is the defendant likable? And so you have to consider all

[D]

those, all those things.

[E]

But when the defense say it's a

[D]

he said, she said, you know, most likely that the juror thinking, okay, well,

[E]

we heard from her. Why don't we hear from him?

[D]

But now the defendant is innocent in the court of law till proven guilty. And if he doesn't testify, there might be some instruction by the jury that he doesn't have to testify to make sure that the jury don't use that against him. Right. It's your constitutional right. And you don't have to take the witness stand because the prosecution has to bring the case.

[E]

But it will be interesting in this

[D]

case to see, in fact, since the defendant said it's a he said, she said, if he testifies.

[B]

Still ahead, Kelly Hyman continues our conversation on the Koenig case.

[A]

Hi, listeners, it's Vanessa Richardson. I wanted to take a brief moment to tell you about another show from Crime House that I, I know you'll love. America's Most Infamous Crimes, hosted by Katie Ring. Each week, Katie takes on a notorious crime, whether unfolding now or etched into American history, revealing not just what happened, but how it forever changed Our society. Serial killers who terrorized cities. Unsolved mysteries that keep detectives up at night. And investigations that change the way we think. Think about justice. Each case unfolds across multiple episodes released every Tuesday through Thursday, from the first sign that something was wrong to the moment the truth came out or didn't. These are the stories behind the headlines. Listen to and follow America's most infamous crimes Tuesday through Thursday on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever you listen to podcasts.

[B]

Welcome back to crime house 24 7. We're discussing the Gerhardt Koenig attempted murder trial. What does the road ahead look like from here? The trial is still ongoing. What key evidence or testimony could still shift this case in either direction before it goes to the jury?

[E]

The sun. The sun is definitely going to be

[D]

potentially a star witness, and most likely the prosecution will end the case with him. From a prosecution standpoint, there's different ways that you try your case from the standpoint of a timeline. So your first witness helps substantiate the beginning of time and then the last witness kind of the end of time. But then there's also another theory where you start really strong. You have your first witness is really, really powerful, right. For the, the prosecution.

[E]

And then the last witness leaves their

[D]

mark, long lasting mark, powerful testimony for the prosecution. Now, sometimes because of scheduling conflicts, the prosecution might want to have their strongest witness. But for example, a police detective is going on vacation and can't testify in that time period and has to go first.

[E]

That happens.

[D]

But if defendants think that their son could potentially, you know, help their case, then they could try and also elicit testimony from their case if in fact they bring a case. But most likely they'll have an opportunity if, in fact the son does testify and what we hear is accurate for the prosecution.

[B]

So many layers. And if he does testify, that's a lot of pressure for a son. You know, that's a, that's a tough spot. I'm curious to see what happens. It'll be fascinating. Kelly, are any final thoughts before we wrap up?

[D]

When you talk about the son, you think about the psychological effects right here. You have a young kid, depending on his relationship with his father, gonna have to testify potentially against his father. Now maybe it's some kind of deal with the prosecution that could come out. Like if you're not, then we could potentially charge you after the fact with some kind of conspiracy or accessory after the fact of the charges and maybe potentially there's some kind of plea deal. We don't know all this we're only hypothetical of what's going to happen if the son is actually going to testify or not. But there's so many layers, you know, to this case. It's sad that something like this happens and no matter the outcome, the long lasting effects on these children is saddening.

[B]

Kelly, thank you again so much for joining us on crime house 24 7. This case has literally everything. A marriage in crisis, a birthday trip

[A]

turned violent, a victim who survived because

[B]

strangers intervened at exactly the right moment. They just happened to be healthcare workers, and a defendant whose own profession has become part of the prosecution's theory. You've helped our listeners understand not just what's happening in that Honolulu courtroom, but the legal machinery that makes a case like this so complex to try. Will have to have you back as this one moves toward a verdict. Thank you again so much for being with us.

[D]

Great to be here.

[A]

Thanks for listening to today's episode. Not sure what to listen to next. Check out America's Most Infamous Crimes, hosted by Katie Ring. From serial killers to unsolved mysteries and game changing investigations, each week Katie takes on a notorious criminal case in American history. Listen to and follow America's Most Infamous Crimes now wherever you listen to podcasts.