The Legal Rights of Juveniles
•Context of Parens Patriae
•Police
•Detention
•Intake
•Waiver
•Adjudication
Overriding Issue?
• Parens Patriae
– The state is acting as a surrogate parent, has
a right to intervene in the life of a child
• E.G. Ex Parte Crouse (1838)
• Commonwealth v. Fisher (1905)
– Intervene in the life of a child for that child’s good
– Therefore, Bill of Rights does not apply to
juveniles
• 1900s-1960 = Largely “Hands Off” doctrine
Parens Patriae attacked
• Increased (and public) evidence of judicial
abuse of discretion (Gault, for example)
• Attack on Rehabilitation
– Mistrust of Government
• Rise of Labeling Theory
• National Trend in Bureaucratization
The Police
• Haley V. State of Ohio (1948)
• Gallegos V. Colorado (1962)
• Harling V. United States (1961)
BUT:
• Fare v. Michael C. (1979)
• New Jersey vs. T.L.O. (1985)
– Cason v. Cook (1987)
The Police: Recent Lower Court
Cases
• Smith v. State (1992)
Versus
• State v. Sugg (1995)
• In the Interest of J.L., A Child (1993)
Versus
• In the Interest of S.A.W. (1993)
Detention
• Schall v. Martin (1984)
– Preventative Detention is constitutional
• Lower Cases
– Martarea v. Kelly (1972)
• Punitive/hazardous conditions of confinement
violate juvenile’s constitutional rights
Intake (No S.C. Cases)
• In re Frank H. (1972)
– No right to counsel (not “critical” phase)
• Too much burden would be placed in JJS
• In re Wayne H. (1979)
– Information gathered at intake cannot be used
in any guilt-finding process; juvenile or adult
Waiver to Adult Court
• Kent v. United States (1966)
– Transfer is “critical stage”
• Hearing, Counsel, access to records, statement of
reasons supporting waiver
• Breed v. Jones (1975)
– Double Jeopardy
• Cannot find delinquent and then waive to adult
court
• People vs. P.H. (1991): Gang Waiver
Adjudication
• In re Gault (1967)
• In re Winship (1970)
• McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971)
• Lower Cases
– Boyd v. State (1993)
• if waived, adult rules apply
– In re Marvin C. (1995)
• State must prove juveniles under age 14 have
capacity for intent
Disposition--Death
• Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982)
– Mitigating circumstances must be considered
• This evidence must be put on the record
• Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988)
– D.P. unconstitutional for those 15 or younger
at the time of the offense
• Stanford v. Kentucky (1989)
– It is constitutional to execute those 16 or 17
years old at the time of their crime
Dispositions—non-Death
• United States ex rel. Murray v. Owens
(1972)
– Constitutional to adjudicate in JJS without jury
trial and sentence to a young adult facility
• Baker v. Hamilton (1972)
– Placement in adult jail without total separation
from adults is unconstitutional
• A.S. v. State (1993)
– Parents cannot be forced to pay restitution
unless court demonstrates their lack of “good
faith” in raising child
Other Issues
• Conditions of Confinement
– Inmates of Boy’s Training School v. Affleck
(1972)
• Privacy Issues
– Generally left to states, but no First
Amendment right where state prohibits.
So you see Timmy…
• See tables in Champion book
– Differences between adult and juvenile due
process rights
– Differences across states in the extent to
which juveniles are granted d.p. rights
• Half Empty of Half Full?
– Feld: Worst of both worlds
– Isn’t the opposite also possible?