Midterm Flashcards
In re Gault
Seminole case: created juvenile ct statutes- notice, right to counsel, opp to examine and cross, safe-guards against self-incrim. Due Process and 14th Amend protections apply in juvenile ct.
In re Gladys
Infancy - 14yo got infancy defense in CA court (minority)
Tyrone
Infancy - Juvenile ct eliminate the need for infancy defense because it’s rehabilitation. No infancy here because infancy was CL doctrine (majority)
Difference between In re Gladys and Tyrone
Infancy defense is statutory and not Const. right
Status offense involvement
Usually comes up from cops intervening after report from parents, school, etc
Winship
BRD should be applied in juvenile ct
McKeiver
Juveniles need rehabilitation. Trial by jury is not a Const requirement - juvie ct may become a full adversary proceeding if trial required. Gault recommended against juries
Competency v. Infancy
Competency: developmental immaturity “i don’t understand these proceedings”
Infancy: lack of capacity “CL defense illustrating the difference between treatment and punishment”
JDP
Taking kids into custody - what is allowed? once the kid is suspect, it’s interrogation. Kid has to talk to atty first (CA)
In re ZM
if you’re being taken into custody for something that an adult could not be taken into custody for but a search reveals incriminating evidence then the evidence survives a 4th challenge
Renfrow
sniff is not a search as long as it’s really short. strip search is never ok
-special need in schools/already under control
TLO
“reasonableness” within special need - scope matters: prohibited object sought by giving school officials great deference. Lesser expectation of privacy for students in school because public policy does not favor all the proc/admin stuff
Veronia v Acton
random suspicion-less drug testing ok becuase kids signed up and wasn’t going to be used in prosecution. Balancing test of invasion v. having a drug free school. Playing school sports was consensual so it was ok
-Ginsberg dissent
Coercive tactics
when cops interact with kids, youthfulness is a factor for deciding voluntariness - kids are different
WA statute for diversion
systemic diversion- prosecutor can divert instead of the police or it can be delegated to the probation officer
Failure of diversion
kids don’t have the right to be diverted, but they have a right to be considered. Diversion unit must consider but may deny.
Eligibility for diversion is based on individual consideration
Diversion statutes
Legislative and depends on jurisdiction - judges and prosecutors have to follow the law
Pretrial detention
Legislative - no ultimate right from one juri to another. Equilivent of bail and passes Const. scrutiny
Pretrial detention statutes predicting dangerousness
Based on crime and age is ok. Kid can rebut presumption or give evidence they won’t commit again
Justification for no bail
Ability to rebut a presumption of dangerousness/reoffending
Alfredo
72 hrs for determination of PC/arraignment because there also needs to be report of dangerousness/least restrictive alt
Restorative justice
consistent with diversion. triangle of repair between victim, kid and the community of care
Schall v. Martin 1984
is there a serious risk this person may commit another act before the return date that would be a crime in adult court? Net to detain more kids on data driven presumption
