|
|
A NEWSLETTER OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN JUVENILE LAW AND RESEARCH PROVIDED BY THE NATIONAL JUVENILE JUSTICE PROSECUTION CENTER
Volume I, Issue 4, October 2003
|
|
RECENT CASES
|
| JUVENILE DEATH PENALTY |
Simmons v. Roper, ___S.W.3d ___ (Mo. Sup. Ct. Aug. 28, 2003)The Missouri Supreme Court has anticipated that the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse itself and hold that the Eighth Amendment bars execution of murderers who were 16 or 17 years old when they committed their crime. In this case, involving a 1993 crime when the defendant was 17, the Missouri Court applied the holding of Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) that mentally retarded defendants are not eligible for the death penalty, to conclude that “the Supreme Court of the United States would hold that the execution of persons for crimes committed when they were under 18 years of age violates the ‘evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’” As a result, the Missouri Supreme Court modified defendant’s death penalty to life without parole.
http://www.osca.state.mo.us./Courts/PubOpinions.nsf/0f87ea4ac0ad4c01862
56405005d3b8e/6fd2c73c1574f70e86256d8d007213a8?OpenDocument
|
|
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
|
|
In re William V., ___Cal. App. 4th ___ (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2003)The “reasonable suspicion” standard applicable to searches by school officials under New Jersey v. T.L.O. is also applicable to police officers serving as “School Resource Officers.” In this case, the SRO had reasonable suspicion that the respondent may have been involved in gang activity, but not probable cause. The California Court of Appeals held that the SRO was acting in the capacity of a school official in searching the respondent, therefore his reasonable suspicion was sufficient. As a result, the knife discovered in the search was admissible in a prosecution for possessing a weapon on school grounds.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/a099390.pdf
|
|
JUVENILE COURT JURISDICTION
|
|
United States v. Ceja-Prado, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. 2003)In this unusual case the defendant told police at the time of his arrest that he was Alejandro Ceja-Prado, age 21. He pled guilty to drug conspiracy charges in that name, and during the plea colloquy and the later sentencing hearing, he affirmed the name and age he originally gave police. On appeal, however, the defendant contended that he is actually Javier Ceja-Prado, age 16, and that he had used his brother Alejandro’s identity papers to find work in the U.S. The appellate court stated that the case appeared to be one of first impression in the federal courts, but held that, under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, a “serious question” of subject matter jurisdiction existed. If defendant was, in fact, 16-year-old Javier and not 21-year-old Alejandro, the district court was without jurisdiction to proceed in a criminal prosecution absent the Federal procedures to certify a juvenile as an adult. Hence, the case was remanded for the lower court to resolve the factual question of just whoand how oldthis defendant is.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0130443p.pdf
|
|
MIRANDA/WAIVER/COMPETENCY
|
|
State v. Griffin, (AC 23271, Conn. App. Ct.)The Connecticut Supreme Court has granted certiorari to review this decision of the Connecticut Court of Appeals, originally reported in the August In Re Express. The Court of Appeals held that the so-called “Grisso Test” for a juvenile’s competency to waive Miranda did not meet the Daubert standard for admissibility of expert testimony because it “had not been generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.”
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP77/77ap348.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
Juvenile Judges Quietly Offer Steadying Hand, WASHINGTON POST, September 15, 2003Post columnist Marc Fisher profiles the Alexandria, Virginia juvenile court, and its long-term judges.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16535-2003Sep15.html
|
|
'Zero-Tolerance' Offenses Rise, MEMPHIS COMMERCIAL APPEALData recently released show a dramatic rise in “zero tolerance” offenses in Tennessee’s public schools over the last three reporting years. From the 1999-2000 school year to the 2001-2002 year, zero tolerance offenses rose 11% while overall enrollment was up only 1%. Drug offenses accounted for more than half the rise, which also included weapons offenses and assaults.
http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/local_news/article/0,1426,MCA_437_2228894,00.html
|
|
Philadelphia Students And Parents Get Supplies And A Warning, PHILADELPHIA ENQUIRER“ Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham offered the city's public school students a carrot yesterday. And then she and Philadelphia schools chief executive Paul G. Vallas showed off a great big stick.” Ms. Abraham announced a large donation of school supplies to needy students and the implementation of a tougher truancy policy.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/6703948.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
|
|
Juvenile Program Loses Funding For Doing 'Too Good', GILES COUNTY, TENN. CITIZEN PRESS“A low juvenile crime rate for Giles County has meant the loss of federal funding for a program that has been credited with keeping the county's delinquency rate below the statewide norm this year.”
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=2040&dept_id=232228&newsid=10173748&PAG=461&rfi=9
|
|
|
|
|
Maryland Youth Marijuana Use Up, Drinking Down, JTO ONLINEA recent survey of high school and middle school students in Maryland has indicated that while alcohol and tobacco use has declined (although still high at 44 percent reporting alcohol use), marijuana use by the high school students has actually risen over the past ten years.
http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/pdf_files/Final%202002%20MAS%20Report.pdf
|
|
New Study Links Cigarette Smoking and Marijuana Use in TeensA new study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University indicates a strong link between teenage cigarette smoking and marijuana use. According to the study, a teenager who is a current smoker is 14 times more likely to use marijuana than a teenager who has never smoked, and twice as likely as a teen who has tried cigarettes but is not a current smoker. Further, the study found that schools where smoking is not tolerated are twice as likely to be “drug free” as schools which tolerate cigarette smoking students.
http://www.casacolumbia.org/usr_doc/teen_cigarette_smoking_and-marijuana_use.pdf
|
|
“School Size, Violence, Achievement and Cost”A new study of public schools in New Jersey finds a direct correlation between school size and school violence. According to the study, schools with less than 500 students had significantly lower rates of violence and other crime than schools with 1500 or more students. The smaller schools also had higher achievement test scores.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislativepub/reports/buseff_report.pdf
|
|
|
WEB RESOURCES
|
|
State Statutes on Juvenile Interagency Information & Record SharingAt this Web site is collected the full-text statutes of all 50 states, in PDF format, pertaining to confidentiality and information sharing among agencies involved with juveniles. The information is useful in determining what information about their cases prosecutors can share, what information they can expect to receive from others, and whether certain FERPA exceptions are available in the prosecutor’s state.
http://dept.fvtc.edu/ojjdp/states.htm
|
|
Legal Information InstituteThis Web site maintained by the Cornell Law School contains an extensive library of federal and state legal resources, including judicial opinions, federal statutes and regulations, links to state court opinions and statutes, and commentaries and other legal materials. The site is an excellent starting point for free access to judicial opinions from around the country.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/
|
|
|
|
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. |
|