Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Dad Accused of Executing 3 Sons Fights Death Penalty as New Developments Surface

Episode Date: May 6, 2024

The trial for an Ohio man accused of murdering his three young sons has been delayed as his attorneys argue against him receiving the death penalty as a possible punishment. Chad Doerman's trial was scheduled to begin in July. Clermont County Prosecutor Mark Tekulve said last summer that he would pursue the death penalty against Doerman. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy goes through the new arguments from Doerman's attorneys with Courtroom Confidential host Josh Ritter in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.Get 50% off of confidential background reports at https://www.truthfinder.com/lccrimefix and access information about almost anyone!Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest:Josh Ritter https://www.youtube.com/@CRConfidentiaCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoAudio Editing - Brad MaybeGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@LawandCrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law & Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. My goal was to have this man executed for slaughtering these three little boys. That was the prosecutor in Chad Dorman's case last year. But now, Dorman says he shouldn't face the possibility of the death penalty as a punishment. I'll tell you why and what it means for his trial that was supposed to take place this summer. I have three new developments in Chad Dorman's case. Thanks for joining me for Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy.

There's a new twist in Chad Dorman's case in Ohio. His attorneys have filed a motion asking that the death penalty be removed as a possible punishment in his trial. Prosecutors are pursuing the death penalty against Dorman, who's charged with the premeditated murders of his three little boys, Clayton, Hunter, and Chase, in June of 2023. Those boys were just seven, four, and three years old. I've told you before about the horrific, unthinkable crime Dorman's accused of pulling a rifle from his gun safe and hunting each one of those little boys down, one by one, and shooting them. The boy's mother called 911 as she tried to save them and even suffered a gunshot wound to the hand trying to stop Dorman. The boy's older stepsister also tried to save the boys, even running toward a fire station with one of them in her arms. My daughter, she ran over to the fire department.

Sit down. It's my stepdaughter. Put him in the cage. Dorman is accused of chasing after that girl and ordering her at gunpoint to put one of the boys down and then shooting him. And while I say Dorman is accused of these things, he is. He's definitely accused of killing the boys. He hasn't been convicted of the crime, but he is also now admitting that he killed his sons, but says he was insane at the time he committed the murders, which is a separate matter from him arguing that he's too mentally ill to be put to death if he is convicted.

In his motion to remove the death penalty from his case, Dorman's attorneys wrote, Mr. Dorman acknowledges that if the court finds that he is statutorily ineligible for a death 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. Now, you might be asking yourself, what is a serious mental illness or SMI under Ohio law? What is it that could have been going on with Chad Dorman's mental health at the time? What was happening in his mind that would allow him or prompt him to hunt down his sons like that? Well, it lists four, the law does. They are schizophrenia, schizoaffective

disorder, bipolar disorder, and delusional disorder. Exactly which one of these illnesses Chad Dorman claims to have or have had or has remains unclear. We should learn more about that when his lawyers file additional documents with the court. And really, this serious mental illness statute is relatively new in Ohio. It's just three years old. Judge Farrin called this uncharted territory and explained how he'll determine whether Chad Dorman was indeed suffering from a serious mental illness at the time that he shot and killed his sons. While the statute labels this as a pretrial hearing. 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. So there's going to be a mini trial of sorts in August. Experts from both sides will testify about their examination of Chad Dorman and his mental state at the time that Clayton, Hunter, and Chase were killed. Now, this is a question of whether the death penalty is a punishment that Chad Dorman should face. Should the jury actually be allowed to consider the death penalty as a punishment? Again, this is a separate issue from whether Chad Dorman is not guilty by reason of insanity or mental disease or defect. He changed his plea to not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect or insanity, meaning he's claiming he didn't know what he was doing was wrong at the time that he did it. He's admitting he killed his sons, but saying he was so mentally

ill at the time, he didn't know what he was doing was wrong. We'll have more on that and what Dorman said that day later in the show. But first, there was some interesting information in the court documents about what doctors who evaluated Chad Dorman found. Dorman claims that Dr. Bob Stinson, a board-certified forensic psychologist, examined him and found that he had a severe mental disease at the time of the alleged commission of the offenses that caused him to not appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions and met the requirements for NGRI or not guilty by reason of insanity. The defense says Dr. Stinson is expected to file a companion report saying that Dorman suffered from a serious mental illness at

the time of the murders. The defense also mentions, though, that another professional, Dr. Emily Davis, found that Mr. Dorman had a severe mental disease at the time of the alleged offenses, but differed with Dr. Stinson regarding Mr. Dorman's appreciation of the wrongfulness of his actions. And that document was actually filed under seal. Now, because this is going to happen, this mini trial of sorts about Chad Dorman's mental state at the time that the boys were killed, his trial is not going to begin in July as anticipated, and he's waived his right to a speedy trial. The judge actually questioned Dorman about this.

And just briefly, Mr. Dorman, I know that Mr. Myers and Mr. Haynes have been representing you, but they've discussed these matters with you, in particular the waiver of your speedy trial rights, as Mr. Myers has just stated. Yes, sir. And you're in full agreement with that? Yes, sir. All right. And understandably, this is upsetting to the surviving victims.

That would be Clayton, Chase, and Hunter's mother, stepsister, and other family members. They want this to move forward as quickly as possible. Based on Marcy's law, you know, we've spoken with the surviving victims. They want to, obviously, they understand that this is a long process, but they do want to have this wrapped up as soon as possible so that they can begin to close this chapter of their lives and move on from the court process. Joining me to discuss this latest set of developments in Chad Dorman's case is someone who's been following it very closely. He's Josh Ritter. He's a former prosecutor, also a defense attorney, and the host of Courtroom Confidential on YouTube. So Josh, your reaction to the defense basically telling

the judge, look, our client was so mentally ill at the time that he committed these crimes that he should not even face the death penalty as a possible punishment. Yeah, I'll tell you, as disturbing as this case is and as troubling as it is, and as much as I want this man to see the most justice that he can possibly see, I will tell you this argument does have some legs to it. According to the Constitution, both in his state and the US constitution, there's a protection against cruel and unusual punishment. And the law has been changing and understanding more recently that that should include people who are suffering from serious mental illness. And that's the argument that his team is making here is that he was suffering from serious mental illness. So therefore,

he couldn't appreciate the gravity and consequences of his actions at the time, and therefore shouldn't be eligible for the death penalty. It's a very similar argument to what we see, which he's also entered into in this case for a not guilty by insanity defense. And as I mentioned earlier in the show, these are kind of two companion arguments, but they're two separate arguments. Because right here, what they're arguing is that the jury shouldn't even hear about the death penalty. This should not be a death penalty qualified jury, which adds another layer of complexity to even selecting the juror. So they're saying, you shouldn't even talk about the death penalty. This shouldn't be a punishment. We're basically conceding that he did this. Okay. That's what they're saying. We're conceding he

did this, but that he was so mentally ill at the time, he didn't appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. That's the not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. But we're saying he was so mentally ill as well, the second part of this, that he shouldn't even face death as a punishment. And there's going to be a mini trial of sorts because the law changed in Ohio about three years ago, the judge said. And really, there's going to have to be a mini trial for the judge to determine whether or not the defense can provide enough evidence by a preponderance of the evidence to show that Chad Dorman should not face the death penalty as a possible punishment. So explain to me preponderance of the evidence as a legal standard, Josh. Yeah, you're absolutely right. They're going to have essentially a mini trial. They're going to have experts called in, and this is unique because the judge is going to need to decide this issue

about his mental, not competency, but whether or not he was suffering from some sort of serious mental illness before it even sees the light of day at trial. And you're right to point out, this is a lower standard. Preponderance is much lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. Preponderance just says more likely than not. So if the judge feels that more likely than not, he was suffering from some sort of serious mental illness, he's going to take the death penalty off the table. And as you pointed out, this is not a small thing because it will hugely impact jury selection. It will no longer be what we call a death qualified jury, meaning usually when you have a death qualified jury, you have people who kind of lean more towards law enforcement,

more conservative. So he's going to have the advantage of not having those jurors as part of the jury pool going into the trial itself. It's really difficult to talk about cases like Chad Dorman and the murder of his three sons. But I want to take a quick break from that to tell you about something that could help you keep you and your family safe. It's a great website and it's called truthfinder.com. Truthfinder is one of the world's largest public record search services. Truthfinder has one goal and that is to help you and me learn the truth

about the people we meet each day. Here's how it works. You just log on to truthfinder.com and simply put in a name. Within minutes and maybe even seconds, you will get reports that include phone numbers, addresses, friends, family, criminal records, and much more. It will also show you sex offenders who might live in your neighborhood. The cases that I cover each day make it clear that you have to do everything you can to keep you and your loved ones safe. So right now, Crime Fix viewers and listeners can get 50% off of confidential background reports at truthfinder.com slash lccrimefix. Log on to truthfinder.com slash lccrimefix and start accessing information

about almost anyone. And let me just tell you, Claremont County, Ohio, where this happened, it's one county east of Hamilton County, where Cincinnati is in Ohio. This is an area I covered for years, for years in local news. It's a more conservative area. So you're going to have a more conservative jury pool anyway. And the judge had already said, because this trial was supposed to happen in July, now that's not happening. They've already sent out 750 questionnaires to potential jurors because they have to do that in a death penalty case. So now that whole thing is kind of gone. That's just not even a thing right now. So that's kind of pushed off to the side so they can have this mini trial of sorts in August. And so if you have a, let's say the judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence that he was suffering from a

severe mental illness at the time that he committed these crimes, then you just bring in a regular jury and they decide whether he could appreciate that what he was doing was right or wrong. That will be the question the jury will have to determine, or whether he is guilty indeed of aggravated murder and he will get life in prison. You're absolutely right. And it also changes the dynamic of how the defense attorneys handle the case. Because usually when you have a case where you have death penalty on the table, it's a bifurcated trial. You have a trial on the facts themselves to decide guilt. Then if they find him guilty, then you go into a whole new phase, the penalty phase, trying to decide the death penalty. And it's difficult for defense attorneys to try to figure out how strong are they going to go on the guilt phase so that they maintain

some credibility for the penalty phase. Whereas here, if that's off the table, they can make their arguments as strong as they want. And like you pointed out, their arguments aren't even, he didn't do it. Their arguments are just simply that he didn't have the mental capacity to appreciate the consequences of his actions. There are four serious mental illnesses, back to this whole question about whether or not he should even be eligible for the death penalty. There are four that the statute lists, and they are schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and delusional disorder. And those are the four. We don't know at this time which disorder Dr. Stinson has found that Chad Dorman was suffering from or

has or was diagnosed with at the time that he killed his sons. I mean, he's admitting he killed his sons. That's not the legal question here. But they're going to have to determine whether he suffers from those four, one of those four, I'm assuming, according to statute or some variation of the four. Then the prosecution, they're going to have an expert who's going to come in as well, Josh, and testify to what? Is this person going to testify to the exact opposite? We don't know because that person was just kind of enlisted by the prosecution to do this work in the last week or so. So do you expect that the person for the prosecution will automatically find he wasn't suffering from some

sort of serious mental illness? Such a great question because it, listen, the facts themselves almost speak towards the idea that he's suffering from some sort of serious, severe mental illness here. You have an unmotivated crime. No one appears to understand why he would do something this horrible and horrific. So already, I think just from a lay person's perspective, you believe that something must be wrong with this individual. And you're right. The prosecution is going to have to argue. They're walking a fine line because I think they have to concede that there was something

he was dealing with, some sort of mental crisis. But does that rise to the level of him not being able to appreciate his actions and therefore being ineligible for the death penalty. And I think that kind of legal nuanced argument is where they're going to try to score as many points as they can with the judge. And the other thing to think about here is that you're asking a judge with this kind of a tragedy to take the death penalty off the table and take that out of the hands of the community, essentially. There might be some other considerations in the back of that judge's

mind of whether or not he really wants to take this step, realizing the backlash that the community may have to not hold this type of a person responsible in that way. But the judge is also retiring at the end of the year. Very good point. Very good point. And you would expect that the judge is also retiring at the end of the year. Very good point. Very good point. And you would expect that the judges, right, you would expect the judges follow the law regardless of outside pressures. It's just an element to think about, but that's also a good point. Yeah. And not to take away from the tragedy of this at all, because it is a tragedy. Those little boys should be here.

And we're going to talk more about those little boys here in just a little bit. But the judge is retiring at the end of the year. They talked about the possibility of bringing in maybe a visiting judge who would be death penalty qualified to take over once he retires at the end of the year. But this is going to be a big question that this judge is going to have to decide. And in these circumstances, do you kind of beg the question, what was going on with him? Because the allegation, Josh, is that he came home from work early. He gets a gun out of the safe. He's walking around with a Bible saying, Chad knows what's right. And he hunts down his little boys and kills them, executes them, and then sits on the porch. It's on body camera footage with a rifle next to him and waits for these cops to take him into custody. He knows he's going to jail.

And then he's like just nonchalantly as they're putting the cuffs on him saying things like, Hey, can you get my wallet out of my pocket? It's kind of bothering me. I'm not going to hurt you. Like it kind of, you're like, what is going on with this guy? I mean, I, it boggles the mind. Yeah. It's hard to imagine a crime more disturbing and more offensive than this. I mean, the idea that he lined them up, these little boys who, by the way, the only person in the whole world that they're expecting to protect them is this man who's committing this crime of taking their lives. He's hunting them down. And the more and more you think about it, the more and more it's disturbing to you. And there's the problem, right? Is that it's so bizarre and so disturbing

and we can't wrap our heads around it that will we feel that this, or will the judge feel that this man was obviously suffering from some severe mental illness, but then at the same time, isn't this exactly the type of person that if we're going to have capital punishment in this country,

isn't it exactly this type of a crime that that's reserved for? And so again, it's a difficult decision. I do not envy this judge having to make this call. No, not at all. And this mini trial of sorts, and the judge even said we're in uncharted territories because this hasn't really been something that's been argued a lot because the statute is so relatively new. This will take place in August. Both sides will present experts and testimony. It will be open to the public. We will be able

to see what is being argued. And then the judge will have this big decision to make. So the prosecution believes Chad Dorman should be put to death. They said that last year when they said they would seek the death penalty. This is what the prosecution wants. So we will see what happens as we learn more about what mental illness Chad Dorman is believed to suffer from. Josh Ritter, host of Courtroom Confidential, thank you so much. Thank you so much for having me. So let's take a look back now at some of the things that Chad Dorman said the day that his boys were killed. That was Chad Dorman said the day that his boys were killed. Stand up!

That was Chad Dorman as Claremont County Sheriff's deputies took him into custody that terrible day in June of last year. It was moments after prosecutors said he shot his little boys. Their lives snuffed out in a matter of minutes. Can I roll over? I ain't gonna hurt you. I ain't gonna hurt nobody. You got anything on you? No, I ain't got nothing, man. Phone, that's it. During a hearing that resulted in Dorman's statement to law enforcement being suppressed, the detective, Mike Ross, recalled some things that Dorman said during the interview. He had made a comment that the Bible says that you kill your firstborn, you kill your secondborn, you kill your thirdborn, but first you're supposed to kill your wife. I didn't kill myborn, 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, um, 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. Um, he stopped me from talking and said, I'll just, in a whole one sentence, he says, I'll just wait for a lawyer. I really don't know. Like, give me a couple of days. I'll talk to a lawyer and get nice, good answers. He says that all in basically one breath.

And there were some things that Dorman said when detectives were not in the room. He said, almost like under his breath, like a whisper, what the f*** did I do? Another point he says, what the f*** did she let me do? 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. Getting lost in the legal proceedings and the questions about Dorman's rights and his mental state are those little boys, Clayton, Hunter, and Chase. Their obituary said that Clayton was known as Clayton Man

and loved making Lego creations, telling jokes, and riding his go-kart, and laughing while loving his best dog pal, Gatlin. Family called Hunter, Hunter Dog. The four-year-old loved going to the creek and catching frogs and playing baseball and called his mom and sister, quote, pretty girls. And Little Chase, known as Chasers. He loved swinging on swings and wanted to be a baseball player like his big brothers. He loved playing with dinosaurs and pretending to be a superhero. He was the best cuddler and will be forever known as Mama's Baby. And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. We'll keep an eye on this case for you. We'll see you back here next time.