GA v. TRINITY POAGUE
Case Background Report
The Justice Is A Process Opening Statement
Welcome to Justice Is A Process.
Today we begin coverage of one of the most closely-watched child death cases in southwest Georgia in recent memory: the State of Georgia versus Trinity Madison Poague. The defendant is a former pageant queen and college freshman, now facing life in prison for what prosecutors allege was the brutal murder of her boyfriend's 18-month-old son.
Trinity Poague stands charged with malice murder, cruelty to children in the first degree, two counts of felony murder, and two counts of aggravated battery. The indictment alleges she inflicted "blunt force trauma" to the toddler's head and torso, causing "serious disfigurement to his liver" and rendering the child's brain "useless."
The child's name was Romeo Angeles. His father, Julian Williams, called him Jaxton Drew. He was 18 months old when he died on January 14, 2024, in a college dormitory in Americus, Georgia.
Poague has pleaded not guilty.
Let me be clear about something from the start, because this is what this channel exists to do: Trinity Poague is presumed innocent. She stands accused of horrific acts. The indictment paints a gruesome picture. But an indictment is not a conviction. An allegation is not a fact. The burden of proof rests entirely on the State of Georgia, and it is a heavy burden. They must prove every element of every charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's the deal we make in this country. That's due process. That's what protects all of us.
So as we watch this trial unfold, we're going to be asking some important questions:
Is the process fair? Is the defendant receiving the effective assistance of counsel she's entitled to? Is the State meeting its burden? Are constitutional protections being honored? Are the jurors seeing all the evidence they need to make an informed decision?
These are the questions my father taught me to ask. Steven M. Askin spent his legal career demanding that the system operate fairly, whether his clients were sympathetic or not. He was twice prosecuted for it. But he never stopped insisting that everyone, regardless of what they're accused of, deserves their day in court.
This is Trinity Poague's day in court.
Let's begin.
Romeo Angeles was born on June 25, 2022, in Tallahassee, Florida. His mother's name was Sheyla Alondra Angeles Garnica. According to the birth certificate, no father was named.
But Julian Williams claimed the boy as his own. He called him Jaxton Drew. By all accounts, Julian was the child's primary caregiver. A GoFundMe organized after the child's death described Julian as "one of the best fathers" and "a man, that took on the role that even most women struggle with daily. A man, that was the sole care taker of his only child."
At 18 months old, Romeo, or Jaxton as his father called him, was just learning to walk and talk. He was starting to explore the world. He had his whole life ahead of him.
Trinity Poague was 18 years old in January 2024. She came from Donalsonville, Georgia, a small city in Seminole County with a population of about 2,800 people. It's the kind of place where everyone knows everyone. It sits in the rural southwestern corner of Georgia, near where Georgia, Alabama, and Florida meet, about four hours south of Atlanta.
By the accounts available, Trinity had built an impressive resume for someone so young:
She graduated with honors from Southwest Georgia Academy, a college preparatory school in the tiny community of Damascus. She enrolled at Georgia Southwestern State University in Americus in August 2023. She was selected for the President Jimmy Carter Leadership Program, a prestigious program at the university named after its most famous alumnus. The program requires a minimum 3.0 high school GPA, an SAT score of at least 1100 or ACT composite of 22, and demonstrated leadership experience. Only 22 students were selected for the cohort.
And she had won the title of Miss Donalsonville in 2023.
"Win or lose, I have gained the world throughout my reign as Miss Donalsonville," she wrote on Instagram after competing in the National Peanut Festival Pageant later that year. "To me, that is the best thing Jesus could ever do for me. He blesses me in EVERY SINGLE WAY."
She didn't place at the National Peanut Festival Pageant. But she still had the Miss Donalsonville crown. She was a college freshman with a bright future. She was dating Julian Williams.
And according to prosecutors, she killed his son.
The facts of what happened on January 14, 2024, remain partially unclear. The investigation has not been made fully public, and the trial will be where many details emerge for the first time.
What we know from public records and news reports:
The incident occurred at Oaks 2, a freshman dormitory on the Georgia Southwestern State University campus in Americus, Georgia. Americus is in Sumter County, about 60 miles north of Donalsonville.
At some point that day, Romeo was in Trinity Poague's dorm room.
Other students in the dorm would later tell investigators that they heard a baby crying for an extended period.
"That kid was crying for a long time until everyone said that suddenly it just stopped," Georgia Southwestern student Lilly Waterman told WALB-TV. "And no one knew what happened."
Waterman said she was just doors away from Poague's room. She estimated the crying lasted well over an hour.
Then it stopped.
At approximately 12:40 PM, according to reports, Romeo was transported from the Oaks 2 dormitory to Phoebe Sumter Hospital in Americus. It was the child's father, Julian Williams, who rushed him to the emergency room.
The baby was unresponsive when he arrived.
Hospital personnel performed life-saving measures. They tried everything they could. But at 4:28 PM on January 14, 2024, Romeo Angeles was pronounced dead.
He was 18 months old.
At around 2:00 PM that same day, the Georgia Southwestern State University Police Department contacted the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and asked them to take over the investigation into the child's death.
The GBI began conducting interviews and examining evidence.
Sumter County Deputy Coroner Mathis Wright would later reveal that an examination of the child's body showed signs of trauma. "The baby did have some type of trauma," Wright told reporters, though he declined to provide specifics while awaiting official autopsy results.
Wright also noted something unusual about the child's identity. According to the birth certificate, the child's name was Romeo Angeles. But at the hospital, the man claiming to be the child's father gave a different name: Jaxton Drew Williams. The birth certificate didn't list a father.
The investigation continued for five days.
On Friday, January 19, 2024, GBI agents arrested Trinity Madison Poague at the Sumter County Jail.
The initial charges were: Felony Murder, Aggravated Battery, and Cruelty to Children in the First Degree.
She was booked with no bond.
The GBI issued a press release: "After multiple interviews & an examination of the evidence, GBI agents arrested Poague. She is currently booked at the Sumter County Jail with no bond."
The Georgia Southwestern State University Police Department and the Americus Police Department assisted with the investigation.
The news spread quickly through southwest Georgia and beyond. A reigning beauty queen, an honors graduate, a university leadership program selectee, accused of murdering a toddler.
The news hit the Georgia Southwestern campus hard.
"This is all people are going to think about for GSW now," student Lilly Waterman said. "Like for a tragedy... for like that to happen in a place that I have to walk by every morning to get to class; there's not going to be anything to take that back."
Another GSW student, Emily Alford, told reporters she had been friends with Poague and couldn't believe what had happened. "As a person, I say she was very, at the time, very outgoing and very, like, fun, communicative, everything. I'm still in disbelief."
The university offered additional counseling resources to students.
"It's sad. When you hear someone that goes to your college was arrested for child murder that's like... like don't really know what to make of it," said GSW student Seth Parrott.
In Donalsonville, the reaction was similarly stunned.
The Miss Donalsonville Pageant committee announced that based on the organization's code of ethics, Poague's title would be vacated.
Donalsonville City Manager Jeff Hatcher distanced the city from the defendant. "The city of Donalsonville is not in the pageant business," he said. "We're about moving forward, but when you hear the name Miss Donalsonville you of course do connect that with the city, and that is not how we want to be represented."
Meanwhile, a GoFundMe was set up by a close friend of Julian Williams to help cover funeral expenses and support the grieving father. It quickly raised over $8,000.
On February 21, 2024, Trinity Poague posted a $75,000 bond and was released from the Sumter County Jail.
Under her bail conditions: She was allowed to leave the county. She was required to wear an ankle monitor at all times. She was required to stay out of trouble with the law. She could not use drugs or alcohol.
The release came as a blow to the victim's family.
For Julian Williams, watching the woman accused of killing his son walk free on bond was devastating.
Officially, in March 2024, the Miss Donalsonville Pageant committee formally stripped Trinity Poague of her title.
The Early County News reported that the decision was based on the pageant organization's code of ethics. The title that had brought her local fame and recognition was now gone.
In late May 2024, a Sumter County grand jury convened to hear evidence in the case against Trinity Poague.
On June 7, 2024, the grand jury returned a six-count indictment.
The charges: 1) Malice Murder (O.C.G.A. § 16-5-1), 2) Felony Murder (Count 1), 3) Felony Murder (Count 2), 4) Aggravated Battery (Count 1) (O.C.G.A. § 16-5-24), 5) Aggravated Battery (Count 2), and 6) Cruelty to Children in the First Degree (O.C.G.A. § 16-5-70).
The indictment was stark in its allegations.
According to the document obtained by Court TV, Poague "did unlawfully, with malice aforethought, cause the death of Romeo Angeles, a human being, by inflicting blunt force trauma to the head and torso of his body."
The indictment alleged that Poague's actions: Rendered the child's brain "useless." Caused "serious disfigurement to his liver." Inflicted "cruel and excessive physical pain" upon the child.
These allegations, if proven, describe a brutal beating of an 18-month-old child.
But again, let me emphasize: allegations are not facts. The grand jury process is a one-sided presentation by prosecutors. The defense does not get to participate. The grand jury only determines whether there is probable cause to proceed to trial, not whether the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Trinity Poague remains presumed innocent.
On August 14, 2024, Trinity Poague appeared in Sumter County Superior Court for her arraignment.
Her attorney spoke on her behalf: "The State vs. Trinity Poague. Good morning, your honor. On behalf of Ms. Poague, she is present, we enter a not guilty plea."
The proceedings lasted less than a minute.
Poague showed little emotion during the brief hearing. Her attorney comforted her with a hug before she walked out of the courtroom.
The judge confirmed that Poague would continue to be released on her $75,000 bond with the existing conditions. She would be required to wear an ankle monitor and was prohibited from using drugs or alcohol.
For Julian Williams, the not guilty plea felt like another wound.
"I feel very frustrated and upset," Williams said after the hearing. "With her pleading not guilty knowing that she is guilty is just not right. I feel like the court is trying to give her a slap on the wrist."
"This feels like a slap in the face to me and my family," he added. "All we want is justice for my son. Letting her out and being free is not right. She took an innocent 1-year-old's life."
These are understandable emotions from a grieving father. He has lost his son. The justice system is asking him to wait, to let the process play out, to accept that the woman accused of killing his child walks free until trial. It's a painful ask.
But this is how the system is supposed to work. A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. They have a constitutional right to bail unless there's a specific showing that they're a flight risk or a danger to the community. The not guilty plea is not an insult. It's a constitutional right. It's the exercise of the presumption of innocence.
We can hold both truths at once: a father is grieving, and a defendant is exercising her constitutional rights.
Over the following months, the case worked its way through the pretrial process.
On August 18, 2025, a judge announced that the Trinity Poague trial was expected to begin in November or December 2025.
On October 2, 2025, Poague appeared briefly in court, where a hearing was set for November 17.
On Monday, November 17, 2025, Trinity Poague was back in court for what was described as the final pretrial hearing before trial.
Several significant issues were raised:
The Diaper Evidence: The defense brought up a motion regarding scientific testing. They wanted to test a diaper for blood that was allegedly thrown in a dumpster the day the child died. The defense argued this could be important evidence.
Prosecutors responded that the diaper in question was "simply never collected by the agent in charge that day." The only diaper that is part of the evidence is the one the child was wearing when he was taken to the hospital.
This is an interesting pretrial issue. The defense appears to be arguing that potentially exculpatory evidence was not collected during the investigation. Whether this becomes a significant issue at trial remains to be seen.
Miranda Rights Hearing: Prosecutors suggested they would move for a hearing regarding statements Poague allegedly made to law enforcement. The purpose would be to establish that she spoke to police voluntarily and that her Miranda rights had not been violated.
This is standard pretrial procedure when the prosecution wants to introduce a defendant's statements. The defense has the right to challenge whether those statements were obtained in a constitutionally sound manner.
The judge confirmed that the trial would begin on December 1, 2025, with jury selection. Opening statements were expected on Tuesday.
And here we are.
Today, Monday, December 1, 2025, jury selection begins in the State of Georgia versus Trinity Madison Poague.
Almost two years after Romeo Angeles died in a college dormitory in Americus, Georgia, a jury will be asked to decide whether Trinity Poague killed him.
To convict Trinity Poague, the State of Georgia must prove each count beyond a reasonable doubt. Let's break down what that means for each charge.
Under Georgia law, malice murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought, either express or implied."
Express malice is defined as "that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof."
Implied malice exists "where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart."
In plain English: express malice means you intended to kill someone. Implied malice means you acted with such reckless disregard for human life that the law treats it the same as if you'd intended to kill.
For this charge, the State must prove: 1) Trinity Poague caused the death of Romeo Angeles, 2) She did so unlawfully (not in self-defense, accident, etc.), and 3) She acted with malice aforethought, either express or implied.
The indictment alleges Poague inflicted "blunt force trauma to the head and torso" of the child's body. If the State can prove she intentionally beat an 18-month-old child severely enough to kill him, that could establish malice.
The penalty for malice murder in Georgia: death, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.
Georgia's felony murder statute provides that a person commits murder when "in the commission of a felony, he or she causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice."
The key difference between malice murder and felony murder: felony murder doesn't require the State to prove intent to kill. Instead, it requires proof that the defendant was committing a felony, and that felony caused someone's death.
In this case, the underlying felonies appear to be aggravated battery and cruelty to children. If the State can prove Poague committed those felonies, and that those felonies caused Romeo's death, they can secure a felony murder conviction even without proving she intended to kill him.
This is significant. Felony murder is sometimes called a "shortcut" to a murder conviction because it relieves the State of the burden of proving intent.
The penalty for felony murder is the same as malice murder: death, life without parole, or life with parole.
Under Georgia law, a person commits aggravated battery when he or she "maliciously causes bodily harm to another by depriving him or her of a member of his or her body, by rendering a member of his or her body useless, or by seriously disfiguring his or her body or a member thereof."
The indictment alleges Poague: Rendered Romeo's brain "useless" and caused "serious disfigurement" to his liver.
These specific allegations track the language of the aggravated battery statute. The State is alleging that Poague maliciously caused harm that rendered parts of the child's body useless and seriously disfigured.
The penalty for aggravated battery: 1 to 20 years imprisonment.
Poague faces two counts of aggravated battery, presumably one for the brain injury and one for the liver injury.
Georgia law provides that a person commits cruelty to children in the first degree when they "maliciously cause a child under the age of 18 cruel or excessive physical or mental pain."
The statute also covers situations where a parent, guardian, or person supervising a child "willfully deprives the child of necessary sustenance to the extent that the child's health or well-being is jeopardized."
For this charge, the State must prove: 1) Romeo Angeles was a child under 18 (at 18 months old, obviously satisfied), 2) Poague maliciously caused him cruel or excessive physical pain, and 3) The pain was "cruel or excessive."
The penalty for first-degree cruelty to children: 5 to 20 years imprisonment.
You might notice that Poague is charged with both malice murder and felony murder for the same death. Georgia allows this.
From a prosecution perspective, charging both gives them options. If they can prove intent to kill, they get malice murder. If they can't prove intent but can prove the underlying felony, they get felony murder. Either way, the maximum punishment is the same.
From a defense perspective, this layered charging creates the challenge of defending against multiple theories of liability.
If convicted of malice murder AND felony murder, the sentences would typically merge, meaning Poague wouldn't serve separate sentences for each murder count. But the underlying aggravated battery and cruelty to children charges could result in additional consecutive sentences.
The bottom line: Trinity Poague is facing life in prison if convicted on the most serious charges.
Based on the indictment and public reports, here's what we can discern about the State's theory of the case:
The Core Allegation: Trinity Poague beat 18-month-old Romeo Angeles so severely that he died. The beating was deliberate, malicious, and caused catastrophic injuries to the child's brain and internal organs.
The Manner of Death: Blunt force trauma to the head and torso. The indictment specifically alleges injuries to the brain and liver.
The Mental State: Malice aforethought. The State is alleging this wasn't an accident, wasn't negligence, wasn't a mistake. This was either intentional killing or conduct so reckless as to demonstrate an "abandoned and malignant heart."
The Evidence: We don't know all the evidence the State plans to present, but we can anticipate: autopsy results detailing the nature and extent of injuries, medical testimony about how such injuries occur, timeline evidence placing Poague with the child before his death, witness testimony from students who heard crying, any statements Poague made to law enforcement, and physical evidence from the scene.
What the State Must Overcome: The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Poague inflicted these injuries. They must eliminate reasonable doubt about whether someone else caused the injuries, or whether they resulted from an accident or medical condition.
We know less about the defense's position because defense attorneys typically don't reveal their strategy before trial.
What we know:
Not Guilty Plea: Poague has pleaded not guilty to all charges. This means the defense is contesting the State's case. They may argue Poague didn't cause the injuries, that someone else did, that the death was accidental, or that the State simply can't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Pretrial Motions: The defense has raised issues about: 1) A diaper that wasn't collected as evidence but may have contained blood, and 2) The circumstances of statements Poague made to police.
The diaper issue is interesting. If the defense believes this evidence could have been exculpatory (favorable to the defendant), its non-collection might become a theme at trial.
The Miranda issue suggests the State wants to use statements Poague made. If those statements were damaging, the defense may seek to exclude them.
What the Defense Might Argue: Without knowing their specific strategy, common defense approaches in child death cases include: challenging the cause of death, arguing the injuries were accidental, pointing to alternative suspects, attacking the investigation, challenging medical conclusions, and raising reasonable doubt about the defendant's culpability.
We'll have to watch the trial to see what approach the defense takes.
As this trial unfolds, here are some key issues I'll be watching:
Child death cases often turn on medical testimony. Expect to hear from: the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy, possibly other forensic pathologists, emergency room physicians who treated Romeo, and experts who can interpret injury patterns.
The prosecution will likely argue that the injuries are consistent with non-accidental trauma, meaning inflicted abuse rather than an accident.
The defense may challenge these conclusions, present alternative explanations, or attack the methodology of the State's experts.
Who was with Romeo when? The prosecution must place Poague with the child at the time the fatal injuries were inflicted. This requires establishing when the injuries occurred and where Poague was during that window.
The testimony from students who heard crying will be important here. So will any statements from Poague about her whereabouts and activities that day.
The prosecution has indicated they want to introduce statements Poague made to police. If those statements are incriminating, they could be powerful evidence. The defense may try to exclude them or challenge their reliability.
The defense raised the issue of a bloody diaper that wasn't collected. If this becomes a theme at trial, it could be used to attack the thoroughness of the investigation. Was evidence destroyed that might have helped the defense? This could create reasonable doubt.
For malice murder, the State must prove malice aforethought. How do you prove what was in someone's mind? Through circumstantial evidence: the nature of the injuries, the vulnerability of the victim, any statements by the defendant, prior history, and the circumstances of the death.
This will be a central battleground at trial.
At Justice Is A Process, we don't pick sides. We watch the process.
Here's what I'll be looking for as this trial proceeds:
Is the defendant receiving effective assistance of counsel? Are the rules of evidence being applied fairly to both sides? Is the judge ruling impartially on objections and motions? Are jurors being selected fairly and without improper bias? Is the defendant being treated with dignity in the courtroom?
Is the prosecution presenting a clear, coherent case? Is the defense getting fair opportunity to cross-examine and present their case? Are expert witnesses being subject to proper examination from both sides? Is the defense able to mount the case they want to present?
Presumption of innocence. Right to confront witnesses. Right to compulsory process. Right to effective assistance of counsel. Protection against self-incrimination. Due process of law.
Every trial has turning points. Sometimes they're dramatic moments of testimony. Sometimes they're quiet evidentiary rulings that determine what the jury sees or doesn't see. I'll be watching for these moments and explaining their significance.
In the legal process, there's a tendency to reduce people to their role in the case. The "victim" becomes an element the prosecution must prove. The focus shifts to the defendant, the charges, the evidence, the procedure.
But Romeo Angeles was a person. He was 18 months old. He was just beginning to explore the world. He called Julian Williams "Daddy." He was loved.
Whatever happened in that dorm room on January 14, 2024, a child is dead. That tragedy exists independent of any trial outcome. Regardless of what the jury decides, Romeo is gone.
His obituary describes him going "home to be with the Lord." He is survived by his mother, Sheyla Alondra Angeles Garnica, his father Julian Williams, and his sister Jazlyn Angel.
Family members and friends left tributes online:
"I will miss uncle & nephew time when I come home. We would play on cell phone / watch movies / play games and eat snacks. I love you J'D."
"Shared so many happy days with him since he was 2 months old."
"We love you & you will always be with us your grandmother Elizabeth Williams...father Julian Williams...Auntie Ashanti Burr."
This trial is about whether Trinity Poague killed Romeo Angeles. But it's also about a little boy who is no longer here.
This case involves two small Georgia communities.
Donalsonville, Georgia is where Trinity Poague grew up. Population about 2,800. It's the county seat of Seminole County, in Georgia's rural southwestern corner. The city calls itself the "Gateway to Lake Seminole."
Donalsonville is a place where everyone knows everyone. When Trinity Poague was crowned Miss Donalsonville in 2023, it was front-page news in the Donalsonville News. When she was arrested for murder a year later, the shock rippled through the community.
The city has tried to distance itself from the case. But in a town this small, there's no escaping it.
Americus, Georgia is where the alleged crime occurred and where the trial will take place. It's the county seat of Sumter County, about 60 miles north of Donalsonville. Population around 15,000.
Americus is home to Georgia Southwestern State University, where Poague was a freshman and where Romeo Angeles died in a dormitory.
The trial will be held at the Sumter County Courthouse. The community that will provide the jury pool is different from the community that knew Trinity Poague as their beauty queen.
Cases involving the death of children are among the most emotional matters handled by the criminal justice system. They present unique challenges.
For prosecutors: The death of a child naturally evokes strong emotions in jurors. But prosecutors must be careful not to rely on emotion over evidence. They must still prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
For defense attorneys: Defending someone accused of killing a child is difficult work. The client may be presumed guilty in the court of public opinion before the trial even begins. Defense attorneys must try to shift focus from the emotional nature of the case to the evidence.
For juries: Jurors must set aside their emotions and evaluate the evidence objectively. This is an enormous ask when a toddler is dead. But it's what the constitution requires.
For the system: Child death cases reveal tensions in our justice system. We want to protect children. We also want to protect the rights of the accused. Sometimes these impulses conflict.
In cases like this, it's worth remembering that wrongful convictions happen. People have been convicted of killing children they didn't kill. Medical science has evolved. What was once considered definitive proof of abuse has sometimes been shown to be consistent with accidents or medical conditions.
This isn't to say Trinity Poague is innocent. It's to say that the system must work correctly. The State must prove its case. The defendant must receive a fair trial. The process matters.
For those following this case who may not be familiar with Georgia law, here's some context:
Unlike many states, Georgia doesn't have "first-degree" and "second-degree" murder. Instead, Georgia has: Malice murder (intentional killing with malice), Felony murder (killing during commission of a felony), and Second-degree murder (specific to deaths caused by child cruelty in the second degree).
Both malice murder and felony murder carry the same potential penalties: death, life without parole, or life with parole.
Georgia's felony murder rule is broad. If you're committing certain felonies and someone dies as a result, you can be charged with murder even if you didn't intend for anyone to die.
This rule is controversial among legal scholars. Critics argue it's unfair to charge someone with murder when they didn't intend to kill. Supporters argue it deters dangerous felonies and holds offenders accountable for foreseeable deaths.
In Poague's case, the underlying felonies appear to be aggravated battery and cruelty to children. If the State can prove those, they may not need to prove she intended to kill Romeo.
If convicted of malice murder or felony murder, Poague faces: Death penalty (though this appears unlikely given the defendant's age and circumstances), Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or Life imprisonment with the possibility of parole (eligible for parole after serving 30 years).
If convicted of the lesser charges: Aggravated battery: 1-20 years per count. Cruelty to children first degree: 5-20 years.
Sentences can be run consecutively (one after another) or concurrently (at the same time), at the judge's discretion.
Jury selection in a murder case typically takes time. Attorneys from both sides will question potential jurors about their ability to be fair and impartial. They'll ask about: Prior knowledge of the case, feelings about child abuse cases, ability to presume innocence, views on the death penalty (if applicable), and personal experiences that might affect judgment.
Both sides can remove potential jurors "for cause" (they've demonstrated bias) or through "peremptory challenges" (no reason required, but limited in number).
Opening statements give each side a chance to outline their case for the jury. The prosecution goes first, explaining what they intend to prove and how. The defense follows, previewing their response.
Opening statements are not evidence. They're roadmaps for what each side says will happen.
The prosecution presents their evidence first. Expect: Law enforcement testimony about the investigation, medical examiner testimony about cause of death, medical testimony about injuries, witness testimony from those at the scene, and possibly statements from the defendant.
After the State rests, the defense can present their case. They may call witnesses, present evidence, and challenge the State's narrative. They may also rest without presenting a case if they believe the State failed to meet their burden.
Each side summarizes their case and argues why the jury should decide in their favor.
The jury retires to deliberate. In Georgia, a murder conviction requires a unanimous verdict. If the jury can't agree, it's a hung jury and a mistrial may be declared.
The jury returns with their decision. Guilty or not guilty on each count.
If acquitted, Poague walks free. If convicted, a sentencing phase follows.
I started this channel because my father spent his life teaching people about their rights. He was a criminal defense attorney for 23 years. He was held in contempt, indicted, imprisoned, and disbarred for standing up for constitutional principles. When he couldn't practice law anymore, he taught people from a coffee shop. He was criminally convicted for that too.
But he never stopped. Because he believed that everyone deserves due process. Everyone deserves a fair trial. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
That's what this channel is about. It's not about rooting for one side or the other. It's about watching the process and asking whether it's working the way it's supposed to.
Trinity Poague is presumed innocent. She's entitled to a fair trial. The State must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If they can't, she should be acquitted. If they can, she should be convicted.
That's the system.
Let's watch it work.
Now that we've covered the timeline and legal framework, let's go deeper into what the State must actually prove to convict Trinity Poague. This section is for those who want to understand the legal standards the jury will apply.
Malice murder is Georgia's equivalent of what other states call first-degree murder. It's the most serious homicide charge in the state, and it requires proof of "malice aforethought."
Let's break down what that means.
Express malice is the clearest form: a deliberate intention to kill. If I pull out a gun, aim it at someone, and shoot them dead, that's express malice. I meant to kill them.
But how do you prove what someone intended? You look at their actions.
In a case involving a toddler's death, express malice might be inferred from: the severity of the injuries, the vulnerability of the victim, any statements by the defendant expressing intent, evidence of prior abuse, and the manner in which injuries were inflicted.
If the medical evidence shows that Romeo suffered multiple blows sufficient to cause catastrophic brain damage and liver damage, a jury might infer that whoever inflicted those injuries intended to cause death or at least great bodily harm amounting to an intent to kill.
Implied malice is more complex. It exists when "no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart."
"Abandoned and malignant heart" is an old legal phrase that essentially means extreme recklessness or indifference to human life. You didn't necessarily intend to kill, but you acted with such callous disregard that the law treats it as equivalent to intent.
Consider this: if someone beats an 18-month-old child with enough force to cause catastrophic internal injuries, did they "intend" to kill? Maybe not in the explicit sense of thinking "I want this child dead." But the conduct itself demonstrates such indifference to whether the child lives or dies that malice can be implied by the conduct itself.
This is likely the theory the prosecution will pursue. They don't need to prove Poague sat down and decided to kill Romeo. They need to prove she inflicted injuries that were so severe, so disproportionate to anything a reasonable person would do, that malice is implied by the conduct itself.
To defeat a malice murder charge, the defense might:
Challenge the causation: Did Poague actually cause the injuries? Could they have been caused by someone else, or by an accident?
Challenge the mental state: Even if Poague caused the injuries, did she act with malice? Was this an accident? A discipline situation that went tragically wrong? Something the prosecution is inflating to malice when it was at most negligence?
Present alternative explanations: Are there medical conditions that could explain the injuries? Could the child have fallen? Were there other adults with access to the child?
We won't know the defense strategy until the trial unfolds, but these are common approaches in child death cases.
Felony murder is sometimes called the prosecution's "safety net." If they can't prove malice, they can still get a murder conviction through felony murder.
Here's how it works:
If Trinity Poague committed aggravated battery against Romeo, and that aggravated battery caused his death, she's guilty of felony murder, regardless of whether she intended to kill him.
This eliminates the need to prove intent to kill. All the State needs to prove is: 1) Poague committed aggravated battery (maliciously causing bodily harm that renders a body part useless or seriously disfigures), and 2) That aggravated battery caused Romeo's death.
The "irrespective of malice" language in the felony murder statute means the State doesn't have to prove Poague intended to kill. She just had to intend to commit the underlying felony (aggravated battery), and the death had to result from that felony.
You might wonder: why charge both malice murder and felony murder for the same death?
The answer is strategic flexibility. By charging both, the prosecution gives the jury options:
If the jury believes Poague intended to kill, they can convict on malice murder. If the jury isn't sure about intent to kill but believes she committed aggravated battery, they can convict on felony murder. Either way, the maximum penalty is the same: life imprisonment or, theoretically, death.
From the prosecution's perspective, this increases the chance of getting a murder conviction. From the defense's perspective, this means they have to defeat both theories to secure an acquittal on the murder charges.
The aggravated battery charges are important for two reasons:
First, they serve as the underlying felonies for felony murder. If the jury convicts on aggravated battery, felony murder becomes almost automatic.
Second, they carry their own significant penalties. If for some reason the jury acquits on murder but convicts on aggravated battery, Poague still faces 1-20 years per count.
The indictment alleges two instances of aggravated battery: 1) Rendering Romeo's brain "useless," and 2) Causing "serious disfigurement" to his liver.
These correspond to the statutory language: aggravated battery occurs when someone "maliciously causes bodily harm to another by... rendering a member of his or her body useless, or by seriously disfiguring his or her body or a member thereof."
For these charges, the medical evidence will be crucial. The prosecution will need expert testimony establishing: the nature and extent of the brain injury, how that brain injury was caused, the nature and extent of the liver injury, how the liver injury was caused, and that these injuries were caused by intentional conduct, not accident or medical condition.
The defense will likely challenge this testimony, either through cross-examination or their own experts.
First-degree cruelty to children requires proof that Poague "maliciously causes a child under the age of 18 cruel or excessive physical or mental pain."
Note the word "maliciously." This isn't negligence. This isn't accident. The State must prove Poague acted with ill will or malice when she caused the child pain.
This charge is somewhat easier to prove than malice murder in that it doesn't require proof of death. If Poague caused Romeo "cruel or excessive physical pain" before he died, that's sufficient for cruelty to children. The death is a separate element for the murder charges.
The challenge is proving the pain was "cruel or excessive." A spanking might cause pain but wouldn't typically qualify. The injuries alleged here, if proven, would clearly meet that standard.
Cases involving the death of children present unique challenges for everyone in the courtroom. Understanding these challenges helps us watch the trial more critically.
The emotional advantage: Jurors naturally feel sympathy for dead children and anger toward those accused of killing them. This can work in the prosecution's favor, but ethical prosecutors know they must rely on evidence, not emotion.
The evidentiary challenge: Children can't testify about what happened to them. If the defendant doesn't talk, and there are no eyewitnesses, the case becomes heavily circumstantial. Prosecutors must reconstruct events from physical evidence, medical testimony, and any available statements.
The medical complexity: Child abuse cases often depend on medical testimony about injury patterns. This science has evolved significantly over the years, and some previously accepted theories have been challenged. Prosecutors must present solid medical evidence while being prepared for defense challenges.
The burden of proof: Even in a case involving a dead child, the State must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Emotion is not a substitute for evidence.
The unpopularity of the defense: Defense attorneys in child death cases face hostility from the public, the media, and sometimes even other members of the legal profession. It takes courage to defend these cases.
The presumption of guilt: In the court of public opinion, defendants in child death cases are often presumed guilty. Defense attorneys must work to ensure the legal presumption of innocence prevails in the courtroom.
The medical battles: The defense may need to challenge medical conclusions about cause of death or injury causation. This requires finding qualified experts willing to testify, understanding complex medical science, and effectively communicating alternative theories to the jury.
The humanity of the defendant: Defense attorneys must try to humanize their clients without minimizing the tragedy of the child's death. This is a delicate balance.
Separating emotion from evidence: Jurors are human. They will feel emotion when they see autopsy photos, hear about a child's suffering, see the grieving family. But they must set those emotions aside and evaluate the evidence objectively.
Understanding reasonable doubt: "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high standard. It doesn't mean absolute certainty, but it means doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate before acting on it. In an emotional case, jurors must apply this standard rigorously.
Evaluating expert testimony: Jurors will hear from medical experts on both sides (if the defense calls any). They must evaluate the credibility and persuasiveness of these experts without being overwhelmed by scientific jargon.
Following the law: The judge will instruct the jury on the law. Jurors must follow those instructions even if they disagree with them or think they produce an unjust result.
Child death cases test our commitment to due process. When a child dies and someone is accused of killing them, the natural impulse is to punish that person. The constitutional protections that require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that presume innocence, that give defendants the right to confront their accusers, can seem like obstacles to justice.
But they're not obstacles. They're features. They exist because we know that innocent people get accused of crimes. They exist because we know that emotion can cloud judgment. They exist because we'd rather let guilty people go free than imprison innocent ones.
Every defendant, no matter how heinous the crime they're accused of, deserves these protections. That includes Trinity Poague.
Much about the investigation in this case remains unclear. The GBI has released limited information, and many details will only emerge at trial.
Timeline of the investigation: January 14, 2024: Romeo is found unresponsive, taken to hospital, pronounced dead. January 14, 2024: GSW Police contact GBI around 2 PM to investigate. January 14-19, 2024: GBI conducts "multiple interviews" and "examination of evidence." January 19, 2024: Trinity Poague arrested.
The scene: The incident occurred at Oaks 2, a freshman dormitory at Georgia Southwestern State University. The child was transported from the dormitory to Phoebe Sumter Hospital.
Medical findings: Deputy Coroner Mathis Wright stated that an examination of the body showed "some type of trauma." He believed the cause of death was "some form of blunt force trauma," though he was waiting for official autopsy results.
Witness statements: Students reported hearing a baby crying for an extended period before the crying suddenly stopped.
The exact sequence of events: What happened in that dorm room on January 14? When did the injuries occur? How did they occur? Who else, if anyone, was present?
What Poague told investigators: Prosecutors have indicated they want to introduce statements she made to law enforcement. What did she say? Did she admit to anything? Did she provide an explanation?
The full autopsy findings: We know the general nature of the injuries (brain, liver, blunt force trauma), but we don't know the specific findings, the timing of injuries, or any other relevant medical information.
Whether there's physical evidence: Was there blood at the scene? Were there weapons or objects used in the assault? What did investigators find in the dorm room?
The diaper issue: The defense raised questions about a diaper that wasn't collected. What was on that diaper? Why wasn't it collected? Does it matter?
The relationship dynamics: Was there any prior history of problems between Poague and the child? Between Poague and Julian Williams? What was the nature of the relationship?
These are all questions the trial will hopefully answer.
Understanding who Trinity Poague is doesn't excuse any crime she may have committed. But it provides context for who is standing trial.
By any measure, Trinity Poague was a high achiever before her arrest:
Honor graduate from Southwest Georgia Academy. Selected for Georgia Southwestern State University's President Jimmy Carter Leadership Program (requiring minimum 3.0 GPA, SAT 1100+, and demonstrated leadership). Crowned Miss Donalsonville 2023. Competed in the National Peanut Festival Pageant.
She was 18 years old, a college freshman with her whole life ahead of her.
Donalsonville is a small, tight-knit community. Population under 3,000. A place where the local pageant winner is front-page news. A place where everyone knows everyone.
Trinity Poague was a known figure in this community. Her fall from grace has shaken the town.
Poague was 18 at the time of the alleged crime. She's a legal adult, fully accountable under the law. But 18 is young. Brain development continues into the mid-20s. Judgment and impulse control are still developing.
This doesn't excuse anything. But it's worth noting that we're watching a trial of someone barely into adulthood, facing life in prison.
We don't know Poague's personal history, mental health background, family dynamics, or any other factors that might be relevant to understanding her as a person. We don't know her relationship history with Julian Williams or her experience caring for children.
These things may or may not come out at trial.
This trial is about whether Trinity Poague killed Romeo Angeles. But it's also about a family that lost a child.
Julian Williams is Romeo's father. He was, by all accounts, the child's primary caregiver. A GoFundMe described him as "one of the best fathers" and "a man, that took on the role that even most women struggle with daily. A man, that was the sole care taker of his only child."
Julian has been vocal in his pain. After Poague's not guilty plea, he said:
"I feel very frustrated and upset. With her pleading not guilty knowing that she is guilty is just not right. I feel like the court is trying to give her a slap on the wrist."
"This feels like a slap in the face to me and my family. All we want is justice for my son. Letting her out and being free is not right. She took an innocent 1-year-old's life."
His frustration is understandable. He believes he knows what happened to his son. He wants the woman he believes responsible to pay. The legal system, with its presumption of innocence and right to bail and requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, can feel like it's protecting the accused at the expense of the victim's family.
But that's the system. It's designed to protect against wrongful convictions, even when it's painful for those who believe they know the truth.
Romeo's obituary mentions other family members: grandmother Elizabeth Williams, Auntie Ashanti Burr, and others who left tributes online.
"I will miss uncle & nephew time when I come home. We would play on cell phone / watch movies / play games and eat snacks. I love you J'D."
"Shared so many happy days with him since he was 2 months old."
A family is grieving. A child who should have grown up will never take another step, speak another word, celebrate another birthday.
Whatever happens in the courtroom, that loss is permanent.
Georgia has seen other child death cases that provide context for understanding this one.
Perhaps the most notorious Georgia child death case in recent memory involved Justin Ross Harris, who was convicted in 2016 of malice murder and felony murder in the death of his 22-month-old son, Cooper, who died after being left in a hot car for hours.
Like the Poague case, the Harris case involved: the death of a toddler, charges of both malice murder and felony murder, significant circumstantial evidence, and intense media attention.
Harris was sentenced to life without parole plus 32 years. The Georgia Supreme Court upheld his conviction in 2021.
The Harris case demonstrates that Georgia juries will convict on malice murder even in cases involving circumstantial evidence, if that evidence is compelling enough.
The Poague case is different in important ways:
In Harris, the prosecution argued he intentionally left his child in a hot car. In Poague, the prosecution alleges intentional physical abuse.
In Harris, there was extensive evidence of motive (affair, sexting, internet searches about children dying in cars). We don't know what, if any, motive evidence exists in the Poague case.
In Harris, the defendant was an adult man in his 30s. Poague was 18.
Each case must be judged on its own facts.
For those following along, here's a guide to what happens in a murder trial:
The trial begins with selecting the jury. In a murder case, this process can take one or more days.
The pool: A large group of potential jurors is summoned to the courthouse.
The process: Attorneys from both sides question potential jurors about their backgrounds, beliefs, and ability to be fair.
Challenges for cause: Either side can ask the judge to remove a juror who has demonstrated bias or inability to serve.
Peremptory challenges: Each side has a limited number of challenges they can use without stating a reason. These cannot be used to discriminate based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics.
The final jury: In Georgia, a felony jury consists of 12 jurors plus alternates.
After the jury is seated, each side gives an opening statement.
Prosecution goes first: The prosecutor outlines what they intend to prove and previews the evidence.
Defense follows: The defense can give their opening immediately after, or reserve it until after the prosecution rests.
Important note: Opening statements are not evidence. They're roadmaps, promises of what each side says will happen.
The prosecution presents their evidence first. This includes:
Witness testimony: Witnesses are called to testify. They are examined (questioned by the side that called them) and cross-examined (questioned by the opposing side.
Physical evidence: Documents, photos, physical objects are introduced through witnesses.
Expert testimony: Medical experts, forensic experts, and others are called to explain complex evidence.
The prosecution typically presents evidence in a logical order, building toward their theory of the case.
Throughout the trial, attorneys make objections to questions or evidence. The judge rules on these, either sustaining (agreeing with) or overruling (rejecting) the objection.
At various points, there may be motions argued outside the jury's presence, including motions to exclude evidence or even motions for directed verdict (asking the judge to rule that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law).
After the prosecution rests, the defense has the opportunity to present their case.
Important: The defense has no obligation to present any evidence. The burden is entirely on the State. The defense can simply rest and argue that the prosecution failed to meet its burden.
If the defense does present evidence, they call their own witnesses and introduce their own evidence. The prosecution gets to cross-examine.
The defendant's testimony: A defendant has an absolute right not to testify, and the jury cannot draw any inference from that decision. If Poague doesn't testify, the jury must ignore that fact.
After the defense rests, the prosecution may present rebuttal evidence to address points raised by the defense.
After all evidence is presented, each side gives closing arguments.
Prosecution goes first: The prosecutor summarizes the evidence and argues why it proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defense responds: The defense summarizes their theory and argues why reasonable doubt exists.
Prosecution has final word: Because the State bears the burden of proof, they get to give a rebuttal closing argument.
The judge instructs the jury on the law. These instructions tell the jury: the elements of each charge, the burden of proof, how to deliberate, and any specific legal issues in the case.
The jury retires to deliberate in private. They review the evidence, discuss the case, and try to reach a unanimous verdict.
If they cannot agree, it's a hung jury, which may result in a mistrial.
The jury returns to the courtroom and announces its verdict. Guilty or not guilty on each count.
If there's a conviction on any count carrying a potential life sentence, there may be a sentencing phase.
Whatever the verdict, there are questions this trial probably won't resolve:
What exactly happened in that dorm room: Even with testimony and evidence, there will likely be gaps in our understanding of exactly what occurred.
Why: If Poague is convicted, we may never fully understand why an 18-year-old college freshman allegedly beat a toddler to death. Trials establish what happened, not always why.
What should have been done differently: Could this tragedy have been prevented? Were there warning signs? These questions go beyond the scope of a criminal trial.
Whether the outcome is "just": Reasonable people can disagree about whether any sentence is proportionate to any crime. The trial determines legal guilt, not cosmic justice.
The State of Georgia versus Trinity Madison Poague is, at its core, a case about the death of a child and whether the woman accused of killing him is guilty.
But it's also about something larger. It's about whether our justice system works the way it's supposed to.
We live in a time when trust in institutions is low. People question whether courts are fair, whether defendants get proper representation, whether evidence is properly evaluated, whether juries make good decisions.
Trials like this one are opportunities to see the system in action. To watch and evaluate. To ask: is this working?
At Justice Is A Process, we believe in the promise of due process. We believe that everyone deserves a fair trial. We believe that the presumption of innocence is real and meaningful. We believe that prosecutors should have to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.
We also believe in transparency. The public has a right to see how justice is administered. Courts belong to the people.
So we're here. Watching. Reporting. Analyzing.
This trial will be emotional. A child is dead. The images will be hard to see. The testimony will be hard to hear.
But we owe it to Romeo Angeles to watch carefully and ensure that whoever is responsible is held accountable through a fair process.
We owe it to Trinity Poague to ensure that she receives the fair trial she's entitled to, regardless of what we think she may have done.
We owe it to ourselves to ensure that the system we've built to deliver justice actually does so.
Let's begin.
Justice Is A Process will provide ongoing coverage of the Trinity Poague trial, including: Daily trial updates, key testimony analysis, legal commentary, and verdict reaction.
Follow along on YouTube, and check our Justice Breakdown articles for in-depth analysis.
This is Justice Is A Process. I'm Steven M. Askin II. Let's watch the process together.
This Case Background Report is based on publicly available information from the following sources:
Official Sources:
Georgia Bureau of Investigation press releases (January 2024), Court TV coverage and court documents, and Sumter County court records.
News Coverage:
WALB-TV (Albany, GA), WRDW-TV (Augusta, GA), WDHN-TV (Dothan, AL), Fox News, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Newsweek, Law&Crime, Inside Edition, The Daily Beast, The Donalsonville News, Early County News, and Americus Times-Recorder.
Legal References:
Georgia Code § 16-5-1 (Murder), Georgia Code § 16-5-24 (Aggravated Battery), and Georgia Code § 16-5-70 (Cruelty to Children).
Memorial Information:
Legacy.com obituary for Romeo Angeles and Find a Grave memorial.
All information is presented based on what is publicly known as of the trial date. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
© 2025 Justice Is A Process. All rights reserved. This report may not be reproduced without attribution.