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.