Judge limits psychiatrist testimony

Rules gunman can’t be linked to mass shooters

The prosecution psychiatrist cannot compare the gunman who murdered five Capital Gazette staffers to other mass shooters studied by the FBI, an Anne Arundel County judge ruled Friday.

However, Circuit Court Judge Laura Ripken said Dr. Gregory Saathoff may testify about whether he thinks the gunman was sane when he fatally shot Gerald Fischman, Rob Hiaasen, John McNamara, Rebecca Smith and Wendi Winters — rejecting one of the defense’s latest attempts to prevent the psychiatrist from testifying at a trial slated for December.

Ripken reserved judgment on a number of other arguments by Jarrod Ramos’ defense attorneys to limit what Saathoff can say on the stand, including whether the doctor can compare the 40-year-old to other inmates, hikers on the Appalachian Trail, or discuss his use of the law library at the county jail.

In most instances, she said itwas too soon to evaluate whether the testimony was relevant or whether it would aid the jury or prejudice Ramos. Ripken said repeatedly she hasn’t seen the evidence yet to make such determinations.

“I’m going to have to hear what’s being offered when it’s being offered in the context of the trial,” Ripken said.

Prosecutors hired Saathoff to investigate Ramos’ insanity claims. Despite pleading guilty to the murders, assaults and gun charges, Ramos maintains that he was insane at the time of the attack. At stake is whether he’ll spend the rest

of his life in prison or is committed indefinitely to a state psychiatric hospital.

Ripken’s ruling about mass shooters does not prevent the prosecution from presenting the theory of their case but limits how far they can take it. While the defense and their mental health experts say that Ramos committed the murders because he was insane, prosecutors and Saathoff say the attack was fueled by revenge and followed a pattern exhibited by other mass shooters outlined by FBI research.

Saathoff may use the 2018 FBI report about the pre-attack behavior of 63 mass shooters between 2000 and 2013 to frame his testimony, but he can’t compare Ramos to the other shooters studied or say howhe fits into the statistics.

Ramos’ lawyers argued that comparing him to other mass shooters was overly prejudicial, inflammatory and irrelevant. They said prosecutors didn’t have to prove that Ramos was a mass shooter, as his conviction already confirmed that.

Rather, defense attorneys said, prosecutors can rebut the defense’s insanity case — but only with evidence and testimony relevant to Ramos and his attack.

The study, which Ripken lauded, was crafted as a tool for law enforcement to identify potential mass shooters before an attack occurred. It found the vast majority of the shooterswere men, mostwere single and obtained the guns legally, almost three-fourths spent over a week planning the attack and almost 80% had a grievance, which the report defines as a perception of being treated unfairly or inappropriately.

But Ripken said at hearings earlier in September that she was concerned about allowing prosecutors to employ statistics and comparisons. She said jurors might view his case “as almost a math equation” rather than evaluating his insanity claims on their merits.

“It would be hard for the court to find there is not an unfair prejudicial value,” Ripken said during the hearing in Annapolis Friday.

Prosecutors say the attack had nothing to do with mental illness, but a grievance developed after The Capital published a column about his harassment of a high school classmate. He tried to handle his grievance through lawsuits against the paper and unsuccessful appeals against the courts’ decision against him. When that didn’t work, prosecutors said he started planning for revenge. Then, he waited until hewas broke and his cat died to act.

Saathoff andprosecutors can still refer to their theory, but they can’t say that Ramos’ behavior followed that of other mass shooters the FBI studied, under the ruling.

The hearing Friday was expected to last before jury selection begins in December. Prospective jurors are expected to fill out questionnaires inNovember.

Also at stakewas whether Saathoff could testify about his opinion on the ultimate issue in the mental health proceeding: WhetherRamoswas sane at the time of the attack on June 28, 2018.

Saathoff thinks that Ramos was sane when he blasted his way into the office armed with a shotgun, smoke bombs after using adevice that blocked his victims from fleeing out a back door.

Six employees survived either by fleeing or hiding from Ramos. The shooting in the newsroom of Capital Gazette, which is owned by Baltimore SunMedia, rattled the close-knit community of Annapolis.

While prosecutors were responsible for provingRamoswas guilty, it’suptohimand his defense attorneys to prove that he, because of a mental condition, could not understand what he did was wrong or could not stop himself. Though they have to convince a jury by a lower standard of proof than guilt in a criminal trial, the defense is not usually successful.

Ramos’ team of public defenders hired a team of mental health experts to evaluate him. The expert expected to testify, a psychiatrist referred to as Dr. Lewis in court papers, said Ramos was insane and diagnosed him with autism spectrum disorder.

After Ramos pleaded not criminally responsible — Maryland’s version of the insanity defense — Ripken ordered the state health department to evaluate Ramos and form an opinion. Dr. Sameer Patel, a forensic psychiatrist with the department, said Ramoswas criminally responsible.

Unlike the other experts, Saathoff was not allowed to interview Ramos. Ripken twice denied prosecutors’ request to allow him to do so, citing the favorable findings of Patel from prosecutors’ perspective. Still,

Saathoff took his investigation to the Jennifer Road Detention Center, where Ramos has been in custody for more than two years and interviewed dozens of employees about his behavior behind bars.

Defense attorneys argued that because Saathoff did not conduct an interview, he is not qualified to render an opinion about Ramos’ sanity. They said that an expert’s opinion must be based on data and, while Saathoff reviewed documents and interviewed collateral sources, his analysis was missing the most critical piece: Ramos.

Prosecutors said nothing in the state law or cases with legal precedent prohibits a mental health expert from testifying in a case involving an insanity plea about their opinion on whether the person is sane or not.

On Friday, Ripken said she agreed with prosecutors.

Ripken also sided with prosecutors’ stance on the defense’s request to take the jury to the jail to see the secluded cell block where Ramos lived. She said it was unreasonable and that jurors could garner a good understanding of his living arrangements by looking at diagrams and pictures, which defense attorneyswere permittedby jail officials to capture. She said she would’ve ruled the same way regardless of the coronavirus pandemic.

On other potential topics of prosecution witness testimony, such other inmates and hikers on the Appalachian Trail, which Ramoswalked in 2002, or his use of the law library at the county jail, Ripken said itwas too early to determine.