TRIALS IN JUVENILE COURT Class 18

CASE OF THE DAY Facts Omar Paisley, 17 years old male, charged with Assault 2 (seriously injured neighbor in a fight) Detained in Miami-Dade County juvenile detention center Waived his right to 21-day detention hearing as part of plea bargain to avoid transfer to criminal court Died in custody three months later from a burst appendix after pleading for help for 3 days

Case of the Day (cont…) Prosecutors say that such bargains are necessary to avoid high volume of transfers to adult court Suicides and suicide attempts are regular events in this facility, legislature started investigation Female “whistleblower” was threatened by colleagues What legislative response would remedy this practice?

PUBLIC TRIALS McKiever v Pennsylvania (403 U.S. 528 (1971)) Juveniles not entitled to jury trial SC ruled that juvenile court judges could be as fair as jurors in assessing guilt or innocence, as well as the degree of culpability of the juvenile defendant, consistent with special conditions and jurisprudence of the juvenile court (as expressed in its authorizing legislation) Part of the “domestication” of the juvenile court (e.g., Gault, Kent) What, then, is the unique fact-finding process, and what are the rights of juveniles in this adjudicative forum?

Rights in a Domesticated Juvenile Court (Gault) Notice of Charges Right to Counsel Right to confront and cross-examine witnesses Privilege against self-incrimination Right to transcript of proceedings Right to Appellate Review

Why not Jury Trials? Black, in the majority in Gault: juvenile court cases not distinguishable procedurally from most criminal court cases But rights allocation only went so far as to meet “fundamental fairness” standard, and Court sought to preserve other juvenile court goals such as confidentiality and rehabilitation – again, the separate jurisprudence of the Juvenile Court. Stewart, dissenting in Gault: “[juvenile court proceedings] simply are not adversary proceedings…The objective is correction of a condition”, no need for jury trials Blackmun sought to preserve the higher goals of the juvenile court, and therefore wanted to avoid the complexities and entanglements of a jury trial

New Mexico and Alaska Supreme Courts recognize rights of juveniles to a jury trial in juvenile court (both preceded McKiever) Louisiana Supreme Court noted increasing criminalization of juvenile court (dispositions) where punishment trumps rehabilitation, therefore necessitating a jury trial guarantee

Burden of Proof Winship (397 U.S. 358 (1970) Preponderance not appropriate, requires “reasonable doubt” for finding of “delinquency” (but see Burger) Why do McKiever and Winship decisions seem to contradict one another? What is the proper analogy for benchmarking the “right” burden of proof for a juvenile court proceeding? Adult court trial? Civil commitment of mentally ill?

McKiever’s Arguments Against Jury Trial The end of the ideal (or fiction) of the “intimate” and informal and “protective” juvenile court – attack on its uniqueness Juries are not essential to a process that is “fair and equitable”, no reason to think that juries would do better job that judges for this type of proceeding Can or should a jury be in the business of determining the “environmental” and other social and psychological factors that cause delinquency? The “distinctive intake processes of the juvenile court mitigate against the unfettered power of the prosecutor A separate juvenile court is no longer justified if there are jury trials Jury trials might be injurious or traumatic Inevitable delay undermines therapeutic process of the juvenile court by temporally distancing the proceedings from the act itself Not likely that factual accuracy is improved with a jury trial, given other procedural safeguards and “fundamental fairness” standards

Arguments in Favor? Guggenheim and Hertz Judges are less accurate than juries (social science evidence from the influential Kalven and Zeisel jury study) In practice, juvenile court judges often get it wrong (562) Juvenile court judges tend to side with prosecution, biases that juries are less likely to manifest

Sources of Distortion in Bench Trials No buffer from presentation of evidence that would be inadmissible in a jury trial Familiarity with local police compromises independence This may cast favorable light on prosecution witnesses Insulation from group dynamics during deliberation (confirmed by social science evidence) (Ballew, 435 US 232, citing Ellsworth research) Racial diversity in jury is more likely, given demography of juvenile court judges Waiver of opening statements in bench trials that are common and important in jury trials Bench trials undermine the power of narrative in shaping arguments and perceptions of evidence

Are Jury Trials Feasible in Two Examples Juvenile Sex Offender 15 year old male, 13 year old female New Jersey v. T.L.O Possession of drugs in school Challenge based on the search