Voluntariness
This resource offers a brief overview of how children are transferred or bound over to adult court in Ohio and discusses what is at stake in the case of State v. D.T., 2024-Ohio-4482 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024) pending before the Ohio Supreme Court. The Gault Center filed an amicus in this case here. Oral arguments were…
From the Introduction: “Racial inequities are addressed to varying degrees in at least three of the four sections of the Restatement of Children and the Law. This Essay evaluates whether and how well this Restatement advances racial justice and identifies additional opportunities for the ALI to address racial inequities now and in future iterations of the Restatement. The…
School-based arrests have long made up a substantial number of cases in the juvenile legal system. As a result, youth defenders often represent clients who have been seized, searched, or interrogated on school grounds. This guide provides a general overview of the law governing school seizures, searches, and interrogations and practice tips for challenging evidence…
This amicus brief by the Juvenile Law Center and Rise for Youth argues schools and school officials are increasingly entangled with law enforcement, especially, through the use of school resource officer programs, impacting students’ constitutional rights. The brief argues that O.W., a 13-year old student in this case, had his Fifth Amendment rights violated when his vice principal and the school resource officer compelled him to make an incriminating statement…
This brief by the Wisconsin Innocence Project and others argues the developmental characteristics of children and adolescents make them uniquely susceptible to the pressures of police interrogation, resulting in young people making involuntary statements. The brief calls the court to consider the child’s age and the coercive psychological tactics used during police interrogations, specifically the minimization and maximization techniques, to assess whether the child was in custody and…
The Ohio Appellate Court vacated a youth’s convictions and transfer order and offered the following language in support. “Because the juvenile court (1) did not identify all of the factors it considered, i.e., the “other information factors” referenced at the amenability hearing, (2) did not identify or discuss the factual or evidentiary basis for its…
“In this article, we address the question left unanswered by the Court in J.D.B.: In light of the substantial research establishing that children’s understanding and appreciation of the Miranda warnings are quite limited, must the traditional test for assessing the validity of an individual’s waiver of their Miranda rights be re-calibrated to take into account…
This affidavit written by Legal Ethicist Abbe Smith outlines the ethical quandaries posed by Florida’s direct file transfer laws and calls into question the legality of such laws based on adolescent development research. The affidavit states in relevant part: “The prosecutorial practice of direct file plea-bargaining without defender/child knowledge of the case’s strengths and weaknesses…
On December 14, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice entered into a settlement agreement with the St. Louis County Family Court to remedy constitutional violations. The settlement agreement covers policies and practices to ensure the due process and equal protection rights of all youth are upheld. This includes early appointment of youth defense counsel, prohibition…
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…
A sample motion from Ohio requesting suppression of statements made by a 17-year old with disabilities including a specific learning disability and expressive language disorder. The motion argues the child’s statement should be suppressed given the inherent coerciveness of police interrogations of children, the inadequate and untimely reading of the Miranda rights by the police…
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it found a 16-year old youth’s consent to a warrantless blood draw was involuntary and granted his motion to suppress. The court offered the following language in support: “We hold now that, independent of § 28-1321, the Fourth Amendment requires an…
This amicus brief by Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, The Gault Center, and others argue a 15-year-old child from South Dakota did not knowingly and intelligently waive her Miranda rights when the police failed to allow her to consult with her mother before interrogation, minimized the importance of the Miranda warnings, and did not…
This amicus brief by the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, Vanderbilt Professor of Law and Medicine Terry A. Maroney, The Gault Center, and others. Amici argue a 16-year-old youth’s waiver of his Miranda rights was involuntary and his confession must be suppressed pursuant to the 5th and 14th Amendments, where he was threatened during…
