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 seee:::x.

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.”