Ms. Routier insists that she is innocent and that an intruder wounded her and killed the boys. Mr. Routier, who has never been charged, has maintained that neither he nor his wife was involved in the attack. After the prosecutors' motion, the transcript reflected that the judge said he already had a hearing in which Ms. Routier and Mr. Routier waived any conflict but that he could conduct another one. At that time, Ms. Routier is shown in the transcript to have confirmed that she previously waived any conflict. Her attorneys now say that under the law, that's not enough to show she was properly admonished about the nature of the possible conflict.
Attorneys say the second hearing never occurred.
However, Jim Vollers, a former state's prosecuting attorney and former Court of Criminal Appeals justice, said if Ms. Routier's attorney continued after the day of the hearing, it's apparent that the defendant either raised no objection or agreed to a waiver or that the court found no conflict. Experts say prosecutors obviously were concerned about the conflict issue being raised in an appeal, so they filed the motion to deal with it before trial to protect any conviction. The judge was obligated to determine whether a conflict existed, whether Ms. Routier understood the ramifications of that potential conflict and whether she knowingly and voluntarily waived any conflict without any outside pressure on her to do so, experts say. According to federal law, the reversal of a defendant's conviction is automatic if a court doesn't conduct an inquiry into the possible conflict. Having no record of what occurred equates to it never having happened, Ms. Routier's attorneys say.