9-year-old Arizona boy signs plea deal in shooting deaths of father and another man

LAS VEGAS—A 9-year-old boy accused of shooting his father and another man to death at their home in rural Arizona pleaded guilty Thursday to one count of negligent homicide, a development that will spare the beleaguered town of St. Johns a highly publicized trial.

The November slayings drew international attention to the town of 4,000 after a police video was released in which the boy, clad in pajama pants, appeared to confess to shooting his father, Vincent Romero, and family friend Timothy Romans with a .22-caliber rifle.

With the boy's guilty plea in connection with Romans' death, prosecutors dropped the charge related to his father. The child's sentence—including whether he remains in his mother's care or enters the Apache County juvenile justice system—will depend on upcoming mental health evaluations, a defense attorney said.

"Part of the problem is I don't think any of us know what his problems are, if any, and how to solve them," lawyer Ron Wood said.

The boy's mother was unhappy with the plea agreement, Wood said. But the boy wanted to end court proceedings as soon as possible, and signed the three-page deal in shaky, oversized cursive.

*******full article http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/chi-child-killer_latfeb20,0,3184083.story


My question is is this normal practice? When a minor/juvenile is charged they are solely responsible for their plea? Would have thought the parents had a role in this? Afterall, aren't the parents responsible until their child(ren) reach 18?

I've don't know if that is normal practice or not, but maybe the mother was too conflicted on what to decide and put the decision is his hands. She had two choices. Let her son prove his innocence by going to trial, which means that all the dirty laundry would be highly publicized and also risking the chance that he could be proven guilty and charged as an adult. Or she could take the plea bargain and deal with her son being found guilty with a minimal sentence, plus not having to worry about any details about the case being publicized.

I really don't know if I'd want to be in her shoes, but then again I don't know if I want to put that decision on my child either.

I do think that there is more to this story then just "he was tired of being spanked when he got into trouble". It just doesn't make sense to me that that might be his sole reason for shooting both men.

Agreed saw it for the first time on this mornings news.

They showed police actively questioning a child without an attorney present nor his parents, which is why I am so interested now. That makes no sense to me whatsoever, to question a child without having an adult present.

The boy's attorneys explained their job (in an interview) was to explain the situation both pro/con to the client (child) but that ultimately the client had the responsibility of selecting which way to proceed.

Just my curious mind I guess, but I too would never want to be in that mother's shoes.

I read that too about the questioning part. It stated in the article that the confession might have been thrown out because of that reason, but what's the point? It's done been announced all over the media, so regardless if the attorney/parents were present or not, any time a confession is leaked out people tend to jump to conclusions w/o hearing all the details.

I'm just thinking that this kid got the wrong end of the deal somewhere in this whole mess.

This 9 yr old boy should never have been questioned without the presence of an attorney or his mother. His rights were violated for that. Have the police forgotten about Miranda Rights? And besides if they had read him his Miranda Rights a 9 Yr old boy isn't goin to understand them. Are we forgettin that this is a CHILD?????? This isn't some teenager that got pissed off at his father. This is a CHILD!!!!! If I were his mother I'd be hotter than a wet hornet and after someone's head for not havin at least a lawyer present when my child was questioned. Granted he may have shot the father and the friend and that is wrong. But let's put this back into perspective. He's a 9 yr old child and his juvenile rights were clearly violated in my opinion.

That's why the confession was thrown out. But like I said, it doesn't matter, the damage is done because the media has released it.

a 9 yr old child is playing baseball outside and while playing they break a window, parent's are responsible.

a 9 yr old child (I truly don't know whether he did or didnt murder these 2 people/his father and friend) but he is given the responsibility to chose how 'he' wants to plea????

Does the charge against a child give the child more responsibility? Meaning if he/she is charged as an adult are they expected to make adult decisions? If he/she is charged as a juvenile they are not?

Juvenile or adult, it doesn't matter. The boy should not have been given the responsibility of making that kind of decision. I just don't think he would be mature enough (intellectually speaking) to make a major decision like that. I can see asking what his thoughts are, but not putting the whole thing on him to decide.

The kid's screwed all the way around.
If his Mother is unstable and can't care for him or they can't find qualified relatives, he'll go into States hands. States can either put him in the Juvie system or foster care. Not many foster families want older kids. And especially with a homicide charge/conviction.

I think everyone would agree this is an extraordinary situation. I don't think we have a lot of murderers under ten years of age so I think when one thinks of normal procedures well what is normal in this circumstance?

In Michigan kids in the juvenile justice system typically have not just a lawyer but an advocate as well.

A quick look turned up this information:

Annually between 1980 and 1997, fewer than 10 juveniles age 10 or younger were identified as participants in murders—a figure that has remained essentially constant over the time period. The majority of these young homicide offenders were male (88%), and more than half (54%) were black. In these cases, the victim was equally likely to be either a family member or an acquaintance (43%). A firearm was involved in 50% of the murders committed by these young offenders.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/jjbul2000_03_2/kid2.html

Searches on juvenile justice issues turned up a lot of discouraging information. Uneven resources, disagreement on the best approaches, warehoused kids, overwhelmed staffs...but hey...who wants to pay taxes right?

No question the police screwed the pooch here questioning the kid without a parent or lawyer present. I imagine that even a seasoned law enforcement officer might have been some what taken aback arriving on that scene. Still, they screwed up.

The kid was obviously too young to know that he could request a lawyer as well. The parents didn't live together so I am sure there was some delay in determining who she was, contacting her and bringing her in to be present for her child.

You have to wonder what the police were thinking and how they could have screwed up like that on one hand and on the other the crime, the circumstances around it and the age of the offender make one understand in some ways how it could have happened. Were you an adult in this kids presence wouldn't you ask the kid what the hell happened?

Regardless, I can see a real possibility that the confession would not stand up in court. The prosecutor might feel the plea is his best option.

There's something in this article I find quite alarming.

"Part of the problem is I don't think any of us know what his problems are, if any, and how to solve them," lawyer Ron Wood said.

This is scary as hell. If the child's lawyer is admitting they don't know what the kids issues are how the hell will he receive proper services? How will society be served? Will this kid come out of this process possibly more dangerous than he went into it? Is there a plan to protect this child from himself and society from this child?

Here in Michigan some years ago a kid named Nathan Abraham was about that age when he shot a stranger emerging from a convenience store. He was convicted and basically grew up in juvenile detention. He was released at twenty-one and has continued to have legal issues and was recently back in jail for selling drugs.

Here in Michigan his case has focused some discussion on the lack of resources for juvenile offenders. This is a subject of real concern because in most cases these kids will get out of jail at some point and possibly be even more dangerous than they were when they went in.

What's the answer? I am not sure. After all seems no one wants to pay taxes and it takes money to properly house and treat these offenders. Still even when the money is spent what treatments are affective?

"The kid got the wrong end of the deal" "his rights were violated"...I feel bad he is just 9 years old...but what about the dead? I mean two people died here.

Kat

also found this site http://www.vpc.org/studies/fireaz.htm

Yep...

We've talked about guns on these boards many times.

Situations like this perfectly illustrate why gun owners have an obligation to properly secure weapons.

Agree on the storage of weapons, agree the family of the deceased got a raw deal. I am not sure whether the child did it or not by what I have read, but that's not my real question.

At what age does a minor become competent enough to make rational and responsible decisions, like in this case. His attorneys explained the pros and cons of going to trial vs accepting plea but in my mind I cannot believe a 9 year old understands what it truly means.

If a minor is charged as an adult does that automatically make them rational, responsible or knowledgeable enough to make decisions for themselves???

() 13 yr old boy in England 'supposedly fathers child' doesn't know what financially means () what about a 9 yr old?

Heres my problem with it. Lets say your minor child is driving your car and runs a red light and kills someone. They are gonna sue you not the child. This story isall kinds of messed up!!!!!

gimme some time to think about this

A 9 yr old shouldn't be questioned (or anyone once they lawyer up) without an attorney or parent present to request an attorney

where did the gun come from and why didn't the parents do something? i may have missed the answer

the gun (if it belonged to the parents) should have been locked away safely. kids can get them thinking they are just playing around or they could have problems but not mature enough to know how to deal with them.

I know in some states the child alone is held responsible IF the parents weren't guilty of neglect in raising him or if the parents have gone to great lengths to correct the problem but the child couldn't be helped.

IDK....still processing it in my head

Does this kid understand what he did?

I imagine at this point he is starting to get the idea.

This case reminds me of the teen girl who in the late 70's used a rifle to kill two people outside an elementary school opposite her house. A reporter making calls during the crime got the girl on the phone and when he asked why her basic response? "I don't like Mondays" (Ever heard the Boomtown Rats song?)She is serving two 25-life sentences and hasn't granted an interview since so beyond that short conversation with the reporter who really knows what her problems were or whether she really understood what she was doing.

Could she form intent? Can a child under ten possibly conceive the seriousness of these sorts of crimes? What about a teen?

The law says intent and the ability to form intent are essential elements. That's why the law treats premeditated murder differently than a death caused by an accident.

Even absent the ability to form intent I think most people would agree that juveniles who commit violent acts must be protected from themselves and society from them. Justice must be tailored to each case to best accomplish what is in the best interest of the victim, the offender and society. I think in these cases the word normal is hard to apply. What about a murderer under the age of ten is normal?

Oh, when murder is discussed on these boards there are alot of people who advocate the death penalty on these boards. For them"

International law prohibits the execution of juvenile offenders. We still do here in the United States.The U.S. has some interesting company in this. Iran also executes juvenile offenders.

Numbers from http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/executions-of-child-offenders-since-1990 There are further details on the page.

Executions of child offenders since 1990

The use of the death penalty for crimes committed by people younger than 18 is prohibited under international human rights law, yet some countries still execute child offenders. Such executions are few compared to the total number of executions in the world. Their significance goes beyond their number and calls into question the commitment of the executing states to respect international law.

Since 1990 Amnesty International has documented 73 executions of child offenders in 9 countries: China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the USA and Yemen. Several of these countries have changed their laws to exclude the practice. Executions of child offenders represent a tiny fraction of the total of executions worldwide recorded by Amnesty International each year. The USA and Iran have each executed more child offenders than the other eight countries combined and Iran has now exceeded the USA's total since 1990 of 19 child executions.

The first table below gives statistics on executions of child offenders recorded by Amnesty International since 1990. The second table gives case details.

There must be something more going on with this kid. No one, children included, just get up one day and decide to kill someone, especially your father.

No one normal, that is.

The way I see it is this: either this kid is one of those psychos they always have on "Law & Order" that kills cats, tortures neighborhood kids, and just seems to come out of nowhere, or he was severely abused.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a 10 year old nephew and I could never imagine him doing something like this. I think someone seriously screwed this kid up.