Chapter 9

DUE PROCESS AND JUVENILES

Juvenile Justice: An Introduction, 7th ed.

Chapter 9

What You Need to Know• The U.S. Supreme Court clarified the rights of juvenile defendants in

several landmark cases.• For example, the Gault decision ruled that juveniles have the privilege

against self-incrimination and the right to the assistance of counsel in cases with the possibility of a decision to put the juvenile in confinement in a locked facility.

• In McKeiver v. Pennsylvania the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles do not have the right to trial by jury.

• Reasonable corporal punishment is permissible in schools.• Students do have limited free speech rights at school, but school officials

can exercise broad editorial control over student publications.• School officials can search students when they have reasonable suspicion

to do so.• Carefully drawn curfew laws have been upheld as constitutional.

Excessively vague laws have not been upheld.• Raising the legal drinking age has had positive effects, although a number

of college presidents recently expressed concern that the age (21) affects binge drinking on college campuses.

Chapter 9

The Landmark Supreme Court Cases

• Juveniles share some but not all of the same rights as adults. This chapter will examine the landmark juvenile Supreme Court cases of the 1960s and 1970s because those cases fundamentally altered the contours of the juvenile justice system.

• Kent v. United States (1966) - The Supreme Court was faced with a waiver case appeal wherein a 16-year old, Morris Kent, had been transferred to adult criminal court without a hearing, without the assistance of counsel, and without any statement of the reasons for the judge’s decision to transfer the matter to the adult court.

• The Supreme Court justices decided that due process of law entitles a defendant like Morris Kent to certain minimum safeguards, including a hearing, the right to the assistance of an attorney, and a statement of the reasons for transfer if the judge decides to transfer the case to adult court.

Chapter 9

The Landmark Supreme Court Cases (cont.)• In re Gault (1967) - Gerald Gault, a 15-year-old youth, was arrested

for allegedly making obscene phone calls to an adult woman. He was adjudicated a delinquent in a court proceeding that resembled a kangaroo court or a dictatorial tribunal rather than a court of law and was sentenced to the state training school for a possible six-year sentence. The maximum penalty for an adult committing the exact same offense was a $50 fine and two months in jail.

• Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas ruled that juveniles do have certain due process rights in delinquency proceedings in which there is the possibility of confinement in a locked facility. Such juveniles must have the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment rights to adequate notice of the charges against them, to confront and cross-examine their accusers, and to the assistance of counsel.

Chapter 9

The Landmark Supreme Court Cases (cont.)

• In re Winship (1970) - An appeal of a New York case involving a 12-year-old boy who had stolen $112 from a woman’s purse. The Supreme Court made two rulings.

1. The Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution requires that adult criminals be convicted only by the standard of “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” or reasonable doubt standard.

2. The Court extended the reasonable doubt standard of proof to juvenile delinquency proceedings in which there was the possibility of commitment to a locked facility.

Chapter 9

The Landmark Supreme Court Cases (cont.)

• McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) - The Supreme Court took up the issue of a juvenile’s right to a jury trial but declined to go so far in extending adult rights as to grant juveniles the right to jury trials for several reasons.

1. The Court did not want to turn the juvenile court process into a fully adversarial process and end the idealistic prospect of an intimate, informal protective proceeding.

2. The Court noted that because bench trials for adults often result in accurate determinations of guilt, jury trials are not an absolute necessity for accurate determinations of delinquency.

3. The Court also indicated that it was reluctant to impose a federal requirement of a jury trial because such a mandate could prevent individual states from experimenting with different methods.

4. The Court noted that it had not reached such total disillusionment with the juvenile justice system to warrant abandoning it.

Chapter 9

Additional Supreme Court Rulings

• Graham v. Florida (2010) - The Supreme Court ruled that a life without parole sentence is unconstitutional for a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide.

• The Court simply has ordered the states to allow such offenders some way to demonstrate sufficient maturity and rehabilitation to justify their release.

• Some states may determine that an offender is irredeemable and should not be released. However, it is important to note that is constitutional for a juvenile to receive a LWOP sentence if they commit murder.

Chapter 9

Additional Supreme Court Rulings (cont.)• Breed v. Jones (1975) - The Supreme Court made the waiver

process more explicit by ruling that states cannot first adjudicate a juvenile a delinquent and then waive or transfer the youth to adult court.

• The Court ruled that this violated the youth’s Sixth Amendment protection against double jeopardy.

• J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011) - The Supreme Court ruled that courts should consider age as a factor in the custody analysis when the child’s age was known to the officer or would have been objectively apparent to a reasonable officer.

• Children may feel pressured to submit to questioning when an adult would feel free to leave the interrogation because children in general are less mature and responsible than adults.

Chapter 9

Additional Supreme Court Rulings (cont.)• Fare v. Michael C. (1979) - A juvenile murder suspect

consented to an interrogation after he was denied the opportunity to consult with his probation officer.

• The Supreme Court ruled that there is no constitutional mandate to allow a suspect to speak with his or her probation officer because the Sixth Amendment specifies the right to assistance of counsel.

• More importantly the court ruled that a child can voluntarily waive his or her privilege against self-incrimination without first speaking to his or her parents and without first consulting an attorney.

Chapter 9

Additional Supreme Court Rulings (cont.)• Schall v. Martin (1984) - The Supreme Court ruled that a

juvenile who is awaiting court action can be held in preventive detention if there is adequate concern that the juvenile would commit additional crimes while the primary case is pending further action.

• The Court justified its decision on the basis that every state permits such preventive detention for juveniles and on the rationale that such detention protects both the juvenile and society from the hazards of pretrial crime.

• The juvenile has the right to a hearing on the preventive detention decision and a statement of the reasons for which he or she is being detained.

Chapter 9

Search and Seizure

• Consideration of these landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases demonstrate that juveniles do indeed have basic rights at important stages of the juvenile justice process, especially the waiver (transfer) hearing and the adjudication (trial) stage.– One issue in particular is search and seizure. When cases

involve juveniles it is most important to address consent searches in which a defendant voluntarily allows the police to search someone or one’s effects without a search warrant.

Chapter 9

Rights in School

• Freedom of Speech - The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the basic principle that students have at least some degree of constitutional protection in that they do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”– This does not mean that students can say or express

anything they wish in whatever manner they wish.

Chapter 9

Rights in School (cont.)

• Ingraham v. Wright (1977) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporal punishment of students is permissible so long as it is reasonable. The reasonableness decision depends on;

- The seriousness of the offense, the attitude and past behavior of the child, the nature and severity of the punishment, the age and strength of the child, and the availability of less severe but equal means of discipline.

Chapter 9

Rights in School (cont.)

• Lee v. Weisman (1992) - Ruled that school officials erred in providing guidelines and permitting prayer at a high school graduation ceremony. However, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court upheld the right of students to plan and lead prayer at school functions.

Chapter 9

• New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a student search is legitimate if it was reasonable in its justification and its extent. By this, the Court means that; – Under ordinary circumstances, a search of a student by a

teacher or other school official will be “justified at its inception” when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school.

Rights in School (cont.)

Chapter 9

Rights at Home in the Community

• The constitutionality of curfews - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the law did not violate either equal protection or free association grounds and therefore was not unconstitutional. Curfews serve as a compelling state interest, namely, to reduce juvenile crime and victimization, while promoting juvenile safety and well-being.

Chapter 9

• The legal drinking age - Proponents of a high minimum drinking age argue that it reduces automobile accidents and fatalities, especially for adolescents. Therefore teens need to be protected from their immaturity and impulsiveness because they are inexperienced at both driving and drinking alcohol.

Rights at Home in the Community (cont.)