Sunny Hostin Doubles Down on Lone Juror Claims in NYC Cannibal Case, Says She Persuaded Panel to Vote Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity

Sunny Hostin clarified a story that she was the lone holdout juror on the insanity-defense count in the 1991 Daniel Rakowitz trial, explaining that different counts in the case faced separate disagreements.

During an appearance on The View's "Behind the Table" podcast with executive producer Brian Teta, Hostin addressed discrepancies raised by archival 1991 media reports.

Those reports pointed to a different male juror who held out on the count dealing with the desecration of human remains because he wanted to continue receiving a daily court stipend.

Hostin explained the distinction, maintaining that she was the lone holdout who insisted Rakowitz was in a state of psychosis and legally insane when he killed Monika Beerle, eventually persuading the rest of the panel to vote not guilty by reason of insanity.

She stated that on the separate count regarding the gruesome dismemberment of the victim's remains, almost everyone agreed he was guilty except for one other individual (the unemployed male juror referenced in the old news clips), meaning multiple distinct holdout situations occurred among different charges.

“The person did it without intent because the person had a mental illness. And this person that we found not criminally responsible by reason of insanity is because he had a lengthy psychiatric history; I’m talking they brought in like boxes of medical records. He had been sick for years. So it was very clear to me that he suffered from mental illness. And I should also say that one of the other reasons why I understood it was because I had people in my family who suffered from mental illness. And so I was particularly aware of that,” she explained.

Replying to Teta’s reminder that a few true crime fans blame Hostin for “having let this guy out on the street,” she said, “And that’s the problem I think that people have with the insanity defense. They think that someone is let off. When you find someone not criminally responsible, meaning they didn’t have the criminal intent because of a mental disease or defect, is what we used to call it, it means then that they get put into a psychiatric hospital and are held there.”

In response to a 1991 Newsday report that there were two juror holdouts, Hostin explained, “As I recall and look it up for yourselves, there were three counts, I believe. One was, you know, second-degree murder, but it was intentional. Then there was the defense to that was we could consider the insanity defense, meaning that he committed the crime, but he was not criminally responsible because of a mental disease or defect. And there was a third count, or a third issue, that we dealt with, and that issue was the desecration of Monica Beerle’s remains.”

Hostin believed Rakowitz, who remains institutionalized, was legally insane when he killed Beerle.

“And I felt really strongly about that, as I did think the rest of the jury did, because it was clear to me that once he killed her, he tried to hide that. I think that shows intent. And I think you have to know what you’re doing if you go to such gruesome lengths to hide someone’s body,” she said. “He was insane when he killed her and he said that, he confessed that he didn’t realize that she was even dead, but then he decides to dismember her.”

She noted that the other holdout also challenged the jury’s unanimity.

“I just thought that was so clear and gruesome and despicable to do that to someone’s remains. I thought that he should be found guilty of that. And everyone else did too except for this one guy. And we were, like, looking at him like that was the easy one. It was always the easy one, but we could not reach a unanimous verdict on that count," Hostin admitted.

Attempting to explain conflicting juror accounts from 1991, Hostin admitted the case's complexity still lingers.

“Without people realizing the complexity underneath it. So, while I know it’s complex for the average person, it’s not only it wasn’t complex to me then and 35 years later, now as an attorney for over 30 years, it’s not complex to me now. So when I was explaining it to the Times and the News, I guess Newsday or the Daily News or whatever, all of us were really honing in on that mistrial piece because it felt bad,” she explained.