Supreme Court cases (restructuring)

Question 1

The Warren Court and its importance for the juvenile justice system

Answer 1

• Chief Justice warren led a liberal Supreme Court from 1953-1969
• During this, the warren court massively expanded civil rights and civil liberties
• many instances of expanding due process rights of criminal defendants- due process clause in the 14th amendment, Miranda v Arizona, Mapp v Ohio

Question 2

Kent V United States

Answer 2

• 14 yr old Morris Kent arrested for breaking and entering and purse snatching
• while on probation, kent was arrested for breaking into a house and sexually assaulting a woman
• arrested days later, interrogated by police without a lawyer present for days, and confessed to committing several crimes
• the juvenile court waived Kent to adult court to be tried as an adult- juvenile court act required juvenile judge to conduct a full investigation before waiving
• although the judge claimed he conducted a full investigation, there was no evidence of such an investigation and the judge did not provide a reason for the waiver
• question was the judicial waiver valid
• Rulling: SC ruled that the waiver was not valid- he deserved to have a waiver hearing with legal counsel present, lawyer representing juveniles during waiver hearing deserve access to all files related to the case

Question 3

implication of Kent case

Answer 3

• greatly expanded due process rights of juveniles
• court outlined what criteria should be used to determine if a juvenile should be wavered
• it guaranteed that juveniles have the right to a waiver hearing, that juveniles have the right to legal counsel
• also required that judges provide written justification for the decision to waive juveniles to adult court
• throughout the decision the court explicitly argued that juveniles have due process rights
• important: SC said focus should be on the actual practices and not the good intention of the JJ system

Question 4

In re Gault

Answer 4

gerald gault was a 15 year old boy who was arrested for making an obscene phone call with a friend
- parents were not informed of his detainment
- victim of the phone call never showed up to any of the trial, and the judge ruled that her appearance in the court was not necessary
- after an initial hearing, Gault was sentenced to a juvenile institution until his 21st birthday- maximum penalty for an adult would have been a small fine

Question 5

Gault aftermath

Answer 5

• parents hired an attorney who filled a writ of habeas corpus
• question: was gaults detainment legitimate under the due process clause of the 14th amendment
  Court questioned six aspects
• do juveniles have the right to counsel
• do juveniles have the right to notice of the charges
• do juveniles have the right to confront witnesses
• do juveniles have the right to avoid self-incrimination
• do juveniles have the right to a transcript of the proceedings
• do juveniles have the right to appeal to the case

Question 6

Gault decision

Answer 6

• Supreme Court ruled that juveniles have four of these rights
  (right to counsel, right to receive notice of charges, right to confront witnesses and privilege against self incrimination)
• thus, court essentially ruled in favor of due process rights of juveniles
  -SC used language from the O’Connell case to argue:
  (Gault was being punished and not helped, focus should be on actual practices and not good intentions, rejected the idea of parens patriae as “murky… and of dubious relevance”, necessary for juveniles to have due process rights)
  -Courts ruled that JJ can offer “special treatment” of juveniles without surrendering due process rights

Question 7

in re winship: facts

Answer 7

• arrested for stealing 112 from a women pocketbook
• one witness claimed she saw winship running away after stealing money
• at the time, juvenile courts adjudicated using the standard preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt
• lower standard: more likely he did it than did not
• rationale for having lower standard of proof was that JJ court is a social service agency and not a criminal court

Question 8

in re winship

Answer 8

• winships lawyer argued that he created reasonable doubt that the witness may not have seen winship commit the crime
• juvenile judge ruled that although there was reasonable doubt, the preponderance of the evidence was convincing
• question: is “beyond a reasonable doubt” an essential aspect of due process rights

Question 9

Winship ruling

Answer 9

• the Supreme Court ruled that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is standard, but standard could still be preponderance of evidence for status offenses
• two years later the sc would rule that the new legal standard for juveniles was retroactive- this means that juveniles convicted using preponderance of evidence standard would either need to be released or retried

Question 10

Mckiever v Pennsylvania facts

Answer 10

• arrested for robbery, larceny and receiving stolen goods
• was a good student no prior record and was gainfully employed
• only given 5 minutes before trial to meet with his lawyer
• lawyer requested a jury but judge denied it
• mckiever convicted and placed on probation

Question 11

mckiever court and ruling

Answer 11

• question: does the 6th amendment right to a trial by jury apply to juveniles?
• Rulling: no, not guaranteed right to trial by jury- although due process protections are important, juvenile courts do try to handle cases differently than adult courts
• it is a punishment, but punishment in juvenile courts less sever than criminal convictions in adult courts
• right to a jury trial is one “right” that is most likely to undermine the goals of the juvenile justice system

Question 12

why the difference in juvenile v adult proceedings (Mckiever)

Answer 12

• two major reasons for the differences
  1) right to counsel, hearings, confronting witnesses, etc. all deal with ensuring accurate fact-finding in the court proceedings
• right to jury trial is not about fact finding: juries are no more accurate in fact finding than judges
  2) By the time McKiever went to the Supreme Court, two liberal SC judges (Warren and Fortas) were no longer on it, and were replaced by two conservative Nixon appointees
• this court then, again went back to focusing on the good intentions of the JJ system

Question 13

Breed V Jones

Answer 13

• jones was arrested for armed robbery
• convicted of crime and then disposition was scheduled several weeks later as probation officer prepared social history report
• at disposition juvenile waived jones to adult court to be tried there
  -lawyer filed writ of habeus corpus
  (argued that this violated jones’ protection from double jeopardy)

Question 14

Jones: court ruling

Answer 14

Question: is it double-jeopardy to try someone in adult court after already adjudicating them in a juvenile court?
- ruling (unanimous)
- yes: trying them in adult court after adjudicating someone in juvenile court puts individuals in double-jeopardy, analog of trying someone for the same crime twice