Law&Crime Sidebar - Teen Allegedly Tells 33-Year-Old Boyfriend to Kill His Mother, Then Did It Herself

Episode Date: November 20, 2023

A 17-year-old in Toledo, Ohio will be tried as an adult in connection with the murder of her boyfriend’s mother. Investigators say Kaitlyn Coones gave her boyfriend, Jonathan Jones, a deadline to kill Nicole Jones - then committed the crime herself. The Law&Crime Network’s Jesse Weber speaks with Ohio attorney and retired judge Fanon Rucker about the brutal details.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:If you’ve used Incognito mode in Google’s Chrome internet browser, you can find out if you have a claim in only a few clicks by visiting www.forthepeople.com/LCGoogleHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that will

keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. A 17-year-old out of Ohio charged with the murder of her boyfriend's mother. Allegedly she gave him a deadline to commit the act himself and when he didn't do it, she took matters into her own hands. Ohio attorney and retired judge Fanon Rucker comes on to talk about the legal issues in this new case. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by law and crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Okay, let's go over to Toledo, Ohio, where a 17-year-old, 17 is charged with aggravated murder, murder, tampering with evidence, and abuse of a corpse in connection with the killing of her 33-year-old

boyfriend's mother, Nicole Jones. And we have learned that she will now be tried as an adult. Now here's where really takes a turn. The defendant, Caitlin Coons, allegedly warned her boyfriend, Jonathan Jones, that he had five hours to kill his own mother because apparently she was getting in the way of their relationship. This is basically an ultimatum. And when he didn't do it and she even gave him an extra hour to kill her, she ended up committing murder herself. Let me bring in attorney, retired Ohio judge, Vanon Rocker, to talk about this. Judge, always good to see you. I say this so many times now.

I always say to my guess, I wish it was under better circumstances, but this is the case that we're dealing with. So it's good to see you. Let's start off with that she's been certified as an adult in this case. Can you walk us through what that process is, how tough it is to certify a juvenile as an adult? Sure. So as we know, the systems that we have in our criminal justice system, one juvenile, one

adult have different purposes. The purposes primarily of the adult system are rehabilitation and correction. Well, the juvenile system has as a primary purpose, the rehabilitation, rebuilding, we say no kids to throw away. Well, in Ohio, there are certain requirements that allow the state to consider trying a juvenile as an adult. Generally, those instances where, as here, you have some heinous circumstances of the allegations of the crime. It's not regular stuff. This isn't car accidents or DUIs or even drug dealing. No, these are cases where the act is so incredibly vicious and violent and deadly,

or the child has a history of violent offenses that allows the juvenile court to then, the prosecutor asked for it, and juvenile court review these facts to determine that this person needs to be tried as an adult. It's extremely rare. but here, I think that these allegations certainly support that decision. And is it the punishment would be worse or the actual trial would be different? No, the trials aren't different. The trials aren't different.

The trials are the same. The standard. The proof is the same. The difference is the consequences. So obviously, in adult court, the sentence for a murder can be anywhere from 25 to life or even death penalty. As a juvenile, if she was charged and convicted or wouldn't be convicted if she's determined to be liable as a juvenile, the most she could serve as a juvenile would be 21 years in a youth facility and possibly sometime then in an adult facility. But once she has tried as an adult, the adult penalties are what apply to that potential outcome. And walk us through, in Ohio, would the death penalty be an option here for her?

it would well let me say this but because of the united states supreme court said the juveniles cannot be um placed on death role right um i don't believe that she would be eligible for a death penalty specification because of that supreme court of united states uh termination some time ago interesting consequences on the table this is a this is a life potential sentence so and by the way real quickly do you think that this is the correct decision being a judge yourself in the state? Well, again, the allegations are vicious. The motive that she had was that this guy's mother, her 33-year-old boyfriend's mother, was interfering in that relationship. And so she gave him five hours to kill him. When he didn't do it himself, she went in and murdered her,

and she strangled her, which is a personal and vicious crime. And then the allegation is he bludgeoned her with the rock after she strangled him. Do I think that that justifies that someone get the most severe penalties that may be, if that can be proved as a retired judge, as a former prosecutor, as a lawyer currently, yeah, I think that that's supported by the Ohio Revised Code. Hey, everybody, this is a Morgan and Morgan legal alert. Evidence shows that Google has allegedly violated the privacy of millions of Americans via incognito mode. Your personal information and data may have been unfairly collected and then used for profit.

As America's largest injury law firm, Morgan and Morgan has recovered over 20, $20 billion in compensation for clients, and they may be able to help you fight for justice. If you've used incognito mode in Google's Chrome Internet browser, you can find out if you have a claim in only a few clicks by visiting www.4thepeople.com slash LC-Google. It only takes a few minutes to sign up and find out if you have a claim. The investigators believe that the victim here, Nicole, didn't even know that the teen here was living in her son's bedroom. And I want to talk about some of the evidence here.

So first, this defendant allegedly confessed to the FBI. Now, is that a slam dunk, or could her age be a factor in what she told investigators? Yeah, well, of course. Anytime there is a confession, there are discerning issues that need to be considered. How long was the interrogation? Did the person consciously understand the consequences of making whatever statement they made to law enforcement? Were they advised of their rights before they made the statement? Were they under pressure?

And the younger, the person, or the lower the age, the more those issues are kind of reviewed. But then you also look at what was this person's background before they got there? Did they have a history of understanding the rights? Because they had prior trouble that they were in. And there's a lot of things to look at, but her age certainly could be one of, several factors that are actually, you know, considered and looked at when deciding whether or not this confession or this statement that she made to law enforcement is, in fact, admissible because the question is, was it credible? I'm always interested in knowing why defendants like Ms. Coons

would, and here we don't know the full details of what she said, why they would freely give these confession. Why give this up to investigators? Sometimes people looking to get a, Tension will say things that aren't actually true. Sometimes, again, they're under pressure because they're being told that we have information, so you might as well go ahead and admit whatever happened. Sometimes they admit to things trying to cover up for people that they love. I mean, who knows? Or sometimes they confess because they got a guilty conscience and like, you know what?

I can't believe. I just did that. Let me go ahead and talk about it so that I can clear my mind and sleep at some point. my life. Great point. Great point because we don't know, we haven't seen the interrogation, right? And we don't know if it was, you know, an emotional interrogation where they broke down, like we've seen in so many different kinds of cases. I do think it's interesting what I'm about to raise is Kuhn's attorney's argument. So Kuhn's attorney says her client is actually a victim of Jonathan Jones, the 33-year-old boyfriend, that he wasn't supposed to be in contact

with Kuhn because he had previously been convicted of having an inappropriate relationship with her. he was wearing a GPS monitor. By the way, he is also charged with murder here. So we're sort of seeing the semblance, I guess, of a defense? What does it mean that Coons would be the victim of her older boyfriend when he is not the one who carried out the murder? Apparently, he was in the living room when the killing went down. So what is this maybe defense tell you? Yeah.

So, again, what we know is there's a 16-year age difference. What we know is that there was some prior issues between the two of them, such that he got in trouble for even continuing to have contact with her. The question will be, what is his mental capacity? How much is he influenced by her versus how much she is influenced by him? Age does not equate sophistication. Age does not equate with life experience. I mean, what we have is a 17-year-old who, I think, you know, she had had a rough life up to this point. I mean, she was living in foster care.

She was, you know, not surrounded. It sounds like by the love and the care that a lot of parents do. And so she has certainly by that history or suggestion of some understanding of how the game and life works, and maybe this guy was sheltered off. That's an argument that you have to raise when you're defendant and when your client is 17. 16, 15 years old and is engaged with someone who was twice her age almost. You have to raise that as an argument that it wasn't her who acted on her own conscience but was influenced to a significant degree by this much older person who had the persuasive

authority of influence over her. You have to make that argument. And look, you know, Coons, you mentioned she was a foster child. She was in the custody of the Stark County Children's Services. She ended up disappearing from the group home and investigating. say that she allegedly sent a text message to a nurse saying that she had killed two people and was on the run. Hoons' attorney, though, says that the investigators don't know who sent that text message, which

makes me wonder, does it make me wonder, are they trying to put the blame again on Jones, right? Like, he was the one who sent it on her behalf. I don't know. Well, I mean, let's be honest. If you're a defense attorney in the case, you got to put everything out there to create reasonable doubt. I mean, you have to do that. So, yeah, there'll be a question about who sent the text messages.

Or there'll be a question of what she forced to send a text message. Was he threatening her? Was he, did he tell her, look, I'm going to take you out. You saw me kill my mother. I have no problem taking you out of you don't admit that you did this and get me off the hook. I mean, that's going to be all things that are explored by the defense. If they're worth their assault. And obviously, you know, they're already putting stuff out there.

raising the question about the veracity or the credibility of the state's allegations. So there's going to be all kind of information that they kind of dig in to see if you can be, if you can get that reasonable doubt in there. And by the way, it seemed that when police were contacted after this, this is when they did a welfare check on Nicole Jones and they ultimately found her body, that's my understanding. And they were arrested. Well, Jones was arrested for kidnapping Coons when he and Coons were tracked down in Mexico. And you could say, you know, that's consciousness of guilt. You're fleeing the country

because you know you committed murder or part of this committing of murder. But the GPS data, I mentioned he had this monitor. The GPS tracking data shows that the two had gone to stores where they purchased a tarp and trash bags to dispose of the body. It also tracks them to a dumpster and an apartment complex where the body was discarded. And it seems that the information that Coons had given to law enforcement about this body and about how the body was dumped, it was corroborated by the GPS tracking information. So it seems like her story is being corroborated

by the tracking information on Jones's phone and watch. That's going to be difficult, I imagine, for defense attorneys to try to walk away from. It will. But again, and I think it was discarded but not discovered. I think that she admitted to go where they dumped the body. but at this point, they don't believe that they're going to actually be able to find the body. Yeah, let me just, and let me amplify that because this was, trash was taken to a landfill

where, as, you know, the body may never be discovered, it might have been destroyed or may never be found. So just that's, uh, just to give a little bit more context there. So there's no corpus delect, you know, that's that movie language. There's no, there's no body here, but there are statements, there are witnesses. they're certainly evidence of the murder taking place. There's this relation. I mean, so normally they say you can't convict without a body.

I don't think they need that here. But the fact that there was so much interplay between the two of them that is confirmed by GPS monitoring. That's another thing. So I can imagine that the defense is also going to say, well, wait a second. You can't believe that my guy, because he's charged as well, you can't believe that my guy was so obtuse, so so dumb that he didn't realize. that he was wearing a monitor that the system was using to watch where he was, and then he voluntarily, willingly, or consciously did all this stuff where he was going to be tracked, unless he was trying to lead them to her because he was afraid of her.

I mean, there's going to be a lot of people in his case. That's interesting. There was no thought behind, well, there was certainly contemplation behind this murder, but there was no thought behind how this was going to be carried out. They took off to Mexico afterwards, but she called and said, I did this. You got five hours of killer, but if you don't, I'm going to give you another hour, then I'm going to do it myself. Strangulation and Blasem with a Rock, you can't get rid of evidence.

So, I mean, it was so messy. And then he had the GPS on. Somebody's going to say, I mean, of course, I didn't do this, or I was forced to do this, because who's that dumb to leave that kind of evidence on something that was being contemplated? So it sounds like a potential each one of them is going to blame the other about who was responsible, who was the mastermind, who was afraid? who is influencing one another. It's a sad case. Really interesting one, though, and we're going to continue to follow it. Judge Fanon Rocker, thank you so much. Appreciate it, sir. Thank you.

Always great to be on with you. Okay, everybody, that is all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. As always, thank you so much for joining us. Please subscribe on Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcast. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this long crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.