Transfer or Bindover or Certification

[Missouri] St. Louis County Family Court: Investigation 

Categories: , ,

On July 31, 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice released its investigation findings into the St. Louis County Family Court, finding due process and equal protection violations. The findings include right to counsel violations by denying constitutionally adequate defense representation, privilege against self-incrimination violations by requiring a child to admit to allegations for diversion, inadequate…

An Eighth Amendment Analysis of Statutes Allowing or Mandating Transfer of Juvenile Offenders to Adult Criminal Court in Light of the Supreme Court’s Recent Jurisprudence Recognizing Developmental Neuroscience

Categories: ,

From the introduction: ” Recent Supreme Court cases have recognized the science underlying the common-sense notion that children are not “little adults.” Their brains function in a completely different manner than those of adults. In 2005, the Court abolished the juvenile death penalty and recognized the neuroscience underlying the claim that those under the age…

A First Look at the Plea Deal Experience of Juveniles Tried in Adult Court

Categories: ,

State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa Sup. Ct. 2014)

Categories: , ,

The Iowa Supreme Court struck down mandatory minimum sentencing schemes as applied to a young person transferred to adult court, finding mandatory minimum sentences to be in violation of federal and state prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment and the best interest clause in Iowa’s juvenile code. The court notes “the statutory recognition of the…

Juvenile Law Center, The Gault Center et al. Amicus Brief, Ohio v. Quarterman 

Categories: , ,

This amicus brief by Juvenile Law Center, The Gault Center, and others argues Ohio’s mandatory bindover statute violates the Due Process protections guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as the mandatory scheme does not allow for individualized sentencing and recognition of the unique characteristics of youth. Further, amici argue individualized transfer proceedings…

Juvenile Law Center, Loyola Civitas Childlaw Clinic et al. Amicus Brief, Illinois v. Pacheco

Categories: , ,

This amici brief by Juvenile Law Center, Loyola Civitas Childlaw Clinic, and others argues automatic prosecution and mandatory sentencing of young people charged with felony murder is unconstitutional in light of recent Supreme Court case law as Illinois law does not allow for individual sentencing based on maturity and culpability. Furthemore, the brief argues the…

Children’s Law Center, Inc. et al. Amicus Brief, In re: D.M.

Categories: , ,

This amicus brief prepared by Children’s Law Center, Inc., the Office of the Ohio Public Defender, The Gault Center, and others argues that due process and fundamental fairness, pursuant to the 5th Amendment, the 14th Amendment and Ohio law, require the state to provide full discovery to a young person prior to a probable cause…

Commonwealth v. Robertson, 431 S.W.3d 430 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013)

Categories: , ,

The Kentucky Court of Appeals vacated a young person’s conviction in adult court based on ineffective assistance of counsel during the transfer hearing. Noting transfer as a critical stage in the proceeding and defense counsel’s failure to present any lay or expert witnesses and effectively cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses, the court concluded that the transfer…

Juvenile Justice Reform in Connecticut: How Collaboration and Commitment Have Improved Public Safety and Outcomes for Youth

Categories: , ,

From the introduction: “This report will describe, dissect, and draw lessons from Connecticut’s striking success in juvenile justice reform for other states and communities seeking similar progress. The first section details the timeline and dimensions of change in Connecticut’s juvenile justice system over the past two decades. In 1992, Connecticut routinely locked up hundreds of…

[Tennessee] Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County: Settlement Agreement 

Categories: , ,

On December 17, 2012, the U.S.  Department of Justice entered into a settlement agreement with Shelby County and the Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County in Tennessee following their investigation into the juvenile court system. The settlement agreement includes remedial measures to align the following practices with the U.S. Constitution: probable cause determinations, notice…

Gingerich v. Indiana, 979 N.E.2d 694 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)

Categories: , ,

The Court of Appeals of Indiana found the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied a 12-year-old’s continuance of his waiver hearing after his attorney only had four business days to investigate and prepare for the hearing. The court reversed the child’s conviction in adult court and remanded the proceeding to juvenile court offering…

Juvenile Law Center and The Gault Center Amicus Brief, Bunch v. Bobby

Categories: , ,

This amicus brief by The Juvenile Law Center and The Gault Center wrote the amicus, urging the Supreme Court to Grant Certiorari in the case of Bunch v. Bobby. This brief argues that juvenile life without parole sentences are unconstitutional for non-homicide offenses as articulated in Graham must be applied to sentences that are the…

[Tennessee] Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County: Investigation

Categories: , ,

On December 17, 2012, the U.S.  Department of Justice entered into a settlement agreement with Shelby County and the Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County in Tennessee following their investigation into the juvenile court system. The settlement agreement includes remedial measures to align the following practices with the U.S. Constitution: probable cause determinations, notice…

Juvenile Law Center et al. Amicus Brief, Miller v. Alabama

Categories: ,

This amici brief prepared by the Juvenile Law Center et al. highlights the particular characteristics of adolescent development and youth that make juvenile life without parole sentences unconstitutional and in violation of the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The brief addresses youth’s culpability, potential for change, and risk taking behavior compared to adults as…

Juvenile Law Center Amicus Brief, Minnesota v. Grigsby

Categories: , ,

This amicus brief by Juvenile Law Center, Campaign for Youth Justice, and The Gault Center argues the transfer hearing in the state juvenile court deprived the young person of due process when the judge only considered the intentional murder charge, when they were ultimately convicted on  the lesser offense of felony murder and second degree…

The Children and Family Justice Center and The Gault Center Amicus Brief, Illinois v. Salas

Categories: , ,

This amicus brief by Juvenile Law Center and The Gault Center argues Illinois automatic transfer law does not comply with recent research and findings on adolescent development as recognized by the Supreme Court jurisprudence in Roper and Graham. Further, amici argue the state’s automatic transfer statute violates the proportionality clause of Article I, Section 11…

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010)

Categories: , , ,

The U.S. Supreme Court held juvenile life without parole for non-homicide offenses violates the 8th Amendment and offered the following language in support. “Roper established that because juveniles have lessened culpability they are less deserving of the most severe punishments. 543 U.S., at 569, 125 S. Ct. 1183, 161 L. Ed. 2d 1. As compared…

Juvenile Law Center, The Gault Center et al. Amicus Brief, Graham v. Florida

Categories: , , ,

This amicus brief by The Juvenile Law Center, The Gault Center, and others highlights the unique developmental status of youth, relevant social science research, and Supreme Court Jurisprudence, that make a life without parole sentence for non-homicide crimes unconstitutional in violation of the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As stated in their brief: “The…

The Gault Center Amicus Brief, In the Matter of William M. 

Categories: , ,

This amicus brief by The Gault Center and others argues Nevada’s certification statute violates a child’s right to effective assistance of counsel as it interferes with counsel’s ability to plan and participate in the adversarial fact-finding process and it fails to measure up to essentials of due process and fair treatment. Furthermore, amici argue this…

Effects on Violence of Laws and Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Youth from the Juvenile to the Adult Justice System

Categories: , , , , , ,

This report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides a review of the effectiveness of laws and policies that facilitate the transfer of youth to adult court and ultimately, recommends against transfer to prevent or reduce violence. From the Summary: “The independent, nonfederal Task Force on Community Preventive Services (Task Force), which directs…

Models for Change- Building Momentum for Juvenile Justice Reform

Categories: , , , , ,

From the introduction: “This brief tells the story of how the four Models for Change states—Pennsylvania, Illinois, Louisiana, and Washington—are already moving to reform and reshape their own state juvenile justice systems. These states have demonstrated strong leadership in juvenile justice policy, value collaboration and engagement, and because of their efforts, have changed the political…

Ganging Up on Communities? Putting Gang Crime in Context

Categories: ,

Addressing the Needs of Youth with Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice System: The Current State of Knowledge

Categories: ,

Reducing Disproportionate Minority Confinement: The Multnomah County, Oregon Success Story and its Implications

Categories: , ,

From the introduction: “This policy brief will review the work done in one jurisdiction that has succeeded in reducing the number of minority youth detained pre-trial, summarize the lessons learned from innovations in Multnomah County, Oregon, and highlight their national significance. While the more general nationwide picture on reducing racial disparity in the juvenile justice…

Bouge v. Reed, 459 P.2d 869 (Or. Sup. Ct. 1969)

Categories: , ,

The Oregon Supreme Court held the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment requires states to “accord a hearing before a [youth]can be remanded to the adult criminal process.” In this case, the remand statute at issue ORS 419.533 did not expressly provide for a hearing before transfer to adult court but the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the intent…