Hawaii doctor found guilty of attempted manslaughter for trying to kill his wife | full video

Key Concepts

• Attempted Manslaughter (EMED): A criminal charge involving an attempt to commit manslaughter while under the influence of Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance.
• Jury Communication: Formal requests from the jury to the court regarding deliberation supplies.
• Verdict Polling: The process of confirming a unanimous verdict by asking each juror individually to affirm their decision.
• Curative Instruction: A judicial instruction given to a jury to disregard specific evidence or arguments that were deemed improper.
• Pre-sentence Investigation (PSI) Report: A report prepared for the court to assist in determining an appropriate sentence for a convicted defendant.

1. Procedural Overview and Jury Deliberations

The court session for State of Hawaii vs. Gerard K (Case No. 1CPC-25-0000373) focused on the conclusion of a jury trial.

• Jury Requests: At 10:28 AM, the jury submitted a request for various office supplies, including blue painters tape, large post-its, colored dry-erase markers, an additional whiteboard, an easel, and regular markers. The court approved these requests to facilitate the deliberation process.
• Verdict Delivery: At 2:18 PM, the jury notified the court that they had reached a verdict.

2. The Verdict

The jury found the defendant, Gerard K, guilty of attempted manslaughter based upon extreme mental or emotional disturbance (EMED).

• Verification: The court conducted a formal poll of the 12 jurors. Each juror, identified by their chair number, confirmed their agreement with the verdict, establishing it as unanimous.

3. Post-Verdict Instructions and Judicial Remarks

Following the verdict, the judge addressed the jury regarding their service:

• Feedback and Media: The judge informed the jurors that they were no longer under the restrictions of jury service and were free to speak with the media or the attorneys if they chose to do so, though they were under no obligation to speak with anyone.
• Gratitude: The judge expressed significant appreciation for the jury’s perseverance, noting the length of the trial and the external challenges the jurors faced, such as traffic and weather conditions.

4. Sentencing and Administrative Matters

• Sentencing Date: The court ordered a pre-sentence investigation and report. The sentencing hearing was originally proposed for July 16, but due to scheduling conflicts involving the defense counsel, it was rescheduled for August 13 at 8:30 AM.
• Curative Instruction: The defense raised a point of order regarding a portion of the state’s closing argument. It was confirmed on the record that a 2025 case precedent necessitated the striking of a specific part of the state's argument, and the judge had already provided a curative instruction to the jury to address the issue.

5. Synthesis and Conclusion

The trial concluded with a unanimous guilty verdict for attempted manslaughter (EMED). The proceedings were marked by careful attention to jury needs during deliberation and a focus on procedural correctness, specifically regarding the striking of improper closing arguments. The case is now moving into the sentencing phase, with the court awaiting a pre-sentence investigation report to be reviewed on August 13.