The defense pointed out that, at some point, a detective arrived on scene who used aggressive language toward Doerman; both deputies confirmed having heard the detective’s comments.
“He asked if that was Mr. Doerman was in the back of the car,” said the deputy.
“OK. Are those the words he used?” said the prosecutor.
“I think he said ‘is that that motherf***** in the back of the car?'” said the deputy.
The second deputy testified that detective had also said deputies should shut the vehicle door “before I kill that motherf*****.”
That detective was later one of the officers involved in interrogating Doerman, though he was not called in to speak during the hearing.
A different detective, Mike Ross, did take the stand; he was the detective leading Doerman’s interrogation. Doerman’s defense attorneys specifically targeted Ross’ handling of Doerman’s Miranda rights at the beginning of the interrogation.
Doerman did not sign a printed waiver of his Miranda rights; Ross instead delivered the Miranda reading verbally, reading from a card, he said in court.
“You did not read all the Miranda rights on … your card, did you?” said one of Doerman’s attorneys.
“Word for word, no,” said Ross.
“Well, you left out some pretty important parts didn’t you?” said the attorney.
“No, I think I covered the important parts and he understood that he had the right to an attorney and that he had the right to an attorney if he could not afford one, those are the important parts,” said Ross.
“You did say ‘you have a right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions,’ but the part on the card goes on to say ‘and to have a lawyer with you during questioning,'” said the attorney. “You did not read that part, did you?”
The defense attorney points out that while Ross informed Doerman he would be provided an attorney if he could not afford one, he failed to read a portion of the card that says if Doerman could not afford one, one would be appointed before any questioning.
“I’m not a robot,” said Ross multiple times in response to questions about why he hadn’t just read the Miranda rights card in its entirety.
Ross said he already believed Doerman was willing to speak with him because earlier, before the Miranda rights were read, Doerman had already verbally and nonverbally said yes when asked if officers could speak with him.
Around five minutes later in the interview with Ross, Doerman brought up wanting to wait for a lawyer.
“I’ll wait for a lawyer,” said Doerman, according to the defense’s motion. “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.”
Ross: “I understand. Do you have a lawyer?”
Doerman: “We have family lawyers.”
Ross: “Who is that? Is there somebody I can call?”
Doerman: “Keith Doerman.”
Ross: “Is he related to you?”
Doerman: “Yes.”
Ross: “How is Keith related to you?”
Doerman: “My dad. Ruby (sp) Franklin. She is in the CIA.”
Ross: “Is she a lawyer? Is Ruby a lawyer?”
Doerman: “She is in the CIA.”
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?”
Doerman: “Mmm-hmm (negative). We have a family lawyer.”
Ross: “Alright. But you don’t know who that is?”
Doerman: “No.”
Ross said in court that, between Doerman saying “I don’t know” just after mentioning a lawyer and his inability to name a lawyer he wanted to call, Doerman’s intent to request counsel was not clear at that time and Doerman hadn’t been able to name a lawyer he’d wanted called.
“I mean, you don’t think the rule is if he doesn’t name a lawyer he doesn’t get one, do you?” said the defense attorney, pointing out the public defender’s office could have been contacted if Doerman did not already have a lawyer he could name.
Ross again said he believed Doerman had “muddied the waters” by saying he didn’t know, and mentioning people who were not lawyers.
Following Ross, multiple others testified on the stand in court, specifically to incidents where deputies within the Clermont County jail recorded meetings between Doerman and medical or mental health professionals through their body worn cameras.
Ultimately, Doerman’s attorneys claim those officers violated his right to privacy by “inserting themselves into what should have been private, confidential discussions and recording them.”
Defense attorneys allege those recordings were a violation of HIPAA rights.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Richard Ferenc said he would review each side’s case over the next month.
Ferenc said there were several things he’d need to consider before deciding if Doerman’s confession or recordings made of him with medical staff would be considered admissible in court. Specifically, he said he’d need to research whether HIPAA is a constitutional right, like Miranda rights, and whether rights to privacy provided by HIPAA extend to inmates at all times.
“I think the law is clear they don’t surrender all their privacy rights when they walk through a jail door,” said Ferenc.
But he added that it’s also understood that inmates are not provided all the same guarantees of privacy as someone who is not incarcerated.
In total, Doerman faces 21 separate charges connected to his alleged actions on June 15, 2023. He is charged with nine counts of aggravated murder, eight counts of kidnapping and four counts of felonious assault.
Doerman has been held in the Clermont County jail on a $20 million bond since his arrest.
This story was originally published by Scripps News Cincinnati, an E.W. Scripps Company.
