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

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_01] 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.

[00:00:19] [SPEAKER_01] So Anya, I think we've only covered it so far on a cheat sheet, but there was this case out of Hawaii that's attracted some national attention. A man named Dr. Gerhardt Konig attacked his wife, Ariel Konig, while they were hiking on a trail.

[00:00:44] [SPEAKER_01] 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.

[00:01:13] [SPEAKER_01] 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.

[00:01:22] [SPEAKER_00] Let's do it. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:01:25] [SPEAKER_01] And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet. And this is the case of Dr. Gerhardt Konig motion for a new trial.

[00:02:28] [SPEAKER_01] This case has become such a mess with these latest developments.

[00:02:33] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, this one's going to infuriate some people, probably including me. And I think you've been pretty furious about it, too. Like, I know I have the hothead reputation around these parts, but you were you were saying some things last night over dinner. That was definitely, you know, I think this one's getting to you, too.

[00:02:50] [SPEAKER_01] 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 did. That is only part of the picture.

[00:03:15] [SPEAKER_01] 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. It could be an accident. It could be an accident.

[00:03:37] [SPEAKER_01] 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.

[00:03:59] [SPEAKER_01] 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.

[00:04:28] [SPEAKER_01] 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 at the time, then you charge him with attempted EMED manslaughter.

[00:04:54] [SPEAKER_01] And 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.

[00:05:24] [SPEAKER_01] Assault and battery. 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.

[00:05:38] [SPEAKER_00] Can we go over maybe the facts of what happened in the crime? Go ahead. Yeah, just to kind of, because 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. And so basically, March 24th, 2025, it's 36-year-old Ariel Koenig's birthday. And she goes there. She and her husband, Dr. Gerhard Koenig, who is an anesthesiologist.

[00:06:08] [SPEAKER_00] They're from Maui, a different island in Hawaii. And they go on the Palipuka 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.

[00:06:36] [SPEAKER_00] 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.

[00:07:06] [SPEAKER_01] 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 there. She'd recently been having some sort of an emotional affair with somebody. Yes. Then that's attempted EMED manslaughter. And if he's acting in self-defense, then that's a defense.

[00:07:31] [SPEAKER_01] If he's just simply assaulting her, then he's, 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.

[00:08:01] [SPEAKER_01] And the most he's guilty of is assault.

[00:08:03] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah.

[00:08:04] [SPEAKER_01] I'm not making any. I wasn't sitting in on this trial. I'm not making any decisions or rendering any judgments. Oh, I am. 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.

[00:08:30] [SPEAKER_00] That makes total sense.

[00:08:31] [SPEAKER_01] 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 was 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.

[00:09:01] [SPEAKER_01] And again, I'm repeating myself and I apologize for 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.

[00:09:28] [SPEAKER_01] Now, as you may or may not know, the jury ultimately comes back and finds him guilty of attempted EMED manslaughter.

[00:09:38] [SPEAKER_00] Okay.

[00:09:39] [SPEAKER_01] 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 that.

[00:09:50] [SPEAKER_00] 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, it, his actions really spoke to attempted murder. And also, I'm sorry, what freaking year is it? Because like, what's all 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.

[00:10:18] [SPEAKER_00] 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 freaking tizzy and then go push someone off a clip. You can get a divorce, you know? Whatever. I'm sorry. I'm just, ticks me off. I thought they made a, I don't think this jury botched it, but I didn't realize how much until you dug into it.

[00:10:43] [SPEAKER_01] 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.

[00:11:07] [SPEAKER_00] Jesus Christ.

[00:11:09] [SPEAKER_01] 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 seems to be a problem, doesn't it?

[00:11:30] [SPEAKER_00] 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,

[00:11:59] [SPEAKER_00] and they're both reasonable and one tends to acquit, you have to go with that one. 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,

[00:12:29] [SPEAKER_00] 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? Because I was like, well, at least it's accountability. There's this, 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.

[00:12:50] [SPEAKER_01] And then you heard about some of these interviews.

[00:12:53] [SPEAKER_00] 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.

[00:13:21] [SPEAKER_00] 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 backed off and then you told me what happened. And I was like, oh, my gosh.

[00:13:36] Yeah.

[00:13:37] [SPEAKER_00] These. What? OK, so tell me more.

[00:13:41] [SPEAKER_01] 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 and not attempted murder.

[00:14:09] [SPEAKER_01] 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.

[00:14:38] [SPEAKER_01] 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.

[00:15:02] [SPEAKER_00] How do you misunderstand the law when the judge explained it? Was just no one paying attention in this jury?

[00:15:08] [SPEAKER_01] I don't know. It baffles me.

[00:15:11] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah.

[00:15:13] [SPEAKER_01] 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.

[00:15:39] [SPEAKER_01] 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 then about how it's not considered permissible for the courts to make an inquiry into the actual deliberations of jurors.

[00:16:09] [SPEAKER_01] We don't want to make those the subject of lawsuits and filings and things like that. So instead, what people are allowed to make inquiries about are 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.

[00:16:31] [SPEAKER_01] And in this matter, they do try to talk their way around that because that is an issue. 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

[00:16:58] [SPEAKER_01] 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

[00:17:26] [SPEAKER_01] 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.

[00:17:54] [SPEAKER_01] 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.

[00:18:11] [SPEAKER_00] 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.

[00:18:39] [SPEAKER_00] 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 they should be doing. They're not that's not we can't like put, you know, we have to we have to support the system, I feel. And to me, they're they're doing that.

[00:19:08] [SPEAKER_00] And 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? Why wouldn't the defense be like all over this? Yes.

[00:19:28] [SPEAKER_01] 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

[00:19:57] [SPEAKER_01] 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.

[00:20:11] [SPEAKER_00] And I you would never stand by somebody who did this because you have freaking common sense.

[00:20:17] [SPEAKER_01] Yes. But what I'm saying is this doesn't this is this would bother me.

[00:20:21] [SPEAKER_00] 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 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. It's really sad.

[00:20:50] [SPEAKER_00] But once you take it into violence, you've lost any sort of sympathy that I have. And to me, I'm just going to say something. OK, like the whole my dad is an anesthesiologist. OK, I have never known that man who's a wonderful dad, wonderful husband, lovely guy, would never kill anybody.

[00:21:15] [SPEAKER_00] But he is what I don't remember him ever carrying around syringes. Because 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 that Anya, I've been always carrying around syringes. 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's just his own son is saying, yeah, he FaceTime me and said this.

[00:21:45] [SPEAKER_00] I mean, like this jury is just like embarrassing. They're embarrassing.

[00:21:49] [SPEAKER_01] 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.

[00:22:09] [SPEAKER_00] 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, OK, 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

[00:22:39] [SPEAKER_00] to 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. 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, OK, we under we we paid

[00:23:04] [SPEAKER_00] 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, well, in the foreperson, that's your job to kind of keep everyone on track.

[00:23:30] [SPEAKER_01] 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.

[00:23:55] [SPEAKER_01] And as it happened, the verdict they chose was the third one listed. And in one of the interviews, the foreperson referred to it is a we chose the third count. So she was she was using the wrong term because it was a possible verdict. It wasn't a count. And just put a pin in that because that will become important in a few minutes. Got that?

[00:24:22] [SPEAKER_00] Oh, no.

[00:24:52] [SPEAKER_01] No. This is a person that was not a crime. So if you're in a prison, it was a person.

[00:25:20] [SPEAKER_01] You're in a prison. You're in a prison. doesn't make any sense oh my gosh so that's also an interesting argument to make okay i i i don't

[00:25:33] [SPEAKER_00] know if that's worth talking about beyond like we just made it up i okay like this is so i 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 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 um in which the top charge is

[00:25:59] [SPEAKER_00] actually not even on the table because he was essentially acquitted of that i you know i like i mean again like you heard how mad i was and i i think this guy did and i feel so bad for um ariel koenig she didn't deserve any of this she didn't deserve to 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

[00:26:22] [SPEAKER_00] everybody except for him but i i really do feel i mean those other hikers who see this woman running you know uh 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

[00:26:46] [SPEAKER_00] fair you can't be convicted of something that's not a thing we're not done yet anya let's move on to

[00:26:53] [SPEAKER_01] 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 to 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

[00:27:22] [SPEAKER_01] 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

[00:27:48] [SPEAKER_01] 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 and like and there might be something where it's

[00:28:18] [SPEAKER_00] like you know okay did this guy do this drug deal and then if you have like the the local gossip like sidle up to you in the hallway and be like yeah he's oh i always see him on the corner doing drugs you know 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

[00:28:47] [SPEAKER_00] fast food that they're sort of dumping on the plate and then throwing out there without any sort of

[00:28:52] [SPEAKER_01] checking and also we want there to be a record of what evidence is admitted and used by the jury to establish their 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

[00:29:21] [SPEAKER_01] 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

[00:29:51] [SPEAKER_01] variety of platforms one of the platforms that uh live streamed it was law and 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 why there were uh more specifically

[00:30:17] [SPEAKER_01] while the actual deliberations were uh happening uh someone put in the chat this is after this is while the deliberations were happening on the long crime youtube live stream they wrote quote i've been texting with one of the jurors and they're going for count three attempted manslaughter end quote

[00:30:37] [SPEAKER_01] 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 i agree with that yeah and also they refer to it as count three oh no which is the exact terminology that was used by the

[00:31:03] [SPEAKER_01] 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 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

[00:31:32] [SPEAKER_01] that they were in contact with the juror who gave the interview who used the count three terminology but it's possible 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

[00:32:00] [SPEAKER_01] 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

[00:32:30] [SPEAKER_01] that were or were not admitted and that could have had an influence on this juror uh 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 live stream so they probably did have information about the case probably wanted to discuss the case if you're interested

[00:32:54] [SPEAKER_01] 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 uh the juror's verdict may have been influenced by outside communications with someone who was

[00:33:16] [SPEAKER_01] interested in the case does that make sense yes i i find that very troubling i i think and this is one of

[00:33:25] [SPEAKER_00] 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 it's a lousy jury like i'm sorry if you're if you're it's like you're not even understanding the charge 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

[00:33:53] [SPEAKER_00] 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

[00:34:14] [SPEAKER_00] 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 oh 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

[00:34:41] [SPEAKER_00] 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

[00:34:52] [SPEAKER_01] serious you're not 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

[00:35:21] [SPEAKER_01] 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

[00:35:46] [SPEAKER_01] 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 cole 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

[00:36:13] [SPEAKER_01] 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 and i just you

[00:36:28] [SPEAKER_00] know i mean this we were talking about this with becky hill and i don't i don't think i i think i think this episode's going to 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

[00:36:52] [SPEAKER_00] to anyone else you don't owe anything to anybody you just do you and if 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

[00:37:19] [SPEAKER_00] 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 a peer and and and 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 this frankly just the lack of seriousness with which this is treated it should appall

[00:37:49] [SPEAKER_00] 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

[00:38:18] [SPEAKER_00] 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 so one thing i've uh one argument or one

[00:38:42] [SPEAKER_01] 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 no he won't this this is where we come to the uh double jeopardy argument and this is the defense's

[00:39:10] [SPEAKER_01] argument i'm sure the state would try to come up with uh an opposing argument but basically double jeopardy means that a person 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

[00:39:33] [SPEAKER_01] 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

[00:39:58] [SPEAKER_01] 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 i mean yeah that's what do you think of

[00:40:27] [SPEAKER_00] that argument i think it's correct yeah 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

[00:40:53] [SPEAKER_00] let's go on this like a remote trail near a cliff and i have a searing 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 um i think it's a disgrace that he's probably going to walk but i don't think he'd get a new trial yeah but he's gonna whatever he's gonna get it's gonna be a slap on the wrist compared

[00:41:21] [SPEAKER_00] 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

[00:41:47] [SPEAKER_00] 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

[00:42:00] [SPEAKER_01] essentially 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

[00:42:26] [SPEAKER_00] right right and and that's a 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 yeah i i think so yeah uh we don't

[00:42:40] [SPEAKER_01] know at this point the extent of the outside influence and communications all we know is there is strong evidence of at least one tax 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

[00:43:03] [SPEAKER_00] communication than just that what do you think prompts somebody to go on a jury and do stuff like

[00:43:08] [SPEAKER_01] this 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 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

[00:43:35] [SPEAKER_01] the person the juror texted to share that information on a live stream i don't know no i think you're right

[00:43:42] [SPEAKER_00] 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 and that's just

[00:44:05] [SPEAKER_01] with like reporting stuff 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 yeah it's not and it's and it's just

[00:44:26] [SPEAKER_00] 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

[00:44:54] [SPEAKER_00] from doing things and not be so entitled and and be willing to be a bit self-sacrificing in order to perform our duties as 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

[00:45:19] [SPEAKER_00] 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 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 other 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 uh i think juries get it wrong i don't think

[00:45:48] [SPEAKER_00] 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

[00:46:17] [SPEAKER_00] positive about it than 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 it's just the lack of seriousness i mean what do you think prompts people to do this and not even like know what they're convicting him of yeah and not even understand

[00:46:44] [SPEAKER_01] the verdict form 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 such as 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

[00:47:12] [SPEAKER_01] 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 i mean like because i don't want to be

[00:47:33] [SPEAKER_00] 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 if there's if there's a lack of clarity

[00:47:57] [SPEAKER_00] you can always ask for help in in those settings and i think i think it's betrays a lack of seriousness because 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 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

[00:48:22] [SPEAKER_00] 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

[00:48:46] [SPEAKER_01] 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 and this deserves to be taken seriously any crime deserves to be taken more seriously than that and these jurors really let

[00:49:06] [SPEAKER_00] down the process 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

[00:49:33] [SPEAKER_00] 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 entitlement 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 gonna do whatever i want it's entitlement i don't like that yeah it might lead

[00:49:59] [SPEAKER_01] to more sequestration more more jurors in the future getting sequestered which also is is stinks

[00:50:06] [SPEAKER_00] 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 in some cases at least and you know i don't know there's a there's a big um you know there's a big cost to that on the emotional side and

[00:50:33] [SPEAKER_00] 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 just in what they'd be like ma'am please leave and i'd be

[00:51:03] [SPEAKER_00] like yep yeah 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

[00:51:19] [SPEAKER_01] and i mean what would you do yeah so the attorneys the defense attorneys were thomas or tucky and uh manta k dirks these are the attorneys for the defense who prepared this motion i thought the

[00:51:31] [SPEAKER_00] motion was pretty compelling 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 flock in general but these guys are i mean they're doing their jobs i mean this is this is uh 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

[00:52:00] [SPEAKER_00] 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 i 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 um hopefully they can find a jury that's gonna take it seriously and maybe it can be a lesson to everyone

[00:52:26] [SPEAKER_00] 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 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 and again this was just the defense's

[00:52:53] [SPEAKER_01] first motion on this i would imagine the prosecution is going to have something to say about all this oh yeah they're they're saying no these things aren't serious let's just keep the verdict no big deal we don't need a new trial and if you really do want a new trial uh i'm sure double jeopardy doesn't apply

[00:53:08] [SPEAKER_00] and we can still try for everything we want 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 so we will keep an eye on it and

[00:53:22] [SPEAKER_01] keep you all apprised of future developments and meanwhile we are looking forward to seeing uh some of you at crime con this weekend heck yeah it'll be fun and uh we have this new premium thing where we're going to have more shows uh premium only shows including a premium only uh update on whatever our first day at crime con is like and you can find those on patreon and also we're offering subscriptions

[00:53:47] [SPEAKER_01] to apple absolutely is that it are we done i think we i think we're done 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 us at murdersheet at gmail.com if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime please report it

[00:54:12] [SPEAKER_00] to the appropriate authorities if you're interested in joining our patreon that's available at www.patreon.com slash murder sheet if you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murder sheet we very much appreciate any support special thanks to kevin

[00:54:41] [SPEAKER_01] tyler greenley who composed the music for the murder sheet and who you can find on the web at kevin tg

[00:54:47] [SPEAKER_00] dot com if you're looking to talk with 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