Plea Bargain in Apache County
The case of the child double homicide suspect in St. Johns, Arizona may be reaching a legal conclusion. On 19 February, 2009, the child agreed to one charge of Negligent Homicide. The two original charges of First‑Degree Murder were gone.
Murders of Tim Romans and Vincent Romero were reported by Romero’s eight‑year‑old son on 5 November, 2008. The following day, a confession was coerced from the child by St. Johns Detective Debbie Neckel and Apache County Sheriff’s Commander Matrese Avila. Both police officers denied the interrogation and called it an interview. But, the session walked and talked like an interrogation. The interrogators repeatedly told the child what they wanted to hear and changed the subject when he didn’t comply to return to the same line later.
The child was not given any statement of rights, and no relative or lawyer was allowed in the interrogation room. The interrogation was based exclusively upon a telephone statement supposedly made during a telephone interview to St. Johns Sergeant Lucas Rodriguez by the widow of Romans. A written statement from Tanya Romans was obtained later. This statement implicated the child but was significantly different from the version that Rodriguez gave in sworn testimony.
St. Johns Police Chief Roy Melnick halted the investigation immediately after the extorted confession. He then went to the network news to declare the child to be a cold‑blooded killer. On 7 November, 2008, the then Apache County Attorney, Criss Candelaria, charged the child with two first‑degree murders.
Eventually, the prosecution offered to not use the confession under conditions. The issue is still pending. I suspect that the confession would be suppressed without any conditions. But, Candelaria made certain that the video of the interrogation was distributed to the media to undermine the accused and provide talking points for various news organizations.
The current County Attorney Michael B. Whiting has placed his imprimatur on those behaviors by continuing to support Candelaria and publicly blessing the plea deal. Whiting kept Candelaria on as special prosecutor while cutting other services.
On 7 November, 2008, pro tempore Judge Michael P. Roca decided, based upon the bogus confession and an unexamined box of cartridges, that there was enough cause to charge the child. At this hearing, prosecution witnesses gave testimony that was notable for evasiveness and omissions.
Judge Roca treated the child as an adult for purposes of understanding what was going on and the Miranda business. He was required to tell the child of his right to remain silent and to have an attorney. Roca stated that the charges were very serious. Roca also explained that the hearing was only to determine if there were any reason to believe that the child committed the crime but not if there was “sufficient proof to hold you responsible.” Whether the child truly understood is debatable. Even adults have trouble understanding the very low evidence threshold needed to charge a crime.
As the case progressed, Candelaria wanted to drop one charge of first‑degree murder with purpose of charging the child when he was older. This is an odd aspect of American law that postulates retroactive maturity. Although a crime was committed by a child, later charges will transform the child of that time and age into an adult. Defense Attorney Benjamin Brewer challenged this offer. It was a sleazy prosecution trick.
Whether Judge Roca would allow the motion to drop one charge for future prosecution is a bit of crap shoot. Some judges believe that charging a person when they are an adult, as an adult, for a crime allegedly committed when they eight (or younger) is reasonable. Apparently, an incompetent person can become competent for youthful crimes when they reach eighteen through some kind of legal hocus.
Ten days after Chief Melnick halted the investigation, he and the county attorney asked the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) to continue the investigation. Meanwhile, police and prosecutor continued to release selected information to make the accused appear guilty. Many interviews by DPS persons reflected the publicity generated by authorities in addition to the normal gossip background.
The evidence incriminating the child is questionable. He lived in the home where the murders occurred so we can expect some evidence of his presence. Two of the ten bullets used in the shootings have been tied to a youth rifle that was found at the scene. This rifle was the property of the child’s father. So far, no fingerprint evidence ties the child to the rifle per reports from the Arizona Department of Public Safety. But, people have been convicted on less.
A defense expert opined that the child was not competent to assist in his defense. The prosecution has not been forthcoming with the opinion of its expert.
So how can a person lacking the competence to defend himself suddenly develop the competence to accept the consequences of a plea? The answer is that legal mechanism dictates that there is a lower threshold of competence required to comprehend the consequences of a plea than to understand defense.
Some legal pundits are commenting that this is the best of all possible ends to a bad situation. But, this leaves so much undone. There are likely perpetrators who have gotten away with murder. This plea, even as far away as it is from the original charges, will reinforce bad practices by individuals in the St. Johns Police Department and the Apache County Sheriff’s Department. The prosecution will claim a victory and attempt to cover up the grandstanding and undermining by Criss Candelaria.
There are conditions to the deal. These are reasonable considering that the allegations are serious. The child will not be allowed to attend public schools unless there is no danger to others. The child will be subject to periodic evaluations. There is a conundrum that could occur. If the child is innocent of the crime, can he honestly admit to the crime in therapy? This could be a catch‑22.
Law and order in the United States can be an odd place. Sometimes, real world facts and truth count little. There is a greater emphasis on the State’s need for CYA and rules that make the system run smoothly than the truth.
At any rate, it seems to be theater of the absurd occurring in a courtroom. Judge Roca asking this child did you do something (whatever the something is) to cause the death of a human being? And the child answering yes.
The sentencing of the child comes next. I hope that Judge Roca will keep the child in the custody of his mother where he has been for the last several months.
But, the matter of poor training and professionalism in the law enforcement agencies persists. The Apache County Sheriff and St. Johns Police Chief need to do some honest soul searching and realize that their troops need practice and training in investigation and report writing.
In court, the police need to be honest in their testimony rather than attempt to convict by evasion and deception, even if that is contrary to the desires of the chief of police or county prosecutor.
That would make for a much cleaner and transparent process. If the child did the crime, then good open‑minded investigation would guide the process. And, if someone else performed the murders that would be an option to investigate rather than pretending such a scenario didn’t exist.
I suspect though that this plea deal, like many others, will only obscure the responsibilities of those we trust to make the rule of law honest and open.
by Brian McCorkle
in category St. Johns Arizona Double Homicide
