Latest / Brian Thomas / Steve Goodin - Hinton Trial Verdict. What's Next?

Transcript

Steve Goodin - Hinton Trial Verdict. What's Next? · Brian Thomas

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: It's 7.06 at 55KRCD Talk Station. Brian Thomas, always happy
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: to look up and see when. Steve Gooden's on the rundown,
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: and he is, and he's on the phone right now
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: to talk about the conviction, or rather the guilty verdicts
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: in the Rodney Hinton Jr. trial. Murder, reckless homicide, of course,
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: in connection with the death of Hamilton County Sheriff's Deputy
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: Larry Henderson. From the law firm of Porter Wright, Steve Gooden,
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: welcome back, my friend. I appreciate your time here on
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: the morning show.
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: Anytime, Brian. Good morning.
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: Well, let's break this down. Five total counts. He was
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: guilty of two counts of the lesser included charge of
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: reckless homicide, one count of murder, and two counts of
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: felonious assault. Lesser included charge of reckless homicide. That was
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: the additional motion from Clyde Bennett to add the lesser
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: included charge of reckless homicide because this was the suggestion
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: that he was trying to commit suicide. and therefore in
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: the process of trying to commit suicide, he inadvertently ran
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: into the deputy sheriff's deputy, killing him. That would be unintentional,
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: but nonetheless homicide. Is that what you think they determined,
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: or am I missing a point of fact on that?
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: That's why we have you, Steve Gooden.
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: Well, I guess here's what we don't know. The problem
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: is we don't know exactly what they did. This looks
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: like a jury. that tried to, in my view, probably
• 1:19
  Speaker 2: improperly and illegally craft some sort of compromise verdict. Because murder,
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: and they did find him guilty of one of the
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: forms of murder, is an intentional crime. And then at
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: the same time, they found him guilty of reckless homicide,
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: which lacks intent. So I think this case actually either
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: comes back on appeal, or the judge is boxed into
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: a corner and has to grant a new trial. I
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: don't see how this verdict can stand. You have two
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: different states of mind. And then putting aside the whole issue,
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: it looks to me like the prosecution, which I don't
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: think did the best job in the world here, but
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: I do believe they proved aggravated murder, which would require
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: life without parole. Aggravated murder is intentional murder of a
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: police officer in uniform. And I don't see how, it
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: looks to me like this jury, you had some jurors
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: in there, I'm speculating here, but I think it's informed speculation,
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: who sort of felt sorry for Hinton, who bought parts
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: of his defense, but couldn't bring themselves to find him
• 2:21
  Speaker 2: all the way, not guilty by reason of insanity. So
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: this is what they cobbled together. And the problem is,
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: from a legal standpoint, under Ohio law, it doesn't really
• 2:31
  Speaker 2: make sense. You cannot have A reckless homicide which lacks
• 2:36
  Speaker 2: any intent to kill plus a form of murder. which
• 2:40
  Speaker 2: does require an intent to kill. They don't make any
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: sense together. So, and then there's another issue, Brian, that
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: I'm hearing also from folks on the defense team, that
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: there is some indication that some of the jurors improperly
• 2:54
  Speaker 2: relied upon statements that Hinton made to one of the
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: state psychologists that may have violated his Fifth Amendment rights.
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: They were instructed not to rely upon his statements to
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: the psychologist's I understand the defense counsel interviewed some of
• 3:08
  Speaker 2: the jurors, and I believe some of them stated affirmatively
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: that they did do that, which could be grounds for
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: a new trial on its own. So the bad news
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: for the Henderson family to a law enforcement community is
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: that this matter doesn't seem to be over. I don't
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: think this verdict is going to bring any finality whatsoever.
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: Were the statements he made to the psychiatrist subject to
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: some motion by Clyde Bennett to suppress that information or
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: otherwise keep it out of the hands of the jury
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: in the first place? Did the judge rule on that
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: or did it just come out in testimony?
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: I think it came out in testimony, and I believe
• 3:42
  Speaker 2: how it shook out. I saw a lot of the trial,
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: this particular part I didn't see. I was reading about
• 3:47
  Speaker 2: it after the fact, to be fair. But my understanding
• 3:50
  Speaker 2: is it absolutely is black weather law in Ohio that
• 3:54
  Speaker 2: whatever Hinton said to the psychologist, state or otherwise, you
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: really can't come in. And it came out in testimony
• 4:02
  Speaker 2: from one of the state psychologists. There were two of
• 4:04
  Speaker 2: them who testified. You know, that Hinton did swerve or
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: sort of targeted the guy. And I believe the jury
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: was instructed, you know, look, that you really can't consider.
• 4:15
  Speaker 2: There was other evidence that he targeted Henderson. And that's
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: what you need to rely upon. But apparently some of
• 4:22
  Speaker 2: the jurors said, well, we found that compelling and that
• 4:26
  Speaker 2: they didn't disregard it the way they were supposed to
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: disregard it. And I don't know how you, and it
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: will be a really tough thing to disregard just from
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: a common sense standpoint. Once you hear that, I don't
• 4:37
  Speaker 2: know how you would, since intent was really all that
• 4:40
  Speaker 2: was at issue here. I mean, there was no question,
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: hit and drove the car, no question he struck the
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: officer and killed him. Really the whole, you know, intent
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: was really the biggest thing that would, that cut against
• 4:53
  Speaker 2: his not guilty by reason of insanity attitude. So it
• 4:59
  Speaker 2: was just, it sounds to me like a boondoggle from
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: start to finish.
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: Well, that suggests to me that it would just be
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: declared a mistrial and they'll just retry him. If they
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: weren't entitled to hear the testimony or the statements that
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: he made to the psychiatrist as a matter of black
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: letter law, as you've described it, Steve, then isn't that
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: in and of itself sufficient to grant a new trial? Right.
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: It could be. It should be. But there is– I
• 5:23
  Speaker 2: think the argument here is that the judge gave what
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: they call a curative instruction and actually told the jury
• 5:28
  Speaker 2: not to regard it. or to disregard the statement. And
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: typically that can be enough to fix something like this.
• 5:36
  Speaker 2: But if you really do have, and this isn't confirmed,
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: but I've heard from a pretty good source at the courthouse,
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: that there was at least one or two jurors who
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: have told defense counsel, no, we did, I know what
• 5:47
  Speaker 2: the judge said, but we did consider that. If that
• 5:50
  Speaker 2: really happened and those jurors are willing to step forward
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: and bolster that, that's going to be a real problem
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: for the prosecution. The judge is going to have to
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: deal with it. But I think just the verdict on
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: its face with these two states of mind, both reckless
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: and intentional, being found simultaneously, I don't know. I mean,
• 6:10
  Speaker 2: I think it's going to be a very, very tough
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: thing for this to move forward. I've never heard of this.
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: I was a prosecutor for about six years. down in
• 6:18
  Speaker 2: that office doing felony work and worked on some NGRI cases.
• 6:22
  Speaker 2: I've never seen one come back with both states of
• 6:25
  Speaker 2: mind in the verdict. I don't see how it's possible.
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: Okay, and I agree with you completely. That's why I'm
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: glad you have you on here because that's exactly what
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: in my head I was thinking. I was like, I
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: don't get this. Reckless homicide and murder, guilty on both.
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: That just doesn't make any sense. So good. At least
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: I don't look in the mirror and think I'm an idiot.
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: The prosecutors and defense attorneys met with the jurors after
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: the verdict. Are jurors obligated to reveal the deliberative process?
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: Do they have any mandate that they need to speak
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: with the defense attorneys and prosecutors, or can they just say, no,
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: I'm leaving, I'm going home?
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: Yeah, they have absolutely no mandate or obligation to speak
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: to the defense attorneys, although it's not uncommon. I mean,
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: usually both sets of attorneys make themselves available to talk
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: to the jury. I mean, even if you're not looking
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: for some sort of error, In a case, everyone kind
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: of wants to know about the deliberations, and oftentimes the
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: jurors are very happy to talk about it. They want
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: to get it off their chest. It's been a deeply
• 7:28
  Speaker 2: personal thing for them, and it's pretty intense and tough.
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: I'm not trying to beat up on these jurors for
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: doing the wrong thing. I mean, I think they were
• 7:37
  Speaker 2: struggling with this, but by the same token, it's pretty
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: common that For them to want to talk, but they
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: don't have to talk. And some jurors will just pick
• 7:47
  Speaker 2: up their stuff and go home. They've had enough and
• 7:49
  Speaker 2: just want to get back to their jobs and families after,
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: in this case, spending almost two weeks of their lives
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: dealing with this situation. So it's not uncommon for them
• 8:00
  Speaker 2: to talk. It's not uncommon for them not to talk.
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: Under Ohio law, they're absolutely allowed to, but not required to.
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: Well, considering the intent component, the conflicting convictions with one
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: not requiring intent and the other requiring it, what do
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: you make of last Thursday with the jurors asking for
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: some clarification about the difference between the two aggravated murder charges?
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: Doesn't that suggest right there that they were maybe confused?
• 8:24
  Speaker 2: It absolutely does. I think that was kind of the
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: first sign of question. that they were struggling. And really,
• 8:32
  Speaker 2: it seems complicated, but it's fairly straightforward. If you find
• 8:37
  Speaker 2: that it was intentional murder, and you find that he
• 8:39
  Speaker 2: was targeting a police officer, and you find that he
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: killed a police officer in uniform, then it's aggravated murder,
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: and that's a life without a possibility of parole, actually.
• 8:49
  Speaker 2: It could have been a death penalty case, actually, but
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: that was taken off the off the table very early on.
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: So it really seems to me that there were people
• 9:00
  Speaker 2: in the room who were saying, well, wait a minute,
• 9:03
  Speaker 2: isn't this an aggravated murder then? How are we there?
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: So then they ended up finding guilty of murder with
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: no aggravating factors, which again, even that suggests Wait a minute.
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: No matter what you think of the prosecution, I do
• 9:17
  Speaker 2: believe they proved that he was in uniform performing police duties,
• 9:21
  Speaker 2: directing traffic in this instance at the time of his death.
• 9:25
  Speaker 2: And there's some pretty clear evidence, I thought. That Hinton
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: was looking for a police officer to kill because, I mean,
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: based upon this idea that he had just seen, this
• 9:36
  Speaker 2: is a whole other problem, frankly, the way the city
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: handled this, that he had just seen video of a
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: police officer, of a Cincinnati police officer killing his son.
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: What turned out to be a justified shooting because his
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: son had stolen a car and was fleeing from the
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: stolen car with a gun in a residential neighborhood. And
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: the police officer did open fire and take him down,
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: which is very, very sad and terrible. But the prosecutor's
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: office ruled it was a good shooting. So he had
• 10:03
  Speaker 2: just seen that video, was in a heightened emotional state,
• 10:06
  Speaker 2: I suppose, as anyone would be. And then within a
• 10:08
  Speaker 2: couple hours, you know, here he is running down Deputy
• 10:13
  Speaker 2: Henderson for seemingly no reason other than He was upset
• 10:18
  Speaker 2: with law enforcement, and I believe that to be the
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: evidence that essentially was presented to this jury.
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: Which I think suggests that if they hadn't done the
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: lesser included charge, if the judge had not allowed for that,
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: they probably would have found him guilty of the aggravated murder,
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: not having this lesser option to rely on. That would
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: be my guess. I mean, I know that's speculation, Steve,
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: but that seems to be the way it would go.
• 10:41
  Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I would think so. And I mean, look,
• 10:43
  Speaker 2: I do think it confused things. And I thought what
• 10:46
  Speaker 2: was very, what was very, very interesting here is just,
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: you know, look, it's very easy to shoot at the
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: defense attorneys here. But they were, you know, Clyde Bennett
• 10:54
  Speaker 2: and James Fogan really, really did their job here. This
• 10:57
  Speaker 2: began as a death penalty case about 18 months ago.
• 11:01
  Speaker 2: And now we have this muddled verdict here. that may
• 11:04
  Speaker 2: end up having to be retried. So they have really,
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: you know, sometimes a defense attorney, all they can do
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: is sow seeds of chaos, you know, in a case
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: and And I think they've done a pretty good job
• 11:16
  Speaker 2: of that here. So, you know, but at the end
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: of the day, I mean, the people that I feel
• 11:21
  Speaker 2: so sorry for and who I hear from others are
• 11:25
  Speaker 2: very upset are, you know, is the family of Larry Henderson,
• 11:30
  Speaker 2: who really, my God, we may have to go through
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: this all again. And they've been around the criminal justice
• 11:36
  Speaker 2: system long enough to know that, you know, they knew
• 11:38
  Speaker 2: when the verdict was read, apparently, that you know, that
• 11:41
  Speaker 2: it was sort of nonsensical and something that would likely
• 11:45
  Speaker 2: not be the end of this.
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: I guess it's not the end. Fat Lady has not sung.
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: I think you can see the process unfolding. They'll appeal.
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: It'll get overturned. A new trial will be in place.
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: And then you anticipate a lesser included offense if this
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: is a retry, or are they going to just stick
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: with aggravated murder?
• 12:01
  Speaker 2: Well, they might, and here's the other concern I think
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: I would have if I were the Henderson family. Often,
• 12:06
  Speaker 2: a case is overturned on appeal like this, or if
• 12:10
  Speaker 2: the judge grants a new trial, even short of it
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: being appealed, the big question is whether or not you
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: want to put everyone through this again and plead it out.
• 12:21
  Speaker 2: That's absolutely right.
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: Well, if it were to stand, I read that it's
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: 15 years to life is what he's eligible for at
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: this point, but I think anything less than life would
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: probably be a real major disappointment to the family who
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: no longer has their loved one with them anymore. Porter Wright.
• 12:36
  Speaker 2: I think that's exactly right. Yeah.
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: Porter Wright's the name of the firm. Steve Gooden is
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: the attorney we rely on. Excellent lawyers there, and Steve
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: is one of them, obviously. Steve, thank you so much
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: for your willingness to come on and talk about these,
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: and I'm sure we'll be talking about this one again
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: down the road.
• 12:49
  Speaker 2: Unfortunately, I'm afraid you're right. Take care, Brian. Thank you.
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: Thank you, man. It's 719 right now. Christopher Smitherman's up next, 55KRC,
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: the talk station. But first, Ryan O'Shield, you know, I.