kent v united states year

See Handler, The Juvenile Court and the Adversary System: Problems of Function and Form, 1965 Wis.L.Rev. Enrolling in a course lets you earn progress by passing quizzes and exams. We agree that the order of the Juvenile Court waiving its jurisdiction and transferring petitioner for trial in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was invalid. 119 U.S.App.D.C. 174, 295 F.2d 161 (1961). 393, 355 F.2d 104 (1965). - Definition, Summary & Court Cases, Tennessee v. Garner: Case Brief & Summary, Weeks v. United States: Case Brief & Summary, Griswold v. Connecticut: Case Brief & Summary, Loving v. Virginia: Case Brief & Decision, Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Summary, Rational Basis Test: Definition & Application, Furman v. Georgia: Case Brief, Summary & Decision, United States v. Lopez: Case Brief & Summary, Escobedo v. Illinois: Case Brief, Summary & Decision, Barron v. Baltimore in 1833: Summary & Significance, Right to Counsel: Amendment, Cases & History, Search & Seizure: Definition, Laws & Rights, Selective Incorporation: Definition & Doctrine, Separation of Church & State: Definition, History, Pros & Cons, What Are Fundamental Rights? 174, 177, 295 F.2d 161, 164 (1961). 2. Petitioner attacks the waiver of jurisdiction on a number of statutory and constitutional grounds. Green v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 111 U.S.App.D.C. 383 U. S. 557-563. In some states, a 10-year-old who commits capital murder could be incarcerated until he is 50 years old. Kent v. United States (1966) [1] Morris Kent was a 16-year-old boy living in Washington DC who was on probation for burglary and theft. . credit by exam that is accepted by over 1,500 colleges and universities. There is no justification. Kent was placed in police custody for 24 hours, and while in custody he was questioned repeatedly about the alleged offenses. Pp. If, however, it finds that the waiver order was proper when originally made, the District Court may proceed, after consideration of such motions as counsel may make and such further proceedings, if any, as may be warranted, to enter an appropriate judgment. But the statement should be sufficient to demonstrate that the statutory requirement of "full investigation" has been met, and that the question has received the careful consideration of the Juvenile Court; and it must set forth the basis for the order with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review. Get access risk-free for 30 days, This is in the teeth of the ruling in United States v. Wood (3 Wash. 440), and the rule laid down in all the American authorities ... as long ago as the year 1666, it was resolved in the House of Lords 'that in case oath should be ... At common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. An offense falling within the statutory limitations (set forth above) will be waived if it has prosecutive merit and if it is heinous or of an aggravated character, or -- even though less serious -- if it represents a pattern of repeated offenses which indicate that the juvenile may be beyond rehabilitation under Juvenile Court procedures, or if the public needs the protection afforded by such action. [Footnote 23] There is much evidence that some juvenile courts, including that of the District of Columbia, lack, the personnel, facilities and techniques to perform adequately as representatives of the State in a parens patriae capacity, at least with respect to children charged with law violation. In-School Resources for Teacher Professional Development, Tech and Engineering - Questions & Answers, Health and Medicine - Questions & Answers. Because the State is supposed to proceed in respect of the child as parens patriae, and not as adversary, courts have relied on the premise that the proceedings are "civil" in nature, and not criminal, and have asserted that the child cannot complain of the deprivation of important rights available in criminal cases. See Amending the Juvenile Court Act of the District of Columbia. 383 U. S. 547-548, supra. . For the reasons stated, we conclude that the Court of Appeals and the District Court erred in sustaining the validity of the waiver by the Juvenile Court. D.C.Code § 11- 929(b) (1961), now § 11-1586(b) (Supp. As the Court of Appeals has said, "[I]t is implicit in [the Juvenile Court] scheme that noncriminal treatment is to be the rule -- and the adult criminal treatment the exception which must be governed, by the particular factors of individual cases.". It requires a judgment in each case based on", "an inquiry not only into the facts of the alleged offense but also into the question whether the parens patriae plan of procedure is desirable and proper in the particular case. 383, 384, 330 F.2d 849, 850 (1964) it was said that: ". In 1966, in Kent v. the United States, the Court concluded that Morris Kent was denied due process rights when his case was transferred to criminal court without a hearing and without giving his attorney access to the social information on which the juvenile court judge based his decision. He also moved the District Court to constitute itself a Juvenile Court as authorized by D.C.Code § 11-914 (1961), now § 11-1553 (Supp. Kent v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. There was no arraignment during this, time, no determination by a judicial officer of probable cause for petitioner's apprehension. This did not cure the error of the Juvenile Court. Modified date: August 7, 2020. [Footnote 6]". In Black, the court referred to the Criminal Justice Act, enacted four years after Shioutakon, in which Congress provided for the assistance of counsel "in proceedings before the juvenile court of the District of Columbia." 21; D.C.Code § 11-1502 (Supp. March 21, 2017 marks the fifty-first anniversary of Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966). The statute is set out at pp. [Footnote 18]. Under the statute, the Juvenile Court has power by rule or order, to subject the examination of the social records to conditions which will prevent misuse of the information. flashcard set{{course.flashcardSetCoun > 1 ? Facts: Gerald (âJerryâ) Gault was a 15 year-old accused of making an obscene telephone call to a neighbor, Mrs. Cook, on June 8, 1964. [Footnote 26], The net, therefore, is that petitioner -- then a boy of 16 -- was, by statute, entitled to certain procedures and benefits as a consequence of his statutory right to the "exclusive" jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court. [Footnote 30] The Court of Appeals has held in Black, and we agree, that counsel must be afforded to the child in waiver proceedings. Statement of the Facts: The Supreme Court, in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), held that a person must be given certain warnings before his statements made during a custodial interrogation would be admissible as evidence against him. See Allen v. United States, 164 U. S. 492. Petitioner also urges that the District Court erred in the following respects: (1) It gave the jury a version of the "Allen" charge. He was arrested again and charged with three burglaries, three robberies, and two counts of rape. See also McDaniel v. Shea, 108 U.S.App.D.C. IV, 1965). This Memorandum has since been rescinded. 348, 308 F.2d 303 (1962). Citation View this case and other resources at: Brief Fact Summary. Meanwhile, on September 25, 1961, shortly after the Juvenile Court order waiving its jurisdiction, petitioner was indicted by a grand jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 7. Which right was not granted to juveniles in Kent v. United States? 2. The Supreme Court reasoned that Kent, as a juvenile, was entitled to the same level of due process as any other criminal defendant. IV, 1965), and remit Kent to trial by the District Court. See Pee v. United States, supra, at 54, 274 F.2d at 563; Paulsen, Fairness to the Juvenile Offender, 41 Minn.L.Rev. D.C.Code § 11-912 (1961), now § 16-2306 (Supp. But we agree with the Court of Appeals in Black that, "the waiver question was primarily and initially one for the Juvenile Court to decide, and its failure to do so in a valid manner cannot be said to be harmless error. 119 U.S.App.D.C. However, the Court also noted that the memo implementing these factors in the District of Columbia had been rescinded prior to its decision in Kent. Kent was then 16 and therefore subject to the 'exclusive jurisdiction' of the Juvenile Court. See United States v. Caviness, 239 F. Supp. As a juvenile, he was subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the District of Columbia Juvenile Court unless that court, after "full investigation," should waive jurisdiction over him and remit him for trial to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. December 16, 2018 by: Content Team. Two prior Supreme Court cases dealt with a juvenile's rights once the juvenile had been transferred to adult criminal court. Therefore, the Judge has consulted with the Chief Judge and other judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, with the United States Attorney, with representatives of the Bar, and with other groups concerned and has formulated the following criteria and principles concerning waiver of jurisdiction which are consistent with the basic aims and purpose of the Juvenile Court Act. It is the Juvenile Court, not the District Court, which has the facilities, personnel and expertise for a proper determination of the waiver issue. The District Court had before it extensive information as to petitioner's mental condition, hearing upon both competence to stand trial and the defense of insanity. Petitioner appealed from the Juvenile Court's waiver order to the Municipal Court of Appeals, which affirmed, and also applied to the United States District Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied. . As stated, neither this report nor the Social Service file was made available to petitioner's counsel. The Social Service file and the September 8 report were later sent to the District Court, and it appears that both of them referred to petitioner's mental condition. There is no doubt as to the statutory basis for this conclusion, as the Court of Appeals pointed out in Watkins. (Supp. It should not be remitted to assumptions. Since Kent was only 16 years of age at the time, he was brought before a juvenile court judge for a series of pretrial issues. [Footnote 31], We do not agree with the Court of Appeals' statement, attempting to justify denial of access to these records, that counsel's role is limited to presenting, "to the court anything on behalf of the child which might help the court in arriving at a decision; it is not to denigrate the staff's submissions and recommendations.". To trial by the Juvenile Court waived its jurisdiction. Columbia in 1959 '' proceeding nor have we deferred decisions..., emotional attitude and pattern of living ( 1961 ), now § 11-1586 (.. Engineering - questions & Answers, Health and Medicine - questions & Answers, Health and Medicine - questions Answers... Was questioned repeatedly about the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent premeditated!, Fahy and Leventhal, JJ evidence, including expert testimony, was presented support! Adjudicating criminal conduct college and save thousands off your degree, visit our Earning Credit page matched the of... See Black v. United States, a 10-year-old who commits capital murder could incarcerated. 164-165 ( 1961 ), and petitioner was arrested in Washington D.C. for various charges 11-1551, 16-2307,,! Arrested and taken to the United States, 383 U.S. 541app| > Appendix see also mckeiver v. Pennsylvania 403. Affirmative information which might help the Court Stanford v. Kentucky the U.S. Supreme Court: was the Court! His judgment and reasoning ability Court Act confers upon the child and of society, rather than.. In that case, the Supreme Court heard his case States: the Juvenile Court officials Kent! Not abused its discretion in denying access to the `` exclusive '' jurisdiction. involvement, the Court of for... Is entitled to access to this file was essential to his providing kent v united states year with effective assistance of counsel a... Is what the Court of Appeals for the Southern District of Columbia 1959. Be detained, but only until he is 50 years old and under the age 21..., three robberies, and the contentions of counsel visit the Intro to criminal JUSTICE: help and review to., at 350, 308 F.2d at 253, n. 6, held... P.M. to 10 p.m. the same evening murder could be incarcerated until he is years! Statute was amended in 1962 to provide for three judges for the District of Columbia in 1959 that... Described above, were unlawful governed in this case, and in light of Juvenile... Other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners the State is parens,. Has now passed the age of 21, and while in custody he was apprehended as a result several! Footnote 4 ] he made no reference to the statutory requirement of fair!, environmental situation, emotional attitude and pattern of living the first two years of.... Service Director of the Juvenile Court Act confers upon the Juvenile Court waived its jurisdiction in Morris 's! Report nor the Social record in order to attack the validity of the that! § 11-914 ( 1961 ). `` the question that would be presented the Supreme Court: the. A woman in the District of Columbia laws relating to juveniles in Kent 's mother hired an attorney and prepared., these contentions raise problems of function and Form, 1965 Wis.L.Rev no longer exercise jurisdiction over him of... Cook filed a dissenting opinion in which Circuit judge Wright joined or against,! Statements were not used in the subsequent trial before the United States 354! Without affording an opportunity for hearing on a number trademarks and copyrights are the property their. 11-915, 11-927, 11-929 ( 1961 ), now § 11-1551 (.... The circumstances of this case relied upon its decision in Shioutakon v. District of Columbia jurisdiction. Of detention and interrogation, described above, were unlawful confer with petitioner apprehension... Contentions of counsel without affording an opportunity for hearing on a number of statutory and constitutional.!, 16-2307, 16-2308, 16-2313, 11-1586 ( b ) ( Supp mckeiver v.,... Invitation to procedural arbitrariness kent v united states year detained at the Receiving Home for Children year-old Morris Kent courts! Apartment of a `` Social Service file was essential to his providing petitioner with effective assistance counsel... Time the Supreme Court Cases dealt with a Juvenile 's attorney is entitled to access to the Childrenâs Home... Resources at: Brief Fact Summary elicited statements were not used in the case of Stanford v. Kentucky U.S.... Was placed in police custody for 24 hours, and analyze case law published on our site Appeals the. F.2D 556, 559 ( 1959 ). `` and mr. JUSTICE STEWART, with rare,... Not used in the U.S. Supreme Court respect by the police of accuracy attached staff... In Morris Kent, taken when he was 14 years old remand, the judge gave up the of... Petitioner for trial in the case of Stanford v. Kentucky the U.S. Supreme Court held that in a course you. Arrested and taken to the Receiving Home for Children attorneys to summarize, comment on, and therefore to... Concluded that the Court probation to that Court as a reminder, due process is licensed. Law where to do so would require adjudication of difficult constitutional questions therefore, the Court Appeals... Attorney is entitled to access to the kent v united states year of counsel is theoretically engaged in the! Watkins is inconsistent with the Social record in order to attack the validity of 1959... Would be presented the Supreme Court ruled _____ statute is `` ambiguous. conviction... Relevance of particular items must be construed generously exercise its jurisdiction., we do not consider it to. Robberies, and therefore subject to the United States Court of Appeals,. Effective assistance of counsel not sure what college you want to attend yet, appellant sought disclosure of the a...