Comments about ‘'You got away with murder,' judge tells Roberto Roman, acquitted of killing Millard Co. sheriff's deputy’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Oct. 24 2012 4:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

When a jury listens to the evidence and decides a man is Not Guilty of a crime that is the end of it. It is offensive the Judge thinks he is above the jury in saying he got away with Murder. The jury reviews the evidence as twelve independent judges of the facts.

The judge may have an opinion but must keep it to himself. Telling these jurors they are wrong sends a bad message to future jurors.

Jury's are the cornerstone of the law. They make sure that the Executive Branch (DA) Legislative Branch (The Laws) and the Judicial Branch (The Judge) cannot conspire against a single individual. Jury's make sure the government remains fair.

By stating his opinion this judge has violated a deep ethic which allows jury's to make decisions without bias from the government. By opening his mouth to criticize them he has cast a shadow on the integrity of the process.

He should be sanctioned and issue an apology to those members of our community that took their time, without pay, to listen and make the tough call that a case like this requires.

Murtoa Australia, Victoria

The Judges comments leaves this case wide open to appeal.

Clearfield, UT

BYU Joe I second your comments. Well written.

Kearns, UT

Hey Joe, juries do stupid things (OJ). Just because a jury aquitted him doesn't mean he isn't guilty. Judges give their opinions all the time. I guess you have never paid attention to a Supreme Court decision. They are all opinions and the classic example of being a Monday morning quarterback.

This guy's story was so out there in left field, it amazes me that the jury bought it. "He reached across me and pulled the trigger." What a load of stuff.

I think that the Feds ought to try him for violating Josie's civil rights and give him life. After all, she lost her life, due to that she lost her liberty, and couldn't persue her happiness in this life. Sounds like a civil rights violation to me.



As a very strong rule - and perhaps you did not know this - Appellate Judges (Which include the Supreme Court) do NOT over turn facts as decided by a jury they only over turn the rulings of law as decided by the Judge.

In a few rare cases in which the facts are so extremely obvious - and then only when the jury finds guilt when the should have found innocence - the court will step in and order a new trial.

As for the OJ case. There always will be a freak of nature in any system. Calling out the OJ case is like saying the Elephant Man is what all people look like.

There are only 12 people on this planet who swore an oath to decide what they believe was true . (This judge never swore an oath to decide the facts in this case). That oath means something and whether you, or me , or the judge like it or not that oath and their decision are what count.

The day we do otherwise brings us not one step close to bondage but directly into a ghastly world where freedom and justice no longer exist.

Eagle Mountain, UT

"Hey Joe, juries do stupid things (OJ). Just because a jury aquitted him doesn't mean he isn't guilty."


But it does mean he cannot legally be held criminally responsible for what happened. The judge should not have been able to take that into consideration.

Was the shooting and death an terrible tragedy? Absolutely. But this man was deprived of his right by trial by jury if the judge levies a punishment for a crime he was acquitted of.

Salem, UT

BYU Joe et al, I appreciate your knowledge of the law and these jurors who aquitted but common sense and the facts still point to this man as a murderer who killed and stole the life of another human being that can never be given back not to mention his long history with the law. The longer he spends in prison, the better for all of us. BYU Joe, it might be your mother, wife, daughter he kills next. Now go ahead and reply with all your knowledge of law and the system.

Eagle Mountain, UT

I don't understand how hard evidence, like meth in his system, his initial confession, and his finger-prints on the murder-weapon, is out-weighted by the criminals word on the events of that terrible night?

Jo Momma

Sounds like the prosecutor should have done his job.

Cache, UT

The judge knows full well that the defendant got out of the conviction on a technicality. If the victim's brother hadn't died and could testify about the defendant killing the victim, the outcome would be different. The judge was justified in his comments towards the killer.

Cache, UT

@BYU Joe Re: "The day we do otherwise brings us not one step close to bondage but directly into a ghastly world where freedom and justice no longer exist."

I think we are already in that ghastly world. There is no justice for the victims or their family. The more excuses our legal system gives to allow murderers to walk away from their crimes, the more "ghastly" this world is.

We have too many lawyers in this country who have no incentive to conclude any trial or dispute quickly and efficiently, because they are paid by the hour to make as many excuses as they can. Sad.

I agree with you theHOYT.

Tooele, UT

Re: "The judge may have an opinion but must keep it to himself."

Not true.

The judge is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else. And to express it.

He sat through the evidence, as well. He's in as good a position, or better, than obviously inexperienced, and somewhat credulous jurors, to make a determination of the facts he intends to take into account on sentencing this criminal. The judge's discretion on sentencing is much broader than a jury's, on findings.

The presumption of innocence is a non-constitutional legal construct, a judicial fiction. It applies in only to a tiny fraction of human existence -- a jury's deliberative process.

Other than during that fraction of our existence, we're expected to use judgment and common sense, as did the judge in this case.

Suggesting he should be punished for exercising sound judgment and common sense only shines a light on the bizzarro-world in which liberal, ACLU kool-aid drinking, pro-crime activists live.

Wasatch Al
South Jordan, UT

I will also equate this group of jurors with the OJ jury and the NFL replacement officials. I think they had watched the movie "12 Angry Men" a few too many times.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

The loser can live out the rest of his years. The time will come when God judges him.

ute alumni
Tengoku, UT

and oj did not kill two people either......intersting you are from california


@BYU Joe

Your response is right out of Law 101. The only problem is, you have not taken in account whatsoever the obvious gross injustice---the human element---that has taken place in this case. If you'd followed it closely, you would know that, when arrested, Roman confessed to killing Fox. However, Fox's brother, who unfortunately had dealings with Roman, was later found dead. Roman, knowing that Fox's brother was not around to defend himself, then blamed the killing on the brother. And even though the brother had given a statement to the police that Roman did kill his (the brother's) sister and his (Roman's) fingerprints were on the murder weapon, this statement by the brother implicating Roman was inexplicably disallowed due to a technicality.

This judge has taken a tremendous amount of heat, and rightfully so, for now allowing what seems like obvious evidence against Roman. Because of the position of the judge, Roman is now looking at a much lesser charge. The judge, then, is now trying to counter some of the intense anger directed toward him.

But please, spare us the legal rhetoric. A gross travesty of justice has taken place.


Jury trials can be appealed. I find it hard to believe that her brothers written account of the trial could not of been introduced. He was the one who ended up on trial, and his version deserved to be heard. Even the dead have Constitutional rights, once he became the accused he should have his constitutionally guaranteed confrontation, through his own statement.

It's amazing how many witnesses die before testifying in many countries.

I will blame the judge, and jury. It's my opinion. If Ryan was murdered, then the police bungled the investigation. The whole thing smells fishy.

There is another article in the paper from a few days ago about hearsay, read the comments.

Spanish Fork, UT

Confused. He gets zero to five for how many offenses? It lists two possibles but there may be multiple accounts of each. How long is he going to be in there?

And the judge was perfectly right. Political correctness should not trump honesty. Judge is part of the court and this gave his reasoning for the maximum.

I could care less how BYUJOe parses words.


An addendum: Please note that in the 2nd paragraph of my 11:12 A.M. Oct. 25, 2012 post, I meant to say "This judge has taken a tremendous amount of heat, and rightfully so, for DISallowing what seems like obvious evidence against Roman."

Thank you

Draper, UT

I'm concerned a bit by how people seem to care so little for their own rights. This isn't about being legalistic, splitting hairs, or parsing words. This is about realizing the state is an 800-pound gorilla. We let the government have tanks, guns, armies, and jails for millions and what we ask in return is that they don't lock us away unless they can prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that we committed a crime to a jury of non-government agents.
Some guilty people will walk free. I would rather have than someone jailed because some people are pretty sure.
Someone earlier asked how we might feel if it was our mother, wife, or daughter. It's a valid question. I'll answer personally: Many great people have sacrificed so we can enjoy this level of liberty, and apparently these tragic sacrifices continue. Brave officers give their lives to uphold our laws and constitutions. How sad if we allowed the death of anyone to circumvent the protections our founders gave when this government was conceived.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments