1/23 thru 1/25

[wolfi_2]

that´s right, this case was in the newspaper and a few times on TV here in Germany and I think in a lot of other country´s too. And as I know, there are all way's some consequences taken, I know a few, people to whom I speak about this case, they canceled their vacation trip into the US or would never decide one in the near future. Because for me and a lot of people here, it´s still unbelievable to try an 8 or 9 year old boy in court. Incarnation of a child in solitary, shackling ,handcuffing, no picture of mom, no contact visit´s with his mom (speaking through a wall of glass), It's against all our human feeling's!

[GentleBreeze]

I think they're working on a deal.....discovery is coming back and it's a little too quiet.

Good Morning Everyone! It's supposed to be 70 here today. Yippee!

I think something sure is happening. The DA may be holding back on releasing the rest of the evidence so that it can't be seen by the public. That might be in the negotiations if a plea deal is being considered by the defense.

Lets see in the 29th hearing how much Brewer/Wood is protesting that discovery is not back. I noticed in the January 6th hearing the defense attorneys weren't yelling that they weren't receiving discovery in a timely basis.

imoo

[Hawk]

Good Morning Everyone! It's supposed to be 70 here today. Yippee!

I think something sure is happening. The DA may be holding back on releasing the rest of the evidence so that it can't be seen by the public. That might be in the negotiations if a plea deal is being considered by the defense.

Lets see in the 29th hearing how much Brewer/Wood is protesting that discovery is not back. I noticed in the January 6th hearing the defense attorneys weren't yelling that they weren't receiving discovery in a timely basis.

imoo

Didn't the judge tell the prosecution that the end of Jan. is the deadline for presenting lab evidence?

[Cherishlove]

the confession is just one of many things that make me believe this child is guilty. I've stated my reasons many times.

Yes, false confessions do occur. I never said they didn't.

I am quite certain i would be very upset if it were to happen to any of my loved ones. I wouldn't expect everyone on message boards all over the internet to share my opinion nor would i expect posters to afford my loved one the presumption of innocence. I would hope the jury would.

If you need an example of posters totally disregarding the presumption of innocence, take a look at the casey anthony board. i haven't read the casey anothony board, but that woman didn't report her child missing for a month and there are tons of evidence against that woman. It's a no wonder most people feel she is guilty. This is a little boy who is too young to even defend himself and there isn't much evidence imo at all. I feel the boy is innocent, but if they wanted to arrest someone without a proper investigation it should of been the living adult in that home left alive that is responsible for this child, they left guns/ammo unlocked.

[GentleBreeze]

Didn't the judge tell the prosecution that the end of Jan. is the deadline for presenting lab evidence?

He did not give an affirmative deadline that it must be back then or heads would roll. He like most Judges urged that it be done by a certain date and thinks that time is adequate. Even Judge Roca commented how he knew getting test results back can be a pain. (paraphrasing of course) If there is a straggler or two then he will again address that in the next hearing, I would think.

imoo

'

[Perplexed1]

i haven't read the casey anothony board, but that woman didn't report her child missing for a month and there are tons of evidence against that woman. It's a no wonder most people feel she is guilty. This is a little boy who is too young to even defend himself and there isn't much evidence imo at all. I feel the boy is innocent, but if they wanted to arrest someone without a proper investigation it should of been the living adult in that home left alive that is responsible for this child, they left guns/ammo unlocked.

Very good, Cherish. :thumbup:

[Hawk]

He did not give an affirmative deadline that it must be back then or heads would roll. He like most Judges urged that it be done by a certain date and thinks that time is adequate. Even Judge Roca commented how he knew getting test results back can be a pain. (paraphrasing of course) If there is a straggler or two then he will again address that in the next hearing, I would think.

imoo

'

I don't understand. What could take so long? Tests on the rifle and casings should take about an hour. What DNA would be tested? It's the boys home! Fingerprints? Another hour or two. What would that prove anyway? (The child's prints). Mr. Haag's gunshot reenactment might take a day.
Even the mental evaluations were completed weeks ago.
If aviation moved as slow as the legal system we'd never have gotten past bi-planes. If the medical profession was this slow we'd have to go for our 'bleeding'...........leeches, etc....

[GentleBreeze]

i haven't read the casey anothony board, but that woman didn't report her child missing for a month and there are tons of evidence against that woman. It's a no wonder most people feel she is guilty. This is a little boy who is too young to even defend himself and there isn't much evidence imo at all. I feel the boy is innocent, but if they wanted to arrest someone without a proper investigation it should of been the living adult in that home left alive that is responsible for this child, they left guns/ammo unlocked.

Casey Anthony lives in Florida that is under the Sunshine law where all evidence is exposed before trial. Florida cases are very open and exposed beforehand.

There are many other cases that do not happen in Florida where only a glimpse of the evidence is revealed before trial. So to me this boy's case is typical expect for the age of the defendant. Countless cases discussed here the suspect is not given a presumption of innocence. That is a legal requirement only afforded to a defendant in their trial by a jury or presiding Judge. It has nothing to do with an opinion board. I would say in the majority of cases discussed here the posters are usually about 85% for guilt and 15% for innocence before any trial is held. We are all afforded our rights to have an opinion, whether it turns out to be wrong or right, it really doesn't matter, since we, as the public, do not have to presume anything one way or the other before a trial is held.

While you say you see no evidence of his guilt that doesn't ever mean it doesn't exist. The Judge, Prosecutor and the defense attorneys know plenty and truthfully we do not know all the evidence by a long shot.

I think they arrested him because they had probable cause to do so just like in any other case. Once that happens then it is up to the Prosecutor to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe they will do so, without his confession.

imo

[Cherishlove]

I get it...so ...if the majority on some message board believes someone is guilty than presumption of innocence goes out the window????

Seems like hypocritcy to me.

My point was...... there is no presumption of innocence on a message board. It's for the jury.My point was I can see why most people would feel this woman is guilty, but with this child and not much evidence yet at all, it's hard to understand for alot of people including myself why someone would assume he is guilty.

[muska]

Might it be quiet simply because Woods is on vacation?

[Hawk]

i was glad to read about something positive in st.johns. there is a woman who happens to be a local author working on her 3rd book and expecting to deliver her 7th child in february. wow!! there has been so much bad stuff going around due to the little boy and i was just glad to read about something positive for a change. maybe that is a good sign for good to come. lets hope and pray so.


Those books about birthin' babies?

[GentleBreeze]

I don't understand. What could take so long? Tests on the rifle and casings should take about an hour. What DNA would be tested? It's the boys home! Fingerprints? Another hour or two. What would that prove anyway? (The child's prints). Mr. Haag's gunshot reenactment might take a day.
Even the mental evaluations were completed weeks ago.
If aviation moved as slow as the legal system we'd never have gotten past bi-planes. If the medical profession was this slow we'd have to go for our 'bleeding'...........leeches, etc....

First our labs all across the country are backlogged beyond belief. With the economy crunch I think it will only worsen. This is not the only gruesome murder that has occurred in Arizona, I am sure and other cases are also backlogged, such as rapes, assaults, attempted murder and other violent crimes that needs testing done.

The problem with this case is it is a juvenile but the crime is complex that requires extensive forensic testing due to the crimes.

It really isn't all that off than any other case I have seen here. It takes months for all the evidence to come back in. It even took over 2 months for them to get the DNA profile on the suspect back that murdered Sara Walker in Texas. So I don't see anything abnormal in the time span in this one which has many aspects to it.

imoo

[Hawk]

What, if any, DNA are they testing?

[GentleBreeze]

What, if any, DNA are they testing?

Who really knows, Hawk, that is like trying to read tealeaves.

They may have found bloody fingerprints or footprints in blood in the carpet. They can test for so much and in so many ways. We really have no idea what the crime scene revealed and if it lined up with the story he gave.

All I know they did ask for his hair/fingerprints/footprints and other dna and it was granted. So that means to me they aren't just testing the gun but are testing other things as well.

imoo

[Hawk]

Who really knows, Hawk, that is like trying to read tealeaves.

They may have found bloody fingerprints or footprints in blood in the carpet. They can test for so much and in so many ways. We really have no idea what the crime scene revealed and if it lined up with the story he gave.

All I know they did ask for his hair/fingerprints/footprints and other dna and it was granted. So that means to me they aren't just testing the gun but are testing other things as well.

imoo

I understand. Sorry to be so dense though about what possible DNA they could have proving this boy did the deeds. A hair from his head on his dad's shirt? He hugged his dad that morning? Bloody footprints are meaningless too. After all, he did find the victims. And he lives in the house. If the state is doing all this it's a waste of taxpayers dollars. Anything they have in this regard can be easily explained away by his defence team. Or a discussion board poster.
I think they're smokin' the tealeaves.

[GentleBreeze]

I am not having difficultly understanding why so many feel he's innocent. He's 8 and most people can't accept the fact that an 8 year old can do something so horrid. That's fine and I can respect your opinion.

I on the other hand see it differently, I am not emotionally invested in this child like so many others posting here. I view him like I would any other defendant.

I find it offensive when posters would go to such extremes as to accuse one of the victims of drug dealing with absolutely nothing to back it up, make bold accusations about family members of the deceased with ZERO evidence...even going as far as accusing them of double murder. I've read the most outlandish fabrications imaginable presented as facts in effort to exonerate this boy.

I also find it offensive when I am personally attacked for not conforming to the majority and stating my own opinions. This occurs most often when a point is made and can't be refuted. It's incredibly pathetic considering we are all supposed to be adults.

Regardless of your opinion OR mine, the fact remains the judge found probable cause to charge and detain this boy.

I agree, HN.

I certainly understand perfectly the position of other posters who thinks this boy is innocent. I never belittle them or taunt them for their own opinions and I certainly don't personally attack them. I don't expect everyone to have the same opinion as mine and never will. That is trying to control someone else and I don't want control over anyone or want to suppress any entitled opinions about the CASE.

Yet the emotional, explosive, personal attacks are constantly made against the ones who do not have a lock step opinion. I find that not only offensive but quite childish as well and it is sad when we can't civilly debate the case like adults.

imoo

[Hawk]

Here's the latest, in case anyone missed it.



http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/REQUEST%20FOR%20HEARING.pdf

[GentleBreeze]

Your last paragraph.
Did you read the post re the Medell Banks case? Your last paragraph is not always the case.

I have read that case but what happened in another case has no bearing on the one at hand.

Each case must be on an individual basis and for now this is how this case stands.

imo

[GentleBreeze]

I'm hoping they are testing the blood drops on the driveway.

I think they have even though I am pretty sure the crime scene showed it was the blood trail left by Romans when he was hit.

I also hope they test the blood found on the paper in the boy's trashcan.

imoo

[Perplexed1]

:thumbsup:If that's the case, there shouldn't be a presumption of guilt either.


:tonguewag::thumbsup:

[JusticeDawg©]

Here's the latest, in case anyone missed it.



http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/REQUEST%20FOR%20HEARING.pdf

I knew that. Pretty good huh?

[Hawk]

I knew that. Pretty good huh?

I'm not sure, because as usual I don't know what it means. Lawyering...ugh.

[JusticeDawg©]

I'm hoping they are testing the blood drops on the driveway.

Of course they did. They can't "guess" who it belonged to. Although it is pretty evident.

[GentleBreeze]

I understand. Sorry to be so dense though about what possible DNA they could have proving this boy did the deeds. A hair from his head on his dad's shirt? He hugged his dad that morning? Bloody footprints are meaningless too. After all, he did find the victims. And he lives in the house. If the state is doing all this it's a waste of taxpayers dollars. Anything they have in this regard can be easily explained away by his defence team. Or a discussion board poster.
I think they're smokin' the tealeaves.

I am not sure I agree with that. Location is everything when it comes to DNA. Where it was found can and often is very relevant even if the victim and the defendant lived in the same home.


imo

[Hawk]

Back to the case..........

I believe the prosecution feels they have enough evidence to convict this boy without the confession and statements the boy volunteered to a social worker.

If the confession & social worker's statement was all they had, the boys attorney would have requested that the case be dismissed and not allow it to be refiled at a later time. There is no reason to believe the judge wouldn't have granted that request if there was truly nothing else.

Without the 'confession' what do they have exactly? Two bodies, 10 spent casings, a youth model rifle, and a he-said she-said ear witness. Does it really seem that strong of a case?

[Crispy]

I think they have even though I am pretty sure the crime scene showed it was the blood trail left by Romans when he was hit.

I also hope they test the blood found on the paper in the boy's trashcan.

imoo

I was wondering about that paper. Can you tell me offhand if that was collected before or after the scene was turned back over to Tiffany?

[GentleBreeze]

Back to the case..........

I believe the prosecution feels they have enough evidence to convict this boy without the confession and statements the boy volunteered to a social worker.

If the confession & social worker's statement was all they had, the boys attorney would have requested that the case be dismissed and not allow it to be refiled at a later time. There is no reason to believe the judge wouldn't have granted that request if there was truly nothing else.

Sure looks like it. They are proceeding forward and haven't budged one inch since saying they will not use the confession.

imoo

[Hawk]

I am not sure I agree with that. Location is everything when it comes to DNA. Where it was found can and often is very relevant even if the victim and the defendant lived in the same home.


imo

Can you elaborate just a little with an example or two of where they might have found DNA that would indicate the boy's quilt?

[GentleBreeze]

I was wondering about that paper. Can you tell me offhand if that was collected before or after the scene was turned back over to Tiffany?

I am sorry Crispy, I cant remember exactly but I think it was after. They can retrieve the fingerprints off of the paper as well as test the blood.

imoo

[Hawk]

I am not surprised by this. However, couldn't the competency issue be brought first during the scheduled hearing?? Then that would make the DA's motion mute, wouldn't it?

Surely that is by far the most important issue. I think the judge will rule on that first. He's been adamant about it from the beginning. He doesn't seem the type to be easily buffaloed.

[JusticeDawg©]

I'm not sure, because as usual I don't know what it means. Lawyering...ugh.

Forcing Judge Roca to rule on Motion to dismiss Count 1 as per appeal.

[Crispy]

I am sorry Crispy, I cant remember exactly but I think it was after. They can retrieve the fingerprints off of the paper as well as test the blood.

imoo


I was just wondering if maybe it was close to the stairwell or the landing and spatter got on it and when Tiffany cleaned it up she just put it in the garbage can. Not trying to cover anything up, just cleaning up.

[JusticeDawg©]

Surely that is by far the most important issue. I think the judge will rule on that first. He's been adamant about from the beginning. He doesn't seem the type to be easily buffaloed.

Judges love when one of the parties goes over their head! NOT :tonguewag:

The boy will be home very soon.

moo

[Perplexed1]

Judges love when one of the parties goes over their head! NOT :tonguewag:

The boy will be home very soon.

moo

Welcome back today and thanks for the words of encouragement.:thumbup:

[wolfi_2]

Can you elaborate just a little with an example or two of where they might have found DNA that would indicate the boy's quilt?

-exact, DNA, foot and fingerprint’s from the boy can be everywhere in the house, because he lived there, if it was happened at another place, it would be important.

[Hawk]

-exact, DNA, foot and fingerprint’s from the boy can be everywhere in the house, because he lived there, if it was happened at another place, it would be important.

Thank you. So what's the holdup on the other, minor science evidence? A shortage of microscopes maybe?

[GentleBreeze]

Can you elaborate just a little with an example or two of where they might have found DNA that would indicate the boy's quilt?

Ok this is just an example. He made a point to tell the officers he did not touch Tim and only nudged his father with the toe of his shoe (that still makes me feel so sad for Vinnie when I write that) and I am sure they asked him that day what he touched and didn't touch. So if there is a bloody fingerprint or palm print at the scene then it is not consistent with him not touching the bodies. Even with the confession tossed the officers can testify to what he said the day of the murders.

Also they can tell if the hair was picked up by the environment or fell onto the victim when the shooter was close. If the hair landed on the victim's blood then it would be resting on top of the blood and couldn't have been there before then imo. He said that he had to push the door back against Tim's head so he had the door between him and Tim according to his story.

None of it by itself will be conclusive but when put together it will be used along with other forensic and circumstantial evidence.

The DA wouldnt put in a motion asking for it if he had no use to do tests.

[JusticeDawg©]

Welcome back today and thanks for the words of encouragement.:thumbup:

That is like screaming to the public, "this judge doesn't know what he is doing" :no:

That is what the State did.

(appellate court only ruled in Part for the state, the state did not win that appeal, but they sure ran with their "part")

[Hawk]

If there's a bloody print found on the gun and that blood belongs to either victim.

If someone else's ( other than Tim & Vince) DNA is found all over the gun it would go to his innocence.

The state is very interested in that type of exculpatory evidence.

[Hawk]

That is like screaming to the public, "this judge doesn't know what he is doing" :no:

That is what the State did.

(appellate court only ruled in Part for the state, the state did not win that appeal, but they sure ran with their "part")

Tee times have been cancelled this weekend for the Roca-Carylon party.

[Details]

Can you elaborate just a little with an example or two of where they might have found DNA that would indicate the boy's quilt?Well - maybe if he pricked his finger with the embroidery needle...


:tongueside:

My apologies - but my grandma quilts, and I couldn't resist playing off of the typo.


It's hard - they always have this difficulty in murder cases where the suspect and victim did live together. Of course that means they're used to it too, since most murders involve your spouse, girlfriend, or other close relative. But generally it has to be around some evidence that either discredits your alibi or story, or something that would have to be the killer. I don't know of any evidence in this case that would fit that. If some DNA of the boy's was, let's say, somehow inbetween evidence that came from the two gunshots - a fingerprint in blood from gunshot 1, with spatter over the top of it from gunshot 2 - that would be good DNA evidence to point to that person as the killer, because they would have to have been there between shot 1 and 2.

[Hawk]

IMO Not a snowballs chance

I agree. It may be a long time. (Maybe even longer.)

[JusticeDawg©]

Tee times have been cancelled this weekend for the Roca-Carylon party.

:lol::lol::lol:

[Hawk]

Well - maybe if he pricked his finger with the embroidery needle...


:tongueside:

My apologies - but my grandma quilts, and I couldn't resist playing off of the typo.


It's hard - they always have this difficulty in murder cases where the suspect and victim did live together. Of course that means they're used to it too, since most murders involve your spouse, girlfriend, or other close relative. But generally it has to be around some evidence that either discredits your alibi or story, or something that would have to be the killer. I don't know of any evidence in this case that would fit that. If some DNA of the boy's was, let's say, somehow inbetween evidence that came from the two gunshots - a fingerprint in blood from gunshot 1, with spatter over the top of it from gunshot 2 - that would be good DNA evidence to point to that person as the killer, because they would have to have been there between shot 1 and 2.

Okay. So is he quilty or not?

[Hawk]

For the first one..I meant if the boys print is found in either victim's blood on the gun.

I know. I'm just fanning flames.

[Perplexed1]

That is like screaming to the public, "this judge doesn't know what he is doing" :no:

That is what the State did.

(appellate court only ruled in Part for the state, the state did not win that appeal, but they sure ran with their "part")

My bad! I meant your statement, "The boy will be going home soon":ohmy:

[Details]

Okay. So is he quilty or not?Hmmm - blonde streaks in his hair are a bit patchworkish - but they were done after the murders - so I'd say he is not quilty so far as the murders are concerned. :laugh:

[JusticeDawg©]

Thank you. So what's the holdup on the other, minor science evidence? A shortage of microscopes maybe?

:lol::lol::lol:

[Details]

IMO If the judge dismisses count 1 ...I expect a plea deal within days....I expect a plea too.

"Please don't sue us, please don't sue us, please don't sue us Eryn! We're sorry!"

[Hawk]

Hmmm - blonde streaks in his hair are a bit patchworkish - but they were done after the murders - so I'd say he is not quilty so far as the murders are concerned. :laugh:

Now that's a good one! (I'll switch from Q's back to G's now.)

[Hawk]

I was wondering about that paper. Can you tell me offhand if that was collected before or after the scene was turned back over to Tiffany?


Great question. The paper was collected on Nov. the 10th during the second search (looking for the supposed list of spankings). Don't know when the house was turned over to Mrs. Romero though. I couldn't find a date.

[IAMME]

I am not having difficultly understanding why so many feel he's innocent. He's 8 and most people can't accept the fact that an 8 year old can do something so horrid. That's fine and I can respect your opinion.

I on the other hand see it differently, I am not emotionally invested in this child like so many others posting here. I view him like I would any other defendant.

I find it offensive when posters would go to such extremes as to accuse one of the victims of drug dealing with absolutely nothing to back it up, make bold accusations about family members of the deceased with ZERO evidence...even going as far as accusing them of double murder. I've read the most outlandish fabrications imaginable presented as facts in effort to exonerate this boy.

I also find it offensive when I am personally attacked for not conforming to the majority and stating my own opinions. This occurs most often when a point is made and can't be refuted. It's incredibly pathetic considering we are all supposed to be adults.

Regardless of your opinion OR mine, the fact remains the judge found probable cause to charge and detain this boy.

We are not accusing him based on nothing, Tim Ramons was said to have a history of involvement with illegal drugs and was named a dealer by the police at the reservation, and that is not likely to be on the public access site bc of the way the courts in indian nations work, there are posters here though who claim to have seen these reports and DN (iirc, it may have been avila) also admits that the SJPD has them in her interview with Brewer.......He was a drug dealer, and that is opinion based on facts presented by the SJPD.

Read the last sentence under reservations:

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Apache+(tribe)

Most of us feel that the outlandish fabrication is placing the blame on this child without the evidence to back it up. IMO

[Hawk]

I do know that Tiffany was in the house the night of the murder as well as others because she was with the boy in a room with Avila being questioned.

I know it's meaningless, but the spiderman trash can looks pretty full in the crime scene photo.

[mina]

Great question. The paper was collected on Nov. the 10th during the second search (looking for the supposed list of spankings). Don't know when the house was turned over to Mrs. Romero though. I couldn't find a date.

I got the impression from Brewer's interview of Neckle that it was released Thursday Nov 6 right after the "confession".

NECKLE.PDF - page 20

BB: *Um, have you, did you ever go in the house?
DN: Um, I did, Thursday, after my interview with *****. And, the bodies had been removed, s’um, Wednesday night, so…
BB: Okay. And was that, uh, was that one ‘a the search warrant that was done?
DN: Um, no, I went after the home had been released.
BB: Okay. And, and who was it realeased to?
DN: Um, I believe, back ta Tiffany.
BB: Okay.
DN: It’s, in her name.
BB: And, um, and when you went, back there what was your purpose?
DN: Um, I needed ta get, set in my mind what had happened.
BB: Okay.
DN: I, I just went, purely because my mind wasn’t grasping what had happened.

[Hawk]

I certainly does. It's also across the room from where I read somewhere it was next to the door.:confused:

It was next to the door, Item #2 second warrant. 10 Nov 08.

[JusticeDawg©]

I expect a plea too.

"Please don't sue us, please don't sue us, please don't sue us Eryn! We're sorry!"You guys ae killing me today! :lol::lol::lol:

[Hawk]

I smell some fish cooking.

That's better than having your goose cooked.
What could it mean if Tiffany put the paper in the can during cleanup?

[IAMME]

If he is, he is. I would just like the link to interview with Brewer where SJPD admits to having the records. TIA

I just can't simply take a poster's word for it. The other links I've read contained nothing conclusive.

BB: Would that, would tho, do those criminal histories, apply, on reservations?
DN: Um, not normally, no.
BB: And that would be a separate request that would need ta be made.
DN: Yes.
BB: Do you know if that was made, on Mr. Romans?
DN: Yes, I do know it was made.
BB: And there hasn’t been anything, (crosstalk), er do you know?
DN: Um, well, I know, I, I still think you’d be better off with Sergeant Rodriguez, but, I do know that there were some, um, drug charges, and that, he did serve some time in, in prison, fer those drug charges.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Neckel.pdf
pages 17 and 18

So apparently the judge believed there was enough evidence to CHARGE HIM and CONVICT HIM.

[JusticeDawg©]

BB: Would that, would tho, do those criminal histories, apply, on reservations?
DN: Um, not normally, no.
BB: And that would be a separate request that would need ta be made.
DN: Yes.
BB: Do you know if that was made, on Mr. Romans?
DN: Yes, I do know it was made.
BB: And there hasn’t been anything, (crosstalk), er do you know?
DN: Um, well, I know, I, I still think you’d be better off with Sergeant Rodriguez, but, I do know that there were some, um, drug charges, and that, he did serve some time in, in prison, fer those drug charges.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Neckel.pdf
pages 17 and 18

So apparently the judge believed there was enough evidence to CHARGE HIM and CONVICT HIM.

You are my very best friend. :tonguewag:
I'll be out to see you (and Charlie) soon!

[IAMME]

Those were very very old correct?

Who knows, and does it really matter? He wasn't exonerated....He was a CONVICTED drug dealer.

[Hawk]

Who knows, and does it really matter? He wasn't exonerated....He was a CONVICTED drug dealer.

With ants in his pants. Doesn't prove he was the primary target of the murders.

[Hawk]

I have no idea what was going through her mind at the time. I would just like to know why it was moved, and why the crime scene was released so soon. I would think the warrant used would be invalid since the crime scene was released before the warrant and anything could have been tampered with since everyone involved in the case had ample opportunity to tamper with evidence.

I agree. Anything could have been moved. I wonder why Mr. Brewer hasn't submitted a motion to suppress the 2nd warrant?

[Crispy]

I agree. Anything could have been moved. I wonder why Mr. Brewer hasn't submitted a motion to suppress the 2nd warrant?

I thought the motion he filed was for the second warrant. Wasn't the second warrant brought on by the CPS statement?

[JusticeDawg©]

I agree. Anything could have been moved. I wonder why Mr. Brewer hasn't submitted a motion to suppress the 2nd warrant?

Brewer asked that items 37-99 be taken off the evidence list. OK'd by Carylon. He then asks for an updated evidence list.

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/MINUTE%20ENTRY%20STATUS%20HEARING%20JAN%206%202009 .pdf

[Hawk]

I thought the motion he filed was for the second warrant. Wasn't the second warrant brought on by the CPS statement?

Maybe it was. I can't understand these things.

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/MOTION%20TO%20SUPRESS%20ILLEGAL%20WARRANT.pdf

[JusticeDawg©]

With ants in his pants. Doesn't prove he was the primary target of the murders.

He was also cheating on his wife.

I can see a few reasons here to off this man.

[Jacobtk]

Back to the case..........

I believe the prosecution feels they have enough evidence to convict this boy without the confession and statements the boy volunteered to a social worker.

If the confession & social worker's statement was all they had, the boys attorney would have requested that the case be dismissed and not allow it to be refiled at a later time. There is no reason to believe the judge wouldn't have granted that request if there was truly nothing else.

Not true. Many cases go forward with very weak and sometimes no evidence pointing to the accused. The Innocence Project handles many such cases. It is also extremely uncommon for judges to dismiss cases at this point. The state still has weak circumstantial evidence that they released (the gunpowder residue and the fingerprint). They may feel that is enough to go to trial on. The today's filing is a good indication that if they had anything leading to the boy, they are not interested in brokering a deal. It also could indicate that their evaluation of the boy and the evidence might not be in their favor. If it were, they would have no to push for the charge to be dropped in order to be able to refile it latter.

[Hawk]

Brewer asked that items 33-99 be taken off the evidence list. OK'd by Carylon. He then asks for an updated evidence list.

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/MINUTE%20ENTRY%20STATUS%20HEARING%20JAN%206%202009 .pdf

#33 is three quarters
#34 is the boys pants
#35 is his black t-shirt
#36 is a pair of size 4 brown tennis shoes.
The list I have ends there. 37-39 is non-existent.

I must be missing a page (I have page 000080).

[JusticeDawg©]

#33 is three quarters
#34 is the boys pants
#35 is his black t-shirt
#36 is a pair of size 4 brown tennis shoes.
The list I have ends there. 37-39 is non-existent.

I must be missing a page (I have page 000080).

Oh it exists. :tonguewag:

[Hawk]

I wonder why if all the prosecution had was the confession Mr. Brewer didn't file a motion to dismiss

That's a good question that should be answered. By now he should be in a position to dispute the evidence, if he can. Of course there may be a tactical reason in this legal chess game.

[Jacobtk]

The DA wouldnt put in a motion asking for it if he had no use to do tests.

Actually, asking for DNA, fingerprints and hair samples from the accused is standard. It is does not indicate that the state found anything. However, I did find it odd that they would request that given that none of the officers who viewed the bodies and neither of the autopsy reports mention anything about finding bloody prints, dusting the bodies and clothing for prints or finding hair that did not belong to the victims. All of that would have to be submitted in the disclosure filings to the court. Given that nothing like that has been submitted or mentioned, chances are no such evidence exists.

[Hawk]

He was also cheating on his wife.

I can see a few reasons here to off this man.

Well sure. You could find arguable reasons to off half the folks in America.

[Crispy]

Wouldn't the boy's lawyer be derelict in his duties not to file the motion to dismiss? I would think so.


If his lawyer filed it and I missed it please link me.

I don't know about being derelict, but I would think he would have filed a motion to dismiss. Is juvenile law different? Would it be called something else?

[Hawk]

Oh it exists. :tonguewag:

That's not an answer. Just smugness.

[JusticeDawg©]

Well sure. You could find arguable reasons to off half the folks in America.

Well, if it would make America just a tad bit better off, why not?

[Jacobtk]

No it's not like screaming to the public anything.

It's called doing their job.

It is still a legal slap in the face. If the defense did it, it would make more sense. For the DA to do it does basically come across as "he's not ruling the way we want him to." However, Roca did tell Carlyon that he could take the decision up with the Court of Appeals. In fact, he stated that on a few occassions when Carlyon was displeased with the judge's decisions.

[Hawk]

Well, if it would make America just a tad bit better off, why not?

You feel Mr. Romans deserved to be murdered?

[JusticeDawg©]

It is still a legal slap in the face. If the defense did it, it would make more sense. For the DA to do it does basically come across as "he's not ruling the way we want him to." However, Roca did tell Carlyon that he could take the decision up with the Court of Appeals. In fact, he stated that on a few occassions when Carlyon was displeased with the judge's decisions.

Kind of like a "I dare ya"

:biggrin:

[JusticeDawg©]

You feel Mr. Romans deserved to be murdered?

I was joking sir. :patriot:

[JusticeDawg©]

That's not an answer. Just smugness.

TGIF to you too! :angry:

[Jacobtk]

Wouldn't the boy's lawyer be derelict in his duties not to file the motion to dismiss? I would think so.

If his lawyer filed it and I missed it please link me.

Not at this point. It would be better to wait for the competency hearing. If the boy is found incompetent, the charges are automatically dismissed. If he is not or is found restorable, then Woods and Brewer could argue that the state has no evidence. It seems illogical to do it this way, but given that Roca has refused to rule on any motion at this point it is the better legal strategy. No lawyer wants to keep filing motions to dismiss the case. It looks bad and very rarely works. Also, doing it this way allows the state and the judge to make various mistakes that could win the boy an appeal if convicted.

[Hawk]

I was joking sir. :patriot:

I know. Just testing. We're getting low on ammo. Need new info.

[wolfi_2]

#33 is three quarters
#34 is the boys pants
#35 is his black t-shirt
#36 is a pair of size 4 brown tennis shoes.
The list I have ends there. 37-39 is non-existent.

I must be missing a page (I have page 000080).

At site 2 of the document (link below), -the list of missing parts was in the DA office.
http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/MINUTE%20ENTRY%20STATUS%20HEARING%20JAN%206%202009 .pdf

[Hawk]

At site 2 of the document (link below), -the list of missing parts was in the DA office.
http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/MINUTE%20ENTRY%20STATUS%20HEARING%20JAN%206%202009 .pdf

So there was simply an omission of those items on Mr. Brewers list or they were excluded from evidence by the court?

[JusticeDawg©]

Ruling: Judge Can Address Murder Charge In Trial Of Boy, 9

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. -- An Apache County judge can rule on a prosecutors' request to drop a murder charge against a 9-year-old St. Johns boy, the state Court of Appeals said.

http://www.kpho.com/news/18549439/detail.html

[muska]

Ruling: Judge Can Address Murder Charge In Trial Of Boy, 9

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. -- An Apache County judge can rule on a prosecutors' request to drop a murder charge against a 9-year-old St. Johns boy, the state Court of Appeals said.

http://www.kpho.com/news/18549439/detail.html

Seems to say Judge Roca can still wait if he thinks that's best under the circumstances, don't you think?

[Jacobtk]

Seems to say Judge Roca can still wait if he thinks that's best under the circumstances, don't you think?

He most likely will. He could also dismiss the charge with prejudice or require the state to explain their motives for wanting the dismissal. I suspect he might request the latter.

[JusticeDawg©]

Seems to say Judge Roca can still wait if he thinks that's best under the circumstances, don't you think?

The appeals court says while Roca believed he was precluded from considering the prosecutors' motion, the appeals court disagreed.

"Although it may be the better course of action in many circumstances to delay the consideration of substantive matters until the issue of competency is resolved, no statute or rule requires the court to do so," a three-judge panel said this week

[muska]

He most likely will. He could also dismiss the charge with prejudice or require the state to explain their motives for wanting the dismissal. I suspect he might request the latter.

Kind of like a game of chess.......

[Jacobtk]

Kind of like a game of chess.......

Exactly, except the DA's move was ill-played. Forcing the decision the does mean Roca must rule in their favor, and despite the language of the motion to dismiss, Roca can choose to dismiss the charge with prejudice and the state would not be legally able to withdraw the motion. More likely than not Roca will simply rule against it altogether because the state failed to explain their reason for wanting the dismissal.

[muska]

The appeals court says while Roca believed he was precluded from considering the prosecutors' motion, the appeals court disagreed.

"Although it may be the better course of action in many circumstances to delay the consideration of substantive matters until the issue of competency is resolved, no statute or rule requires the court to do so," a three-judge panel said this week

I did read it yesterday. It sounds like it's still up to the judge.

Is he an elected judge? That might be scary!

I'm on my way out but will check back later!!

[JusticeDawg©]

gotta go. we've got a concert tonight to play. i'll spend an hour or so tomorrow reading all the posts from tonight, at the rate yall are going.

Have a great evening:smile:

Bye! Have fun! See you tomorrow!:thumbsup:

[Perplexed1]

Well sure. You could find arguable reasons to off half the folks in America.

Really???:confused:

[Hawk]

Really???:confused:


Hold on now! I didn't say that. It was another poster. This snipped quote thing is trouble. Who 'let the dawgs out'?

[muska]

Exactly, except the DA's move was ill-played. Forcing the decision the does mean Roca must rule in their favor, and despite the language of the motion to dismiss, Roca can choose to dismiss the charge with prejudice and the state would not be legally able to withdraw the motion. More likely than not Roca will simply rule against it altogether because the state failed to explain their reason for wanting the dismissal.

The appeals court explained it for them - if the charges are both dropped with prejudice, the DA will not have much chance of filing a successful appeal - he'd have to show that incompetency was an incorrect conclusion.

Now I really have to go!!!

[JD1974]

Sure looks like it. They are proceeding forward and haven't budged one inch since saying they will not use the confession.

imoo



Proceeding forward with what? They are trying to get one of the charges dropped because they know this kid is incompetent..how is that moving forward? They are trying to use a backdoor to the double jeopardy rule.

[Details]

just half????Half the people in America haven't just proposed to their mistress, gotten in a bar fight that lead to a gunshot, nor had a history of drug dealing. The proposal stands out to me - it'd be an incredible coincidence to be murdered the day after you propose to your mistress, and it's unrelated to that. An incredible coincidence.

[JD1974]

In almost every case where there was a chance the defendant would walk the state has held back a charge. Darlie Routier they held back one charge of murder in case she was found not guilty. Same for Andrea Yates, I think they held 2 back for her in case she was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

The DA in AZ jumped the gun by charging the kid with both counts right off the bat, he thought he would make the papers and did. Instead of waiting to see if the kid was even competent to stand trial as a juvenile he charged him with both and was attempting to get him charged as an adult. Now that it will come out that the kid isn't even competent to stand as a juvenile he wants to backtrack. If I was the judge I would tell him you reap what you sow...and dismiss both with prejudice.

[Hawk]

Half the people in America haven't just proposed to their mistress, gotten in a bar fight that lead to a gunshot, nor had a history of drug dealing. The proposal stands out to me - it'd be an incredible coincidence to be murdered the day after you propose to your mistress, and it's unrelated to that. An incredible coincidence.

Especially if the mistress found out you had no intention of marrying her, just stringing her along, and that you were already married, as well as 'visiting' other women around town.

[JD1974]

In the inventory of Tim's belongings was a wedding band listed?

[Crispy]

I don't remember any jewelry being listed. :confused:

[JD1974]

Well I guess that really doesn't say much unless he normally wore one and then all of a sudden stopped. In one of the papers it stated Tim's friendS as in plural said he was getting a divorce and that it was listed in the files. I am curious how many friends stated this, since we know it had to have been more than just Candy. I am also curious if a few people knew this, how it didn't get back to his wife? Where did he tell Candy he was on the weekends he went home? I think she knew he was married and he told her he was getting divorced. I am also curious to know the last weekend Tim went home to be with his wife?

[Hawk]

In the inventory of Tim's belongings was a wedding band listed?

I don't see it on the list I have. It's not in the autopsy report either (of things removed.) Mr. Romero had one.

[GentleBreeze]

Proceeding forward with what? They are trying to get one of the charges dropped because they know this kid is incompetent..how is that moving forward? They are trying to use a backdoor to the double jeopardy rule.

How would that be double jeopardy when he hasn't even had one trial yet?

imoo

[Details]

In the inventory of Tim's belongings was a wedding band listed?I don't recall the job, but from the gear, seems to have been pretty physical. It's common on those jobs, mandated usually, not to wear a wedding ring. Some men put it on a gold chain, something nice and tough - but sometimes a necklace isn't a good idea either (jewelry gets caught on something, rips a limb off now and again), so most, IMO, just leave it at home, put it on after.

I worked in jewelry, sold a lot of wedding rings - and replacements - to these guys. Sometimes I'd get them into a chain - something long enough to stay under the shirt during work - but more often the ring went into the pocket (and then sometimes got thrown out by accident), or stayed home.

[IAMME]

There is zero evidence his wife had any knowledge of the affair and she has an alibi.


Is there a link to her alibi? TIA

[Details]

How would that be double jeopardy when he hasn't even had one trial yet?

imooIt's the same event, but they're trying to turn it into two crimes. Imagine a convenience store robbery, where the evidence is not very solid - so they charge the guy for 2 of the 3 bags of chips he stole, and if the first trial fails, they try him for the 3rd bag of chips.

They're trying to work a loophole to get around the fact that he likely is simply not competent to stand trial. But if he's not competent, that should be it - end of story - not hang onto half the crime so we can try him twice for the same event. It's a dirty trick, and the legality is questionable - IMO.

[JD1974]

How would that be double jeopardy when he hasn't even had one trial yet?

imoo


Because if he is not competent to stand trial then the charges must be dismissed with prejudice, which means he can never be tried for those crimes. If the judge rules to drop the one charge then they can once again arrest him and charge him with the murder of his father. They charged him with both murders they are trying to get one dropped so they can get to him a second time when competency will be null and void.


In truth what they are trying to do is get around the competency issue.

[GentleBreeze]

It's the same event, but they're trying to turn it into two crimes. Imagine a convenience store robbery, where the evidence is not very solid - so they charge the guy for 2 of the 3 bags of chips he stole, and if the first trial fails, they try him for the 3rd bag of chips.

They're trying to work a loophole to get around the fact that he likely is simply not competent to stand trial. But if he's not competent, that should be it - end of story - not hang onto half the crime so we can try him twice for the same event. It's a dirty trick, and the legality is questionable - IMO.

I don't think the legality is questionable at all. If it were I think the Az. higher court would have said so and they didn't. So imo that is an assumption based on emotion rather than fact.

These men were individual human beings. They weren't a bag of chips, stolen. The DA that brought charges against Dollie Routier also withheld a murder charge on the murder of her youngest son and I am sure her case wasn't the only one. So this is not something that hasn't been done before.

I think they are searching for a way that both or at least one man receives justice for his life being taken.

imoo

[JD1974]

I agree Details and I listed right off the top of my head 2 cases where they held back a charge. This is different though because if he is found not competent he cannot be tried for the crimes he is charged with. So they try the backdoor approach of getting one dismissed so his competency will not be an issue when they charge him 5-10 years down the road with the second murder.

[Hawk]

I agree Details and I listed right off the top of my head 2 cases where they held back a charge. This is different though because if he is found not competent he cannot be tried for the crimes he is charged with. So they try the backdoor approach of getting one dismissed so his competency will not be an issue when they charge him 5-10 years down the road with the second murder.


That sounds pretty rotten. How can that be fair? He might be hard to find 10 years from now after relocation and name change.

[JD1974]

I don't think the legality is questionable at all. If it were I think the Az. higher court would have said so and they didn't. So imo that is an assumption based on emotion rather than fact.

These men were individual human beings. They weren't a bag of chips, stolen. The DA that brought charges against Dollie Routier also withheld a murder charge on the murder of her youngest son and I am sure her case wasn't the only one. So this is not something that hasn't been done before.

I think they are searching for a way that both or at least one man receives justice for his life being taken.

imoo



Holding back a charge is just that, the person wasn't charged. This kid is already charged with both, now the DA realized he made a mistake because of competency and is trying to backtrack.

[mina]

In almost every case where there was a chance the defendant would walk the state has held back a charge. Darlie Routier they held back one charge of murder in case she was found not guilty. Same for Andrea Yates, I think they held 2 back for her in case she was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

The DA in AZ jumped the gun by charging the kid with both counts right off the bat, he thought he would make the papers and did. Instead of waiting to see if the kid was even competent to stand trial as a juvenile he charged him with both and was attempting to get him charged as an adult. Now that it will come out that the kid isn't even competent to stand as a juvenile he wants to backtrack. If I was the judge I would tell him you reap what you sow...and dismiss both with prejudice.

I got the impression that that's exactly what Roca meant when he first addressed the issue. There was IMO a testy exchange between Roca and Carlyon, including this from Roca:

I don’t feel that it’s appropriate to address substantive issues such as major strategic moves while there’s a competency inquiry pending.

Now, the fact that that may put the State behind the eight ball is (sic - he meant “is not“ based on the context), and I don’t think should be, the Court’s problem. The State had an opportunity to chessboard this thing from the very start; had enough evidence on both counts to file them, to pursue and obtain a probably cause determination. The broad outlines of the moves and countermoves that could be made by the various parties were, I think, if not obvious then certainly discernible at the time that the matter was initiated.

I hope he still feels the same way.

Quoted from the transcript of the 12/8 status hearing.
PDF page 21 -- original doc page 20 -- starting at line 12

TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE DEC 8 2008.pdf (http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/TRANSCRIPT%20OF%20STATUS%20CONFERENCE%20DEC%208%20 2008.pdf)

[JD1974]

That sounds pretty rotten. How can that be fair? He might be hard to find 10 years from now after reloaction and name change.



They do location and name changes in the UK, never heard of them doing it here in the US, do they do that? Unless they issue him a new ss# he will always be found.

[Hawk]

They do location and name changes in the UK, never heard of them doing it here in the US, do they do that? Unless they issue him a new ss# he will always be found.

When you're hiding here a SS# is your last concern. Millions of people work without them. It would be a self imposed, not state sanctioned, exile.

[GentleBreeze]

Holding back a charge is just that, the person wasn't charged. This kid is already charged with both, now the DA realized he made a mistake because of competency and is trying to backtrack.

Just being charged does not attach the double jeopardy rule. No way, no how.

imoo

[JD1974]

Just being charged does not attach the double jeopardy rule. No way, no how.

imoo

In this case it does. If this kid is found not competent then he cannot stand trial for these crimes...so by dropping one BEFORE his competency is ruled on by the judge they are trying to circumvent the competency rules.

Think of it this way, in this case if he is found not competent he is in effect been found not guilty (whether guilty or not) he can never be charged with these crimes again. Just like an adult cannot be charged if they are found not guilty. So by trying to get the charge dropped before the compentency they are pretty much trying to say oh ok you are not guilty (not competent) but since we dropped this charge before we found that out we can refile it.

[GentleBreeze]

In this case it does. If this kid is found not competent then he cannot stand trial for these crimes...so by dropping one BEFORE his competency is ruled on by the judge they are trying to circumvent the competency rules.

First, we don't even know how the Judge is going to rule. IMO he will proceed with extreme caution due to the fact that he has two dead men also to consider in his equation. He must be fair to all parties, the State and the Defense. He doesn't even have to accept either experts opinion. He may say he wants the boy to be reassessed in 240 days and then will make his final decision.

imo

[JD1974]

Very true Gentlebreeze but I do think he will go with the experts opinion. You don't find it at all strange they want this ruled on before they have their expert testify to the kids competency?

[Hawk]

First, we don't even know how the Judge is going to rule. IMO he will proceed with extreme caution due to the fact that he has two dead men also to consider in his equation. He must be fair to all parties, the State and the Defense. He doesn't even have to accept either experts opinion. He may say he wants the boy to be reassessed in 240 days and then will make his final decision.

imo

He shouldn't need 'experts'. He has enough common sense to know an eight year old isn't competent to understand the mumbo jumbo dice roll of the justice system. Most adults aren't either.
Even on this board few people can agree just on the procedural aspects. How could this little boy? And how could he possibly fathom the long term consequences of the proceedings. I ain't a lawyer, but this is a silly argument I think. Law or no law.

[JD1974]

He knows Hawk. What makes me so angry is that the DA knows this kid is incompetent and imo holding back the findings until the judge rules on his motion to dismiss.

[JusticeDawg©]

I got the impression that that's exactly what Roca meant when he first addressed the issue. There was IMO a testy exchange between Roca and Carlyon, including this from Roca:

I don’t feel that it’s appropriate to address substantive issues such as major strategic moves while there’s a competency inquiry pending.

Now, the fact that that may put the State behind the eight ball is (sic - he meant “is not“ based on the context), and I don’t think should be, the Court’s problem. The State had an opportunity to chessboard this thing from the very start; had enough evidence on both counts to file them, to pursue and obtain a probably cause determination. The broad outlines of the moves and countermoves that could be made by the various parties were, I think, if not obvious then certainly discernible at the time that the matter was initiated.

I hope he still feels the same way.

Quoted from the transcript of the 12/8 status hearing.
PDF page 21 -- original doc page 20 -- starting at line 12

TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE DEC 8 2008.pdf (http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/TRANSCRIPT%20OF%20STATUS%20CONFERENCE%20DEC%208%20 2008.pdf)

You Rock! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[JusticeDawg©]

He shouldn't need 'experts'. He has enough common sense to know an eight year old isn't competent to understand the mumbo jumbo dice roll of the justice system. Most adults aren't either.
Even on this board few people can agree just on the procedural aspects. How could this little boy? And how could he possibly fathom the long term consequences of the proceedings. I ain't a lawyer, but this is a silly argument I think. Law or no law.

By AZ law. He has to have a competency hearing. A Judge is not a Dr. I know WE think it is a no brainer, and I am sure the judges know what the outcome will be, but the law states it must be done.

[Jacobtk]

I don't think the legality is questionable at all. If it were I think the Az. higher court would have said so and they didn't. So imo that is an assumption based on emotion rather than fact.

The higher court would only deem it unconstituional if a person filed suit against the state. To my knowledge no one has filed suit against the state on this matter and no DA has attempted to use this loophole before, so the higher court is not going to rule on it. In terms of legality, however, it is highly questionable because it allows prosecutors to circumvent the legal standards and policies of the state. If this is allowed, then any child under 8 who commits an offense can later be charged with that offense as an adult at 15, even though the policy is that no child under 8 can legally be held culpable.

I think they are searching for a way that both or at least one man receives justice for his life being taken.

In many cases a prosecutor will drop charges because one or a few of them will result in a sufficient sentence. They usually drop them with prejudice, though. Asking for a dismissal without prejudice is an admission that they intend to hound the boy or have him held indefinitely if he is incompetent or is acquitted. As for justice, one sentence would be sufficient to have him locked away from the rest of his life.

[Details]

I don't think the legality is questionable at all. If it were I think the Az. higher court would have said so and they didn't. So imo that is an assumption based on emotion rather than fact.

These men were individual human beings. They weren't a bag of chips, stolen. The DA that brought charges against Dollie Routier also withheld a murder charge on the murder of her youngest son and I am sure her case wasn't the only one. So this is not something that hasn't been done before.

I think they are searching for a way that both or at least one man receives justice for his life being taken.

imooI know they do this in other cases. I don't think it's right, in any case. Less so in this one, though. In a case of multiple murders, where the question is if they committed the murder, and a jury could find you guilty of one, and not another - that is still probably just a bit of gameplaying I don't approve of - you're supposed to be able to go to court, be tried, be found g/ng, and that's it. Not that a sneaky DA can make you spend the next decade of your life either facing trial or preparing for the next one. The whole idea of our legal system is that you aren't supposed to be subject to that type of harassment - if they think you did it, they try you, and if you are found not guilty, they cannot keep harassing you with further trials.


But in this case, it's even worse than that. The question is not, did he kill Tim, did he kill his father. The question is, is he even competent to stand trial - one singular question that cannot be split into the two charges, he can't be competent for Tim, and not competent for his father. So it is even worse, even more against the concept of the competency laws and justice itself, to try to split this up.

[Hawk]

By AZ law. He has to have a competency hearing. A Judge is not a Dr. I know WE think it is a no brainer, and I am sure the judges know what the outcome will be, but the law states it must be done.

I know. But the suggestion that Judge Roca, or anyone else, might side with a shrink who claims an 8 year old is competent to stand trial for double murders in inconceivable to me.
It would take more than a select-comfort bed to sleep well at night.

[GentleBreeze]

Very true Gentlebreeze but I do think he will go with the experts opinion. You don't find it at all strange they want this ruled on before they have their expert testify to the kids competency?

I don't know. They put in this motion two months ago and the experts were still being decided, irrc and certainly their opinions, one way or the other, weren't known then.

When they entered the motion, just like Brewer/Woods enters motions they submit they are expecting the Judge to rule in a timely manner.


imoo

[Crispy]

What possible reason would the prosecutors have for wanting to dismiss one of the charges? I can only think of one and it's not a good one.

[Details]

I don't know. They put in this motion two months ago and the experts were still being decided, irrc and certainly their opinions, one way or the other, weren't known then.

When they entered the motion, just like Brewer/Woods enters motions they submit they are expecting the Judge to rule in a timely manner.


imooThe judge appears to know - he calls it chessboarding, and the prosecution doesn't appear to claim otherwise. It is pretty obvious - and the prosecution knows the results of the defense competency expert, and they know what we don't - the results from their expert. If there's a reason - and there likely is - to have this result before the competency - they'd know.

[JD1974]

I don't know. They put in this motion two months ago and the experts were still being decided, irrc and certainly their opinions, one way or the other, weren't known then.

When they entered the motion, just like Brewer/Woods enters motions they submit they are expecting the Judge to rule in a timely manner.


imoo



2 months ago, isn't that around the time the confession was put out there and every expert denounced it?

[Details]

What possible reason would the prosecutors have for wanting to dismiss one of the charges? I can only think of one and it's not a good one.From the quote from the judge above, he can think of only the same one, IMO. Chessboarding. Gameplaying with the boy's life. Finding a way to get around the rules of competency.

[JD1974]

From the quote from the judge above, he can think of only the same one, IMO. Chessboarding. Gameplaying with the boy's life. Finding a way to get around the rules of competency.



EXACTLY!! I cannot understand how people cannot see this for what it is? Whether you think he is guilty or not it is blatant.

[GentleBreeze]

I know they do this in other cases. I don't think it's right, in any case. Less so in this one, though. In a case of multiple murders, where the question is if they committed the murder, and a jury could find you guilty of one, and not another - that is still probably just a bit of gameplaying I don't approve of - you're supposed to be able to go to court, be tried, be found g/ng, and that's it. Not that a sneaky DA can make you spend the next decade of your life either facing trial or preparing for the next one. The whole idea of our legal system is that you aren't supposed to be subject to that type of harassment - if they think you did it, they try you, and if you are found not guilty, they cannot keep harassing you with further trials.


But in this case, it's even worse than that. The question is not, did he kill Tim, did he kill his father. The question is, is he even competent to stand trial - one singular question that cannot be split into the two charges, he can't be competent for Tim, and not competent for his father. So it is even worse, even more against the concept of the competency laws and justice itself, to try to split this up.

If the Judge removes Count One then it has no bearing on the boy's age incompetency now. That is why the higher court told Judge Roca he did not have to wait for competency results before ruling. Only the Romans case will be considered and decided whether he will ever be tried for that one murder.

Actually it isn't one simple question. 1. Is he age incompetent now and unable to understand the court proceedings or assist in his defense? 2. whether the Judge believes he can be reassessed in 240 days. Unless he is way below the national IQ for this age, I do think the Judge will go with what is more cautious rather than just dumping both cases now.

There is no assurances that the two experts will agree on all aspects. If not it will be up to Judge Roca to decide or hire a court appointed expert that has no attachment with the defense or the state.

imo

[JusticeDawg©]

I hope some posters here will listen to CR's mother's plea:

Praying For The truth and wishing the hatefulness would stop. Please release my lil man!

[GentleBreeze]

2 months ago, isn't that around the time the confession was put out there and every expert denounced it?

I think that was right after the crimes happened.

I think they filed the motion around November 21, 2008, iirc.

imo

[JD1974]

If the Judge removes Count One then it has no bearing on the boy's age incompetency now. That is why the higher court told Judge Roca he did not have to wait for competency results before ruling. Only the Romans case will be considered and decided whether he will ever be tried for that one murder.
Actually it isn't one simple question. 1. Is he age incompetent now and unable to understand the court proceedings or assist in his defense? 2. whether the Judge believes he can be reassessed in 240 days. Unless he is way below the national IQ for this age, I do think the Judge will go with what is more cautious rather than just dumping both cases now.

There is no assurances that the two experts will agree on all aspects. If not it will be up to Judge Roca to decide or hire a court appointed expert that has no attachment with the defense or the state.

imo



That is exactly the point we are making. If the judge dismisses the one charge and the boy is found to be incompetent then the state just found a way to cicurmvent the competency hearing...why even bother having them then?


The way I read the courts decision is that they are telling the judge that if he thinks he has to wait, he doesn't. They are not telling him he has to rule on it, they are just telling him that the law doesn't require him to wait. IMO it is still his decision and he can ask for the experts opinion before making a judgement.

[JusticeDawg©]

That is exactly the point we are making. If the judge dismisses the one charge and the boy is found to be incompetent then the state just found a way to cicurmvent the competency hearing...why even bother having them then?

What if he sides for the defense motion and dismisses Count 1 with prejudice.

That is an option he has!

[GentleBreeze]

That is exactly the point we are making. If the judge dismisses the one charge and the boy is found to be incompetent then the state just found a way to circumvent the competency hearing...why even bother having them then?

I am not sure what you are saying.

The higher court certainly wouldn't have said that the Judge can make the ruling now before the competency is known if there are laws that prevents that.

I thought someone put up a link in the last day or so that competency concerning a juvenile is not the same standard as it is in an adult case.

imo

[GentleBreeze]

That is exactly the point we are making. If the judge dismisses the one charge and the boy is found to be incompetent then the state just found a way to cicurmvent the competency hearing...why even bother having them then?


The way I read the courts decision is that they are telling the judge that if he thinks he has to wait, he doesn't. They are not telling him he has to rule on it, they are just telling him that the law doesn't require him to wait. IMO it is still his decision and he can ask for the experts opinion before making a judgement.

Right, they are telling him he doesn't have to wait so that has to mean that the competency results doesn't have to come first.

imoo

[mrrogers]

why do they keep closing our threads?

http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/casefiles/sa/SA080294.pdf
tell me if you can see anything granted in it. this is the special action and it was granted partial relief but doesnt say what it is,maybe bootin
carlyon back to navajo county where he belongs

[JD1974]

What if he sides for the defense motion and dismisses Count 1 with prejudice.

That is an option he has!



Very true! Would be kind of ironic if the judge did that and stated his reason as he didn't think the boy was competent!

[JusticeDawg©]

Very true! Would be kind of ironic if the judge did that and stated his reason as he didn't think the boy was competent!

:biggrin::smile::biggrin:

[JD1974]

Right, they are telling him he doesn't have to wait so that has to mean that the competency results doesn't have to come first.

imoo

Yes, they said he doesn't have to wait, that doesn't mean they are telling him he has to rule. It is still up to his discretion. It was the judges reason that the state appealed on, they got partial relief from the higher court when they said the lower court judge didn't have to wait. Only partial because they did not tell the judge he could not wait.

[GentleBreeze]

http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/casefiles/sa/SA080294.pdf
tell me if you can see anything granted in it. this is the special action and it was granted partial relief but doesn't say what it is,maybe bootin
carlyon back to navajo county where he belongs

The granted relief is they sided with the DA that Judge Roca did not have to wait to make his ruling on whether to dismiss before the competency issues is resolved.

imoo

[JusticeDawg©]

Right, they are telling him he doesn't have to wait so that has to mean that the competency results doesn't have to come first.

imoo

But Judge Roca wants to wait. He has been Adamant about that.

[IAMME]

I am not sure what you are saying.

The higher court certainly wouldn't have said that the Judge can make the ruling now before the competency is known if there are laws that prevents that.

I thought someone put up a link in the last day or so that competency concerning a juvenile is not the same standard as it is in an adult case.

imo


If the boy is found incompetent, and cannot be restored in 240 days then the charges MUST be dropped.

However if they drop one charge BEFORE that ruling is made then they can re-charge him at a later date, when he has grown up enough to be found competent.

It would be extremely wrong to drop that one charge just so they could charge him with it later, it may not be illegal but it certainly is unethical.

The poing we are trying to make is that if they can do that then why even have the competency hearing at all.....if they can find a loophole to recharge him, especially since they have already charged him with both counts, I think it would be slightly less dodgy if they had jsut never charged him with one of the counts to begin with....but at this point they went to the judge and not only charged him but also tried to charge him as an adult, they should have had their ducks in a row, or just not charged him IOW.

I hope that helped.....:confused:

[Hawk]

Here's another one. What does it mean? What's different from the first one today?


http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/STATES%20REPLY%20TO%20ITS%20RENEWED%20MOTION%20TO% 20DISMISS%20COUNT%20ONE.pdf

[JD1974]

I agree, it would be slightly less dodgy. The DA wanted to make a name for himself, I am about positive it isn't the one he is being called now though. :thumbsup:

[mrrogers]

My point was made.

Presumption of innocence has no place on a message board.

It's for the JURY...or judge if it isn't a jury trial
its YOUR right to feel that way but the justice system is based on
innocent until proven guilty
jury trial was denied by rocha :smile:

[JusticeDawg©]

Here's another one. What does it mean? What's different from the first one today?


http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/STATES%20REPLY%20TO%20ITS%20RENEWED%20MOTION%20TO% 20DISMISS%20COUNT%20ONE.pdf


They are saying that even though the ruling for a competency hearing was PUT IN BEFORE the Motion to dismiss, the Judge should rule on it without the competency hearing.
----------------
They are grasping at straws....so to speak.

A HAIL MARY, if you will...

[mrrogers]

Seems to say Judge Roca can still wait if he thinks that's best under the circumstances, don't you think?
yes,this about the best news we could get

[Hawk]

They are saying that even though the ruling for a competency hearing was PUT IN BEFORE the Motion to dismiss, the Judge should rule on it without the competency hearing.
----------------
They are grasping at straws....so to speak.

A HAIL MARY, if you will...

So maybe the judge will finally make a decision on Thursday. Perhaps even fess-up that the boy is incompetent.
At least there will be more from this hearing than the previous ones?

[mrrogers]

Okay. So is he quilty or not?
thats for the judge to decide

[mrrogers]

Honestly, I am not trying to be difficult.

But over a decade old drug conviction does not a present day drug dealer make.

At the time of his death there seems to be NO EVIDENCE he was dealing/using anything.

has anyone seen the conviction if so can u post a link

[JusticeDawg©]

So maybe the judge will finally make a decision on Thursday. Perhaps even fess-up that the boy is incompetent.
At least there will be more from this hearing than the previous ones?

This will be a "heated" hearing.
imo

[Hawk]

thats for the judge to decide

That was from a previous joking banter we were having. I inadverently typed a Q instead of a G when typing guilty.

[JusticeDawg©]

has anyone seen the conviction if so can u post a link

BB: Would that, would tho, do those criminal histories, apply, on reservations?
DN: Um, not normally, no.
BB: And that would be a separate request that would need ta be made.
DN: Yes.
BB: Do you know if that was made, on Mr. Romans?
DN: Yes, I do know it was made.
BB: And there hasn’t been anything, (crosstalk), er do you know?
DN: Um, well, I know, I, I still think you’d be better off with Sergeant Rodriguez, but, I do know that there were some, um, drug charges, and that, he did serve some time in, in prison, fer those drug charges.
http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Neckel.pdf
pages 17 and 18

Thanks to IAMME!

[Hawk]

This will be a "heated" hearing.
imo

I wish it was on TV. Or least maybe there will be audio like there was before. (Poor audio, but audio nonetheless.)

[muska]

I got the impression that that's exactly what Roca meant when he first addressed the issue. There was IMO a testy exchange between Roca and Carlyon, including this from Roca:

I don’t feel that it’s appropriate to address substantive issues such as major strategic moves while there’s a competency inquiry pending.

Now, the fact that that may put the State behind the eight ball is (sic - he meant “is not“ based on the context), and I don’t think should be, the Court’s problem. The State had an opportunity to chessboard this thing from the very start; had enough evidence on both counts to file them, to pursue and obtain a probably cause determination. The broad outlines of the moves and countermoves that could be made by the various parties were, I think, if not obvious then certainly discernible at the time that the matter was initiated.

I hope he still feels the same way.

Quoted from the transcript of the 12/8 status hearing.
PDF page 21 -- original doc page 20 -- starting at line 12

TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE DEC 8 2008.pdf (http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/TRANSCRIPT%20OF%20STATUS%20CONFERENCE%20DEC%208%20 2008.pdf)

This is such a great find!!! I also hope he still feels this way.

[mina]

BB: Would that, would tho, do those criminal histories, apply, on reservations?
DN: Um, not normally, no.
BB: And that would be a separate request that would need ta be made.
DN: Yes.
BB: Do you know if that was made, on Mr. Romans?
DN: Yes, I do know it was made.
BB: And there hasn’t been anything, (crosstalk), er do you know?
DN: Um, well, I know, I, I still think you’d be better off with Sergeant Rodriguez, but, I do know that there were some, um, drug charges, and that, he did serve some time in, in prison, fer those drug charges.
http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Neckel.pdf
pages 17 and 18

Thanks to IAMME!

What I love <snark> about this part of the interview is how it comes AFTER Neckles insisted that neither victim had criminal histories. Then she has to admit that Tim does. Did she think Brewer wouldn't know to check with the res?

BB: Um, did, you, in yer investigation, have any opportunity, run any kinda criminal histories, on any ‘a these folks?
DN: Ummm, yes. Um, Sergeant Rodriguez, I believe, um, ran, criminal histories immediately on, Tim and Vincent…
BB: Okay.
DN: …um, after the crime.
BB: And what, what was co, uncovered, if anything?
DN: I believe nothing.
BB: Okay.
DN: From the criminal histories. We didn’t find anything.

[mrrogers]

I'm sorry. I had "is" in quotes. Here is from Jones' report:
"describing him as a "dealer."

Since he did not put in his report that the officer describing him as previously being a "dealer" a long time ago, it appears it is in the present tense.

some cops will shoot there mouth off about anything without any basis in fact
as an example ive been divorced for 10 years and a while back some idiot told some i was married and my wife worked at the bank
the point is i just dont trust police and worse police on an indian reservation. if theres no record that can be stuck in my face i wont take his word for it. there was no drugs or drug paraphenalia found so if he was a dealer wheres his drugs they looked everywhere

[mrrogers]

Ruling: Judge Can Address Murder Charge In Trial Of Boy, 9

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. -- An Apache County judge can rule on a prosecutors' request to drop a murder charge against a 9-year-old St. Johns boy, the state Court of Appeals said.

http://www.kpho.com/news/18549439/detail.html
sounds plain and simple enough for me so prosecution is nowhere lol

[Details]

Yep, that ruling was almost nothing for the prosecution. The judge said he couldn't rule, needed competency, and that he didn't want to rule before that, prosecution tried for an appeal, appeals court said that it's up to the judge, the only little tidbit they got is that he CAN rule - but he doesn't have to.


I still think they're wrong. When there's an issue like competency up, they shouldn't be allowed to pull charges out to avoid the competency laws. Wouldn't mind that issue someday being resolved.

[muska]

Yep, that ruling was almost nothing for the prosecution. The judge said he couldn't rule, needed competency, and that he didn't want to rule before that, prosecution tried for an appeal, appeals court said that it's up to the judge, the only little tidbit they got is that he CAN rule - but he doesn't have to.


I still think they're wrong. When there's an issue like competency up, they shouldn't be allowed to pull charges out to avoid the competency laws. Wouldn't mind that issue someday being resolved.

Even the appeals judge wrote something about how it's often better to wait until competency issues are resolved.

[mrrogers]

I did read it yesterday. It sounds like it's still up to the judge.

Is he an elected judge? That might be scary!

I'm on my way out but will check back later!!

hes a judge pro tem could be around forever tho

[muska]

Another article about Judge Roca and the appeals' court decision -

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/stories/phoenix-local-news-012309-murder-charge.21d78a9e.html

Does it sound like this reporter is saying the same thing?

[Details]

It's a far shorter blurb, but saying the same thing - Roca isn't required to wait - but there's not a thing saying he's required not to wait.

[Hawk]

IMO The standard for juvenile competency is not the same as for an adult.

How can a standard be set, in anything, legal, medical, or otherwise, without a baseline?
What is the baseline? If there is one. An 8 year old? 13? 21? The criteria could fluctuate with each individual psychologist. No standard at all.
And if there was such a thing there would be no need for interpretation. It would be a go no-go situation.

[GentleBreeze]

That was me!

S:tongueside:

BTW did you empty your mailbox?


Oh!:smile:

Yep, I did.

I just read the ruling by the court and from what I can understand Judge Roca would have been in error if he had ruled on the motion to dismiss after he had already ruled on the competency issue.

Because how could he rule on it afterward if he first deemed him to be incompetent?:confused:

I think all motions filed, no matter which side, must have a ruling.



imoo

[wolfi_2]

there is another court filling

STATES REPLY TO ITS RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT ONE

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/STATES%20REPLY%20TO%20ITS%20RENEWED%20MOTION%20TO% 20DISMISS%20COUNT%20ONE.pdf

[mrrogers]

He knows Hawk. What makes me so angry is that the DA knows this kid is incompetent and imo holding back the findings until the judge rules on his motion to dismiss.
youre right. thats why they offered a plea deal.
the judge has got it under control and i think is being cosiderate of the boy and his family
carlyon doesnt seem to have much steam or maybe i think so cuz he isnt nearly the biggest jerk off ive met in my life:w00t:

[Jacobtk]

Or squeeze him into taking the deal.

The plea deal actually is not a deal per se. The condition mentioned in the reports on it was that the cases would be handled in the juvenile court based on the results of the competency hearing. If the boy is found competent, the deal could be off and he could be charged as an adult. In other words, there is no "deal."

The standard for juvenile competency is not the same as for an adult.

The standard is the same. Competency is based solely on the person's ability to understand the court proceedings, the charges filed against him and the person's ability to act in his own defense. The difference is that competency evaluations for juveniles are sometimes required by law depending on the state. However, very few people are found incompetent. Like insanity, it is almost impossible to prove.

[Hawk]

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children is just that.

The Wechsler scale is not designed to determine competency in murder trials.

[Jacobtk]

there is another court filling

STATES REPLY TO ITS RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT ONE

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/STATES%20REPLY%20TO%20ITS%20RENEWED%20MOTION%20TO% 20DISMISS%20COUNT%20ONE.pdf

That is just legal overkill. Judge Roca got the first request. Sending a second that repeats the same thing looks like desperation. I would expect this from a so-so public defender trying to push motions through, but not from a prosecutor.

[Hawk]

It's used as part of the evaluation

It's used to substantiate guesswork.

[wolfi_2]

That is just legal overkill. Judge Roca got the first request. Sending a second that repeats the same thing looks like desperation. I would expect this from a so-so public defender trying to push motions through, but not from a prosecutor.



maybe the evidence mostly doesn't fit?

[Hawk]

That is just legal overkill. Judge Roca got the first request. Sending a second that repeats the same thing looks like desperation. I would expect this from a so-so public defender trying to push motions through, but not from a prosecutor.

Another great waste of taxpayers money and limited resources by the esteemed Apache County Attorneys Office.

[mrrogers]

Here's another one. What does it mean? What's different from the first one today?


http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/STATES%20REPLY%20TO%20ITS%20RENEWED%20MOTION%20TO% 20DISMISS%20COUNT%20ONE.pdf

hes just naggin the judge for a hearing that he knows the judge is in control of setting when he wants to in the other one he suggested it be held at the jan 29 hearing . rocha has the hammer and it shows the da is frustrated over it cause he knows he is at rochas mercy in getting a hearing on this bs

[Details]

That is just legal overkill. Judge Roca got the first request. Sending a second that repeats the same thing looks like desperation. I would expect this from a so-so public defender trying to push motions through, but not from a prosecutor.Desperation looks the same - whether it's from a prosecutor or a defense attorney.

[wolfi_2]

it looks like general despair take place

[Hawk]

Does he understand the charges?

I would say absolutely. He knows that he is accused of murdering two people.

Can he understand court proceedings?

I would say yes again. It's simply really. His lawyer is on his side. The prosecutor isn't and the judge decides. That's all he really needs to understand.

He doesn't need to act in his own defense, he must be able to assist his defense.

I think he can.


Very very few people are found incompetent. Barring some mental defect or incredibly low IQ results I don't think it will happen. He seems like a very bright child for his age.

IMO

He can't understand court proceedings. He isn't old enough.
He can't ascertain if his representation is adequate. He isn't old enough.
His lawyer could send him down the river.
He can't responsibly aid in his defence. He isn't old enough.

He's a little kid!

[mrrogers]

This will be a "heated" hearing.
imo

would love to be there to see it, but the room will be crowded i bet
i think the judge will deny the motion if he ever hears it . the bottom line is i think itll all be as is dismissed because the boy is incompetent
if i was the da i wouldnt hold my breath on getting a hearing. the appeals court said theres nothing that prevents the judge to do what hes doing. its the only logical way to do it

[shelby77]

I believe the Maricopa County website has some information related to Tim that cannot be found on the Arizona public access page....for anyone interested FWIW

[Details]

He can't understand court proceedings. He isn't old enough.
He can't ascertain if his representation is adequate. He isn't old enough.
His lawyer could send him down the river.
He can't responsibly aid in his defence. He isn't old enough.

He's a little kid!If the defense offered him a candy bar to change his plea, he probably would. If they offered him a pony or a mini-truck, he definitely would (OK, IMO). Any 8 year old would. He's not competent. 8 year olds just cannot comprehend the stakes, the need to be honest, and they just don't have the ability to understand that in this situation, they get to tell the adults, "No, you're wrong, I didn't do it." Kids are raised to obey, and when an authoritative adult tells them the sky is green, in a formal scary setting like a courtroom, expecting them to stand up and say otherwise is just beyond their abilites! 8 year olds - I wouldn't expect to see a single one competent, not the next Albert Einstien, not a young Winston Churchill, none of them. They can be smart, they can be clever, they can even be malicious - but they are still 8.

[Details]

Yes he is a kid. No disputing that.

Basic court proceedings as I defined above is enough. He's old enough and smart enough to grasp the very basics of the concept.

Yes, his lawyer could send him down the river, is there a reasonable reason to believe that to be true? No.

Any criminal defendant could have a crummy lawyer.

He can aid in his defense, the question is...does he have one?

IMOIt's a requirement generally for competence - can he understand enough to speak up if his lawyer was selling him down the river. And he needs to understand beyond the basics - he needs to understand the stakes, that he has equal rank with the adults for this odd time, that he can say when they are telling things that are not true, that he even must say that.

[JD1974]

I am floored that people actually think a 9 year old can assist in his defense. All it takes to be competent is to know his attorney is on his side, the prosecutor isn't and the judge decides? ROFL you have got to be kidding....

[GentleBreeze]

I am floored that people actually think a 9 year old can assist in his defense. All it takes to be competent is to know his attorney is on his side, the prosecutor isn't and the judge decides? ROFL you have got to be kidding....


But in Arizona a child of 8 or older can be charged with a crime. So it must not be the age so much but the capacity of each child.

imoo

[mrrogers]

This will be a "heated" hearing.
imo

roca can simply ignore the da':w00t:s bs he is not forced to act on it
the da better mind his manners in court no matter how poed he is
not only will media pickup on it he ll make an *** out of himself in front of everyone.
i doubt he gets a hearing when he wants it if he gets one at all
im thinking rocha will now just ignore the pleading maintianinng the status quo

[Jacobtk]

The standard is not the same

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:9KNVWqoUP-AJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3Din%26vol%3Dsc%255C05200402.rd r%26invol%3D2+competent+to+aid+in+defense&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

In Arizona the standard is same. The difference is that children are given an extra condition of being incapable of understanding the process in general that could render them incompetent:

"Incompetent to stand trial" (http://criminal.lawyers-and-laws.com/arizona/criminal-code/incompetence-to-stand-trial/definitions.html) means that as a result of a mental illness, defect or disability a defendant is unable to understand the nature and object of the proceeding or to assist in the defendant's defense. In the case of a person under the age of eighteen years of age when the issue of competency is raised, incompetent to stand trial also means a person who does not have sufficient present ability to consult with the person's lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or who does not have a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against the person. The presence of a mental illness, defect or disability alone is not grounds for finding a defendant incompetent to stand trial.

[Jacobtk]

maybe the evidence mostly doesn't fit?

The evidence not being in their favor is no reason to badger the judge.

[Details]

The evidence not being in their favor is no reason to badger the judge.When the law is on your side, pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When neither is on your side, pound the table!
- an old cliche

Sounds to me like they're pounding the table.

[wolfi_2]

When the law is on your side, pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When neither is on your side, pound the table!
- an old cliche

Sounds to me like they're pounding the table.


that´s what I think !

[Jacobtk]

But in Arizona a child of 8 or older can be charged with a crime. So it must not be the age so much but the capacity of each child.

No, that is a result of people pushing for children to be punished more harshly. The logic behind that standard is the same asinine logic behind charging two high school kids who had consensual sex with statutory rape because one was two months older than the other. People prefer the harshest penalty possible and if it had not been ruled unconstitutional, Carlyon probably would be seeking the death penalty, to which very few people would object.

[JD1974]

Tell me........ if he's guilty how is he supposed to aid in his defense?



If he is incompetent it doesn't matter...it means he can't whether he is guilty or innocent.

[wolfi_2]

Tell me........ if he's guilty how is he supposed to aid in his defense?


Tell me….. why did the most country's of the world draw the line to prosecute children around 13year's?

[Details]

In Arizona the standard is same. The difference is that children are given an extra condition of being incapable of understanding the process in general that could render them incompetent:... [/I]The Dusky standard plus a little then.
http://www.jfponline.com/Pages.asp?AID=4146

To be competent, the boy must understand the trial's adversarial nature (his actions during the interrogation seem to stand against that - he has to understand the prosecutor is there to put him in jail, is not someone he should trust and obey. He must understand the severity of the charges, the possible pleas and what they mean, be able to understand plea bargaining, pay attention in court (yeah, that's likely!), consider using mental illness defense, be free of self-defeating behavior, predict probable trial outcome, evaluate evidence - any of this sounding like an 8 year old?

[mrrogers]

Another article about Judge Roca and the appeals' court decision -

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/stories/phoenix-local-news-012309-murder-charge.21d78a9e.html

Does it sound like this reporter is saying the same thing?

rocas inaction may be the action he ever takes on this
if you read the 2 motions filed by the da today you can see hes pissed off
about not getting a hearing and knowing that roca may well never ever hear the motion in court,personally id be surprised if its ever heard

[shelby77]

I'm on the site but can't find it:confused: Gotta link?

Here ya, you have to click on the individual court and then case history

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/index.asp

[Details]

Tell me….. why did the most country's of the world draw the line to prosecute children around 13year's?Hmm - common sense? Maybe we've got something really stupid in the water here? Of course, often enough we know better - but some areas, IMO, they're terrified of being thought of as "soft on crime" and instead of justice, it's about revenge - so never mind if the person is competent, knew what they were doing - revenge dictates someone must pay. Justice would say we look at the whole situation, but revenge is so much more simple.

[JD1974]

The Dusky standard plus a little then.
http://www.jfponline.com/Pages.asp?AID=4146

To be competent, the boy must understand the trial's adversarial nature (his actions during the interrogation seem to stand against that - he has to understand the prosecutor is there to put him in jail, is not someone he should trust and obey. He must understand the severity of the charges, the possible pleas and what they mean, be able to understand plea bargaining, pay attention in court (yeah, that's likely!), consider using mental illness defense, be free of self-defeating behavior, predict probable trial outcome, evaluate evidence - any of this sounding like an 8 year old?



Well he did methodically plan and murder two men, I wonder why he hasn't filed his own pro se motion and started defending himself....hahahaha

[JusticeDawg©]

Teen sentenced to at least 4 years for killing mom


TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) - A 13-year-old Douglas boy was sentenced Friday to at least four years in juvenile corrections custody for shooting his mother to death.

Cochise County Superior Court Judge James Conlogue had found the boy guilty earlier this month.

The judge ruled that prosecutors had proven the boy acted intentionally and with premeditation when he shot his mother, 34-year-old Sara Madrid, eight times on Aug. 1.


http://www.kvoa.com/global/story.asp?s=9724985

[Details]

Here ya, you have to click on the individual court and then case history

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/index.aspYou've got to give more detail than that - if it's out there, link it. Or give the court and the like.

[JusticeDawg©]

When the law is on your side, pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When neither is on your side, pound the table!
- an old cliche

Sounds to me like they're pounding the table.

Post of the Day!! :thumbup:

[Crispy]

Here ya, you have to click on the individual court and then case history

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/index.asp

Thanks for the link shelby! All I found was some traffic and one domestic relations but that one doesn't have a DOB or anything to say if it's him.

[wolfi_2]

Teen sentenced to at least 4 years for killing mom


TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) - A 13-year-old Douglas boy was sentenced Friday to at least four years in juvenile corrections custody for shooting his mother to death.

Cochise County Superior Court Judge James Conlogue had found the boy guilty earlier this month.

The judge ruled that prosecutors had proven the boy acted intentionally and with premeditation when he shot his mother, 34-year-old Sara Madrid, eight times on Aug. 1.


http://www.kvoa.com/global/story.asp?s=9724985

another link
But the boy could be released before then, when he turns 17.

http://www.svherald.com/articles/2009/01/23/news/breaking_news/doc497a2b6fa0610859301150.txt

[shelby77]

Thanks for the link shelby! All I found was some traffic and one domestic relations but that one doesn't have a DOB or anything to say if it's him.


There's a criminal one on there also, and I believe they also used his middle name, didn't they? I'll have to go check again..

[shelby77]

You've got to give more detail than that - if it's out there, link it. Or give the court and the like.

LOOK at the link I provided, it states right in it, superior court maricopa, and then voila, click on it and it actually takes you there. So I linked and gave the court, so????
:confused:

[mrrogers]

He can't understand court proceedings. He isn't old enough.
He can't ascertain if his representation is adequate. He isn't old enough.
His lawyer could send him down the river.
He can't responsibly aid in his defence. He isn't old enough.

He's a little kid!

well i hope he walks and the real killers are found :w00t:

[Details]

LOOK at the link I provided, it states right in it, superior court maricopa, and then voila, click on it and it actually takes you there. So I linked and gave the court, so????
:confused:I did, and tried the search, clicked on links - not getting it. But - seems others are, so I'll not worry about it.

[Details]

well i hope he walks and the real killers are found :w00t:I hope they're working on that case, on the other suspects.

[mrrogers]

Thanks for the link shelby! All I found was some traffic and one domestic relations but that one doesn't have a DOB or anything to say if it's him.

thats pretty much what i found on the public access site. if him and tanya were getting divorced theres a motive there

[Crispy]

Heres one link

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/JusticeCourtCases/caseSearchResults.asp?lastName=Romans&FirstName=Timothy&bName=

Here's another

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/FamilyCourtCases/caseSearchResults.asp?lastName=Romans&FirstName=Timothy

[shelby77]

thats pretty much what i found on the public access site. if him and tanya were getting divorced theres a motive there

Well, that court is not included in the public access search. There is a link on the home page that takes you to the courts NOT included in their search, and that Maricopa court is one of the ones not on there. You have to search thru them directly. Plus, Tim has charges prior to 1995, and you can only bring up cases 1995 and on from the public access site. That leaves much more out there then just the one site...

[wolfi_2]

Hmm - common sense? Maybe we've got something really stupid in the water here? Of course, often enough we know better - but some areas, IMO, they're terrified of being thought of as "soft on crime" and instead of justice, it's about revenge - so never mind if the person is competent, knew what they were doing - revenge dictates someone must pay. Justice would say we look at the whole situation, but revenge is so much more simple.


common sense. Well, that's a good answer!

[shelby77]

Heres one link

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/JusticeCourtCases/caseSearchResults.asp?lastName=Romans&FirstName=Timothy&bName=

Here's another

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/FamilyCourtCases/caseSearchResults.asp?lastName=Romans&FirstName=Timothy


Thank you Crispy!! I tried copying the links on the actual pages, but they wouldn't copy right for me??? Not sure why, but I'm glad you could :smile:

[Details]

common sense. Well, that's a good answer!To be honest, I think the "revenge" answer is more in line. "Someone has to pay for the deaths" is a common type of statement you hear - and that's revenge talking. It's an emotional reaction, appropriate to the victim's family, but bad for justice overall.

[shelby77]

The criminal case in under the link "Justice Court Cases", if that helps anyone.
I searched for Tim Romans, but his criminal charge was under "Tim Eugene Romans" specifically..

[wolfi_2]

To be honest, I think the "revenge" answer is more in line. "Someone has to pay for the deaths" is a common type of statement you hear - and that's revenge talking. It's an emotional reaction, appropriate to the victim's family, but bad for justice overall.


that´s correct also, thanks for your replay and good night!:sleep:

[Crispy]

The criminal case in under the link "Justice Court Cases", if that helps anyone.
I searched for Tim Romans, but his criminal charge was under "Tim Eugene Romans" specifically..

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/JusticeCourtCases/caseSearchResults.asp?lastName=Romans&FirstName=Tim&bName=

[Hawk]

We'll finally have an answer 6 Feb.!!!!!!



http://www.kvoa.com:80/Global/story.asp?S=9724077&nav=menu216_3

[Crispy]

Yep, clear the calendar! Those reporters better be quick on the draw too. Don't wanna wait until the end of time to find out what happened! I've already mentioned I'm impatient. LOL

[Details]

We'll finally have an answer 6 Feb.!!!!!!

http://www.kvoa.com:80/Global/story.asp?S=9724077&nav=menu216_3Too fracking long! How about we send the judge a nice picture of a child asleep in a jail cell, waking up with a nightmare, and no parent to take care of them! Every day is important, they should act like there's some urgency here, because there is! He's been there longer than he should have already. Heck, a week is longer than he should have - they should have set up home detention right away, the instant they realized they'd have to put him in solitary to keep him remotely safe because juvie is simply not set up for little kids!

Yeesh!

[Hawk]

Too fracking long! How about we send the judge a nice picture of a child asleep in a jail cell, waking up with a nightmare, and no parent to take care of them! Every day is important, they should act like there's some urgency here, because there is! He's been there longer than he should have already. Heck, a week is longer than he should have - they should have set up home detention right away, the instant they realized they'd have to put him in solitary to keep him remotely safe because juvie is simply not set up for little kids!

Yeesh!

Since we all know the case hinges on the Feb. 6th hearing what are they going to waste time on 29 Jan.? Why not hear the 'experts' then? They know the results now, don't they? More posturing?

[Details]

Since we all know the case hinges on the Feb. 6th hearing what are they going to waste time on 29 Jan.? Why not hear the 'expert' then? They know the results now, don't they? More posturing?More delay, in hopes Roca will let them drop that one charge and keep it for a later date, IMO. The expert has had far longer than he was supposed to need - this is not such a complex thing. So, IIMO, that means it's all delay.

[shelby77]

Does anyone recall if Tim's middle name is actually Eugene?? It sounded familiar to me, but I don't remember it for a fact. So much that has been read in all these months this dang thing has drug on, it makes it difficult to remeber all the minute details.
I'll research it myself but I figured it anyone knew off the top of their head, it'd save me some time :)
Not that it matters much anyway as there isn't that much of a record for TER that I've found yet...for anything too recent anyway.

[Jacobtk]

We'll finally have an answer 6 Feb.!!!!!!

It may take some time after that. I do not think he must make his decision on that day.

[Hawk]

Does anyone recall if Tim's middle name is actually Eugene?? It sounded familiar to me, but I don't remember it for a fact. So much that has been read in all these months this dang thing has drug on, it makes it difficult to remeber all the minute details.
I'll research it myself but I figured it anyone knew off the top of their head, it'd save me some time :)
Not that it matters much anyway as there isn't that much of a record for TER that I've found yet...for anything too recent anyway.

Middle name is Francis. (From Autopsy)

[Hawk]

It may take some time after that. I do not think he must make his decision on that day.

There isn't one reason on earth that he shouldn't. He's had almost three months to think about it.

[mina]

Middle name is Francis. (From Autopsy)

Strangely enough, there is another Timothy Romans with a birthdate in 1969, but they seem to be different people. The victim is Timothy Francis Romans born 4/5/1969. The other guy is Timothy Eugene Romans born 12/10/1969.

[Jacobtk]

There isn't one reason on earth that he shouldn't. He's had almost three months to think about it.

I would hope he had not already made his decision before the competency hearing. That seems unethical.

[Crispy]

Strangely enough, there is another Timothy Romans with a birthdate in 1969, but they seem to be different people. The victim is Timothy Francis Romans born 4/5/1969. The other guy is Timothy Eugene Romans born 12/10/1969.

HA! I was probably looking up the wrong one. Been a long day and a little boy with a fever. The links I posted earlier probably aren't any good then.

[Hawk]

I would hope he had not already made his decision before the competency hearing. That seems unethical.

To suggest that a judge doesn't consider cases in his mind as the case progresses seems unreasonable. They're just human. Same as the rest of us.
How is the human mind regulated and monitored?

[mrrogers]

Does anyone recall if Tim's middle name is actually Eugene?? It sounded familiar to me, but I don't remember it for a fact. So much that has been read in all these months this dang thing has drug on, it makes it difficult to remeber all the minute details.
I'll research it myself but I figured it anyone knew off the top of their head, it'd save me some time :)
Not that it matters much anyway as there isn't that much of a record for TER that I've found yet...for anything too recent anyway.

the tim e is a different one :w00t:

[muska]

Too fracking long! How about we send the judge a nice picture of a child asleep in a jail cell, waking up with a nightmare, and no parent to take care of them! Every day is important, they should act like there's some urgency here, because there is! He's been there longer than he should have already. Heck, a week is longer than he should have - they should have set up home detention right away, the instant they realized they'd have to put him in solitary to keep him remotely safe because juvie is simply not set up for little kids!

Yeesh!

He is 115 months old and on Feb. 6, he'll have been sitting in a cell for 3months. That will already be 3 1/2% of all the months he's been alive.

[Jacobtk]

To suggest that a judge doesn't consider cases in his mind as the case progresses seems unreasonable. They're just human. Same as the rest of us.
How is the human mind regulated and monitored?

He is supposed to determine the boy's competency based on what is presented to him. Even if he personally believes the boy is incompetent to stand trial and cannot be "restored" 240 days, he should not have made his decision already. He should still be open to what both sides' experts have to say.

[Details]

He is supposed to determine the boy's competency based on what is presented to him. Even if he personally believes the boy is incompetent to stand trial and cannot be "restored" 240 days, he should not have made his decision already. He should still be open to what both sides' experts have to say.Those two goals don't conflict. You can think about something, and still be open to more information. It's the judge's decision, in the end. The experts provide information to base it on, but it's his decision.

[Hawk]

He is supposed to determine the boy's competency based on what is presented to him. Even if he personally believes the boy is incompetent to stand trial and cannot be "restored" 240 days, he should not have made his decision already. He should still be open to what both sides' experts have to say.


He can make the determination on his own without the evaluations. Besides, he has them already and has read them. He knows what he's going to do.

[mrrogers]

as long as its done with prejudice its ok :w00t:

[JD1974]

He is 115 months old and on Feb. 6, he'll have been sitting in a cell for 3months. That will already be 3 1/2% of all the months he's been alive.


When you break it down like that it is even sadder. I know the prosecution knows he is incompetent that is why they are pushing to get one charge dropped, these DA's are well past disgusting. All to get their 15 min of fame.

[mrrogers]

But Judge Roca wants to wait. He has been Adamant about that.

just look at how far this thing hasnt gone thatll tell ya whats up
hes draggin his feet on it as much as he can. rightfully so tho
grant woods was interviewed and he said the judge should be cut some slack since this is such a unique case which he is and i agree with
that kid that shot his mom in douglas got 5 years thats nothing !!!

[muska]

More delay, in hopes Roca will let them drop that one charge and keep it for a later date, IMO. The expert has had far longer than he was supposed to need - this is not such a complex thing. So, IIMO, that means it's all delay.

Could it be that because Carlyon made his motion to dismiss before the competency evaluation was complete he now, after the appeal decision, has some sort of right to have the judge's answer before the judge hears the competency results? Or do you think Judge Roca can say that he's still going to wait to decide after the evaluations are heard?

[TaraCrazyHair]

Wouldn't it make more sense for the Judge not to drop the murder charge and forced the DA's hand right now rather than giving them the option of trying him ten years from now?

[mrrogers]

Very true Gentlebreeze but I do think he will go with the experts opinion. You don't find it at all strange they want this ruled on before they have their expert testify to the kids competency?

theyre like rats on a sinking ship already just think how much better it will get:sneaky:

[mrrogers]

Wouldn't it make more sense for the Judge not to drop the murder charge and forced the DA's hand right now rather than giving them the option of trying him ten years from now?

if he never sets the motion for hearing thats what hes doing and its safer i think.and as an added benefit the ca gets all poed and cant do anything about it. i think they knew when they wrote the motions today it wasnt gonna fly. this is the first time theyve wrote two motions captioned differently about the same thing. i used to think i looked stupid when i did that but heck i guess im doing as good as the pros in this case :w00t::w00t:
i think mr whiting and mr carlyon are a little frustrated
can you belive carlyon (a county attorney in navajo county screwed up like this he aint much but if you run un opposed all u can do is win

[muska]

Just as a side-note how many kids do you think are in Apache county juvenile detention? This is only case# 65 in 2008 and few of those cases probably resulted in jail time. There are some from previous years, of course. Just wondering what the population is?

I saw that info somewhere but I can't remember where. I know I was surprised, the facility he's in doesn't have many kids at all - it was under 2 dozen. I'll try to find it. Seems like it was 16 or 18.

Each county has it's own detention facility, Maricopa(?) has two. Then the state shares 4 secure correctional centers for kids who are commited to the state.

[Hawk]

if he never sets the motion for hearing thats what hes doing and its safer i think.and as an added benefit the ca gets all poed and cant do anything about it. i think they knew when they wrote the motions today it wasnt gonna fly. this is the first time theyve wrote two motions captioned differently about the same thing. i used to think i looked stupid when i did that but heck i guess im doing as good as the pros in this case :w00t::w00t:
i think mr whiting and mr carlyon are a little frustrated
can you belive carlyon (a county attorney in navajo county screwed up like this he aint much but if you run un opposed all u can do is win

I think maybe that's what Mr. Carlyon expected this case would be. Unopposed.
Wood/Brewer has surprised him.

[Hawk]

I saw that info somewhere but I can't remember where. I know I was surprised, the facility he's in doesn't have many kids at all - it was under 2 dozen. I'll try to find it. Seems like it was 16 or 18.

Each county has it's own detention facility, Maricopa(?) has two. Then the state shares 4 secure correctional centers for kids who are commited to the state.

That's good. At least it's small. I imagine the boy takes 3rd grade lessons alone. Wonder what the age is of the next youngest convict.

[Details]

I think maybe that's what Mr. Carlyon expected this case would be. Unopposed.
Wood/Brewer has surprised him.Sure, you go after a child, you don't expect any significant opposition from the kid - and you can hope for a lazy public defender who doesn't care much. But he didn't get that!

[Hawk]

Sure, you go after a child, you don't expect any significant opposition from the kid - and you can hope for a lazy public defender who doesn't care much. But he didn't get that!

As I recall initially there was a lady public defender assigned to the case. But that changed for some reason. Perhaps the first lawyer was generally known for making plea deals and Brewer is an unexpected pit-bull that Mr. Carlyon wasn't prepared for.
That's just a wild guess.

[mrrogers]

Or squeeze him into taking the deal.

if a 3rd party had entered the appeal theyd have to prove its unconstitutional some one else filing against the state doesnt make it automatically unconstitutional / what it is is a dirty trick lawyers pull all the time.,
small towns is where the scum (like roy melnick) ends up alot of the time
because the good ones already got a good job