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

[fran]

And DPS investigation report of over 2,000+ pages is far from being dismissive of anything. I think it was over investigated due to it being a high profile case.

I don't think Roca would force the boy if he did not want to see his dad's side of the family. I don't see why you think he wouldn't want to see them? Why wouldn't he?:waitasec: They have been very consistent in his life.... not like his mother who popped in an out for years. I think he loves his dad's family very much and has no reason not to........

Why? This case was never a death penalty case to begin with due to his young age.

I don't know what you mean. I think these two female officers were stunned and didn't know what to say after he told them he had shot both Vinnie and Tim. If they were going to coerce him they sure wouldn't have come up with what he told imo.

This is not about coulda/woulda/shoulda...........this is about dida.........and he did admit to homicide in the death of Tim Romans.

imo

Well, since this case was over-investigated, they shouldn't mind having a def attorney or two or three look over their files. I'm sure everything will be in order and completely above board.......:bang:

Well, thank goodness Judge Roca wouldn't FORCE the child to visit someone IF he didn't want to

Yeah, those two female officers were really gems...........one just lost an election the day before and the second one was on her first day on the job for detective.:croc:

Imagine that, telling a child, "what he did caused the death of another," and he's supposed to equate that how???? A just turned nine yo child. :waitasec:

But, he's only 9 yo and doesn't yet realize that people call him a double murderer and one of his victims was his own dad. I think when that fact equates, this child will not be as agreeable... to this sham of a plea deal. But alas, it will be too late,.......... or will it?

JMHO
fran

 

[fran]

Still don't understand why you go to such extremes to defend this child. Something his own mother is not willing to do. IMO

Because I haven't seen ONE thing YET, that shows me beyond a doubt, this child committed this crime.

The court has given everyone the RIGHT to call this child a murderer, among other things.

WHAT IF THE COURT IS WRONG?

I will NEVER refer to this child as GUILTY until I have seen answers to questions that I've posted over and over and over. The fact that the records are now sealed, well,.............I guess I'll never know then,..........or will I?

JMHO
fran

PS......I DO have someone in particular I suspect.........and it's NOT this child. It's a shame if LE can't see it and hasn't checked it out. A literal shame .....fran

 

[fran]

You may disagree with Arizona lawmakers but the law is the law. A GAL nor a parent has any say so in a plea deal. Only a defendant knows if they are guilty or not.......not a mother or a GAL that was assigned after the murders happened.

I have never seen a case where all discovery was revealed once a plea deal is done. That is why in many cases that ends in a plea deal we hope that it will be a State where the defendant has to stand before court and tell how they committed the crime. Evidently AZ in not one of those states. All he had to admit to JR was that he did something dangerous and reckless causing the death of Tim Romans.

Oh I think there has been a lot to help this boy. They think it is in his best interest to keep the details of what he did sealed and the State of AZ is going to pay for his mental therapy for the next 9 years.

And defendant, young or old, would have loved to have been treated this way in the justice system.

imoo

I believe the Arizona law states a child is allowed a 'competency hearing' as well. But they didn't have one for this child. They avoided it.

The judge decided, on his own, using his judicial authority, that the child was competent.

Of course, OTOH, you have the GAL who stated, in a newspaper interview, that the pros' very own psychiatrist AND the def' psychiatrist, BOTH deemed the child 'INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL.'

Now, seems the JUDGE was very well aware of these findings, as the GAL had to request a copy of the written reports from the Court.

We may see how well Judge Roca's decision on that matter stands up to scrutiny.

JMHO
fran

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I believe the Arizona law states a child is allowed a 'competency hearing' as well. But they didn't have one for this child. They avoided it.

The judge decided, on his own, using his judicial authority, that the child was competent.

Of course, OTOH, you have the GAL who stated, in a newspaper interview, that the pros' very own psychiatrist AND the def' psychiatrist, BOTH deemed the child 'INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL.'

Now, seems the JUDGE was very well aware of these findings, as the GAL had to request a copy of the written reports from the Court.

We may see how well Judge Roca's decision on that matter stands up to scrutiny.

JMHO
fran

By the laws of Arizona, no matter what the expert opinions may have been, it is solely Judge Roca's call when it comes to the end results. Experts give opinions to consider.........not facts.

imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Well, since this case was over-investigated, they shouldn't mind having a def attorney or two or three look over their files. I'm sure everything will be in order and completely above board.......:bang:

Well, thank goodness Judge Roca wouldn't FORCE the child to visit someone IF he didn't want to

Yeah, those two female officers were really gems...........one just lost an election the day before and the second one was on her first day on the job for detective.:croc:

Imagine that, telling a child, "what he did caused the death of another," and he's supposed to equate that how???? A just turned nine yo child. :waitasec:

But, he's only 9 yo and doesn't yet realize that people call him a double murderer and one of his victims was his own dad. I think when that fact equates, this child will not be as agreeable... to this sham of a plea deal. But alas, it will be too late,.......... or will it?

JMHO
fran

You never did answer. Why wouldn't he want to see his own grandmother/grandfather and other family members that have lived in that town all of his life and have been in his life consistently?

I don't think the courts will just open any records that they have sealed. Not in this case nor any other case that ends in a plea deal.

They didn't have to tell him anything. He knew what death was and he even told one of the officers that his dad was not coming back when talking to the officer about his dad wouldn't be needing his cell phone anymore. He knew full well what shots to the chest and head do.

I believe both officers are still on the force aren't they?

imoo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Do we know a date for final sentencing?

I dont know when final sentencing will take place but there is another hearing, I believe, to take place on April 2, 2009

 

[southcitymom]

I dont know when final sentencing will take place but there is another hearing, I believe, to take place on April 2, 2009

Thanks OBE.

 

[Bobbisangel]

I personally see no reason, either morally or legally, the State should seal the records of this investigation. Up to this time, the State had NO PROBLEM plastering everything they WANTED on the internet for everyone and his brother to read. They didn't even redact the child's name, plastering his name all over the world.

They say the child is guilty. They've got him to plea guilty. They got their way.

What they have put on the internet so far, shows only a small portion of what SHOULD have been a double murder investigation. IF they have nothing to hide, they would go ahead and file ALL they have. By NOT FILING it, that make them LOOK, APPEAR, as if they don't want everyone to see how they completed their investigation.

It's my understanding, that in order for a judge to ACCEPT a plea deal, he must first be certain a complete and thorough investigation has been done.

They started this............putting everything out there. Now let them finish it, prove it.

To seal the files at this point, IMHO, is ridiculous and making them look as if they're hiding something.

JMHO
fran

They don't owe us a thing and don't have to prove anything to us. We are just lucky that they released as much as they have.

 

[Bobbisangel]

I can see a defendant taking a plea if they were going for the death penalty. Imo, the risk would be too high to roll the dice in court but this kid was being tried as a juvenile and the most time he could have gotten for both murders had it gone to trial would be to the age of 18, then he is cut loose.

I do agree. I do think that attorneys really know if their client is guilty or not. They are the ones that look closely at the true evidence handed over in any case, even though many don't directly ask their client. I truly think that his attorneys thought this was the best deal possible for him and to insure that he did not do major time later on when he became an adult.

imo

I couldn't agree more. I believe that the judge and all of the attorneys have seen all of the evidence and everything else involved in this case. They all know exactly what happened. Just because all of the info hasn't been released to the public doesn't mean it hasn't been released to those involved. Last I knew, none of us are involved in this case except for being her on WS.
I think that those who believe there is an agreement between all of the players to get this boy to plea and be done with it...are the naive ones here.
I think that there are those who want this boy to be innocent so badly that they will come up with anything to make it so. That is what it seems to me anyway. That isn't reality though. If the evidence didn't point to this boy his attorney would never go for a plea. That is just common sense. His attorney would be doing everything possible to get this boy's name cleared and get him home with his mother. I also don't believe that the Pros is holding info back from the defense. I doubt that the Pros want to see this boy hung out to dry either. Who would? It will be interesting to see how this all ends. I just hope this boy gets some long term therapy and I don't see that happening if he lives with his mother because she thinks he is innocent.

 

[Salem]

~respectfully snipped~

You may disagree with Arizona lawmakers but the law is the law. A GAL nor a parent has any say so in a plea deal. Only a defendant knows if they are guilty or not.......not a mother or a GAL that was assigned after the murders happened.

OBE - I don't believe the portion of your statement, that I bolded, is correct. It is the responsibility of the GAL and in fact, it is the GAL's very purpose to make recommendations to the court. I am very bothered by the fact that this GAL did not even attend the hearing. It makes me think he is in cahoots with the prosecution in this case. The GAL is supposed to be an objective advocate for the child with the full authority of the court behind the GAL. The GAL should have made a written recommendation to the judge, either in support or opposed to the plea deal, depending on whether the GAL thought it was in the best interest of the child. However, in this case, it is my understanding that the GAL did not feel it was important or something to attend the hearing. That sets off red alarms to me and Woods should be asking for a GAL that takes the GAL's responsibilities seriously.

My opinion,

Salem

 

[Salem]

Respectfully snipped ~

You never did answer. Why wouldn't he want to see his own grandmother/grandfather and other family members that have lived in that town all of his life and have been in his life consistently?

imoo

I don't know what Fran is thinking, but the Agreement posted on the Court Clerk's site contains a provision that the child not have any contact with the victims, the immediate or extended family of the victims. So even if the child wanted to see these family members, the terms of his agreement and probation prohibit it.

Salem

 

[fran]

Respectfully snipped ~

I don't know what Fran is thinking, but the Agreement posted on the Court Clerk's site contains a provision that the child not have any contact with the victims, the immediate or extended family of the victims. So even if the child wanted to see these family members, the terms of his agreement and probation prohibit it.

Salem

Hey Salem:
What I'm thinking about the boy's contact with the victim's family is that in the plea agreement, it's stated that he is to have NO contact with them except IF a written request has been made and considered. I don't know WHO requested it, either the defendant or the victims, but the matter was brought up at the recent hearing. The def objected to the child seeing the family, I believe, but the judge said he could. It was some type of motion or discussion, or whatever.

The exact wording in the court document said:

"The Court and Counsel discuss granting visitation and the Court will take the matter under advisement."

There was another document released regarding this, but I'm not able to locate it right now.

JMHO
fran

 

[fran]

This judge may have had the authority to deem this child competent, but he MAY HAVE over-stepped that authority by declaring the child 'competent,' when TWO doctors, both the def and pros representatives, deemed the child 'incompetent.' He also side-stepped the GAL, which btw, HE appointed to look out for this child's best interest. IMHO, he should have, at the LEAST, consulted with him to ensure this child's best interests were being met with this plea deal. He didn't.........appears to be appealable, to me. I could be wrong.

Also, FWIW, when there is a plea deal in the works, which we know there was in this case since before Thanksgiving, the pros is NOT obligated to turn over exculpatory reports to the def.

I'm not going to ASSUME anything in this case. What I have seen, as I've stated before, TO ME, does not indicate guilt of this child beyond a reasonable doubt. There is too MUCH UNKNOWN, for me to say this child is guilty.

I have confidence that this child's mom will be able to get the ear of at least one, if not more, attorneys or investigators, willing to look into this matter for her, to see IF this plea deal is valid and IF LE and this pros had enough to convict this child and there's no other POSSIBLE suspects. I don't think anyone who MAY help this boy, would file an appeal IF they didn't think they could win.

Who knows, maybe IF the mom is able to inlist help of COMPETENT legal counsel and REAL investigators, they may even be able to solve this crime.

I doubt that anyone who believes this child is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, should have any problem with this mother being SURE her child is guilty. Of this mother having the matter looked into by a third party. I mean, if there's nothing to hide, they won't find anything and the conviction will stand. Nothing wrong with a mother having faith she knows her child better than anyone else.

JMHO
fran

 

[oceanblueeyes]

~respectfully snipped~

OBE - I don't believe the portion of your statement, that I bolded, is correct. It is the responsibility of the GAL and in fact, it is the GAL's very purpose to make recommendations to the court. I am very bothered by the fact that this GAL did not even attend the hearing. It makes me think he is in cahoots with the prosecution in this case. The GAL is supposed to be an objective advocate for the child with the full authority of the court behind the GAL. The GAL should have made a written recommendation to the judge, either in support or opposed to the plea deal, depending on whether the GAL thought it was in the best interest of the child. However, in this case, it is my understanding that the GAL did not feel it was important or something to attend the hearing. That sets off red alarms to me and Woods should be asking for a GAL that takes the GAL's responsibilities seriously.

My opinion,

Salem

If he/she was in "cahoots" I highly doubt he/she would be requesting copies of the experts evaluation reports.

Personally, I don't think anyone was in cahoots. I think they gave this boy the fairest deal of possibly any other defendant ever, that had been charged with premeditated double homicides and that was due to his age.

I don't know what the GAL recommended to the court or didn't. This could have been done by the GAL in earlier proceedings and they made their voice known then.

But they are not the ones that decides a plea deal anyway. Yes, they are there to oversee that the child's interest are met but they are not the end all nor have the final say so.

I think the GAL should seriously consider the possible loss and gains of this plea deal. If it is struck down there is nothing stopping JR from deciding that he would have the boy assessed again in 240 days. There is nothing guaranteeing that and at that time the boy will still be age incompetent. If this plea is struck down and I don't believe it will be, it will really, really put this boy in a very precarious position where the unknown could turnout to be much worse than it is now.

The presiding Judge is the one who makes all final decisions.

I think Roca is comfortable with his decisions.



imo

 

[Linda7NJ]

SNIPED
I have confidence that this child's mom will be able to get the ear of at least one, if not more, attorneys or investigators, willing to look into this matter for her, to see IF this plea deal is valid and IF LE and this pros had enough to convict this child and there's no other POSSIBLE suspects. I don't think anyone who MAY help this boy, would file an appeal IF they didn't think they could win.

Who knows, maybe IF the mom is able to inlist help of COMPETENT legal counsel and REAL investigators, they may even be able to solve this crime.

I doubt that anyone who believes this child is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, should have any problem with this mother being SURE her child is guilty. Of this mother having the matter looked into by a third party. I mean, if there's nothing to hide, they won't find anything and the conviction will stand. Nothing wrong with a mother having faith she knows her child better than anyone else.

JMHO
fran

I'd bet my last dollar that this mother isn't going to do a darn thing.

She's CONTENT

 

[oceanblueeyes]

This judge may have had the authority to deem this child competent, but he MAY HAVE over-stepped that authority by declaring the child 'competent,' when TWO doctors, both the def and pros representatives, deemed the child 'incompetent.' He also side-stepped the GAL, which btw, HE appointed to look out for this child's best interest. IMHO, he should have, at the LEAST, consulted with him to ensure this child's best interests were being met with this plea deal. He didn't.........appears to be appealable, to me. I could be wrong.

Also, FWIW, when there is a plea deal in the works, which we know there was in this case since before Thanksgiving, the pros is NOT obligated to turn over exculpatory reports to the def.

I'm not going to ASSUME anything in this case. What I have seen, as I've stated before, TO ME, does not indicate guilt of this child beyond a reasonable doubt. There is too MUCH UNKNOWN, for me to say this child is guilty.

I have confidence that this child's mom will be able to get the ear of at least one, if not more, attorneys or investigators, willing to look into this matter for her, to see IF this plea deal is valid and IF LE and this pros had enough to convict this child and there's no other POSSIBLE suspects. I don't think anyone who MAY help this boy, would file an appeal IF they didn't think they could win.

Who knows, maybe IF the mom is able to inlist help of COMPETENT legal counsel and REAL investigators, they may even be able to solve this crime.

I doubt that anyone who believes this child is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, should have any problem with this mother being SURE her child is guilty. Of this mother having the matter looked into by a third party. I mean, if there's nothing to hide, they won't find anything and the conviction will stand. Nothing wrong with a mother having faith she knows her child better than anyone else.

JMHO
fran

Until the plea deal was accepted the State was expected to turnover all evidence. Exculpatory of otherwise and they did imo.

Also Judge Roca directed the defense attorneys to turnover all of the evidence they too uncovered to the State. Yet I never saw one bit of discovery turned over by them during the entire time and Roca told them in the status hearing shortly after the probable cause hearing. We never even saw them turnover the results of their reenactment expert that the State of AZ paid for.

This was not the plea deal that was offered back in November. This was a plea deal offered by Whiting, the new CA. Even Wood said it was a new plea deal. Although when the State did offer a plea back then the defense attorneys said they were going to wait until the evidence came back in so the timing of this plea was right in line with the evidence being known to them.

I do understand Eryn's position. No mother wants to believe their child murdered two people. I do understand why she fears asking him about the murders because if she did then she knows she may have to testify under oath one day as to what he told her. So it has become her coping mechanism to not ask and for him not to tell.

imoo

 

[Linda7NJ]

If he/she was in "cahoots" I highly doubt he/she would be requesting copies of the experts evaluation reports.

Personally, I don't think anyone was in cahoots. I think they gave this boy the fairest deal of possibly any other defendant ever, that had been charged with premeditated double homicides and that was due to his age.

I don't know what the GAL recommended to the court or didn't. This could have been done by the GAL in earlier proceedings and they made their voice known then.

But they are not the ones that decides a plea deal anyway. Yes, they are there to oversee that the child's interest are met but they are not the end all nor have the final say so.

I think the GAL should seriously consider the possible loss and gains of this plea deal. If it is struck down there is nothing stopping JR from deciding that he would have the boy assessed again in 240 days. There is nothing guaranteeing that and at that time the boy will still be age incompetent. If this plea is struck down and I don't believe it will be, it will really, really put this boy in a very precarious position where the unknown could turnout to be much worse than it is now.

The presiding Judge is the one who makes all final decisions.

I think Roca is comfortable with his decisions.



imo

I would go so far as to say EVERYONE actually involved in the case ( not counting victim's families) is CONTENT with the outcome. IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I'd bet my last dollar that this mother isn't going to do a darn thing.

She's CONTENT

I have read numerous articles where attorneys both Prosecutors and Defense said this is the best outcome for this case.

I think she needs to weigh the risks and I believe she will. By wanting it appealed imo she has put him in great jeopardy. It would put everything right back on the table and that is not in the best interest of this boy imo.

And I expect it would also unseal the rest of the records that have been sealed. Which were done in order to protect the boy imo.

imoo

 

[fran]

Wow! With all the rules about 'exculpatory evidence,' to think that such a thing as 'evidence suppression' could still be an issue.:doh:

Never say NEVER.

JMHO
fran



http://www.ip-no.org/Connick_ Suppression_Report.pdf

Innocence Project New Orleans

According to available records, favorable evidence was withheld from 9 of the 36 (25%) men sentenced to death in Orleans Parish from 1973-2002. Four of those men were eventually exonerated, having been released only after serving a collective 43 years on death row. In other words, one in every four men sent to death row by the New Orleans District Attorney’s office from 1973-2002 was convicted after evidence that could have cast doubt on their guilt was withheld from them at trial. Four men, about 11%, were completely innocent.

An additional 25 non-capital cases were examinedin which allegations of evidence suppression were made.1 In 19 of these cases, courts found favorable evidence was indeed withheld, and in all others the court deemed that the allegations warranted an evidentiary hearing. Of these non-capital cases, four men were later found innocent of their crimes and released from life sentences after having served 70 collective years in Angola. Ten more had their convictions reversed. As a result, the State bore the expense of holding new trials for each of these men - a significant cost to taxpayers that would have been avoided had the District Attorney’s office not withheld evidence during the initial trial.

The imprisonment of the innocent is just one of many detrimental consequences of evidence suppression. There are several reasons why this practice must be confronted

 

[fran]

Withholding exculpatory evidence in Dallas, Texas.

Personally, I think they should be prosecuted. An apology won't do.

JMHO
fran


60 Minutes

This is from the Innocence Project in Dallas

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126328.html

Should Prosecutors Who Withhold Exculpatory Evidence Face Criminal Charges?