Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I am so pleased to welcome back to the show,
Michael Doherty. He is the Boulder District Attorney and I
intentionally didn't.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Even bother asking him to come on the show.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
During the case regarding the Boulder King Soopers shooter, whose
name I will not use, Michael can if he wants to,
I just waited till the case was over. He's shaking
his head. He's not going to use his name either.
I don't want to. I don't ever give these mass killers,
you know, an extra few seconds of fame. So before
(00:30):
we jump into all the questions, Michael, thanks for making
time for us.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
You're a very busy dude, and I always appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Well, good morning, WATS. It's great to be back on.
I appreciate you inviting me to join you and your listeners.
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Have you ever been involved in a prosecution of a
serious crime where the defense did not even attempt to
argue that maybe their guy didn't do it.
Speaker 4 (01:01):
There are times where defendants assert affirmative defenses, either.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
That they have an alibi or self defense. We've seen
a lot, and I think that would fall the category
what you just address.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
And then we, of course we have as we did
in the King Super Snass murder. Not guilty of everyson
insanity please put forward by defense Jerviys on occasion.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Right, So, going into this case understanding that the question
was not did he do it or not?
Speaker 2 (01:27):
But is he sane enough?
Speaker 1 (01:29):
And you can put that in the proper legal terminology,
but is he sane enough to be legally culpable?
Speaker 2 (01:36):
You know, I remembered hearing about some of.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
The reports about the shooter back at the time the
shooter happened, when his brother was talking about how the
shooter was paranoid and thinking people were following him and
hacking his phone, and he you know, he sounded mentally unbalanced.
And so I'm curious going into the case and try
to avoid the benefit of hindsight here for a second,
going into the case, what did you think about the
(02:03):
likely weight of the arguments in terms of is he
sane enough?
Speaker 2 (02:08):
And maybe describe that legal standard for us too.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
So it proved that.
Speaker 4 (02:15):
Someone was staying at the time they committed the offense,
we have to look at whether they could distinguish between
right and wrong and whether they could form intent. That's
what the sets in Colorado requires, and it's a high
bar compared to other states, but we have to be
able to prove the unreasonable out.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
That the person knew the difference between right.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
And wrong and was able to form intent, given that
he was arrested by law enforcement inside the supermarket and
there was no question that he had committed the crime
right from the very beginning, we anticipated it could be
a mental health defense. So with the help of law
enforcement agencies in putting the FBI call Out your Investigation Force,
the bold of Police Forming, and others, they set out
(02:53):
to collect as much information and conduct as many interviews
as possible in the first few days and weeks that followed,
so we had information to understand any mental health issues
and to defeat a not guilty of everis of insanity
claim that that ended up being the defense trial.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
What did you anticipate would be the defense's strongest mental
health related argument and how did you prepare to counter it?
Speaker 4 (03:22):
I think the strongest argument from the defense is that
the defendant is mentally ill in this case, I mean
he has schizophrenia.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
Every expert he's examined.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
The defendant and evaluated Defenitt determined that he has schizophrenia.
Having schizophrenia however, does not equate to legal insanity. There's
roughly three point six million people in the United States.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Suffering from schizophrenia. They're often the victims of crime.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
And not the perpetrators of crime, according to the experts.
So I think the strongest argument they had is that
truth is that he is mentally ill, and it's likely
that that's become worse and been exacerbated over time since
the mass shooting. But I think going back to March
twenty second, there is no doubt at all that he
was saying and fully responsible, and that's why I have
(04:04):
such a well e sensor relief with the guilty verdict
and the maximum sentence being imposed.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
As a prosecutor, your job is to seek justice, not
just convictions. And sometimes, and I am not saying it's
this case, sometimes justice means not prosecuting someone. So from
your perspective, as you were learning everything you needed to
(04:33):
learn about the defendant now convicted and about the case,
what was for you the most compelling evidence that he
actually did meet the legal standard for sanity, for being
able to form intent, and for knowing right from wrong.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
So two things for.
Speaker 4 (04:56):
Me, First, how he carried out the mass murder at
King Supers. A lot of that, as you know, was
captured on video, and having watched that video many times now,
there's no doubt that he was acting with intent and
moving very quickly and brutally throughout the supermarket parking lot
and then within the supermarket itself. There was never a
(05:17):
moment where he looked confused or that he was suffering
from a delusion or hallucination.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
I mean, it was just incredibly brutal.
Speaker 4 (05:24):
And second, he was carrying out a plan that he
had put in place starting in January of that year,
So we had evidence and information from his cell phone
indicating that he was planning for and even practicing how
to carry out a mass shooting. So that planning and preparation,
to me, it was very powerful evidence demonstrating that he
knew the difference between wrong and right.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
He was actually researching prior.
Speaker 4 (05:46):
Mass shootings, and he was shopping for guns, AMMO and
bomb making chemicals, and then he was purchasing all of
those things and hiding them from his family because.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
He knew that they would find his conducts be wrong.
Speaker 4 (05:58):
To be concerning that he had to understand it between
wrong and writing.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
The question that I've gotten most from listeners anticipating your
coming onto the show is why did he travel twenty
miles or so from I think he lived in Arvada.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Maybe correct me if I'm wrong?
Speaker 1 (06:19):
Why did he travel from wherever he lived all the
way up to Boulder to do this?
Speaker 4 (06:27):
So I could give you my best guess based on
the evidence, I will say it was clear from the
evidence that he was certainly planning to carry out.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
A mass shooting.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
He was researching different mass shootings and then arming himself
to do exactly that he was practicing it. He had
notes in his phone about how to move quickly, had
a fire while moving, and so on, so he definitely
got to carry out of mass shooting. Then he started
the target bolder, so we know from his cell phone
that he was looking at different locations in the area
(06:54):
of Boulder, such as Echo Target Safeway. Why King Supers involved,
I think there are a couple of reasons that are likely. First,
his family lived in Nevada. They had a restaurant in
Nevada at the time. There are two King Supers that
the family would use on a regular basis, And I
actually think this is evidence that he knew his conduct
(07:15):
was going to be perceived as wrong and have an
impact on his family.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
Because when you talk to the family, for.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
Example, and they testified a trial, they've never visited the
King Supers in Boulder, They've never come to the memorial there,
they've never been inside the store, and perhaps understandably, they
don't want to see where their family member killed ten people,
ten innocent people. But they still go to the King
Supers near the restaurant and near their house. So I
think that was evidence the defendant knew that his actions
(07:42):
were going to have an impact. And the King Supers
that he attacked in Boulder is the first public location,
the first shopping center where you're coming into Boulder from Arvada.
So although he had looked at locations including perhaps Target,
Petco Safeway, those were all locations on his phone map evidence.
We think he pulled it a case super because it
(08:03):
happened to be the first location as major shoping center
when you're coming from Bravada to Boulder.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Okay, that makes sense.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Do do you have any reason, any additional reason to
think that Boulder became of interest to him? Was there
any reason to think that he had some bias against
Boulder or that he thought Boulder would be a softer target.
You know, Like I don't want to I want to
be careful as I say this, right, but but Boulder
(08:31):
is a place that's known to be a little more liberal,
and maybe he would have thought there'd be fewer gun
owners there to defend themselves against him. Again, I'm not
just I want to be careful with that, but just
anything in your work that pointed to why Boulder.
Speaker 4 (08:49):
No, And that's a question that people asked from the
very beginning after the defendant committed these mass murders, why Boulder.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
He was definitely a targeting Boulder.
Speaker 4 (08:59):
We didn't have any other information from his phone or
from his statements.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Or statements to the doctors as to why older.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
I will say, to your point about Bolder being a
soft target, there were a number of the bitnesses.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
And victims who.
Speaker 4 (09:13):
Survived who were inside King Supers, who were all gunovers.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
They just didn't have their guns with them that day.
Speaker 4 (09:19):
It was really interesting that the first few witnesses we
called all either own assault rifles or have experience with
assault rifles, and when they first started the gunshots, they
immedialy identified what it was, so that perception of Bolder
being a soft target that would seem to be contradicted
by some of the food businesses and victims.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
Who were there that day.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
They just were not carrying their firearms or had access
to their firearms at the time of the attack.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
We're talking with Michael Doherty, who was the Boulder District
attorney who successfully convicted the mass murderer at King Soopers
from twenty twenty one, overcoming their efforts at an insanity defense.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
To all the listeners who are asking why.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
Won't the defendant get the death penalty, the answer is,
we don't have the death penalty in Colorado anymore, I
will you know, let me just do a little quick
tangent with you on this, Michael. A bunch of listeners
have said, why wouldn't we just put him to death
and save ourselves all that money of keeping him in
prison for the rest of our life. So we don't
(10:22):
have the death penalty anymore. So that's not an option.
What I want to ask you because my recollection from
researching this in the past and again this is kind
of a tangent and it's just.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
We don't have the death penalty here.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
But my recollection is that the cost of doing a
death penalty case, not least because oftentimes the government has
to pay for the defense as well.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Is so high that, at least in some states.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
It's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than
to put them in debt to death, even if they'd
be in prison.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
For thirty years.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Do you know anything about this question?
Speaker 4 (10:56):
I believe you're absolutely correct, and that certainly consistent with
my research work over the years that death penalty prosecution
requires far more resources and costs than someone going to
prison for the rest of their lives. But as you
pointed out, we lost Colorado repealed the death penalty in
twenty nineteen before the mass shooting at King Scooper's in
March of twenty twenty one, so it was never on
(11:18):
our radars as possibility. It was never something we discussed
or looked at or talked to the victims about at
the time. But we were determined from the very beginning
to make sure this defend was healthfully accountable, and I'm
very grateful and relieved that that's the outcome that we
secured here. I would be remiss though, if I didn't
say we work with an outstanding team on this case.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
I'm very grateful to.
Speaker 4 (11:36):
All of them, including a lot of help from other
agencies and other District Attorney's officers right from the very beginning.
So for example, reaching out to George Brockwood and prosecuted
the Orld Movie theater shooting, and the first few days
saying what do I need to know from your experience?
Speaker 3 (11:51):
What should I be aware.
Speaker 4 (11:52):
Of going to this, reaching out to Dan May who
prosecuted the planned parent Wood shooting having Colorado Springs, but
also law enforcement agencies and victim advocates from throughout the
Metro area coming together along with the wonderful Kennan, the
members we have coming together do the very best to
respond to or was a truly horrific attack.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
A friend of mine, who might be somebody you just named,
asked if you would have considered seeking the death penalty
in this case if we still had it in Colorado.
Speaker 4 (12:29):
So when I ran for the District attorney, I publicly
stated that I'm against the death penalty, and I testified
in favor of the repeal of the death penalty, and
I just want to be very honest and candidate about that. Ultimately,
I was never faced with that decision of this case.
Because the death penalty had been repealed prior to the
mast shooting at King Sleepers.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
Another question from my same friend, having been through what
you just went through with this trial, do you think
there are any changes that can or should be made
to our compitency slash sanity laws.
Speaker 4 (13:05):
Yes, so I think there are changes in two areas. First,
they think we need to change the process, resources and
laws around competency and sanity. But also we need stricter
gun control in terms of this guy's ability to get
two assault rifles to arm himself with steel piercing AMMO,
which just ripped through the victims' bodies and came out
(13:27):
the other side. And I'm sorry to be so graphic,
but that's why there were so many victims of a tempermer.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
Those bullets just kept going.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
So I do think that something we have to continue
to look at and work on as a state in
terms of competency insanity.
Speaker 3 (13:41):
Yes, this competency process took far.
Speaker 4 (13:45):
Longer than one would hope, and I think that the
work going on with an at the State hospital to
address the challenges they have and as a result of
delays we face in criminal cases, has to continue.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
That work is critically important.
Speaker 4 (13:57):
We have people languishing in county jails to be at
state hospital when that's going on. We also have cases
being postponed in definitely and victims and their families understandably
frustrated and angry that cases are delayed. So for everyone's sake,
we need to improve the resources and treatment available in
the state hospital around competency, making sure that we have
(14:18):
enough resources in place.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
That's true.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
Also in the community, we continue to rank in the
bottom ten of the nation for mental health TREAM being
available in the community.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
So that's a sidebar. It's not going to do with
this case.
Speaker 4 (14:29):
Well, we definitely need more mental health TREAM and available
in the justice system, but even in the community as well.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
We have just a few minutes left, I'd like to
ask you to give me some quick answers to some
listener questions that have come in while we're talking. Was
there any indication Was there any indication that this crime
was motivated by radical Islam?
Speaker 4 (14:55):
Now none whatsoever, And the FBI looked at it very closely.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
We look at it close, so we had access to
the phone and family and interviews and so on, and
no indication that that was connected.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Another listener question, I've heard a rumor that this convicted
killer may be imprisoned in another state. So let me
start with is there anything to any truth to that?
Speaker 3 (15:20):
No, not that I'm aware of them.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
Is it true that the shooter was actually overheard saying
out loud, I like this or something along those lines.
Speaker 4 (15:35):
Yes, he was overheard by people hiding in the pharmacy
as he was firing upon it as a victim of
saying this is fun, This is such fun.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
And they repeated that four or five times.
Speaker 4 (15:44):
And I thought that pharmacists who testified a trial it
was an incredibly powerful witness and helped us overcome the
insanity acclaimed.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
It's reported that at some point the shooter pointed his
gun at a particular man, only to lower his gun
and not shoot him. So do you know if that
is true, and if so, do you know anything further
about why he didn't shoot that guy?
Speaker 4 (16:11):
That is one hundred percent truer represented that evidence a
trial to demonstrate that he was acting intentionally and making
decisions in the moment he.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
Pointed his gun.
Speaker 4 (16:19):
An elderly gentleman who was ninety years old, Paul Rotter.
Mister Roter was unaware that there was actually a mass
shooting underway, and was shopping.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
He wasn't running, he wasn't hiding, And the defendant lifted.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
Up his rifle, put it to his shoulder, looked through
his scope, and then just moved on.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
You know, everyone else using Henry.
Speaker 4 (16:37):
He was shooting and killing, with the exception of mister
Roht and another individual who also was similarly confused about
what was happening. Both times the shooter passed up the
opportunity to shoot and kill them thankfully.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
Wow. Any guess as to why the shooter took off
his clothes.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Yes, so both in terms of common sense.
Speaker 4 (16:58):
But then the defendant states, to the doctors who did
a fantastic job conducting the Sanatee evaluation in this case
on behalf of the state of Colorado, he took off
his clothes in order to ensure that he would not
be shot by law enforcement. So talk about understanding the differen.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
Right and wrong.
Speaker 4 (17:15):
He knows law enforcements there for him, he knows they're
coming in. They're coming in ready to deal with an
active shooter or shooters. At the time, they thought there
was anywhere up to the three shooters. He took off
all his clothes and put his hands up and surrendered
in an effort to not get shot. And then he
confermed that in statements to the doctors during the santate valuation.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
Wow. Wow, that's a remarkable I've already been shot.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
Sorry, he'd already been shot once by a bolded PA
through the leg, as you may recalled. But he definitely
then took off his clothes and surrendered to ensure he
did not get shot and killed by law enforcement.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Amazing.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
All right, last question for you, Michael, prior to trial,
did you ever meet with the defendant in person?
Speaker 4 (17:58):
No, as you know, we're not afforded the opportunity to
meet with or talk with the defendant directly unless it's
after their arrest and they made miranda, which had not
happened in this case.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
So I've never met with.
Speaker 4 (18:07):
Him or talked to him directly myself, other than seeing
him sitting.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
A few feet away in court every day as we
prosecuted the case.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Okay, so last thing, then, how did that feel to
you being a few feet away from that guy in
the courtroom.
Speaker 4 (18:27):
For me and for our team, we were one hundred
percent committed to ensuring that guy was held fully accountable.
So our focus was on doing the very best we
could present the evidence and to make sure we were
supporting the witnesses and the victims through the entire process.
And that's really where I kept my focus because I
recognized that when the shooter survived in March twenty second,
we inherited a tremendous responsibility to get this case right
(18:50):
for the victim families and for our to.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
You, Michael already is the Boulder County District Attorney. Congratulations
on winning that case. I'm sorry that there was a
case like that that you had to win.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
Me too, Thank you. Ross
I am so pleased to welcome back to the show,
Michael Doherty. He is the Boulder District Attorney and I
intentionally didn't.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Even bother asking him to come on the show.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
During the case regarding the Boulder King Soopers shooter, whose
name I will not use, Michael can if he wants to,
I just waited till the case was over. He's shaking
his head. He's not going to use his name either.
I don't want to. I don't ever give these mass killers,
you know, an extra few seconds of fame. So before
(00:30):
we jump into all the questions, Michael, thanks for making
time for us.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
You're a very busy dude, and I always appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Well, good morning, WATS. It's great to be back on.
I appreciate you inviting me to join you and your listeners.
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Have you ever been involved in a prosecution of a
serious crime where the defense did not even attempt to
argue that maybe their guy didn't do it.
Speaker 4 (01:01):
There are times where defendants assert affirmative defenses, either.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
That they have an alibi or self defense. We've seen
a lot, and I think that would fall the category
what you just address.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
And then we, of course we have as we did
in the King Super Snass murder. Not guilty of everyson
insanity please put forward by defense Jerviys on occasion.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Right, So, going into this case understanding that the question
was not did he do it or not?
Speaker 2 (01:27):
But is he sane enough?
Speaker 1 (01:29):
And you can put that in the proper legal terminology,
but is he sane enough to be legally culpable?
Speaker 2 (01:36):
You know, I remembered hearing about some of.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
The reports about the shooter back at the time the
shooter happened, when his brother was talking about how the
shooter was paranoid and thinking people were following him and
hacking his phone, and he you know, he sounded mentally unbalanced.
And so I'm curious going into the case and try
to avoid the benefit of hindsight here for a second,
going into the case, what did you think about the
(02:03):
likely weight of the arguments in terms of is he
sane enough?
Speaker 2 (02:08):
And maybe describe that legal standard for us too.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
So it proved that.
Speaker 4 (02:15):
Someone was staying at the time they committed the offense,
we have to look at whether they could distinguish between
right and wrong and whether they could form intent. That's
what the sets in Colorado requires, and it's a high
bar compared to other states, but we have to be
able to prove the unreasonable out.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
That the person knew the difference between right.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
And wrong and was able to form intent, given that
he was arrested by law enforcement inside the supermarket and
there was no question that he had committed the crime
right from the very beginning, we anticipated it could be
a mental health defense. So with the help of law
enforcement agencies in putting the FBI call Out your Investigation Force,
the bold of Police Forming, and others, they set out
(02:53):
to collect as much information and conduct as many interviews
as possible in the first few days and weeks that followed,
so we had information to understand any mental health issues
and to defeat a not guilty of everis of insanity
claim that that ended up being the defense trial.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
What did you anticipate would be the defense's strongest mental
health related argument and how did you prepare to counter it?
Speaker 4 (03:22):
I think the strongest argument from the defense is that
the defendant is mentally ill in this case, I mean
he has schizophrenia.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
Every expert he's examined.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
The defendant and evaluated Defenitt determined that he has schizophrenia.
Having schizophrenia however, does not equate to legal insanity. There's
roughly three point six million people in the United States.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Suffering from schizophrenia. They're often the victims of crime.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
And not the perpetrators of crime, according to the experts.
So I think the strongest argument they had is that
truth is that he is mentally ill, and it's likely
that that's become worse and been exacerbated over time since
the mass shooting. But I think going back to March
twenty second, there is no doubt at all that he
was saying and fully responsible, and that's why I have
(04:04):
such a well e sensor relief with the guilty verdict
and the maximum sentence being imposed.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
As a prosecutor, your job is to seek justice, not
just convictions. And sometimes, and I am not saying it's
this case, sometimes justice means not prosecuting someone. So from
your perspective, as you were learning everything you needed to
(04:33):
learn about the defendant now convicted and about the case,
what was for you the most compelling evidence that he
actually did meet the legal standard for sanity, for being
able to form intent, and for knowing right from wrong.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
So two things for.
Speaker 4 (04:56):
Me, First, how he carried out the mass murder at
King Supers. A lot of that, as you know, was
captured on video, and having watched that video many times now,
there's no doubt that he was acting with intent and
moving very quickly and brutally throughout the supermarket parking lot
and then within the supermarket itself. There was never a
(05:17):
moment where he looked confused or that he was suffering
from a delusion or hallucination.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
I mean, it was just incredibly brutal.
Speaker 4 (05:24):
And second, he was carrying out a plan that he
had put in place starting in January of that year,
So we had evidence and information from his cell phone
indicating that he was planning for and even practicing how
to carry out a mass shooting. So that planning and preparation,
to me, it was very powerful evidence demonstrating that he
knew the difference between wrong and right.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
He was actually researching prior.
Speaker 4 (05:46):
Mass shootings, and he was shopping for guns, AMMO and
bomb making chemicals, and then he was purchasing all of
those things and hiding them from his family because.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
He knew that they would find his conducts be wrong.
Speaker 4 (05:58):
To be concerning that he had to understand it between
wrong and writing.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
The question that I've gotten most from listeners anticipating your
coming onto the show is why did he travel twenty
miles or so from I think he lived in Arvada.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Maybe correct me if I'm wrong?
Speaker 1 (06:19):
Why did he travel from wherever he lived all the
way up to Boulder to do this?
Speaker 4 (06:27):
So I could give you my best guess based on
the evidence, I will say it was clear from the
evidence that he was certainly planning to carry out.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
A mass shooting.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
He was researching different mass shootings and then arming himself
to do exactly that he was practicing it. He had
notes in his phone about how to move quickly, had
a fire while moving, and so on, so he definitely
got to carry out of mass shooting. Then he started
the target bolder, so we know from his cell phone
that he was looking at different locations in the area
(06:54):
of Boulder, such as Echo Target Safeway. Why King Supers involved,
I think there are a couple of reasons that are likely. First,
his family lived in Nevada. They had a restaurant in
Nevada at the time. There are two King Supers that
the family would use on a regular basis, And I
actually think this is evidence that he knew his conduct
(07:15):
was going to be perceived as wrong and have an
impact on his family.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
Because when you talk to the family, for.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
Example, and they testified a trial, they've never visited the
King Supers in Boulder, They've never come to the memorial there,
they've never been inside the store, and perhaps understandably, they
don't want to see where their family member killed ten people,
ten innocent people. But they still go to the King
Supers near the restaurant and near their house. So I
think that was evidence the defendant knew that his actions
(07:42):
were going to have an impact. And the King Supers
that he attacked in Boulder is the first public location,
the first shopping center where you're coming into Boulder from Arvada.
So although he had looked at locations including perhaps Target,
Petco Safeway, those were all locations on his phone map evidence.
We think he pulled it a case super because it
(08:03):
happened to be the first location as major shoping center
when you're coming from Bravada to Boulder.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Okay, that makes sense.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Do do you have any reason, any additional reason to
think that Boulder became of interest to him? Was there
any reason to think that he had some bias against
Boulder or that he thought Boulder would be a softer target.
You know, Like I don't want to I want to
be careful as I say this, right, but but Boulder
(08:31):
is a place that's known to be a little more liberal,
and maybe he would have thought there'd be fewer gun
owners there to defend themselves against him. Again, I'm not
just I want to be careful with that, but just
anything in your work that pointed to why Boulder.
Speaker 4 (08:49):
No, And that's a question that people asked from the
very beginning after the defendant committed these mass murders, why Boulder.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
He was definitely a targeting Boulder.
Speaker 4 (08:59):
We didn't have any other information from his phone or
from his statements.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Or statements to the doctors as to why older.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
I will say, to your point about Bolder being a
soft target, there were a number of the bitnesses.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
And victims who.
Speaker 4 (09:13):
Survived who were inside King Supers, who were all gunovers.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
They just didn't have their guns with them that day.
Speaker 4 (09:19):
It was really interesting that the first few witnesses we
called all either own assault rifles or have experience with
assault rifles, and when they first started the gunshots, they
immedialy identified what it was, so that perception of Bolder
being a soft target that would seem to be contradicted
by some of the food businesses and victims.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
Who were there that day.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
They just were not carrying their firearms or had access
to their firearms at the time of the attack.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
We're talking with Michael Doherty, who was the Boulder District
attorney who successfully convicted the mass murderer at King Soopers
from twenty twenty one, overcoming their efforts at an insanity defense.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
To all the listeners who are asking why.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
Won't the defendant get the death penalty, the answer is,
we don't have the death penalty in Colorado anymore, I
will you know, let me just do a little quick
tangent with you on this, Michael. A bunch of listeners
have said, why wouldn't we just put him to death
and save ourselves all that money of keeping him in
prison for the rest of our life. So we don't
(10:22):
have the death penalty anymore. So that's not an option.
What I want to ask you because my recollection from
researching this in the past and again this is kind
of a tangent and it's just.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
We don't have the death penalty here.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
But my recollection is that the cost of doing a
death penalty case, not least because oftentimes the government has
to pay for the defense as well.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Is so high that, at least in some states.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
It's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than
to put them in debt to death, even if they'd
be in prison.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
For thirty years.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Do you know anything about this question?
Speaker 4 (10:56):
I believe you're absolutely correct, and that certainly consistent with
my research work over the years that death penalty prosecution
requires far more resources and costs than someone going to
prison for the rest of their lives. But as you
pointed out, we lost Colorado repealed the death penalty in
twenty nineteen before the mass shooting at King Scooper's in
March of twenty twenty one, so it was never on
(11:18):
our radars as possibility. It was never something we discussed
or looked at or talked to the victims about at
the time. But we were determined from the very beginning
to make sure this defend was healthfully accountable, and I'm
very grateful and relieved that that's the outcome that we
secured here. I would be remiss though, if I didn't
say we work with an outstanding team on this case.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
I'm very grateful to.
Speaker 4 (11:36):
All of them, including a lot of help from other
agencies and other District Attorney's officers right from the very beginning.
So for example, reaching out to George Brockwood and prosecuted
the Orld Movie theater shooting, and the first few days
saying what do I need to know from your experience?
Speaker 3 (11:51):
What should I be aware.
Speaker 4 (11:52):
Of going to this, reaching out to Dan May who
prosecuted the planned parent Wood shooting having Colorado Springs, but
also law enforcement agencies and victim advocates from throughout the
Metro area coming together along with the wonderful Kennan, the
members we have coming together do the very best to
respond to or was a truly horrific attack.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
A friend of mine, who might be somebody you just named,
asked if you would have considered seeking the death penalty
in this case if we still had it in Colorado.
Speaker 4 (12:29):
So when I ran for the District attorney, I publicly
stated that I'm against the death penalty, and I testified
in favor of the repeal of the death penalty, and
I just want to be very honest and candidate about that. Ultimately,
I was never faced with that decision of this case.
Because the death penalty had been repealed prior to the
mast shooting at King Sleepers.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
Another question from my same friend, having been through what
you just went through with this trial, do you think
there are any changes that can or should be made
to our compitency slash sanity laws.
Speaker 4 (13:05):
Yes, so I think there are changes in two areas. First,
they think we need to change the process, resources and
laws around competency and sanity. But also we need stricter
gun control in terms of this guy's ability to get
two assault rifles to arm himself with steel piercing AMMO,
which just ripped through the victims' bodies and came out
(13:27):
the other side. And I'm sorry to be so graphic,
but that's why there were so many victims of a tempermer.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
Those bullets just kept going.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
So I do think that something we have to continue
to look at and work on as a state in
terms of competency insanity.
Speaker 3 (13:41):
Yes, this competency process took far.
Speaker 4 (13:45):
Longer than one would hope, and I think that the
work going on with an at the State hospital to
address the challenges they have and as a result of
delays we face in criminal cases, has to continue.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
That work is critically important.
Speaker 4 (13:57):
We have people languishing in county jails to be at
state hospital when that's going on. We also have cases
being postponed in definitely and victims and their families understandably
frustrated and angry that cases are delayed. So for everyone's sake,
we need to improve the resources and treatment available in
the state hospital around competency, making sure that we have
(14:18):
enough resources in place.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
That's true.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
Also in the community, we continue to rank in the
bottom ten of the nation for mental health TREAM being
available in the community.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
So that's a sidebar. It's not going to do with
this case.
Speaker 4 (14:29):
Well, we definitely need more mental health TREAM and available
in the justice system, but even in the community as well.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
We have just a few minutes left, I'd like to
ask you to give me some quick answers to some
listener questions that have come in while we're talking. Was
there any indication Was there any indication that this crime
was motivated by radical Islam?
Speaker 4 (14:55):
Now none whatsoever, And the FBI looked at it very closely.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
We look at it close, so we had access to
the phone and family and interviews and so on, and
no indication that that was connected.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Another listener question, I've heard a rumor that this convicted
killer may be imprisoned in another state. So let me
start with is there anything to any truth to that?
Speaker 3 (15:20):
No, not that I'm aware of them.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
Is it true that the shooter was actually overheard saying
out loud, I like this or something along those lines.
Speaker 4 (15:35):
Yes, he was overheard by people hiding in the pharmacy
as he was firing upon it as a victim of
saying this is fun, This is such fun.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
And they repeated that four or five times.
Speaker 4 (15:44):
And I thought that pharmacists who testified a trial it
was an incredibly powerful witness and helped us overcome the
insanity acclaimed.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
It's reported that at some point the shooter pointed his
gun at a particular man, only to lower his gun
and not shoot him. So do you know if that
is true, and if so, do you know anything further
about why he didn't shoot that guy?
Speaker 4 (16:11):
That is one hundred percent truer represented that evidence a
trial to demonstrate that he was acting intentionally and making
decisions in the moment he.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
Pointed his gun.
Speaker 4 (16:19):
An elderly gentleman who was ninety years old, Paul Rotter.
Mister Roter was unaware that there was actually a mass
shooting underway, and was shopping.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
He wasn't running, he wasn't hiding, And the defendant lifted.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
Up his rifle, put it to his shoulder, looked through
his scope, and then just moved on.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
You know, everyone else using Henry.
Speaker 4 (16:37):
He was shooting and killing, with the exception of mister
Roht and another individual who also was similarly confused about
what was happening. Both times the shooter passed up the
opportunity to shoot and kill them thankfully.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
Wow. Any guess as to why the shooter took off
his clothes.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Yes, so both in terms of common sense.
Speaker 4 (16:58):
But then the defendant states, to the doctors who did
a fantastic job conducting the Sanatee evaluation in this case
on behalf of the state of Colorado, he took off
his clothes in order to ensure that he would not
be shot by law enforcement. So talk about understanding the differen.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
Right and wrong.
Speaker 4 (17:15):
He knows law enforcements there for him, he knows they're
coming in. They're coming in ready to deal with an
active shooter or shooters. At the time, they thought there
was anywhere up to the three shooters. He took off
all his clothes and put his hands up and surrendered
in an effort to not get shot. And then he
confermed that in statements to the doctors during the santate valuation.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
Wow. Wow, that's a remarkable I've already been shot.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
Sorry, he'd already been shot once by a bolded PA
through the leg, as you may recalled. But he definitely
then took off his clothes and surrendered to ensure he
did not get shot and killed by law enforcement.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Amazing.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
All right, last question for you, Michael, prior to trial,
did you ever meet with the defendant in person?
Speaker 4 (17:58):
No, as you know, we're not afforded the opportunity to
meet with or talk with the defendant directly unless it's
after their arrest and they made miranda, which had not
happened in this case.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
So I've never met with.
Speaker 4 (18:07):
Him or talked to him directly myself, other than seeing
him sitting.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
A few feet away in court every day as we
prosecuted the case.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Okay, so last thing, then, how did that feel to
you being a few feet away from that guy in
the courtroom.
Speaker 4 (18:27):
For me and for our team, we were one hundred
percent committed to ensuring that guy was held fully accountable.
So our focus was on doing the very best we
could present the evidence and to make sure we were
supporting the witnesses and the victims through the entire process.
And that's really where I kept my focus because I
recognized that when the shooter survived in March twenty second,
we inherited a tremendous responsibility to get this case right
(18:50):
for the victim families and for our to.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
You, Michael already is the Boulder County District Attorney. Congratulations
on winning that case. I'm sorry that there was a
case like that that you had to win.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
Me too, Thank you. Ross
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
Popular Podcasts
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.