The Case of Dr. Gerhardt Konig: Motion for a New Trial

Summary

Murder Sheet Podcast: "The Case of Dr. Gerhardt Koenig: Motion for a New Trial"

Episode Date: May 28, 2026
Hosts: Áine Cain (A) and Kevin Greenlee (B)

---

Overview

This episode offers a deep and often impassioned analysis of the recent legal developments in the high-profile case of Dr. Gerhardt Koenig, an anesthesiologist from Hawaii convicted of attempted manslaughter for a violent attack on his wife, Ariel Koenig. Following troubling post-verdict revelations—including problematic juror interviews and evidence of potential juror misconduct—the defense has now filed a motion for a new trial. The hosts, journalist Áine Cain and attorney Kevin Greenlee, break down the facts of the crime, scrutinize the legal arguments in the defense’s motion, and reflect on the broader implications for the justice system and the seriousness of jury service.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Recap of the Koenig Case and Charges

[03:50–09:30]

• Crime Details:
  • March 24, 2025, Ariel Koenig’s birthday; she and Gerhardt Koenig hike Pali Puka Trail, Oahu.
  • Ariel alleges Gerhardt pushed her toward a cliff, tried to inject her with a syringe, and struck her with a rock after an argument escalated.
  • She escaped, running to other hikers and screaming for help. Gerhardt fled, later FaceTimed his son allegedly admitting, “I just tried to kill Ariel.” Arrest follows.
  • Both agree there was an assault; dispute centers on intent (attempted murder vs. self-defense vs. assault).
• Legal Options for Jury:
  • Convict of attempted murder (requires intent to kill).
  • Convict of attempted manslaughter under extreme emotional disturbance (EMED)—still requires intent to kill, but with mitigating circumstances.
  • Consider various assault charges if no intent to kill is found.
  • Koenig claimed self-defense.

2. Jury's Verdict and Immediate Reactions

[09:32–13:50]

• Verdict: Koenig convicted of attempted EMED manslaughter, facing up to 20 years.
• Hosts’ Reactions:
  • Áine is "appalled" by the verdict, seeing the actions as clear attempted murder and criticizing the use of emotional disturbance as a mitigating excuse.
  • Kevin emphasizes the legal necessity of intent for both attempted murder and attempted EMED manslaughter.

3. Post-Trial Jury Interviews: The Problem Emerges

[13:50–16:11]

• Jurors gave media interviews stating “we don’t think he tried to kill her.”
• Hosts highlight that intent to kill is required for the conviction returned. Áine, after trying to justify the verdict based on possible ambiguity, is dismayed upon learning this.

Quote:

“If you don't believe he tried to kill her, then by definition, he is not guilty of the crime for which you just convicted him.” — Kevin [12:09]

4. Legal Arguments for a New Trial

[16:14–27:50]

a. Jury Misunderstanding (Ignorance of Law)

• Defense cites juror public statements showing clear misunderstanding of verdict requirements.
• Argument: No one should face prison because a jury misunderstood the law.

b. Conviction for a Non-Existent Crime

• If the jury in fact believed Koenig only acted recklessly, they would find him guilty of “attempted reckless manslaughter”—a charge that doesn’t exist.
• Defense argues Koenig was convicted of a non-existent crime, violating due process.

c. Potential Outside Influence

• Live Chat Revelation: During YouTube livestream of the trial, a chat message read, “I’ve been texting with one of the jurors, and they’re going for count three, attempted manslaughter.”
• The use of “count three” mirrors the juror’s own interview language, suggesting actual unauthorized communication between a deliberating juror and an outsider.
• Potential for influence: This external communication could have introduced outside opinions, information, or pressure into the deliberations.

Quotes:

“In her public statements, the foreperson... repeatedly stated the jury did not believe Dr. Koenig intended to kill Ariel Koenig.” — Kevin, quoting the defense motion [14:40]
“Jury misunderstood the law and just messed around, frankly, or we're too stupid to grasp the very obvious nuances...” — Áine [19:11]
“A juror really does seem to have been texting with someone outside... about matters before the jury. That’s troubling for a variety of reasons.” — Kevin [33:57]

5. Wider Implications: Jury Duty and Civic Responsibility

[34:21–39:39]

• Áine voices frustration at the lack of seriousness and civic-mindedness among some jurors, equating it to a crisis in civics and reading comprehension.
• Both note that the rules against jurors discussing the case externally are made clear and are crucial for fairness.

Quote:

“If you are not prepared to fulfill your duty as a juror, you should be making that clear so they can be removed... you should want to do your duty as a juror... that's how our system runs.” — Áine [37:27]

6. The Double Jeopardy Question

[40:01–43:02]

• Concern from listeners: Could Koenig, if retried, face the more serious (attempted murder) charge again?
• Defense argues double jeopardy applies: the initial jury, by convicting only on the lesser charge, effectively acquitted Koenig of attempted murder. On retrial, state cannot pursue the top charge.
• Hosts agree with this legal logic.

Quote:

“By saying, ‘we don’t think he was guilty of attempted murder,’ they were effectively acquitting him of attempted murder... he could not be charged with that again.” — Kevin [41:24]

7. Broader Reflections on the Jury System

[45:24–51:05]

• Despite frustrations, Kevin and Áine defend the jury system as a foundation of justice—when taken seriously.
• Áine emphasizes respect for the defense attorneys’ role, even if she finds Koenig’s conduct reprehensible.
• This case may lead to more sequestered juries in the future, creating hardship but perhaps necessary to avoid such breakdowns.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Áine’s Outrage on the Emotional Disturbance Defense:

  "I'm sorry. What fricking year is it? Because, like, what's this, like, oh, emotional distress?... You don't get to work yourself into a fricking tizzy and then go push someone off a cliff. You can get a divorce, you know, whatever." [10:50]

• On Misunderstood Law:

  “How do you misunderstand the law when the judge explained… was just no one paying attention in this jury?” — Áine [16:02]

• On Outside Influence:

  “…the same language parroted in these two sources seems to lend credence... this is a genuine communication from someone accurately reflecting their knowledge of the deliberations...” — Kevin [33:57]

• On Civic Duty:

  “We do owe each other things. And if you are not prepared to fulfill your duty as a juror, they should be making that clear so they can be removed from the jury and that's it.” — Áine [37:27]

• On Defense Attorneys:

  “I don't think they're slimy. I think they're doing their jobs. I would be extremely concerned... They're not... that's not—We can't, like, put—you know, we have to support the system, I feel, and... to me, they're, they're doing that.” — Áine [19:11]

---

Important Timestamps

• Case introduction and overview: [01:00–05:46]
• Explanation of legal standards: [05:47–09:30]
• Crime and narrative recap: [06:43–08:06]
• Jury's verdict and hosts’ reactions: [09:32–13:50]
• Jury foreperson statements and initial legal analysis: [13:54–16:11]
• Defense’s motion and legal strategies: [16:14–27:50]
• Evidence of outside influence emerges: [29:53–34:18]
• Discussion of civic duty and the crisis in juries: [37:27–39:39]
• Double jeopardy explained: [40:01–43:02]
• Ho sts’ closing thoughts and defense of the jury system: [45:24–52:03]

---

Tone and Takeaways

• The hosts balance analytical rigor with passionate, often blunt opinion—Áine does not shy from calling the jury “embarrassing” and “lousy,” while Kevin focuses on legal standards and objectivity.
• Both agree that, despite their personal beliefs about Koenig’s guilt, the mishandling by the jury warrants a new trial and that fundamental fairness requires adherence to process.
• The episode serves as a warning about declining civic seriousness, the ease of modern outside interference (e.g., texting, social media), and the continued necessity of conscientious jurors.

---

Conclusion

"The Case of Dr. Gerhardt Koenig: Motion for a New Trial" is a rich, emotional, and legally intricate podcast episode that dissects the troubling reasons behind a defense motion for retrial. It explores jury misunderstanding, potential outside influence, and the integrity of the justice system. While recognizing the immense harm to the victim, the hosts ultimately argue that justice requires a new trial—one led by jurors who fully comprehend their solemn duty.

---

For updates on the Koenig case and more deep-dive episodes, subscribe on Patreon or Apple Podcasts. And for true crime discussion, join the Murder Sheet Facebook group.

Transcript

[A]

If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering

[B]

the products you need all in one

[A]

place, from H VAC and plumbing supplies to lighting and more.

[B]

And all delivered with plenty of time

[A]

left on the clock.

[B]

So your team always gets the win.

[A]

Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done. When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery, so you can keep your facility stocked, safe, and running smoothly. Call 1-800-granger. Click granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[B]

I'm Kevin, and today we are going to be talking about the latest in the Dr. Gerhard Koenig case, where the defense has filed a motion for a new trial alleging some irregularities with the jury. Content warning. This episode does contain talk of domestic violence. Violence. So, Anya, I think we've only covered it so far on a cheat sheet, but there. There was this case out of Hawaii that's attracted some national attention. A man named Dr. Gerhard Koenig attacked his wife, Ariel Koenig, while they were hiking on a trail. They told slightly different stories about what happened, but the end result was she was pretty seriously injured. She even alleges that he came at her with some kind of a syringe. He was put on trial for this crime and was convicted of attempted manslaughter based upon extreme mental or emotional disturbance. But after that verdict came down, there's been some new developments which give everybody heartburn. And we will talk about that in a few minutes.

[A]

Let's do it. My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.

[B]

And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[A]

And this is the Murder Sheet.

[B]

We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases.

[A]

We're the Murder Sheet.

[B]

And this is the case of Dr. Gerhardt Koenig. Motion for a new trial. This case has become such a mess with these latest developments.

[A]

Yeah, this one's gonna infuriate some people, probably including me. And I think you've been pretty furious about it, too. Like, I know I have hothead reputation around these parts, but you were saying some things Last night over dinner, that was definitely. I think this one's getting to you too.

[B]

Oh, it definitely is. Where to begin? I think the most natural place to begin is by making. This may be an obvious point, but is an important and a necessary one, which is when you're looking at a criminal offense, when you're looking at what somebody does dead, that is only part of the picture. Because there are situations where if you do a particular action, let's say you shoot somebody and everybody agrees you shot a person in certain circumstances, depending upon the circumstances and what's going on in your head, that could be a murder or it could be an act of self defense or could be an accident. Could be an accident. So a lot of it depends not so much on what happened as what was in the person's mind and what the outer circumstances were. And so with that in mind, when this case was given to the jury, they had some choices and some determinations to make. It's generally accepted by one and all that he committed some kind of an assault on his wife. Now the question is, how do we classify it? If we think he was committing an attempt to kill her and he's intending to kill her, then the jury says you need. The jury is told rather that you need to convict him of attempted murder. And that is your first verdict option. Another option is, well, if you think he was attempting to kill her, but he was acting under extreme mental or emotional disturbance.

[A]

Oh, please.

[B]

At the time, then you charge him with attempted emed. Manslaughter. We have manslaughter, you know, in most states, some variation of that. So that requires you to think he was acting under extreme emotional upset, but he was intending to kill her. If you believe he wasn't intending to kill her, then he is not guilty of either of those crimes. If you think he's attacking her for some other reason, then you move on to consider various assault charges.

[A]

Assault and battery.

[B]

Yeah, different types of assault. And I should also mention there was another option in there that he claimed he was acting in self defense. And if you believe he was acting in self defense, then you know he's not guilty of the crime.

[A]

Can we, can we go over maybe the facts of what happened in the crime?

[B]

Like go ahead.

[A]

Yeah, just to kind of. Because I want people, I want people to like, you know, maybe mull some of those options over now that they know what would need to be proven for each one. So basically, March 24, 2025, it's 36 year old Ariel Koenig's birthday And she goes there. She and her husband, Dr. Gerhardt Koenig, who is an anesthesiologist, they're from Maui, a different island in Hawaii, and they go on the Pali Puka Trail in Oahu and go on a hike. And what Ariel alleges is that he pushed her toward a cliff, attempted to inject her with a syringe, and hit her in the head with a rock. Ultimately, she was able to. And this was as a result of an argument escalating. And this is something where she was able to get away from him, run into two. You know, I think it was other hikers. And she's screaming, he's trying to kill me. The hikers help her out, law enforcement responds. Koenig runs for it. And he's later FaceTimes, his adult son apparently says something to the effect of, I just tried to kill Ariel. And then is arrested. So that's what happened.

[B]

That's what happened. If you think he was intending to kill her, that's attempted murder. If you think he's intending to kill her, but he's acting under extreme emotional upset. I think there was talk she'd recently been having some sort of an emotional affair with somebody.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Then that's attempted emed manslaughter. And if he's acting in self defense, then that's a defense. If he's just simply assaulting her, then you know what I'm saying here. So the most serious crime is attempted murder. That requires intent. The second most serious is that the attempted manslaughter. That also requires intent. And that's what you need to remember for what we're about to discuss. If you conclude that he did not intend to kill his wife, then he is not guilty of those crimes. And the most he's guilty of is assault. Yeah, I'm not making any. I wasn't sitting in on this trial. I'm not making any decisions or rendering any judgments.

[A]

Oh, I am.

[B]

About what happened and what he should or should not be guilty of. I'm just telling you, if you want him to be guilty of attempted murder or the attempted emotional disturbance manslaughter, you need to believe that he was trying to kill her.

[A]

That makes total sense.

[B]

And the court laid that out in jury instructions, as I'm sure we all know, before the jury retires to the jury room to go and deliberate, there's always this long kind of boring process where the judge sits and reads to them. Long, drawn out jury instructions where the judge lays out the process to follow. This judge did a Fine example of that. And again, I'm repeating myself, and I apologize for that. This. But it's very crucial. If you believe he is guilty of the most serious charges, which are attempted murder or the attempted extreme mental or emotional disturbance manslaughter, you need to believe that he was intending to kill his wife when he committed this assault. Now, as you may or may not know, the jury ultimately comes back and finds him guilty of attempted emed. Manslaughter. Okay, so. And that's a less serious offense than the attempted murder, but he could still face about 20 years for it. A number of people, I think, including you, were pretty upset about it.

[A]

I was appalled. I mean, I can tell. I can go into that more later. But I mean, I. What? I mean, I just. I'm just sick of whatever. I could live with it, but it just was. It to me, his actions really spoke to attempted murder. And also, I'm sorry, what fricking year is it? Because, like, what's this, like, oh, emotional distress? Like, what are we back to? Like, the irresistible urge? Is this fucking Anatomy of a Murder? I mean, like, please, it stinks to be cheated on, even if it's an emotional affair. Right. You don't get to kill people over that. You know, you don't get to work yourself into a fricking tizzy and then go push someone off a cliff. You can get a divorce, you know, whatever. I'm sorry. I'm just. Ticks me off. I thought they made a. I thought this jury botched it, but I didn't realize how much until you dug into it.

[B]

Well, what happened is, after they gave the verdict, a couple of the jurors gave statements to members of the media in which they tried to explain their decision. And one of the things that came up is kind of a common theme, is, oh, we don't think he tried to kill her.

[A]

Jesus Christ.

[B]

And again, I apologize for repeating myself. If you don't believe he tried to kill her, then by definition, he is not guilty of the crime for which you just convicted him. The crime for which he now faces 20 years in prison. That's. That seems to be a problem, doesn't it?

[A]

The thing that flashes before my eyes is that. Is that gif of Bart Simpson having a cake that says, at least you tried, and then throwing it in the garbage. Like, I mean, what? Yeah, that. This, This. I mean, I. Again, I disagreed with the initial verdict, but as I said, I could live with it, you know, like, if you. I mean, okay, My viewpoint is I really do feel if you have two alternate explanations of a defendant's behavior and they're both reasonable and one tends to acquit, you have to go with that one.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

If there's any argument to be made for self defense, I would acquit. If there's, you know, if it's ambiguous, I would acquit. I. You don't. The state doesn't get the default, you know, kind of the defense does, in my mind. So I kind of reasoned it. When I initially heard the news, I was like, that's ridiculous. He was obviously, you know, trying to kill her. But then I was like, well, if they can't really know how upset he was, or like, the mental distress element, even though I personally think that's a stupid excuse, I can understand where the jury's coming from. So I actually, like, reasoned myself into backing the verdict. Right. Cause I was like, well, at least it's accountability. Uh, there's. There's, you know, the potential for a lengthy sentence. I'm not happy with it, but I feel like maybe the jury's actually really smart. Maybe they're actually really thoughtful about this and good for them.

[B]

And then you heard about some of these interviews.

[A]

You know, I really, like. It was wild. It was this emotional journey where I was like, I'm probably being too harsh on this jury, and I, you know, I shouldn't be, you know, reactive. I wasn't there in the courtroom. And if they're being prudent, they're giving the most benefit of the doubt to the defendant, which is absolutely what you should do. The thing is, people misinterpret that, though, and they think like, oh, you know, if there's some really dumb story that doesn't make any sense. Well, if the defense puts that on, I have to accept that. No, you don't. Common sense still prevails. But if there's two reasonable explanations and the state has not really, like, locked in why theirs is the one. That's right. I think I can understand it. So I. I backed off. And then you told me what happened, and I was like, oh, my gosh.

[B]

Yeah, these.

[A]

What? Okay, so tell me more.

[B]

Uh, I'm going to read from this motion for a new trial here. Quote. In her public statements, the foreperson of the jury repeatedly stated that the jury did not believe that Dr. Koenig intended to kill Ariel Koenig. Speaking with true Crime az, the foreperson stated the intent to kill is improbable to us based on the evidence presented. The foreperson made similar statements during an Interview with East Idaho News. When asked why the jury chose attempted manslaughter, not attempted murder, the foreperson replied that the jury concluded there was definitely a scuffle that resulted in injury to the head. That could be bodily injury and serious. But when further asked about the jury's belief that Dr. Koenig wasn't trying to kill her, the foreperson replied, ultimately, we just agreed that Ariel Koenig was definitely hurt with a bodily injury to the head that could result in serious bodily injury. So in other words, what she is saying is we believe the assault happened. We believe she was injured. We don't believe he intended to kill her, but they convicted him of the crime of intending to kill her. And there's a point in this motion where the defense attorney says no one should face 20 years in prison because a jury misunderstood the law.

[A]

How do you misunderstand the law when the judge explained it was just no one paying attention in this jury?

[B]

I don't know. It baffles me.

[A]

Yeah,

[B]

it's a bizarre situation. I've tried. I've looked to see if there have been other cases out here where a verdict was overturned solely because of statements made by the jurors. I couldn't find one. That doesn't mean they aren't out there. If you have one, please send it to me. Another complicating factor here is, I'm sure you all remember we just had a long talk about the Murdoch case and whether or not the jury in that case was improperly influenced by statements from the clerk of court, Becky Hill. And we talked about than about how it's not considered permissible for the courts to make an inquiry into the actual deliberations of jurors. Yeah, we don't want to make those the subject of, you know, lawsuits and filings and things like that. So instead, what people are allowed to make inquiries about or about things that may have influenced it or things of that nature. So it's very rare for people to try to look at the actual deliberations themselves. And in. In this matter, they do try to talk their way around that, be it. Because that is. That is an issue.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

You're not supposed to really delve into the actual deliberations themselves. And the argument they make is an interesting one where they say that the understanding is that we're not supposed to delve into the internal deliberative process of the jurors, but we are allowed to testify and make inquiries into objective misconduct and irregularities. So this motion makes the argument that, quote, the court may properly consider jurors voluntary public statements and the evidence concerning possible outside influence for the limited purpose of determining whether there exists a reasonable possibility that the deliberative process or the resulting verdict was tainted by legal error, objective irregularity or improper external influence. End quote. And again, I'm not aware of a case off the top of my head where it's been interpreted that way, But I do think the defense is right to be concerned here. If my client was convicted of a crime and then jurors were going out and saying, oh, we don't believe he's guilty, basically I would be concerned. I would be upset.

[A]

You know, I saw someone in some social media setting call them the defense attorneys in this case, slimy for, you know, whatever. And I don't think they're slimy. I think they're doing their jobs. I would be extremely concerned, you know, and they're supposed to advocate for their client as vigorously as possible. And I can personally think that their client is a scumbag who should have been convicted on attempted murder. But that doesn't change their job. Their objective, their goal is to do everything they can to get their client the best outcome possible. And they're doing that by dint of exploiting this situation as best as they can. And that's what we, that's what they should be doing. They're not. That's not, I, we can't like put, you know, we have to, we have to support the system, I feel. And, and to me they're, they're doing that. And it, who would do anything different? The jurors have just gift wrapped them this thing of hi, we don't understand the law and just messed around, frankly, or we're too stupid to grasp like the very obvious nuances of what we're talking about. Why would, why wouldn't the defense be like all over this?

[B]

Yes. And again, I don't know if the court is going to accept the defense's interpretation of the rules about whether or not you can consider some of these internal deliberations of the jury or not. I think it's an interesting argument. I think it's worth making. Again, I would be very concerned. And in a situation like this, what I do is I ask myself, how would I feel if this was someone I cared about who was on trial under these circumstances? And if it was someone I cared about, someone I loved, and I would feel that in these circumstances it would be unfair, then it's unfair for anybody. And I.

[A]

You would never stand by somebody who did this because you have freaking common sense.

[B]

Yes, but what I'm saying is this doesn't. This is. This would bother me.

[A]

I just think it bothers me. Even though I think he's guilty, you know, I mean, I don't need to have any sort of personal sympathy for this guy. I think he's an absolute scumbag. I think he tried to kill his wife, you know, in some kind of emotional hissy fit. And frankly, I. I just have zero sympathy for him. Whatever sympathy I could have for someone being hurt by someone having an emotional affair or whatnot, whatever sympathy I could have, I mean, normally I'd be like, oh, that's. That's awful. That's really sad. But once you take it into violence, you've lost any sort of sympathy that I have. And to me, I'm just gonna say something, okay? Like the whole. My dad is an anesthesiologist, okay? I have never known that man, who's a wonderful dad, wonderful husband, lovely guy, would never kill anybody. But he doesn't. What? I don't remember him ever carrying around syringes. Like, that's. I don't like. The fact that he was doing that is just so ominous. And now maybe my dad will listen to this and text me and be like, anya, I've been always carrying around searches. I don't know. But, like, that was, like, that was never a thing. Like, I. All of this is so sinister. Oh, he's doing self defense against his, like, you know, wife, who's like, I don't know, it just. His own son is saying, yeah, he FaceTimed me and said this. I mean, like, this jury is just, like, embarrassing. They're embarrassing.

[B]

To be clear, I'm not expressing any opinion whatsoever about the facts of the case or whether or not I love this guy or hate this guy or whatever. All I'm saying is I think I have some concerns about the process and whether or not he was treated fairly by this jury.

[A]

I am fully in agreement with you on that. I'm just adding to it that I'm just disgusted. And I gaslit myself into supporting this jury's verdict because I was like, well, maybe they're just being super nuanced. Maybe they're not idiots. Maybe they're just, like, really thoughtful about this and I tip my hat to them. And then to find out, like, no, they actually don't even know what words mean. Is like, oh, okay, cool. So I was right. Like, this is embarrassing. Because again, like, I would have been disgusted had they acquitted him on Both those attempted manslaughter, I mean, I would have been even more disgusted because it's like, what did they, what does he need to do? Do it in front of you for you to like, you know, I mean, like, I just. There's a certain moral cowardice to some of this. I think of like, I don't want to convict him. He's a doctor, he seems really nice. It's like, yeah, no doctors ever killed their wife. You know, I mean like, there's like famous cases where that happened, but whatever. But I could, I could live with it because at least it's like, okay, we under, we, we paid attention to what the judge was saying and convicted based on our understanding of those laws. Like, I could live with it because it's like they did their job. This is like they didn't even do the bare minimum of like, understand the words in the jury instructions and what the different charges mean. Like, that's just embarrassing. Like, and the four person, that's your job to kind of keep everyone on track.

[B]

Before we leave this particular argument, I want to include a detail here which is that they were given a verdict sheet where different possible verdicts were listed. You know, guilty, not guilty, guilty of attempted murder, guilty of attempted emed, manslaughter and all these things. And as it happened, the verdict they chose was the third one listed. And in one of the interviews the four person referred to it as we chose the third count. So she was using the wrong term because it was a possible verdict. It wasn't account. And just put a pin in that because that will become important in a few minutes. Got that?

[A]

Oh, no.

[B]

So put a pin in that.

[A]

I put it. It's in.

[B]

So quick review. First argument is the jurors, multiple jurors gave public interviews in which they say, we don't think he had the intent, which means that he wasn't guilty of the crime they convicted him of. That was the first argument. The second argument is a bit more esoteric, but basically what the defense says here is if you believe someone acted recklessly in a way that could potentially kill someone, and they were doing this under extreme emotional disturbance, you're basically saying what this person is actually guilty of is attempted reckless manslaughter, which is not a. It's. That's non existent. That's not a charge that was on the table, that's not a charge on the books. So their argument there is. Well, basically they're saying he's guilty of a non existent crime. That doesn't make any Sense. So that's also an interesting argument to make. Okay. I don't know if that's worth talking about. Beyond.

[A]

I feel like we just made it up. I. Okay. Like, this is so. I feel like I'm very frustrated with this episode and with the circumstance, because I feel strongly that this guy deserved the top charge, and yet how could he not. It would not be justice, I think, if he does not get a new trial out of this, in which that. In which he's. In which the top charge is actually not even on the table because he was essentially acquitted of that. I. You know, like. I mean, again, like, you heard how mad I was, and I think this guy did. And I feel so bad for Ariel Koenig. She didn't deserve any of this. She didn't deserve to be put through this awful trauma. I feel so bad for this man's family, his son, who had to be involved in this. I feel so bad for everybody except for him. But I. I really do feel. I mean, those other hikers who see this woman running, you know, through the trees toward them, screaming that he's trying to kill her. I feel bad for all of them. This is a wreck. This is a mess. The prosecutors who work so hard on this, you know, and like. But. And yet, I totally agree with the defense. I think he needs a new trial. This is not fair. You can't be convicted of something that's not a thing.

[B]

But we're not done yet. Anya. Let's move on to the third argument, and I'm going to read again from this motion. Quote, a criminal defendant is constitutionally entitled to a verdict based solely upon the evidence admitted at trial and the court's instructions. Possible outside influence upon a deliberating jury therefore raises serious concerns regarding the integrity of the verdict and the fairness of the proceedings. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that private communications with jurors during trial concerning matters before the jury are presumptively prejudicial. And the burden rests heavily upon the government to establish harmlessness. So let's talk about that. This is just a general principle. If you've ever watched a trial in real life or often even on television, I'm sure you've heard the judges say to the jurors, don't talk about this even amongst yourselves. Don't talk about it with other people. Because we want the jury to make their decision based only on what is admitted in court. There are very specific, technical, sometimes legal rules about what sort of evidence can or cannot be admitted into a trial proceeding. There are reasons for that. The evidence that is not allowed is not allowed for reasons of fairness or what have you.

[A]

And, like, and there might be something where it's like, you know, okay, did this guy do this drug deal? And then if you have, like, the. The local gossips, like, sidle up to you in the hallway and be like, yeah, he's always. I always see him on the corner doing drugs, you know, like. Like. Like that. That's not evidence. That's not vetted. She could be making it up. You know, like, you have to. It's like. It's almost like. To use a really stupid analogy, it's like, almost like you want the finest ingredients that are vetted by the Top Chef and like, nothing else is allowed in the kitchen, and that's the only thing going into the meal. And you don't want someone suddenly showing up with some fast food that they're sort of dumping on the plate and then throwing out there without any sort of checking.

[B]

And also, we want there to be a record of what evidence is admitted and used by the jury to establish their conclusions. That's why we have, you know, transcripts of trials so lawyers down the road can look at and say, oh, this evidence was admitted. The jury considered this. They didn't consider this. Blah, blah, blah. If the jury is considering evidence that wasn't even admitted into the trial and there's no record of it, that's fundamentally unfair to the defendant. Again, if that happened to someone you love, someone you cared about, you would say, that's not fair. They didn't get a fair shake. The jury should only be considering what is said and done in the courtroom in front of them. Yeah, that's a basic principle. We can all understand that. So with that said, this trial was live streamed on a variety of platforms. One of the platforms that live streamed it was Law and Crime. They live streamed it on YouTube. If you've ever watched a trial on YouTube, you know, there's often on the side, people joining into, like, a live chat. And while this trial was ongoing, while they were at. More specifically, while the actual deliberations were happening, someone put in the chat. This is after. This is while the deliberations were happening on the long crime YouTube livestream, they wrote, quote, I've been texting with one of the jurors, and they're going for count three, attempted manslaughter, end quote. So, first of all, this person accurately predicted the verdict, and this is a verdict that surprised a lot of people. And it's not necessarily A verdict a lot of people would have expected.

[A]

I agree with that. Yeah.

[B]

And also they refer to it as count three. Oh, no. Which is the exact terminology that was used by the juror in her interviews. And it's inaccurate terminology. But the fact that we're seeing the same language parroted in these two sources seems to lend credence to the idea that this is a real communication, that this person who posted this was indeed in contact with a juror who was then deliberating. That doesn't necessarily mean that they were in contact with the juror who gave the interview who used the count three terminology, but it's possible that that terminology was just widely used in the jury room by a variety of jurors. So it would seem as if this is a genuine communication from someone accurately reflecting their knowledge of the state of deliberations within the jury. In other words, a juror really does seem to have been texting with someone outside of the jury about matters before the jury. That's troubling for a variety of reasons. Again, I would imagine it wasn't a one time, one way only communication. I would imagine that whoever they were texting with was also texting back to them their thoughts about the case, maybe their knowledge about pieces of evidence that were or were not admitted and that could have had an influence on this juror. It's also worth noting that the person they were texting with was interested enough in the case to be posting about it on a law and crime YouTube livestream. So they probably did have information about the case. Probably wanted to discuss the case. If you're interested enough in the case to want to share your opinions in a YouTube chat and your friends or have a connection with the juror, you're probably also discussing the case with them. And this raises the troubling possibility that the juror's verdict may have been influenced by outside communications with someone who was interested in the case. Does that make sense?

[A]

Yes,

[B]

I. I find that very troubling.

[A]

I. I think. And this is one of the reasons I was so mad at the beginning, because I knew about this, so I wasn't just. This is. This is why I feel like this jury is really just. This is a lousy jury. Like, I'm sorry, if you're. If you're. It's like you're not even understanding the char. You're not even understanding what he's charged with. You're not even understanding the law. You're not understanding what you're supposed to do. Apparently don't care Enough to ask, like, the judge for some help if everyone's confused. And then, not only that, but you're taking things so unseriously that you're actually, like, texting with your dumb friend who's then posting it on Law and Crime. Like, I just want to say, like, between this, between Delphi, between the Becky Hill situation, like, it's an underscoring of why we need to take these cases, especially cases where it's, you know, a pretty heinous crime. No one was murdered here, but a young woman was viciously attacked. And, you know, like, take it seriously. Don't treat it like it's just some dumb work event that you're texting with your friends through. Don't treat it like it's some kind of, like, gab session. And like, ooh, let's true crime out. Because listen, I mean, I love true crime. That's why I'm doing a podcast in it. We like talking about that. It's our jobs. You know, you, if you're listening to this, hopefully you enjoy listening about true crime stories. But none of us are on a jury. And if you're on a jury, like, that's when you shut it down and get serious. You're not.

[B]

And here's the thing, it's an interesting experience being on a jury on a case that people really care about. A case that's being live streamed, that's an interesting experience. I can understand why you'd want to share the details of that experience with people in your life and perhaps even publicly. And that's all fine. Just wait until after the verdict has been given. That's all we ask. And again, this isn't a case of the judges or anybody hiding the ball. It's always stressed to jurors, don't communicate with anyone about the matters of this trial. While this trial is ongoing. That's one of the most important things for a juror to know and understand. And anytime I've been in a courtroom in that situation, that is always stressed. We often return to talk about the Delphi case anytime the jury left the courtroom, whether it was for a 10 minute break or an overnight break or a weekend break. Judge Gol always told them, don't talk to anyone about the substance of this case. Don't even talk to each other about the substance of this case until it's time to deliberate. And that's normal. That's just basic stuff. There is no excuse for a juror to be sharing information about deliberations with an outsider or having potentially A two way conversation about the case with this outsider.

[A]

And I just, you know, I mean, this, we were talking about this with Becky, Hillary, and I don't, I don't think I, I think, I think this episode's gonna come out before the other episode where I mentioned this, but I said, like, we need, I think sometimes we're so awash in a culture of, in the United States, at least, a culture of entitlement and grifting and con man behavior and just do whatever you want. You don't owe anything to anyone else. You don't owe anything to anybody. You just do you. And if you, you know, everyone can go, you know, pound sand and I, I think that's disgraceful. I think we do owe each other things. I think we owe society things. And if you are not, if anyone is not prepared to fulfill their duty as a juror, they should be making that clear so they can be removed from the jury and that's it. And, and frankly, you should want to do. People should want to do their duty as a juror, even if it's annoying to kind of have to go out of your life for a while to, to deal with this thing, because that's how our system runs. And it's an honor to be up here and, you know, deliver justice, whether that's an acquittal, whether that's a conviction, whatever. Like, I just, I feel like there's like a crisis in terms of people not being civically minded and this, frankly, just the lack of seriousness with which this is treated, it should appall everybody. And again, I was telling, in the beginning I was annoyed with the, with the jury because I felt like I disagreed with their verdict. But ultimately I could come to accept that and say maybe they had a good reason for that. But there's no good reason to be texting with someone about your jury about your verdict. There's no good reason to be not paying attention to the point where you don't understand what, what, like the actual words on the page mean. Like, to me, it makes me think like, wow. I mean, at least there's juries that have delivered verdicts that I strongly disagreed with, but I can appreciate that they took it seriously enough and weighed it and came to a different conclusion than me. Maybe I'm annoyed with it. Maybe I feel justice wasn't done, but I can, I can be like, okay, at least they didn't do this. I mean, this is, this guy deserves a new trial. I'm sorry.

[B]

So one thing I, one argument or one concern I've seen raised in some of the public commentary around all of this is people saying, well, why would he ask for a new trial? Doesn't he realize he got lucky here? And if he goes back to trial, he could get in, he could end up getting convicted of attempted murder and perhaps get life in prison.

[A]

No, he won't.

[B]

Yeah, this. This is where we come to the double jeopardy argument. And this is the defense's argument. I'm sure the state will try to come up with an opposing argument. But basically, double jeopardy means that a person, if. If you're sent up, if you're charged with a crime and you are put on trial for that crime and you are acquitted, that means you cannot be tried for that crime again. So in this case, he was charged with attempted murder. And the jury looked at the facts and said, well, we don't think he was guilty of attempted murder. We're going down to the next lower one. And we think what he actually did was attempted manslaughter, as we all know. So the argument the defense makes is that by rendering that verdict, by saying, we don't think. We all agree he is not guilty of attempted murder, they were effectively acquitting him of attempted murder. And that would mean he could not be charged with that again. And that would mean that if there is a second trial, the most serious charge he would face would be what he was found guilty of in this crime, in this trial.

[A]

I mean. Yeah, that's.

[B]

What do you think of that argument?

[A]

I think it's correct.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I mean, again, you. I. I don't think I made a secret of how I view this person and how I think he's getting away with the crime he did against his wife. And I think he's a dangerous person. Like, I don't. I don't. Someone with this kind of rage who's going to lash out like this and. And frankly, like, it's not lost on me that, like, oh, yeah, it's your birthday. Let's go on this, like, remote trail near a cliff, and I have a siren. Like, you know, I mean, come on. But I think he's a dangerous person. I think he's a danger to whatever woman happens to tick him off. I think. I think it's a disgrace that he's probably going to walk, but I do.

[B]

I don't think he'd get a new trial.

[A]

Yeah, but he's gonna. Whatever he's gonna get, it's gonna be a slap on the wrist compared to what he deserves based on the facts. Of what happened. But at the same time, I don't see how they can deny him a new trial, and I don't see how they can try him again for attempted murder, because they did acquit him of that. Like, I'm sorry. Like, it's just. It's one of those things where you're forced into a position where, you know, in order to be intellectually honest, you have to acknowledge, like, that I think he's guilty, But I also acknowledge that this situation is so messed up that, you know, he shouldn't be put back on trial for those things. He was acquitted of those. And frankly, he should be tried for the assault and battery side of things because that's what is left, essentially.

[B]

I mean, it's entirely possible the court would look at this and say, we don't know of any other case where jurors said things like this after a trial, so we don't know what to make of that. We don't know. There's no process in place to handle that. But there is a process in place to handle outside influence, and that may be enough to get him a new trial, even without considering the other stuff.

[A]

Right, right. And that's a good point. I mean, what do you think? Do you think he should receive a new trial and be technically acquitted of the top charge?

[B]

Yeah, I think so, yeah. We don't know at this point the extent of the outside influence and communications. All we know is there strong evidence of at least one text during deliberations. That in and of itself is serious. I highly suspect that if a closer look is taken, there was more communication, more improper communication than just that.

[A]

What do you think prompts somebody to go on a jury and do stuff like this?

[B]

I think on some level, it is, for lack of a better word, it's fun to have inside information on something people care about. And it's not so much fun if you don't share that because you want to be the person who is. I'm the guy in the know. Come to me. I'll tell you what's going on. I think to some extent, that may have prompted the juror to share that information. To some extent, that may have prompted the person the juror texted to share that information on a live stream. I don't know.

[A]

No, I think you're right. I think that is it. It is fun. And when we've reported on cases, one of the ways that we've established trust with people who turn out to be sources is that we don't do that because We, I've seen that so many in high profile cases where people like talk to somebody and then go out and blab it immediately and then they don't get talked to anymore and everyone knows that they're not trustworthy. And that's just with like reporting stuff.

[B]

I mean, in a case like this, knowing what a verdict is going to be in advance, that's inside knowledge with a lot of value. But after the verdict is announced, the fact that you know what the verdict is, that's not so much inside knowledge. So.

[A]

Yeah, it's not. And it's, and it's just, it's just disappointing because I can understand from a human perspective it's fun to know things and tell people things. It's fun to be the one with the information or come in and say, hey, here's what's going on. If you've ever, if you've ever like, you know, dropped in the family group chat to say, oh, this news is breaking, you know, you know, like you get a little bit of a high with that. But you have to, we have to set aside our human failing kind of wanting attention, wanting gratification from doing things and not be so entitled and be willing to be a bit self sacrificing in order to perform our duties as jurors in this society under this system. And you would. I feel like I'm a big defender of the jury system. I feel like often juries get a really bad rap in true crime. Everybody's like, oh, you know, it's the people who are too dumb to avoid jury duty. I don't think that's the case. I think juries are full of just normal people who. I would rather a jury of just random people gathered from around town than frankly a bunch of true crime people. Because the true crime people, the creators, the YouTubers, they'd be making the whole thing into like, you know, oh, well, you know, this conspiracy. And maybe these people were involved in and like the normal people just have common sense. So I mean, I'm, I'm a supporter of it and I, I don't think it's, I think juries get it wrong. I don't think juries are above criticism. I think there's, you know, famous cases where it's like, okay, well that person was clearly guilty. Maybe there were good reasons for acquitting. Maybe there are bad reasons for acquitting. This case is where people were wrongfully convicted, right? Innocent people put into prison for years because a jury was either misled by the prosecution side or maybe the jury got it wrong, or there were prejudices. Who knows? So it's not perfect. It's just something where I tend to be more positive about it than I feel like I hear in true crime a lot. But at the same time, it's like, what disappointed me with this one wasn't simply that I disagreed with some of their statements, because I can live with that. It's just the lack of seriousness. I mean, what do you think prompts people to do this and not even know what they're convicting him of?

[B]

Yeah. And not even understand the verdict form. And it's not counts. It's just different verdict options. I don't know. There's certainly some instances when what a jury is charged with trying to do is so complicated, like scientific evidence and stuff, that it's easy to understand how a person can get confused. But what this boils down to is, do you think he was trying to kill her? If you think he was trying to kill her, he did this. If you don't think he was trying to kill her, he did this. That doesn't seem to me to be an especially difficult concept to grasp or understand. And if they don't even get that, it seems to betray a certain lack of seriousness about their work.

[A]

Because I don't want to be mean, but it's like, is it an intelligence problem or is it a not listening problem? I would. I don't think it's that hard either. I know sometimes this legal stuff can be complicated. I remember when I started reading legal documents, at first I was like, oh, gosh, these are so boring, you know, and you get used to it. So I understand that there can be kind of like, wait, what are we doing? But you're also. I mean, my understanding is you're allowed to ask the judge questions. Yeah, if there's. If there's a lack of clarity, you can always ask for help in. In those settings. And I think. I think it's betrays a lack of seriousness because it. It just, you know, I don't know. Like, at the end of the day, it's, did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements that go into the charge? And, and if. If they didn't, then set that one aside and then go to the next one. Did they do this one? Like, and. And it's like. And you. You have to reckon with, like, what was proven and what was not proven, what is, what is not beyond a reasonable doubt? And I don't know, it just. It's like, it feels like they didn't do that at all. And I. Again, I. Some people are like, well, we have to accept the jury's decision. Yeah, we. We do. That's the system. But we. It's not beyond criticism if they're, like, texting people and not paying attention.

[B]

Yeah. The combination of obviously not understanding the crime they were convicting him of and also communicating with outsiders. Yeah, it's a lack of seriousness. And.

[A]

And this deserves to be taken seriously.

[B]

Any crime deserves to be taken more seriously than that. And these jurors really let down the process.

[A]

And here's the thing. Like, think about all the people who had to come testify about this. You know, all the expense, all the time, all the effort. Think about, like, I just, like, if. I feel like one thing that could help with this is just like, if people, you know, if. If jurors came into it being like, this is a difficult process for everyone, you know, do we really want to be the jury that makes everyone do it all over again, you know, for a stupid reason? Obviously, sometimes hung juries occur. Right. And then everyone's gonna have to do it all over again anyway. But at least that's like, part of the process. Not, you know, like they. They instruct you not to talk to anybody. It's not like that's a big secret that somebody wouldn't know about. It's like they just the. Of saying, well, I've been instructed not to talk to anybody. But you know what? My friend Bill is really interested in this case. So I guess, you know, I'm going to do whatever I want. It's entitlement. I don't like that.

[B]

Yeah, it might lead to more sequest, More. More jurors in the future getting sequestered, which also is.

[A]

Is stinks because that's extremely expensive for a county to manage, and it's much more restrictive on jurors, other jurors who didn't do anything wrong, future jurors, because they, you know, like, you have to go away from your family, your job. It's. I think it's kind of traumatic in some cases at least. And, you know, I don't know, there's a. There's a big, you know, there's a big cost to that on the emotional side and the financial side. And I just think that's a shame that we can't trust people, you know, to just do the right thing and take it seriously. At the bare minimum, if you're ever on a jury, I mean, God. God help us, any of us, if we end up in a jury of people like this, you know, But I guess I. I think I would probably. I don't know. I would not. Well, I wouldn't be on a. I would never be on a jury because I. My business is a thing called the murder sheet. So I think I just. In what. It'd be like, ma', am, please leave. And I'd be like, yep.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

But I. I would say that if I ever landed on a jury with clowns who were doing stuff like this, I would. I would hang it rather than deliver a verdict with these people. If they were. If people were not taking it, I would just be like, nope, mistrial. Like, I'm not. I'm not going along with any of this. And, I mean, what would you do?

[B]

Yeah. So the attorneys, the defense attorneys were Thomas or Taki and Manta K. Dirks. These were the attorneys for the defense who prepared this motion. I thought the motion was pretty compelling.

[A]

I feel like I agree with them. I mean, again, I don't want to, but I do. And I didn't like that people were. I mean, listen, I understand it, and defense attorneys get a lot of flack in general, but these guys are. I mean, they're doing their jobs. I mean, this is serious, and they owe their client the best representation, and that means going after this situation. And I feel like the only fair thing to do is give him. Give him what they're asking for. And that stinks, because I think he's guilty, but I think he's guilty of more than what he was convicted of the first time. And it sounds like he's gonna. I don't know. I just.

[B]

I.

[A]

It's. It's frustrating when things go wrong. And I just do feel very bad for Ariel Koenig. I feel bad for all the people who were affected by the situation. It's not fair that they have to go through it again, but hopefully they can find a jury that's going to take it seriously, and maybe it can be a lesson to everyone. Personally, I feel like I don't really. I'm not really concerned about, like, murder sheet people going and being bad jurors, but I am increasingly concerned. Like, I just feel like. Also, I mean, there seems to be kind of a reading comprehension crisis to some extent in the United States, and I'm not saying that's what happened here, but I feel like we might see more cases like this going forward where it's just like, I'm not understanding the words of what this means.

[B]

And again, this was just the defense's first motion on this. I would imagine the prosecution is going to have something to say about all this. Oh, yeah, they would say, no, these things aren't serious. Let's just keep the verdict.

[A]

It's no big deal.

[B]

We don't need a new trial. And if you really do want a new trial, I'm sure double jeopardy doesn't apply and we can still try for everything we want.

[A]

I mean, God bless the prosecution here. I agree with. I, I want this guy to go to prison, but I just, I don't. I think the defense is right.

[B]

So we will keep an eye on it and keep you all apprised of future developments. And meanwhile, we are looking forward to seeing some of you at Crimecon this weekend.

[A]

Heck, yeah, it'd be fun.

[B]

And we have this new premium thing where we're gonna have more shows. Premium only shows, including a premium only update on whatever our first day at Crimecon is like. And you can find those on Patreon. And also we're offering subscriptions to Apple.

[A]

Absolutely.

[B]

Is that it? Are we done?

[A]

I think we. I think we're done.

[B]

Anya, hit the button. Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email [e-mail]. if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[A]

If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com. if you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[B]

Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the [e-mail] if you're looking to talk with

[A]

other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.