Competence of Juveniles in
Legal Proceedings
Class 6
CASE OF THE DAY
• Ramos v Town of Vernon
• Facts
– Juvenile curfew imposed for persons under 18
– District Court affirmed, 2nd Circuit overturned
ordinance
– Statute designed not just to reduce juvenile crime but to
promote parental responsibility
• Juveniles’ rights not at issue, but state interference
with parental role presents a conflict
• “Juvenile curfews have existed throughout our Nation's
history, and we do not question the Town of Vernon's
authority to have such an ordinance under some
circumstances. …. The constitutionality of a curfew is
determined by balancing the recognized interests the state
has in protecting children and fighting crime against the
constitutional right of all citizens, including juveniles, to
move about freely. Here, Vernon's curfew interferes with
juveniles' freedom of movement, that is, their right to walk
the streets, move about at will, meet in public with friends,
and leave their houses when they please. This right to free
movement is a vital component of life in an open society,
both for juveniles and adults.”
Adjudicative Competence
• Assistance – the capacity to provide
relevant information
• Reasoning – understanding nature of the
legal proceeding and processing
information about it
• Appreciation – apply relevant information
in a way that is reasonable and rationale
• Decisional Competence – capacity to make
important decisions such as confession or
waiver of rights
Competence Applications
•
•
•
•
Waive counsel
Waive Miranda rights
Assist counsel
Accurate reconstruction of events
Legal Standards
• A defendant is competent to stand trial if he
"has sufficient present ability to consult
with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of
rational understanding [and if] he has a
rational as well as a factual understanding
of the proceedings against him." Dusky v.
United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S. Ct.
788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960)
• “A 14-year old boy, no matter how
sophisticated, …. is not equal to the police in
knowledge and understanding…and is unable
to know how to protect his own interests or
how to get the benefit of his constitutional
rights…A lawyer or adult relative or friend
could have given the petitioner the protection
which own immaturity could not…Without
some adult protection, …a 14-year old boy
would not be able to know...such constitutional
rights as he had.” Gallegos v Colorado, 370
U.S.49, 82 S. Ct. 1209 (1962)
• “Age 15 is a tender and difficult age for a
boy….a lad of tender years is no match for
the police in such a contest…he needs
counsel and support if he is not to become
the victim first of fear, then of panic.”
Haley v Ohio, 332 U.S. 596 (1948)
• Evaluation should meet “totality of
circumstances” test, including: age,
experience, education, background, and
intelligence, and whether he has the
capacity to understand the warnings given
him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment
rights, and the consequences of those
rights.” Fare v Michael C., 442 US 707
(1979)
States’ Competency Standards
• Juvenile standard (20)
• Adult applies to Juveniles (15)
• Adult standard (16)
What is the Standard?
• Current standard is “Dusky” + decisional
competence
• Some states (e.g., FL) include immaturity in
their articulation of standards (but fail to
define immaturity)
• 34 States and DC have held that juveniles
have a due process right to a competency
determination
What Information Should a
Competency Evaluation Contain?
• Fifteen states provide guidelines typically
requiring the following:
–
–
–
–
–
Opinion as to competency
Conditions causing incompetency
Prognosis
Recommended treatment
Criminal responsibility (3)
Who Has the Burden?
•
•
•
•
Not Specified
State (4)
Defendant (4)
Party that raises the issue (6)
What Standard of Proof Applies?
•
•
•
•
Not Specified
Preponderance of the Evidence
Clear Preponderance
Greater Weight of the Evidence
What Happens When There is a
Finding of Incompetency?
•
•
•
•
•
Dismiss with prejudice
Dismiss without prejudice
Civil commitment
Dependency adjudication [GA]
Child in need of services petition (AR, MN,
VA)
Struggling with “Immaturity”
• In re J.M. (Vermont, 2001)
– “…evaluation of a juvenile’s competency is to be made
with regard to juvenile norms”
• In the matter of Carey (Michigan, 2000)
– “…competency evaluations should be made in light of
juvenile, rather than adult, norms”
• Golden v. State (Arkansas, 2000)
– “…age appropriate capacity standard to apply to
juveniles, which is different from that of adults”
• In re Charles B. (Arizona, 1999)
(“although the juvenile…has no mental
disorder or disability, he fits the description
of “incompetent”… because he lacks a
present ability to consult with his attorney
with a reasonable degree of rational
understanding, and he does not have a
rational and factual understanding of the
proceeding against him”)
False Confessions
• Susceptibility to suggestion
• Susceptibility to threat from authority figures
• Desire to please authority figure, leading to
distorted or inaccurate information
• Loss of temporal perspective
• Legal decision making capacity to waive rights
Current Research
• Thomas Grisso et al., “Juveniles’
Competence to Stand Trial: A
Comparison of Adolescents’ and
Adults’ Capacities as Trial
Defendants,” Law & Human Behavior,
2003
• Design – Abilities associated with
adjudicative competence were assessed
among 927 adolescents in juvenile
detention facilities and community
settings. Adolescents’ abilities were
compared to those of 466 young adults
in jails and in the community.
• Method – vignettes
Understanding
100
Significantly Impaired
Percent
80
Mildly Impaired
Not Impaired
60
40
20
0
11 to 13
14 to 15
16 to 17
Age Groups
18+
Reasoning
100
Significantly Impaired
Percent
80
Mildly Impaired
Not Impaired
60
40
20
0
11 to 13 14 to 15 16 to 17
Age Groups
18+
Appreciation
100
Percent
80
Significantly Impaired
Mildly Impaired
Not Impaired
60
40
20
0
11 to 13 14 to 15 16 to 17
Age Groups
18+
Percent Significantly
Impaired
Percent Impaired on Understanding or
Reasoning or Both
50
40
Detained
Community
30
20
10
0
11 to 13 14 to 15 16 to 17
Age Groups
18+
Understanding by IQ
100
Percent
80
Significantly Impaired
Mildly Impaired
Not Impaired
60
40
20
0
IQ 60-74
IQ 75-89
IQ Groups
IQ 90 +
Percent Impaired on Understanding
and/or Reasoning by IQ and Age
Percent Significantly
Impaired
80
60
IQ 60-74
IQ 75-89
IQ 90+
40
20
0
11 to 13 14 to 15 16 to 17
Age Groups
18+
Best Response to Police
Interrogation
Best Response to Plea Offer
100
80
Take the Deal
Confess
Talk/ Deny
Remain Silent
60
40
60
40
20
20
0
0
11 to 13 14 to 15 16 to 17
Age Groups
Refuse the Deal
80
Percent Responses
Percent Responses
100
18+
11 to 13
14 to 15
16 to 17
Age Groups
18+
What Age, What Standard?
• How best to make law?