Slow Day in St. Johns

It must have been. Apache County Attorney Michael Whiting filed a request to have the liberty of a nine‑year‑old revoked. The person targeted by Whiting is the child accused of being an eight‑year‑old cold‑blooded‑murderer in the double homicide in St. Johns, Arizona on 05 November, 2008.

The court document, filed just before court closed for the week on 5 June, 2009, claimed that the child had left the state and missed school. The County Attorney also accused the child of consorting with a felon and frightening the citizens of St. Johns with his antics.

The paper was only copied to the child’s attorney, Ronald Wood. The County Attorney neglected serving copies to the guardian ad litem and to the child’s guardian.

Whiting stated that the child’s grandmother had queried the police department on whether she would be in trouble by purchasing a firearm. He went on to say he was uncertain “if the paternal grandmother is buying the gun to protect the juvenile from the many threats he has received or to protect herself.” Presumably, Whiting wants us to infer that the grandmother believes she needs to arm herself due to fear of her grandson.

But, Whiting to didn’t make the effort to ask. If he had, he would have discovered that his claim was bogus.

The grandmother asked a licensed firearm dealer, who was a St. Johns Police officer, about purchasing a firearm for an out of state friend. She had no intent of taking a firearm into her home where the child is staying with his mother.

Despite his attempt to keep the child’s mother and the ad litem in the dark, the mother’s attorney filed a response to Whiting’s rambles. Between this response and the response of the child’s attorney, clearly Whiting was making what hunters call sound shots.

If Whiting had checked his other allegations, he would have found those to be bogus as well. The child did travel outside Arizona, but with the permission of the Apache County probation office. And, there was no school in session at that time so he missed no school. The mother’s attorney stated that the allegation of the child charging into a baseball dugout was false as was the accusation that the mother was residing with a felon.

Whiting claimed that the child caused “an extreme negative reaction from the parents and especially the other juveniles,” by entering the dugout during a baseball game. As the child’s attorney noted, such reaction would have due to the actions of the County Attorney and the St. Johns Police Chief when they released statements designed to undermine and incriminate the child. Whiting was doing more of the same here.

And, If the grandmother is receiving threats that is also the fault of the County Attorney’s Office and the St. Johns police department.

On June 16, 2009, a hearing on the revocation was held in Apache County Superior Court. The County Attorney did not present witnesses to back up his accusations. The judge reissued the terms of the child’s furlough.

This piece of fiction by the County attorney wasted time and increased costs. Specifically, the mother cannot work while she cares for the child due to the restrictions placed by the court. So, Whiting forced an unwarranted expense upon her when he blamed her for the supposed violations and caused her attorney’s subsequent involvement.

Whiting claimed victory.