AZ - Timothy Romans, 39, & Vincent Romero, 29, slain, St Johns, 5 Nov 2008 - #4

[oceanblueeyes]

I hate the idea of waiting until someone turns 18 and then trying them for a crime they committed as a child. It certainly gets in the way of an offender's right to a speedy trial. I get your point, but I just don't believe that children who murder are persuaded by sentences other children who murder have received.

If the plea deal is struck down then I don't think they will have to wait until he is 18. Woods said in an interview the other day he felt the boy if taught for 6 months would be competent to stand trial. And by law JR can have him remanded for 240 days not 180 days like the defense attorney suggests it would take. So that would be even more time to educate him on the ends and outs of a trial proceeding.

Since a child of 8 can be charged with a crime in Az.......age must not be the entire criteria and there has to be other plea deals made way before this one and probably ones receiving more punishment.

imo

 

[Native New Yorker]

Thanks, Fran and OL for continuing to bring out this information.
I can see an 8 year old being angry, yes, but I cannot see any 8 year old as being capable of planning this crime, and carrying it out, with no missteps, and 2 men dead, just like that.
If he did it, he was put up to it, had help. IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I wonder how many nine year old clients Wood has represented. Trust me, I know you can get a child to repeat information and get them to sound quite proficient when discussing the details and facts, but, in truth, they are just parroting what they have been taught. This lawyer may know the law, but he does not truly understand the cognitive ability of a child this young. If it is that easy, any nine year old could be a lawyer.



If Vincent was as loving a parent as he has been portrayed, I would think he would want his child to have the help he needs to recover from this terrible event and live as normal as life as he can. I wouldn't want my child to have his entire life destroyed by this.



But he isn't a 40 year old man and that makes a great deal of difference.

Oh he said he has had juvenile cases before and he had murder cases before but never both in the juvenile system. I think he knows this boy much better than anyone here does. He has been in constant contact with him for almost four months now. So I do think since he has talked with him on a regular basis knows if he understands something or not.

I think Vincent Romero would be like any loving parent who teaches their children to step up and be accountable for their own wrongdoings. I don't see him wanting to sellout his beliefs just to see that his son goes scott free without any accountability at all. And Vincent Romero has been silenced in death. He has no voice.

imoo

 

[OrdinaryLife]

Please. The child is incompetent because at his age there is no way he could possibly take in legalese. ie: the meaning of anything that has to do with his rights. Even adults have issues understanding this stuff. Hence, lawyers representing their client.

I do not understand the point of defining incompetence vs insanity where we all know insanity was never an issue. Age incompetence was. By the professionals in this case.

I quote Albert Lassen who is "the child's" guardian ad litem, "told me he may ask that the plea be thrown out, given reports that both psychologists found the boy incompetent". This is a quote to newspaper reporter. Here's the link.

www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/02/24/20090224roberts0225.html

imho

I quoted myself so that the link I shared earlier regarding Mr. Lassen could be read. He is the guardian ad litem for the child.

It's late here. Rest well until we meet tomorrow.

 

[Bobbisangel]

Ahhh,.................at least some people watching this crazy case get the point and not just SOME Websleuthers and the boy's own mother. Course, the last paragraph copied kind of explains why the boy decided what he did. In my book it's called 'black mail.' Like the boy's own lawyer said when he was asked how he knew the child understood what he was signing etc., "Because I explained it to him THREE times."

Oh, yeah, a just turned 9 yo understands the proceedings and what he signed when grown adults get confused of the terms as stated in the plea agreement. Surrrrre, that makes sense,......NOT!

He signs, he gets to go home with mom, he doesn't sign, he goes back to detention and could face the possibility of years and years in jail. What's a little lie for the price of freedom?

Thank you Lauie Roberts of The Arizona Republic. You've restored my faith in 'critical thinking.'

JMHO
fran



http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/02/24/20090224roberts0225.html

Competency at core of boy's guilty plea

by Laurie Roberts - Feb. 25, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

...................snip....................

But the confession was bogus, and both medical experts who examined the boy evidently concluded that he's not competent to stand trial. So how can a kid who isn't competent to stand trial be competent to plead guilty to negligent homicide?

And while I'm posing questions, how can a judge hold meetings to negotiate a plea and exclude not only the child's mother but also the guardian appointed by the court to look out for the boy's best interests?

Albert Lassen, who is Christian's guardian ad litem, told me he may ask that the plea be thrown out, given reports that both psychologists found the boy incompetent.

"You're either competent or you're incompetent, and if you're not competent, you can't enter a plea," he said. "I think the dodge is that the judge and the defense attorney and the prosecutor think that because they never got around to actually holding a competency hearing, as required under the rules, that therefore they can practice and maintain the ruse that the child's not incompetent."




..................snip.....................

If the plea is thrown out, the county could launch an all-out, six-month effort to make him competent - meaning that he understands the charges and can assist in his own defense. Or prosecutors could wait until he is 15 and attempt to try him as an adult. The evidence, given the poor police work, is not exactly what you would call ironclad. Still, it's a risk.

Where are you getting blackmail from? I suppose some would be thrilled to death if this boy was just turned loose to go live with his mother with no consequences at all...until he gets ticked off at his mother or someone else and decided to get rid of them too.

If a person is old enough to plan two murders and to take the lives of those two people then he is old enough to face the consequences of his actions.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Where are you getting blackmail from? I suppose some would be thrilled to death if this boy was just turned loose to go live with his mother with no consequences at all...until he gets ticked off at his mother or someone else and decided to get rid of them too.

If a person is old enough to plan two murders and to take the lives of those two people then he is old enough to face the consequences of his actions.

ITA!

Honestly I don't understand any of this. It is like if a killer is young enough then the victims just don't matter. What in the world is happening when the victims who have lost their lives this way just get no justice at all and not many even seems to care one whit either.

It seems all about coddling the one who did these horrible deeds. Hoping upon hope that he just walks away to mommy and lives happily ever after as if what he did, deserves no accountability. As if "what's the big deal? It was only two human beings." Or "just two MEN"

It is a sad day imo when the age of the killer can define and control whether justice ever comes to the ones who were cruelly cut down and who never stood a chance.

The least they should have done is make him serve 9 years in juvie and be mandated to have extensive mental treatment and rehabilitation.

imoo

 

[Openmind]

Oh he said he had had juvenile cases before and he had murder cases before but never both in the juvenile system. I think he knows this boy much better than anyone here does. He has been in constant contact with him for almost four months now. So I do think since he has talked with him on a regular basis knows if he understands something or not.

I have worked with children all my life. I have been in a courtroom on many occasions, and this it the most ridiculous suggestion I have ever heard. There is no way a child can be tutored to truly understand the intricate nature of law to help defend himself in court. This lawyer is arrogant to even imply he can.

I think Vincent Romero would be like any loving parent who teaches their children to step up and be accountable for their own wrongdoings. I don't see him wanting to sell his beliefs out just to see that his son goes scott free without any accountability at all. And Vincent Romero has been silenced in death. He has no voice.

imoo

Then truthfully neither one of us can speak to what he might want.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I have worked with children all my life. I have been in a courtroom on many occasions, and this it the most ridiculous suggestion I have ever heard. There is no way a child can be tutored to truly understand the intricate nature of law to help defend himself in court. This lawyer is arrogant to even imply he can.



Then truthfully neither one of us can speak to what he might want.

He comes across as a very logical, thoughtful man and certainly not arrogant. I think he knows his client well and has had to converse with him on many, many, occasions about legal issues.

Well Wood doesn't seem to be a young man either so I imagine that he too has had vast experience representing juvenile clients. In fact I think that is why the Court selected the Wood Law Office.

Also I think JR would have granted the 240 day reassessment date.

imoo

 

[fran]

I can't find it any longer, the video of the boy's attorney being interviewed later in the evening of the plea agreement. But I recall absolutely the reporter asked him if they could bring the charges back on the table if anything gets objected to or overturned or appealed or some such thing. His statement was under no circumstances can they bring the charges for the occurrance on Nov 5 back on the table. IIRC he specified both as a juvenile or an adult.

As far as I know, the ONLY thing the pros can do to this child should he break any part of his probation or release, they can put him back behind bars until he's 18. That's it.

Some people may not understand it, but it is what it is, IMHO.

IF adults can't understand the terms and rules of the plea deal, how would you expect a barely 9 yo child to?

fran

 

[southcitymom]

I can't find it any longer, the video of the boy's attorney being interviewed later in the evening of the plea agreement. But I recall absolutely the reporter asked him if they could bring the charges back on the table if anything gets objected to or overturned or appealed or some such thing. His statement was under no circumstances can they bring the charges for the occurrance on Nov 5 back on the table. IIRC he specified both as a juvenile or an adult.

As far as I know, the ONLY thing the pros can do to this child should he break any part of his probation or release, they can put him back behind bars until he's 18. That's it.

Some people may not understand it, but it is what it is, IMHO.

IF adults can't understand the terms and rules of the plea deal, how would you expect a barely 9 yo child to?

fran

You might be right. I am very comfortable with the plea and hope it stands - it doesn't sound like the GAL is hellbent on asking that it be set aside - the GAL may also realize the plea is in the child's best interest - whether he fully "gets" it or not.

 

[fran]

The DA calls it a plea deal, the judge calls it a plea deal, the def attorney even calls it a plea deal. That's what they call it when they offer it to anyone with a legal mental capicity to understand. You put the same type of offer to a barely 9 yo child, I call it black mail.

Agree to killing Tim and you get to go home with your mom.
or
Deny you killed either guy, you go back to jail, one or two trials, maybe 25 years to life.

In order to explain in 9 yo terms so he would understand, that's how you would have to put it.

IE
Lie, you get to go home, tell the truth and you get punished.

Blackmail, IMHO

fran

Where are you getting blackmail from? I suppose some would be thrilled to death if this boy was just turned loose to go live with his mother with no consequences at all...until he gets ticked off at his mother or someone else and decided to get rid of them too.

If a person is old enough to plan two murders and to take the lives of those two people then he is old enough to face the consequences of his actions.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I can't find it any longer, the video of the boy's attorney being interviewed later in the evening of the plea agreement. But I recall absolutely the reporter asked him if they could bring the charges back on the table if anything gets objected to or overturned or appealed or some such thing. His statement was under no circumstances can they bring the charges for the occurrence on Nov 5 back on the table. IIRC he specified both as a juvenile or an adult.

As far as I know, the ONLY thing the pros can do to this child should he break any part of his probation or release, they can put him back behind bars until he's 18. That's it.

Some people may not understand it, but it is what it is, IMHO.

IF adults can't understand the terms and rules of the plea deal, how would you expect a barely 9 yo child to?

fran

I thought he said that the mother has no legal authority to appeal. It is strictly up to the defendant.

So there won't be an appeal.

She isn't going to take that risk even if she could appeal and I still say if it was appealed and won, say the boy changed his mind for instance, it would null and void the plea agreement.

Wood knows this is not going to be appealed that is why he says the charge will stand imo.


imoo

 

[fran]

I have worked with children all my life. I have been in a courtroom on many occasions, and this it the most ridiculous suggestion I have ever heard. There is no way a child can be tutored to truly understand the intricate nature of law to help defend himself in court. This lawyer is arrogant to even imply he can.



Then truthfully neither one of us can speak to what he might want.

I especially like the def attorney's interview when he was asked by the reporter how he knew his client understood the charges and proceedings against him. His reply, "Because I explained it to him three times."

I have nothing further to say this evening.:slap:

JMHO
fran

 

[southcitymom]

The DA calls it a plea deal, the judge calls it a plea deal, the def attorney even calls it a plea deal. That's what they call it when they offer it to anyone with a legal mental capicity to understand. You put the same type of offer to a barely 9 yo child, I call it black mail.

Agree to killing Tim and you get to go home with your mom.
or
Deny you killed either guy, you go back to jail, one or two trials, maybe 25 years to life.

In order to explain in 9 yo terms so he would understand, that's how you would have to put it.

IE
Lie, you get to go home, tell the truth and you get punished.

Blackmail, IMHO

fran

I hear what you are saying. Plenty of grown men and women call it blackmail too, believe me. That's just semantics, IMHO. It's more like horse trading and it's the way all pleas work regardless of the perp's age. (it's also the way juries reach verdicts) Each side gets something, each side gives something - a solution is reached that everyone can live with.

I don't understand where you get the idea that the boy heard "lie and you go home - tell the truth and you get punished." For all we know, the boy has told the truth to the Judge, his attorney, the pros, the police, etc...

 

[fran]

I thought he said that the mother has no legal authority to appeal. It is strictly up to the defendant.

So there won't be an appeal.

She isn't going to take that risk even if she could appeal and I still say if it was appealed and won, say the boy changed his mind for instance, it would null and void the plea agreement.

Wood knows this is not going to be appealed that is why he says the charge will stand imo.


imoo

Like I said, the judge and lawyers skirted around the issue of competence. IMHO, it's an appealable issue, whether one likes it or not.

An incompetent person can't agree to a plea deal. Plain and simple.

The defendent was legally entitled to a competency hearing before anything else was done. He wasn't..............Was it legal?..............It may take a higher court to decide.

No matter what happens, the court can't put the charges back on the table. It's the deal. Their deal.

JMHO
fran

 

[Openmind]

He comes across as a very logical, thoughtful man and certainly not arrogant. I think he knows his client well and has had to converse with him on many, many, occasions about legal issues.

Well Wood doesn't seem to be a young man either so I imagine that he too has had vast experience representing juvenile clients. In fact I think that is why the Court selected the Wood Law Office.

Also I think JR would have granted the 240 day reassessment date.

imoo

The fact he says this shows how little he knows. Again, repeating information is not understanding the length and depth of what the law entails. Heck, even Abraham Lincoln took years to self educate himself in the law.

I guess it is a sure way to get any conviction thrown out in appeals. If for no other reason, the incompetence of the lawyer for allowing such a stunt.

 

[fran]

I hear what you are saying. Plenty of grown men and women call it blackmail too, believe me. That's just semantics, IMHO. It's more like horse trading and it's the way all pleas work regardless of the perp's age. (it's also the way juries reach verdicts) Each side gets something, each side gives something - a solution is reached that everyone can live with.

I don't understand where you get the idea that the boy heard "lie and you go home - tell the truth and you get punished." For all we know, the boy has told the truth to the Judge, his attorney, the pros, the police, etc...

LOL, oh sorry, southcitymom

But you know me! I think he's most likely innocent and the only way to agree that he killed either one of the men, would be to lie.

But it is IMHO........of course.

This is a 9 yo child. He would NOT understand the legal terms but he understands if he 'admits' he gets to go home and if he does NOT admit, he goes back to jail. The lawyer did explain it three times. I'm sure he understood very clearly.

Tell them what they want to hear. "admit." oh.........and say 'no' when the judge asks you if you want a trial.

JMHO
fran

 

[Fairy1]

I have worked with children all my life. I have been in a courtroom on many occasions, and this it the most ridiculous suggestion I have ever heard. There is no way a child can be tutored to truly understand the intricate nature of law to help defend himself in court. This lawyer is arrogant to even imply he can.

ITA Openmind. If 9-year-old children could learn and fully comprehend intricate and complicated laws - such as what we have seen in this case -in as little as 6 months, we'd have tons of child-attorneys running around and countless parents relieved not to have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars putting their kids through law school (myself included)!

Does it occur to anyone that CR's mom KNOWS the evidence they have against her child and KNOWS that it does not point to him being the killer?

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that CR's GAL was NOT present at the plea hearing and does not appear to have been in favor of the plea - along with the boy'S MOTHER - who also was not there?

Does anyone here TRULY believe they should wait to charge this child with crimes he may have committed at the age of 8 when he is 18? I just cannot justify that any which way and I just don't understand how anyone could possibly support that.

I do believe this boy needs serious therapy regardless of what happened that day and I sincerely hope all the attorneys and the judge involved are doing what they're doing to ensure that happens. IMO, the label of "incompetent" is due to his age, not his intelligence level. He is a little boy.

And unless I see, with my own 2 eyes, the forensic evidence proving it beyond the shadow of a doubt, I will never believe this child executed these murders as they would have us believe. I am the mother of 2 children of waaaaay above average intelligence and I know for absolute certain neither one of them would have been capable of killing 2 grown men with a single-shot .22 rifle in this manner at the age of 8. No way.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I have worked with children all my life. I have been in a courtroom on many occasions, and this it the most ridiculous suggestion I have ever heard. There is no way a child can be tutored to truly understand the intricate nature of law to help defend himself in court. This lawyer is arrogant to even imply he can.

ITA Openmind. If 9-year-old children could learn and fully comprehend intricate and complicated laws - such as what we have seen in this case -in as little as 6 months, we'd have tons of child-attorneys running around and countless parents relieved not to have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars putting their kids through law school (myself included)!

Does it occur to anyone that CR's mom KNOWS the evidence they have against her child and KNOWS that it does not point to him being the killer?

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that CR's GAL was NOT present at the plea hearing and does not appear to have been in favor of the plea - along with the boy'S MOTHER - who also was not there?

Does anyone here TRULY believe they should wait to charge this child with crimes he may have committed at the age of 8 when he is 18? I just cannot justify that any which way and I just don't understand how anyone could possibly support that.

I do believe this boy needs serious therapy regardless of what happened that day and I sincerely hope all the attorneys and the judge involved are doing what they're doing to ensure that happens. IMO, the label of "incompetent" is due to his age, not his intelligence level. He is a little boy.

And unless I see, with my own 2 eyes, the forensic evidence proving it beyond the shadow of a doubt, I will never believe this child executed these murders as they would have us believe. I am the mother of 2 children of waaaaay above average intelligence and I know for absolute certain neither one of them would have been capable of killing 2 grown men with a single-shot .22 rifle in this manner at the age of 8. No way.

IMO

LOL! Well you aren't going to see it. Wood made sure of that and all the other records are sealed now.

Hundreds of pages from the DPS investigation have never been put up on the site.

Wood seemed relieved that they all had been sealed now. He sure didnt peep a word or even give a hint as to what the motive was. Just said the boy had talked to him about his involvement.

I think that was one of the "wranglings" going on behind the scene. Negotiations to make the plea deal and that everything on the defendant would go "whoosh" and sealed up like a tomb.

imoo

 

[Openmind]

I especially like the def attorney's interview when he was asked by the reporter how he knew his client understood the charges and proceedings against him. His reply, "Because I explained it to him three times."

I have nothing further to say this evening.:slap:

JMHO
fran

He really said that! LOL -- so the magic number is three.

I heard in a workshop you have to hear information 7 times before you understand how to independently practice a concept and must practice a concept 18 times before you reach a beginning level of proficiency. And that is for age appropriate material.

Goodnight.