Chapter 8

Juvenile Law and Procedure

Chapter Outline

I. The Development of Juvenile Law and Procedures

II. Early Juvenile LawIII. Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Cases

in Juvenile JusticeA. Kent v. United StatesB. In re GaultC. In re WinshipD. McKeiver v. PennsylvaniaE. Impact of the Landmark Cases

Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Chapter Outline Continued

IV. Issues in Juvenile LawA. Juvenile Waiver of RightsB. Juvenile Right to counselC. Search and SeizureD. Interrogations and ConfessionsE. Juvenile ProceedingsF. Juvenile RecordsG. BailH. Detention

Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Chapter Outline Continued

A. Juvenile Right to Jury TrialB. Juvenile Correctional LawC. Right to TreatmentD. Juvenile Rights at SchoolE. Victims’ Rights in Juvenile JusticeF. Curfew Laws

V. Adult Criminal Trials versus Juvenile Adjudicatory Proceedings

Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Development of Juvenile Law and Procedures

Hands-off approach – the idea that 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.

Due process revolution – period of time during the 1960s and early 1970s when the Supreme Court made several rulings that created or applied additional due process protections to criminal justice.

Medical Model – the basic philosophy behind the creation of the juvenile court, which involved treatment of the offender.

Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Development of Juvenile Law and Procedures Continued

Civil nature of juvenile proceedings – the juvenile court was operated and proceeded similarly to a civil court rather than a criminal court.

Procedural Rights – rights that govern the process by which a hearing or court action will proceed.

Substantive Rights – rights that protect an individual against arbitrary and unreasonable actions.

Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Early Juvenile Law

Juveniles were: Arrested without warrant or cause Interrogated by police at length without parental notification or legal counsel

Were not advised of any rights Were incarcerated for lengthy periods at the whim of a juvenile court judge

Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Kent v. U.S.

Arrested for burglary, robbery, and rape.

Waived to adult court. Issue: was Kent entitled to due process in the criminal justice system?

Decision: First U.S. Supreme Court case to rule that juveniles facing waiver to adult court are entitled to due process rights.

Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

In re Gault

Issue: Does a juvenile have due process rights during the adjudication stage of a delinquency proceeding?

Decision: Gault was granted rights to Reasonable notice of the charges Counsel as well as appointed counsel if indigent

Confront and cross examine witnesses Against self-incrimination, including the right to remain silent

Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

In re Winship Supreme Court decided the standard of proof in juvenile delinquency proceedings 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.

Preponderance of the evidence – evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than evidence that is offered in opposition to it. Sometimes referred to as more than 50%.

Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

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.

Reasons to deny the right to a jury trial:

1. Juveniles are already protected enough through prior decisions

2. Jury trials would end informal, protective proceedings

3. Jury trials would not strengthen the fact-finding function of the juvenile court

4. Jury trials would end the distinction between the criminal and juvenile systems

Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Breed v. Jones

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that juveniles are protected against double jeopardy by the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This means that a juvenile could not be tried in a juvenile court and then tried again in an adult court for the same offense.

Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Fare v. Michael C. The Supreme Court case that established ground rules for determining whether a juvenile has knowingly and voluntarily waived his or her rights.

The 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 rights.

The Court applied the totality of circumstances approach as the standard applicable to juveniles.

Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Problems Facing Public Defenders in Juvenile Court

Annual caseloads of more than 500 cases. Lack of resources for independent evaluations, expert witnesses, and investigatory support.

Lack of computers, telephones, files, and adequate office space.

Inexperience, lack of training, low morale, and low salaries.

Inability to keep up with rapidly changing juvenile codes.

Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

The Supreme Court decision that school officials only need reasonable grounds, not probable cause, to search a student when they suspect that the search will turn up illegal evidence.

The Court ruled that school officials do not have to have a warrant to justify a search.

Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.