Name: Part 1: Keefe Ds 2008 Interview w/ LAPD About Tupac + Biggie Murders & Diddy @MeghannCuniff
Uploaded: 2026-09-25T08:17:00-05:00
Duration: 8 min 17 s
Description: Part 1: Keefe Ds 2008 Interview w/ LAPD About Tupac + Biggie Murders & Diddy

Part 1: Keefe Ds 2008 Interview w/ LAPD About Tupac + Biggie Murders & Diddy

Meghann Cuniff 2026-09-25 | Part 1: Keefe Ds 2008 Interview w/ LAPD About Tupac + Biggie Murders & Diddy

Lawyer Suing LA Police Officer Asks Him About ‘Reverence For Life’

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-15 | A lawyer on Monday questioned a Los Angeles police officer about his department’s emphasis on “reverence for life” in a civil trial over his fatal shooting of a 14-year-old girl.

The lawsuit accuses William Dorsey Jones Jr., the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department of negligence and wrongful death after Jones fired three shots at an assault suspect inside a clothing store on Dec. 23, 2021, and one killed Valentina Orellana-Peralta as she hid in a dressing room with her mother.

Plaintiff's attorney Haytham Faraj questioned Jones about the shooting and his actions during a multi-day examination that included questions about the Los Angeles Police Department’s ‘reverence for life.”

Jones called it “one of our core values.”

“And it kind of runs itself almost through every almost through every bulletin that you read, you're reminded that there's a reverence for life at our department, right?” Faraj asked.

“We take it very seriously,” Jones answered.

“In your own words, what does that mean?” Faraj asked.

:It means everything we do while we're in this badge and protecting the community, we want to have a reverence for life,” Jones said.

“Like, life is important, whether it's suspect’s life, victim’s life, innocent bystander’s life. That's kind of how we base what we're doing on how we do our job,” Jones answered.

“But with that being said, every party, when you go into —“ Jones said as Faraj interjected.

“I just asked you what it means. I didn't ask you for an explanation after,” Faraj said.

Jones said he wanted to expand on his answer “because we have policies that are black and white on paper.”

“But what happens is you can't just take it in the constructs of the black and white paper. You have to be able to understand how to utilize it in the field. When you have dynamic, dynamic situations, you got to understand how that plays out in the real world, and not in a static situation, written letters on paper,” Jones testified.

“Do you feel like when Chief [Michel] Moore and Chief [William] Bratton before that wrote reverence for life, they did not consider that police officers out in the field would have to apply these concepts and policies in actual situations?” Faraj asked.

A defense attorney objected to asking Jones “to speculate what's going through the mind of two other people,” so Faraj rephrased his question: “Have you ever been trained that these are just concepts on paper and not to be applied in the field?”

“No, I didn't say that. I said there are concepts on paper,” Jones said, and he wanted to explain how they’re taught “to apply these situations in practical situations.”

Jones said the reverence of life is “the number one reason for being there.”

“So you agree that everything in the training bulletins isn't just for the sake of training, it's for application in a situation that is reflected in the training bulletin, right?” Faraj asked.

“Yes, we're applying it. But the training bulletin itself, that piece of paper, can't cover every possible scenario that we may go through. If you also look through the trainer bulletin, you'll see a lot of times it says, ‘when feasible’,” Jones answered.

“If a dynamic situation occurs and you don't have time to give someone a warning or evaluate. Whether they're mentally ill or on drugs, you have to take action,” Jones continued.

“Yeah, I'm not there yet. I'm just asking you about the concept of reverence for life. It's not just a classroom concept. You're taught that concept to be applied in the field, in totality, with everything else that you have to apply also, correct? Yes, sir?” Faraj asked.

“Yes, sir,” Jones answered.

LAPD Officer Testifies About Store Shooting That Killed 14-Year-Old Girl

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-14 | A Los Angeles police officer who shot and killed a 14-year-old girl in a department store while searching for an assault suspect testified Monday in a trial over a lawsuit brought by the girl's parents.

William Dorsey Jones Jr. was armed with an AR-15 rifle when he moved ahead of other officers inside a Burlington clothing store in North Hollywood and fired three shots at an assault suspect. The shots killed the suspect, but a bullet also skipped off the floor, pierced a drywall partition and struck 14-year-old Valentina Peralta, who was hiding in a dressing room with her mother, Soledad Peralta. She died in her mother's arms.

The girl's parents are suing Jones, the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department for wrongful death and negligence. The California Attorney General’s Office announced in 2024 that it would not file criminal charges against Officer Jones, citing insufficient evidence to prove he didn't act in lawful self-defense or defense of others.

The Los Angeles Police Commission ruled in 2022 that while Jones' first shot was "in policy," his second and third shots were not. Now-former Chief Michel Moore said all three shots were unjustified. Jones still is employed by the Los Angeles Police Department, though he has been removed from all field duties.

In testimony yesterday (Monday, April 13), plaintiff's attorney Haytham Faraj questioned Jones about his actions prior to the shooting and a fellow officer's command that he "sling that," referring to the weapon that he then fired. Jones testified he heard the command and "as soon as he says 'sling that' you see me put the weapon over my head and put it in that sling-carry position."

"I hear him say 'sling it', and I'm the only person with the weapon that is slingable. Everyone else has firearms. Escobar has his shotgun. I wasn't in the sling at the time. ... Actually, if you watch another part of this video, as soon as he says, sling that you see me put the weapon over my head and put it in that sling-carry position," Jones said.

The testimony doesn't match what Jones said in his deposition. Faraj played a portion after asking Jones about his oath to tell the truth.

In the video, a lawyer asks Jones "Did you ever hear Officer [Michael Mazur] tell you to 'sling that' with regard to the AR-15?" and Jones answered, "No, I believe he was speaking about the less-lethal option."

"Now in that deposition, sir, when you were asked, 'Do you remember Officer Mazur telling you to sling that, you said, 'No, it was about the less lethal,'?" Faraj asked.

"That's what I thought at the time," Jones answered.

"Here in court, your testimony is, 'Yeah, it was for positive weapons retention,'" Faraj said.

"That's correct. It goes both ways, whether it's officers slinging a less-lethal option, whether it's me slinging my rifle, I take that. I have a sling on my rifle. I was not in my sling. So when I hear that statement being made, I climb in my sling automatically, whether he's talking to me or where he's telling someone else. It's almost like if you get a verbal key or verbal cue. He could be talking to 'Hey, everyone with with Escobar. You have your shotgun. Officer Head, you have the ... the 40 millimeter launcher. Hey, sling that, sling that.' We all have slings. We're gonna climb in our slings," Jones answered.

"Sir, he looked right at you and said, 'Sling, sling that.' You recall that?" Faraj said.

"I don't know where he's exactly looking at. To me, it looks like he's looking north down in the store to where they think the threat may be," Jones said.

Testimony continues today (Tuesday, April 14) before Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Frank M. Tavelman at the Burbank Courthouse.

Diddy Prosecutor Defends 50-Month Prison Sentence At Appellate Court

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-10 | The prosecutor defending Sean "Diddy" Combs' 50-month prison sentence argued yesterday that Judge Arun Subramanian did not error when he included an enhancement for fraud or coercion but if he did, the error was harmless.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavik said Judge Subramanian stated during the October 2025 hearing his sentence for Combs would be the same if he hadn't applied the enhancement.

Slavik and her colleagues recommended the judge sentence Combs to 135 months in prison, which is 11 years and three months.

Before sentencing Combs last year, Subramanian said prosecutors’ 135-month recommendation is “over the statutory maximum of the sentences on these offenses ran concurrently” and “not reasonable.” He said he agrees “that a serious sentence is warranted,” including for the “profound impact on Ms. Ventura and Jane” and “the time span, over a decade.” He said cases with similar sentences for prostitution “involved defendants with more extensive criminal history scores, and they also involved things like murder, minor victims, an expansive prostitution enterprise with numerous victims and the like.”

The judge also said a 135-month sentence doesn’t account for Combs’ “mitigating circumstances, such as his lack of recent criminal history, his family ties and ties to the community."

In oral argument before the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal on Thursday (April 9), Judge M. Miller Baker asked if Combs' 50-month is "substantively unreasonable" without the violence and coercion factor.

"For the record, a sentence is only substantively unreasonable if it is manifestly unjust or shocks the conscience. And we see that sort of dynamic in some of the other cases. I'm thinking of the Jones case in which Justice Scalia, you know, dissented. I can't remember the difference between the guidelines without consideration of acquitted conduct, but it was, it was something astronomically high, and here, the 50-month sentence was below guidelines and reflected the fact that the judge really did consider the fact of the acquittals," Slavik said.

Had Subramanian "just ignored the acquittals and sentenced on the trafficking or the racketeering, the sentence would have been at least 15 years."

"There's a 15-year mandatory minimum term with a trafficking charge. This 50-month sentence was well below and well in line with other cases in this district," Slavik said. "Judge Subramanian was was very focused on other Mann Act sentences and asked the parties to provide a list of Mann Act cases and the sentences. And so he was fully aware of the different ranges of sentences that Mann Act defendants get."

Judge William J. Nardini asked, "I just want to be clear. Was that a 'No, it would not be substantively unreasonable,'?"

Slavik laughed and said she didn't remember the original question "but I think that's a 'no.'"

"Let me rephrase my original question," Judge Baker said. "You're very good at evading, evading my question. ... Actually, if I was a district judge, I would say the witness will be responsive to the question."

"So would his 50-month sentence be substantively unreasonable in the absence of the factual findings of violence and coercion?" Baker asked.

"The answer is 'no,'" Slavik said. "Thank you, Judge Nardini."

"That's where I thought you were going, but I wanted to make sure that we had an answer to the question," Nardini said.

Appellate Judge & Diddy Prosecutor Discuss ‘Acquitted Conduct’

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-10 | An appellate judge considering the legality of Sean "Diddy" Combs' 50-month prison sentence said a new guideline from the U.S. Sentencing Commission essentially tells courts to "figure out" what acquitted conduct is.

This exchange between Judge M. Miller Baker and Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavik during oral argument in New York City yesterday (Thursday, April 9) captures the issue before Baker and his two colleagues on the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals: Did U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian wrongly increase Combs' prison sentence because of fraud and coercion that shouldn't have been considered because jurors acquitted Combs of sex trafficking by fraud, force or coercion?

"The problem for the government is that there's a new guideline that says, 'figure it out,' that basically says, 'There is such a thing as acquitted conduct,'" Baker told Slavik.

Baker said Judge Subramanian "I think, quite accurately" noted when sentencing Combs that "there is no such thing as acquitted conduct."

"Juries don't acquit people of conduct. They acquit them of charges. They find that certain elements were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. They don't find that someone's innocent," said Baker, a judge on the U.S. Court of International Trade who was designated to sit on 2nd Circuit panels.

"But now the guidelines have been amended, so there is a thing called 'acquitted conduct.' We've got to figure it out. So the question is, 'How do we measure that?'" the judge continued.

Baker said the only case law that says "an acquittal necessarily implies something is in our collateral estoppel branch of double jeopardy jurisprudence."

He floated a hypothetical but soon admitted it was "spinning out of control."

"I guess what I'm wondering is, if there were some hypothetical additional count that the jury had hung on here that required a finding of coercion with respect to one of the two victims, why you would not be collaterally estopped under the double jeopardy clause from retrying the defendant on that count?" Baker asked.

Slavik said Combs "was not acquitted of coercion. He was acquitted of sex trafficking by force, fraud and coercion. The jury was never asked, 'Was there coercion?'"

"Well, under that theory, there is no such thing as acquitted conduct. So you're kind of fighting the very principle of the guideline. You're saying that because there were three alternate elements, I think fraud, force or coercion, that because there are three alternate elements there. There is no acquitted conduct," Baker said.

The judge asked Slavik "with respect to count two, what is the acquitted conduct?" referring to Combs' sex trafficking by force, fraud of coercion charge regarding Cassie Ventura.

"So the commission thought very long and hard about this issue, clearly, and they declined to set any bright line rules," Slavik said.

"Yeah, but here we are," Miller said.

"Exactly," Slavik said.

"So what's the government's view of what the acquitted conduct is underlying count two?" Miller asked.

Slavik said Judge Subramanian's correctly assessed it, but Miller said the judge considered "overlapping conduct," not acquitted conduct.

You can listen to the entire argument on my YouTube channel of Facebook page.

Judge Questions Lawyer Appealing Diddy’s 50-Month Prison Sentence

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-10 | The big issue in Sean "Diddy" Combs' appeal of his convictions and 50-month prison sentence is whether Judge Arun Subramanian wrongly increased the sentence because of fraud and coercion that shouldn't have been considered under a new sentencing guideline that prohibits judges from factoring in acquitted conduct.

Subramanian said when sentencing Combs last October that the fraud and coercion enhancement was based on conduct related to Combs' convictions for transportation for prostitution, instead of only relating to his acquittals for racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion.

A three-judge panel at the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard argument on Thursday (April 9) in New York City. Combs' lawyer Alexandra Shapiro argued Judge Subramanian cited incidents that aren't actually connected to prostitution, including Combs threatening to release sexually explicit videos of Casandra "Cassie" Ventura during a flight home from the Cannes Film Festival.

"There's no evidence that, even on the airplane, they were planning a so-called freak off. And moreover, there was no evidence in the record that there was a freak off other than Ms. Ventura's testimony," Shapiro said.

"Wait, wait a minute. Pause, pause, pause. You just said there was no evidence other than a witness's testimony? Which is another way of saying there was trial evidence," said Judge William J. Nardini, a 2019 Donald Trump appointee.

Shapiro said "not only was this argued to the jury in the summation, but the jury sent back a note asking for quote, 'Casandra Ventura testimony regarding Cannes and the events immediately following.'"

"And we know that the jury rejected the notion ... that there was coercion and connection with that incident," Shapiro said.

Nardini said he thought Shapiro was "just arguing a different thing, that the defendant did not have an intent for purposes of the Mann Act ... because then you were saying there was no evidence that a freak off even happened."

The judge said Shapiro's argument is going beyond lack of coercion to "now you're saying they also found that none of this even happened. And I don't see how that follows."

"That's not what I said," Shapiro said.

"Well, you said there was no evidence that the freak off happened, except for Ventura's testimony. And then you were trying to argue the jury necessarily rejected Ventura's testimony. And I guess you're saying, because they rejected the argument of the government, that it was her testimony showed there was coercion, they must have rejected every single thing that Ventura said," the judge said.

"That's not what I said," Shapiro said again.

"Well, that was the implication. So let's back up," Nardini said.

"Well that's not what I meant to imply," Shapiro said.

"The whole Mann Act charges were basically an afterthought at this trial. They took up almost no time. The government relied principally on these two charts. And if you look at government exhibit 1402," Shapiro said as Nardini interjected.

"I understand that, and you made that point very well in your brief. So isn't your argument really that what the government is doing here is mixing and matching. You're taking evidence from the claims that were acquitted to try to support the the Mann Act sentencing for purposes of the Mann Act, but none of that was presented to the jury for purposes of the Mann Act. Is that a summation of what, where —" Nardini said.

"That's fair," Shapiro said.

The judges have not yet issued their ruling.

Prosecutor Argues against Diddys Appeal In 50-Month Federal Prostitution Prison Sentence

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-09 | Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavik argues against Sean "Diddy" Combs' appeal in the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals today in New York.

You can listen to listen to Combs' lawyer Alexandra Shapiro's argument here: youtube.com/watch?v=dTHABH6Tuc0

Read my article on Combs' sentencing here: legalaffairsandtrials.com/p/a-judge-sentenced-diddy-to-4-years

00:38 "Why shouldn't we hold you to the way you prosecuted the case? You all, you went to the jury and you said, this man did all these terrible things for purposes of the RICO conspiracy, for purposes of sex trafficking, and they acquitted him. And then on the Mann act, it was just a sideshow."

01:22 "I have several responses. But first is that much of the conduct that the district court focused on in imposing the sentence was not acquitted conduct at all. In fact, it was admitted conduct, the extreme physical violence that took place in the context of these freak offs."

03:26 "One thing that I think is supported by by the commentary, is that conduct that underlies an acquitted charge can be considered acquitted conduct. That's like the first step. The second step, of course, is whether that conduct can nevertheless be considered as relevant conduct."

10:20 "Well, I think a good example of of conduct that could be considered acquitted, conduct that the judge did not consider in applying the exception was the Intercontinental video that, of course, was evidence presented at trial that showed the defendant assaulting Casandra Ventura."

15:38 "I think going back to the guideline itself, which does create a thing called acquitted conduct and convicted conduct. The Commission deliberately did not define either term, leaving us in this position."

17:20 "that first step what is acquitted conduct, what Judge Subramanian did is said, acquitted conduct is conduct that underlies un acquitted count right, and under that definition, in this case, there was a lot of overlapping conduct, and so he had to determine what"

29:52 "Your argument is that, because they were involved in the transportation and obviously, in your view, the evidence showed that this whole thing was clearly designed for prostitution?"

30:48 "and I should know this, and I don't recall, did the government present arguments that the escorts and their employers were members of the alleged racketeering enterprise conspiracy."

32:40 "The assistants were not alleged to have been part of the racketeering enterprise, so that is, like I said, that's another way to support the application of the leadership enhancement in that case, without even touching acquitted conduct or Potential acquitted conduct."

42:15 "Judge Subramanian specifically said that it doesn't matter if the acquitted conduct guideline applies here or not, I would impose the same sentence. He did not say that with respect to the victim grouping enhancement, which has nothing to do with the acquitted conduct guideline. And I think that's a good example of why judge Subramanian statements that he would impose the same the same sentence regardless are not just simple incantations of magic words to evade appellate review. He specifically noted the ambiguity of this particular guideline that would affect those enhancements, and therefore any potential error, which, of course, we would submit there is none any potential error would be harmless. "

45:09 "it was something astronomically high, and here, the 50 month sentence was below guidelines and reflected the fact that the judge really did consider the fact of the acquittals if, if the judge had just ignored the acquittals and sentenced on the trafficking or the racketeering, the sentence would have been at least 15 years. There's a 15 year mandatory minimum term with a trafficking charge. This 15 month sentence was well below and well in line with other cases in this district, Judge Subramanian was was very focused on other man act sentences, and asked the parties to provide."

46:38 "would his 50 month sentence be substantively unreasonable in the absence of the factual findings of violence and coercion, the answer is no."

****************************
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Jury Forewoman Speaks After Convicting Hawaii Man Of Attempted Manslaughter

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-09 | The forewoman of the Hawaii jury that convicted Gerhardt Konig of attempted manslaughter due to extreme mental or emotional disturbance told a reporter after the verdict that "the pushing part was not really anything that we were determining on because they both said they pushed each other."

"So we definitely agreed that a push occurred," said Makalapua Atkins.

"But that they pushed each other, and not so much that one tried to throw the other one off the cliff?" a reporter asked. (If you know the reporter's name please comment with it so I can credit her.)

"Correct. We know that both bodies touched each other on the cliff," Atkins said.

She said the attempted manslaughter verdict "came down to the the reality of that, of what the testimony said."

"We did determine that there was definitely a scuffle on top of the Pali Puka Trail that resulted in an injury to the head that could be bodily injury and serious," she said.

"What evidence did you find of emotional distress and disturbance?" the reporter asked.

"In both testimonies, they both had showed that there was relationship issues that there had begun prior to this situation on Pali Puka Trail, and that they were outside of their Maui district, Maui County location, enjoying time together to build their relationship up," she said.

"So you thought it was related to the relationship?" the reporter asked.

"Well, they were up there as a couple. So yes," Atkins answered.

"So why didn't you think that he was trying to kill her?" the reporter asked.

"Ultimately, we just agreed that, per the instructions that were given and the definitions that were set to look at and focus on, that somebody was definitely hurt with a bodily injury to a head that could result in serious bodily injury. And in her testimony, she did admit to having some sort of an affair. And so that admission alone does say that an affair had been had," Atkins said.

"And so what did you take from that? Did you did you think that that inflamed the situation? Do you think that was the root of his emotional distress?" the reporter asked.

"I'm not necessarily sure if that was the root, but I do commonly believe that somebody that's been married to someone for eight years, in a relationship for that long, and having some kind of affair happen after having two young kids under the age of two, might have some kind of emotional disturbance on both sides," Atkins said.

"Ultimately, what kind of punishment do you think would be justice in this case?" the reporter asked.

"I'm not really sure about the punishment aspect. We were just told to look at what the charges were and if they held any water based on the evidence. However, we are aware that a sentence will be made in August regarding this which is why the stipulation of emotional distress was tagged on to the manslaughter so that we hope that whatever information that they can gather before August 13 is able to give a justified sentence per the judge, and that any type of help for both sides, emotional wise can be had," Atkins said.

The maximum sentence for attempted manslaughter in Hawaii is 20 years in prison. There is no mandatory minimum sentence.

Jury Forewoman Discusses Attempted Manslaughter Verdict Against Gerhardt Konig

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-09 | Read Meghann's article on the trial: legalaffairsandtrials.com/p/hawaii-jury-convicts-man-of-attempted

The forewoman of the jury that convicted Gerhardt Konig of attempted manslaughter due to extreme mental or emotional disturbance spoke to reporters after the verdict yesterday.

"She said that he tried to push her. He said she tried to push him. So how did you how did you figure that out? How did you determine what happened?" a reporter asked. (If anyone knows the reporter's name please tell me so I can credit her.)

"The determination about what happened at the end was that we had to compare both testimonies from both of the people that were involved in the incident at the Pali Puka Trail," Makalapua Atkins said.

"So based on Arielle's Konig's testimony, and putting it side by side by Dr. Konig's testimony, and kind of just finding out what matches and what doesn't, finding a timeline and seeing the crime scene for what it was, and kind of making a decision from there," she said.

02:47 "So did you believe that he tried to push her?"
"The pushing part was not really anything that we were determining on, because they both said they pushed each other. So we definitely agreed that a push occurred."
"But that they pushed each other, and not so much that one tried to throw the other one off the cliff?"

03:44 "So we did determine that there was definitely a scuffle on top of the Pali Puka Trail that resulted in an injury to the head that could be bodily injury and serious."

04:06 "He did state that he hit her with the rock two times."

04:41 "They both had showed that there was relationship issues that there had begun prior to this situation on Pali Puka Trail ..."

05:29 Reporter: "And what did you take from her test his testimony about the affair? I mean, the defense really hammered at the fact that she had an affair. Did you find evidence of an affair, or were you not sure about that?"

05:54 "In her testimony, she did admit to having some sort of an affair. And so that admission alone does say that an affair had been had."

"And so what did you take from that? Did you did you think that that inflamed the situation? Do you think that was the root of his emotional distress?"
"I'm not necessarily sure if that was the root, but I do commonly believe that somebody that's been married to someone for eight years, in a relationship for that long, and having some kind of affair happen after having two young kids under the age of two, might have some kind of emotional disturbance."

****************************
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Diddys Lawyer Asks Appellate Court To Vacate His 50-Month Prison Sentece

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-09 | A lawyer for Sean “Diddy” Combs asked the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals today to vacate his 50-month prison sentence or immediately release him.
Alexandra Shapiro’s argument was recorded and streamed online.

The main issue is a new sentencing guideline that says judges can’t consider acquitted conduct when sentencing, and whether Judge Arun Subramanian was correct in considering conduct from the acquitted racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking charges that he believes overlap with convicted conduct from the transportation for prostitution convictions.

The court will issue its ruling later.

A judge said the “exceptionally difficult case” “is a question of first impression, not only for this court, but apparently for any federal court of appeals in the country.”

Here is Combs' appellate brief: documentcloud.org/documents/28031791-diddy-2nd-circuit-opening-brief

And here is the Department of Justice's: documentcloud.org/documents/28031795-usa-brief-re-diddy

04:51 Shapiro: "If you read his statement of reasons, he simply says, I'm only sentencing you for the conduct you were convicted of. And then he goes on to discuss all of the acquitted conduct."

05:33 "Obviously the judge acknowledged that he had been acquitted. But that's not enough. That's just makeweight."

05:49 "What does make weight mean? It's rather disparaging characterization, and I want to understand what you mean by it."
"Well, what I mean, that's not what I mean."

08:10 "Here's my question, would the two escorts be criminally responsible participants if they traveled across state lines with intention to engage in the forbidden activity?"

08:42 "Would the two escorts be criminally responsible participants under the guidelines if they cross interstate lines with intent to commit the specified activity, what is forbidden by the Mann Act?"
"I don't think that's clear at all under the Supreme Court precedents about the Mann Act. The people transported are often viewed, not viewed, as co-conspirators."

12:57 Shapiro: "the Commission wrote this guideline for a reason right, and it requires courts to figure out what the acquitted conduct is, and the simplest and clearest way to do that is to look at what elements the government was required to prove for the counts of acquittal and the counts of conviction."

13:52 Judge: "one threat to Ventura, one threat to Jane. I think one was to release the tape. The other was, we're going to not going to pay your rent. Doesn't that establish the intent of the Mann Act?"

15:03 Shapiro: "The whole point of the guideline is to take acquitted conduct out of relevant conduct. And a relevance test really is another way of saying, well, acquitted conduct is not relevant unless it's relevant, which makes no sense, but I do want to talk about the specific incidents and why that's not correct."

15:50 Shapiro: "The Court held that for purposes of the Mann Act, the intent to engage in prostitution, which has to be a dominant purpose of the travel, has to coincide in time, and there's no evidence that, even on the airplane, they were planning a so called freak off. And moreover, there was no evidence in the record that there was a freak off other than Ms. Ventura's testimony."

16:15 Judge: "Pause, pause, you just said there was no evidence other than a witness's testimony, which is another way of saying there was trial evidence right?"

18:55 Shapiro: "and I think our view of the sentencing guideline as as we briefed, is that the way it should be interpreted, and I think this is very simple and straightforward, is that acquitted conduct can also only be used when it is also convicted conduct."

21:01 Shapiro: "So the purpose of the trip, even if a freak off did happen, wasn't to engage in prostitution. It was to come home..."

23:43 "This is a question for the jury to infer about whether the temporal proximity between him showing a video to her on the plane and then immediately getting back to New York and suggesting it and having it play out is why he wanted the escort to be traveling."

25:05 Shaprio: "And if I may, I'll try to illustrate it with some hypotheticals. "

28:15 Judge: "was any of the evidence and the arguments the government made here in connection with the RICO and the sex traffic, sex trafficking offenses, was any of that evidence presented to the jury for purposes of persuading them to convict on the Mann Act?"

30:47 "Were there limiting instructions given or requested during trial that certain evidence would only be admissible with respect to certain of the charts offenses?"
"No."

46:47 "Are you implying that the district court wasn't thinking for its himself?"

48:44 "We don't have another case the government could possibly cite where the sentence was the highest sentence for any person in this criminal history category and base offense level, even including others who had a coercion advanced enhancement."

Defense Plans To Appeal Hawaii Man’s Attempted Manslaughter Conviction

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-09 | Gerhardt Konig's lawyer Thomas Otake told reporters after the jury convicted him of attempted manslaughter today, "We just begin by thanking the jury. We respect the verdict."

"That being said. We believe leading up to trial and during trial, there are many appellate issues, and we do plan on appealing. But that doesn't take away from our respect of the jury, their service, their dedication and their verdict, and we look forward to to appealing," he said.

"I mean, we are thankful that they did not convict them of attempted murder, which would have been life in prison, and so we just thank them for their service, and we look forward to an appeal related to some of the judge's rulings throughout the case and before the trial."

Prosecutors wanted Gerhardt Konig convicted of attempted second-degree murder, but the jury's emotional disturbance finding made it manslaughter. Jurors deliberated three hours yesterday and about 5 1/2 hours today (Wednesday, April 8 ). In Hawaii, attempted manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

Konig testified he hit his wife, Arielle Konig, in self-defense after she attacked him on the Pali Puka Trail on Oahu when they were celebrating her birthday last March 24, 2025. The couple was in counseling after he had found flirtatious text messages between her and a coworker. The couple moved to Maui from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 2023.

Konig, who worked on Maui as an anesthesiologist, has been in jail since March 2025.

Prosecutor & Defense Speak After Jury Convicts Hawaii Man Of Attempted Manslaughter

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-09 | Read Meghann's article on the trial: legalaffairsandtrials.com/p/hawaii-jury-convicts-man-of-attempted

Honolulu County Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner told reporters he'll ask a judge to imprison Gerhardt Konig after a jury convicted him today of attempted manslaughter due to mental or emotional disturbance.

Konig has been in jail for a year, but Garner said he didn't know if he'd be released with credit for time served. Judge Paul B.K. Wong scheduled sentencing for Aug. 13 at 8:30 a.m.

"We respect the verdict. We respect that the jury did their job, considered the evidence and came to a verdict that they thought fit evidence and proof on all sides in this case. So that's all I can say about that. Thank you," Garner said, speaking to reporters after the verdict today in Hawaii’s 1st Circuit Court in Honolulu.

Konig's lawyer Thomas Otake said, "We just begin by thanking the jury. We respect the verdict."

"That being said. We believe leading up to trial and during trial, there are many appellate issues, and we do plan on appealing. But that doesn't take away from our respect of the jury, their service, their dedication and their verdict, and we look forward to to appealing," he said.

"I mean, we are thankful that they did not convict them of attempted murder, which would have been life in prison, and so we just thank them for their service, and we look forward to an appeal related to some of the judge's rulings throughout the case and before the trial."

Prosecutors wanted Gerhardt Konig convicted of attempted second-degree murder, but the jury's emotional disturbance finding made it manslaughter. Jurors deliberated three hours yesterday and about 5 1/2 hours today (Wednesday, April 8 ).

Konig testified he hit his wife, Arielle Konig, in self-defense after she attacked him on the Pali Puka Trail on Oahu when they were celebrating her birthday last March 24, 2025. The couple was in counseling after he had found flirtatious text messages between her and a coworker. The couple moved to Maui from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 2023.

Konig, who worked on Maui as an anesthesiologist, has been in jail since last year.

Prosecutor Speaks After Jury Convicts Hawaii Man Of Attempted Manslaughter

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-09 | Honolulu County Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner told reporters he'll ask a judge to imprison Gerhardt Konig after a jury convicted him today of attempted manslaughter due to mental or emotional disturbance.

Konig has been in jail for a year, but Garner said he didn't know if he'd be released with credit for time served. Judge Paul B.K. Wong scheduld sentenecing for Aug. 13 at 8:30 a.m.

"We respect the verdict. We respect that the jury did their job, considered the evidence and came to a verdict that they thought fit evidence and proof on all sides in this case. So that's all I can say about that. Thank you," Garner said, speaking to reporters after the verdict today in Hawaii’s 1st Circuit Court in Honolulu.

Prosecutors wanted Gerhardt Konig convicted of attempted second-degree murder, but the emotional disturbance finding made it manslaughter.

Konig testified he hit his wife, Arielle Konig, in self-defense after she attacked him on the Pali Puka Trail on Oahu when they were celebrating her birthday last March 24, 2025. The couple was in counseling after he had found flirtatious text messages between her and a coworker. The couple moved to Maui from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 2023.

Konig, who worked on Maui as an anesthesiologist, has been in jail since last year.

Judge Schedules Sentencing After Hawaii Mans Attempted Manslaughter Conviction

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-09 | Maui anesthesiologist convicted of attempted manslaughter for trying to kill his wife on an O’ahu hiking trail will remain in jail at least until his sentencing, which a judge scheduled for Aug. 13.

Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner told reporters after the verdict today (Wednesday, April 8) that he’ll request Judge Paul B.K. Wong sentence Konig to prison, but he acknowledged it may be possible for him to be released on probation.

A jury deliberated about 8 1/2 hours over two days before finding Konig guilty of attempted manslaughter due to mental or emotional disturbance.

Garner wanted jurors to convict Konig of attempted second-degree murder, and he opposed them being instructed about emotional disturbance.

Konig testified he hit his wife, Arielle Konig, in self-defense after she attacked him on the Pali Puka Trail on Oahu when they were celebrating her birthday last March 24, 2025.

The couple was in counseling after he had found flirtatious text messages between her and a coworker. They moved to Maui from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 2023.

At the end of this clip, Garner states for the record that it was him who requested his comment in closing argument about justice demanding a guilty verdict be stricken.

Hawaii Jury Convicts Gerhardt Konig Of Attempted Manslaughter, Not Murder

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-09 | Read Meghann's article on the trial: legalaffairsandtrials.com/p/hawaii-jury-convicts-man-of-attempted

A Hawaii jury today convicted a man of attempted manslaughter due to mental or emotional disturbance for trying to kill his wife on a hiking trail.

Prosecutors wanted Gerhardt Konig convicted of attempted second-degree murder, but the emotional disturbance finding made it manslaughter.

Konig testified he hit his wife, Arielle Konig, in self-defense after she attacked him on the Pali Puka Trail on Oahu when they were celebrating her birthday last March 24, 2025. The couple was in counseling after he had found flirtatious text messages between her and a coworker. The couple moved to Maui from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 2023.

Konig, who worked on Maui as an anesthesiologist, has been in jail since last year. He's to be sentenced on Aug. 13.

****************************
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Jury Convicts Hawaii Man Of Attempted Manslaughter, Not Murder

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-09 | A Hawaii jury today convicted a man of attempted manslaughter due to mental or emotional disturbance for trying to kill his wife on a hiking trail.

Prosecutors wanted Gerhardt Konig convicted of attempted second-degree murder, but the emotional disturbance finding made it manslaughter.

Konig testified he hit his wife, Arielle Konig, in self-defense after she attacked him on the Pali Puka Trail on Oahu when they were celebrating her birthday last March 24, 2025. The couple was in counseling after he had found flirtatious text messages between her and a coworker. The couple moved to Maui from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 2023.

Konig, who worked on Maui as an anesthesiologist, has been in jail since last year. He's to be sentenced on Aug. 13.

Hawaii Jury Must Consider ‘Extreme Mental Or Emotional Disturbance’ Defense

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-09 | As of 1:45 p.m. Hawaii time (4:45 p.m. PST / 7:45 p.m. EST) today, the jury in Gerhardt Konig's attempted murder trial has been deliberating for almost eight hours with no verdict.

They have much to consider. I posted earlier a clip of Judge Paul B.K. Wong reading the "lesser included" offenses of attempted first-degree assault, attempted second-degree assault and third-degree asault.

If jurors acquit on the top charge of attempted second-degree murder, they move onto first-degree assault and so on. And if they want to convict for attempted second-degree murder, they must consider if Konig acted in self-defense, and if they conclude he didn't, they must consider if he was acting "under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance," Wong said while reading the jury instructions aloud yesterday (Tuesday, April 7).

If they believe he was, then his crime is attempted manslaughter, not murder.

This was discussed in trial outside the jury's presence when Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner pointed out that Konig quickly answered he was in a "severe emotional state" when his lawyer asked him how he responded to his wife discussing her plans to keep working. Garner argued the emotional disturbance instruction shouldn't be given in Konig's case, but Judge Wong disagreed.

The instruction the judge read tells jurors that "extreme mental or emotional disturbance has two elements."

"These two elements are 1) the defendant was, at the time he attempted to cause the death of the other person, under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance and 2) there was a reasonable explanation for the extreme mental or emotional disturbance," Wong said.

"The reasonableness of the explanation shall be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. The question of defendant's self control or lack of it at the time of the offense is a significant factor in deciding whether he was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance," the judge continued.

Hawaii Attempted Murder Case Includes Several Lesser Included Charges

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-08 | The jury in the attempted murder case against Gerhardt Koning has several other charges to consider if they don't convict him of attempted second-degree murder.

Judge Paul B.K. Wong instructed jurors on Tuesday that Konig's "included offenses" are attempted first-degree assault, second-degree assault and third-degree assault. If they find him not guilty or can't agree on the attempted murder charge, they're to consider the first-degree attempted assault charge. If they acquit or can't agree on that, they consider the second-degree charge. If they acquit or can't agree on that, they consider the third-degree charge.

Third-degree assault "can be committed in either of two ways: assault in the third degree bodily injury or assault in the third degree dangerous instrument," Wong said on Tuesday (April 7).

If jurors want to convict Konig of third-degree assault, they "must determine whether the prosecution has proven beyond the reasonable doubt that the fight or scuffle was not entered into by mutual consent.

"The jurors must be unanimous.They deliberated for about three hours on Tuesday and will continue today in Hawaii's 1st Circuit Court in Honolulu.

Konig, 47, moved to Maui in 2023 with his wife, Arielle Konig, and three sons. He worked as an anesthesiologist on the island and Arielle worked remotely in unclear engineering.

The couple traveled to O'ahu to celebrate Arielle's birthday and were on the steep, cliffside Pali Puka Trail when Arielle testified Gerhardt attacked her. Gerhardt told jurors he acted in self defense after his wife attacked him. The couple was in counseling after Gerhardt discovered flirtatious text messages between Arielle and a coworker several months earlier.

Judge Strikes Prosecutor’s Argument That ‘Justice Demands’ Guilty Verdict

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-08 | The judge in Gerhardt Konig's attempted murder trial on Tuesday instructed jurors that he had stricken the prosecutor's statement that "justice demands" they return a guilty verdict for attempted second-degree murder.

Judge Paul B.K. Wong issued the instruction after a sidebar discussion with the attorneys that was not streamed online but was apparently transcribed by the court reporter.

Garner ended his 46-minute closing argument by telling the jury, "There's only one verdict that the just the evidence and justice demands in that verdict is that you find the defendant guilty as charged of attempted murder in the second degree. Thank you."

Judge Wong later told the jury, "The argument that state made about justice requiring a particular verdict, that Mr. Garner made right before we ended, is stricken from the record. You are to return a verdict based on the evidence that's presented or the lack of evidence or reasonable inferences therefrom, as well as the court's instruction."

I didn't hear defense attorney Thomas Otake's objection, but he probably argued Garner's comment was prosecutorial vouching.

It followed an eight-minute discussion outside the jury's presence about Otake's plan to use trial transcripts in his closing argument, which Garner said he shouldn't be allowed to do. The judge overruled Garner's objection.

Jurors deliberated about three hours on Tuesday and are to continue deliberating today at 9 a.m. Hawaii Standard Time, which is 12 p.m. PST and 3 p.m. EST.

Lawyers Quote Mark Twain In Hawaii Attempted Murder Trial

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-08 | A lawyer defending a Hawaii man accused of attempting to murder his wife quoted Mark Twain in his closing argument yesterday.

"Mark Twain was giving a speech once to some young people about the dangers of being untruthful. And what he said was, 'You ought to be very careful about lying, because once caught, you can never again be in the eyes of the good and the pure what you were before,'" Thomas Otake said.

Otake said jurors "give people the benefit of the doubt" but witnesses "lie about different things."

"They deceive in the eyes of the good and pure of all of you, you can't look at her the same again. It's dangerous. It's dangerous," Otake said. He referred to Arielle Konig asking her primary care physician to add traumatic head injury to her records.

"If she's gonna manipulate her PCP doctor, if she's gonna be deceptive to the detective, do you think for a second she would hesitate to be that way with you?" Otake said.

Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner began his rebuttal by also quoting Twain.

"Mark Twain also said, 'If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything,'" Garner said. He told jurors to "think back to the defendant's testimony."

"Think back to every time he was asked on cross-examination something that made him look bad, something that made him look like he had a motive, something that was incriminating. Think back to every single time the defendant was asked something like that, and what was his answer? 'I don't recall,'" Garner said.

"Arielle Konig was able to sit here and testify in front of you for three reasons. First: She had her intuition. She saw the defendant looking at her feet on that trail. She saw the defendant tracking her every move. She saw the defendant making sure he saw where she was, and that's what made her feel uneasy. It was her intuition.

Second: She fought back. She fought for her life that day. And the defense wanted to characterize it as a full conversation, but ... it was Arielle begging for her life from the defendant. It was Arielle saying, 'Think about the kids.' It was Arielle's thinking, saying, 'Nobody's gonna believe this was an accident,'" Garner said.

Garner said Arielle was "trying to reason with somebody who is trying to kill her.”

“And the third reason — and the most important reason — that Arielle was here to testify to you is Amanda Morris and Sarah Buchsbaum hearing a call for help, going forward, looking at what they saw and helping Arielle out," Garner said.

You can watch some of Morris' testimony here @Meghann Cuniff and some of Buchsbaum's testimony here @Meghann Cuniff, including her 911 call.

Jurors deliberated about three hours on Tuesday and are to continue deliberating today (Wednesday, April 8) at 9 a.m. Hawaii Standard Time, which is 12 p.m. PST and 3 p.m. EST.

Judge Strikes Prosecutors Argument That Justices Requires Guilty Verdict

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-08 | The judge in Gerhardt Konig's attempted murder trial today instructed jurors that he had stricken the prosecutor's statement that "justice demands" they return a guilty verdict for attempted second-degree murder.

Judge Paul B.K. Wong issued the instruction after sidebar discussion with the attorneys that was not streamed online but was apparently transcribed by the court reporter.

It followed an eight-minute discussion outside the jury's presence about defense attorney Thomas Otake's plan to use trial transcripts in his closing argument, which Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner said he shouldn't be allowed to do.

Garner also objected to a slide Otake planned to show jurors about Arielle Konig's "deceptive behavior" and "is impermissible argument that is essentially stating that Arielle has been deceptive in the past." e called it "a 404 argument that says that she is deceptive now," referring to Rule 404 of the Hawaii Rules of Evidence, which prohibits character evidence as evidence of guilt. Judge Paul B.K. Wong overruled his objection and allowed the slide.

Otake: 01:14 "Your Honor, obviously, her credibility is at issue, and there's been multiple examples. Multiple examples in this case that has come up in the evidence about deceptive behavior. And it is critical, obviously, that we be able to point that out. So I've never heard of we can't point out, in closing, how a complainant has been deceptive or dishonest. I mean, that's he just spent half an hour saying, 'Oh, Gerhardt was dishonest.' So obviously that's fair game in any closing argument."

01:52 Garner: "It's inviting the jury to not follow the law. That's the issue here."

02:20 Judge Wong overrules the objection

02:40 "The other objection from the state is somewhat throughout the defendant's proposed closing argument, there appears to be snippets of transcripts, transcripts, and they appear to have been some of them highlighted."

03:19 Garner: "The first question the jury always asks after going to deliberations is, can we have a transcript of the witness's testimony? And the answer is, always, transcripts are not available, so it's not fair to the jury."

03:40 Garner: "It does give undue weight to what that is. Especially consider the jury is instructeda to remember the evidence on their own, rather than what the court reporter may have written."

04:55 Otake: "Your Honor. I've done this in many trials. It's pretty commonplace."

06:26 Judge Wong overrules objection

08:08 Judge Wong to jury: "The argument that state made about justice requiring a particular verdict, that Mr. Garner made right before we ended, is stricken from the record. You are to return a verdict based on the evidence that's presented or the lack of evidence or reasonable inferences therefrom, as well as the court's instruction."

Jurors deliberated for about three hours today (Tuesday, April 7) and are to return tomorrow at 9 a.m. Hawaii time.

****************************
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Hawaii Prosecutor Says Jury Cant Believe Mans Testimony

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-08 | In his closing argument today, Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner reminded jurors of what he described as Gerhardt Konig's "confession" to his son Emile after he attempted to murder his wife on the Pali Puka Trail on O'ahu last year. He also pointed to Konig's testimony in trial, which he called "unbelievable."

Konig told jurors he acted in self-defense after his wife, Arielle Konig, attacked him on the trail after telling him she still wanted to work and travel with a coworker with whom she'd been exchanging flirtatious text messages.

"The defendant's story is that somehow Arielle, on her birthday, on an unfamiliar hike next to a massive cliff, decided to start an argument. Does that make sense to you? No," Garner said.

"Does that make sense that Ariel would bring this up on that cliff side? No. It contradicts common sense. It even contradicts the defendant's own testimony," Garner said, reminding jurors that Konig said "they don't talk about this outside of counseling."

"The next part the defendant's story: 'She pushed me.' Defendant says he felt a hard push from behind that he was looking out over the cliff. He barely holds himself on. He turns around, and Arielle's already five to 10 feet away. Ladies and gentlemen, unbelievable," Garner said. "If Ariel was trying to push him off that cliff, she wouldn't be that far away. She would have been right behind him trying to push him again."

"Defendant's story: 'She pulled me down on top of her.' Think about how that makes sense. Defendant's story is that then he approached Arielle ... that he grabbed her arms, and Arielle somehow responded by pulling him down on top of her and not letting him go. Defendant's bigger than her. Defendant's stronger than her. Ask yourself, what person would hold a bigger, stronger person on top of them as an act of aggression? It doesn't make sense. It's unbelievable," Garner said.

Jurors deliberated about three hours today (Tuesday, April 7) and will continue deliberating Wednesday at 9 a.m. Hawaii time

Hawaii Lawyer Says DNA Evidence Puts Lava Rock In Alleged Victim’s Hand

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-08 | UPDATE: Jurors deliberated for about three hours today but did not reach a verdict. They will continue deliberating tomorrow at 9 a.m. Hawaii time, which is 12 p.m. PST / 3 p.m. EST.

Defense lawyer Thomas Otake began his closing argument in Gerhardt Konig's attempted murder trial today (Tuesday, April 7) by focusing on the jury's duty when deciding the case.

Tests showed that the blood staining the area on the Pali Puka Trail on O'ahu last year belonged to Arielle Konig, whose husband, Gerhardt Konig, is on trial in Honolulu for attempted murder.

But a lava rock that Gerhard hit Arielle with had more of her DNA than his, which his lawyer argued today supports his testimony that his wife attacked him with the rock first and he struck her only out of self defense.

Defesne lawyer Thomas Otake argued this in his 60-minute closing today (Tuesday, April 7) in Judge Paul B.K. Wong's courtroom in Hawaii's 1st Circuit Court.

This clip begins with Otake questioning why Arielle wasn't emotional when she testifeid about Gerhardt attacking her.

"If someone's describing what should have been the most horrific thing they've ever been through — bloody murder, someone's trying to stab you at a syringe, monster is trying to throw you off a cliff. When you're recounting that, you might get a little emotional. Not at all," Otake said.

But when Otake asked Arielle to read a birthday card Gerhardt gave her the morning of the hike, "she got emotional."

"I submit to you that was probably guilt, but whatever it was, she knew it was genuine, and she showed an ability to show emotion," Otake said. "You cannot get emotional over a made up story that didn't happen when you started the fight."He said Arielle's testimony "contradicts the physical evidence."

"It just does, and this is a huge problem for them," Otake said.

Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner argues the DNA indicates Arielle was trying to block the rock, but Otake said the DNA evidence proves "the rock was in her hand."

Defense Says Undeterred Prosecutor Twisted Evidence In Hawaii Hiking Trial

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-08 | Defense lawyer Thomas Otake began his closing argument in Gerhardt Konig's attempted murder trial in Honolulu, Hawaii, today (Tuesday, April 7) by focusing on the jury's duty when deciding the case.

Konig is accused of trying to kill his wife, Arielle Konig, on a cliffside hiking trail on O'ahu on March 24, 2025. He's charged in Hawaii state court with second-degree attempted murder, but jurors have several lesser included charges to consider if they don't convict him of that.

Near the beginning of his 60-minute argument, Otake referenced Deputy Joel Prosecutor's use of "unfaithful, unwilling, untrue" and "unbelievable."

"I'll add another un-word: undeterred," Otake said.

"They are undeterred by the evidence. It doesn't matter what it shows, they're going to spin it in their favor. They came up with a theory and they went to search for facts to support it. They didn't look at the evidence and say, 'What's the theory that points that out?' They came up with a theory and they tried to find any fact they could to fit it," Otake said. "They were undeterred, undeterred by the DNA. The DNA shows — and I'm going to go through it — she's holding the rock."

"She's a trillion level DNA on the unstained sign," Otake said. But investigators say it was "because when she was blocking."

Otake also referenced testimony in cross-exam from the hiker who said she looked into Konig's eyes and saw a cold, dark stare. But when shown a photo lineup, she identified the wrong man.

"The eyewitness picks the wrong person out of the photo lineup, and still she stared at him, looked into his cold, dark eyes, saw him very clearly," Otake said.

"Evidence should lead to theories. You don't come up with a theory and then search for evidence to spin it to fit your theory," Otake continued.

You can watch Otake's entire one-hour closing argument on my YouTube channel and Facebook page.

Jury Begins Deliberating After Prosecutors Rebuttal In Hawaii Attempted Murder Trial

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-08 | Read Meghann's article on the trial: legalaffairsandtrials.com/p/hawaii-jury-convicts-man-of-attempted

A lawyer for a Hawaii man accused of trying to kill his wife quoted Mark Twain in his closing argument: "You ought to be very careful about lying, because once caught, you can never again be in the eyes to the good and the pure what you were before."

In rebuttal, the prosecutor quoted Twain, too: "If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything."

"Think back to defendant's testimony. Think back to every time he was asked on cross examination, something that made him look bad, something that made him look like he had a motive, something that was incriminating. Think back to every single time the defendant was asked something like that, and what was his answer? I don't recall," Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner said.

02:15 "Defense wants you to think about the life insurance, but you should think about it differently. This is a couple who's going through they're going through it in their marriage. Why is it time to renew life insurance? Does that make any sense? No. What the life insurance is, what many of defendants actions are, is the defendant covering his tracks. The cover up proves the crime."

03:52 "Emile told you he has no doubt about what the defendant told him, if this was truly a goodbye phone call, if this was truly the defendant telling his son that he was going to commit suicide, what purpose at all would there be to accuse Arielle of having an affair? What purpose does that serve in saying goodbye? That makes no sense. It's just trying to throw dirt on Arielle. That's all it is."

06:37 "You were told earlier about the defendant's constitutional rights and the founding of this country and how important that is. What are those three phrases that this country was founded on? Probably heard them before life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and in this case, the defendant, beyond a reasonable doubt, made a conscious choice to try and take Arielle's life. He made a conscious choice to kill her, and that is why the only verdict that is supported by the evidence is that the defendant is guilty as charged."

07:39 Judge Paul B.K. Wong reads final charge to jury

****************************
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

It Shows Hes Human: Defense Urges Acquittal In Hawaii Hiking Trial — Entire Closing Argument

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-07 | Defense lawyer Thomas Otake began his closing argument in Gerhardt Konig's attempted murder trial today (Tuesday, April 7) by focusing on the jury's duty when deciding the case.

Konig is accused of trying to kill his wife, Arielle Konig, on a cliffside hiking trail on O'ahu on March 24, 2025. He's charged in Hawaii state court with second-degree attempted murder, but jurors have several lesser included charges to consider if they don't convict him of that.

01:57 "They're undeterred by the evidence. It doesn't matter what it shows, they're going to spin it in their favor. They came up with a theory and they went to search for facts to support it. They didn't look at the evidence and say what it what's the theory that points that out? They came up with a theory and they tried to find any fact they could to fit it. They were undeterred, undeterred by the DNA. The DNA shows, and I'm going to go through it. She's holding the rock."

03:17 "You don't come up with a theory and then search for evidence to spin it to fit your theory. That's what happened in this case. You know, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to go through just some of the law initially, and then we're going to come back, go through all the evidence, and then I'm going to come back on some other parts of the law."

09:43 "She brought up the idea of going on a trip to Oahu. That was her idea. Why would that be the plan?"

11:49 "Now, the birthday card, he writes this this morning. It's the only time she got emotional because she knows it was genuine.."

12:36 "He made a reservation to go to dinner that night. He's not planning on killing anybody. There was no plan."

14:30 "The idea that he came up with this plan because he was trying to save a patient's life who was hurt with a rock on a hike is ludicrous."

17:45 "If this was a big plan that someone's going to bring a syringe to incapacitate somebody and and stab them to make it easier to throw them off the cliff, don't you think they would load the syringe ahead of time?"

19:10 "It makes no sense that there would he would start the scuffle before using a syringe, if that was his big plan, because it didn't happen. This idea that she could just flick the syringe out of his hand. He's holding it tight, according to her, just flicks it. None of that makes any sense."

21:25 "Her demeanor. They say, 'Oh, she was very matter of fact, and just told it.' Ask yourself if someone's describing what should have been the most horrific thing they've ever been through, bloody murder. Someone's trying to stab you at a syringe. A monster is trying to throw you off a cliff when you're recounting that you might get a little emotional, not at all. And she's not just someone who doesn't get emotional. Because we saw her get emotional when we showed her the card. When she read the birthday card, she got emotional."

24:12 "The rock was in her hand. The DNA shows that. That blows away her whole story that she didn't have the rock."

30:32 "She says she's surprised about the work that she's surprised about the work bag. Oh, I didn't know. You know, she knew he had it there. She knew there was syringes and vials in there. She calls her attorney, and then they turn it in and say, Oh, surprise, look what I found. She knew it was there. She knew it was there. She lied about that. She lied about her affair, she lied to her primary care doctor."

31:07 "I really like quotes. So there's an author, famous author by the name of Samuel Clemens. Most of us know him better as Mark Twain. Mark Twain was giving a speech once to some young people about the dangers of being untruthful. And what he said was, 'You ought to be very careful about lying, because once caught, you can never again be in the eyes of the good and the pure what you were before.'"

35:00 "He's not trying to deprive her of her career. He's trying to stop her from seeing the guy that she had an affair with. He was fine with her getting another job. That's a very human thing. Why would you be okay with her going back to work with the guy that she had an affair with? Now he went into detective mode when he found out about the affair. That's a very human reaction."

37:23 "he felt horrible about it, and he told you about that he never wanted to hurt her"

41:01 "He was trying to say goodbye to his son, trying to say goodbye to his son. This is not a confession."

43:02 "it shows he's human, that he felt terrible about this. He told you how bad he felt, and that can coexist with self defense."

46:13 "What do they find? No smoking gun, just some search about hikes that you would search if you were truly just going on a hike."

****************************
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Hikers Are The Only Thing That Stopped Attempted Murder Defendant, Prosecutor Argues

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-07 | A Hawaii prosecutor told jurors today that two women hiking are the only reason a Maui anesthesiologist stopped attacking his wife on the cliffside Pali Puka Trail last year.

Gerhardt Konig's lawyer may argue or jurors may think that Amanda Morris and Sarah Buchsbaum "only saw the end," Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner said, but "the evidence shows that Amanda and Sarah didn't see the end of the incident. They caused the end of the incident."

"When they showed up, that is the only thing that stopped the defendant," Garner said in his closing argument today (Tuesday, April 7) in Hawaii's 1st Circuit Court in Honolulu.

"Arielle screaming for help didn't stop the defendant. Arielle fighting back for her life didn't stop the defendant. The only thing that stopped the defendant, the only thing that was enough for him to stop, is two eyewitnesses coming up on the scene and seeing him beat her with that rock. The only thing that got him to stop was being caught redhanded," Garner said.

Garner showed jurors police body camera footage of Arielle being helped down the trail and talking to police.

"You heard in this video her slurred voice, her heavy breathing, her condition after the defendant beat her with that rock. She was not okay," Garner said.

The police manhunt for Konig "corroborates Arielle as well," Garner said.

Three agencies used two drones and a helicopter and after almost eight hours but "they were still not able to find the defendant."

"And that tells you one incredibly important thing: The defendant did not want to be found," Garner said.

You can watch the entire 46-minute argument on my YouTube channel and Facebook page.

Prosecutor Begins Closing Argument In Hawaii Hiking Trail Trial

Hawaii Prosecutors Entire Closing Argument In Gerhardt Konigs Attempted Murder Trial

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-07 | Honolulu County Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner began his closing argument in Gerhardt Konig's attempted murder trial today by telling the jury, "A motive. A beating. A confession. Ladies and gentlemen, beyond a reasonable doubt, the state has proven that on March 24, 2025, Gerhardt Konig tried to kill his wife, Arielle."

"The state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Gerhardt Konig committed the offense of attempted murder in the second degree."

02:00 "Plan A, the push. The intent was to kill. When Plan A didn't work, the defendant moved on to Plan B. Plan B, inject her with the syringe, knock her out, push her off the cliff. The intent behind plan B was to kill Plan C, when the first two plans didn't work, beat her with the rock, knock her out, drag her over, or just simply kill her outright."

04:35 "The law treats somebody the same, whether they're successful or not. The law treats you the same, no matter how good you are at executing that plan, no matter how good you are at actually succeeding in killing somebody,
the law treats you the same as an example, somebody who tries to shoot somebody who points a gun and tries to end a life but misses they've committed attempted murder."

06:28 "Arielle told you about her treatment, her medical treatment, her recovery. She showed you the scars that she carries to this day. She showed you the scars on her head, where she will never grow hair again, and everything that Arielle said is corroborated. These are the credibility factors. These are listed in your instructions that you should be considering for every witness who testified.

And we are not going to go through all of them right now, but there's a couple that are relevant for Arielle here. First appearance, demeanor, intelligence, candor, frankness. Ariel testified in a straightforward, coherent manner. She testified clearly. There were no histrionics, barely any tears. It was straightforward. This happened, then this happened, then this happened. It was not over dramatized. It was not over exaggerated. It was straightforward and simple and coherent. She was open to cross examination."

12:28 "You've seen the photo of Arielle from the front. You've seen what's missing from her head. You've seen that there is a chunk of her scalp that is gone. It's right there in that photo, and you've seen that she didn't just have scalp injuries. She had injuries above her eye. She had injuries below her eye."

18:22 "Maybe you thought to yourself, well, Amanda and Sarah only saw the end. The evidence shows that Amanda and Sarah didn't see the end of the incident. They caused the end of the incident because when they showed up, that is the only thing that stopped the defendant."

22:40 "Defendant's actions corroborate Arielles testimony. First, he fled the scene. Second, he collected the evidence from the scene. He collected Arielle's phone, he collected Arielle's purse, and he collected those syringes. He took all those items from the scene and he disposed of them."

24:03 "The defendant in this case has testified, and you need to judge his testimony the exact same way that you judge anybody's. At the beginning of this trial, you heard a theme, some alliteration with a theme, you know, unwilling or unfaithful, unwilling, untrue. But ladies and gentlemen, after listening to the defendant's testimony, you only knew one word to summarize it, one word: unbelievable."

27:38 "This is the photo of the defendant immediately after his arrest. This is the photo of the defendant almost eight hours after the incident, up on the trail, after the defendant tried to kill Arielle. Yes, there's a small dark spot on his cheek. Is it a bruise? Is it dirt? I don't know. This is Arielle. The idea that this same rock caused these different injuries is unbelievable, ladies and gentlemen."

30:07 "Defendant is contradicted by Amanda and Sarah. Somehow, Arielle finally let go of his private parts, and then he just stands there and looks he's not on the ground writhing in pain. Does that make sense? He says that she held on so hard that he couldn't escape. Does it make sense that afterwards he would just stand there and stare? No. Defendant is contradicted by the physical evidence. He's contradicted by the fact that there's no blood of his up there. There's no evidence of injuries that support what defendant says happened."

32:11 "He made the plan to go hiking that day. He didn't share with Arielle what hike they were going on. He didn't share the details of that hike with Arielle. He didn't share the dangers of that hike with Arielle, because his plan was to push her off that cliff."

37:07 "You've got a list of other included offenses. You got a list of a bunch of assault charges that are included in the attempted murder in second degree charge. When you think about those, just think one thing he did more."

********
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Detective Is Final Witness In Hawaii Hiking Trial Trail

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-07 | The final witness in Gerhardt Konig's attempted murder trial in Hawaii was Thomas Iinuma, a detective with the Honolulu Police Department who works in cybercrimes and digital forensics for the Criminal Investigation Division.

Iinuma testified as a prosecution witness last week, then Konig's lawyer Thomas Otake called him as a defense witness today (Tuesday, April 7).

The testimony was brief: Otake asked Iinuma about his analysis of Konig's computer records and emphasized that he did not examine all records and that computers sometimes access files without human prompting. Konig, an anesthesiologist on Maui, is accused of trying to kill his wife, Arielle Konig, on the Pali Puka Trail on O'ahu in March 2025.

"You cannot rule out with certainty that some of the last accesses you discussed last week, may have been caused by automated processes instead of a human, correct? You cannot rule that out with any degree of certainty?" Otake asked.

"Yes, that's correct. Based on the data I received, I cannot rule it out," Iinuma answered.

In cross-exam, Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner emphasized that the files Konig accessed about finances and his previous divorce were accessed on several dates. Garner is arguing that Konig wanted to leave his wife but worried about the cost of divorce and child custody.

"What does that tell you about whether this was a virus scan or a person?" Garner asked.

Iinuma testified that "just based on the limited data that I received, it appears that it was likely a human action that caused it, because if the antivirus software went into that folder, it's going to do a sweep of all the files within that folder. It's not going to just individually pick one file for that day, come back couple days later, look for another file and so on."

In re-cross, Otake seized on Iinuma's use of the term "limited data."

"You say 'based on the limited data' because you didn't have all the data to look at what other files may have been open at that time, correct?" Otake asked.

"Yes, so, correct, so based on the limited data, it appears that it was a human action, but I'm not certain because I would need the full access to the computer," Iinuma answered.

Judge Instructs Jury Before Closing Arguments In Hawaii Hiking Attempted Murder Trial

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-07 | The judge in Gerhardt Konig's attempted murder trial in Honolulu, Hawaii, instructed jurors this morning before attorneys gave closing arguments.

Judge Paul B.K. Wong has been a judge in Hawaii's 1st Circuit Court since 2017. He previously was a district judge, a partner with the Honolulu law firm McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon, LLP and a deputy prosecutor for the City and County of Honolulu. He is a graduate of the University of Southern California and Boston College Law School.

01:06 "You must presume the defendant is innocent of the charge against them. This presumption remains with the defendant throughout the trial of the case, unless and until the prosecution proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is not a mere slogan, but an essential part of the law that is binding upon you. It places upon the prosecution the duty of proving every material element of the offense charged against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. You must not find the defendant guilty upon mere suspicion or upon evidence which only shows that the defendant is probably guilty. What the law requires before the defendant can be found guilty is not suspicion, not probabilities, but proof of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

05:00 "You must consider all of the evidence in determining the facts in this case. This does not mean that you are bound to give every bit of evidence the same weight."

06:55 "You're not bound to decide a fact one way or another just because more witnesses testify on one side than the other. It is testimony that has a convincing force upon you that comes and the testimony of even a single witness, if believed, can be sufficient to prove a fact."

09:34 "You heard the testimony of certain witnesses who were allowed to provide opinion, testimony, training and experience unique person qualified to provide opinion testimony in a particular field, the law allows that person to state an opinion about matters in that field. Merely because such a witness is expressing opinion does not mean, however, that you must accept this opinion."

10:33 "There are two material elements of the offense of attempted murder in the second degree, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond the reasonable doubt."
"One, on or about March 24 2025, in the City and County of Honolulu, the defendant intentionally engaged in conduct. And two, the conduct under the circumstances as defendant believed them to be was a substantial step in a course of conduct intended or known to be practically certain by the defendant to cause the death of Ariel Koenig, conduct shall not be considered a substantial step unless it is strongly corroborative of the defendant's intent to commit murder in the second degree, which is intentionally or knowingly causing the death of another person."

11:22 "Self-defense is a defense to the charge of attempted murder in the second degree and its included offenses. Self-defense involves consideration of two issues. First, you must determine whether the defendant did or did not use deadly force. Second, you must determine whether the force used was justified."

15:48 "if, you unanimously find that all the elements of attempted murder in the second degree has been proven by the prosecution beyond the reasonable doubt, and you unanimously find that the defendant was not acting in self defense, then you must consider the affirmative defense of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Extreme mental or emotional disturbance has two elements. These two elements are one the defendant was at the time he attempted to cause the death of the other person under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, and two, there was a reasonable explanation for the extreme mental or emotional disturbance."

18:01 "If and only if you find the defendant not guilty of attempted murder in the second degree, or you are unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to this offense, then you must consider whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the included offense of attempted assault in the first degree."

24:35 "if and only if you find that the prosecution has proved the offense of assault in the third degree beyond the reasonable doubt, we must also consider whether the fight or scuffle was entered into by mutual consent..."

33:09 "You may bring in either one of the following verdicts:
One, not guilty, or two, guilty as charge of attempted murder in the second degree
or three, guilty of attempted manslaughter based upon extreme mental or emotional disturbance
or four, guilty of attempted assault in the first degree
or five, guilty of assault in the second degree
or six, guilty of assault in the third degree

Your verdict must be unanimous."

****************************
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Defense Rests In Hawaii Hiking Attempted Murder Trial After Final Witness Testimony

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-07 | The final witness in Gerhardt Konig's attempted murder trial in Hawaii was Thomas Iinuma, a detective with the Honolulu Police Department who works in cybercrimes and digital forensics for the Criminal Investigation Division.

Iinuma testified as a prosecution witness last week, then Konig's lawyer Thomas Otake called him as a defense witness today (Tuesday, April 7). The testimony was brief: Otake asked Iinuma about his analysis of Konig's computer records and emphasized that he did not examine all records and that computers sometimes access files without human prompting.

Konig, an anesthesiologist on Maui, is accused of trying to kill his wife, Arielle Konig, on the Pali Puka Trail on O'ahu in March 2025.

03:34 "And that being said, you cannot rule out with certainty that some of the last accesses you discussed last week, may have been caused by automated processes instead of a human, correct? You cannot rule that out with any degree of certainty?"
"Yes, that's correct. Based on the data I received, I cannot rule it out."

04:05 cross-exam by Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner

05:29 "Now, based on the fact that there are multiple different dates where all these different files, the financials, the divorce documents, where all these were accessed, what does that tell you about whether this was a virus scan or a person?"

06:38 "I noticed that all the decent the date and time that was accessed were all different. It'll be a strong indication if all the access time were all within the same date, the same time, within milliseconds. If it shows that there was over 50 files that were accessed at the same second, then there'll be a strong indicator that it was some kind of automated software that access all of them, and it's humanly impossible to open up 50 files within a second."

07:30 "Okay, so just based on the limited data that I received, it appears that it was likely a human action that caused it, because if the antivirus software went into that folder, it's going to do a sweep of all the files within that folder. It's not going to just individually, pick one file for that day, come back couple days later, look for another file and so on."

08:15 Otake on redirect

08:50 Judge Paul B.K. Wong: "Does the defense wish to present any other evidence in this case?"
"Your honor, at this time, the defense rests."

09:04 "Mr. Garner, does the state wish to present any rebuttal evidence in this case?"
"No, Your Honor."

****************************
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Defense Says Child Killers Brain Injury Warrants Life In Prison, Not Death Penalty

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-07 | A lawyer for a Texas man facing a possible death sentence for murdering a seven-year-old girl began his opening statement today by telling jurors about professional basketball star Tyrese Haliburton tearing his right Achilles tendon during game seven of the NBA finals last year.

Steven Goble said Halburton’s injury was “very visible.”

“You know he's done. Not playing anymore. When someone has a physical injury, we kind of understand. They’re not going to run as fast. They’re not going to jump as high,” Goble said.

But “when someone’s brain is what’s injured, you don’t see it. It’s not visible at a glance. We don’t treat it the same. We want people to push through it,” Goble said.

Goble represents Tanner Horner, a former contractor driver for FedEx who murdered a seven-year-old girl after he delivered a box of Barbie dolls to her home in rural Paradise, Texas.

Horner pleaded guilty this morning to capital murder and aggravated kidnapping, so jurors won’t decide his guilt, only his sentence.

Goble said they should sentence him to life in prison without parole instead of death.

02:41 Experts “can show you cognitive links between what's wrong with the brain and how someone behaves, why they don't fit in, why they don't function the way someone who doesn't have those deficits functions.”

03:25 "Tanner's injury actually became four he was born. His mother, God bless her, Melissa Horner, was working as a stripper, and she was pregnant, and one of the ways she was able to get on stage and do her job was to drink alcohol."

05:36 "You will hear evidence that Tanner, at some point, presumably during his developmental years, was exposed to a massive amount of lead. Testing shows that he has 24 times the amount of lead that the person his baby should have in his bones. You don't have to be a scientist or a doctor to know that lead has terrible effects on the brain."

06:39 "Tanner has done what he can today by pleading guilty, accepting that he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison. I understand I have a different perspective on this, because I've represented a lot of defendants who won't do that. The evidence is overwhelming. The state said it's terrible. I hate that we all have to sit there. But all across America today, there are defendants that are relying on that presumption of innocence and that burden of proof in their cases to try to get a not guilty verdict."

08:44 "We believe, when you heard the evidence, you realize that the type of damage that Tanner has to his brain actually makes him a good candidate for structure and rules. It's probably what he's always needed and when he goes to prison, he will be under threat. He will not be the one threatening."

10:46 "So what I'm asking you to do is to not close your eyes to what you've seen about who Tanner is. ... Not pretend that damage to the brain is unreal.
Speak up. Fulfill your oath. Sentence him to life without parole."

****************************
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Texas Prosecutor Says FedEx Driver Deserves Death For Murdering Young Girl

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-07 | A death penalty trial began today for a Texas FedEx driver who murdered a seven-year-old girl in 2022.

Tanner Horner pleaded guilty this morning to capital murder and aggravated kidnapping, so jurors won't decide his guilt.

Horner was a contract driver for FedEx in November 2022 when he delivered a box of Barbie dolls to the home of Athena Strand in rural Paradise, Texas. His lawyers say he shouldn't be executed because he's mentally disabled.

James Stainton, the elected district attorney in Wise County, told a jury at the courthouse in Decatur today (Tuesday, April 7) that he read the words of Paul in the Bible's 2 Corinthians "when he said Satan masquerades as an angel of light, and that's what we have here."

"Let me tell you a little bit about what you're going to see today, what you're going to see over the next few weeks. We're going to present all the same evidence that you would have seen before in guilt. But that's going to expand it to include the punishment evidence as well. So you're going to get it all in one package," Stainton said.

01:29 "She was in Ms. Thompson's first grade class. She had a rough day that day, and you'll hear Ms. Thompson talk about that. She's strong willed, very precocious. She's seven. Ms. Thompson's going to talk to you a little bit about that last day and tell you what went on and why that's important."

02:09 "it's sad that we have to talk about a child in the past tense, who she was, what she liked, who were her friends who were her parents. It's sad that we have to have this discussion, but that's the evidence that we have to bring you."

03:57 "When Tanner Horner rolled up that day, he rolled up alone. He rolled up bringing what we thought would be joy and happiness and a package."

06:24 "Time to get to the truth. The only truthful thing that Tanner Horner told law enforcement was that he killed her, the pattern and web of lies that he put together, it's going to be hard for y'all to keep up with. It is lie upon lie upon lie upon lie."

07:10 "So you're going to hear multiple stories. None of them are true. What's the story that was told in the beginning, that he hit her with a truck, that he somehow freaked out because he thought he was going to lose his job or she was going to tell on he picked her up, still freaked out and killed her. That is an absolute lie."

08:18 "First thing Tanner Horner says to Athena. When he picks her up, puts her in that truck, he leans down and he says, 'Don't scream, or I'll hurt you.'"

08:47 "Now you're going to be able to hear it all on audio, but I'm going to tell you right now one thing you're going to hear that is something that you can't unhear is the level of fight that a seven year old girl has when she's facing down certain death. We talk about warriors in America. We tell you that little girl right there is warrior. She fought with the strength of 100 men."

10:31 "The ranger had helicopters moving, 24/7, looking for her, searching for her, all believing they were going to find her alive. Where did we find her. We found her at a place called Bobo crossing. Now I grew up in Wise County, and I lived not too far away from where her body was dumped, and I have no idea why they call it Bobo Crossing. I haven't found anybody who knows why they call it Bobo Crossing, but that's what they call it."

11:59 "sometimes they take responsibility, not this guy, every every part of that, even before we found our body as woe is me, worried about what's going to happen to me, worried about why I'm not going to see my kid again, worried about me selfish."

13:55 "We're going to show you what Tanner Horner did to prepare for this, covering up the camera, setting this up, and he was there 24 hours before, on the same road at a different house with a different girl."

15:23 "'I'll submit to you that the level of violence that one person can inflict on a child is important, but you're also going to hear all about this individual. You're also going to hear about past and present, and I submit to you that you're also going to hear a bunch of stuff about how he's got some kind of life problems, he's got some kind of medical problems, he's got some kind of this. He's got some kind of that. I anticipate all of that coming up. I anticipate a long line of experts rolled up in here telling you just about how problematic this guy is. That's what's to be expected. It's all an excuse. Okay? It's all an excuse for somebody who's done this."

14:32 "We're going to show you the whole video, and we're going to show you how he did it, because I think that's important. It's an hour, it's not five minutes, it's an hour. And it's not just one time that he's trying to kill her. It's over over and over again. You can hear the banging in the truck. You can hear. The screams. This is what's coming. It didn't happen fast."

****************************
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Prosecutor Asks Attempted Murder Suspect About Hiking Trail Research

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-03 | A Maui, Hawaii, man accused of trying to murder his wife on a hiking trail testified for about 2 1/2 hours in cross-examination during his trial in Honolulu today (Thursday, April 2).

Gerhardt Konig, 47, didn't have to answer many questions about what actually happened with his wife, Arielle Konig, on the Pali Puka Trail on O'ahu on March 24, 2025, because Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner didn't ask many.

Instead, Garner questioned Konig about the flirtatious texts between his wife and a coworker that upset him months before they traveled to O'ahu from their home in Maui to celebrate her birthday.

Garner also questioned Konig about his research into his past divorce arrangement, implying that Konig wanted to divorce Arielle but worried it would cost him too much money.

Garner also asked Konig about his research into hiking trails, which he pointed out began after the licensed anesthesiologist treated a woman who was hit with a rock at a waterfall.

"In January 2025, you actually treated a woman in the course of your work for having a rock fall on her at a waterfall. Is that right?" Garner asked.

"That's right," Konig answered.

"You saw the injury that she got from that rock, correct?" Garner asked.

"I did," Konig answered.

"You saw what kind of treatment she needed, right?" Garner asked.

"Yes," Konig answered.

"And in February — at the end of February — that's when you started researching hikes, correct?" Garner asked.

"That's correct," Konig answered.

"Difficult hikes are generally more dangerous, right?" Garner asked.

"Sometimes. Sometimes they're just longer," Konig answered.

"Difficult hikes have rougher terrain, right?" Garner asked.

"Sometimes," Konig answered.

"Difficult types have higher drop offs, right?" Garner asked.

"Not necessarily," Konig answered.

"Difficult hikes can have more exposure, correct?" Garner asked.

"They could," Konig answered.

"And these difficult hikes, these are the kinds of hikes you are interested in, right?" Garner asked.

"Yes," Konig answered.

Garner asked Konig about webpage he visited about the Pali Puka Trail.

"'The hike isn't necessarily dangerous, but much of the path is on the edge of a huge drop off.' You read that, right?" Garner asked.

"I'm sure I did," Konig answered.

"And you read the sentence that says, 'Does that make it dangerous? You decide,'" Garner asked.

"I'm sure I did. I remember reading this whole whole article," Konig answered.

"So you remember reading the whole article?" Garner asked.

"Yes," Konig answered.

"You remember reading the part that says that the hike 'spits you out on the edge of a cliff with a huge drop off?'" Garner asked.

"If it says that, then I did I read that," Konig answered.

"And you see this picture, and this is what you want to do?" Garner asked.

"Yes," Konig answered.

"Tis is the hike you want to take Arielle on, right?" Garner asked.

"Yes," Konig answered.

The trial will resume next Tuesday (April 7). Jurors are expected to begin deliberating by the end of the day after attorneys give closing arguments.

Gerhardt Konig Finishes Testifying In Hawaii Hiking Trail Attempted Murder Trial

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-03 | Gerhardt Konig's lawyer Thomas Otake got a chance to question him again after cross-examination, and he kept it short.

Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner didn't ask many questions about what actually happened on the Pali Puka Trail on O'ahu, Hawaii, where Konig is accused of attempting to murder his wife, Arielle Konig, on March 24, 2025, so Otake didn't either.

Instead, Otake began by questioning Konig about Arielle's flirtatious texts with a coworker, which caused problems in their marriage that Garner implied in cross led Konig to want to divorce, but he was concerned about the cost. Garner spent time trying to show that Konig was overreacting to the texts, as if that actually matters for the attempted murder charge.

01:30 "How did you feel about the text messages on that Sunday between your wife and another man?"
"I was very worried."

02:40 "Did you and Arielle talk about what would happen if she quit her current job?"
"Yes."
"And what did you guys discuss?"
"She was going to look for another job."

03:08 "I mean, I would have preferred if we could deal with the affair in an isolated environment. And so it would be, it would have been preferable if she had moved out."
"Did you eventually change your thoughts on that?"
"Yes."

04:22 "Why were you looking up these things in late December?"
"Because I was working on our relationship."
"Were you still having a hard time with it all?"
"I was."

05:58 "Do you have a recollection of why you might have been looking at her retirement account?"
"Yeah, so she had, she had, like, almost $200,000 in her retirement. And when we purchased our house, we purchased it through UBS actually. So they actually do home loans as well. And as part of that, they convinced us to move all of her retirement into one of their accounts, which is a managed account, so they charge a fee on it."

07:31 DARVO
"Why did that term resonate with you?"
"Oh, because so it felt like she was deflecting, and then also blaming me for, for now the affair, and then also bringing up other things. And one of the one of the threads that I read and read, it talked about that idea, and then it used that acronym, and so then I was like, 'Oh, what is this?' I looked up the acronym, and that's what it was."

11:20 "Well, you admit that you called her those names, yes?"

11:41 Garner on re-cross
"If Ari divorces you, you're likely going to be paying child support, correct?" "Yes."
"And you know from your last marriage that's very expensive, right?"

13:40 "You know that you're likely not going to be taking her retirement if she divorces you, correct?"
"Like I said, I don't, I don't know the what's going to come of all that. It's a complicated it's much more complicated than the life insurance issue, for example."

14:21 "Second scenario, if Ari dies, you don't pay any child support, correct?"

15:11 "If Ari dies, you get $250,000 from her retirement, correct?"
"Yes."
"As the sole beneficiary, correct?"
"Yes."

15:47 re-re-direct by Otake

16:00 "Do you want to fight Arielle for 50/50 custody?"
"Absolutely."

17:54 "So ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to release you for the day. It's a long weekend. I think we all could use the long weekend this weekend. I'm going to have you come back on Tuesday. We'll start up at nine o'clock on Tuesday. That is April 7."

Judge Paul B.K. Wong: "And based on my discussions with the attorneys, we expect to wrap up the presentation of evidence on Tuesday. The case will be submitted to the jury sometime on Tuesday for deliberations. So that's what we're looking at. In terms of the schedule. I know it feels like a long road, but we're actually ahead of schedule. So I do hope you have a good, restful weekend."

****************************
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Part 2: Gerhardt Konigs Cross-Examination In Hawaii Hiking Trail Attempted Murder Trial

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-03 | A Maui, Hawaii, man accused of trying to murder his wife on a hiking trail testified for about 2 1/2 hours in cross-examination during his trial in Honolulu today (Thursday, April 2).

This is the last 50 minutes of Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner's cross of Gerhardt Konig.

You can watch part 1, which is one hour and 37 minutes, here: youtube.com/watch?v=XNV7vcA76OE

Garner highlighted Konig's computer activity, including his look at his prior divorce records, to try to show that he was considering divorce Arielle but worried about the cost of child support and alimony like he paid to previous ex-wife.

03:13 "So between December 14 and February 3, there are four different accesses to your prior divorce folder on your computer. Correct?"
"From the computer system, yes."
"That you have no recollection of?"
"That I have no recollection of."

03:28 "but you are looking at Arielle's documents on her hard drive about divorce, correct?"
:Yes, I did look at that, that divorce folder on her portable hard drive"

07:47 "I have no recollection of looking at the wedding room block document. I don't have a recollection of looking at the wedding spreadsheet either. But I could potentially think of a reason why I would have done that, but I've no recollection of opening that wedding room block, and have no idea why I would have done that."

08:53 "I 100% did not look at the final floral proposal for our wedding in March"

14:31 "you viewed a 2018 wealthfront account statement for Ariel. Isn't that correct?"
"I don't have any recollection of that."

18:32 "now you've been asked about your research into hiking, is that right?" "That's right."
"And you testified yesterday that you do a lot of hiking, right?"
"I do."

19:28 "And in January 2025 you actually treated a woman in the course of your work for having a rock fall on her to waterfall. Is that right?"
"That's right."
"You saw the injuries that she got from that rock, correct?"
"I did."
"You saw what kind of treatment she needed, right?"
"Yes."
And in February, at the end of February, that's when you started researching hikes, correct?"
"That's correct."

20:01 "On February 28 at 2:55 p.m., you searched Maui secret hikes. Correct?"
"I did."

22:47 "And these difficult hikes, these are the kinds of hikes you are interested in, right?"
"Yes."

25:12 "So you remember reading the whole article?"
"Yes."
"You remember reading the part that says that the hike spits you out on the edge of a cliff with a huge drop off?"

27:42 "you and Arielle weren't fighting when you woke up at the hotel, correct?"
"No."

30:59 "Wouldn't you agree that that path is right on the edge of the cliff?"
"Yeah, it's very, very close to the edge of the cliff."

31:17 "Nothing to hold on to, right?"
"For for this part of the trail, not much. I mean, there's some brush on the other side, but you have to really watch your step."

33:35 " They would be as dead falling anywhere along this trail because the cliff is extremely high."

33:55 "You testified this morning, and you said — please do correct me if I'm wrong here — that you were not sexually demanding of Arielle. Is that correct?"
"That's correct."
"That is your testimony."

37:22 "The main issue that I wanted to address was, was the aftermath of the emotional affair, which included a lot of different issues in our relationship. It wasn't just one thing."

41:14 "So you testify that you have this argument, you separate, and then you come back together, right?"
"Yes."
"You take this selfie right by the cliff, correct?"
"Yes."
"And then you testified that Arielle pushed you, right?"
"Yes."
"And you testified that you could barely hold on, right?"
"I, I, I I almost went off the cliff."

42:12 "And then you say that Arielle pulled you onto the ground, right?"
"That's correct."
"You're bigger than Arielle, right?"
"Yes."

42:23 "At the time of the incident, you had at least 20 pounds on it, right"
"Yeah, roughly 20 pounds."
"You're stronger than her, right?"
"Probably."
"You're a doctor, so you know that men generally are stronger than women, correct?"
'Yes."
"It's just a scientific matter testosterone, right?"
"That's true."
"But you testify that Arielle managed to pull you to the ground, and she pulled you on top of her, right?"
"That's correct."
"Okay, then you testified that Arielle wouldn't let you go from on top of her, right?"
"That's correct."
"You testified that she wrapped her legs around you, right?"
"She wrapped at least one leg around me."

48:00 "on the left side of the screen, that's Arielle on March 25"
"I don't know when that picture was taken, but I'll take your word for it."

s****************************
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Prosecutor Crosses Hawaii Doctor Accused Of Attempted Murder On Hiking Trail

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-03 | Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner finally questioned Gerhardt Konig about the alleged attempted murder of his wife during the final 22 minutes of his 2 1/2 hour cross-examination in Honolulu, Hawaii, today (Thursday, April 2).

Konig, 47, and an anesthesiologist in Maui, has been in jail since last March after a hiker called 911 after hearing his wife screaming for help and seeing him on top of her hitting her face with rocks. Konig is currently on trial for attempted second-degree murder, and he testified in his own defense on Wednesday (April 1).

Garner spent the first two hours of his cross questioning Konig about his relationship with his wife, Arielle Konig, and his "detective" work regarding her flirtatious relationship with a coworkers. He questioned him about his internet activity and computer activity regarding the relationship, and he questioned Konig about his sexual demands and belief that she wasn't fulfilling her promises to try to work through their problems.

Garner finally turned to the March 24, 2025, hike the couple went on on O'ahu's Pali Puka Trail, where Konig is accused of trying to throw his wife off a cliff, bashing her face with a lava rock. (You can watch some of his direct-exam testimony from Wednesday here @Meghann Cuniff and here @Meghann Cuniff.)

"You take this selfie right by the cliff, correct?" Garner asked.

"Yes," Konig answered.

"And then you testified that Arielle pushed you, right?" Garner asked.

"Yes," Konig answered.

"And you testified that you could barely hold on, right?" Garner asked.

"I, I, I almost went off the cliff," Konig answered.

"And then you turned around, and you testified that Arielle was 5 to 10 feet away, right?" Garner asked.

"By the time I turned around, she had backed away, and she was not and, yeah. That was part of what I was concerned, that, just that was a shove and not a accidental thing," Konig answered.

"And then you approached her. You went towards her?" Garner asked.

"I did," Konig answered.

"So you think you're about get pushed off a cliff, and then you go 5 or 10 feet to get to Arielle, right?" Garner asked.

"I move towards her. That's correct," Konig answered.

"And then you say that Arielle pulled you onto the ground, right?" Garner asked.

"That's correct," Konig answered.

"You're bigger than Arielle, right?" Garner asked.

"Yes," Konig answered.

"You have at least, or at the time of the offense, or at the time of the incident, you had at least 20 pounds on Arielle right?" Garner asked.

"Yeah, roughly 20 pounds," Konig answered.

"You're stronger than her, right?" Garner asked.

"Probably," Konig answered.

"You're a doctor, so you know that men generally are stronger than women, correct?" Garner asked.

"Yes," Konig answered.

"It's just a scientific matter of testosterone, right?" Garner asked.

"That's true," Konig answered.

"But you testify that Arielle managed to pull you to the ground, and she pulled you on top of her, right?" Garner asked.

"That's correct," Konig answered.

"Okay, then you testified that Arielle wouldn't let you go from on top of her, right?" Garner asked.

"That's correct," Konig answered.

Garner finished repeating Kongis' direct testimony then displayed photos of Konig after his arrest and his wife while she was hospitalized. I have edited out her photos because they are so gruesome.

Prosecutor Crosses Maui Doctor Accused Of Trying To Kill Wife: Youre Stronger Than Her, Right?

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-03 | Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner finally questioned Gerhardt Konig about the alleged attempted murder of his wife during the final 22 minutes of his 2 1/2 hour cross-examination in Honolulu, Hawaii, today (Thursday, April 2).

Konig, 47, and an anesthesiologist in Maui, has been in jail since last March after a hiker called 911 after hearing his wife screaming for help and seeing him on top of her hitting her face with rocks. Konig is currently on trial for attempted second-degree murder, and he testified in his own defense on Wednesday (April 1).

You can watch the first 100 minutes of Garner's cross here: youtube.com/watch?v=XNV7vcA76OE

01:21 "The website even told you, 'does that make the hike dangerous? You decide' is that right?"

03:24 "Wouldn't you agree that that path is right on the edge of the cliff?"
"Yeah, it's very, very close to the edge of the cliff."

03:42 "Nothing to hold on to, right?"
"For for this part of the trail, not much. I mean, there's some brush on the other side, but you have to really watch your step."

06:00 " They would be as dead falling anywhere along this trail because the cliff is extremely high."

06:20 "You testified this morning, and you said — please do correct me if I'm wrong here — that you were not sexually demanding of Arielle. Is that correct?"
"That's correct."
"That is your testimony."

12:37 "Okay, let's go back to the hike."

13:39 "So you testify that you have this argument, you separate, and then you come back together, right?"
"Yes."
"You take this selfie right by the cliff, correct?"
"Yes."
"And then you testified that Arielle pushed you, right?"
"Yes."
"And you testified that you could barely hold on, right?"
"I, I, I I almost went off the cliff."

14:37 "And then you say that Arielle pulled you onto the ground, right?"
"That's correct."
"You're bigger than Arielle, right?"
"Yes."

14:49 "At the time of the incident, you had at least 20 pounds on it, right"
"Yeah, roughly 20 pounds."
"You're stronger than her, right?"
"Probably."
"You're a doctor, so you know that men generally are stronger than women, correct?"
'Yes."
"It's just a scientific matter testosterone, right?"
"That's true."
"But you testify that Arielle managed to pull you to the ground, and she pulled you on top of her, right?"
"That's correct."
"Okay, then you testified that Arielle wouldn't let you go from on top of her, right?"
"That's correct."
"You testified that she wrapped her legs around you, right?"
"She wrapped at least one leg around me."

16:18 "You testified that Arielle took this rock and hit you in the face, isn't that, right?"

21:13 "This is you one day after Arielle hits you really good with this rock, isn't it?"
"That's right."

****************************
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Gerhardt Konigs Cross-Examination In Hawaii Hiking Trail Attempted Murder Trial — Part 1

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-03 | Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner began his cross-examination of Gerhardt Konig today not by questioning him about what happened on the Pali Puka Trail with his wife last year but by questioning him about his work as an anesthesiologist. He then questioned him about his wife's flirtatious relationship with a coworker and his decision to confront her about it.

Prosecutors don't have to prove motive, and Konig is charged with second-degree attempted murder, not first-degree. But Garner still focused on what happened before the Pali Puka Trail before he ever broached the subject of the actual alleged attempted murder.

After almost an hour and four minutes, Garner still hadn't asked a single question about what happened on the trail. (He did in part 2, which you can watch here: youtube.com/watch?v=7gubE7LeCrQ)

01:13 "You give too little of the drug, and it's possible the patient could wake up during the surgery, right?"
"Yes."
"You give too much and the patient could never wake up at all. Is that right?"
"That's correct."
"Ultimately, you're the one with that control, right?"
"Yes."

04:38 "We were making between $300,000 and $400,000 a year."

05:25 "And you came to Oahu because it was Arielle's birthday weekend. Is that right?"
"That's right."

06:11 "Dr. Koenig, so yesterday, you testified that you started to become suspicious of Arielle in October 2024. Is that right?"

09:06 "That's the screen of Arielle's phone, correct?"
"Yes."
"You logged into Arielle's phone to take that picture, correct?"
"Yes."

10:53 "I didn't not look through all of our text messages. I opened the texting app to see if there's anything that looked suspicious."

18:05 "And naturally you were upset as you did this, right?"
"I had a lot of different feelings at the time, suspicious and sad and not happy."

21:37 "you're upset that your wife was keeping these messages secret from you, correct?"

23:47 "You called Arielle a lying bitch, right?"
"I did call her that at some point, not in the beginning of the disclosure."
"You called her a whore, right?"
"I did call her a whore at some point."

28:22 "You wanted to make sure Ariel never had contact with Jeffrey Miller again, right?"
"That was my strong preference for her to not have contact with Mr. Miller ever again."

34:20 "When Arielle didn't have sex with you, you believe she was withdrawing from the relationship, from the relationship, isn't that right?"
"That's not true."

40:11 "This is the email you sent to Andrea Miller, correct?"
"That's correct."

43:55 "you opened a PDF file on your computer from your prior divorce proceedings. Is that right? I have no recollection of that."

49:07 "We have a shared folder on Dropbox called the Big Love Party And Other Super Fun Stuff that I created when we were planning our wedding. And so this is a shared folder on Dropbox that both Ari and I have access to."

59:35 "I asked if the document was about how the education benefits from Pittsburgh that paid for Arielle's graduate degree?"
"Yes, that's correct."

01:01:20 "You were thinking that you paid for Arielle's education, and this is how she repays you, right?"
"No."

01:02:10 "This exhibit is your Reddit internet history, correct, Dr. Koenig?"
"Yes."

01:05:03 "It's safe to say that on December 24 2024, you were thinking about this affair. Correct?"
"Yes."
"You were upset about this affair, correct?"
"I was hurt and confused and a lot of things. And that's probably upset, too, yes."

01:11:59 "But the day after Christmas, you're looking at your notes from 2018 correct?"
"Seems so yes."
"And in those notes you discuss, or you have the information, how much child support you paid in 2018 correct?"
"That's correct."
"You have how much alimony you paid in 2018, correct?"
"That's correct."
"You paid about $29,000 a year in child support in 2018, correct?"
"That's right."
"You paid about $6,000 in alimony in 2018, correct?"
"That's correct."

01:14:31 "You mentioned that you had a big fight with Arielle on that day, correct?"
"That's correct."
"The same day you're looking up your tax documents with your alimony and child support, you get into a fight with Arielle, is that right?"
"Same day that I look at the tax documents that has a lot of information on it, including the alimony and child support, I get into a fight with Arielle. That's correct."

01:15:26 "It's the second time that you ask Arielle to leave her 18 month old, right?"
"That's correct."
"It's the second time that you asked her to leave her four year old, right?"

01:22:02 "And on December 30, 24 you search LinkedIn again for Andrea Miller, correct?"
"I don't recall doing that."

01:24: 38 "you opened a spreadsheet about your and Ariel's wedding, is that right?
I don't recall, but that that sounds plausible, yes.

***
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Attempted Murder Suspect Denies Making Sexual Demands Of Wife

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-02 | A prosecutor asked a Hawaii man accused of trying to murder his wife about his demands that she have sex with him whenever he wanted or he'd tell their friends about her flirtatious relationship with a coworker.

Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner wanted to ask Gerhardt Konig about his wife and alleged victim telling a friend he was coercing her into sex after Konig testified the friend called him a monster, but Judge Paul Wong ruled that the door hadn't been opened and if it had, the testimony still would more prejudicial than probative.

However, that didn't prevent Garner from asking Konig about his sexual demands to his wife. Garner then questioned him about contacting the wife of the man with whom his wife had been flirting.

00:24 "I would characterize that I was in a relationship with Ariel for eight years, and we had a physical relationship, and I had physical needs as part of that physical relationship prior to me finding out about the affair and I physical needs after the affair as well."
"We're talking about sex here, right?"
"No, I'm talking about physical intimacy with the person I love the most, which includes sexual and non sexual intimacy."

01:31 "The last time that Arielle and I had sex was on Dec. 24, 2024. We did not have sex after that, and we both decided not to have sex after that."

01:54 "Arielle didn't want to have sex with you anymore, isn't that right?"
"That's not true."
"Arielle was unwilling to quit her job, right?"
"She was willing to quit her job initially and then later, she was unwilling to quit her job, that's correct."

02:50 "Arielle was unwilling to have sex with you whenever you demanded. It isn't that right."
"I never demanded sex, so that's not right."

05:09 "I asked her to quit her job. I didn't tell her to quit her job. I asked her to quit her job as part of us healing from the affair at the beginning of December. I actually didn't ask her to quit her job at any point in time after that. I had asked her to give me updates on how the job search is going, but only in, like, probably the first couple weeks of December, and then we never talked about it again."

06:13 "back to early December you looked up somebody called Andrea Miller on LinkedIn. Is that right?"
"That's right."

07:38 "This is the email you sent to Andrea Miller?"
"That's correct."
"You sent it on Dec. 6, 2024 at 8:24 a.m., is that right?"
"That's right."

10:16 "You also sent Ms. Miller a contact request through LinkedIn directly, correct?"
"That's correct."
"Andrea Miller never replied to your emails. isn't that right?"
"That's right."
"Andrea Miller never replied to you on LinkedIn. Isn't that right?"
"That's right."

16:33 "We have a shared folder on Dropbox called the Big Love Party and other super fun stuff that I created when we were planning our wedding. And so this is a shared folder on Dropbox that both Ari and I have access to, and this is in the taxes folder."

****************************
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Judge Still Wont Allow Sex Coercion Questions Amid Meticulousness Testimony

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-02 | The prosecutor in the attempted murder case against a Maui anesthesiologist argued today that his testimony yesterday opened the door questions about his wife telling a friend he coercing her into sex.

Judge Paul B.K. Wong prohibited the testimony under a motion in limine ruling before trial, but Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner this morning (Thursday, April 2) referenced defendant Gerhardt Konig's testimony that he believes his wife's friend called him a monster because his wife was minimizing her flirtatious relationships with a coworker, which is what caused the problems between her and Gerhardt.

01:04 "The defendant was demanding that Arielle have sex with him whenever he demanded. And there's an additional testimony of the defendant that's also related to this, the defendant testified that he never disclosed this affair because he wanted to protect Arielle's reputation."
"That was his testament that is not the truth, or that's not the truth in the state's mind, and it's not the truth according to Arielle's statement."

01:38 "What the defendant was telling Ariel when he was demanding that she have sex with him, was that if she did not comply, he would tell everybody about this affair."

02:07 "So we do believe that these two statements that the defendant testified to yesterday clearly make this evidence that was limited out relevant. It not including this evidence gives a completely incomplete picture to the jury. It gives not even half the story. So we do believe that we should be allowed to cross examine the defendant on these issues."

04:06 "That counts as good character, evidence that the defendant was trying to introduce, that's defendant testifying about his good character. So we should be allowed to rebut and get into the sexual coercion for that reason as well. So those are all the reasons and the things I want the court to revisit and consider that should be open for cross examination."

05:16 Defense lawyer Thomas Otake: "We obviously know the risks of how doors can be opened, and we deliberately steered clear of of these things. So for example, when we talked about how therapy turned into something else, he just said that therapy turned into other things we so the point is, we deliberately steered clear of these things to not open the door. And this is an extreme stretch, and obviously a last ditch effort by the prosecutor to get into things that the court has ruled should not come in."

08:35 "In no way, shape or form should that open up the door to, you know, again, under 403, and other rules of evidence, these allegations of sexual coercion, which obviously we have always disputed"

12:00 Judge Wong asks questions

12:47 Garner: "Meticulousness is the way that the defense has been trying to characterize what the defendant was doing in the months leading up to the crime scenes. Right? They're trying to say that defendant is meticulous, and that's why he's looking up all these old tax information. That's why he's looking up his wife's old pay stubs from several years, looking up all these things. But to rebut that, it's not meticulousness, it's a need for control."

14:15 Otake "So, again, we weren't offering a character trait of meticulousness. I mean, he were talking about why he did the finances."

15:38 Otake: "It's incredibly, incredibly prejudice, prejudicial to allow in these false, what we believe are false allegations of sexual coercion, simply because he said, I do the finances because I'm meticulous."

18:27 "The court finds that while it may knock on the proverbial door, it's not open, and even if it was, the court still concerned about the prejudicial value of the proposed cross examination evidence under Rule 403."

****************************
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Honolulu Restaurant Owner Testifies About Attempted Murder Suspect’s Dinner Reservation

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-02 | John Charles Bussler may be one of the most meaningless witnesses in Gerhardt Konig's attempted murder trial, but his restaurant sounds nice.

Bussler testified on Wednesday (April 1) about a dinner reservation Konig made for two at Fête, his restaurant in Honolulu's Chinatown where his wife, Robynne Maii, is the James Beard Award-winning chef.

He was called as a defense witness by Konig's lawyer Thomas Otake.

Otake has pointed to the reservation as evidence that Konig did not plan to harm his wife, Arielle Konig, when they hiked the Pali Puka Trail that morning.

Konig is charged with second-degree attempted murder, not first-degree, but prosecutors still have pointed to evidence they believe shows he was planning something.

Otake is hoping jurors will see the dinner reservation as a reason to reject that.

Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner tried to show in cross-exam that the reservation is meaningless because there was no consequence for canceling or no showing.

But the testimony all seems meaningless when you realize Konig is charged with second-degree attempted murder, which under Hawaii state law doesn't have a premeditation element.

I'm amazed Garner didn't object to all the irrelevant testimony about the restaurant and its James Beard award, but again, it sounds like a nice place and at least Bussler got a good plug for his restaurant in exchange for wasting his time in court.

#law #dining #restaurant #crime

Attorneys Question Pathologist About Expert Witness Business

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-02 | Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner tried to take a sharp tone during his cross-examination of pathologist Jonathan Arden yesterday in Hawaii anesthesiologist Gerhardt Konig’s attempted murder trial in Honolulu.

Arden testified in defense of Konig that his wife’s injuries are inconsistent with her testimony about him bashing her in the face with a lava rock, so Garner worked to discredit that testimony during an hour-long cross that focused on Arden’s analysis and his propensity for bias.

Garner highlighted Arden’s TV appearances and questioned him about his work as a paid defense expert.Arden said he doesn’t shape his analysis and opinions to fit someone’s case.

“I tell lots of lawyers that their clients are screwed, and, you know, that’s what happens. Sometimes the truth hurts, but that’s what they get from me,” Arden testified on Wednesday (April 1).

“Dr. Arden, your interest in future business encourages you to ignore the facts that are bad for your conclusion. Isn’t that right?” Garner asked.

“No, not right,” Arden answered.

In re-direct, Konig’s lawyer Thomas Otake tried to emphasize that Arden doesn’t need new business.

“You’re in a position where you pick and choose the cases you want to work on and the attorneys you want to work with, right?” Otake asked.

“Yes,” Arden answered.

“Are you concerned about getting future business?” Otake asked.

“No, I’m not,” Arden answered.

“As I said, I am currently turning down substantial number of cases that come to me,” Arden answered.

Otake asked, “Is it a goal of your wife and yourself to slow down and enjoy yourself a little more?”

‘Yes,” Arden answered.

“Spend time with family, correct?” Otake asked.

“Correct,” Arden answered.

In redirect, Garner displayed his obvious edge over attorneys in mainland states who similarly try to discredit expert witnesses.

“Doctor, Hawaii is a good place to slow down with your wife, right?” Garner asked.

“You’re talking about living here?” Arden said.

“Visiting,” Garner said.

“Visiting Hawaii is wonderful,” Arden said.

#law #crime #court

Man Says He Didn’t Flee Hawaii Police Before Attempted Murder Arrest

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-02 | A man accused of trying to kill his wife on a Hawaii hiking trail testified he didn't run from police when they stopped him several hours after he hit his wife in the face with lava rocks in what he testified was self-defense.

Jurors in Gerhardt Konig's trial in Honolulu have heard testimony from the police officers who arrested the Maui anesthesiologist on March 24, 2025, near the Pali Puka Trail after a hiker told 911 that a woman had been attacked by a man and needed help.

Chauncey Nicola testified he ran after Konig and fell on him; Konig testified that never happened.

This clip picks up with Konig testifying about seeing a police van and realizing it was police when "I saw these two huge guys jump out of it, and they're both dressed the same, and I could see a police badge on the one."

"So you knew they were police?" his lawyer Thomas Otake asked.

"Yeah, immediately," Konig answered."And so what happens?" Otake asked.

"Then they yell, 'Police! Get down on the ground!'" Konig answered.

"What'd you do?" Otake asked.

"I lay down on the ground, like on the grass in the grassy area," Konig answered.

"What did they do?" Otake asked.

"They ran over to me and held me down and struck me several times and handcuffed me," Konig answered.

"Did you fall on your face with the officer falling on you in that transaction or interaction?" Otake asked.

"No officer fell on me at all during the entire thing, and I did not fall on my face," Konig answered.

"Did they hit or punch you in the face?" Otake asked.

"No," Konig answered.

"But they did, as they testified, strike you a couple times?" Otake asked.

"Yes," Konig answered.

Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner will cross-examine Konig today (Thursday, April 2).

#law #crime #court

Pathologist Disputes Relevance of Womans Thumb Injury In Hiking Trail Attempted Murder trial

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-02 | Gerhardt Konig's lawyer Thomas Otake followed up with pathologist Jonathan Arden after Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner's cross-exam on Wednesday (April 1).

Arden testified in direct-exam that Arielle Konig's face injuries aren't consistent with being bashed in the face with a lava rock at full force (youtube.com/watch?v=qRwyxdWVda4). Garner's cross-exam youtube.com/watch?v=u4k2cE4tK0Y focused in part on Arden's omission of a thumb injury Arielle sustained that Garner argues shows she could have lessened the impact of Gerhardt's blows when she was fighting back.

In re-direct, Otake first asked Arden about an audit into the Washington D.C. Medical Examiner's Office when he was chief.

"As audits do, it pointed out some findings and made recommendations of how to improve. And in the audit, you agreed to the recommendations right?"
"I agreed to many of their recommendations."

02:47 "The email mentioned asking to include concussion and traumatic brain injury in the PCP primary care physicians report, and it said so it's consistent with the Queen's documentation and treatment. You remember reading that?"
"Yes."

04:35 "You were asked if you held the rock before today, but you surely had photos of the rock that you were provided. Is that right?"
"Correct."

07:44 "If somebody was, you know, full blast with that rock hitting somebody on the head, do you think that little tip out of the thumb would make a big difference?"
"If the tip of the thumb got caught by a blow, it's not blocking much of the impact or the effect."

09:55 "You were asked about the lack of injury to the back of her head."

10:35 "Do you agree that bashing someone's head on the ground, even if it's, you know, dirt or a mountain trail could could cause injury?"
"Yes, it could"

13:08 "The prosecutor indicated that was a business relationship. Just to be clear, we've never been in any business together, but you were retained once before the last 10 years, correct?"
"That's right."

14:12 "You're in a position where you pick and choose the cases you want to work on and the attorneys you want to work with, right?"
"Yes."
"Are you concerned about getting future business?"
"No, I'm not. As I said, I am currently turning down substantial number of cases that come to me."

15:52 Garner on re-cross: "Doctor, Hawaii is a good place to slow down with your wife, right?"

****************************
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Attempted Murder Suspect Says Son Misheard Him In FaceTime Call

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-02 | Some of the most problematic evidence for Gerhardt Konig's defense in his attempted murder trial is his son's testimony that he told him he'd tried to kill his wife during a FaceTime call from an O'ahu hiking trail last year.

Emile Konig testified yesterday against his father, and his father tried to refute that testimony after he took the stand in his own defense today (Wednesday, April 1) in Judge Paul B.K. Wong's courtroom in Hawaii's 1st Circuit Court in Honolulu.Gerhardt wept as he recalled calling his son.

He acknowledged telling him his wife and the teen's stepmother, Arielle Konig, had been "having an affair," which is how he's characterized her flirtatious friendship with a coworker.

"Now, did you did the word kill come up in the conversation?" defense lawyer Thomas Otake asked.

"It probably did," Konig answered.

"What do you recall explaining to him about that?" Otake asked.

"I don't recall explaining. The one thing I could think of is that I said that she said I tried to kill her," Konig answered.

"Were you confessing to him that you had, you were trying to kill Ari?" Otake asked.

"No," Konig answered.

"Did you have an intention to kill Ari that day?" Otake asked.

"No," Konig answered.

"Would you have said it that way? 'I tried to kill Ari'?" Otake asked.

"No," Konig answered.

"Okay. But you don't, you don't dispute that the word kill probably came up?" Otake asked.

"No," Konig answered.

"And can you understand how Emile and in that conversation could have got that impression?" Otake asked.

"Yes," Konig answered.

Konig said his son told him in a second FaceTime call that he told Ari's parents "that you tried to kill Ari."

"And what was your reaction to that?" Otake asked.

"I was like, 'Why would you say that?'" Konig answered.

Konig testified he "was like, so confused at why he would say that" and he said "I gotta go" and hung up the phone."

Garner will cross-exam Konig when the trial resumes on Thursday (April 2) at 10 a.m. Hawai’i standard time, which is 1 p.m. PST and 4 p.m. EST.

#law #criminal #court #attorney

Gerhardt Konigs Entire Direct-Exam Testimony In Hawaii Attempted Murder Trial

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-02 | Gerhardt Konig testified in his own defense today, and he told jurors how his wife tried to push him off cliffside Pali Puka Trail on O'ahu, Hawaii, last year before the altercation that led to his attempted murder charge.

Konig, 47 and an anesthesiologist in Maui, has been in jail in Hawaii since March 24, 2025 — his wife's birthday — and he's currently on trial in the state's 1st Circuit Court in Honolulu on a second-degree attempted murder charge.

He's claiming self defense, and he testified today (Wednesday, April 1) about his wife's flirtatious relationship with a coworker and the problems in their marriage before they traveled to O'ahu from their home in Maui for her birthday and she attacked him on the trial.

Konig's lawyer Thomas Otake questioned him in direct-examination.

This is the entire exam. Deputy Prosecutor Joel Garner will cross-examine him tomorrow (Thursday, April 2).

24:36 "did she go with a man named Jeff Miller?"
"Yes.
"Did you have any concerns about Jeff Miller at that time?"
"No."

27:52 "when I walk in the room, she would, she would turn the screen off or turn her phone upside down."

31:31 "What I saw was that the messages from Monday and from Sunday. So the previous two days, it was like, like a full on conversation the entire day long. And it would start off, yeah, it would start off at like, 2am Hawaii time. So and Jeff Miller lives in Maryland, and he travels extensively for work, like he's he probably travels three out of every four weeks. I know this because I'm always hearing them on the phone and talking about that."

34:18 "How did it make you feel?"
"I was devastated."
"There's obviously something going on, and so I didn't know what to do."

35:35 "Yeah, we were very happy together. No, no red flags in terms of the marriage itself."

39:11 "Do you confront her before she leaves?"
"Yeah."

43:08 "So where do you confront Arielle? Were you in the hotel room?"
"In the hotel room."

43:51 "She, she admitted this was, was, was completely, completely inappropriate relationship."

55:07 "she started minimizing the affair and trying to say that wasn't like a big deal. And she started blaming me for the affair and just saying, like, well, you cause some of these things, and some, you know, telling me some of the things that I was doing that, you know, you know, potentially contributed."

59:17 "Did you ever ask her to move out in December?"
"Again, I did. Yeah."
"Tell us how many times."
"Two times and what happened. So the first time was around the middle of the month, and I just, I just told her, like, you know you're not doing what you said you're going to do, which is to take accountability for your actions and to basically do whatever it takes to heal, heal the marriage. And at that point in time, she became very apologetic and said, I'm so sorry. Like, you know you're right."

01:00:33 "I mean, you know, again, probably a dumb question, but were you having a hard time with all of this?"
"Yes."

01:10:36 "I said, like, like, I, I need you to move out. Like, this is, this has gone far enough I need you to move out, and I'm going to tell people why you're moving out and and I'm going to show them what you did. Because, like, unless you face this, and unless you take full accountability for this, like, we're never going to get through this."

01:15:07 "I just, I just remember kind of staying at the edge there, and looking over the edge, and just kind of still and thought about everything that had just happened and what's going on. And then I felt like a shove, and I was almost pushed over the edge."

01:15:48 Did you move towards her?"
"Yeah, I did. I was like, just asking her, like, you know, what was that? And started walking towards her, because at this point she was like, five or 10 feet away from me."

-01:20:16 "Did it hurt when you got hit with the rock?"
"It did."

01:21:55 "And in between the time she hit you with the rock and when you hit her with the rock, were you able to safely retreat and get away from her?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"She was holding on to me."
"Including your testicles?"
"Yes."

01:22:53 "Did you see blood?"
"Yes.
"Was there a lot of blood?"
"There's a lot of blood."
"Did you see her kind of scoot down towards the witnesses?"
"Yes."
"Did you try to stop her in any way?"
"No."

01:24 :52 "Did you ever plan on hurting her that day?"
"No."
"Did you ever want to hurt her that day?"
"No."

Phone call with Emile
01:28:07 "I put him in this position where he is now, where he thinks I tried to kill her."

01:32:37 "Were you confessing to him that you had you were trying to kill Arielle?"
"No."

01:38:47 police stop: "I heard a car behind me, and I looked, and it was, it was like a minivan. And I just thought, it's like a like tourists coming back from the Pali."

****************************
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Maui Doctor Testifies He Acted In Self Defense Against Wife

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-02 | A Maui anesthesiologist testified today he didn't have syringes with him on O'ahu's Pali Puka Trail when his wife alleges he tried to inject her and throw her over a cliff.

Gerhardt Konig said he heard his wife, Arielle Konig, tell two witnesses he tried to kill her, but he testified he acted in self defense when he struck after she tried to push him off the cliff then pulled him to the ground and attacked him.

"Now Gerhardt, she scoots away. She's now with the two witnesses. You see a lot of blood. What do you what do you physically do next?" asked defense lawyer Thomas Otake.

"I'm just in a daze, and I just kind of watch her crawl away and then, and then leave with the other two hikers," Konig testified.

Konig said he "just kind of reflexively gathered up all of our stuff and and then I start walking up the trail."

Otake asked "What was your state of mind and emotional state like right now, right at this point that we're at?"

"Severe emotional distress," Konig answered.

"How did you feel at that time about the fact that you had responded and defended yourself —" Otake asked.

"Horrible," Konig answered.

"Let me finish the question," Otake said.

"How did you feel about the fact that ... even though you say it was, you know, you were defending yourself, how did you feel about that she was bleeding?" Otake asked.

"I felt horrible," Konig answered.

"Did you ever plan on hurting her that day?" Otake asked.

"No," Konig answered.

"Did you ever want to hurt her that day?" Otake asked.

"No," Konig answered.

"You reacted to defend yourself in the heat of that moment, you said, yes?" Otake asked.

"Yes," Konig answered.

"But did you still feel bad about it?" Otake asked.

"Yes, I felt horrified, horrified about what I did to her like that. I caused this to her, that I had resorted to violence against my wife, the person who I love the most in the world and and just kind of felt hopeless in terms of our relationship, too," Konig answered.

"Okay. And that being said, I mean, in that moment, were you defending yourself when you reacted that way?" Otake asked.

"Yes," Konig answered.

Hawaii Man Says Son Misheard Him In FaceTime After Wifes Alleged Attempted Murder

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-02 | Warning: This testimony discusses self harm. Please take caution when watching, and seek help if you or someone you know needs it.

Some of the most problematic evidence for Gerhardt Konig's defense in his attempted murder trial is his son's testimony that he told him he'd tried to kill his wife during a FaceTime call from an O'ahu hiking trail last year.

Emile Konig testified yesterday against his father (youtube.com/watch?v=Z-dYMs2yVzQ), and his father tried to refute that testimony after he took the stand in his own defense today (Wednesday, April 1) in Judge Paul B.K. Wong's courtroom in Hawaii's 1st Circuit Court in Honolulu.

Gerhardt wept as he recalled calling his son because he felt suicidal after his wife attacked him and he fought back.

01:26 "I wanted to just say goodbye and tell him how you know he's an amazing person, and he, you know, should live his life to the fullest."

03:29 "Was your purpose to explain to him the whole every last detail of what happened?"
"No."
"But you did tell him several things, right?"
"Yes."
"Did you tell him that Arielle had been having an affair?"
"I did."

03:52 "Now, did you did the word kill come up in the
conversation?"
"It probably did."

03:57 "What do you recall explaining to him about that?"
"I don't recall explaining. The one thing I could think of is that I said that she said I tried to kill her."

04:45 "So I was saying, I was talking to myself at the same time too. And I was basically saying, like, because I remember saying, like, wow, this is like, so hard."

05:53 "He basically just, and I mean, to his credit, I mean he, he he
just reminded me that I had a choice."

09:10 "it's a little cross body Patagonia bag, and it's the bag that I take to work, to and from work and home every day."

10:20 "I decided I wasn't going to kill myself. And and then I realized that it was going to be dark soon, and so I decided to turn myself in."

11:47 "And I saw these two huge guys jump out of it, and they're both dressed the same, and I could see a police badge on the one. You knew they were police, yeah, immediately."
"And so what happens?"
"Then they yell, please, get down on the ground."
"What'd you do?
"I lay down on the ground like on the grass in the grassy area."
"What did they do?"
"They ran over to me and held me down and struck me several times and handcuffed me."

****************************
Subscribe to Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff: legalaffairsandtrials.com/subscribe

Attempted Murder Suspect Says Wife Attacked Him On Hawaii Hiking Trail

Meghann Cuniff 2026-04-02 | A Hawaii man accused of trying to murder his wife on a hiking trail last year told jurors today that his wife attacked him first.

Gerhardt Konig said he was at the edge of the cliffside Pali Puka Trail when "I felt a shove" and nearly fell over the cliff. He realized his wife, Arielle Konig, had pushed him, and he said he was "like what the f*** was that?"

"I was like, just asking her, like, you know, what was that? And started walking towards her, because at this point she was like five or 10 feet away from me," Konig testified today (Wednesday, April 1).

"I turn around and I'm asking her, like, what the hell's you know, what the f*** just happened and what's going on? And as I'm starting to walk towards her, she starts yelling. ... She starts yelling, 'Help me! Help me!" he continued.

He said he grabbed her arms and "she keeps yelling, and she kind of grabs my wrists and throws herself on the ground and pulls me down with her."

"When you're on the ground, what starts to happen?" defense lawyer Thomas Otake asked.

"She's holding on to me. And I'm trying to, you know, I'm trying to figure out what's going on, but I'm also, at this point, trying to let go of, like, trying to get free, because she's, like, actively holding on. She has her leg, like, wrapped around one of my legs, and like, is actively holding on to me, and is and is yelling. And so I'm trying to, you know, get free. And I get my my one arm free, and I try to use it to get my other arm free. And she grabs me by the testicles," he testified.

Konig, 47 and an anesthesiologist in Maui, has been in jail in Hawaii since March 24, 2025 — his wife's birthday — and he's currently on trial in the state's 1st Circuit Court in Honolulu on a second-degree attempted murder charge.

You can watch all of Konig's testimony on my YouTube channel.