A doctor, Gerhardt Konig, who was convicted of attempted manslaughter for attacking his wife, Arielle, on a hiking trail in Oahu, is seeking a new trial. His defense team argues that the jury may have been confused about the requirements for a conviction, as they found him guilty of the lesser charge of attempted manslaughter, but not attempted murder.

Juror Comments Raise Concerns

In post-verdict interviews, two jurors expressed uncertainty about whether Konig intended to kill his wife, which is a necessary element for a conviction of attempted murder. The foreperson, Makalapua Atkins, stated that the jury did not unanimously believe that Konig had an intent to kill his wife. Another juror, identified as Juror #3, also expressed doubts about Konig’s intent.

Konig’s defense team argues that these comments raise serious concerns about the integrity of the verdict and that a new trial is necessary to ensure that justice is served. The prosecution, however, argues that the jury’s internal thought process is not relevant to the verdict and that a new trial is not warranted.

Potential Jury Irregularities

The defense team also raises concerns about potential jury irregularities, including a comment posted on a trial coverage live chat that suggested a juror may have been communicating with an outsider during deliberations. While the authenticity of the comment has not been proven, the defense team argues that it raises substantial concerns about the jury’s exposure to outside influence.

Original reporting: KRDO (Colorado Springs metro) — read the source article.