Ariz. Boy Charged With Murder Of Father

8-Year-Old Gave Conflicting Stories, But Ultimately Confessed In Video, Police Say

(CBS/AP)  An 8-year-old boy accused in the shooting deaths of his father and another man said in a police interview released Tuesday that he did not fire the first shots at the men but later shot them so they wouldn't suffer.

The boy gives conflicting accounts of the shootings during an hourlong video of his interview with authorities in St. Johns, but the video ends with him admitting to pulling the trigger. He then buries his head in his jacket.

"I'm going to go to juvie," the boy says after an officer asks what he's thinking.

The roughly 12-minute video posted Monday night on Phoenix television station KTVK's Web site shows part of the questioning the boy underwent as authorities in the eastern Arizona community of St. Johns investigated the Nov. 5 killings. The station said it got the video from the prosecutor's office in Apache County, where the shootings occurred.

"There was blood all over his face, I think," the boy said in the video, referring to his father. "And I think I touched him."

The boy has been charged in juvenile court with two counts of murder in the deaths of his father, Vincent Romero, and Timothy Romans, who rented a room there and was Romero's co-worker.

A defense attorney has said police overreached in their questioning of the boy, who was not represented by a family member or lawyer during the interview.

"I think they're going to have a problem getting that statement into court," defense attorney Benjamin Brewer said earlier this month before a judge issued a gag order in the case. "I believe there were many violations in regards to how it was obtained."

The gag order does not extend to the release of reports or recordings that would be considered public records in Arizona.

The shootings occurred Nov. 5 in an eastern Arizona community about 170 miles northeast of Phoenix.

The boy is due in court Wednesday for a hearing. He is being held in a juvenile jail.

[perk235]

In the case of a child, it gets really sticky because the police must prove that the boy understood that he did not have to answer questions and had to also understand the meaning of incrimination. This was an 8 year old.....
posted by harbinger09
-------------------
Although some think that these rules protect criminals, the recent release of 6 people in Nebraska, 5 of which had confessed to a crime they didn''t commit, shows how important rules of engagement are.

[harbinger09]

Second, the person being questioned has to request the attorney and unless you have been already arrested for the crime and in custody, the police do not have to advise you of your rights. The question is going to be "Was the kid arrested and then interrogated without rights advisement?" or were they merely just doing an interview without the kid actually being in police custody? pbcityvet at 01:51 AM : Nov 19, 2008


You need to first differentiate between adults and children because the law is not the same--but even if brought in for questioning, a person must be advised that things they say can and will be used against them in a court of law--this is a matter of legal procedure--anything that is said without that is hearsay and off the record. In the case of a child, it gets really sticky because the police must prove that the boy understood that he did not have to answer questions and had to also understand the meaning of incrimination. This was an 8 year old--this case will probably be thrown out--if not by the first court--it will be thrown out on appeal in either the state or federal supreme court--there is a reason for procedure and no state can interrogate any individual without establishing their rights and giving them a choice--a child would not be brought in for such questioning due to the problem with them understanding the situation--they would have to have counsel. AZ law is no exception to this.

[harbinger09]

First, tape was not leaked. It was turned over to the media through a public records release according to CNN. Second, the person being questioned has to request the attorney and unless you have been already arrested for the crime and in custody, the police do not have to advise you of your rights. The question is going to be "Was the kid arrested and then interrogated without rights advisement?" or were they merely just doing an interview without the kid actually being in police custody? I
In checking with Arizona''''s juvenile criminal ordinance it doesn''''t appear that the police have to have a parent present to question a juvenile.

Posted by pbcityvet at 01:51 AM : Nov 19, 2008


Ahem--when there is an ongoing case with a gag order there is no "public record release" public record releases usually take place some time after a case is no longer relevant. If info can be obtained via a "public record release" in an ongoing case ; a gag order would have no meaning and would not have been issued.

[evian_ycnan]

"In checking with Arizona''s juvenile criminal ordinance it doesn''t appear that the police have to have a parent present to question a juvenile."

Wrong!

Ding! Thank you for playing!

These cops browbeat an 8-year old for hours until he agreed with anything and everything they said. That 11:00:00 timestamp wasn`t noon. They had the kid up at midnight the day of the "non-arrest".

These cops are idiots.

[pbcityvet]

"Not only was a child interrogated without benefit of counsel or guardian, but the Prosecutor''''s office leaked the tape in defiance of a court order. Could it possibly be that this police dept. wants to destroy their own case and get the boy off? They seem to be committing every single error in the book short of doing something illegal themselves--then they seem to purposely be sharing their errors with the public.

all if this may be a tactic to get the boy off and ensure that no one else can try him for the same thing. (If it goes to trial and he is acquitted or the case is dismissed due to procedural misconduct--the case is tainted and the boy walks) To defy the court gag order in the case of a juvenile is highly suspicious."

First, tape was not leaked. It was turned over to the media through a public records release according to CNN. Second, the person being questioned has to request the attorney and unless you have been already arrested for the crime and in custody, the police do not have to advise you of your rights. The question is going to be "Was the kid arrested and then interrogated without rights advisement?" or were they merely just doing an interview without the kid actually being in police custody? I
In checking with Arizona''s juvenile criminal ordinance it doesn''t appear that the police have to have a parent present to question a juvenile.

[shanev137]

He''''s 8, there is no way for him to have any understanding of what is going on

-----------

An 8-year-old (hunter) doesn''t understand what murder is?

Get real.

[akpals]

Getting rid of guns doesn''t change the fact that this is a really disturbed kid ( if he is guilty). If he wanted to kil his dad so badly, he could have used a knife too. The gun wasn''t the problem here, the problem is something far scarier than a little ole'' gun. How does a kid get that messed up, and what happens when he is an adult if he gets out of prison? That''s scary!

[jenughfer]

There is something very wrong here....there has to more to the story then we are being told. He''s 8, there is no way for him to have any understanding of what is going on.

[owlwomanxxxx]

Don''t care...something is not right here...all these adults pinning this murder on this kid

[harbinger09]

Not only was a child interrogated without benefit of counsel or guardian, but the Prosecutor''s office leaked the tape in defiance of a court order. Could it possibly be that this police dept. wants to destroy their own case and get the boy off? They seem to be committing every single error in the book short of doing something illegal themselves--then they seem to purposely be sharing their errors with the public.

all if this may be a tactic to get the boy off and ensure that no one else can try him for the same thing. (If it goes to trial and he is acquitted or the case is dismissed due to procedural misconduct--the case is tainted and the boy walks) To defy the court gag order in the case of a juvenile is highly suspicious.

[harbinger09]

Your book is wrong. Police could interview anyone without the presence of a lawyer. It''''s up to you to refuse to answer the questions or request a lawyer. What they can''''t do is to ask you incriminating questions before reading Miranda. They could ask the kid "What happened?" but not "Did you kill them?". But if the kid made the incriminating statements or confesion on his own then that''''s admissible. I believe that''''s the case here...even if the police pushed it a little!

Posted by truthrocks at 09:15 PM : Nov 18, 2008


Police are NOT asllowed to ask ANY questions whatsoever without reciting the Miranda rights. This is why they recite it as soon as they arrest a person. Any questions asked after the reading of the Miranda rights is a signal that the individual is waiving those rights. If they failed to Mirandize that child, they are wrong and it will be thrown out--if they did Mirandize that boy, they are wrong, because it can be ruled that the child was too young to know what he was being told. This is a catch -22 and almost looks like the police are deliberately trying to destroy their own case.

[harbinger09]

Your book is wrong. Police could interview anyone without the presence of a lawyer. It''''s up to you to refuse to answer the questions or request a lawyer. What they can''''t do is to ask you incriminating questions before reading Miranda. They could ask the kid "What happened?" but not "Did you kill them?". But if the kid made the incriminating statements or confesion on his own then that''''s admissible. I believe that''''s the case here...even if the police pushed it a little!

Posted by truthrocks at 09:15 PM : Nov 18, 2008


and your book is wrong. In the case of legal matters, persons under the age of majority are usually NOT allowed to speak for themselves and a person as young as 8 would not have understood the word "incrimination" or the ramifications of waiving Miranda rights. In short, just as contracts signed by children are usually not legal, any confession wrung from a child without benefit of counsel is not legal. Get a better understanding of the law--children cannot waive rights since it is usually illegal for anyone under 14 to9 EVER represent themselves in any legal matter. The police really botched this.

[harbinger09]

How did the police manage to talk to a child or any other suspect without the presence of a grown up or guardian? Did they also read him his Miranda rights on video--and even if they did--can a child--an 8 year old waive those rights? This is foul on so many levels--First, horrible if the child did this...second horrible if the police thought they could get away with a coerced confession from a child. It won''t stick and the kid''s trial may have to take place far from Arizona or be thrown out due to these tactics.

[yeswedid]

As far as I know you are protected by the constitution and the Bill Of Rights from the day you are born. His right to be Marandized was stomped on. His right to a lawyer was stomped on. If the police believe he was capable both mentally and physically of this crime. Then they must protect his rights. Otherwise, If I am a judge, the confession is inadmissible as is anything he said to the police.

Posted by thgdriver1 at 06:13 PM : Nov 18, 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Remember he is a child of 8 yrs. old. Children should not be tried for murder in the 1st degree.

[gaye5]

p1tey1, I agree with you, If the child didnt do it imagine the horror that his little mind would be in thus a child admitting to the crime in this condition is no real proof when he has done it..
I am not saying that he hasnt as if he was sexually abused by these two men it is possible that he snapped, I sure would.. He will probably get a far greater sentence than those two 9 year old animals in England did who took that two year old little boy onto the rail way line and stoned and hit him until the train came and ran over him..

[meinnv]

The way the story is being reported by CBS; I don''t think I would deem it too reliable or factual. I would however say that in reading it, there seems to be something missing.

And, there does seem to be some police misconduct. Interviewing a child without a lawyer, social worker or his mother present seems highly suspicious or illegal in my book.

Even a social worker would have been better than no one. They are supposed to work in the interests of the child at all levels, or so we are led to believe.

[cricketbeers]

If there is a gag order on this case, WHY was the media given a 12 minute video? It seems as if the police have messed up from the outset, but aren''t being held responsible.

[gaye5]

tmittelstaed, you are dead right, my teacher husband has found the same thing at school, the stupid parents who say that their child could not possibly have done it are mostly the children who have done it..
The trouble is that the child knows that his parents will stick up for him no matter what and if he tells them some very good lies that they will believe him over anyone else. A child like this learns to lie very effectively very early..
My husband knows that he is generally in for a bad time when a parent says that their child could not possibly have done it and that their child NEVER lies.. Which of course means that the parents are calling the teacher a liar and the child learns that adults are fools, and cn be manipulated for his good..

[meinnv]

Children are capable of violence. However, because there is a gag order on this case--we might not yet know everything.

Is it possible he shot his father and the other man, I would say yes since he was taught how to handle a firearm.

Does he realize what "murder" is?? He might. This is one case where I am going to say this--

If he shot the two men in a premeditated act--jail him, give him counselling, and don''t let him out amonst society for the rest of his life.

If he didn''t commit the crime, find out who did and get this child some help so he can heal from this tragedy.

[meinnv]

sdcamom--

I do aplaud you for trying to bring the kid''s attention to someone else. Do not feel bad or let others make you feel bad about what happened or the choices you had to make. You can only control your actions, and no one else''s.

It bothers me that so few realize what the schools are like today. Some teachers actually watch kids get bullied by others and then afterwads tell the victim "well, maybe you shouldn''t have fought back, it only made him angrier" or "well he comes from a broken home so he''s hurting inside". Yeah, right, and I didn''t?? Yes, I was a victim of a school bully at the age of 11-12. The reason no one did anything about his behavior?--his parents were divorced and he''d been placed with the county.

Since I was still with my mother, I was told to be nicer to him, and if he wanted to beat on me "I should let him". Here I was a girl and 6 inches shorter and I was supposed to let a boy beat up on me if it made him feel better.

Oh yes, things like that happen. Just because you don''t see it, you didn''t go through it, doesn''t mean it didn''t happen.