MatcomNews Update: Girl Who Threw Rock AVOIDS Trial (Did NOT Plead Guilty)

[matcom]

now THIS was the way to handle it all along IMHO :eyes:

<snip>

An 11-year-old Fresno girl charged with felony assault for throwing a rock at an 8-year-old boy who pelted her with a water balloon avoided a trial Wednesday in Juvenile Court by agreeing to meet with the boy to work out their differences.

Together with their parents, Maribel Cuevas will go through mediation with Elijah Vang, who needed several stitches to close an inch-long gash above his eyebrow, and talk over the April 29 incident. The families have not met.

Cuevas did not have to plead guilty, which the girl and her family objected to, as part of the agreement reached by prosecutors and her defense lawyer. Charges will be dismissed if the mediation is successful, she attends school and doesn't use force or violence except in self-defense, lawyers said.

"Yes, there was justice,'' Maribel's father, Martin Cuevas, said in Spanish during a telephone interview with The Chronicle. Before this incident, "she never fought with anyone.''

Maribel's father, a fieldworker, said he and his wife and children are relieved and grateful the case has been resolved -- and he credits the widespread media coverage for the outcome.

The highly charged case gained international attention, much of it focused on how Fresno police officers handled the matter, which occurred in one of the city's lower-income neighborhoods.

After responding to a 911 call for an ambulance on April 29, police officers arrived at the small house where Maribel had been playing with her younger brother and some of his friends. Vang held a towel to his bloody forehead.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/04/BAGA7E2G2A1.DTL

[GOPisEvil]

1. They still released her name.

So much for sealing her juvenile record at age 18. :grr:

[matcom]

2. i agree 100%

that was bullshit and I hope someone pays dearly for it

[GOPisEvil]

3. I hate to play the race/class card, but...

...her father is a Mexican field worker. If he were an American accountant, I bet her name would have been protected. This is Fresno, home of Free Republic, after all...

[matcom]

4. i thought there were LAWS to protect juveniles

aren't there?

that is what has me confused. was a LAW broken here?

[GOPisEvil]

6. Yes, but this involved those "other people" so laws don't apply.

14th Amendment? What's that? :eyes:

[Lerkfish]

8. for the most part, if the name is known, its up to the news agency

to decide whether to publish it or not. Reporters have the information from their sources, but editors wisely choose not to use them in most cases, UNLESS the name is already broken for some reason..
Of course, not every news agency excercizes wisdom.

that's my understanding anyhow.

[Shell Beau]

5. Her parents were the ones to release her name, or so I heard.

Because they wanted to bring attention to the case.

[GOPisEvil]

7. If that's the case, I'll retract my objections.

However, the Fresno police and prosecutors handled this poorly. They arrested and handcuffed her and attempted to charge her with felony assault.

[Shell Beau]

9. I agree with you 100%.

I thought it was really ridiculous the way this was handled.

[dr.strangelove]

10. No, her lawyer did.

Her family and their counsel released the story to the press to gain attention and sympathy. The DA prosecuting refused to comment on the case or even acknowledge the girl's name until after the judge agreed to allow an open hearing, at the request of the family. The police chief of the area and the mayor also did not reveal the girl's name until the family moved for an open hearing, which is unusual in juvie cases.
No violation of the juvie privacy laws here.

[GOPisEvil]

11. OK, then I'll take back those objections.

Objections still remain over how this case was handled by police and prosecutors in the beginning.

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. That little boy could have lost an eye.

An 11 year-old knows better than to throw a rock at someone. And she could have seriously injured that little boy.

She also fought with police--and that is why they handcuffed her.

She likely received a deferred disposition in which she agreed to do certain things and if she abided by the rules, the charges would be dismissed. I think that would be a reasonable outcome to this case. She will be monitored to determine if this was an isolated incident and get the help she needs if she has problems.

[GOPisEvil]

13. We can debate this forever, but the current disposition is the correct one

I'm not arguing that she doesn't deserve punishment, but the ankle monitor and charging her with felnoy assault was over the line.

[Evergreen Emerald]

15. why?

She hurt someone--and but for luck, the injury was not serious or life threatening. And then she fought with police.

Those are signs of one who may have significant issues.

Imagine if they let her go with no conditions upon her release and she hurt another person--the argument then would be that the system was negligent in just releasing one who acted out violently twice.

I think that it was reasonable to put conditions upon this child. I also think she should be evaluated and follow any recommended treatment regarding anger/violence.

[Shell Beau]

17. They may also be signs that she is an eleven year

old girl who acted before she thought of the consequences like many 11 year olds do. She deserved punishment, no doubt there. But she is 11.

[GOPisEvil]

18. Did she have a history of this kind of behavior?

The story doesn't mention one. That is what the police and courts do - they INVESTIGATE. They had five days, for crying out loud. Couldn't they have determined in those five days what the situation was, and whether she was likely to commit another act like this? We let adult offenders out on bail with no restrictions or on their own recognizance, why the ankle monitor for a child? Release her to her parents, and if she acts up, arrest THEM too.

added a word

[dr.strangelove]

14. What are your objections to the handling?

[GOPisEvil]

16. This paragraph from the story.

Police officers arrested and handcuffed Cuevas and took her to juvenile hall, where she was charged with felony assault. She waited five days before a court hearing. A judge released her but forced her to wear an electronic ankle bracelet. The bracelet was removed 30 days later.

I understand she fought with officers, so I can start to understand the handcuffing, but FIVE DAYS for a hearing and an ankle bracelet sounds excessive for an 11-year-old girl.

[dr.strangelove]

19. Okay

I don't know how involved you are in juvenile criminal law, so please forgive me if I am telling you what you already know. My law practice is mostly corporate and insurance related, and a little family and criminal law for my clients and friend, but one of my partners is a juvie law specialist, with a significant amount of his work court appointed indigent work. When a child of a client or friend gets in trouble I always bring in my partner to run the case but stay very involved.

There are some pretty terrible juvenile crimes. We have seen murders and maimings. We once had a young girl (about eleven, but maybe younger) rip another young girl's eye out with a salad fork for not returning something silly like a Disney VHS tape or a Disney video game.

The handcuffs are required when dealing with an aggressive person, regardless of their age. I understand from your comments that you see the reasons for the cuffs.

The ankle bracelet is not something special for this kid, it is used in pre-hearing releases when there is a high chance of flight from the jurisdiction. I understand this family did not own their home and had no fixed assets in the community. I understand the girl was charged with a felony (I'll get to that next) and she had demonstrated a propensity for violence. Given the charge against her, that there are no financial ties to the community and the potential for a long term penal confinement, flight becomes a rational alternative to many reasonable parents rather than sending a little girl to juvenile jail. The bracelet both provides an incentive not to flee and gives a warning to authorities if one does flee. I'm all for a bracelet in these circumstances.

The charge and holding time may have been excessive, but I don't know the details after the arrest. In juvenile cases, there is a limited amount of time in which the prosecutor can hold and charge a person. If a juvie defendant and their attorney does not cooperate with the authorities, the authorities are left with holding the defendant for the maximum allowable time for an investigation and charging with the maximum charge the investigation reveals. That is a prosecutor's job. If this girl was intentionally hurling large rocks at people, she needs to be placed into treatment, to be taught why her actions were wrong, to eb punished and to be taught how to understand to control her anger. If this was just an accident, she needs to be told to be careful. It may be somewhere in between and she needs some counseling on anger control and proper responses to other kids playing or teasing, but that is just a guess.

The investigation and holding may have been extended because it was difficult to find out what happened. Here, I understand the family had a language barrier, which may have hindered the early stages of the investigation and their trust in their attorney. If the witnesses had a mistrust of the police investigators and were unwilling to report what occurred for fear of having the little girl go to jail, they probably hurt the situation if it really was an accident. We encounter this problem often in immigrant or non-english speaking American communities. We have a hard time getting answers and we are the lawyers for the community member. The policy often have no chance of getting good and reliable information.

We often have problems getting non-english speaking families to accept that, as a defense lawyer, we are on their side. In a case like this, where the circumstances are probably easily explainable as an accident that took a very bad turn of luck, early cooperation can be very beneficial. A lawyer can discuss things with the police that will not later be used against you, but can clear up the whole problem. I don't know this for a fact, but I imagine it took a few days for this family to trust the juvenile lawyer appointed to them, or to find a lawyer they trusted and hire on their own. Few families happen to be friends with juvenile law specialists and need to spend some time finding one that they trust. If there was a lawyer involved from, the very beginning helping the family and there was still a felony charge and five day detention, then it was probably excessive. That does happen with some asshole prosecutors. I have seen some real assholes on both the juvie and adult levels. The majority of prosecutors only want to get to the bottom of things, charge appropriately (if at all) and resolve the matter without a trial.

Whenever a little kid is injured with a rock, it is a horrible situation. This one hurt not just the injured kid and his family, but also the little girl's. It is not a good situation at all and I wish, as I am sure everyone involved wishes, it never happened.

[Coventina]

20. The story I read said that the gang of boys attacked her

at her house!

After she asked them to stop hitting her with water balloons, and they kept on, is when she threw the rock.

Now, did she do wrong? Yes.

But I can't say I wouldn't have done the same at the age of 11.

Geez people. This is one of those dumb situations that dumb kids get themselves into all the time.

Suddenly the girl is a felon because she acted in (what her mind) was self-defense?