Speaker 1: Do you want to be in a Manican?
Speaker 2: Rodney Hinton Juniors accused of killing Hemmelin County Sheriff Deputy
Speaker 2: Larry Henderson Maysecon 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 until 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 was
Speaker 2: eighteen year old son Ryan being fatally shot by Cincinnati police.
Speaker 2: The video we've subsequently seen and said that kid had
Speaker 2: it coming running with a gun in his hand, dropping it,
Speaker 2: picking back up, not complying with law enforcement, and Rodney
Speaker 2: Hinton to showed the level of a sociopath that he
Speaker 2: and maybe his son was decided that his son was
Speaker 2: completely innocent and we're going to have a shooting space
Speaker 2: as such.
Speaker 1: By the way, the.
Speaker 2: Hinton family is still trying to file lawsuits and make
Speaker 2: this a case against CPD and officers and saying that
Speaker 2: justice was not served in the shooting of the sun
Speaker 2: even though this kid is running around with a gun,
Speaker 2: dealing cars and committing violent crimes with impunity. That's not
Speaker 2: the kind of people we need on the street. And
Speaker 2: you know that that pervasive attitude that permits in the
Speaker 2: community is not trickled up to the mayor's office. But nonetheless,
Speaker 2: yesterday a court appointed forensic psychologists found Rodney Hinton, Junior,
Speaker 2: the dad, suffering from serious mental illness, making him ineligible
Speaker 2: for the death pedal. The question is is he going
Speaker 2: to avoid punishment. We're going with the not guilty by
Speaker 2: reason of an insanity play. And this is just a
Speaker 2: preliminary by the way, this is the court appointed psychiatrist
Speaker 2: who was doing this, and there's a long way to
Speaker 2: go and we'll find out if and when Rodney Hinton
Speaker 2: will face the death penalty. Jason Philibaum, attorney, a law,
Speaker 2: former prosecutor and Butler County 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 the time of his offense.
Speaker 2: His attorney, a very good attorney in Clyde Bennett argues
Speaker 2: that hit and didn't understand the wrongfulness of his conduct.
Speaker 2: But I look at this and go, I know prosecutors
Speaker 2: are going to look at a second opinion.
Speaker 1: This is very early in the game.
Speaker 2: But you know, when you drive around and you stalk
Speaker 2: your prey, that tells me that you are of right mind,
Speaker 2: you know exactly what you're doing. This is a really
Speaker 2: difficult approach 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. I mean, the one
Speaker 3: thing I always tell jury's and I've always told people,
Speaker 3: is people that commit crimes aren't mentally normal.
Speaker 1: I mean that's you know, everyone.
Speaker 3: That essentially commits a violent crime like that has some
Speaker 3: issue going on. The question is is the issue the
Speaker 3: mental health so severe that it is prohibited, you know,
Speaker 3: to have the state use the death penalty, and I
Speaker 3: think that's what they're looking at right now. And Clyde,
Speaker 3: he does do a good job in this case. He's
Speaker 3: he's essentially attacking it from two different angles. He's saying,
Speaker 3: my client's not guilty because he's insane, and if you
Speaker 3: find him.
Speaker 1: To be sane, then you can't put him.
Speaker 3: To death because his mental health is so severe that
Speaker 3: that's not applicable to him, right the law.
Speaker 2: Jason Philibama believe if correct, my Brian, you're the attorney.
Speaker 1: I'm not, But.
Speaker 2: Are there there are four specific mental illnesses that make
Speaker 2: defendants death penalty and eligible. And so how does the
Speaker 2: law define significantly impaired to exercise rational judgment, which is
Speaker 2: what's going on here, and the evidentiary standard prosecutors have
Speaker 2: to the burden they have to overcome to still pursue
Speaker 2: 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 essentially prohibits the death penalty
Speaker 3: for those that were diagnosed with schizophrenia, I think schizophrenic disorder,
Speaker 3: bipolar disorder, and delusional disorder.
Speaker 1: But again it has to be something that's significant.
Speaker 3: You know, anyone that's abused drugs usually will have some
Speaker 3: type of diagnosis with bipolar But if it's not significant
Speaker 3: enough to impair and essentially effect their everyday life to
Speaker 3: the extent that you know, that's that's something I think
Speaker 3: would be a factual decision 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 doctors says it's not, then.
Speaker 3: I think you're going to say that the judge is
Speaker 3: going to say, let the jury decide that, and I'll
Speaker 3: explain that.
Speaker 1: 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 may take the backbone of the
Speaker 3: office table themselves.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, And there's a high bars there should be
Speaker 2: for an insanity defense because mental illness alone that 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: disorder and psychosis can distinguish right from wrong. I don't
Speaker 2: know if I'm the prosecutor, I 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 were showing
Speaker 2: him the video, he just kind of stormed out. The
Speaker 2: family tried to calm him down. He was just angry.
Speaker 2: But a lot of people commit crimes when they're angry.
Speaker 2: Look at the shootings at Fountain Square, that's probably about
Speaker 2: an anger street beef. Stuff like that doesn't mean a
Speaker 2: mental mental illness or incompetency, you know. And at the
Speaker 2: time he took off, he struck him and they caught
Speaker 2: him later. And I think all that adds in the
Speaker 2: fact that you know, he made some sound decisions and
Speaker 2: was of the right mind that led up to the
Speaker 2: death of Ederson. I don't know how a jury wouldn't
Speaker 2: 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 man,
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 and 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 what you just did. This was a
Speaker 3: calculated This was a planned This was premeditated at least
Speaker 3: by an hour or two, if not.
Speaker 1: You know, a few minutes. It doesn't have to be
Speaker 1: like a year long meditation.
Speaker 3: It's he planned it, even if it was in a
Speaker 3: short plan. So I think all of those arguments are
Speaker 3: what the state's going to argue that he is he
Speaker 3: is guilty for what he did and insanity is and apply.
Speaker 1: Now if he's found guilty, then in a death penalty phase.
Speaker 3: You then have a sentencing phase. It's this completely separate hearing.
Speaker 3: So jury goes back and just determines is he guilty
Speaker 3: or not. And if they find him guilty, then the
Speaker 3: defense and the state get together again and they present
Speaker 3: more evidence. And at this point, the state has a
Speaker 3: burden to prove that the death pence is applicable in
Speaker 3: this case. And that's where you get a lot of
Speaker 3: mitigation from the defense. You know, oh he's a great guy,
Speaker 3: or oh he has these mental illness or get a
Speaker 3: bad light whatever. And that's where these reports really will
Speaker 3: come into play, because if if they can convince a
Speaker 3: jury that he has this serious illness that prohibits the
Speaker 3: death penalty, then the jury won't be able to give
Speaker 3: the death penalty. And what's interesting is there's there's three
Speaker 3: off ramps for Clyde's clients. The first is if both
Speaker 3: reports come back, maybe the state takes it off or
Speaker 3: the judge says, I'm not.
Speaker 1: Going to allow it.
Speaker 3: What's more likely is you're going to have competing experts,
Speaker 3: and so the jury judge is going to let the
Speaker 3: 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 afft 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 psychostists 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 courter pointed 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 days,
Speaker 3: there's some judges that will, you know, try to impose
Speaker 3: their own sort of decision on the case.
Speaker 1: And we've talked about that. We kind of, you know,
Speaker 1: want a judge that's going to more interpret the law
Speaker 1: and not necessarily make the law.
Speaker 3: So some judges may look at this and say, I'm
Speaker 3: taking the death penalty off the table. I have enough
Speaker 3: to do it because this expert says, So I think
Speaker 3: what you're going to see more judges do is take
Speaker 3: a look at it, and if it's a factual issue,
Speaker 3: I'm going to let the jury decide it, because that's
Speaker 3: essentially what our society is based on, is let the
Speaker 3: jury decide, you know, the factual issues.
Speaker 1: Now, if it's clear.
Speaker 3: Cut, then I think the judge has a duty then
Speaker 3: to take the death penalty off the table. So if
Speaker 3: every expert says this is so severe that the death
Speaker 3: penalty shouldn't apply, then I.
Speaker 1: Think the judge has a duty to do it. But
Speaker 1: if you have competing experts.
Speaker 3: One says he is one says he's got issues, but
Speaker 3: not to the point that the death penalty shouldn't be excluded,
Speaker 3: then I think most judges are going to say I'm
Speaker 3: going to let the jury decide this. That way, you know,
Speaker 3: there's a fair trial and jury decides, and then they're
Speaker 3: selling a pellet court that's going to look at it
Speaker 3: again and determine whether or not, you know, the judge
Speaker 3: made the right decision, whether the jury made the right decision,
Speaker 3: and so on. So I think the best thing to
Speaker 3: do is let it go through the process. But when
Speaker 3: a judge sort of takes one side and rips away
Speaker 3: their you're their case, I think that's what a lot
Speaker 3: of a lot of people don't like to see.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and Jason Philibon, 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 guy, and you've got
Speaker 2: the murder, you've got the deliberation, you got the intent,
Speaker 2: you got all that stuff. There's no question about it.
Speaker 2: He's the guy, and he did what he did what
Speaker 2: Clyde Bennett is trying to do in to send some
Speaker 2: wiggle room to save this guy's life.
Speaker 1: That's all this is.
Speaker 4: Right, Yes, And you know what's interesting is we all
Speaker 4: get to the issue of the death penalty, like you
Speaker 4: know what happened with Charlie Kirk and his assassination. At
Speaker 4: some point, you know, is life in prison worse than
Speaker 4: the death penalty? But right now, that's not a decision
Speaker 4: the jury makes. That's not a decision that the judge
Speaker 4: should make or the attorney should make. That's the decision
Speaker 4: of society makes. So they look at this case individually.
Speaker 4: Does the death penalty apply? It does based on the
Speaker 4: alleged facts. And then the second question is should the
Speaker 4: defendant get the death penalty? And all the Ohio law
Speaker 4: did was really sort of podify what the Supreme Court
Speaker 4: has already said. You can't execute the mentally ill, you
Speaker 4: can't execute minors, you can't execute you know, low IQ individuals.
Speaker 4: They and then so Ohio took it one step further
Speaker 4: and said the mentally ill are.
Speaker 3: These four categories, and we're not going to let you
Speaker 3: do that. It still comes down to a factual decision, though,
Speaker 3: about whether or not this individual meets those criteria, and
Speaker 3: I think that's what a.
Speaker 1: Jury should decide in this case.
Speaker 3: With that said, if a second opinion comes back and
Speaker 3: as clear as day that this guy's got some problems,
Speaker 3: then it's just a matter of you know, life in
Speaker 3: prison versus not And I think that's a guilty versus
Speaker 3: not guilty.
Speaker 1: And like you said, that's not really in question. The
Speaker 1: question is what happens when the jury finds him guilty.
Speaker 2: In this case, does intent override mental illness? In that
Speaker 2: the prosecutors claimed 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 the mouth of
Speaker 2: lillness claim.
Speaker 3: It does to some extent, But you have to think
Speaker 3: about almost every crime is intent. And 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 1: And kills them, that was all intentional.
Speaker 3: But in this case, like you emphasize, which is what
Speaker 3: the prostitutes and emphasized, there was an intent to kill
Speaker 3: long before you broke into a house and stumbled across
Speaker 3: the homeowner.
Speaker 1: You know, that was sort of a secondary intent.
Speaker 3: This guy was, you know, allisedly driving down the street
Speaker 3: looking for an officer to exact his revenge. And I
Speaker 3: think that's what's going to like you said, probably err
Speaker 3: on the side of Hey, this person was sane enough
Speaker 3: to coordinate a plan of attack to kill this individual
Speaker 3: standing on the side of the road, And that's going
Speaker 3: to go against whether or not this psychosis is so
Speaker 3: bad that it should take a death penalty off the table.
Speaker 2: Now in the hitting case. How common is it for fase,
Speaker 2: I believe aggravated murder is what the charge is. To
Speaker 2: successfully use mental illness as a defense here, it's pretty
Speaker 2: rare that they succeed.
Speaker 3: Well, it's rare in the guilt phase, but it's actually
Speaker 3: not that. I mean, it's more common in the you know,
Speaker 3: I've had a death penalty cases where I remember one
Speaker 3: of my first death penalty cases, the guy stabbed the
Speaker 3: guy twenty three times and we argue to the jury that,
Speaker 3: you know, he should face the death penalty because it
Speaker 3: was a burglary and a murder, and the jury came
Speaker 3: back and found life.
Speaker 1: And the reason was is, you know, the.
Speaker 3: Guy had a bad childhood, he had some mental health issues,
Speaker 3: he was depressed, he was anxious, and they felt that
Speaker 3: was enough to you know, take off the death penalty
Speaker 3: and just do life in prison. And I think because
Speaker 3: it has to be a unanimous decision. So what happens
Speaker 3: is there's twelve jurors and ten are saying death and
Speaker 3: two are saying no this. You know, there there's two
Speaker 3: reasons why he should maybe not get death, and then
Speaker 3: after two days of deliberation, the jury comes back with
Speaker 3: life because they're thinking, hey, life is worse than death.
Speaker 3: I mean, I if I have to spend the rest
Speaker 3: of my life in prison, that's awful. I think that's
Speaker 3: why defense attorneys will argue, and sometimes very successfully, that
Speaker 3: mental health is a reason why you should put this
Speaker 3: 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 If indeed 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.
Speaker 1: It's usually after the fact, and if someone has.
Speaker 3: Found not guilty, then you know they can have an
Speaker 3: appeal that argues law, but it's not going to change
Speaker 3: the verdict. So in this particular case, I think they're
Speaker 3: probably going to be stuck with whatever the judge decides.
Speaker 3: I mean, they could appeal after the fact, but it's
Speaker 3: not going to change this case. So it's really going
Speaker 3: to come down to what December happens, is what their
Speaker 3: expert says. If they're expert, and I would expect their
Speaker 3: expert comes back and just has a different opinions, then
Speaker 3: I would expect the judge to say, let us go
Speaker 3: to trial and decide. But again, if it's a situation
Speaker 3: where you know it's clear that he has such a
Speaker 3: mental health issue that qualifies under this House bill, then
Speaker 3: and you may see the prosecutor withdraw it to himself.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: He is James el Jason PHILIBAUMA attorney at law, former
Speaker 2: or a prosecutor now in private practice, explaining what the
Speaker 2: path 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 significantly 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. The
Speaker 2: I guess the prosecutors move now and then that hearing
Speaker 2: on December first, and all the whole sorts out, but
Speaker 2: he is Jason Philipon. Thanks again for the sharp legal
Speaker 2: 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. Of course we start with
Speaker 2: the news updates about four or 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 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 Pure Vault manager shere 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.
Speaker 1: So is it really the.
Speaker 2: The person who's subject to the rule or the rulemakers themselves?
Speaker 1: You decide seven hundred wiltw