Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings

Professor Kaldis
Philosophies and Goals of Juvenile
Delinquency proceedings
 1. Children are different from adults; therefore,
juvenile proceedings should be different. (1899: Early
Juvenile Courts focused on rehabilitation, protection,
best interest).
 2. Children who commit crimes have same rights as
adults; (era of constitutional rights of children: 1960’s
– 70’s Gault, “wellspring for children’s rights” &
1980’s-90’s – children as “super predators” John
Dilulio, stop the crime wave, try juveniles like adults).
Thesis: The changing Juvenile court – from protection
of children by the state to protection of the state from
children and back to protection by the state again.
 Juvenile Court Jurisdiction
 Child Welfare cases – (abuse & neglect) State
as “Parens Patriae” intervenes as “Super
Parent”, when parents can’t care for children
temporarily or permanently (medical, physical,
emotional, sexual).
 Juvenile Delinquency & Status offense cases -
focus away from punishment, offer services to
help children and eliminate school to prison
pipeline. Rehabilitation as the goal – focus on
the offender and not the offense.
Criminalization of Juvenile Courts

 How did the original mission change or get modified?

 Gault – Due process rights to be heard, notice, right to have
counsel, right against self incrimination, right to confrontation.
 Gault dissent - “ The inflexible restrictions that the Constitution
so wisely made applicable to adversary criminal trials have no
inevitable place in the proceedings of those public social
agencies known as juvenile or family courts. And to impose the
Court's long catalog of requirements upon juvenile proceedings
in every area of the country is to invite a long step backwards
into the nineteenth century. In that era, there were no juvenile
proceedings, and a child was tried in a conventional criminal
court with all the trappings of a conventional criminal trial. So it
was that a 12-year-old boy named James Guild was tried in New
Jersey for killing Catharine Beakes. A jury found him guilty of
murder, and he was sentenced to death by hanging. The
sentence was executed. It was all very constitutional.”
 Criminalization
 Post Gault era: juvenile courts displayed
more and more elements of adult penal
system. States enacted legislation allowing
transfer to adult court. (200,00 youth trials in
adult system each year).
 Transfers for offenders 14-17.

 First transfers were rare & burden high on

state. Then became easier.
 Also automatic for certain crimes- murder.
(children also received adult sentences).
 Then came Science.
 Neuroscience & Psychology came together to
create the hypothesis : Less Guilty by reason of
Adolescence.
 Child brain (FMRI technology showed this)
different in rationality & maturity.
 Children can’t perceive long term, react
impulsively.
 In addition, effects of trauma (75-93% in
juvenile system) can alter mental capacity and
legal culpability.
How is child’s brain different?
 Child brain is present oriented, severely retarding
child’s ability to plan & appreciate consequences.
 Children base decisions on emotions (fear, anger)
rather than logic and reason.
 Scientists, using FMRI, were able to take snapshots
at different ages to study the development of the
brain from adolescent to adult.
 Laurence Steinberg, Temple University psychology
professor: “the brain of a teenager is like a car with a
powerful gas pedal and weak brakes.”
 The frontal lobe.
 The prefrontal cortex regulates aggression,
long-range planning, mental flexibility, abstract
thinking, the capacity to hold in mind pieces of
information and moral judgment.

 Because their prefrontal lobe is not developed,

adolescents rely on the amygdala during
decision making, resulting in impulsive,
aggressive behavior.
 Culpability.
 The studies support the hypothesis that the
neurological development of adolescent
brains make youth up to 18 less
responsible for criminal acts than adults.
 These differences align more with the
original reason for creating the juvenile court
system, that is, that children are different
from adults.
 Science is on our side.
 Research on Neurological/Sociological issues on
minors
 Research shows children (and “emerging adults) are
different and should be treated differently (Roper v.
Simmons, Graham v. Florida, Miller v. Alabama).
 Miller held mandatory life without parole for a juvenile
unconstitutional without some kind of hearing.
 Massachusetts has done more (Brown and Diatchenko
held discretionary LWOP violated Mass const. for
children under 18; Mathis case extended it to “emerging
adults”, 18-21-year-olds. Diatchenko II allows counsel,
funds for experts and judicial review of parole hearings.
No Death penalty for Juveniles.
 Christopher Simmons was 17 when he duct
taped his victim and threw her off a bridge.
 When case went to SCOTUS, amicus briefs
and studies submitted by counsel discussed
the brain science.
 SCOTUS: “a lack of maturity and an
underdeveloped sense of responsibility are
found in youth more often than in adults and
are more understandable among the young.
These qualities often result in impetuous and
ill-considered actions and decisions.”
No LWOP for non-homicide crimes
 Graham v. Florida (2011) held LWOP for
non-homicide crimes violated 8th & 14th
Amendments.
 Graham, born to crack addicts and diagnosed
with ADHD, doing drugs and alcohol at young
age, was convicted to LWOP for attempted
robbery.
 Defense counsel Brian Gowdy stated that of
the 7 amicus briefs submitted by the state not
one was by a scientist – the science is
undisputed.
No mandatory LWOP for homicide.
 Miller v. Alabama, decided by SCOTUS in 2012,
held that before a court could convict a juvenile of
LWOP, the court had to hold “some kind of
hearing” in order to consider the juvenile, his
circumstances and his culpability for the crime.
 After Miller states were left on their own as to what
“some kind of hearing” meant.
 In Massachusetts, the statutory scheme then in effect
subjected the juvenile charged with murder to LWOP
without any type of sentencing hearing.
 Massachusetts before Miller
 Delinquency/YO cases
 Goal is to protect/ rehabilitate -
 Separate them from adult court but still a way for
them to return (Combination sentences)
 Involving changes up until 1996 when YO
Statute was enacted – proceedings could be
heard in Juvenile Court and can ultimately give
an adult sentence or a combination sentence.
 Statute – created Jurisdiction in Superior court
for first degree murder cases.
Massachusetts after Brown & Diatchenko
 On Xmas eve of December 2013, SJC
decided that Miller holding was retroactive,
and that discretionary LWOP violated article
26 of Mass constitution.
 Legislature thereafter amended statute so
that juvenile charged and convicted of
murder one gets life with parole.
 In addition, legislature changed age of
juvenile court jurisdiction from 17 to 18.
 Diatchenko revisited.
 Diatchenko applied for and received parole
but was given a year transition.
 Then SJC in Diatchenko II afforded more
rights regarding parole procedure.
 Juvenile homicide offenders asking for
parole get counsel, funds for experts &
judicial review.
C&P and CRA are civil cases
Care & Protection
 Civil
cases – but parents can be prosecuted
depending on type of abuse – (CSA case study
Father Lee)
Child Requiring Assistance
 Disobedient at home
 Runs away from Home
 Truant at School
 Disobeys school rules
 Status offenses
 CRA (CHINS) – civil or criminal?
 Child has not violated the law –
 What procedures subject the child to criminal like
factors?
 Standard is Beyond a Reasonable doubt –(criminal
standard) despite the fact that it is a civil matter
 Notice and right to counsel – typically only in
criminal cases.
 Hilary case – if DCF is going to be involved in
obtaining counsel, the parent’s due process rights are
now at stake and are entitled to the Right of Counsel.
What happens to these kids
 Dispositions in CRA (CHINS)
 (Depending on who Petitioner is (School or
Parent)
 If trial/plea/disposition – the options at
disposition are:
 Stay with parent – and must go to school as part of
custody
 Placed in DCF custody – (Worst case scenario) if
continually truant, disobedient
 Angela – commitments only good for 6 months and
must be reheard (Preponderance of Evidence at
the rehearing)
Status offense procedures
 Adjudicated CRA – Beyond Reasonable
Doubt
If after 6 months, continue being disobedient,
the judge has to be convinced that the need still
exists
 Preponderance of the Evidence (Angela Case)
 Delinquency
 How can a Delinquency or YO case not be criminal?
(One place in statute)
 119 s 53 (Purpose clause of Del/YO Statute)
proceedings are not deemed to be criminal and
should treat children as in need of guidance.
Role of child’s counsel
 Role of counsel – determine how it should
be in the case
 Ifchild too young, immature, etc. Substitute
judgment of the case, attorney assigned to the
child (Counsel for child to argue against or for
State’s intrusion).
 Client directed.
 GAL.
 Champion?
 Students’ rights
 Students’ Rights
 When would this arise?
 1st amendment – red ribbon case –CRA kid getting in trouble or school wants to suspend
him – how are those rights different from Gault kid (Confrontation, notice, Counsel, self
incrimination)?

 No constitutional right to education but you have right to notice and opportunity to be
heard
 School can make decision, but you have a right to be heard

 Student charged with offense in JC but not for something done at school, but school
doesn’t want them there – school can do it if the continued presence is disruptive and
puts the other students in harm or …. (71s371/2 37H) may suspend such student for a
period of time determined appropriate by said principal or headmaster if said principal or
headmaster determines that the student's continued presence in school would have a
substantial detrimental effect on the general welfare of the school. The student shall receive
written notification of the charges and the reasons for such suspension prior to such
suspension taking effect. The student shall also receive written notification of his right to
appeal and the process for appealing such suspension; provided, however, that such suspension
shall remain in effect prior to any appeal hearing conducted by the superintendent.
Search & Seizure (NOT ON FINAL)
 Search and Seizure
 Federal Standard - TLO – school officials are not
held to same standard of police, just reasonableness
 2- part test
 Reasonable in scope
 Justified
 Damien case – skipping school – searched and
found pot – there wasn’t a nexus between the
skipping and the search of the student.
 School official but may have an officer present
which may require a stricter standard to be
applied if police are directing the school
 Admissions & Confessions
 Interested Adult Doctrine
 What is it and when would you use it???
 If child is under 14 and you are appointed for
child who confessed to police, but the parents
were not present, then the Interested adult rules
can apply (motion to suppress by defense)
 If child is over 14 – police must demonstrate
child was mature, knowingly understood rights
and made a knowingly proper waiver.
Over and under 14; Interested Adult
 Under 14 parent must be present and
interested (Capable of understanding and
best interest in the child’s wellbeing)
 Over 14 – Commonwealth/school must
show the experience, high intelligence of the
child… knowing waived rights
 Grandfather was ok, who would not be? Who
would be there solely for the child’s welfare and
wants what’s best for the child…
 Conclusion
 Movement towards accountability rather
than retribution.(Juvenile diversion).
 Brain science gives new reason why
juveniles less culpable for crimes, a theory
more in accordance with the original Parens
Patriae philosophy of the Juvenile Court.
 We may be coming back full circle to the
original reason for the Juvenile court: kids
are different and should be treated that way.