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.”