ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — The one who killed five other folks at a Maryland newspaper was aloof, cooperative, did no longer seem perplexed and joked about an spurious media document following his arrest for the length of an interrogation, police testified Wednesday at a trial to set up whether Jarrod Ramos was legally sane at the time of the assault.
Prosecutors focused on Ramos’ behavior in video recordings shown in court on the trial’s 2d day. The recordings integrated excerpts from his eight-hour interrogation, which reveals Ramos in the beginning unresponsive to questions nonetheless later joking with an interrogator about an spurious news document.
Officer Wesley Callow, the Annapolis police officer who found Ramos along with his legs sticking out from below a newsroom desk at the Capital Gazette, described him as very aloof as he adopted instructions for the length of the arrest.
Whereas Ramos in most cases kept peaceable, he maintained inspect-contact and answered to questions, Callow testified, as Anne Arundel County Explain’s Lawyer Anne Colt Leitess asked him about body-digicam footage shown to jurors.
Attorneys moreover puzzled Anne Arundel County Police detective Kelly Harding about Ramos’ behavior for the length of his interrogation.
Protection attorneys are contending that Ramos, who already has pleaded guilty in the slayings, is autistic and has a complete lot of mental successfully being complications. They’re arguing that whereas he did commit the murders he might perhaps well well merely light no longer be held criminally guilty attributable to mental illness.
All the design thru his interrogation, Ramos did no longer repeat any repetitive or uncommon behavior, Harding testified below unpleasant-examination by David Russell, a prosecutor.
Russell famed some degree in the interrogation the set aside Harding was attempting to build up Ramos to claim why he attacked the newspaper, and she stated authorities moreover possess points with media reporting. Harding asked Ramos about an spurious document in the hours after the shooting that he had mutilated his fingers to prevent authorities from taking fingerprints.
“The set aside assign they near up with that stuff?” Harding asked Ramos, who laughed and puzzled whether Harding or a law enforcement colleague in the room was the nameless source who supplied the records.
“He’s ready to fabricate that shaggy dog memoir with you?” Russell asks.
“Sure,” Harding stated.
Ramos moreover defined food allergic reactions he has and calmly asked for a cheeseburger from Wendy’s, which was dropped at him for the length of the interrogation.
Individually, the concentrate on in the case criticized a protection attorney, Matthew Connell, after a mental successfully being knowledgeable perceived to be reading from a script whereas answering his questions in court. After sending the knowledgeable and the jury out of the room, Desire Michael Wachs discussed the topic with attorneys.
“Why assign two of which it is seemingly you’ll possess matching same paperwork?” Wachs asked Connell, including: “You’re strolling a trusty elegant line, Mr. Connell.”
Prosecutors requested her testimony to be . The concentrate on later allowed Dr. Joanna Brandt, a psychiatrist, to almost about provide restricted testimony about mental successfully being complications and no longer criminally guilty circumstances.
At the tip of court Wednesday, Desire Wachs stated it remained an commence query whether he would strike Brandt’s testimony.
In successfully-organized measure, the case will involve testimony from mental successfully being consultants known as by the protection and prosecutors.
Protection attorneys dispute Ramos believed he was being intentionally persecuted after the newspaper wrote a pair of case whereby he pleaded guilty to harassing a aged high college classmate. Ramos moreover belief the courts had been unfairly rejecting his defamation case against the newspaper, his lawyers dispute.
Under Maryland’s insanity protection law, a defendant has the burden to repeat by a preponderance of the proof that he’s no longer criminally guilty for his actions. Explain law says a defendant just isn’t any longer criminally guilty for criminal behavior if, on account of a mental disorder or developmental disabilities, he lacked tall capacity to adore the criminal activity of his behavior.