Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - 3 Major Developments in Ohio Dad's Triple Child Execution Case

Starting point is 00:00:00 Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this law and crimes series ad free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. The man accused of chasing down his three young sons and shooting them with a rifle says he's too mentally ill to be put to death. Can I roll over? I ain't gonna hurt you. I ain't gonna hurt nobody. You got anything on you? That's just one of three major developments in the case of Chad Dorman out of Ohio, as his case slowly moves toward trial. Welcome to Crime Fix, I'm Anjanette Levy. Chad Dorman was scheduled to be back in court next week for a hearing that his attorneys requested,

Starting point is 00:00:38 where they were asking the judge to bar prosecutors from pursuing the death penalty against him, because they say he suffers from a serious mental illness. But the hearing was continued at the last minute with no new date scheduled at this point in time. I'll have more on what that hearing could look like when it happens here in a little bit. But first, just a quick recap on how the case got to this point. Male shooting the male light green shirt blue jeans on the front porch of 1965 Laurel. Nearly 14 months ago, sheriff's deputies in Claremont County, Ohio, got a call that was almost unbelievable. A man had shot and killed his three young sons. Chad Dorman was arrested and charged with the aggravated murders of Clayton, Hunter, and Chase. It was June 15th of last year

Starting point is 00:01:26 when court records claimed Dorman returned home early from work. The records say Dorman's wife told detectives that Dorman, quote, obtained a Bible and was walking around the house with it. Prosecutors wrote, while walking with the Bible, the defendant was mumbling, Chad knows what's right. Dorman then began to get into the gun safe located in the master bedroom. Dorman's wife told detectives that she told him that he was scaring her and that she didn't like what he was doing and that she planned to call his parents. After that, prosecutors claimed Dorman responded that he was, quote, just kidding and playing around. Dorman's wife told investigators that she and one of the boys stayed in the bedroom with him because she didn't want him to be alone because of the way that he was acting. Then Dorman pulled a 22 caliber rifle out of the gun safe and shot his young son.

Starting point is 00:02:18 Stand up. Stand up now. Stand up. We also have body camera footage of the cops driving to the scene and arriving. Prosecutors say Dorman's wife called 911 and tried to help her wounded son. And she also tried to protect the other boys. But Dorman actually chased them down and shot them, even demanding that his stepdaughter put one of the boys down as she ran for help.

Starting point is 00:02:43 They said the girl put the boy down and Dorman shot him. My daughter, she ran over to the fire department. Sit down. It's my stepdaughter. Put him in the cage. Body camera footage shows Dorman being taken into custody. Dorman's not disputing that he shot and killed his three sons at this point. He changed his plea from not guilty to not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect back in March. That change in plea happened after Judge Richard Farrink determined a Claremont County Sheriff's detective violated Dorman's rights after he continued to question Dorman after he had asked for a lawyer. Here's some testimony from that hearing on that issue. I felt obligated to explore it a little bit, yes. So I did. I asked him if he had

Starting point is 00:03:25 a lawyer. And what did he indicate to you? He said we have family lawyers. And did you follow up on that? Yeah. Again, I felt like pulling teeth. I'm trying to get him to talk about it. Tell me who's your lawyer. So I asked him if there was somebody we could call and he said Keith Dorman and Ruby Franklin and did he give you any information about those two individuals yes I followed up with them Keith Dorman is his father and neither one of those people are attorneys so so he was able to tell you Keith Dorman is his dad what did he say about Ruby Franklin he said that she was in the CIA and I said well is she a lawyer in the CIA and he said she's in the CIA so neither name that he gave me

Starting point is 00:04:16 were even close to lawyers he had made a comment that the Bible says that you kill your firstborn you kill your secondborn, you kill your secondborn, you kill your thirdborn, but first you're supposed to kill your wife. I didn't kill my wife. So I really thought that was a very important comment that he had just made. And I was, I wanted him to repeat to me some of the things that he had said. And I was asking him about that and he cut me off. He stopped me from talking and said. I'll just hold one sentence. He says I'll just wait for a lawyer. I really don't know.

Starting point is 00:04:53 Like give me a couple days. I'll talk to a lawyer and get nice good answers. He says that all in basically one breath. The detective also testified about what Dorman said during the same interview when the detective wasn't in the room. He said almost like under his breath, like a whisper, what the did I do? Another point he says, what the fuck did she let me do?

Starting point is 00:05:22 Another time it looked like he was checking the back of his shirt for blood. There was another point where he's looking around and he says, where's the cameras? Where's the cameras? So he was looking for cameras. Because Judge Farrink determined Dorman had indeed asked for a lawyer and the questioning should have stopped and didn't, the jury in his case won't hear anything that Dorman told detectives in the interview room. Much of what I told you earlier really makes you question what was going on in Chad Dorman's mind back in June of last year. The way he's accused of hunting down those little boys who trusted him and taking their lives is just unimaginable. Dorman's using an

Starting point is 00:06:00 affirmative defense. He's admitting he pulled the trigger, but saying he was so mentally ill at the time that he didn't know what he was doing was wrong. So now to that hearing that had been scheduled for next week. The judge was supposed to hear testimony about Chad Dorman's mental state and consider whether that should bar prosecutors from pursuing the death penalty. Prosecutor Mark Tukalvi had said from day one that was his priority. My goal was to have this man executed for slaughtering these three little boys. Dorman's lawyers wrote in their motion to remove the death penalty from his case. Mr. Dorman acknowledges that if the court finds that he is statutorily ineligible for a death

Starting point is 00:06:39 sentence due to serious mental illness or SMI and the jury convicts him of aggravated murder and one or more aggravating circumstance, the court will sentence him to life imprisonment without parole. Under Ohio law, there are four serious mental illnesses. They are schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and delusional disorder. We don't know which one of these illnesses Chad Dorman claims to have or has because the documents related to this from the defense and prosecution have been filed under seal. We were supposed to learn more about that during that hearing that was scheduled for next week. The statute is relatively new in Ohio. Here's what Judge Richard Farrink said about what the hearing would look like back in May. The statute labels this as a pretrial hearing.

Starting point is 00:07:27 It's really a much more complex and detailed hearing. And as I call it, it's not a pretrial hearing. It's a pretrial trial, simply limited to whether the death penalty can be eliminated or can be maintained based upon the statutory conditions there. But now, as I mentioned, that hearing has been continued with no new date scheduled. The case of Chad Dorman shooting and killing his three young sons is so beyond the pale, it's unbelievable that a father could do what he's accused of doing. It made me want to look into his background to see if there were any red flags. So I put his name into truthfinder.com. Truthfinder.com will give you a lot of information about a

Starting point is 00:08:14 person including past addresses and criminal history. I searched Dorman's criminal history and found some misdemeanor cases and traffic citations for speeding, but no felony cases. There was a domestic violence case, but the judge dismissed it back in 2010. He'd also been found guilty of drinking underage. The information on Truthfinder led me to dig even further. It gave me all of the information I needed to research Dorman's past cases. You can do the same thing. You can research anyone you know by simply putting in that person's name. And what's really great about Truthfinder, especially if you have children, it will give you the addresses of sex offenders who live in your neighborhood.

Starting point is 00:08:55 If you want to try Truthfinder, I have a great deal for you. You can get 50% off of confidential background reports. Log on to www.truthfinder.com slash lccrimefix and start accessing information about almost anyone. I spoke with courtroom confidential host and former prosecutor Josh Ritter about this type of hearing and more developments in the case. This is really interesting because it's a little nuanced. So I think it's important to distinguish what exactly is happening here. There is pleading not guilty by reason of insanity. But then aside from that, there is this law, which his defense attorneys are trying to take advantage of, which essentially says,

Starting point is 00:09:36 follow the same standard. Was he suffering from some sort of mental impairment or illness? And did that cause him to not appreciate his actions? Though it doesn't rise to the same level which would be required for a NGI, not guilty by reason of insanity, does it rise to a level sufficient that the court should preclude the prosecution from pursuing the death penalty? That's what they're asking for here. This entire hearing is whether or not the prosecution will be allowed to pursue the death penalty in this case. And we could have an entire discussion about the death penalty, but if there are any types of cases where the death penalty would be reserved for it, you would imagine it would be a case as heinous

Starting point is 00:10:19 as this. And it is heinous, there's no doubt. I mean, a man who's essentially admitting at this point, because he did change his plea from not guilty to not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, which is a separate issue from this hearing, as you just mentioned. He's basically saying, I did it, but I was so mentally ill at the time, I didn't know what I was doing was wrong. But now his attorneys are going to have kind of this mini trial where they present evidence from an expert to the judge. So there's going to be an expert testifying and saying, I believe that Chad Dorman suffers from one of these four serious mental illnesses. And they are under Ohio law, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder,

Starting point is 00:11:03 bipolar disorder, or delusional disorder. And so this statute in Ohio basically says if it's determined that the defendant does suffer or did suffer from one of these illnesses at the time the offense was committed, that the death penalty cannot be pursued. So is this a heavy lift in your eyes for the defense to make this case, given what we know about the case itself? Right now, all of the documents pertaining to these arguments are under seal. We'll learn more about it at the hearing. Well, it's a heavy lift only in finding the experts to testify to that. If they have experts that are able to say, yes, we have diagnosed him with one of these enumerated conditions that you outlined there. And they say, yes, he qualifies for this. Here's

Starting point is 00:11:50 all the reasons that he qualifies and satisfies the symptoms of those conditions. And that that was affecting him at the time to the point that he couldn't appreciate what he was doing. There is a burden. There is a shifting of burden. You're correct to point that out, that they have to prove that to the judge to a preponderance. So not a beyond a reasonable doubt. But if they reach that threshold through their experts, then it's essentially this law is saying that the judge is required to take the death penalty off the table. Now, just for everybody listening to understand, that doesn't mean that the trial ends.

Starting point is 00:12:24 That doesn't mean that he's found not guilty by reason of insanity. He still goes to trial, but they just won't have the opportunity to pursue the death penalty upon a conviction. And that would simplify the trial, if we even get to a trial, if the judge finds indeed that Chad Dorman suffered from one of these four serious mental illnesses at the time. Let's say and speak hypothetically, Josh, let's say that does happen. And you and I were talking before we started here. I've seen this attorney, Greg Myers, who represents Chad Dorman in the past, represent defendants charged with heinous, serious crimes. He's with the Ohio Public Defender's Office. And basically,

Starting point is 00:13:06 he's a staunch anti-death penalty advocate. And I could see if they get this ruling, if they win this ruling, I could see him negotiating some type of plea agreement with the state saying, look, he'll plead guilty and he'll serve life in prison without parole. Do you see that as basically being a step toward where the defense might be going in this case? You could be absolutely right. It's definitely within the realm of possibility. I mean, many times in these types of cases, that's what the attorney sees as their entire job is just to, quote unquote, save their client's life. So if he is able to remove, even by court order, the death penalty from being on the table in this case, you may see that take place where they will reopen up negotiations.

Starting point is 00:13:50 Because putting aside the mental health defenses in this case, there's a very strong case against him. I mean, he essentially admits it. I know there's some Miranda issues, but there's witnesses to what took place. I think as far as proving this case in court, whether or not he committed this act, they're going to be able to reach that burden, the prosecution will. But this really, I think from the defense perspective and this attorney in particular's perspective was about making sure that he wasn't going to receive the death penalty for this crime. Let's go to the next development that really happened in this case. And that was the fact, and you alluded to this earlier, it's a separate issue. The fact that Chad Dorman changed his plea from strictly not guilty to not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. And that

Starting point is 00:14:36 basically means he's saying, yes, I did this. I committed the act, but I was so mentally ill at the time. I couldn't appreciate that my actions were wrong. Are you surprised that he did that? Changed his plea? No, I'm not. In these types of cases, when I think our first reaction from anyone just watching casually an observer of this and hearing about this crime, you think your first thought is that person had to have been insane. That person to commit this type of a horrible, violent crime against your own children, you're wondering what was going on in that person's head. It's not surprising to me. And in light of the strength of the case, this isn't a case of

Starting point is 00:15:23 whodunit. This isn't a circumstantial case this is a very strong case filled with direct evidence and so really their defenses are limited and it probably would come down to some sort of mental defense um that they would expect to Mount and so I wasn't surprised that they changed their plea but it's important to understand a big difference is going to be, even if the judge grants this as far as the death penalty issue, bringing a not guilty by reason of insanity is a question for the jury. So the jury will then have to decide, was he suffering from some sort of mental illness that impaired him at that time? And that leads me to our third development in this

Starting point is 00:16:02 case as it's moved through the courts. And that's the fact that Chad Dorman was interviewed by law enforcement the day that this happened. And he made a number of statements. In some of them, he doesn't make any sense according to the testimony we heard during that hearing. But the judge determined that he had unequivocally asked for an attorney, that he had made it clear he was asking for a lawyer, and that his rights were violated when the detective continued to question him despite his asking for a lawyer. So the jury is not going to hear him saying things that we mentioned earlier in the show, such as, you know, like the Bible says it's wrong, you know, to kill your wife. I didn't kill my wife. Or, you know, talking the Bible says it's wrong, you know, to kill your wife. I didn't kill my wife

Starting point is 00:16:45 or, you know, talking about killing his sons, about something in the Bible saying that, which sounds completely nonsensical to you and I. So the jury's not going to hear that Chad Dorman said these things. And he only changed his plea after that statement was suppressed by the judge. So what does that tell you? I found that ruling incredibly frustrating. And it wasn't frustrating because the judge made the ruling. It was frustrating to me because of the way that the police handled it. And listen, I understand they're trying to do their job. I understand that much of this is done in the kind of fog of war of what's taking place quickly as they're arresting someone for this kind of a crime. And they're trying to get statements out of that person.

Starting point is 00:17:30 They know that's going to make their case stronger, but you have to do it the right way. And so that's what was frustrating to me as a former prosecutor. This is valuable evidence. I don't care how strong your case is. If you're able to get a confession out of the defendant, that seals the deal in nearly every single case. And for them to lose that because they didn't follow some very sacred guidelines. I mean, when someone asks for an attorney, all questioning is supposed to stop. It's not an issue of did they ask for it or didn't they ask for it? All questioning is supposed to stop. So in this case, the judge, I think, did make the right call in reviewing what statements were made and they should have ended their questioning. And unfortunately, now none of that will come

Starting point is 00:18:12 in front of the jury. Josh Ritter, thank you so much. Thank you for having me. And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. We'll see you back here next time.

Pet Camera - EBO Air 2

Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - 3 Major Developments in Ohio Dad's Triple Child Execution Case

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.

Your Ad Here

Pet Camera - EBO Air 2

Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - 3 Major Developments in Ohio Dad's Triple Child Execution Case

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.