BS Summary: This video contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Self-Serving Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Overconfidence Bias as the most egregious example at 19% saturation with 161 hits. Analysis detected 1,296 faulty-reasoning hits from 849 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.1% and a BS Rank of 44% (9,443 of 16,813 videos). This video is better (less manipulative) than 56.20% of the video peer group.
Has the jury reached a verdict in this case?
This morning the Hawaii anesthesiologist accused of trying to kill his wife during a hike on her birthday has been found guilty.
We the jury in this case finds the defendant guilty of attempted manslaughter based upon extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
Dr. Gerhardt Koenig burying his face in his hands as the court read the verdict.
The verdict of the jury is indeed unanimous.
Prosecutors said after Dr. Koenig's wife Ariel had an emotional affair, he tried pushing her off this steep cliffside in Oahu and then tried injecting her with a syringe before bashing her head repeatedly with a jagged rock.
I'm saying with "What are you doing?"
Um, "Get off me." Um, and he's saying like "You, you're done."
Dr. Koenig had claimed his wife attacked him first and he hit her twice in self-defense, even taking the stand to testify.
Did you ever want to hurt her that day?
No.
Okay.
You reacted to defend yourself in the heat of that moment, you said.
Yes? Yes.
He said immediately after that fight he felt suicidal and while he denies ever admitting to wrongdoing, his son testified that minutes after the incident, his father called him and confessed.
That Ari, my stepmom, had been cheating on him.
And that he tried to kill her.
The jury of seven women and five men deliberated for eight hours.
Dr. Koenig had been charged with attempted murder, but the jury instead convicted him of a lesser charge, attempted manslaughter based upon extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
That carries a maximum sentence of 20 years.
He previously been facing the possibility of life in prison.
We hope that the verdict today brings Ariel the next step into closure and she can close the chapter on this part of her life.
And Dr. Koenig's attorney says they respect the verdict, but they will appeal.
The sentencing has been set for August.
Guys. All right, thank you, Trevor.
And let's bring in ABC News Chief Legal Analyst Dan Abrams.
Dan, thank thank you for joining us this morning.
And why might the jury have convicted him on a lesser charge?
>> Yeah, this is clearly a compromise uh verdict.
Uh the jury clearly did not believe the defense, right?
The defense here was this was self-defense.
They rejected that.
But they still believed that he was trying to kill her, but under some extreme emotional or mental distress.
When you actually listen to the juror, they talk about, "Well, we didn't think that he was necessarily intending it."
And yes, there was this emotional piece of it.
So, jurors definitely accepted a little piece of his defense, but not the majority of it.
And did taking the stand in his own defense, testifying in his own defense, did that play a role in the case?
>> Yeah, look, I've heard some people say that they think that that was a mistake, right?
Why would he have testified?
I think he kind of had to testify in this case.
I mean, you have the victim here testifying and talking about what happened to her.
You have two witnesses talking about what they saw.
You have his son testifying against him.
I think if he hadn't testified, he would have been in actually a worse position than he was.
Now, did the jurors accept his testimony?
No, but I think that in the end it may have been the difference between that murder conviction and manslaughter.
So, does he have a chance on appeal?
Yeah, it's always tough on appeal.
And And remember, what he's actually challenging on appeal is not the jury's verdicts, but the judge's rulings, right?
So, on appeal they're going to be saying the judge made mistakes in allowing certain evidence to be admitted and as a result, he didn't get a fair trial.
Mhm.
Well, he faces a maximum 20 years in prison.
How long do you think
>> He'll get a lot less.
Yeah, he'll get a lot less than that.
I mean, that's really the max max.
You know, we don't know exactly.
He could get probation, by the way, technically.
But But as a practical matter, I think it'll be somewhere in that in-between range, you know, 8 years, 10 years, 12 years, something like that.
>> of the audience probably is going, "What?
Why do they Why do you think it's going to be so much less?"
>> Yeah, because when you're talking about the maximum sentence, it's very, very rare that a judge will ever give the very maximum.
Remember, this is also attempted, not murder or manslaughter, and B, not attempted murder.
In the end, he was convicted of this lesser crime of attempted manslaughter.
So, the jury's clearly sending a message here that this is not the worst of the crimes that he was charged with.
Well, your insight and perspective always so helpful.
>> Oh, thank you.
Good to be here.
Good having you, Dan.
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.