Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Ohio Dad Accused of Executing His Three Sons Wants Confession Tossed

Episode Date: January 24, 2024

Chad Doerman, the man from Ohio accused of executing his three young sons, wants his statement to police thrown out. Doerman claims he asked for a lawyer but detectives continued to question him and violated his rights in other ways. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy talks with former Ohio Deputy Attorney General Mark Weaver about Doerman's claim in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show that delves into the biggest cases in crime.HOST:Angenette Levy: twitter.com/Angenette5CRIME 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 and crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. 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. Chad Dorman, the Ohio dad accused of executing his three young sons, wants his confession thrown out. He says detectives violated his rights. I'm Anjanette Levy. It's Wednesday and this is Crime Fix. Chad Dorman is accused of the unthinkable. Last summer, deputies say he shot his three sons, seven-year-old

Clayton, four-year-old Hunter, and three-year-old Chase, killing all three of them. The murders happened in June, but court documents say Dorman told detectives that he'd actually been thinking about killing the boys since October of 2022, nine months prior. Here's body camera footage rifle Dorman's accused of using to murder his sons. It was sitting next to him as deputies arrived. Dorman's lawyers say he was interviewed by detectives and read his Miranda warnings, but never presented with a form outlining those rights and never asked whether he waived those rights. Dorman is quoted as saying,

yep, when asked whether he understood that he had a right to an attorney. About six minutes into the interview with detectives, Dorman's lawyers claim he said, I'll wait for a lawyer. I really don't know. Give me a couple of days. Let me talk to a lawyer so I can get good, nice answers for you. Detective Ross responded, I understand. Do you have a lawyer? Dorman responded, we have family lawyers and said that his father was a lawyer. Dorman's attorneys also claim that social workers and medical personnel were used by detectives to question Dorman and that he made incriminating statements that could be used against him. They also say that deputies called him a monster and talked about possibly shooting him and that he should be placed in the cruiser so one deputy

wouldn't do that. With me is Mark Weaver. He's a former Ohio deputy attorney general. He's also served as a special prosecutor in several death penalty cases. Mark, what are your first thoughts on this motion to suppress Chad Dorman's police statement? I have litigated against this attorney, Greg Myers. He's one of the most experienced death penalty defense lawyers in the state. I know him well. We don't know what the prosecutor has to say about this motion, but I will say this. There is so much evidence against Chad Dorman that this motion to suppress is very key because it's hard to see how the defense wriggles out of this one. Why do you say it's very key? I mean, because there is a lot of evidence.

I mean, the cops show up and he's sitting there on the front stoop with the rifle that he used to kill his children. I mean, I don't think that's in dispute. His wife and his daughter both gave statements to police about what they say happened. So is this key in sparing his life? How is this key? This shouldn't play into the second part of the death penalty case, which is the mitigation phase. What it plays into is if they can win the motion to suppress, this is just the beginning

of what's likely to be an attack on the credibility of the police officers. There is so much evidence that this man did it. Trust me, I'm a prosecutor. I would vote to convict. But jurors are funny. And so if you have a case like this where the evidence is so overwhelming, by building up a case that somehow the officers are sloppy, that could raise, if not reasonable doubt on conviction, it could be enough to get one or two jurors who say, you know, I just don't see going to the death chamber over this. Let's start with the arguments that Greg Myers and his co-counsel make in this.

And you're right. Greg Myers is all over the state of Ohio doing these high-profile death penalty cases for the Ohio Public Defender's Office. The first argument they make is they say that he asked for a lawyer, you know, basically six or seven minutes into the interview. They read him his rights, but they don't give him the form. He says he understands his rights. Yep.

But they don't have him sign the waiver or waive his rights. So how important is that? Plus, they say he mentions a lawyer several times and the cops just keep going with the interview. Yeah, there's a couple of different issues. Let's try to separate them. So Miranda versus Arizona is the U.S. Supreme Court case that says if you want to use somebody's interrogation that took place in custody against them, you have to warn them about what their rights are to the Constitution. Under Ohio law, and I think it's true in federal law, it's not required to be

in writing. It's just required that the state can show that there was a Miranda warning, and all the evidence suggests there was a Miranda warning. So that will not be the problem. What I'm interested to hear from the state when they finally file their response to this motion to suppress is what their argument is about this notion that once he mentions he has a lawyer, I think he says it's a family lawyer or it's someone who works for the CIA. It's a little odd. He's invoking the lawyer thing. Yeah. I mean, the whole thing is kind of weird. And he's obviously in an agitated state. I will be interested to see what the state says in response, because it is black letter law

that when a defendant who's in custody demands to talk to a lawyer that the questioning must stop and so I will be interested to see what the state has to say. Remember there's two sides to every story but I do know enough about defense counsel that sometimes the way they phrase things in their motions is not exactly the way it happened. The next argument they make, they say that basically he was being treated in the jail by a social worker and a nurse and that the police were there at the time and that anything like that, the police, the deputies shouldn't have been there with cameras rolling. Yeah, that's contorting the law of privilege. So all of us, when we go to our doctor, if we tell our doctor something about our medical condition, that there is that doctor-patient privilege and that can't be introduced against you. But I doubt they'll be introducing what hurts on his body. that there is that doctor-patient privilege and that can't be introduced against you.

But I doubt they'll be introducing what hurts on his body. Information that he would say during that time about what he did during the crime is not part of the doctor-patient privilege, because it's not necessary for medical treatment. I think that's a weak argument. I think that's just another thing they're throwing out there to somehow suggest that the law enforcement personnel were sloppy or that they weren't following the rules. Another thing they say is that they complain that the cops, the deputies, and Claremont County, this is not a urban area. I mean, it's a more, it's a growing county. It's east of Cincinnati, one county east. So, you know, it's a little more rural, if you will, but it's become more suburban in some respects. But his attorneys are taking issue with the fact that they called Dorman a monster. And

one of the cops apparently on body camera footage said something like, you know, put him in the cruiser. I might shoot the mother effer, something like that. So they're kind of basically saying, like, these cops are a bit of a mess. I mean, what do you make of that argument? Here's the good news. This is why I love the jury system. You put 12 regular Claremont County residents in the box and they will say, well, of course, that's normal. They've just arrested a man who all indications are hunted down his children and shot them in front of his wife and his stepdaughter.

And that is a normal human reaction. Now, if they didn't follow police procedures, that's a different argument. But the fact that these officers reacted as nearly any other human would do is something that will not offend the jurors at all. And there's actually it's redacted in the body camera footage. It's horrible. But you can tell that one of the deputies is tending to one of the children trying to save the child, which sadly couldn't be done. You know, the final thing that they're arguing, Mark, was the fact that there was a public defender at his initial court appearance who met with him. And of course, you know, the public defender is going to interview him to see if he qualifies for representation and things of that nature. And they say, you know,

the deputies are standing there, body cameras rolling while he's being interviewed by counsel. That shouldn't have happened. You know, they're saying his rights have been repeatedly violated. Your thoughts? Yeah, I don't know it happened that way. Again, I'm interested in hearing what the state has to say. Very good prosecutor's office down there. I have a lot of respect for them. Normally, an attorney-client conversation should not be recorded, and law enforcement personnel should not be there for that. So I'll be interested to hear what they say. Having said that, that should not affect the proof in this case in any way because there's more than enough evidence out there from before he was in custody

that this happened, including the wife and the stepdaughter who will help to testify as to what they saw with what this horrific killer did. Yeah, he has pleaded not guilty at this point in time, of course. He's going to do that. It'll be interesting to see what the defense in this case is. But, you know, it's an aggravated murder case. They're seeking the death penalty. Trial will begin later this year. So Mark Weaver, thank you so much for joining us as always. We appreciate it. Good to see you again, Anjanette. And that's it for Crime Fix on this Wednesday, January 24th, 2024. I'm Anjanette Levy. Thanks for being with us. We'll see you back here tomorrow night. Until then, have a great night.