Speaker 1: You want to be an American.
Speaker 2: Rodney Hitton Juniors accused of killing Hemmelin County Sheriff Deputy
Speaker 2: Larry Henderson maysecond, and he this is the guy who
Speaker 2: took his car, drove around looking for a deputy to
Speaker 2: run over, and runs over a deputy Henderson, And all
Speaker 2: Henderson was doing is working traffic control, operating a light manually.
Speaker 2: At UC's graduation ceremony a few hours earlier, Hinton and
Speaker 2: his family got to look at body camera video of
Speaker 2: his eighteen year old son Ryan being fatally shot by
Speaker 2: Cincinnati Palasi. Video we've subsequently seen and said that kid
Speaker 2: had it coming, running with a gun in his hand,
Speaker 2: dropping at picking back up, not complying with law enforcement,
Speaker 2: and Rodney hinting to showed the level of a sociopath
Speaker 2: that he and maybe his son was decided that his
Speaker 2: son was completely innocent and we're going to have a
Speaker 2: shooting space as such. By the way, the Hinton family
Speaker 2: is still trying to file lawsuits and make this a
Speaker 2: case against CPD and officers and saying that justice was
Speaker 2: not served in the shooting of the sun even though
Speaker 2: this kid is running around with a gun, stealing cars
Speaker 2: and committing violent crimes with impunity. That's not the kind
Speaker 2: of people we need on the street. And you know
Speaker 2: that that pervasive attitude that permeates in the community is
Speaker 2: now trickled up to the mayor's office. But nonetheless, yesterday
Speaker 2: a court appointed forensic psychologist found Rodney Hinton, Junior, the dad,
Speaker 2: suffering from serious mental illness, making him ineligible for the
Speaker 2: death pedal. The question is is he going to avoid punishment.
Speaker 2: We're going with the not guilty by reason of an
Speaker 2: insanity plea and this is just a preliminary by the way,
Speaker 2: this is a court appointed psychiatrist who was doing this
Speaker 2: and there's a long way to go and we'll find
Speaker 2: out if and when Rodney Hinton will face the death penalty.
Speaker 2: Jason Philibaum, attorney at law, former prosecutor and Butler County
Speaker 2: defense attorney, now joins the show.
Speaker 1: Jason, how you been, good morning? Doing well? Thank you?
Speaker 2: All right, We've had this discussion before about NGRI. But
Speaker 2: so the diagnosis for Hinton is bipolar disorder psychosis. A
Speaker 2: psychologist concluded that mental illnesses impacted and paired him to
Speaker 2: his ability to exercise rational judgment at the time of
Speaker 2: his offense. His attorney a very good attorney, and Clyde
Speaker 2: Bennett argues that hit and didn't understand the wrongfulness of
Speaker 2: his conduct. But I look at this and go, I
Speaker 2: know prosecutors are going to look at a second opinion.
Speaker 2: This is very early in the game. But you know,
Speaker 2: when you drive around and you stalk your prey, that
Speaker 2: tells me that you are of right mind, you know
Speaker 2: exactly what you're doing. This is a really difficult approach
Speaker 2: that they're using here, isn't it.
Speaker 3: Yes, I think there's two things to consider. The first
Speaker 3: thing is to consider or whether or not he should
Speaker 3: be not guilty because of insanity, and that's a very
Speaker 3: specific definition of whether he knew essentially the wrongfulness of
Speaker 3: his action. The second question, which is what they were
Speaker 3: kind of discussing yesterday, is whether he should be executed
Speaker 3: because of his mental health disorder.
Speaker 1: I mean, the one thing.
Speaker 3: I always tell jury's and I've always told people, is
Speaker 3: people that commit crimes aren't mentally normal. I mean that's
Speaker 3: you know, everyone that essentially commits it, a violent crime
Speaker 3: like that has some issue going on. The question is
Speaker 3: is the issue the mental health so severe that it
Speaker 3: is prohibited? You know, to have the state use the
Speaker 3: death penalty, and I think that's what they're looking at
Speaker 3: right now. And Clyde, he does do a good job
Speaker 3: in this case. He's he's essentially attacking it from two
Speaker 3: different angles. He's saying, my client's not guilty because he's insane,
Speaker 3: and if you find him to be sane, then you
Speaker 3: can't put him to death because his mental health is
Speaker 3: so severe that that's not applicable to him.
Speaker 2: Right the law Jason Philibama, believe correct, my Brian, you're
Speaker 2: the attorney. I'm not. But are there are four specific
Speaker 2: mental illnesses that make defendants death penalty and eligible? And
Speaker 2: so how does the law define significantly impaired to exercise
Speaker 2: rational judgment, which is what's going on here, and the
Speaker 2: evidentiary standard prosecutors have to the burden they have to
Speaker 2: overcome to still pursue the death penalty.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the answer to that is probably a good law
Speaker 3: school class. But the in shorts, I think it was
Speaker 3: House Bill one thirty six that essentially prohibits the death
Speaker 3: penalty for those that were diagnosed with schizophrenia, I think
Speaker 3: schizophrenic disorder, bipolar disorder, and delusional disorder. But again it
Speaker 3: has to be something that's significant. You know, anyone that's
Speaker 3: abused drugs usually will have some type of diagnosis with bipolar.
Speaker 3: But if it's not significant enough to impair and essentially
Speaker 3: effect their everyday life to the extent that you know,
Speaker 3: that's that's something I think would be a factual decision
Speaker 3: that has to be determined.
Speaker 1: Yeah, got it.
Speaker 3: And so what you're going to what you're going to
Speaker 3: have from a preliminary standpoint is one psychologist basically said, yes,
Speaker 3: it's severe enough that he shouldn't be facing the death penalty,
Speaker 3: at least that's what we kind of got from the
Speaker 3: court yesterday. And then the state's going to get a
Speaker 3: second opinion, which happens all the time, this is not abnormal.
Speaker 1: And if that.
Speaker 3: Doctor says it's not, then I think you're going to
Speaker 3: say that the judge is going to say, let the
Speaker 3: jury decide that, and I'll explain that in a minute.
Speaker 3: But okay, if the second opinion comes back and says no,
Speaker 3: it's severe, then all of a sudden, you've got two opinions,
Speaker 3: one from the defense one from the state, and they
Speaker 3: both say it's severe. Then you're going to have the
Speaker 3: situation where the state.
Speaker 1: May take the death bone of the office table themselves.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, And there's a high bar as there should
Speaker 2: be for an insanity defense, because mental illness alone doesn't
Speaker 2: mean legal insanity.
Speaker 1: There's a distinction.
Speaker 2: There's what you're saying, and so many people to buy Paul,
Speaker 2: disordered psychosis can distinguish right from wrong. I don't know
Speaker 2: if I'm the prosecutor, IM look at this going, well,
Speaker 2: he knows how to the rational behavior would be. He
Speaker 2: gets in a vehicle, he operates a motor vehicle, presumably
Speaker 2: abides by most of the traffic laws. Anyway, on that date,
Speaker 2: he's looking for a target. He's out there basically stalking,
Speaker 2: looking for law enforcement officer to kill, maybe even a
Speaker 2: white law enforcement officer. The statements and what statements he
Speaker 2: made before during because I guess when they're showing him
Speaker 2: the video, he just kind of stormed out. The family
Speaker 2: tried to calm him down. He was just angry. But
Speaker 2: a lot of people commit crimes when they're angry. Look
Speaker 2: at the shootings at Fountain Square, that's probably about an
Speaker 2: anger street beef. Stuff like that doesn't mean a mental
Speaker 2: mental illness or incompetency, you know, And at the time
Speaker 2: he took off, he struck him and they caught him later.
Speaker 2: And I think all that adds in the fact that
Speaker 2: you know, he made some sound decisions and was of
Speaker 2: the right mind that led up to the death of Ederson.
Speaker 2: I don't know how a jury wouldn't look at that.
Speaker 3: And those are exactly the points the prosecutor is going
Speaker 3: to argue if insanity is allowed to pursue, and you know,
Speaker 3: he has to have a psychologist that also supports the
Speaker 3: insanity defense. And the one interesting thing about that is
Speaker 3: we can't see what these reports say. The judge specifically
Speaker 3: scolded or warned or whatever both parties that they do
Speaker 3: not want this report being leaked, so we don't know
Speaker 3: what's in the report.
Speaker 1: We don't know exactly what was said.
Speaker 3: We can surmise a little bit from the arguments, but
Speaker 3: at the end of the day, the prosecutor is going
Speaker 3: to argue, exactly.
Speaker 1: What you just did.
Speaker 3: This was a calculated This was a planned This was
Speaker 3: premeditated at least by an hour or two, if not,
Speaker 3: you know, a few minutes. It doesn't have to be
Speaker 3: like a year long meditation. It's he planned it, even.
Speaker 1: If it was in a short plan. So I think
Speaker 1: all of.
Speaker 3: Those arguments are what the state's going to argue that
Speaker 3: he is. He is guilty for what he did, and
Speaker 3: insanity does and apply. Now, if he's found guilty, then
Speaker 3: in a death penalty phase, you then have a sentencing phase.
Speaker 3: It's this completely separate hearing. So jury goes back and
Speaker 3: just determines is he guilty or not. And if they
Speaker 3: find him guilty, then the defense and the state get
Speaker 3: together again and they present more evidence. And at this point,
Speaker 3: the state has a burden to prove that the death
Speaker 3: penalty is applicable in this case. And that's where you
Speaker 3: get a lot of mitigation from the defense. You know,
Speaker 3: oh he's a great guy, or oh he has these
Speaker 3: mental illness or get a bad light whatever. And that's
Speaker 3: where these reports really will come into play, because if
Speaker 3: they can convince a jury that he has this serious
Speaker 3: illness that prohibits the death penalty, then the jury won't
Speaker 3: be able to give the death penalty. And what's interesting
Speaker 3: is there's three off ramps for Clyde's clients. The first
Speaker 3: is if both reports come back, maybe the state takes
Speaker 3: it off or the judge says, I'm not going to
Speaker 3: allow it. What's more likely is you're going to have
Speaker 3: competing experts, and so the judge is going to let
Speaker 3: the jury decide, and then the jury is gonna, you know,
Speaker 3: essentially make their decision. If they find the death penalty,
Speaker 3: then the third off ramp will be in a pellet
Speaker 3: court who will look at all the evidence and determine
Speaker 3: and that's where we might see this development the appellate court.
Speaker 3: So there's a lot of sort of moving parts, but
Speaker 3: it really will come down to what this next expert says.
Speaker 1: Gotcha.
Speaker 2: He is a defense attorney. Jason Philobaum our legal expert
Speaker 2: on The Sloan Show talking about Rodney Hitton Junior. I
Speaker 2: know we got the Terry Thigi stuff. We're talking about
Speaker 2: that today as well, but this is an important story
Speaker 2: because he's accused of killing Deputy Larry Henderson. I remember
Speaker 2: that after his son was out with a gun and
Speaker 2: got shot by Cincinnati police officers, I showed them the
Speaker 2: video of the shoot was ruled a deemed a good
Speaker 2: shooting on the part of the police officers because the
Speaker 2: son was running around with a gun stolen car. Eighteen
Speaker 2: year old Ryan Hinton was legally shot by Cincinnati police
Speaker 2: he loses his mind apparently and goes and kills for
Speaker 2: no reason Deputy Larry Henderson as quote unquote revenge. And
Speaker 2: now they're trying to play the well, he had bipolar
Speaker 2: disorder and psychosis, and safe to say, most people have
Speaker 2: some mental illness in their life. I mean, everyone thinks
Speaker 2: they're normal. The rest of the world is affed up,
Speaker 2: but that's not the case. We're all flawed in some way,
Speaker 2: shape or form. I think what he did is beyond
Speaker 2: the effect of psychostist or bipolar disorder. I mean, clearly
Speaker 2: he knew what he was doing when he murdered Larry Henderson,
Speaker 2: and now is just trying to evade his due punishment
Speaker 2: in this case. When a court appointed forensic psychologists to
Speaker 2: testify that he's got these illnesses, Jason, Okay, So he testifies,
Speaker 2: prosecutors will get a second opinion and make contradute the first.
Speaker 1: How does the judge sort this all out?
Speaker 3: Well, it's difficult, but at the end of the day,
Speaker 3: there's some judges that will, you know, try to impose
Speaker 3: their own sort of decision on the case. And we've
Speaker 3: talked about that. We kind of, you know, want a
Speaker 3: judge that's going to more interpret the law and not
Speaker 3: necessarily make the law. So some judges may look at
Speaker 3: this and say, I'm taking the death penalty off the table.
Speaker 3: I have enough to do it because this expert says, So,
Speaker 3: I think what you're going to see more judges do
Speaker 3: is take a look at it, and if it's a
Speaker 3: factual issue, I'm going to let the jury decide it,
Speaker 3: because that's essentially what our society is based on, is
Speaker 3: let the jury decide, you know, the factual issues. Now,
Speaker 3: if it's clear cut, then I think the judge has
Speaker 3: a duty then to take the death penalty off the table.
Speaker 3: So if every expert says this is so severe that
Speaker 3: the death penalty shouldn't apply, then I think the judge
Speaker 3: has a duty to do it. But if you have
Speaker 3: competing experts. One says he is one says he's got issues,
Speaker 3: but not to the point that the death penalty should
Speaker 3: be excluded, then I think most judges are going to
Speaker 3: say I'm going to let the jury decide this. That way,
Speaker 3: you know, there's a fair trial and jury decides, and
Speaker 3: then they're selling a pellet court that's going to look
Speaker 3: at it again and determine whether or not you know
Speaker 3: the judge made the right decision, whether the jury made
Speaker 3: the right decision, and so on. So I think the
Speaker 3: best thing to do is let it go through the process.
Speaker 3: But when a judge sort of takes one side and
Speaker 3: rips away their you're their case, I think that's what
Speaker 3: a lot of a lot of people don't like to see.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and Jason Philibam, the idea here is that we
Speaker 2: know he's guilty. You got you've got in place to
Speaker 2: the scene, you've got the smoking gun, you've got the murder,
Speaker 2: you've got the deliberation, you got the intent, you got
Speaker 2: all that stuff. There's no question about it. He's the
Speaker 2: guy and he did what he did. What Clyde Bennett
Speaker 2: is trying to do in to send some wiggle room
Speaker 2: to save this guy's life, that's all this is.
Speaker 3: Right, Yes, And you know what's interesting is we all
Speaker 3: get to the issue of the death penalty, like you
Speaker 3: know what happened with Charlie Kirk and his assassination.
Speaker 1: At some point, you know, is life in prison worse.
Speaker 3: Than the death penalty? But right now, that's not a
Speaker 3: decision the jury makes. That's not a decision that the
Speaker 3: judge should make or the attorney should make. That's the
Speaker 3: decision of society makes. So they look at this case individually.
Speaker 3: Does the death penalty apply? It does based on the
Speaker 3: alleged facts. And then the second question is should the
Speaker 3: defendant get the death penalty? And all the Ohio law
Speaker 3: did was really sort of podify what the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: has already said. You can't execute the mentally ill, you
Speaker 3: can't execute minors, you can't execute you know, low IQ individuals.
Speaker 3: They and then so Ohile took it one step further
Speaker 3: and said the mentally ill are these four categories, and
Speaker 3: we're not.
Speaker 1: Going to let you do that.
Speaker 3: It still comes down to a factual decision, though, about
Speaker 3: whether or not this individual meets those criteria, and I
Speaker 3: think that's what a jury should decide in this case.
Speaker 1: With that said, if.
Speaker 3: A second opinion comes back and as clear as day
Speaker 3: that this guy's got some problems, then it's just a
Speaker 3: matter of you know, life and prison versus not. And
Speaker 3: I think that's a guilty versus not guilty, and like
Speaker 3: you said, that's not really in question. The question is
Speaker 3: what happens when the jury finds him guilty.
Speaker 2: In this case, does intent override mental illness in that
Speaker 2: the prosecutors claim to hit and intentionally drove in to Henderson,
Speaker 2: I think that's clear that he did. But does that
Speaker 2: evidence of intentional, purposeful, willful conduct undermine a mountal illness claim.
Speaker 3: It does to some extent, But you got to think
Speaker 3: about almost every crime is intent. Imagine the guy that's
Speaker 3: hopped up on drugs and breaks into a house and
Speaker 3: then you know, gets into a fight with a homeowner
Speaker 3: and kills them. That was all intentional. But in this case,
Speaker 3: like you emphasize, which is what the prostitutes and emphasized,
Speaker 3: there was an intent to kill long before you broke
Speaker 3: into a house and stumbled across the homeowner. You know,
Speaker 3: that was sort of a secondary intent. This guy was,
Speaker 3: you know, allisedly driving down the street looking for an
Speaker 3: officer to exact his revenge. And I think that's what's
Speaker 3: going to like you said, probably err on the side
Speaker 3: of Hey, this person was faine enough to coordinate a
Speaker 3: plan of attack to kill this individual standing on the side.
Speaker 1: Of the road.
Speaker 3: And that's going to go against whether or not this
Speaker 3: psychosis is so bad that it should.
Speaker 1: Take a death penalty off the table.
Speaker 2: Now, in the hitting case, how common is it for fase.
Speaker 2: What I believe aggravated murder is what the charge is
Speaker 2: to successfully use mental illness as a defense.
Speaker 1: Here, it's pretty rare that.
Speaker 3: The well, it's it's rare in the guilt phase, but
Speaker 3: it's actually not that. I mean, it's more common in
Speaker 3: the you know, I've had death penalty cases where I
Speaker 3: remember one of my first death penalty cases, the guy
Speaker 3: stabbed the guy twenty three times, and we argue to
Speaker 3: the jury that, you know, he should face the death
Speaker 3: penalty because it was a burglary and a murder, and
Speaker 3: the jury came back and found life. And the reason
Speaker 3: was is, you know, the guy had a bad childhood,
Speaker 3: he had some mental health issues, he was depressed, he
Speaker 3: was anxious, and they felt that was enough to you know,
Speaker 3: take off the death penalty and just do life in prison.
Speaker 3: And I think, because it has to be a unanimous decision.
Speaker 3: So what happens is there's twelve jurors and ten are
Speaker 3: saying death and two are saying no this. You know,
Speaker 3: there there's two reasons why he should maybe not get death,
Speaker 3: and then after two days of deliberation, the jury comes
Speaker 3: back with life because they're thinking, hey, life is worse
Speaker 3: than death. I mean, I'm if I had to spend
Speaker 3: the rest of my life in prison, that's awful. I
Speaker 3: think that's why defense attorneys will argue, and sometimes very successfully,
Speaker 3: that mental health is a reason why you should put
Speaker 3: this person in prison for life instead of death.
Speaker 2: All right, Jason Philibum. Finally, December first, I believe is
Speaker 2: the next hearing. It's insignificant one, and the determination there
Speaker 2: is going to be whether a judge finds hitting death
Speaker 2: penalty and eligible or eligible infandy. That happens December first,
Speaker 2: and I'm sure we'll talk around then. Can prosecutors appeal
Speaker 2: that decision for the trial and what's going to happen
Speaker 2: December first and quickly thereafter.
Speaker 1: That's a good question.
Speaker 3: And you know, typically a prosecutor cannot appeal that decision
Speaker 3: prior to the trial, so the prosecutors have very limited
Speaker 3: appellate rights. It's usually after the fact, and if someone
Speaker 3: has found not guilty, then you know they can have
Speaker 3: an appeal that argues law, but it's not going to
Speaker 3: change the verdict. So in this particular case, I think
Speaker 3: they're probably going to be stuck with whatever the judge decides.
Speaker 1: I mean, they could appeal after.
Speaker 3: The fact, but it's not going to change this case.
Speaker 3: So what's really going to come down to what December
Speaker 3: happens is what their expert says. If they're expert, and
Speaker 3: I would expect their expert comes back and just has
Speaker 3: a different opinions, then I would expect the judge to say,
Speaker 3: let us go to trial and decide. But again, it's
Speaker 3: a situation where you know it's clear that he has
Speaker 3: such a mental health issue that qualifies under this House bill.
Speaker 1: Then and you may.
Speaker 3: See the prosecutor withdraw it himself.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: He is James Jason PHILIBAUMA attorney at law, former or
Speaker 2: a prosecutor now in private practice, explaining what the path
Speaker 2: forward is. Here Rodney Hinton Junior, in his insanity play,
Speaker 2: a court ordered psychologist concluded he's got mental health illness.
Speaker 2: It's significant a comparisability to exercise rational judgment when he
Speaker 2: decided to murder and stalk and kill Larry Henderson, which
Speaker 2: I think if I were in a jury, I disagree
Speaker 2: with that. But we'll find out with the defense or
Speaker 2: the I guess the prosecutors move now, and then the
Speaker 2: hearing on December first, and all the whole sorts out,
Speaker 2: but he is Jason Philipon, thanks again for the sharp
Speaker 2: legal insight as always, buddy, appreciate you.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All Right, we move on next up on the Scottslan
Speaker 2: Show on seven hundred W to of course, we start
Speaker 2: with the news updates about four five minutes away, and
Speaker 2: later on we'll get to Dan Hort Thursday Night football.
Speaker 2: Something a little lighter for us today Cincinnati Pittsburgh and
Speaker 2: all closer than that the state of Terry Thiji as
Speaker 2: we await the verdict on her career future, whether and
Speaker 2: you know, again, I don't think it matters if it's
Speaker 2: Thiji or it's U and Chief anybody else for that matter,
Speaker 2: in a long list of people been around and again
Speaker 2: it is the piper that's calling the tune, and the
Speaker 2: piper would be after puer Vault manager sheer Long. I
Speaker 2: don't know, maybe Iris rawling a bunch of others, but
Speaker 2: Fiji is like kind of like when Zach Taylor fired
Speaker 2: lou Ana Rumo last season, and that is it really
Speaker 2: lou Anaruma because he took his show to Indianapolis and
Speaker 2: they're five and one, So is it really the person
Speaker 2: who's subject to the rule or the rulemakers themselves. You
Speaker 2: decide seven hundred wlw