|
|
 A NEWSLETTER OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN JUVENILE LAW AND RESEARCH PROVIDED BY THE NATIONAL JUVENILE JUSTICE PROSECUTION CENTER
Volume I, Issue 5, November 2003
|
|
RECENT CASES
|
| SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT |
U.S. v. Jones, __ F.3d __ (3d Cir. 2003)—The court held that a juvenile adjudication can be considered by a federal court under a sentencing enhancement statute even though the defendant had not been afforded a right to a jury trial in the juvenile proceeding. The court noted a split in the circuits in applying Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) to this situation, and chose to follow the Eighth Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Smalley, 294 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2002) instead of U. S. v. Tighe, 266 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2001).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/022392p.pdf
|
|
MIRANDA/WAIVER
|
|
Alvarado v. Hickman, 316 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. granted sub nom Yarborough v. Alvarado, No. 02-1684 (2003)—The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari review of this case, originally reported in the July In Re Express. The lower court held that a juvenile’s age is a factor which must be considered when a court assesses whether a suspect is “in custody” for the purpose of a Miranda analysis because “a juvenile is more susceptible to police coercion during a custodial interrogation than would be a similarly situated adult, [therefore] there is no reason why the same juvenile would not similarly be less capable of determining whether he was, in fact, in custody in the first place.” The Supreme Court will review that holding during the 2004 Term of the Court.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0056770p.pdf
|
|
SECURE PLACEMENT
|
|
In re Steven M. ___ Conn. ___ (Conn. S. Ct. 2003)— The Supreme Court considered the due process standards for the statutory hearing required before an adjudicated and committed juvenile offender who is alleged to be dangerous, can be transferred from a juvenile facility operated by the Department of Children and Families to a secure adult facility under the Department of Corrections. The Supreme Court reversed an Appellate Court decision and held: (1) while the juvenile’s best interest is relevant to such a hearing, it is not dispositive and the court must also consider the danger posed by the juvenile to himself or herself or others, and (2) although the juvenile may be entitled to a competency determination as part of this hearing, upon a finding that the juvenile is not competent, all that due process requires is that the trial court appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the juvenile’s best interests at the hearing.
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR264/264cr107.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
“Juvenile Justice In Missouri Serves As Model For Nation,” ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH— “Over the past decade - but especially in the past year - Missouri repeatedly has been singled out for having what many regard as the best juvenile rehabilitation system in the nation. The system is so good that many juvenile experts predict that Missouri might help inspire reform in other states. To that end, dozens of officials from Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia and Maryland, to name a few, have recently toured Missouri juvenile centers. They come to see a system that emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment and to marvel at the lack of razor wire at even the most high-security sites.”
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/St.+Louis+City+%2F+County/
762818B877A537D686256DB5006BA92A?OpenDocument&Headline=Juvenile+justice
+in+Missouri+serves+as+model+for+nation
|
|
“Kids Gone Wild,” BRIDGETON (NJ) NEWS—“[Cumberland County prosecutor Ron] Casella said he has no problem putting someone who is over 18 years old behind bars. ‘I'm not going to shed a tear,’ he said. When dealing with a kid, Casella said he tries to take a different approach. ‘It still is the goal to see what we can do to help these young people,’ he said. ‘You try to scare them a little bit and show them the right way. We try to find out if there is more we can do to help this person so they don't start on a path of crime.’”
http://www.nj.com/news/bridgeton/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1065270318237000.xml
|
|
“Truancy Officer Tackles Complex Job Of Keeping Kids In School,” OAKLAND (MICH.) PRESS —“Little did he know five years ago that he'd be asked to help an 11-year-old girl who had become pregnant with a relative's child. Then there was a case of a homeless, mentally unstable mother of five children who was trying to survive the winter in a rented truck the family called home. Though he was once a police officer with Atlas Township, in southeastern Genesee County, he's neither a criminal investigator nor a prosecutor now. Bill Conley is the truancy officer for Oakland Schools.” This article describes a truancy prevention effort in which the juvenile prosecutor plays an important role.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10238956&BRD=982&PAG=461&dept_id=467992&rfi=6
|
|
Judges Question New Underage Drinking Law, The Missoulian (Mt)—“The legality of a tough, new state law that holds parents accountable for youths arrested with alcohol is in question because of a barrage of concerns judges from around the state have raised with the attorney general's office. The controversial law, which was passed by the 2003 Legislature and went into effect Wednesday, calls for mandatory confiscation of offending youths' driver licenses, higher fines and parents to pay for and attend substance abuse education classes with their children. The parent-child classes would only be required if children fail to comply with their original sentence.”
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2003/10/02/news/mtregional/news07.txt
|
|
|
|
|
Juvenile Court Statistics Fact Sheets, OJJDP—The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention will soon release its report on “Juvenile Court Statistics 1999” which will provide the latest juvenile court statistics, and analyze trends in those statistics during the 1990s. In advance of that publication, OJJDP has released a series of six “Fact Sheets” on discrete subjects which will be included in the final report. Those fact sheets can be accessed from the National Criminal Justice Resource Center either by mail or via the Web site.
http://virlib.ncjrs.org/JuvenileJustice.asp
|
|
Aftercare Services, OJJDP—In the first of a new “Juvenile Justice Practices Series” of bulletins, this bulletin focuses on offender re-entry, a recent area of emphasis for OJJDP. The authors promise to “provide the field with updated research, promising practices, and tools for a variety of juvenile justice areas.” Specifically, the bulletin “examines aftercare services that provide youth with comprehensive health, mental health, education, family, and vocational services upon their release from the juvenile justice system.”
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/201800.pdf
|
|
|
WEB RESOURCES
|
|
Mentoring—The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention operates two Web sites devoted to the subject of mentoring offenders and potential offenders. The existing site for the JUMP—Juvenile Mentoring Program has resources on OJJDP-supported programs and funding opportunities. The new site has more general information, particularly resources and publications, on the subject of juvenile mentoring.
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jump/index.html
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/mentoring/index.html
|
|
Drugs & Crime Facts—“This site summarizes U.S. statistics about drug-related crimes, law enforcement, courts, and corrections from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and non-BJS sources. It updates the information published in Drugs and Crime Facts, 1994, and will be revised as new information becomes available. The data provide policymakers, criminal justice practitioners, researchers, and the general public with online access to understandable information on various drug law violations and drug-related law enforcement.”
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/contents.htm
|
|
|
|
 This information is offered for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. This project was supported by Award No. 2002-MU-MU-0003 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Department of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the National District Attorneys Association, or the American Prosecutors Research Institute. |
|
