EPHRATA - A decision on whether the Moses Lake boy accused of shooting his parents in March will be tried as an adult or not could be nearing.

In a status hearing Monday afternoon, deputy prosecutor Steven Johnson said he received one report from experts involved in the case and is expecting a second report from defense attorney Lylianne Couture shortly.

Couture received a draft of the second report and expects a final version soon. Judge Pro-tem Harry Ries agreed to continue the matter until Oct. 28 and anticipates that a declination hearing will be set.

The 14-year-old is charged with two counts of attempted murder and his bail is set at $500,000. Serious felony offenses can be declined by the juvenile court and tried in adult court.

Couture expects the declination hearing to last two days.

Ries also heard a respondent's motion asking the boy be allowed to appear in court without physical restraints.

Couture explained that several factors determine whether a respondent or defendant should be restrained in the courtroom, which included the seriousness of the charge, the defendant's temperament and character, age and physical attributes and past record.

"The court went on to say the only factors which indicate a manifest need for some measure to be taken to maintain the security of the courtroom should be considered," Couture said.

The prosecution filed a response stating that this case should follow adult superior court and district court where defendants are restrained. Couture argued that her motion only applies to the boy.

"Very clearly adult superior court has many defendants in the same room, it's a much larger courtroom and those people could obviously get in fights or disrupt the courtroom more easily than one respondent sitting here by himself," she said.

Couture also argued the 14-year-old is able to come straight from the detention facility to court without going outside, unlike Grant County District Court.

The prosecution also argued the declination hearing should be treated like a pretrial hearing, but Couture argued the case the prosecution cited dealt with first appearances.

"Here we're dealing with a declination hearing that both sides anticipate to last two days," she said. "This is not a first appearance. This is a hearing where substantial rights will be affected and where the respondent will need to confer with counsel during the hearing and also where the respondent will likely be on TV during the hearing."

Johnson argued that the burden should be on the respondent to show why the boy should be treated differently than other people facing the same penalties.

"I think that in this case it is the respondent who is not able to show that he has significant exigent circumstances to be treated than other similarly situated people, whether it's juveniles or whether it's adults facing the prospect of a jury trial," he said. "This is a respondent who has a $500,000 bail set. That is a very significant number that reflects not just the seriousness of the charge, but this court is charged with looking at other factors like likely failure to appear, current dangers to the community when reaching that determination."

The prosecution also explained the 14-year-old was involved in an alleged assault at the detention center in June and supplied the court with declarations from four staff members corroborating the story.

Johnson argued against the potential for the boy's shackles to give a negative impression to jurors. Johnson said the boy was in court nine previous times and no motion had been filed until the tenth appearance.

"I don't see where the potential prejudice in the future would be for that shackling where the first nine appearances haven't and the respondent doesn't cite to any evidence that there has been prejudice to the jury out there in the motion," he said.

Couture explained she didn't provide any cited cases for jury prejudice, but felt it was presumed that a judicial officer wouldn't be prejudiced by restraints. A person not accustomed to the courtroom may be disturbed by seeing a respondent in shackles.

"I believe it was just a given that the respondent comes to court and has a presumption of innocence and that the shackles do weigh on that," she said. "Most of our defendants are not given any press coverage when they go to court, so this is not typically an issue."

Ries declined to rule on the motion because he had just been notified of it that morning and hadn't had time to read it in its entirety. He shared his thoughts and stated he would provide a written response later in the week.

The boy allegedly took a .22 caliber pistol out of a locked gun case, loaded it and waited around 90 minutes before deciding to shoot his parents. He reportedly told police his parents grounded him from playing video games and using electronic devices.

Jon and Elizabeth Brooks, the boy's parents, survived the shooting and the court has allowed them to visit the boy under supervision. They are not allowed to discuss the case.