Juvenile Law and Procedure

1. Juvenile Law and Procedure

2. Slide 2 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES After completing this chapter, you should be able to: List the changes in rights and procedures since the due process revolution. Describe four landmark Supreme Court cases in juvenile justice. Explain what totality of circumstances means. List situations in which a juvenile is entitled to an attorney.

3. Slide 3 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES After completing this chapter, you should be able to: Describe the different ways police are allowed to handle juveniles. Define confidentiality and anonymity. Explain current legal issues in juvenile justice. Compare rights and procedures in an adult criminal trial with rights and procedures in juvenile proceedings.

4. Slide 4 7.1 The Development of Juvenile Law and Procedures The juvenile justice system is much more decentralized than the criminal justice system. • A separate juvenile justice system is not guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. • In addition, the juvenile justice system has received scant attention from the U.S. Supreme Court.

5. Slide 5 The Development of Juvenile Law and Procedures The U.S. Supreme Court essentially adopted a hands-off approach to juvenile justice for most of the system’s existence. hands-off approach: The idea that the day-to-day operations of the juvenile justice system should be left up to the professionals working in the system without court review or intervention.

6. Slide 6 The Development of Juvenile Law and Procedures However, during the due process revolution of the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court created additional protections which affected the juvenile justice system. due process revolution: Period of time during the 1960s and 1970s when the U.S. Supreme Court made several rulings that created or applied additional due process protections to criminal justice.

7. Slide 7 The Development of Juvenile Law and Procedures Prior to the 1960s, the juvenile justice system operated under the medical model, and the goal of a juvenile proceeding was to “cure” a wayward juvenile. medical model: The basic philosophy behind the creation of the juvenile court. The court was more of a hospital where juveniles went to be cured of their illness.

8. Slide 8 The Development of Juvenile Law and Procedures The civil nature of juvenile court proceedings were intended to provide flexibility, but in fact it made way for abuses. civil nature of juvenile proceedings: The juvenile court was operated and proceeded similarly to a civil court rather than a criminal court.

9. Slide 9 The Development of Juvenile Law and Procedures Several landmark U.S. Supreme Court juvenile justice cases fundamentally transformed the traditional juvenile justice system and instituted: • Substantive rights • Procedural rights substantive rights: Rights that protect an individual against arbitrary and unreasonable action. procedural rights: Rights that govern or dictate the process by which a hearing or court action will proceed.

10. Slide 10 SELF CHECK What roles have the courts played in the administration of juvenile justice in the United States?

11. Slide 11 7.2 Early Juvenile Law The freedom of the juvenile court to intervene in the lives of children and family was rooted in two doctrines: • parens patriae • in loco parentis

12. Slide 12 Early Juvenile Law • These principles led to the belief that when children came into contact with the juvenile justice system, they were not being charged with a crime. • Instead, the system was acting in their best interests, therefore no formal due process was needed.

13. Slide 13 Early Juvenile Law After World War II, some legal philosophers and juvenile justice specialists began to question the supposed benevolence of the juvenile court because: • The majority of juvenile offenders were not being “saved,” but continued their antisocial behavior. • Courts were punishing rather than treating juveniles.

14. Slide 14 Early Juvenile Law In addition, juveniles were: • Arrested without warrant or cause • Interrogated by police at length without parental notification or legal counsel • Not advised of any rights • Incarcerated for lengthy periods at the whim of a juvenile court judge

15. Slide 15 MYTH FACT Juveniles are entitled to the same full due process rights as adults when facing criminal charges. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stopped short of granting juveniles all of the rights adult criminal defendants have. Instead, the court has come down with a series of decisions that define which rights juveniles who face criminal charges do have and which they do not have.

16. Slide 16 SELF CHECK How were juveniles treated by the legal system prior to the due process revolution?

17. Slide 17 7.3 Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Cases in Juvenile Justice During the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court subjected the American criminal justice system to substantial scrutiny and mandated fundamental due process in juvenile justice.

18. Slide 18 Kent v. United States 1966 • The first landmark U.S. Supreme Court case regarding juvenile justice was Kent v. United States. Kent v. United States: U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was ruled that juveniles facing waiver to adult court are entitled to some basic due process rights. • In Kent, the court held that juveniles could not simply be waived to adult court because a juvenile court wants to, or as a matter of routine.

19. Slide 19 Kent v. United States 1966 • Noting that many juvenile courts lacked the personnel, facilities, and techniques to perform adequately in a parens patriae capacity, the court held: There is evidence, in fact, that there may be grounds for concern that the child receives the worst of both worlds: that he gets neither the protections accorded to adults nor the solicitous care and regenerative treatment postulated for children.

20. Slide 20 Kent v. United States 1966 In Kent the court stopped short of requiring due process in all juvenile proceedings. The rights given in Kent were applicable only in waiver proceedings.

21. Slide 21 In re Gault • One year after the Kent decision, In re Gault would forever alter the nature of the juvenile justice system and create a storm of controversy in the U.S. In re Gault: U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was ruled that a juvenile in a delinquency proceeding is entitled to the essentials of due process. • The Gault case firmly established the concept that parens patriae was not an excuse to abuse or neglect the rights of juveniles.

22. Slide 22 In re Gault After someone accused Gerald Francis Gault and a friend of making an obscene phone call: • Gault was taken into custody and his parents were not notified. At no stage were his parents notified of the facts of the case. • At the hearing, • The complainant was not present. • No one was sworn in. • No record of the hearing was made. • Gault was detained for four days without explanation.

23. Slide 23 In re Gault • Gault was declared a delinquent and sent to the State Industrial School for six years. Had he been an adult, the penalty would have been a fine of $5 to $50 or imprisonment for not more than two months. • No appeal was permitted under state law.

24. Slide 24 In re Gault The U.S. Supreme Court granted juveniles the following rights: • Right to reasonable notice of the charges • Right to counsel as well as appointed counsel if indigent • Right to confront and cross-examine witnesses • Right against self-incrimination, including the right to remain silent.

25. Slide 25 In re Gault The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that: • The original purposes of the juvenile court—that a fatherly judge would look into each situation in-depth and prescribe a treatment plan to save a juvenile from a life of crime—were not being served. • Due process was necessary to protect juveniles and aid in their treatment.

26. Slide 26 In re Gault • In re Gault is the most important case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the area of juvenile justice. • Gault signaled the end of the traditional model of juvenile justice and the beginning of the due process model of juvenile justice.

27. Slide 27 In re Winship Even after Gault, juvenile proceedings were still assumed by many to be more civil than criminal, more informal than formal. In the years following Gault, the U.S. Supreme Court would selectively incorporate portions of the Constitution to juvenile proceedings.

28. Slide 28 In re Winship • The case of In re Winshippresented the court with the issue of the standard of proof necessary for conviction. In re Winship: The U.S. Supreme Court case that decided the standard of proof in juvenile delinquency proceedings is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

29. Slide 29 In re Winship In criminal courts, the standard for conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. proof beyond a reasonable doubt: The facts and evidence are entirely convincing and satisfy that the person committed the act beyond any reasonable doubt, sometimes equated with 95% certainty.

30. Slide 30 In re Winship In civil court, the standard of proof is a preponderance of evidence. preponderance of evidence: Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than evidence that is offered in opposition to it. Sometimes referred to as more than 50% certainty.

31. Slide 31 In re Winship • In Winship, the court held that when a juvenile is faced with the possibility of incarceration, the standard of proof required is beyond a reasonable doubt. • The court did not extend this protection to all juvenile court proceedings.

32. Slide 32 McKeiver v. Pennsylvania A year after Winship, the court reversed their trend of extending procedural rights to juveniles in the case of McKeiver v. Pennsylvania. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania: U.S. Supreme court case in which it was ruled that juveniles are not entitled to trial by jury in delinquency proceedings.

33. Slide 33 McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971 McKeiver was charged with robbery, larceny, and receiving stolen goods, and requested a jury trial.

34. Slide 34 McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971 The U.S. Supreme Court denied the right to a jury trial because: • The court’s earlier decisions had protected juveniles enough; jury trials were unnecessary. • The court did not want to abandon all of the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system. • Jury trials would not greatly strengthen the fact-finding function of the juvenile court and nothing prevents juvenile court judges from using juries when they think it necessary. • To grant jury trials would end the distinction between criminal and juvenile systems.

35. Slide 35 Impact of the Landmark Cases • The only other U.S. Supreme Court case where a fundamental right would be applied to juvenile proceedings was the 1975 case, Breed v. Jones. Breed v. Jones: Case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that juveniles are protected against double jeopardy by the U.S. Constitution. • Future U.S. Supreme Court decisions would generally be concerned with issues presented by the rights given by these landmark cases.

36. Slide 36 Impact of the Landmark Cases In the juvenile justice system, the names Gault, Kent, and Winship are remembered with tremendous impact. Because of these, the juvenile justice system was forever changed.

37. Slide 37 SELF CHECK • What specific rights were granted by the Supreme Court to juveniles in the cases of Kent, Gault, and Winship? • What right did the U.S. Supreme Court refuse to grant to juveniles in the McKeiver decision? • Why were the Supreme Court decisions discussed in this section originally opposed by many in the juvenile justice system?

38. Slide 38 7.4 Issues in Juvenile Justice Although the U.S. Supreme Court set parameters for the basic procedure of juvenile justice, many questions and unresolved issues still persist in juvenile law and juvenile rights.

39. Slide 39 Issues in Juvenile Justice • Recent changes toward juvenile crime reflect a desire to “get tough” and hold juveniles accountable for their actions. • As a result, many scholars have begun to question whether juveniles should receive greater rights than adults in proceedings which, in many states, can result in long terms of incarceration.

40. Slide 40 Issues in Juvenile Justice The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to apply a consistent standard that governs all juvenile rights or the restriction of those rights. This unwillingness probably results from the tension caused by the recognition that, while children are persons for constitutional purposes, they are simultaneously the subject of special state concern.

41. Slide 41 Juvenile Waiver of Rights The court has not ruled on a per se test or circumstance under which juveniles can or cannot waive their rights. per se test: Something that is required in all circumstances regardless of the facts of a case.

42. Slide 42 Fare v. Michael C. 1979 • In Fare v. Michael C., the U.S. Supreme Court had to decide under what circumstances a juvenile, without consulting a parent, attorney, or other interested adult, can make an intelligent, understanding, and voluntary waiver of his or her rights. Fare v. Michael C.: The case that established ground rules for determining whether a juvenile has knowingly and voluntarily waived his or her rights.

43. Slide 43 Fare v. Michael C. 1979 • The court applied the totality of circumstances approach as the standard applicable to juveniles. • The validity of the waiver of rights should be based on all of the relevant circumstances of the case. totality of circumstances: The test used to determine if a juvenile’s waiver of rights was knowing and voluntary.

44. Slide 44 Fare v. Michael C. 1979 States are free to impose more stringent requirements on the waiver of juvenile rights. Some states require the presence of a parent, attorney, or other guardian during all police interrogations.

45. Slide 45 Fare v. Michael C. 1979 Thomas Grisso researched the capacity of juveniles to waive their rights and found: • Juveniles demonstrated less comprehension than adults of their actual Miranda rights. Miranda rights: The right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, the right to indigent appointment of an attorney.

46. Slide 46 Fare v. Michael C. 1979 • Juveniles demonstrated less understanding of the words used in Miranda warnings. • Juveniles, more than adults, misunderstood the right to counsel. • Although most juveniles understood the meaning of the right to remain silent, many did not grasp the comprehensiveness of the right, believing that they could later be punished for exercising the right and be made to tell their criminal activity.

47. Slide 47 Juvenile Right to Counsel • A juvenile’s right to an attorney in all delinquency proceedings has gathered considerable attention and support. • However, some believe that the introduction of lawyers will take away the informal nature of the court and the court’s ability to rehabilitate and treat juveniles

48. Slide 48 Juvenile Right to Counsel The U.S. Supreme Court has held that juveniles are only entitled to an attorney after adversarial proceedings have commenced against them.

49. Slide 49 Juvenile Right to Counsel The American Bar Association discovered a number of problems facing public defenders: • Annual caseloads of more than 500 cases, with up to 300 of these being juvenile cases • Lack of resources for independent evaluations, expert witnesses, and investigatory support, and a lack of computers, telephones, files, and adequate office space • Inexperience, lack of training, low morale, and relatively low salaries • The inability to keep up with rapidly changing juvenile codes

50. Slide 50 Search and Seizure Juveniles have fewer rights than adults concerning searches and seizures. • All appellate courts that have considered the issue have ruled that the 4th Amendment does not apply to juveniles. • There are circumstances where police can detain a juvenile but not an adult, such as for status offenses.