Jurors recalled in Maui doctor's bid for new attempted murder trial

A comment posted to YouTube livestream of the trial indicated a juror was discussing the ongoing deliberations with an outside party.

by Jeremy Yurow, CourtHouseNews, September 11, 2026

HONOLULU (CN) — One by one Friday, the jurors who convicted a Maui doctor of trying to kill his wife returned to the Oahu courtroom where they delivered their verdict five months ago, this time to answer questions about outside contact during deliberations.

All nine jurors answered “no” when Oahu Circuit Judge Paul Wong asked whether they were aware of any juror, including themselves, discussing the substance of deliberations with an outsider.

They also answered “no” when asked whether any juror discussed the verdict with an outsider before it was read in court.

Three jurors could not attend Friday’s hearing, including one who was off-island. They are scheduled to return Sept. 18 to answer the same questions.

The hearing is part of Gerhardt Konig’s bid for a new trial after the jury convicted him in April of attempted manslaughter rather than the second-degree attempted murder charge prosecutors brought.

Prosecutors accused Konig of attacking his wife, Arielle Konig, on a Windward Oahu hiking trail. Konig has maintained that he acted in self-defense.

Konig’s attorney, Thomas Otake, has pointed to comments from two jurors after the verdict, including an interview statement that “the intent to kill is improbable to us based on the evidence presented.” He also pointed to an anonymous livestream comment from someone who claimed to have been texting with a juror during deliberations.

Wong said he would limit the inquiry to whether jurors communicated with outsiders about the deliberations or verdict, rather than investigate every possible violation of the jury’s instructions.

He cited Hawaii’s rule against probing jurors’ internal deliberations and case law including the state Supreme Court’s decision in Ricapor-Hall v. Philip Morris.

“The court’s questioning of the jurors is really done very much out of an abundance of caution, given the state of the record we have,” Wong said.

Otake argued that comparison didn’t hold up.

In Ricapor-Hall, he noted, the juror who had access to outside information had already been excused from that jury before the verdict, unlike here, where the juror who was the subject of the livestream comment remains among the 12 whose votes decided Konig’s case.

“It’s an entirely different fact pattern that the state didn’t point out in their filing,” Otake said.

Otake asked Wong to put on the record why he won’t allow questions about a second, related claim in Konig’s motion: an affidavit from the jury’s foreperson suggesting the panel was never unanimous on whether Konig intended to kill his wife.

Otake said that issue was relevant to the jury’s consideration of the lesser manslaughter charge. Wong confirmed he would not question jurors about their unanimity or the intent issue, citing Hawaii’s evidentiary rule barring inquiry into jurors’ internal reasoning.

He maintained his objection, noting the state itself had conceded that portions of the foreperson’s affidavit were not barred by the rule.

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Joel Garner urged Wong to keep Friday’s questioning tightly limited to the specific misconduct claim already before the court.

“We don’t want to turn this into a fishing expedition,” Garner said. “We want it limited to what’s actually alleged.”

Before questioning began, Wong rejected Otake’s request to close the proceedings to the public and press, weighing the public’s constitutional right of access against the defense’s concerns that jurors needed to feel comfortable answering honestly.

“The defendant’s request to seal the proceedings is respectfully denied,” Wong said, though he did order that jurors’ faces not be broadcast.