BUCYRUS — Crawford County Common Pleas Judge Sean Leuthold gave his decision Friday on a motion made to suppress the police interrogation of rape suspect, Adam Gunter.
Leuthold denied attorney Adam Stone’s motion.
Stone filed a motion to suppress the interrogations conducted by the Galion Police Department. There was a hearing to consider the motion Jan. 14.
Gunter was being investigated as a suspect in the rape of a four-month-old infant at the time of the interrogation. He was subsequently indicted Jan. 9, 2018 and served with first-degree felony charge for rape.
The charge alleges the infant was raped Dec. 17, 2017. The infant was left in the care of Gunter while her guardian went to listen to karaoke music. Gunter gave a statement to police when they visited his residence that evening.
On Dec. 19, 2017, Gunter went with Galion police officers voluntarily to be interrogated.
After being read his Miranda rights, Gunter was interviewed by Galion Police Detective Bob Burkey. Under continued interrogation, Gunter confessed to the alleged rape.
In his decision, Leuthold cited several factors.
Leuthold said that at the arraignment Stone requested a competency evaluation and an evaluation to determine Gunter’s mental status at the time of the offense. Leuthold granted the requests, as well as a request to allocate funds for the defense to retain an expert witness.
Dr. John Fabian examined the defendant in order to determine whether or not he was competent to stand trial and also to determine his mental state at the time of the offense.
The competency hearing occurred June 29, 2018. The prosecution’s expert, Dr. O’Reilly and Dr. Fabian agreed the defendant was competent to stand trial. It was after the ruling that Stone filed the motion to suppress, alleging Gunter did not “knowingly and voluntarily” waive his Miranda rights.
During the hearing on the motion to suppress, the reports prepared by both doctors were submitted into evidence. The prosecution called Detective Burkey to testify. Video evidence of the interviews conducted at Gunter’s home and the police station were provided.
“The court saw two primary issues regarding the interrogation as it pertains to the defendants Miranda rights,” Leuthold said. “One, was there any police misconduct that would affect the voluntariness of the statement? And secondly, did the defendant knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights?”
Leuthold went on to write that he found no police misconduct in this case.
“During the hearing, defense counsel conceded that the Miranda warnings were adequate as to most defendants,” he said. “Defense counsel stated that he was making a fact specific objection to the intellectual disability of this particular defendant.”
The court reviewed two DVDs presented by the state. The DVD of Dec. 17, 2017 was a non-custodial interview. The DVD of the Dec. 19, 2017 interrogation at the Galion Police Department included the reading of Gunter’s Miranda rights.
The court provided a brief summary of the arguments put forth by Dr. Fabian.
Dr. Fabian testified that the defendant was intellectually disabled with an I.Q. of 56 and could read at the level of a second-grade student. Dr. Fabian asserted the defendant was competent only by a “razor thin” margin and Gunter’s competency could fluctuate on a daily basis.
Dr. Fabian told the court that Gunter is a “yes man.” He noted this was common for those who suffer from intellectual disabilities. He said this was a defense mechanism to prevent others from realizing they have an intellectual disability.
In Leuthold’s ruling, he noted that the state was able to elicit information during their cross-examination of Dr. Fabian.
“In addition, the reports prepared by Dr. O’Reilly as well as Dr. Fabian also contain information supporting the state’s argument that the defendant was competent to waive his Miranda rights,” Leuthold said.
The state noted that Gunter was able to graduate high school in 1998 with special education classes, he was employed at several different places over the past 10 years, and he was not suffering from any acute symptoms of mental illness and both doctors found Gunter competent to stand trial.
Another factor considered was that Gunter did not immediately confess to the crime. In both interviews he began by saying he had nothing to do with the injuries suffered by the infant.
“In fact, he gave a somewhat complicated and detailed narrative as to what happened,” Leuthold said.
Gunter told police he found the baby bleeding from the mouth and nose after he came out of the bathroom. He said he tried to clean the blood and found a hair in her mouth. Gunter said he used his finger to get the hair out of the baby’s mouth.
Leuthold noted that this story not only paints the defendant as innocent of any wrongdoing, but it also provides an innocent explanation of the injuries to the baby’s mouth.
Leuthold said it is not necessary for the defendant to have known every possible consequence of his waiver. Instead, the defendant only needed to understand that he could choose not to talk with law enforcement officers, to talk only with counsel present, or discontinue talking at any time.
In making his determination to deny the motion, Leuthold said he read all the reports submitted by both doctors, and reviewed evidence presented at the hearing.
“In order to be competent to stand trial, a defendant must understand a variety of things. He must understand the roles of the judge and the jury. He must understand that the prosecutor is attempting to convict him of a crime, while the defense attorney is trying to protect his interests.,” Leuthold said. “Perhaps most importantly, in order to be competent to stand trial, a defendant must be able to testify on his own behalf. This would include a potentially vigorous cross-examination by the prosecutor.”
“The fact that both experts found the defendant had the capacity to stand trial greatly supports the state’s contention that the defendant was competent to waive his Miranda rights.” Leuthold concluded, “After evaluating the totality of the circumstances, this court finds that the state has met its burden of proof in this matter. The state has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the statement given to detectives by the defendant was voluntary, and without police misconduct. The state has also shown by a preponderance of the evidence that despite his intellectual disability, the defendant had the ability to knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights.”
Leuthold ordered a trial date to be set immediately in this case.
Attorney Adam Stone responded with a comment after the hearing.
“We are, of course, disappointed in the result but we respect the court’s decision,” Stone said. “And we will continue to prepare for trial accordingly.”