The motion to suppress covers Chad Doerman’s statements to investigators and healthcare workers once the Clermont County Sheriff’s Office took him into custody back on June 15.
Clermont County prosecutors have yet to file court records in response.
The judge has set a hearing on the motion to suppress for next month, on Feb. 2.
Doerman, 32, is accused of killing Clayton Doerman, 7, Hunter Doerman, 4, and Chase Doerman, 3, at their Monroe Township home.
Prosecutors say he also shot the boys’ mother, 24, in her hand as she tried to stop him from their youngest child.
Her daughter, meanwhile, ran outside and down the street to get help.
Doerman confessed to planning and carrying out the deaths of ”his boys for several months” before shooting them at their home, according to court records and prosecutors.
The case is scheduled for a jury trial in Clermont County on July 8, 2024.
Prosecutors and sheriff’s officials have yet to reveal a motive in the case and these new court records don’t offer any clues.
Doerman was indicted last summer on nine counts of aggravated murder and other charges of kidnapping and felonious assault in a total 21-count indictment.
If he is found guilty of the aggravated murder charges, he could face the death penalty, Clermont County Prosecutor Mark Tekulve has said.
The court filing reveals the state divided its video recording of the sheriff’s office’s interrogation of Doerman into two parts: One is nearly two hours long and the second is just over an hour.
Detectives immediately detained him on the day of the killings. He was still handcuffed when they began interrogating him, according to the motion to suppress.
A detective read Doerman the Miranda warning and asked him if he understood those rights, it alleges.
“Doerman responds ‘yep’ and nods affirmatively. Mr. Doerman is never presented with a written copy of his rights. The Detective never asks Mr. Doerman if he wants to waive those rights; he never asks Mr. Doerman to sign a waiver of those rights; he never obtains a constitutionally valid waiver of those rights,” the motion to suppress states.
The court filing then alleges that Doerman requested a lawyer five minutes later, according to the state’s interrogation video:
Mr. Doerman: “I’ll wait for a lawyer. I really don’t know. Give me a couple of days and let me talk to a lawyer so I can get nice, good answers.”
Detective Ross: “I understand. Do you have a lawyer?”
Mr. Doerman: “We have family lawyers.”
Detective Ross: “Who is that? Is there somebody I can call?”
Mr. Doerman: “Keith Doerman.”
Detective Ross: “Is he related to you?”
Mr. Doerman: “Yes.”
Detective Ross: “How is Keith related to you?”
Mr. Doerman: “My dad.”
Mr. Doerman: “Ruby (sp) Franklin. She is in the CIA.”
Detective Ross: “Is she a lawyer? Is Ruby a lawyer?”
Mr. Doerman: “She is in the CIA.”
Detective Ross: “I know I heard you say that but I didn’t know maybe if she was a CIA attorney or... but you said your dad is a lawyer?”
Mr. Doerman: “mmm-hmmm (negative). We have a family lawyer.”
Detective Ross: “Alright. But you don’t know who that is?”
Mr. Doerman: “No.”
The motion to suppress goes on, alleging:
Doerman told Detective Ross that he also didn’t think he ever met him before, as Detective Ross claimed.
The detective talked about the previous encounter between them that he says occurred.
Then the detective picked up his belongings, telling Doerman: “I’m gonna step out for a minute. Ok? Alright? You ok? Bud, you need anything?”
“Mr. Doerman finally responds with one word: “step.’
Detective Ross exits the room.
The other detective there asked Doerman: “Are you sure you don’t want something to eat?”
Detective Ross re-enters the room at 00:50:35 and reinitiates questioning Mr. Doerman as if he hadn’t just requested an attorney.
Approximately forty-five minutes later, Mr. Doerman asks “Where’s a lawyer?” Detective Ross replies: “Laura?” Mr. Doerman responds “A lawyer.” Detective Ross answers, “I don’t know, you tell me.”
Doerman’s defense wrote in the court filing that Detective Ross didn’t “address what just happened. He does not even mention the words ‘attorney,’ ‘lawyer’ or ‘counsel’ much less re-advise Mr. Doerman of his rights to elicit a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights.
“It is the Detectives’ duty as trained law enforcement officers to realize the critical importance of the moment when a suspect invokes his right to counsel. The burden was not on Mr. Doerman to understand how his demands for counsel triggered the Detectives’ duty to stop the interrogation; nor was the burden on Mr. Doerman to resist the Detectives’ attempts to keep him talking.
“Mr. Doerman,” his defense alleges, “invoked his right to an attorney. He unequivocally requested to speak with a lawyer before further questioning.
“The interrogation of Mr. Doerman was over three hours long. He invoked his right to counsel at least twice. Detectives ignored Mr. Doerman’s request and continued to question him as if he didn’t ask for an attorney.”
The motion to suppress also alleges that the Clermont County Sheriff’s Office (referred to as CCSO in the court filing) was present when he was being evaluated for medical purposes and violated medical privacy laws.
The sheriff’s office, it states, inserted themselves “into what should have been private, confidential discussions between Mr. Doerman and his health care providers, coerced Mr. Doerman into submitting to their presence. Essentially the CCSO forced Mr Doerman into a choice between receiving no health care or allowing the police to be present.”
In this case, the totality of the circumstances include, according to the defense:
Doerman was in jail. “He had no power, no agency in the situation; no one in his position would reasonably think otherwise,” the defense wrote.
At least one CCSO officer “threatened him prior to this,” the court filing alleges. “Det. Schubert said, outside the cruiser where Mr. Doerman was sitting, loud enough to be heard, ‘Is that the Motherf----?’ ‘Yeah.’ ‘Shut the door so I don’t f------ kill him.’”
CCSO detectives ignored his requests for counsel.
“Detectives used coercive tactics during the interrogation of June 15th, including Detective Ross comparing him to a monster.”
His mental state “was such that he could not make a knowing, intelligent or voluntary consent to police being present – had he been asked. He was in no condition to object to their presence.”
“He was not informed of the recordings and did not know police were recording the conversations.”
“The outrageous police conduct herein should not be countenanced,” the defense wrote.
“The coercive effect of said conduct on Mr. Doerman and any ‘consent’ to police hearing and recording his discussions with his medical providers should result in suppression of said statement.”
Source: fox19.com, Jennifer Edwards Baker, January 24, 2024
_____________________________________________________________________
Twitter/X | Facebook | Telegram | Contact Us
SUPPORT DEATH PENALTY NEWS
