Jury selection in Capital Gazette trial to begin

After guilty plea, next phase to determine prison or mental facility

As prosecutors and defense attorneys begin to narrow the pool of 300 prospective jurors Wednesday to a panel of 12 tasked with determining whether the Capital Gazette gunman will serve his time in a state prison or mental institution, legal experts predict questions about mental health will feature prominently.

Circuit Court Judge Laura Ripken is likely to stick to the script of typical questions asked of prospective jurors at criminal trials — if they or a family member has been a victim of a violent crime — she could add questions about mental health. Defense attorneys are likely to pressure her to allow them to probe further.

“I think a prospective juror’s relation to mental illness, to psychiatry, to therapy would certainly be an important part of the questioning,” said Douglas Colbert, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law. “You want jurors that don’t have a bias for or against the psychiatric testimony. Some people think psychiatry is a behavioral science and some people see it as more of hocus-pocus.”

The shooter pleaded guilty Monday to murdering Rob Hiaasen, Gerald Fischman, John McNamara, Rebecca Smith and Wendi Winters, as well as all other charges related to the deadly attack. Authorities say he came to the Annapolis newsroom armed with smoke grenades and a pumpaction shotgun, blasting his way through the glass front doors and moving about the newsroom “hunting.” The attack shook a close-knit community.

Though Jarrod Ramos, 39, admitted guilt, he maintains that he was insane when he committed the crime and therefore is not criminally responsible. Attorneys and legal experts said the guilty plea was a strategic maneuver by Ramos’ team of public defenders to prevent the jury from witnessing the graphic evidence and vivid testimony of the June 28, 2018, attack that they’d be exposed to during a guilt-innocence trial and to instead try to focus on forthcoming medical testimony concerning his mental health.

Prosecutors could try to find jurors that are insensitive to an insanity defense, those who might view them as “excuses” for criminal behavior, said David Jaros, a University of Baltimore Law School professor.

Both sides, he said, will be trying to determine “whether or not a juror has experience in the mental health field or interacts with people that are mentally ill, whether or not that experience will bring with it a perception that’s either inclined towards or disinclined toward this defense.”

At Ramos’ request, Ripken months ago ordered the trial be split in two: one part to determine guilt or innocence, a second to determine criminal responsibility. While his pleading guilty to all 23 counts nullified part one, Ramos’ attorneys indicated their client has no intention of forfeiting his right to part two.

Ramos’ attorneys will have to convince a jury that he, because of a mental disorder or defect, could not understand that planning and carrying out the mass shooting was wrong or that he could not stop himself from doing so.

Ripken revealed at pretrial proceedings that doctors with the Maryland Department of Health, who she ordered to evaluate Ramos, found that he’s legally sane. Ramos attorneys indicated the psychiatrist they hired believes he has a mental condition and was legally insane at the time he launched the attack. The conflicting opinions set the stage for a rare court proceeding that’s sometimes referred to as a “battle of the experts,” where each set of attorneys contests the other’s mental doctors’ opinions.

Before defense attorneys and prosecutors can argue the merits of the opinions of their counterparts, they’ll have to seat a jury by weeding out individuals determined to be biased from their responses to questions read aloud by Ripken to 50 potential jurors at a time in Courtroom 4C — the largest in the courthouse — and whatever additional questions she allows the attorneys to ask individual jurors in the privacy of a smaller, adjacent courtroom.

The attorneys may seek more details about a person’s beliefs about mental health, whether they or a family member was treated for mental health, said Peter O’Neill, a veteran defense attorney based in Glen Burnie.

“That’s a tough position because there’s such a stigma about mental health, that you’re going to have a tough time with people being candid about whether they or some member of their family has a mental health condition if that’s a question that is asked. Because that’s a really sensitive topic,” O’Neill said.

Ripken and the attorneys will question 100 jurors a day. The judge will dismiss those she perceives to be biased along the way until there’s 100 prospective jurors, at which point both sides will move back to the larger courtroom and select the jury panel of 12 and a number of alternates she has yet to mention publicly.

Because in Ramos’ case there’s a possibility of a sentence of life in prison — prosecutors have said they’re seeking five — the defense is afforded 20 strikes to dismiss jurors without a challenge, while prosecutors get 10, according to Maryland law.

Jurors deciding the fate of defendant who pleaded not criminally responsible are dealing with “a pretty complicated part of the law,” whether a diagnosis of a mental health condition meets the specific standards of Maryland’s insanity defense, Jaros said. “I think the No. 1 thing the attorneys will try to look for is jurors that will understand and appreciate the medical evidence and the complex legal arguments that the attorneys make as they seek to apply the law to the evidence.”