Third-Grader May Face Life In Prison Without Parole

In early November, Vincent Romero and his roommate Timothy Romans were found shot to death in Romero’s Arizona home.  Police have charged Romero’s eight-year-old son with two counts of first-degree murder, and are relying heavily on a videotape in which the boy confessed to the homicides without his mother or lawyer present.  The boy’s attorney argues that the confession was coaxed, and a number of child psychology experts have questioned its reliability as well. 

The interview shows the boy changing stories, and talking calmly to investigators about the incident.  About forty-five minutes into the hour-long interview, he claims that an unidentified assailant shot both men, and that he later shot them in order to end their suffering.  

Child trauma experts have long-asserted that children are often unreliable witnesses: they may make up elaborate stories, confess to crimes they did not commit, or deny committing crimes when they are in fact guilty.  Children exhibit this behavior because their brains haven’t fully developed, they cannot make complete sense of questions, and they often feel pressured to answer in a way that they believe will please the adult interrogator.  When children are not accompanied by a parent or guardian, they are especially likely to give unreliable answers as they feel more vulnerable and less confident.

Under Arizona law, children are generally considered to lack the competency needed to be charged with homicide.  In this case, however, police are charging the boy with double homicide due to the exceptional facts and circumstances. 

In addition, it’s unclear whether the boy is legally competent to stand trial.  In order to be deemed competent, a child must be able to comprehend his rights and the consequences of his decisions; in addition, he must be able to participate meaningfully in his defense.  Given these criteria, are eight-year-olds ever competent to stand trial?

If a court-appointed psychologist finds that the boy is not competent, and he cannot be rehabilitated within nine months, Arizona law mandates that the charges must be dismissed.  The state would then have the option of seeking to have the boy committed in civil proceedings.

In this case, the prosecutor is attempting to put one of the homicide charges on hold until boy turns 15 and can be tried as an adult.  If this tactic works, instead of facing juvenile detention until age 18, the boy will face life in prison without the chance for parole. 

Given the severe consequences this boy may face, along with the unreliability of his confession and questionable ability to stand trial, the state should definitely be required to present more concrete evidence that he is indeed guilty.