Transcript of Gilgo Beach serial killer pleads guilty. Hawaii doctor learns his fate. Plus, reasonable doubt. New

Good morning. How you doing?

You're listening to Dateline's Morning Meeting. The woman at the center of it lost her appeal yesterday, which is how it came back on my radar. Our producers are sharing tips and story ideas. I don't think we've had spellcasters before.

Why was her first conviction overturned?

Welcome to Dateline True Crime Weekly. I'm Andrea Canning. It's April 9th, and here's what's on our docket. In Hawaii, a verdict is in for the anesthesiologist accused of attempting to murder his wife on a birthday hike.

We may have the verdict right now. The jury is in the room, and, uh, the judge— you see them talking to the jury right now.

In Dateline Roundup, courtroom confusion in the case of murder dad and Microsoft designer Jared Breidigan, and our first glimpse at DNA evidence prosecutors plan to use against a former police officer accused of murdering pregnant teacher's aide Sandra Birchmore.

The state made it very clear this week their stance is that the evidence has only gotten stronger since he was first charged.

Plus, we'll talk to a veteran trial lawyer about the two words jurors need to bear in mind before reaching their verdict: reasonable doubt.

As a prosecutor, I think every closing I sat through, I often thought, man, how are we going to meet this?

But before all that, we're off to Long Island for what appears to be the final chapter in the saga of the Gilgo Beach serial killer. It's a case I've been covering for more than a decade, and one that has haunted the people of Long Island for even longer. Since 1993, police have found 11 sets of human remains in multiple locations in and around the coastal community of Gilgo Beach. Some of the bodies were wrapped in burlap. Some of them were dismembered. Many of the victims were sex workers, and families were left wondering who had done this to their loved ones. I couldn't believe it. I just was like, how do you go looking for my sister? This one woman is now uncovering a serial killer's dumping ground. For years, investigators had no answers until one evening in July of 2023, 30 years after the first remains were found, police finally made an arrest. They handcuffed architect Rex Heuermann as he left his office in Midtown Manhattan. He was subsequently charged with the murders of 7 of the victims. Since then, in hearing after hearing, Heuermann has steadfastly maintained his innocence, and his defense seemed to be gearing up to go to trial in September.

Then on Wednesday morning, everything changed.

The Gilgo Beach serial killer suspect now says he did it, and he has admitted to an 8th murder.

NBC News reporter Adam Reese was inside the courtroom as Heuermann pleaded guilty and is here now to tell us what he heard. And Adam, you are right outside the courthouse right now.

Yes, thank you for having me, Andrea.

Yeah, sure. So this has been a As we said and know, it's been a big story in true crime news for a lot of years. What started as a search for one victim really snowballed into something truly frightening. When they were set to go to trial this fall, what evidence did the prosecution have against Heuermann?

They were able to develop some key evidence, everything from his cell usage pinpointing various cell towers, both in Massapequa Park where he lived and in Manhattan where he worked. They were able to find a manifesto describing how he was going to approach the killings. And most importantly, they were able, through witness testimony, to identify the vehicle he had used, um, in the pursuit of some of these crimes.

And also some of the big DNA evidence, Adam, was hairs that were found on the duct tape used to bind the victims. One hair was a direct match to Heuermann.

Well, the DNA evidence was really truly overwhelming, and I think that was key to the decision by Heuermann to change his plea. You had digital, nuclear, mitochondrial DNA evidence.

So take us to inside that hearing. What was the mood like, the vibe?

The public and the press started lining up at 4:30 this morning for an 11:00 hearing, and there was lots of anticipation. The courtroom was packed. There were investigators, police officers, uh, members of the Suffolk County, Nassau County, New York State Police lining the walls as Rex Heuermann entered the courtroom.

One thing, Adam, that I was like so surprised to hear was that, uh, his daughter Victoria and his, his ex-wife, um, Asa Ellerup, they arrived with their lawyer. They had to get in line with everyone else, and they had a film crew with them.

Yes. They actually happened to sit in my row, 5 seats down from me. And Victoria sat next to her mother and actually put her head on her mother's shoulder before the hearing began.

Come to order, please. Remain seated at this time.

Adam, take us to the moment of the plea that everyone was waiting for. How did it unfold?

There was a moment at the beginning of the hearing when the judge said, "Don't bring him out yet." And then he said the court has become aware that the defendant may enter a guilty plea today, which is perhaps the worst-kept secret in this building. There were lots of media reports that he was going to plead guilty, but you never know until the moment that he does it whether he's going to do it or not.

Yeah, seriously, someone like that, you know, you never know. They could want to mess with people.

Should we bring the defendant out, please? Bring the defendant out now.

Thank you.

Very good.

Coming out, Judge.

So one by one, Rex pleaded guilty to murdering Megan Waterman, Amber Costello, Melissa Bartholomew, Maureen Brainard-Barnes, Jessica Taylor, Valerie Mack, and Sandra Castillo.

Uh, Mr. Human, uh, how old are you? 62. After discussions with your lawyer, you feel it's in your best interest to plead guilty rather than go to trial? Yes, Your Honor. Do you understand that by pleading guilty to a charge, that is the same as if you had gone to trial and been found guilty of that charge? Yes, Your Honor. Do you understand that by pleading guilty, you're waiving a number of very important rights? Yes, Your Honor.

And on top of that, he admitted to an 8th murder, Karen Vergata, in 1996. He had never been charged for that. He had to give an allocution, which is, for the record, you know, a full accounting of his actions. Did he show any emotion at all?

No emotion. And, you know, somewhat soft-spoken. Very clear, but somewhat soft-spoken.

What did he say?

Well, I was actually quite surprised by that because a typical allocution he would have described in detail what he did, how he went about meeting up with them, how he went about taking them out to Gilgo Beach, how he killed them, how he dismembered them. There was none of that. So I think a lot of families, a lot of investigators, um, were left sort of somewhat empty in, in terms of wanting more, wanting more description of how he went about doing this. But, um, very importantly, he is going to meet with the FBI and explain this This is a behavioral analysis unit of the FBI, and they will have an opportunity to really delve into his mind. He has promised that he'll do this as part of the plea negotiation, and maybe they'll learn more about how and why he went about doing this.

Adam, imagine being a fly on the wall for those meetings. Wow. That's huge. So there's some of these cases, these— the remains that were found are unsolved at this point. Could he be charged in the future?

With any more of these potential, um, charges could come forward as their investigations continue. And if they were to find other bodies, he could potentially be charged for those.

Um, Suffolk County District Attorney Ray Tierney, who I've interviewed, he spoke at a press conference after the hearing. Tell us what he had to say.

Um, he— this was a moment for Ray Tierney to celebrate. He said the defendant walked among us as a normal suburban dad. He lured women, he them, but he didn't silence them. Not only did their bodies provide the clues necessary to find their killer, but the families never gave up in their determination to get justice. And while we in law enforcement, as well as our Suffolk County citizens, mourn the loss of these victims, we are also grateful to them and to their families, because without them this defendant would have never been brought to justice and would still be walking amongst us. And he would still be portraying himself as that same harmless father next door instead of what he is, a convicted murderer.

And Ray Tierney was, you know, grateful to the families. Did they speak after court?

They basically all said that we agree with this plea. It was important for them to be in court to watch him plead guilty, to be be there and witness that. I think, um, a lot of them are breathing a sigh of relief.

Um, yeah, and I mean, Maureen Brainard Barnes, the sister, Missy, spoke and said, your life will always mean more than the tragedy that took you, which is very moving.

It's not about the person responsible.

Today is about the women's lives who were stolen. It's about their voices, their future, and their families, the love that still surrounds them. There were moments when the weight felt unbearable, but I never gave up. Maureen was never forgotten, not for a single moment. What about Heuermann's family? Asa Ellerup, they're no longer married. She also spoke after this.

Yes.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.

Their loss is immeasurable, and the focus should be on them at this time and moment.

I ask that you give some privacy to my family as they navigate through this very difficult time.

Reporters tried to press her. She said she wasn't going to answer any questions, but they tried to press her on the fact that you lived with him. How could you say you had no idea this was going on? She and her daughter continue to, to say that they had no idea, that they just couldn't imagine.

And we still— there still will be a sentencing.

June 17th. We expect multiple family members to speak out as victim impact statements. Rex Huerman is expected to speak at the sentencing hearing as well.

Adam, we will definitely cover that sentencing for Dateline True Crime Weekly, and we appreciate all of your insight into this very emotional day for a lot of people.

Thank you, Andrea.

Coming up, the Hawaii anesthesiologist accused of attempting to murder his wife on a cliff top gives his side of the story. For the past 4 weeks, a Hawaii jury has heard conflicting testimony about what happened between Dr. Gerhard Koenig and his wife Ariel during a morning hike on a cliff top trail in Oahu in March of 2025. Prosecutors say Gerhardt was so consumed with rage and jealousy over his wife's emotional relationship with a male coworker that he tried to kill her, first by pushing her off a cliff, then by pulling out a syringe and trying to inject her with something. When that didn't work, they say he'd hit her over the head with a rock. They have called witnesses ranging from the hikers who found Ariel bleeding at the top of the mountain to the doctors who treated her injuries. Ariel herself showed the jury her scars.

Do you have any visible long-term effects from the injuries from March 24th, 2025?

Yes, I have scarring on my scalp and my face. But last week, the jury got to hear from Gerhardt himself, and over 5 hours of dramatic testimony, he laid out a very different version of events, telling the jury that he was the victim.

Gerhardt, did you have a plan to kill your wife on the mountain that day?

No.

When you hit her with the rock twice, why did you do it?

In self-defense.

Here to fill us in and tell us about the final hours of this fascinating trial is Hawaii News Now anchor and reporter Mahealani Richardson. Welcome back, Mahealani.

Aloha, Andrea.

The defense went back to the beginning of the couple's relationship. They asked Gerhardt, you know, how he met Ariel, why they moved to Maui.

Right. So Gerhardt met Ariel on the dating app eHarmony. They married 2 years later. They were living on the continent. Then they wanted to move to Maui. He said they wanted to be somewhere safe. He used the word safe. They wanted to slow down and look after their two young children. Emil, who is his son from a previous marriage, also moved in with them.

Here's Gerhardt talking about that on the stand.

Once we were here and settled in, um, it was, it was our dream life. I was spending a lot more time with the kids and with Aerie and with Emil. Every weekend we would explore Maui. We went to the beach almost every weekend, snorkeling, surfing, paddleboarding, hiking.

So the way Gerhardt tells it, everything seemed great in this new life in Hawaii, but he finds out that Ariel is in this sort of emotional affair with a married co-worker named Jeff Miller. And she's admitted to that, but she says it never got physical. Gerhardt told the jury how he found out about this, this relationship that was going on.

Well, her office, her home office, was in their bedroom, and so Gerhardt said he heard them talking. He said they sounded very familiar with each other. And then one day she went on a work trip to South Africa, and Jeff Miller was there. And Gerhard said she would normally call in and check in every single day, but that there was one day that she didn't check in, and that raised a red flag for him.

He said that he really got suspicious when Ariel got home She was constantly on her phone. She was just constantly on her phone.

Was that on you more so than usual?

Yeah, much more than usual. And she would hide the screen from me. When she kept doing it and she kept being defensive, I unlocked her phone.

Okay.

And while she was sleeping.

He actually logged onto her WhatsApp and discovered all of these messages that were all day long.

He'd be texting her good morning, but it wasn't just like a good morning text. It was like a whole like, good morning, I had a great— I slept great. I'm looking forward forward to the day. I hope you— I hope you're sleeping great. She would respond, and then the whole day long until, you know, good night at the end of the day.

How do you make you feel?

I was devastated.

According to both Gerhardt and Ariel, he confronted her about this relationship she was having.

She basically said, like, I'm so sorry, I can't believe I did this, um, and, and I'll do anything it takes to, to heal our, our marriage.

Things clearly sounded in this marriage. What was going on the day of the hike?

Well, the both of them actually said that around her birthday, which was March 24th, 2025, things seemed to be getting better. She had never been to Honolulu before, and so they planned this birthday hike at the Palipuka Trail. He said that they had done hikes before, and so it wasn't anything unusual or sinister.

He says that the day starts out, they grabbed coffee before they set out on the hike, and he got an important email.

That's right, he got a second part of his life insurance which had come through, and this was worth $1.5 million.

And he told Ariel about it, and I was like, oh, you know what, my, uh, you know, the last of my life insurance just went through. Um, they're asking me to DocuSign it, and so I was doing that. Just want to let her know that I'm not like just texting or something, like, because we out together.

And so from that point on, if something happened to you and in an accident or whatnot, she would get $1.5 million, correct?

That's correct.

And in this bit of detail, the defense is trying to plant the seed here that Ariel might have had a reason to do harm to Gerhardt.

Wow. So they start arguing on the trail. What are they arguing about? Are they going back again to man, Jeff Miller, right?

Ariel brought up again going on another work trip, and Gerhardt was upset about it. He told her that she had to move out, and he said that he walked up the trail, and then he turned around. Ariel apologized. They started to be nice to each other again. They were taking selfies. Then all of a sudden, he says that she tried to push him over that cliff.

I, uh, I felt like a shove, um, and I was almost pushed over the edge.

Who shoved you?

Uh, Henry did.

What did you do right after that?

Um, barely caught myself and turned around and looked at her and was like, what the fuck was that?

Like, did you move towards her?

Yeah, I did. I started walking towards her. Is she saying anything? Not initially, but I turned around and as I'm starting to walk towards her, she starts yelling. She starts yelling, yeah, help me, help me.

What happens then?

She kind of grabs my wrists and throws herself on the ground and pulls me down with her.

Then the defense asked Gerhardt to go into some pretty graphic details about this situation.

She grabbed your testicles, is that right?

Yes.

And you said then you felt you got hit with, with the rock?

Yes.

Where'd you get hit?

On the side, on the left side of my face.

And then what happens?

And, and I finally get the rock.

What'd you do?

I hit her with the rock.

Gerhard, did you have any syringes on the mountain that day?

No.

Did you try to poke her or stab her with any syringes?

No.

Gerhard said that he never intended to hurt his wife. He said that he felt horrible about those injuries that she sustained, and he insisted that it was out of self-defense.

One of the things, Mihailani, that is a really big deal in all of this is Gerhardt's son, who you mentioned. He talked about on the stand the emotional FaceTime calls he received from his dad after the incident. He says that his dad said that he was suicidal, and that he admitted he tried to kill Ariel. That's really strong testimony coming from your own son. How did the defense handle that element of all of this?

Well, the defense was very careful. One of the most emotional parts of this whole trial is this son, Emil, Gerhardt's son. He's now 20 years old. He was 19 at the time of the incident. And Gerhardt got emotional on the stand again when he talked about reaching out to his son. He acknowledged that he was in severe emotional distress and that he contemplated jumping over that cliff.

How do you feel about the fact that you put him in that position and made that call to him?

Um, so many feelings because he saved my life that day.

Convinced you not to jump?

He saved my life that day, but I put him in this position where he is now, where he thinks I tried to kill her.

Then it was the prosecution's chance to cross-examine Gerhardt. He really pressed him on a lot of things.

He certainly did. The prosecutor did get Gerhardt to concede that there was nothing sexual in the messages between Ariel and Jeff Miller. He also got Gerhardt to admit calling Ariel names when he confronted her about the affair.

And in this confrontation, you called Ariel a lying bitch, right?

Um, I did call her that at some point, not in the beginning of the disclosure.

Um, you called her a whore, right?

I, I did call her a whore at some point.

Gerhardt, for his part, said that he was upset about this relationship, but he repeatedly said He was not mad.

How did the prosecution challenge Gerhardt's account of what he said happened on the hike?

The last visual thing that the jurors saw were these side-by-side graphic images of Ariel and Gerhardt. On the right was Gerhardt's photo, and he had some scratches on the side of his face. On the left side, they played several images of Ariel's bloody head, her bloody face. She had large bruises around her eye. It was very stark. To see the difference between Ariel and Gerhardt in terms of injuries after that alleged attack. And the prosecution clearly is letting those images speak for themselves.

Okay, well, after about a month of this trial, the closing arguments are finished, so the jury has started deliberating.

And we can expect a verdict anytime now.

We will keep an eye out for that. Thank you so much for these updates, Mahealani.

Andrea, good to see you. Mahalo nui. Thank you.

After we taped this conversation on Tuesday afternoon, the jury reached a verdict. Let's listen to some of that. We, the jury in this case, finds the defendant guilty of attempted manslaughter based upon extreme mental or emotional disturbance, dated 4/8/26 by the foreperson. Dr. Gerhard Koenig was found guilty of attempted manslaughter. We will catch you up on next week's episode. Up next, it's time for Dateline Roundup. We've got updates in the case of Sandra Birchmore and courtroom drama in the case of murdered Microsoft designer and dad Jared Breidigan. Plus, they are the two words that can make or break a verdict: reasonable doubt. What you need to know before heading off for jury duty. Welcome back. Joining me for this this week's roundup is Dateline producer Mike Nardi. Thanks for being here, Mike.

Hi, Andrea. Thanks for having me.

Mike, up first, thanks to a Massachusetts court filing, we got our first glimpse this week of DNA evidence prosecutors hope to use in the case against Matthew Farwell. You may remember he is the former Stoughton police officer accused of killing 23-year-old teacher's aide Sandra Birchmore. He has pleaded not guilty. Mike, this is a case I've been covering from the beginning. Give us, uh, some of the details of this one.

So back in In 2021, Sandra Birchmore was found dead in her Canton, Massachusetts apartment. She was pregnant at the time. Her death was initially ruled a suicide by the state medical examiner, but years later, after a federal investigation, prosecutors charged Matthew Farwell with her murder.

And the alleged motive is really interesting, Mike. Matthew Farwell first met Sandra when she was a preteen, and he was an instructor with the Stoughton Police Department's Explorer program. Prosecutors allege Farwell groomed and sexually exploited Sandra when she was still underage. They say that part of his motive for killing her was because he was worried Sandra was about to disclose that alleged exploitation to authorities. Prosecutors say Farwell, a married man, continued to have sex with Sandra as an adult and panicked when she got pregnant. He wanted to cover his tracks, and that was another reason, according to prosecutors, he may have had a reason to want her dead. So That's what we know so far about the prosecution's case. Mike, what did we learn this week?

Well, at the end of March, Farwell's attorney filed a motion asking for him to be released ahead of his October trial. Farwell's defense team pushed back hard on the prosecution's case, saying that recent testing revealed Farwell wasn't the father of her baby, undercutting the alleged motive. In response, prosecutors filed a motion to keep him behind bars, and to make their case, they included information about this alleged DNA evidence we didn't know about before.

Let's talk about this DNA evidence According to prosecutors, Farwell's DNA was found on a strap they say he used to suffocate Sandra, what they're calling the murder weapon in this case.

That's right.

So in their court filing, prosecutors also mention new witnesses. Mike, do we know who these witnesses are?

We don't know their names, but we do know some are Stoughton police employees. According to the filing, Farwell allegedly told one of these witnesses that a problem involving a relationship with a woman other than his wife life was going to take care of itself. Another witness claims Farwell demonstrated the position that Sandra's body was found in, even though that information was not made public at the time.

Really big developments in this case, right?

Right. And the state made it very clear this week their stance is that the evidence they've gathered connecting him to Sandra's murder has only gotten stronger since he was first charged.

Matthew Farwell has denied any involvement in Birchmore's death, and he also denies having a sexual relationship with her when she was a minor. So we'll wait and see what the judge decides about his request to get out of jail. Next up, we're off to Jacksonville, Florida, where tensions were running high at a recent pre-trial hearing for Shanna Gardner and her husband Mario Fernandez-Saldana. The couple is accused of hiring a gunman to murder Shanna's ex-husband, Microsoft employee Jared Breidigan, back in 2022. They have pleaded not guilty. Mike, first remind us about this case.

Sure.

So on February 16th, 2022, Jared Breidigan had just taken his kids out to dinner after dropping the twins off at Gardner's house. Jared was driving home with one of his daughters when he came across a tire blocking the road. He got out of his car to move the tire and was gunned down in the street.

So investigators zeroed in on a man named Henry Tennant as the alleged gunman. He originally pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and told investigators he was hired by his landlord, Mario Fernandez, Shanna Gardner's new husband.

That's right. And as part of his plea deal, Tennant agreed to testify against both Gardner and Fernandez. But just recently, Tennant withdrew his guilty plea and will no longer testify for the state in their cases against Gardner and Fernandez.

Wow, this really shakes up the state's case.

It, it does.

And we got a window into the problems this is causing for attorneys last week at a pre-trial hearing. Prosecutors told the judge they now wanted to try the couple separately in two different trials, and that was news to the judge, who seemed a little frustrated.

Okay, when was somebody gonna let me know?

The prosecution suggested a new approach to jury selection, picking two juries from one jury pool, then trying Fernandez first, followed by Gardner. And the judge seemed confused by that too, and told the prosecution to go away and file a motion.

A lot is up in the air for this case. We'll keep an eye on that. Uh, Mike, thank you so much for bringing us all these stories.

Thanks for having me.

For our final story this week, we're taking a closer look at a phrase you hear in just about every trial we cover here at Dateline: reasonable doubt. You might remember Johnny Cochran saying it at the O.J. trial. The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt. Or defense attorney Alan Jackson at Karen Reid's recent retrial.

How much more reasonable doubt could there be?

Most defense attorneys tell the jury that prosecutors have failed to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt. But what does the phrase actually mean, and how is a juror supposed to know what counts as reasonable doubt and what doesn't? Here to break it down for us is former federal prosecutor and veteran trial lawyer Drew Rolle. Welcome to the show, Drew.

Thanks so much, Andrea. Good to be here.

Yeah, I, I really am fascinated by this segment So, Jurab, you know, I'm always thinking about the trials I've sat through, and I remember listening to defense attorneys hammer home the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" in their closing arguments.

Absolutely. And I think there's— for me, as a prosecutor, I think every closing I sat through, and when you hear the jury instructions around the standard of reasonable doubt, every time I heard it, I often thought, "Man, how are we going to meet this?

Have we done it?" Okay, so let's drill down on reasonable doubt. I think we all feel like we know what it means, but But tell us, what does it mean in a courtroom?

Certainly. So, you know, reasonable doubt is the highest burden of proof we have in our criminal justice system in the United States. It acts as a constitutional safeguard designed to protect the innocent from being wrongfully convicted, really, at bottom. And in practice, you know, the standard requires, you know, the people, the prosecution, to prove guilt so clearly that a reasonable person would feel firmly convinced, right, that they are guilty. Not probably guilty, not possibly guilty, or maybe, but really firmly and truly convinced of that guilt before they were able to find someone guilty at the end of the day.

Give us an example of what reasonable doubt might look like in everyday life.

You know, it's a great question. I think a common sense approach to thinking about it, with the caveat that judges may view it and define it differently, I think of it in terms of a major decision in your life, something consequential You know, think of like purchasing a used car, for example. You'll hear the salesperson's pitch. They'll describe the car's history, tell you it's never been in an accident, and you'll hear all of that, right? But if there's unanswered questions for you at the end of that, you know, questions that would make a reasonable person stop and say, you know what, I'm not comfortable going forward with this, right? I have some hesitation. You know, I've heard everything, but I have some hesitation about it. That hesitation, that's reasonable doubt. Doubt, a doubt based on reason, you know, from the evidence, from the pitch you've heard, or the lack of evidence.

Yeah, and it's, it's interesting because, you know, sometimes juries, they might not believe the defendant, you know, but they feel like the government has not met that burden of proof. And I've interviewed jurors where it's like, raise your hand if you believe the defendant's story, and no one raises their hand. But they couldn't convict.

Absolutely. And that, that's sort of a very powerful aspect of our criminal justice system. Um, and I've sat through many trials, and I think, um, there's— they're all unique in what ends up being sort of a critical factor for the jury.

I mean, we talked about Alan Jackson and the Karen Reed trial off at the top, and I feel like that's such a good example of reasonable doubt, you know, because of the allegations of mistakes by law enforcement.

It's exactly the right strategy in certain cases. It becomes less about what the evidence is and how it was gathered, right? I mean, Johnny Cochran's strategy in the O.J. Simpson trial, I mean, I was a young boy, sort of one of the first trials I'd ever witnessed, was, you know, "If you can't trust the messenger, can you trust the message?" I had a case a few years ago where it was the defense's turn, and they asked the judge to dismiss the case, and he did.

He said, you know, what I've seen from the prosecution does not meet this burden of proof. And so it was, it was really fascinating. Like everyone, you know, jaws dropped, like, wait, what?

Absolutely. And this again will depend on the state or the court hearing the case, you know, but federally, for example, we have procedural mechanisms where even if a jury comes back and finds guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a judge who sat through the trial and heard all the same evidence has the the power to find that actually no reasonable juror based on this record could have found the defendant guilty.

Yeah, it happened in the Jam Master Jay murder case. This is a 2002 killing of the Run-DMC DJ that went unsolved for decades until charges were finally brought in 2020. A jury eventually convicted two men in 2024. But when it came to one of those defendants, Carl Jordan Jr., a judge later stepped in and overturned the conviction.

Full disclosure, that's a case that my former officer worked on that I wasn't involved in. But I think it's another example, right, of where a judge who sees the evidence, you know, just as the jury has, but has the expertise and does not see that the evidence met, you know, a particular element that's necessary.

One line for anyone who becomes a juror and hears that phrase, reasonable doubt, what's your advice?

It really would be to remember the The job isn't to sort of solve the case, but to decide whether the prosecution has proved it and convinced you and taken that hesitation away from you. And if they haven't, and if there's a lack of evidence that's important to you, you have to acquit and listen to the judge.

And probably trust your gut. Can you sleep at night if you put this person away?

So the lawyer in me, both sides would say, you know, the judge would say, don't think about the punishment aspect of it, although that's human too. But I do think trust your gut, having listened to the evidence, and use your common sense is really the lodestar for any juror. You have lived life experience that's given you common sense, and you can identify when you have that hesitation about something, and so you should listen to it.

Yeah, I love that. Thank you so much, Drew, for breaking this down for us. Fascinating conversation.

Thanks for having me.

That's it for this episode of Dateline: True Crime Weekly. To get ad-free listening for all our podcasts, subscribe to Dateline Premium. Dateline's Missing in America podcast has been nominated for a Webby Award in the Crime and Justice Podcast category. We can't win without you, so please go online and vote for Dateline. The deadline is Thursday, April 16th. We've included the voting link in our episode description. Coming up this Friday, I have a brand new episode I think you'll find fascinating. I traveled all the way to Taiwan to retrace the steps of Alice Koo, the missing woman at the center of this case. It is a story about sisters, secrets, and a quest for justice.

I came away thinking he reminded me of Hannibal Lecter.

Really?

From Silence of the Lambs.

There was a creepiness to him that was unavoidable.

You can watch The Gorge this Friday at 9/8c on NBC, or you can stream it starting Saturday on Peacock. I hope you'll join us. Thanks for listening. Dateline True Crime Weekly is produced by Carson Cummins, Caroline Casey, and Kiani Reed. Our associate producers are Ellery Gladstone Groth and Aria Young. Our senior producer is Liz Brown Kuriloff. Production and fact-checking help by Audrey Abrahams. Veronica Maseca is our digital producer. Rick Kwan is our sound designer. Original music by Jesse McGinty. Paul Ryan is executive producer, and Liz Kuhl is senior editor. Senior executive producer of Dateline.

That's it for us.

Bye, everyone.