Found 208 matches.
-
10.25.21 CAPTA Legal Rep. Org. Sign-on Letter, final
Tags: Federal | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Advocacy
October 25, 2021– sign-on letter urging strong support of the proposal in S.1927 to guarantee legal counsel for children and parents involved in child welfare court proceedings.
-
updated Feb 21 NJJN Policy Platform_RaiseTheMinimumAge
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System
updated Feb 21 NJJN Policy Platform_Raise The MinimumAge, lower age policy platform
-
.png)
NJJN Toolkit: Lower Age of Juvenile Jurisdiction
Tags: Federal | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | NJJN Publications
NJJN's updated Lower Age of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction Toolkit, in which you will find resources to help you in your efforts to establish or raise your state’s minimum age for prosecuting children, including our 2020 policy platform, talking points, sample fact sheets from NJJN members, and links to additional resources.
-
Raise the Minimum Age for Trying Children in Juvenile Court
Tags: Federal | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | NJJN Publications
NJJN calls on the states to ensure that all our children have the protection of a reasonable minimum age of prosecution when in conflict with the law, a human right included in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The most common minimum age internationally is 14, which is consistent with scientific evidence on brain development and with the minimum age recommended by the CRC.
-
Sticker Shock 2020: The Cost of Youth Incarceration
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Reports | Research | Partner Publications
In 2014, when the Justice Policy Institute first analyzed the cost of secure youth confinement, 33 states and the District of Columbia reported an annual cost per youth that eclipsed $100,000. 1 In 2020, despite more than a half-decade of falling youth arrests and declining rates of youth incarceration since 2014, 40 states and Washington, D.C. report spending at least $100,000 annually per confined child, with some states spending more than $500,000 per youth per year The average state cost for the secure confinement of a young person is now $588 per day, or $214,620 per year, a 44 percent increase from 2014. These cost figures over a six-year period represent the growing economic impact of incarcerating youth. However, the long-term impact of these policies extends well beyond the fiscal cost. Extensive research reveals that secure youth incarceration increases the likelihood of recidivism and harms educational attainment, lifetime wages, and future health outcomes for youth. Additionally, carceral settings have proven to be a primary vector for the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Many jurisdictions have reduced the number of youth detained pre-trial to stem the spread of the virus, either by cutting down the number of youth admitted to detention, or by releasing some young people from confinement; but much more work remains to be done. For example, while admissions to youth detention fell by 50 percent between February and May 2020, rates of release also declined after a brief increase in March.2
-
NJPC Souls of Young Folk Report
Tags: New Jersey | Racial and Ethnic Disparities | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Reports | Member Publications
Every year, over 75,000 children and youth are tried as adults across the country.1 Between 32,000 and 60,000 of those youth are held in adult jails.2 The number of laws providing for the prosecution, incarceration, and sentencing of youth as adults grew substantially in the 1980s and 1990s, including in New Jersey. This brief explores the causes of racial disparities and disproportionality in New Jersey's waiver of black youth to the adult criminal justice system. To analyze potential causes, we reviewed data from the New Jersey Department of Corrections, the Office of the Attorney General, and the New Jersey State Police along with qualitative surveys from incarcerated youth and their families. In addition to data, we gathered historical research on the treatment of black adults and youth in New Jersey and the development of New Jersey's waiver laws over the past thirty-seven years. Our conclusion is that there are a constellation of factors including historical, structural, and implicit bias that contribute to the disproportionate waiver of black youth to the adult system. As a result, the New Jersey Parents' Caucus recommends ending the practice of waiver of youth to the adult system to address the historical, structural, and implicit bias embedded in the waiver process. We recognize that ending youth waiver is a long-term effort; therefore, to start addressing bias immediately, we recommend holding prosecutors accountable for the discretion they wield in transferring youth to the adult criminal justice system. Specifically, there is a need for more detailed data collection, transparency, and oversight to address the ongoing effects of historical, structural, and implicit bias negatively impacting black youth.
-
Principles of Effective Juvenile Justice Policy
Tags: Federal | Colorado | District of Columbia | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Advocacy | Reports | Member Publications | Partner Publications
The NCSL Juvenile Justice Principles Work Group project was developed under an NCSL partnership with The Pew Charitable Trusts public safety performance project. The work group project responds to the challenge lawmakers face of constructing juvenile justice systems that are both fiscally responsible and improve outcomes on many important fronts: protecting and enhancing public safety, holding youth accountable, helping youth develop the skills they need to succeed, preserving and strengthening families, and promoting fairness. The issues addressed in these Principles reflect the important role of state legislatures in enacting policies that avoid unnecessary involvement of youth in the justice system and support evidence-based interventions that reduce recidivism and protect public safety. While working group members and other lawmakers recognize that confinement may be necessary for youth who commit the most serious crimes and pose the greatest threat to public safety, a major interest of the group was sustaining and reinforcing the current trends of falling juvenile crime and out-of-home placement rates.
-
LGBTQI Youth in Juvenile Justice Settings: Closing the Gap between Recommended Practice and Reality
Tags: Federal | New York | Collateral Consequences | Crime Data and Statistics | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | LGBTQ Youth | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Physical Health | Positive Youth Development and Strengths-Based Programming | Prevention | School-to-Prison Pipeline | Evidence-Based Practices | Advocacy | Administrative/Regulatory Policies | Court Decisions and Related Documents | Legislation | Presentations | Reports | Research | Partner Publications | Fact Sheets and Briefs
This presentation from NJJN Forum 2018 was developed by Currey Cook, Youth in Out-of-Home Care Project Director at Lambda Legal, and provides information on how LGBTQ youth are disproportionately represented in the justice system and legal protections granted to members of the LGBTQ community.
-
National Sheriffs’ Association Resolution on Youth Tried as Adults
Tags: Federal | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Administrative/Regulatory Policies | Reports
This resolution states the National Sheriffs' Association's support for keeping youth under 18 out of the adult justice system. The group says that the youth justice system should have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving youth under the age of 18, unless there is evidence, reviewed by a judge, that refutes the presumption that a young person can be safely rehabilitated in the youth justice system.
-
Ready to Launch: A Campaign Starter Toolkit to Close Youth Prisons
Tags: Federal | Racial and Ethnic Disparities | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Advocacy | Member Publications | Partner Publications
This toolkit created by Youth First Initiative can guide you on how to create a strategic plan to run a campaign to promote different initiatives and movement to close youth prisons. Presented to you is step-by-step guidelines to start a campaign from start to finish. It starts with researching and gathering information. Then it’s time to get your voice heard, create workplan and strategic approach, reach out to those of power, develop concrete planes, organize plan, develop campaign, get resources and support you need, use power of public opinion and media, recruit necessary staff, plan and execute post-launch activities.
-
White Paper : Youth Justice in Maine : Imagine a New Future Summit
Tags: Maine | Community-Based Alternatives and Supervision | General System Reform | Institutional Conditions | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Positive Youth Development and Strengths-Based Programming | Reports
Maine's juvenile justice system should shift away from reliance on large facilities like Long Creek Youth Development Center in South Portland towards a continuum of care utilizing community-based in-home services and evidence-based out-of-home services for youth, according to a new white paper from the Justice Policy Program at the University of Southern Maine's Muskie School of Public Service and the Maine Center for Juvenile Policy and Law at the University of Maine School of Law.
-
NORCOR_DRO_Don't Look Around-A Window into Inhumane Conditions for Youth ...
Tags: Oregon | Deinstitutionalization | Detention | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Physical Health | Youth in the Adult System | Correctional Education | Reports | Research | Member Publications
The report shows the fact and statistics of youths being incarcerated in correctional facilities in Oregon. Due to the fact that a lot of facilities are not regulated, the safe and humane conditions for youth in such facilities have become a big concern. The lack of oversight and accountability has allowed Northern Oregon Regional Correctional Facility (NORCOR), for example, to neglect the basic mental health and social development needs of kids in custody. Disability Rights Oregon is calling for immediate implementation of the 2016 recommendation by the Oregon State Court Juvenile Justice Mental Health Task Force: that all child-serving systems commit to employing evidence-based, trauma-informed practices and that juvenile detention facilities be regulated and licensed.
-
Putting Justice in North Carolina’s Juvenile System
Tags: North Carolina | Family and Youth Involvement | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Restorative Justice | Reports | Research | Member Publications
This report by the Youth Justice Project Southern Coalition for Social Justice shows the number and statistics of youths entering the adult court system at an early age. It mentions the Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act, that, beginning in December 2019, will no longer automatically charge all 16- and 17-year-olds as adults in the criminal system. However, the report further explain the existence of problems in the juvenile justice system that should be improved to treat youths fairly without compromising public safety.
-
Letter to urge continued funding of federal innocence forensic science programs Nov 9, 2017
Tags: Federal | Crime Data and Statistics | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Risk Assessment and Screening | Evidence-Based Practices | Administrative/Regulatory Policies | Member Publications | Partner Publications
The letter to urge leaders of the Appropriations Committees to continue funding of federal innocence and forensic science programs at the Department of Justice and the National Institute of Standards and Technology at the Department of Commerce in the final FY 2018 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. Innocence Project.
-
BULLIES IN BLUE: THE ORIGINS AND CONSEQUENCES OF SCHOOL POLICING
Tags: Federal | Texas | Washington | Crime Data and Statistics | Racial and Ethnic Disparities | Family and Youth Involvement | Gangs | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | School-to-Prison Pipeline | Reports | Research
This report explains the unfavorable result of school policing, especially in low-income Black and Latino communities with the evidence from some states. Police is often seen using force or violence against youth, such as arresting and handcuffing students, even for minor crimes or misbehaviors. In addition, more presence of police in school including their presence in a classroom has increased fear among them. All these facts help support why schooling policing should be reconsidered.
-
FY18 LSC Support Letter FINAL
Tags: Federal | Family and Youth Involvement | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Fines and Fees | Advocacy | Administrative/Regulatory Policies | Legislation | Member Publications | Partner Publications
Letter to Appropriations Committee leaders in support of continued investment in the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). ABA Center on Children and the Law.
-
Raise the Age NY Fact Sheet
Tags: New York | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Member Publications | Fact Sheets and Briefs
Bill summary on “Raise the Age” legislation passed in New York on April 10, 2017. Listed are key components within the legislation.
-
MERCY Act Letter of Support 2 6 17
Tags: Federal | Detention | General System Reform | International and Human Rights | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Advocacy | Administrative/Regulatory Policies | Court Decisions and Related Documents | Legislation | Member Publications | Partner Publications
Letter of support for the MERCY Act. Sponsored by Sen. Cory Booker to protect young people from solitary confinement. Juvenile Law Center.
-
Charging Youth As Adults Is Ineffective, Bias-Fraught & Harmful
Tags: California | Brain and Adolescent Development | Collateral Consequences | Crime Data and Statistics | Detention | Racial and Ethnic Disparities | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Positive Youth Development and Strengths-Based Programming | Risk Assessment and Screening | Youth in the Adult System | Victims | Evidence-Based Practices | Legislation | Reports | Research
Prop. 57 passed this past November, one section took away from prosecutors the power to cause a young person to be tried as an adult out, and gave the power back to judges. The report includes disproportionality of race and geography in adult sentencing.
-
The governor has used his executive powers to help some New Yorkers who committed crimes in their youth
Tags: New York | Community-Based Alternatives and Supervision | Family and Youth Involvement | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Advocacy | Media | Reports
Efforts in Justice Reform: Gov. Andrew Cuomo has pardoned more than 100 New Yorkers who turned their lives around after criminal convictions at that young age.
-
A stolen cellphone, then an odyssey through Maryland's juvenile justice system
Tags: Maryland | Aftercare/Reentry | Brain and Adolescent Development | Collateral Consequences | Community-Based Alternatives and Supervision | Detention | Family and Youth Involvement | Institutional Conditions | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Prevention | Victims | Restorative Justice | Correctional Education | Media | Reports
A thirteen year old boy was with a group of boys who had stolen a cell phone. The counsellors and attorney argued that restorative action be administered as a best outcome. The Judge disagreed and ordered a 90 day term in a juvenile detention.
-
New Report- Defend Children: A Blueprint for Effective Juvenile Defender Services
Tags: National | Detention | Racial and Ethnic Disparities | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports | Web-Based Tools | Partner Publications
Details how children are arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated without attorneys at their side. Youth, and disproportionately youth of color, are swept into a system that criminalizes normal childhood behavior and deliberately withholds rights and protections that children not only deserve, but are constitutionally entitled to receive.
-
Debtors' Prison for Kids? The High Cost of Fines and Fees in the Juvenile Justice System, EXEC SUMMARY
Tags: Pennsylvania | National | Racial and Ethnic Disparities | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Fines and Fees | Administrative/Regulatory Policies | Reports | Partner Publications
A report on the impact of juvenile court costs on youth and their families. The report was featured in a New York Times article (http://nyti.ms/2d2GR0c) and includes a companion microsite featuring interactive maps (http://bit.ly/2deF6cP).
-
Debtors' Prison for Kids? The High Cost of Fines and Fees in the Juvenile Justice System, JLC
Tags: Pennsylvania | National | Racial and Ethnic Disparities | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Fines and Fees | Administrative/Regulatory Policies | Reports | Partner Publications
-
Defining Violence: reducing incarceration by rethinking America’s approach to violence, JPI
Tags: National | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Victims | Administrative/Regulatory Policies | Reports | Partner Publications
To impact mass incarceration, this piece from the Justice Policy Institute urges rethinking how the justice system responds to violent crimes, starting with how these crimes and behaviors are defined, and how that affects prison populations.
-
Checklist for Safeguarding the Confidentiality of Youth in the Justice System - JLC and NJJN
Tags: National | Collateral Consequences | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | NJJN Publications
A checklist on confidentiality and expungement policy, created by Riya Shah of the Juvenile Law Center and Melissa Goemann of the National Juvenile Justice Network.
-
Detained: Nebraska’s Problem with Juvenile Incarceration (Voices for NE Children)
Tags: Nebraska | Community-Based Alternatives and Supervision | Deinstitutionalization | Detention | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports | Member Publications
A fact sheet reviewing Nebraska's over-use of detention for youth, with recommendations to address the problem.
-
Justice System Imposed Financial Penalties Increase the Likelihood of Recidivism in a Sample of Adolescent Offenders
Tags: Pennsylvania | Racial and Ethnic Disparities | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Fines and Fees | Administrative/Regulatory Policies | Research
Study of the effect of financial costs incurred by youth int he justice system and the extent to which such costs relate to the likelihood of recidivism and eventual reintegration into society. Related to JLC Debtors' Prison report here: http://bit.ly/2deF6cP.
-
Trial Defense Guidelines: Representing a Child Client Facing a Possible Life Sentence
Tags: National | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Partner Publications
The objective of these guidelines is to set forth a national standard of practice to ensure zealous, constitutionally effective representation for all juveniles facing a possible life sentence (“juvenile life”) consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2469 (2012) that trial proceedings “take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing [children] to a lifetime in prison.”
-
YTFG Blueprint for Youth Justice Reform - 2016
Tags: National | Community-Based Alternatives and Supervision | Crossover and Dual Jurisdiction Youth | Deinstitutionalization | Racial and Ethnic Disparities | Family and Youth Involvement | General System Reform | Girls | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Partner Publications
The Youth Justice Work Group (YJWG) of the Youth Transition Funders Group (YTFG) envisions a youth justice system that fosters the healthy development and well-being of all children and youth by building upon their strengths, cultivating their relationships with caring adults, supporting their families and communities, and offering them age-appropriate opportunities for future success. We are committed to partnering with the broader community to promote restorative justice, safety, opportunity and positive outcomes for all young people. In order to achieve our vision, and in alignment with YTFG’s Youth Well-Being Framework, we recommend the following 10 Tenets for Youth Justice Reform.
-
Justice Redirected: The Impact of Reducing the Prosecution of Children as Adults in Colorado and the Continuing Need for Sentencing Reform
Tags: Colorado | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Reports | Research | Member Publications
In 2012, Colorado reformed the way children can be prosecuted as adults by changing the law that previously allowed prosecutors to press charges in adult court without judicial review. The changes to the law reduced the number of children who could be “direct fled,” — or charged — in adult court by the prosecutor, and put in place a system of oversight by allowing a judge to review the prosecutor’s decision to prosecute a juvenile in adult court.
-
Trends in Juvenile Justice State Legislation 2011-2015
Tags: National | Aftercare/Reentry | Community-Based Alternatives and Supervision | Crossover and Dual Jurisdiction Youth | Deinstitutionalization | Racial and Ethnic Disparities | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Reports
National Conference of State Legislatures tracks trends in state legislation of youth justice reform for 2011-2015. Specific trends have emerged to: Restore jurisdiction to the juvenile court, divert youth from the system, reform detention, shift resources from incarceration to community-based alternatives, provide strong public defense for youth, address racial and ethnic disparities in justice systems, respond more effectively to the mental health needs of young offenders, and improve re-entry and aftercare programs for youth.
-
Juvenile Defense Policy and Practice Career Guide
Tags: National | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Partner Publications
The National Juvenile Defender Center's 2015 guide to careers in juvenile defense.
-
DOJ Report: Investigation of the St. Louis Family Court in St. Louis, Missouri
Tags: Missouri | Racial and Ethnic Disparities | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports
Following a comprehensive investigation, the Justice Department today announced its findings regarding the St. Louis County Family Court. The Justice Department found that the family court fails to provide constitutionally required due process to children appearing for delinquency proceedings, and that the court's administration of juvenile justice discriminates against Black children.
-
North Carolina Juvenile Code Reform Legislation (HB 879) Becomes Effective December 1, 2015
Tags: North Carolina | Confidentiality | Deinstitutionalization | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Prevention | Legislation
Summary of North Carolina HB 879 (enacted as S.L. 2015-58); increases due process protections for juveniles, reduce further entry of juveniles in the delinquency system, and reduce juvenile confinement.
-
U.S. Department of Justice | Statement of Interest filed by the Department of Justice in N.P. v Georgia.
Tags: Georgia | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in a lawsuit against the state of Georgia over inadequate indigent defense. It is the first such filing in a state court to address right to counsel for children re: In re Gault.
-
California Protects Youth from Unreasonable Delays in Moving Out of Post-Dispositional Detention
Tags: California | Crossover and Dual Jurisdiction Youth | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Assembly Bill 2607 addresses the issue of youth who are currently held in secure detention for long periods of time following disposition while they await an appropriate placement. Many of these youth are foster youth who are detained in part because they do not have a home to which they can return. The legislation adds new criteria for determining whether the delay is unreasonable which include delays attributable to the probation officer’s failure to make reasonable efforts to identify an appropriate and available placement. If the court finds the delay to be unreasonable, it must order the probation officer to assess the availability of suitable temporary placements and can place the youth in a nonsecure placement or alternative to detention after consultation with all parties. Assembly Bill 2607 was authored by Assembly Member Nancy Skinner and was signed into law on September 26, 2014.
-
Open letter to Mayor of Ferguson: Amnesty would make amends
Tags: Missouri | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Media
Letter to Mayor of Ferguson, MO re: reforming municipal court systems and their ongoing cycle of prosecution, financial penalty, warrant, arrest and jail with specific reference to impact on youth of color.
-
Wyoming Bans Mandatory Life without Parole for Youth Under 18, Bear Cloud v. State, 294 P.3d 36 (2013)
Tags: Wyoming | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Life Without Parole and Parole Issues | Court Decisions and Related Documents | Legislation
Following Miller v. Alabama and a state Supreme Court case (Bear Cloud v. State, 294 P.3d 36 (2013)), Wyoming eliminated mandatory life without parole sentences for crimes committed by youth under age 18. Youth may still be sentenced to life without parole for certain crimes, but must become eligible for parole once they have served at least 25 years, or if their sentence is commuted to a term of years. H.B. 23/Act No. 18, signed into law February 14, 2013; effective July 1, 2013.
-
Op-ed: Reflections on Justice After Ferguson, MO: When Will Youth of Color Receive the Same Due Process as Officer Darren Wilson?
Tags: Missouri | National | Racial and Ethnic Disparities | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Media
Marsha Levick and Mae Quinn: If you had to choose between the protections afforded Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson and the treatment provided to most young black males in America, which would you demand for your child?
-
Youth Receive Settlement from Contractor in Luzerne County Scandal, H.T. et al. v. Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., et al., Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-0357, settlement order
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
A second set of youth and families involved in the “kids for cash” scandal in Luzerne County reached a partial settlement with the companies who ran the detention centers where the youth were sent. In 2011, former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella was convicted of receiving bribes from the companies in exchange for sending youth to their facilities. According to the settlement, the families will receive a total of $2.5 million. H.T. et al. v. Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., et al., Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-0357, settlement reached October 17, 2013; order entered July 7, 2014.
-
Colorado H.B. 1032
Tags: Colorado | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Colorado House Bill 1032 is designed to ensure access to counsel by establishing early appointment of counsel at detention hearings, better access to counsel before first appearances, safeguards on the waiver of counsel, and clarifies that a Guardian ad Litem is not a substitute for defense counsel. This bill is scheduled to be signed by the Governor on May 21, 2014 and becomes effective November 1, 2014.
-
Kids Without Counsel: Colorado's Failure to Safeguard Due Process for Children in Juvenile Delinquency Court
Tags: Colorado | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports | Member Publications | Partner Publications
A collaboration between the National Juvenile Defender Center and the Colorado Juvenile Defense Coalition, this report exposes the gaping holes in access to counsel for Colorado's youth.
-
Juvenile Defense Attorneys: A Critical Protection Against Injustice The Importance of Skilled Juvenile Defenders to Upholding the Due Process Rights of Youth
Tags: National | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports | Partner Publications
This white paper from the National Juvenile Defenders Center, a member of the Models for Change Resource Center Partnership, details the role of the juvenile defender in the youth justice system.
-
Vermont Engages in Cost-Benefit Analysis of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Practices, Criminal Consensus Cost-Benefit Working Group Final Report
Tags: Vermont | Fiscal Issues and Funding | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Evidence-Based Practices | Legislation | Reports
The Vermont legislature charged the Criminal Consensus Cost-Benefit Working Group with developing a criminal and juvenile justice cost-benefit model for the state. The goal of the model is to provide policymakers with information needed to weigh the costs and benefits of various programs and to evaluate those policies with the greatest net social benefit. Specifically, the model will be used to estimate costs related to arrest, prosecution, defense, adjudication, and corrections of adults and youth, as well as the cost of victimization. A report submitted by the working group in April 2014 recommends that the state “reinvigorate” its commitment to evidence-based programs, study staff costs further (as having the greatest potential to generate cost savings), and provide the results of their study to criminal and juvenile justice agencies in the state, along with technical assistance for those agencies to evaluate opportunity costs. S.B. 1/Act No. 0061, signed into law and effective June 3, 2013.
-
OJJDP Bulletin: Delays in Youth Justice
Tags: National | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Research
This bulletin from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention summarizes Jeffrey Butts' thorough research analyzing the causes of court processing delays in the juvenile justice system, and drawing on examples of successful models to reduce these delays.
-
Massachusetts Eliminates Sentences of Life without Parole for Youth, Commonwealth v. Marquise Brown, 466 Mass. 676 (2013)
Tags: Massachusetts | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Life Without Parole and Parole Issues | Court Decisions and Related Documents
Following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. Alabama, Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court outlawed all sentences of life without parole for crimes committed by youth under age 18. Diatchenko v. District Attorney for Suffolk District, 466 Mass. 655 (2013). The court cited concerns related to the disproportionality of the sentence when it is applied to youth, and the fact that it is impossible for a court to determine that a youth under age 18 is “irretrievably depraved.” Diatchenko also held that Miller must be applied retroactively, allowing over 60 people serving life without parole sentences for crimes committed when they were 18 to become eligible for parole after serving at least a 15-year sentence. A separate decision ruled that the Diatchenko decision also had to be applied to currently pending cases. Commonwealth v. Marquise Brown, 466 Mass. 676 (2013). Over 80 existing cases were directly impacted by the ruling.
-
North Carolina Appeals Court Prohibits Extending a Youth’s Probationary Period Retroactively, In the matter of A.F., 2013 N.C. App. LEXIS 1316
Tags: North Carolina | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
A North Carolina youth had been sentenced to probation and committed a new offense two months after his probation ended. The trial court retroactively extended the youth’s probationary period, and then committed the youth to a youth development center based on additional “delinquency points” assigned to the youth for the commission of an offense while on probation. The youth filed a motion to modify his sentence, based on the fact that he wasn’t actually still on probation when the new offense was committed. The Court of Appeals invalidated the trial court’s order denying the youth’s motion to modify his sentence, stating that while a trial court may modify a youth’s probationary period within a reasonable amount of time after its expiration, it may not determine on a retroactive basis that it had extended a youth’s probation, and then assign additional delinquency points for the commission of a new offense during the retroactively extended probationary period. In the matter of A.F., 2013 N.C. App. LEXIS 1316.
-
North Carolina Appeals Court Invalidates Commitment Extension Issued without Proper Notice, In Re J.L.H.
Tags: North Carolina | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
The NC Dept of Juvenile Justice extended a youth's commitment period without providing written notice. On appeal, the court held that oral notice does not conform to North Carolina law.
-
Youth Receive Settlement from Contractor in Luzerne County Scandal, H.T. et al. v. Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., et al., Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-0357, settlement
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
A second set of youth and families involved in the “kids for cash” scandal in Luzerne County reached a partial settlement with the companies who ran the detention centers where the youth were sent. In 2011, former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella was convicted of receiving bribes from the companies in exchange for sending youth to their facilities. According to the settlement, the families will receive a total of $2.5 million. H.T. et al. v. Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., et al., Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-0357, settlement reached October 17, 2013; order entered July 7, 2014.
-
Law Requires Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations of Youth Accused of Murder
Tags: California | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Citing the dangers and injustice of false confessions, California passed a law requiring the electronic recording of the entire custodial interrogation of a youth under age 18 who is suspected of committing a murder. The law includes various exceptions, including "exigent circumstances" and a reasonable belief on the part of law enforcement that electronic recording would disclose the identity of a confidential informant or jeopardize the safety of an officer, the youth being interrogated, or another individual. If an exception is invoked, the prosecution must show by clear and convincing evidence that the exception is justified. If the interrogation is not recorded, the court must provide the jury with specific instructions to view with caution the statements made by the youth during the interrogation. S.B. 569/Act No. 799, signed into law October 13, 2013
-
Statements Made by Youth During Custodial Interrogations Are Inadmissible in Court Unless Recorded, S.B. 1006
Tags: Illinois | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Illinois law now mandates that any oral, written, or sign language statements of a youth or adult made during a custodial interrogation in murder cases, certain sex offense cases, and cases involving offenses of bodily harm must be electronically recorded in order to be admissible as evidence against the person in a juvenile or criminal proceeding. S.B. 1006/Public Act No. 98-0547, signed into law August 26, 2013; effective January 1, 2014.
-
Iowa Supreme Court Eliminates Mandatory Life without Parole Sentences for Youth, State of Iowa v. Null, No. 11–1080 (2013)
Tags: Iowa | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Life Without Parole and Parole Issues | Court Decisions and Related Documents
Coming into compliance with the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama, the Iowa Supreme Court abolished mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole for youth. The court issued opinions in three separate cases, all citing the unique rehabilitative qualities of youth and stating that adolescence should be a mitigating factor in sentencing. Notably, in Iowa v. Null, the court invalidated a mandatory minimum sentence of 52.5 years, and in Iowa v. Pearson, the court rejected a 35-year sentence, finding that although neither were sentences of life without parole, the length of the sentences still “violate the core teachings of Miller.” In Iowa v. Ragland, the court held that the Miller decision must be applied retroactively to youth who have already been convicted, allowing hundreds of youth to seek resentencing. State of Iowa v. Null, No. 11–1080 (2013).
-
Iowa Supreme Court Eliminates Mandatory Life without Parole Sentences for Youth, State of Iowa v. Pearson, No. 11–1214 (2013)
Tags: Iowa | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Life Without Parole and Parole Issues | Court Decisions and Related Documents
Coming into compliance with the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama, the Iowa Supreme Court abolished mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole for youth. The court issued opinions in three separate cases, all citing the unique rehabilitative qualities of youth and stating that adolescence should be a mitigating factor in sentencing. Notably, in Iowa v. Null, the court invalidated a mandatory minimum sentence of 52.5 years, and in Iowa v. Pearson, the court rejected a 35-year sentence, finding that although neither were sentences of life without parole, the length of the sentences still “violate the core teachings of Miller.” In Iowa v. Ragland, the court held that the Miller decision must be applied retroactively to youth who have already been convicted, allowing hundreds of youth to seek resentencing. State of Iowa v. Pearson, No. 11–1214 (2013).
-
Iowa Supreme Court Eliminates Mandatory Life without Parole Sentences for Youth, State of Iowa v. Ragland, No. 12–1758 (2013)
Tags: Iowa | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Life Without Parole and Parole Issues | Court Decisions and Related Documents
Coming into compliance with the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama, the Iowa Supreme Court abolished mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole for youth. The court issued opinions in three separate cases, all citing the unique rehabilitative qualities of youth and stating that adolescence should be a mitigating factor in sentencing. Notably, in Iowa v. Null, the court invalidated a mandatory minimum sentence of 52.5 years, and in Iowa v. Pearson, the court rejected a 35-year sentence, finding that although neither were sentences of life without parole, the length of the sentences still “violate the core teachings of Miller.” In Iowa v. Ragland, the court held that the Miller decision must be applied retroactively to youth who have already been convicted, allowing hundreds of youth to seek resentencing. State of Iowa v. Ragland, No. 12–1758 (2013).
-
Michigan Establishes Indigent Defense Commission, H.B. 4529
Tags: Michigan | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Legislation
The Michigan Legislature created an independent and permanent Michigan Indigent Defense Commission to identify and encourage best practices for defending indigent individuals and to establish, enforce, and oversee statewide public defense standards. In establishing and overseeing the standards, the commission is to emphasize the importance of indigent defense for youth under age 17 who are tried and sentenced in adult criminal court (in Michigan, all youth 17 and older are automatically tried as adults). The legislation notes the importance of lowering caseloads, proper training, continuous representation by the same attorney throughout an individual’s case, and oversight of representation. The law does not apply to youth tried in juvenile court. H.B. 4529/Act No. 93, signed into law and effective July 1, 2013.
-
Ohio’s Budget Directs Funding to Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, H.B. 59
Tags: Ohio | Community-Based Alternatives and Supervision | Fiscal Issues and Funding | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Evidence-Based Practices | Legislation
Ohio’s FY 2014-15 budget bill contained provisions benefiting youth in the justice system. First, the law establishes that the Ohio Office of the Public Defender is to provide legal assistance to youth in Department of Youth Services (DYS) facilities. In addition, the budget provides that DYS can use up to 45 percent of the savings stemming from facility closures to expand evidence-based community programs, including those funded through the Targeted RECLAIM and Behavioral Health and Juvenile Justice initiatives. H.B. 59, signed into law and effective June 30, 2013.
-
When Three's A Crowd: How Families Can Contribute to their Child's Defense
Tags: National | Family and Youth Involvement | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | NJJN Publications
NJJN summarizes the role of the defense attorney when the client is a youth and provides tips and resources for parents on how best to support their child and contribute to their child's case.
-
Missouri Expands Program Allowing Certain Youth Convicted as Adults to Receive Juvenile Disposition, S.B. 36
Tags: Missouri | Crossover and Dual Jurisdiction Youth | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Legislation
Stemming from the tragic suicide of a 17-year-old boy who had been sentenced as an adult, was held in isolation in an adult prison, and was awaiting transfer to a notoriously abusive adult prison, the Missouri Legislature passed Jonathan’s Law, which expands the availability of Missouri’s dual jurisdiction program for youth convicted as adults. The dual jurisdiction program allows youth convicted as adults to have their adult criminal sentence suspended and to instead receive a juvenile disposition. The law requires judges to consider giving a juvenile disposition to youth who have been convicted as adults; if judges choose not to give a juvenile disposition—despite acceptance of the youth by the Division of Youth Services (DYS)—they must make findings on the record as to their reasons for imposing an adult sentence. All judges in Missouri must also now order a DYS evaluation for youth who are transferred to adult court to help give all youth an opportunity to qualify for the dual jurisdiction program. The law extends the age of eligibility for the dual jurisdiction program from 17 years to 17 years and six months, helping to ensure youth are not deprived of the option simply because of delays inherent to the court system. Additionally, the law removes the “once an adult, always an adult” for youth who were transferred to adult court, but not convicted. S.B. 36, signed into law June 12, 2013; effective August 28, 2013.
-
Oregon Continues to Limit Placement of Youth in Adult Facilities, H.B. 3183
Tags: Oregon | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Legislation
A new law in Oregon authorizes the county sheriff to send a youth sentenced to the custody of the Department of Corrections directly to a youth correctional facility if the youth was under 20 years of age at the time of sentencing and under 18 years of age at the time of the offense. The change allows youth to bypass adult intake. The law follows on the heels of H.B. 2707, passed in 2011, which established juvenile detention facilities as the default place of pre-trial confinement for youth who are facing adult criminal charges. H.B. 3183, signed into law and effective June 11, 2013.
-
Protocol for Competence in California Juvenile Justice Proceedings
Tags: California | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports | Research
This tool suggests approaches for developing juvenile competence proceedings in cases where competency may be an issue and there are no specific existing provisions.
-
Delaware Eliminates Juvenile Life Without Parole, S.B. 9/Act No. 37
Tags: Delaware | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Life Without Parole and Parole Issues | Youth in the Adult System | Court Decisions and Related Documents | Legislation
Delaware modified its juvenile sentencing laws in order to bring them into compliance with the Miller v. Alabama U.S. Supreme Court decision. The law eliminates the sentence of juvenile life without parole and replaces it with a sentence of 25 years to life for convictions of first degree murder. The law allows anyone sentenced to more than 20 years in adult prison as a juvenile to petition for sentence modification. Such reviews must take place no later than 30 years into a sentence for first degree murder convictions and after 20 years for all other cases. The bill applies retroactively, applying to anyone serving a life without parole sentence for an offense committed before he or she turned 18. S.B. 9/Act No. 37, signed into law and effective June 4, 2013.
-
Arizona Supreme Court Upholds Fifth Amendment Protections for Youth, State of Arizona v. Hon. Jane A. Butler and Tyler B., CV-12-0402-PR (Arizona 2013)
Tags: Arizona | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | School-to-Prison Pipeline | Court Decisions and Related Documents
The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the Fifth Amendment rights of a 16-year-old who was arrested, handcuffed, questioned, and had blood drawn at school after being held for two hours without access to his parents. The decision referenced the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (2011), and held that a youth’s age is relevant when assessing whether he or she voluntarily consented to a blood draw. The court noted that youth “possess less maturity” and stated that “courts should not blind themselves to this reality.” State of Arizona v. Hon. Jane A. Butler and Tyler B., CV-12-0402-PR (Arizona 2013).
-
Minnesota Supreme Court Grants Limited Expungement of Executive Branch Juvenile Records, In the Matter of the Welfare of J.J.P., No. A11-1146
Tags: Minnesota | Confidentiality | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
Responding to an appeal from an individual with a juvenile record that created barriers to his educational and career pursuits, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that courts can expunge some parts of juvenile delinquency records that are held by the executive-branch agencies (e.g., the Department of Human Services and Bureau of Criminal Apprehension). However, the court limited expungement to the court order that adjudicated the youth delinquent. The youth’s arrest records, stays of adjudication, and adjudication petitions held by the executive branch are not expungeable. The court also articulated a new standard in its ruling, stating that “the petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the benefit [of expungement] to the petitioner outweighs the detriment to the public and the burden on the court.” In the Matter of the Welfare of J.J.P., No. A11-1146, decided May 22, 2013.
-
Interim Committee Issues Recommendations on Juvenile Defense Reform, H.J.R. 1019
Tags: Colorado | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Recognizing the collateral consequences associated with a juvenile adjudication, the important role defense counsel plays in juvenile court, the specialized skills and training needed to adequately represent youth, and the barriers in accessing counsel, the Colorado General Assembly created a legislative committee to study legal defense in juvenile justice proceedings. The committee was charged with studying current laws, policies, and practices; the impacts on minority, immigrant, and special needs children; and methods for improvement. A report submitted in December 2013 recommended passage of a bill that would require youth to be represented by counsel at detention hearings and have appointed counsel at the first court appearance. This bill would also specify when the court may accept a waiver of the right to counsel. The committee also recommended a resolution requesting the Chief Judge of the Colorado Supreme Court to issue a directive to allow judges to remain in a juvenile rotation to gain expertise in the area, convene a task force with the Judicial Branch to formulate best practices, and establish a committee to improve the juvenile justice system. H.J.R. 1019, enacted May 20, 2013.
-
Maryland Limits Offenses Eligible for Out-of-Home Placement
Tags: Maryland | Community-Based Alternatives and Supervision | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Maryland passed legislation that prohibits out-of-home placement for youth adjudicated for certain minor offenses, including possession of marijuana, possession or purchase of a non-controlled substance, disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct, malicious destruction of property, or an offense involving inhalants, prostitution, theft, or trespassing. Judges may continue to order treatment for youth in the community or may place youth with another agency. The law provides exceptions for youth who have been previously adjudicated for three or more separate and independent offenses or upon a written finding from the court that out-of-home placement is deemed necessary for public safety or the child’s welfare. H.B. 916/Act No. 651, signed into law May 16, 2013; effective October 1, 2013.
-
Missouri: Justice Rationed, An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Juvenile Defense Representation in Delinquency Proceedings
Tags: Missouri | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Reports | Partner Publications
The National Juvenile Defender Center provides policy makers and juvenile defense leaders with the tools to identify system barriers to quality representation in delinquency proceedings, highlights best practices and provides recommendations for implementation strategies for improving Missouri's indigent defense delivery system.
-
Six Policy Priorities for Juvenile Defense: Why Juvenile Defense Doesn't End in the Courtroom
Tags: National | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | NJJN Publications
The National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC) recently released new standards for juvenile defense attorneys to improve the delivery of legal services to all indigent youth. NJJN's policy update highlights the areas where defenders and advocates can work toward systemic reform.
-
2013 Juvenile Justice Reform Legislation: House Bill 242, JustGeorgia Summary
Tags: Georgia | Family and Youth Involvement | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Youth in the Adult System | Court Decisions and Related Documents | Legislation | Member Publications
JustGeorgia provides a detailed summary of the changes to Georgia's juvenile code enacted through H.B. 242.
-
Nebraska Eliminates Mandatory Juvenile Life without Parole, L.B. 44
Tags: Nebraska | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Life Without Parole and Parole Issues | Court Decisions and Related Documents | Legislation
Coming into compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v. Alabama, Nebraska eliminated mandatory sentences of life without parole for offenses committed by youth under the age of eighteen. Under the new law, youth may still be sentenced to 40 years to life. At sentencing, courts must consider mitigating factors, including the youth’s age, family and community environment, intellectual capacity, mental health, and “ability to appreciate the risks and consequences” of his or her conduct. After becoming eligible for parole, if individuals are denied, they must be reconsidered each subsequent year. The Board of Parole must consider individuals’ participation in educational and rehabilitative programs, maturity level, intellectual capacity, and other mitigating factors. L.B. 44, signed into law May 8, 2013; effective September 6, 2013.
-
Mississippi Allows Expungement of Certain Felony Convictions, H.B. 1043
Tags: Mississippi | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Mississippi enacted legislation to allow individuals who were under the age of 18 at the time of conviction to petition the court for expungement of their records five years after the successful completion of all terms and conditions of their sentences. Certain offenses, such as rape, sexual battery, manslaughter, carjacking, burglary, cyber stalking, exploitation of children, armed robbery, or other felonies deemed a violent crime or distribution of a controlled substance, are ineligible for expungement. H.B. 1043/Act No. 557, signed into law April 25, 2013; effective July 1, 2013.
-
Youth in Adult Court Gain Deferred Sentencing Option, S.F. 288
Tags: Iowa | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Legislation
Iowa passed legislation allowing deferred sentences for youth in adult court. The court may suspend the sentence in whole or in part, including any mandatory minimum sentences, pending successful completion of probation. Youth who are charged with the most serious felonies are not eligible for deferred sentences. Such deferred sentences are an option for youth even in situations where they are not available for adults convicted of the same offenses. S.F. 288/Act No. 42, signed into law April 24, 2013; effective July 1, 2013.
-
South Carolina Prohibits Testimony from Lay Persons in Sex Offense Case, In matter of Thomas S., 402 S.C. 373, 741 S.E.2d 27 (2013)
Tags: Rhode Island | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
The South Carolina Supreme Court struck down the admission of testimony from two lay witnesses in a case involving a youth convicted of sex offenses. The lay witnesses had been allowed to testify as to whether the youth, upon release from the Department of Juvenile Justice, was dangerous and likely to reoffend, and should therefore be placed in a long-term secure facility for sexually violent predators. The court held that admission of such testimony from lay persons was prejudicial. In matter of Thomas S., 402 S.C. 373, 741 S.E.2d 27 (2013).
-
Idaho Youth Receive Broad Right to Counsel and Protections in Court Proceedings
Tags: Idaho | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Thanks to a new Idaho law adding new protections for youth in court, statements made by youth in diversion proceedings are now inadmissible as evidence of guilt in adjudication proceedings. The law also grants youth the same right to counsel as adults; youth now have the right to representation at all stages of a case, including revocation of probation, appeal, and other post-disposition matters or review proceedings. Any waiver of the right to counsel must be made in writing, on the record, and upon a finding of the court that takes into consideration age, maturity, the presence of a parent/guardian, the seriousness of the offense, collateral consequences, and whether there is a conflict between the interests of the youth and his or her parent or guardian. The law prohibits waiver of counsel in certain circumstances, including if a youth is under 14 years of age, is being adjudicated for a felony, at sentencing hearings where the state is recommending commitment, and at competency hearings. H.B. 149/Act No. 222, signed into law April 2, 2013; effective July 1, 2013.
-
Utah Amends Provisions for Judicial Transfer of Youth, H.B. 105
Tags: Utah | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Legislation
In an effort to limit the number of youth transferred to adult court, a new Utah law prohibits a judge from transferring a youth to adult court if there is clear and convincing evidence that such transfer would be contrary to the best interest of the youth and the public. The youth may present evidence and, in making his or her determination whether to transfer a youth, a judge must consider two new factors: the number and nature of the youth’s prior adjudications in juvenile court and whether public safety would be better served by keeping the youth in juvenile court or transferring the youth to adult court. H.B. 105/Act No. 186, signed into law March 27, 2013; effective May 14, 2013.
-
Department of Justice Reaches Consent Decree with Mississippi School District that Violated Constitutional Rights of Youth, John Barnhardt, et al. and United States of America v. Meridian Municipal Separate School District, et al.
Tags: Mississippi | Racial and Ethnic Disparities | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | School-to-Prison Pipeline | Court Decisions and Related Documents
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Meridian School District reached a consent decree regarding the district’s denial of substantive and procedural due process to youth through its over- and misuse of arrests and law enforcement intervention. According to the DOJ’s investigation, youth were arrested in school for minor infractions; police arrested youth in schools without investigating the offense at issue; judges rubber stamped cases, issuing detention orders without due process; youth did not receive adequate representation in court; and youth of color and students with disabilities were overwhelmingly affected by the constitutional violations. The consent decree requires the school district to establish safe and inclusive learning environments, provide supports and interventions before removing students from school, limit the removal of students from classrooms as a disciplinary measure, ensure that disciplinary consequences are fair and consistent, establish clear guidelines for law enforcement interventions, create a monitoring and accountability system using data, and train teachers and administrators with the tools to manage schools and classrooms safely and effectively. John Barnhardt, et al. and United States of America v. Meridian Municipal Separate School District, et al., Civil Action No. 4:65-cv-01300-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss. March 22, 2013).
-
Utah Abolishes Life without Parole for Most Offenses Committed by Youth Under 18, S.B. 228
Tags: Utah | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Life Without Parole and Parole Issues | Legislation
Utah eliminated the sentence of life without parole for most offenses committed by youth under age 18. The legislation was spurred by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, although Utah was not required to change its sentences because it did not have any laws mandating life without parole sentences for youth. Individuals sentenced to life without parole for offenses committed when they were under age 18 are now eligible for parole review after 25 years. S.B. 228/Act No. 81, signed into law March 22, 2013; effective May 14, 2013.
-
Utah Increases Oversight of Youth Courts, S.B. 119
Tags: Utah | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Utah modified provisions relating to Utah Youth Courts, adding a requirement that youth courts must be certified in order to accept referrals, and allowing records of youth court proceedings to be shared only with the referring agency, the victim and the juvenile court. The law is a result of efforts to standardize the practices and program requirements of youth courts across the state. S.B. 119/Act No. 27, signed into law March 21, 2013; effective May 14, 2013.
-
Virginia Allows Youth to Have their Cases Reviewed Based on New Scientific Evidence, H.B. 1308
Tags: Virginia | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Virginia now allows youth who have been adjudicated in the juvenile justice system to submit a motion for the evaluation of new or previously untested scientific evidence. Previously, only individuals in the adult system could file such a motion. The law also gives the Virginia Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals the power to review such petitions and issue writs of innocence for youth who are exonerated based on such evidence. H.B. 1308/Act No. 170, signed into law March 12, 2013; effective July 1, 2013.
-
Wyoming Requires Law Enforcement to Notify Parents When Issuing Citations to Youth, H.B. 175
Tags: Wyoming | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Status Offenses | Youth in the Adult System | Legislation
Wyoming state law now requires law enforcement to attempt to notify parents and guardians of youth who are issued citations for a violation of state or federal law or municipal ordinances. The law is an attempt to address the problem of many youth being issued citations and sent to adult court—the default court for most misdemeanors and violations in Wyoming—without their parents or guardians ever receiving notice. H.B. 175, signed into law March 7, 2013; effective July 1, 2013.
-
Wyoming Bans Mandatory Life without Parole for Youth Under 18, H.B. 23
Tags: Wyoming | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Life Without Parole and Parole Issues | Legislation
Following Miller v. Alabama and a state Supreme Court case (Bear Cloud v. State, 294 P.3d 36 (2013)), Wyoming eliminated mandatory life without parole sentences for crimes committed by youth under age 18. Youth may still be sentenced to life without parole for certain crimes, but must become eligible for parole once they have served at least 25 years, or if their sentence is commuted to a term of years. H.B. 23/Act No. 18, signed into law February 14, 2013; effective July 1, 2013.
-
Kansas Supreme Court Rebukes Prosecutor for Negative Comments about a Youth, State v. Urista, 296 Kan. 576, 293 P.3d 738 (2013)
Tags: Kansas | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
At a sentencing hearing after reaching a plea agreement with a youth, a prosecutor made several negative personal comments about the youth, stating that he was dangerous, had no remorse or compassion, and was a menace to the community. The parties had agreed to a sentence of 102 months, but the sentencing judge rejected the deal and sentenced the youth to 204 months in prison instead. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court held that the prosecutor violated the plea deal by making negative comments that did not pertain to the facts of the case and were outside the scope of a summary of the victims’ statements. The court found that such comments were unprovoked and unnecessary, undermining the prosecution’s own sentencing recommendation and implicitly conveying that the youth deserved a greater punishment. The court vacated the youth’s sentence and granted him a new sentencing hearing. State v. Urista, 296 Kan. 576, 293 P.3d 738 (2013).
-
National Juvenile Defense Standards from the National Juvenile Defender Center
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Partner Publications
The National Juvenile Defense Standards represent a comprehensive understanding of the role and duties of the juvenile defender in the 21st century juvenile court system, and seek to strengthen and guide the ethical and professional performance of the juvenile defense attorney. The standards present a national approach to systematically achieving zealous, competent and diligent defense practice in juvenile court and set out a framework for representation that is anchored in the law, science, and professional codes of responsibility.
-
Legislature Sets Juvenile Competency Standards for Michigan Courts, H.B. 4555
Tags: Michigan | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Legislation
Michigan passed two laws that set new competency standards for juvenile proceedings. The laws establish a presumption of incompetence for any child under age 10, and a process for attorneys to raise competency issues for youth 10 and older in juvenile court; require that examiners have experience and expertise in child and adolescent forensic evaluations; require use of the Juvenile Adjudicative Competency Interview (JACI) or similarly-approved evaluative instrument; require youth to be placed in the least restrictive environment while awaiting and undergoing evaluations; and create an avenue for competency restoration before prosecution proceeds, or, in some cases, provision of mental health services if competency cannot be restored. S.B. 246/Act No. 541 and H.B. 4555/Act No. 540, signed into law January 2, 2013; effective March 28, 2013.
-
Legislature Sets Juvenile Competency Standards for Michigan Courts, S.B. 246
Tags: Michigan | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Legislation
Michigan passed two laws that set new competency standards for juvenile proceedings. The laws establish a presumption of incompetence for any child under age 10, and a process for attorneys to raise competency issues for youth 10 and older in juvenile court; require that examiners have experience and expertise in child and adolescent forensic evaluations; require use of the Juvenile Adjudicative Competency Interview (JACI) or similarly-approved evaluative instrument; require youth to be placed in the least restrictive environment while awaiting and undergoing evaluations; and create an avenue for competency restoration before prosecution proceeds, or, in some cases, provision of mental health services if competency cannot be restored. S.B. 246/Act No. 541 and H.B. 4555/Act No. 540, signed into law January 2, 2013; effective March 28, 2013.
-
Legislative Research Commission Recommends Raising the Age for Youth Charged with Misdemeanors, Legislative Research Commission's Committee on Age of Juvenile Offenders
Tags: North Carolina | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation | Reports
The North Carolina Legislative Research Commission’s Committee on Age of Juvenile Offenders issued a report in December 2012 recommending that the state raise the age of juvenile court jurisdiction from 16 to 18 for youth who are charged with misdemeanors. The committee recommended passage of S.B. 434 from the 2011 session, which would raise the age for misdemeanors, but would keep in adult court 16- and 17-year olds previously convicted of felonies in adult court.
-
Defending Childhood: Report of the Attorney General's National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence
Tags: Federal | Brain and Adolescent Development | General System Reform | Girls | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | LGBTQ Youth | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Physical Health | Prevention | Risk Assessment and Screening | School-to-Prison Pipeline | Victims | Reports
The U.S. Attorney General's National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence report makes recommendations to prevent children from exposure to crime, abuse, and violence; and assist those who have been. Includes recommendations to improve the juvenile justice system.
-
Defending Childhood: [Executive Summary] Report of the Attorney General's National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence
Tags: Federal | Brain and Adolescent Development | Community-Based Alternatives and Supervision | General System Reform | Girls | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | LGBTQ Youth | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Prevention | Risk Assessment and Screening | School-to-Prison Pipeline | Victims | Reports
This document summarizes key recommendations from the Attorney General to prevent children from exposure to crime, abuse, and violence; and assist those who have been exposed. Includes recommendations to improve the juvenile justice system. [Executive Summary]
-
Mental Health Needs and Due Process Rights: Finding the Balance
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Risk Assessment and Screening | Reports
This brief focuses on the challenge of providing youth in the juvenile justice system necessary mental health screening and assessment in a way that does not violate their right against self-incrimination.
-
Competency to Stand Trial in Juvenile Court: Recommendations for Policymakers
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports | NJJN Publications
In this policy update, NJJN outlines the ways that adolescence complicates assessment of competency, and makes recommendations for policymakers to create flexible, but age-appropriate guidelines.
-
Seven Ways to Improve Juvenile Indigent Defense
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports | NJJN Publications
This NJJN policy update reviews key strategies for reforming juvenile indigent defense centered on training, practice standards, communications and collaboration, creating supportive tools and resources, and advocacy.
-
Pennsylvania Eliminates Mandatory Life-Without-Parole Sentences for Youth, S.B. 850
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Life Without Parole and Parole Issues | Legislation
Youth in Pennsylvania may no longer receive mandatory life-without-parole sentences for offenses committed when under age 18. The law—Pennsylvania’s move to come into compliance with Miller v. Alabama—provides alternative minimum sentences ranging from 20 years to life to 35 years to life, depending on the offense and the youth’s age. In determining whether to sentence a youth to life without parole, courts must consider age-related characteristics of the youth, including, age, maturity, mental capacity, and prior history. S.B. 850/Act No. 204, signed into law and effective October 25, 2012.
-
Washington Judicial Colloquies Project: a Guide for Improving Communication and Understanding in Court.
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports | Member Publications
This report provides guidance on how to consistently use developmentally-appropriate language in court that youth can understand.
-
Your Guide to the Juvenile Justice System in Illinois
Tags: Illinois | Family and Youth Involvement | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Partner Publications
A know your rights pamphlet about the juvenile justice system targeting youth. Put together by the Children and Family Justice Center of Bluhm Legal Clinic at Northwestern University's School of Law and the Mental Health and Juvenile Justice Action Network of the Models for Change Initiative of the MacArthur Foundation.
-
California Allows Resentencing for Certain Youth in Prison
Tags: California | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Life Without Parole and Parole Issues | Legislation
Legislature passed a law that allows individuals sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed as youth to petition for resentencing after they have served 15 years. At that time, judges have the discretion to change a sentence from life without parole to 25 years to life. The law requires judges to review eight factors related to the petitioner's criminal and developmental history and the petitioner must submit a statement addressing his or her remorse and work towards rehabilitation. If the sentence is not changed on the first attempt, individuals may reapply for resentencing after having served 20 and 24 years. The law is retroactive. S.B. 9/Act No. 828, signed into law September 30, 2012; effective January 1, 2014.
-
Families Unlocking Futures: Solutions to the Crisis in Juvenile Justice (Executive Summary)
Tags: Racial and Ethnic Disparities | Family and Youth Involvement | General System Reform | Institutional Conditions | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Partner Publications
Executive summary of report from Justice for Families and DataCenter, based on more than 1,000 surveys and 24 focus groups with families of youth who have been in the justice system. The report shows the many ways justice systems have failed youth, families and communities and proposes solutions for transforming youth justice to help our youth succeed and keep our communities safe.
-
Families Unlocking Futures: Solutions to the Crisis in Juvenile Justice (full)
Tags: Family and Youth Involvement | General System Reform | Institutional Conditions | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | School-to-Prison Pipeline | Youth in the Adult System | Partner Publications
Report from Justice for Families and DataCenter, based on more than 1,000 surveys and 24 focus groups with families of youth who have been in the justice system. The report shows the many ways justice systems have failed youth, families and communities and proposes solutions for transforming youth justice to help our youth succeed and keep our communities safe.
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Issues Rule Mandating Least Restrictive Disposition for Youth, Rules 512, 1240, 1242, and 1512
Tags: Pennsylvania | Community-Based Alternatives and Supervision | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
When out-of-home placement is deemed to be necessary for a youth, juvenile courts in Pennsylvania must now explain why they are placing the youth outside of the home and why the placement is the least restrictive type of placement that is consistent with the protection of the public and the rehabilitation needs of the child.
-
Appeals Court Rules that Transfer to Adult Facility without Due Process Violates Youth’s Rights, State of New Jersey in the Interest of J.J., A-2357-11T2
Tags: New Jersey | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Court Decisions and Related Documents
New Jersey law permits youth aged 16 or older to be transferred from a juvenile facility to an adult facility if the youth’s “continued presence in the juvenile facility threatens the public safety, the safety of [other confined youth], or the ability of the commission to operate the program in the manner intended.” The state maintained that such youth could be transferred without any due process, and transferred the youth in this case without any prior notice to him, his family, his attorney, or the juvenile judge. However, the appellate court disagreed and invalidated the transfer, holding that, given the adult prison’s focus on punishment and security, rather than rehabilitation, youth must be provided due process—including written notice of the transfer with the supporting factual basis, the opportunity to be heard and present opposition, some form of representation, and written findings of fact supporting the decision to proceed with the transfer. State of New Jersey in the Interest of J.J., A-2357-11T2, decided August 28, 2012.
-
South Carolina Allows for Reduction in Probation and Parole Terms for Youth, S.B. 300
Tags: South Carolina | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
New legislation in South Carolina allows the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to reduce probation or parole terms for youth. DJJ may reduce the terms up to ten days for each month that youth comply with the terms and conditions of their probation or parole. S.B. 300/Act No. 227, signed into law and effective June 18, 2012.
-
South Carolina Expands Authority for Community Evaluations of Youth, S.B. 300
Tags: South Carolina | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
A new South Carolina law relaxes the requirements for court-ordered residential evaluations. Prior to disposition, all youth in South Carolina who are adjudicated delinquent must be evaluated; evaluations can take place either in the community or the court may commit a youth to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for up to 45 days for evaluation in a secure facility. The new law allows evaluations in the community for youth who have been ordered by the court to have a residential evaluation unless the underlying order has found the youth to be a flight risk or a risk to public safety, or if the underlying charge is a felony. The new statute also makes it clear that a community evaluation is equivalent to a residential evaluation, even if they are not identical. S.B. 300/Act No. 227, signed into law and effective June 18, 2012.
-
Connecticut Removes Some Roadblocks to Keeping Youth in Juvenile Court, H.B. 6001/Act No. 12-1
Tags: Connecticut | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Legislation
Connecticut state law requires youth 14 and older charged with Class A or B felonies to be transferred to adult court, but a youth charged with a Class B felony may be sent back to juvenile court if both the prosecutor and defense counsel agree that the youth would be better served there. Prior to new legislation, the prosecutor had only 10 days to file a motion to transfer a youth back to juvenile court; the legislation eliminates the 10-day limit. For youth charged with other felonies, the law moves discretionary transfer hearings out of adult court and back to juvenile court. A court may only transfer such a case if “the best interests of the child and the public” will not be served by keeping the case in juvenile court. In making this finding, the court must consider the existence and seriousness of any prior offenses, any evidence of mental illness or intellectual disability, and the availability of appropriate services in juvenile court. H.B. 6001/Act No. 12-1, signed into law June 15, 2012; effective October 1, 2012.
-
Colorado Softens Sentencing Options for Certain Youth, H.B. 1310/Act No. 268
Tags: Colorado | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Legislation
A new Colorado law extends the time period for deferral of adjudication of a youth for a sex offense from one year to two years, with the option to extend it to five years with good cause shown. The extension allows more time for youth to complete sex offender treatment. Additionally, deferred adjudications are eligible for expungement, despite a general state prohibition on expungement of records of sex offenses. The law also establishes a new “aggravated juvenile offender” provision, which allows consecutive sentencing in juvenile court of youth adjudicated for first and second degree murder. The law provides an alternative to prosecuting such youth in adult criminal court—youth who are classified as aggravated juvenile offenders remain in juvenile facilities until the age of 21. At age 20 ½, a hearing is held at which a judge decides how the sentence should be managed and whether the youth should be released or transferred to an adult facility, program, or parole. H.B. 1310/Act No. 268, signed into law June 7, 2012; effective June 12, 2012.
-
Legislation Makes Filing of a Complaint a Last Resort
Tags: Louisiana | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Louisiana now requires any agency wishing to file a complaint in juvenile court to utilize “all appropriate and available” resources prior to filing the complaint. If the agency does file a complaint, it must provide documentation of all steps it has taken prior to the filing. If a school files a complaint, it must document meetings held with the youth, meetings with the youth’s caretaker, and referral of the youth to school behavior support personnel. S.B. 467/Act No.660, signed into law June 7, 2012; effective August 1, 2012.
-
Pennsylvania Bans Indiscriminate Shackling of Youth in Court, S.B. 817
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Shackling | Legislation
A new law in Pennsylvania requires that restraints be removed from youth prior to court proceedings. The law provides for exceptions if the court makes a determination—on the record and with the input of the youth—that restraints are necessary to prevent physical harm to the youth or another person; to prevent disruptive courtroom behavior, given evidence of prior potentially harmful behavior; or to prevent the youth from fleeing, provided there is evidence of risk of escape. S.B. 817/Act No. 56, signed into law May 29, 2012; effective July 28, 2012.
-
Delaware Takes Steps to Ensure Competency of Youth, H.B. 253/Act No. 241
Tags: Delaware | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Legislation
Delaware established procedures to ensure competency of youth to stand trial in family court. The law allows any party or the court itself to raise a concern as to whether a youth is competent to proceed at trial, and requires that the youth be examined by at least one mental disability expert if the court determines the youth’s competence to be an issue. The evaluator must submit a report to the court that addresses the youth’s ability to understand the nature of the proceedings, give evidence, and instruct counsel on his or her own behalf; notes any mental illnesses, disabilities, or chronological immaturities; and specifies any conditions that would prevent competency from improving with treatment. The law prohibits statements made by a youth during the competency evaluation from being later admitted as evidence at trial. If the court finds the youth not to be competent, it must provide services or treatment to restore competency. If the youth does not become competent to stand trial, the law outlines timelines for dismissal of the charges, depending on their severity. H.B. 253/Act No. 241, signed into law and effective May 21, 2012.
-
Legislature Requires Greater Accountability for Juvenile Court System, H.B. 1546
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Evidence-Based Practices | Legislation
The Pennsylvania General Assembly increased the responsibilities of the Juvenile Court Judge’s Commission to ensure accountability for effective and efficient administration of the juvenile court system. The commission must collect and analyze data to identify trends and to determine the effectiveness of programs and practices, make recommendations concerning evidence-based programs and practices to judges, and post related information on the commission’s public website. H.B. 1546/Act No. 42, signed into law May 17, 2012; effective July 16, 2012.
-
Vermont Revises Delinquency Proceedings to Expand Options for Youth, H.B. 751
Tags: Vermont | Community-Based Alternatives and Supervision | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Vermont revised its laws governing delinquency proceedings in order to create more consistency in proceedings and to expand options available through the family court to help reduce the number of older youth who are processed in adult court. The legislation extends the maximum age that a youth can remain under juvenile probation to 18-and-a-half. Additionally, the law mandates that all youth referred to the delinquency docket have the opportunity to participate in a standard screening/assessment. The identified risk level must then be provided to the prosecutor, who may use it to help decide whether to send the youth to court or to a diversion program. Lastly, the law allows the court to refer youth who plead guilty to delinquency offenses directly to a community-based alternative—bypassing several hearings and probation—where victim restoration and the youth’s skills and needs are addressed. H.B. 751/Act No. 159, signed into law May 17, 2012; effective July 1, 2012.
-
Police Must Notify Parents or Guardians When Youth are Arrested
Tags: Maryland | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Maryland law now requires a law enforcement officer who charges a youth with a criminal offense to make a reasonable attempt to notify the child’s parent or guardian. Similarly, a law enforcement officer or the officer’s designee who takes a youth into custody is required to make a reasonable attempt to notify the youth’s parent or guardian of the arrest within 48 hours of the arrest. H.B. 1138/Act No. 417, signed into law May 2, 2012; effective October 1, 2012.
-
Vermont Allows Prostitution Convictions Resulting from Human Trafficking to Be Expunged, S.B. 122
Tags: Utah | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Victims | Legislation
Vermont now allows a person to file a motion to vacate a prostitution conviction if the conviction was the result of the person having been a victim of human trafficking. If the motion is granted, the person’s record for the offense must be expunged. S.B. 122/Act No. 2012-94, signed into law and effective May 1, 2012.
-
U.S. Department of Justice Investigation Leads to Consent Decree Addressing Disparate Treatment of African-American Youth
Tags: Tennessee | Detention | Racial and Ethnic Disparities | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
A comprehensive, multi-year investigation of the Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County and the Shelby County Juvenile Detention Center by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) revealed racial discrimination, widespread violations of youth’s due process rights, and excessively harsh treatment of detained youth. Specifically, the investigation found disparate treatment of African-American youth at almost every phase of the juvenile justice system, failure to provide adequate due process protections to youth before transferring them to adult court, failure to provide timely and adequate notice of delinquency charges, and unnecessary and excessive use of restraints, among other violations. Shelby County and DOJ entered into a consent decree in December of 2012, which includes specific remedial measures in the areas of due process, disparate treatment, protection from harm for detained youth, and community outreach.
-
Colorado Limits Direct Filing of Juvenile Cases in Adult Court, H.B. 1271/Act No. 128
Tags: Colorado | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Legislation
Colorado amended its current law to limit the direct filing of juvenile cases in adult court. Prior law gave unilateral discretion to prosecutors to select certain youth for prosecution in adult criminal court, with no right to judicial review at any stage of the case. The new law raises the minimum age for direct file from fourteen to sixteen and limits the offenses eligible for direct file to only the most serious crimes (Class 1 and 2 felonies, sexual assault, and violent crimes) and repeat offenses. The new law also provides all youth whose cases are direct filed with the right to request a reverse transfer back to juvenile court. Lastly, the legislation reforms sentencing provisions to eliminate mandatory minimums for mid-level crimes of violence and require all youth convicted of misdemeanors to receive a juvenile disposition. H.B. 1271/Act No. 128, signed into law and effective April 20, 2012.
-
Nebraska Raises the Minimum Age for Youth to Be Sent to Secure Juvenile Facilities, L.B. 972
Tags: Nebraska | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
The Nebraska Legislature raised the minimum age for commitment to youth rehabilitation and treatment centers (YRTCs) from 12 to 14, with exceptions for youth who commit murder or manslaughter, commit other offenses that lead the court to deem commitment is necessary, or violate probation. The law also mandates employee training to improve YRTC safety. Notably, the legislature rejected a bill that would have moved YRTCs under the control of the Department of Correctional Services, where youth would be unable to access the rehabilitative services provided by the Office of Juvenile Services. L.B. 972, signed into law April 10, 2012; effective July 19, 2012.
-
Pennsylvania Guarantees Right to Counsel for Youth, S.B. 815
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Spurred by the 2007 “kids-for-cash” scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania now requires all youth to be represented by counsel in delinquency cases. All children are presumed indigent, and the court must appoint counsel for youth who are not represented. Youth over age 14 may waive their right to counsel only at certain hearings and only following a judicial colloquy that determines the waiver is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. However, youth must be represented by counsel at detention hearings; transfer hearings; adjudicatory hearings; evidentiary hearings related to the need for treatment, supervision, rehabilitation; disposition hearings; and hearings to modify or revoke probation or an existing disposition. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court also amended the Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure, requiring legal representation for youth in juvenile court proceedings. Most notably, the rule permits waiver of legal representation by children who are at least 14 years of age only in specific situations and even then, the waiver must meet the court’s scrutiny. S.B. 815/Act No. 23, signed into law April 9, 2012; effective June 8, 2012 and Rule 152, amended January 11, 2012; effective March 1, 2012.
-
Ohio Supreme Court Declares Automatic Sex Offender Registration and Notification Unconstitutional, In re C.P., Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1446
Tags: Ohio | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Sex Offender Registries | Court Decisions and Related Documents
On April 3, 2012, the Ohio Supreme Court found the state’s statute requiring automatic lifetime sex offender registration and notification for youth unconstitutional and counter to the rehabilitative goal of the juvenile justice system. In a 5-2 ruling, the court found the statute’s automatic lifelong registration and the public notification requirements for youth adjudicated in juvenile court to be a violation of the 8th Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
-
Pennsylvania Courts Must Justify Disposition Determinations, Including Reasons for Out-of-Home Placement of Youth, S.B. 818
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Prior to entering a disposition for a youth, Pennsylvania judges must now state the disposition and the reason for the disposition on the record in open court. Judges must explain the goals, terms, and conditions of the disposition, and, if a youth is sentenced to out-of-home placement, the judge must explain the specifics regarding the facility to which the youth is committed; what findings provide the basis for the commitment; and why such a placement was determined to be the “least restrictive placement that is consistent with the protection of the public and best suited to the child’s treatment, supervision, rehabilitation and welfare.” S.B. 818/Act No. 22, signed into law and effective April 3, 2012.
-
Developing Statutes for Competence to Stand Trial in Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings: A Guide for Lawmakers
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Reports
A guide to determining whether a youth is competent to stand trial; this guide could be useful to legislators, judges, attorneys and mental health professionals in their understanding of competence, as it applies to teens.
-
Victims of Human Trafficking Provided Affirmative Defense to Prostitution Charges, S.B. 6255
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
An affirmative defense to the charge of prostitution is now available to youth who have been victims of human trafficking. Individuals who were victims of human trafficking and were convicted of prostitution may apply to have their convictions vacated and records sealed, based on a presumption that anyone engaged in the sex trade is the subject of trafficking. S.B. 6255/Act No. 142, signed into law March 29, 2012; effective June 7, 2012.
-
Youth Who Complete Deferred Dispositions Are Eligible for Record Sealing, S.B. 6240
Tags: Washington | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Washington State youth whose convictions are vacated after fulfilment of the requirements of a deferred disposition order are now eligible to have their records sealed. Once these youth reach age 18 and have paid required restitution, their files are automatically sealed at an administrative hearing. S.B. 6240/Act No. 177, signed into law March 29, 2012; June 7, 2012.
-
Utah Establishes Standards and Procedures for Juvenile Competency Proceedings, H.B. 393
Tags: Utah | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Legislation
Utah enacted new standards and procedures for juvenile competency proceedings. A motion for an inquiry into a youth’s competency may be filed by the youth, the prosecutor, a guardian ad litem, or any person having custody of the youth, or the court may raise the issue at any time. The court may order an evaluation of a youth, to be followed by a competency hearing. Any statement made by the youth during the evaluation may not be used as evidence of guilt for the underlying charge. If it is determined that the youth is incompetent, but that competency may be attained, the youth must be held in the least restrictive setting during the implementation of an “attainment plan.” If the youth does not attain competency within one year of a finding of incompetency, the case must be dismissed without prejudice. H.B. 393 Substitute/Act No. 316, signed into law March 22, 2012; effective May 8, 2012.
-
Colorado Requires Youth Charged as Adults to Be Held in Juvenile Facilities Prior to Trial, H.B. 1139/Act No. 18
Tags: Colorado | Detention | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Legislation
Colorado amended its statute concerning pretrial detention of youth prosecuted as adults. Existing law provided youth with the right to a hearing to determine whether the youth’s immediate welfare or the protection of the community required that the youth be detained. Now, if the court determines after such a hearing that a youth must be detained, Colorado law requires that all youth charged as adults to be held in juvenile detention facilities rather than adult jails or pretrial facilities. Youth may only be transferred to adult jail upon petition by the juvenile facility and a court hearing. H.B. 1139/Act No. 18, signed into law and effective on March 15, 2012.
-
Pennsylvania Court Rules Allow Admissions Only after Thorough Colloquies, Rule 407
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court modified its rules regarding admissions made by youth in delinquency cases. The court adopted a mandated admissions colloquy. Attorneys must now review the standard colloquy form with their youth clients prior to entering the courtroom. If the attorney believes that his or her client does not understand the form, the attorney may not allow the youth to make an admission. The court must then conduct an independent inquiry to determine whether the admission was made in accordance with the rules. Rule 407, amended January 18, 2012; effective April 1, 2012.
-
Pennsylvania Guarantees Right to Counsel for Youth, Rule 152
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Spurred by the 2007 “kids-for-cash” scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania now requires all youth to be represented by counsel in delinquency cases. All children are presumed indigent, and the court must appoint counsel for youth who are not represented. Youth over age 14 may waive their right to counsel only at certain hearings and only following a judicial colloquy that determines the waiver is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. However, youth must be represented by counsel at detention hearings; transfer hearings; adjudicatory hearings; evidentiary hearings related to the need for treatment, supervision, rehabilitation; disposition hearings; and hearings to modify or revoke probation or an existing disposition. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court also amended the Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure, requiring legal representation for youth in juvenile court proceedings. Most notably, the rule permits waiver of legal representation by children who are at least 14 years of age only in specific situations and even then, the waiver must meet the court’s scrutiny. S.B. 815/Act No. 23, signed into law April 9, 2012; effective June 8, 2012 and Rule 152, amended January 11, 2012; effective March 1, 2012.
-
Innovation Brief: Raising the Standards of Juvenile Indigent Defense
-
Louisiana Public Defender Board Performance Standards for Legal Representation in Delinquency Proceedings, December 2011
Tags: Louisiana | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Administrative/Regulatory Policies
The Louisiana Public Defender Board issued the state’s first trial court performance standards for juvenile delinquency proceedings. The standards are intended to alert defense counsel to courses of action that may be necessary, advisable, or appropriate, and thereby assist attorneys in deciding upon the particular actions that must be taken in each case to ensure that the client receives the best representation possible.
-
Texas Criminal Justice Coalition: Sealing Your Child's Juvenile Records
Tags: Texas | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Member Publications
Provides detailed information on what is in your child's juvenile records as well as how to seal those records.
-
Texas Criminal Justice Coalition: The Juvenile Court Process
Tags: Texas | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Member Publications
Explains the step-by-step process of the juvenile court system, including the purpose of each judicial hearing.
-
Texas Criminal Justice Coalition: What Can I Expect When My Child is Locked Up
Tags: Texas | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Member Publications
Provides information for parents of children who have just entered the juvenile justice system, including what to expect and how it will effect schooling.
-
Texas Criminal Justice Coalition: When Can I Visit My Child
Tags: Texas | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Member Publications
Explains the type of facilities in which children are detained as well as when parents can visit their children.
-
National Juvenile Defender Center: Juvenile Defender Guide (2011)
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports
Each year, the National Juvenile Defender Center with important information relevant to juvenile defense. Among other topics, the 2011 guide includes updates in the areas of Child and Adolescent Development, Evidence and Fact-finding and Juvenile Indigent Defense.
-
Michigan Launches Indigent Defense Advisory Commission, Executive Order 2011-12
Tags: Michigan | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Administrative/Regulatory Policies
Michigan's governor issued an executive order to establish the Michigan Indigent Defense Advisory Commission. The commission is charged with investigating how to improve legal representation for defendants who cannot afford an attorney, as well as developing recommendations on how to ensure public defense is consistent across the state.
-
System Overload: The Costs of Under-Resourcing Public Defense, Justice Policy Institute
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports
System Overload: The Costs of Under-Resourcing Public Defense documents the excessive caseloads public defenders carry in most jurisdictions across the country. Because public defense is not adequately funded, the report argues, defense lawyers do not have enough time to conduct thorough investigations, or meet with and provide quality representation for their clients. This results in adverse outcomes for their clients and contributes to disproportionate representation of people of color and low-income individuals behind bars.
-
Ohio Reforms Sentencing for Juveniles, Ohio, H.B. 86
Tags: Ohio | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Legislation
A bill that: * explicitly supports research-informed, outcome-based programs and services; * allows judges to consider early release opportunities throughout a youth's commitment, including juveniles serving mandatory sentences; * revises mandatory sentencing guidelines for youth to allow for judicial discretion in instances where the youth was not the main actor; * adopts uniform competency standards for all delinquency proceedings; * establishes a reverse waiver provision that makes is possible for young people automatically transferred to adult court to return to juvenile court; and * creates a temporary interagency task force to make recommendations to the legislature for addressing the needs of delinquent youth with significant mental health issues.
-
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 09-11121
Tags: Federal | North Carolina | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
Ruling that investigating officers must take the age of suspects into account when deciding whether it is necessary to read them Miranda warnings.
-
Tennessee Clarifies Placement Procedures, H.B. 713
Tags: Tennessee | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Tennessee law clarifies several issues related to the placement of youth in the custody of the Department of Children’s Services (DCS). First, the law clarifies the juvenile court’s authority regarding placement of a youth pending potential transfer to adult court; the placement must be consistent with the best interest of the youth. The law additionally clarifies the procedure for placing a youth at home through a trial home pass and addresses procedural issues related to early release of a youth with a determinate sentence, discharge of a youth on probation or a home placement, and a youth’s violation of the terms of his or her placement. This increased clarity is intended to help improve the efficiency of court procedures, thereby helping to move youth through the system more quickly, avoid unnecessary delays, and ensure due process.
-
U.S. Supreme Court Strengthens Protections for Youth Interrogated by Police, J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (2011)
Tags: Federal | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
The United States Supreme Court ruled that investigating officers must take the age of suspects into account when deciding whether it is necessary to read them Miranda warnings. The opinion stated that “a child’s age is far ‘more than a chronological fact’” and that “it is beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave. Seeing no reason for police officers or courts to blind themselves to that commonsense reality, we hold that a child’s age properly informs the Miranda custody analysis.”
-
Maine Provides for Evaluation of Juvenile Competency, H.P. 1039
Tags: Maine | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Legislation
Recognizing the urgent need for a means to assess juvenile competency, a new Maine law provides for an evaluation of competency in juvenile cases and allows for suspension of proceedings in order to conduct a competency evaluation. The law requires the State Forensic Examiner to address the youth's capacity and ability to understand the allegations and proceedings and to effectively engage with counsel.
-
Oklahoma Creates Juvenile Justice Reform Committee, H.J.R. 1065
Tags: Oklahoma | Confidentiality | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Prevention | Legislation
The Oklahoma Legislature created the Oklahoma Juvenile Justice Reform Committee in order to thoroughly and systematically study the efficiency and effectiveness of the state’s juvenile justice system and provide recommendations for revision to the Oklahoma Juvenile Code. Topics covered by the committee include prevention, confidentiality, “youthful offender” certification/reverse certification, and due process.
-
Oklahoma Creates Juvenile Justice Reform Committee, S.B. 674
Tags: Oklahoma | Confidentiality | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Prevention | Legislation
The Oklahoma Legislature created the Oklahoma Juvenile Justice Reform Committee in order to thoroughly and systematically study the efficiency and effectiveness of the state’s juvenile justice system and provide recommendations for revision to the Oklahoma Juvenile Code. Topics covered by the committee include prevention, confidentiality, “youthful offender” certification/reverse certification, and due process.
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Explanatory Report Regarding Rule 151, All Juveniles Indigent for Purposes of Appointment of Counsel
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted a juvenile court procedural rule that declares all juveniles to be presumed indigent, thereby giving all youth the right to an attorney appointed by the court. The court rule forbids the consideration of a parent or guardian’s income, stating that “there is an inherent risk that the legal protections afforded juveniles could be eroded by making legal representation dependent upon the limited financial resources of their guardians, particularly where guardians have an income just above the poverty guidelines.”
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Order Amending Rule 151, All Juveniles Indigent for Purposes of Appointment of Counsel, May 16, 2011
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted a juvenile court procedural rule that declares all juveniles to be presumed indigent, thereby giving all youth the right to an attorney appointed by the court. The court rule forbids the consideration of a parent or guardian’s income, stating that “there is an inherent risk that the legal protections afforded juveniles could be eroded by making legal representation dependent upon the limited financial resources of their guardians, particularly where guardians have an income just above the poverty guidelines.”
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rule Declaring All Juveniles Indigent for Purposes of Appointment of Counsel, Rule 151, May 16, 2011
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted a juvenile court procedural rule that declares all juveniles to be presumed indigent, thereby giving all youth the right to an attorney appointed by the court. The court rule forbids the consideration of a parent or guardian’s income, stating that “there is an inherent risk that the legal protections afforded juveniles could be eroded by making legal representation dependent upon the limited financial resources of their guardians, particularly where guardians have an income just above the poverty guidelines.”
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Order Mandating Least Restrictive Disposition for Youth, Rules 512, 1240, 1242, and 1512
Tags: Pennsylvania | Community-Based Alternatives and Supervision | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
When out-of-home placement is deemed to be necessary for a youth, juvenile courts in Pennsylvania must now explain why they are placing the youth outside of the home and why the placement is the least restrictive type of placement that is consistent with the protection of the public and the rehabilitation needs of the child.
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mandating Least Restrictive Disposition for Youth, Rules 512, 1240, 1242, and 1512, Explanatory Report
Tags: Pennsylvania | Community-Based Alternatives and Supervision | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
When out-of-home placement is deemed to be necessary for a youth, juvenile courts in Pennsylvania must now explain why they are placing the youth outside of the home and why the placement is the least restrictive type of placement that is consistent with the protection of the public and the rehabilitation needs of the child.
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Explanatory Report Regarding Rule 139, Limiting Shackling of Youth in Court
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Shackling | Court Decisions and Related Documents
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule prohibits using restraints on youth in court with limited exceptions. Restraints may only be used if the court determines on the record—after giving the youth an opportunity to be heard—that restraints are necessary to prevent: 1) physical harm to the youth or another person; 2) disruptive courtroom behavior, which must be backed by evidence of dangerous behavior in the past; or 3) the youth’s escape, evidenced by an escape history or other relevant factors. The rule “highly discourages” the use of any restraints, and states that the routine use of restraints on youth is contrary to the philosophy of balanced and restorative justice and undermines the goal of rehabilitation.
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Order Amending Rule 139, Limiting Shackling of Youth in Court, April 26, 2011
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Shackling | Court Decisions and Related Documents
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule prohibits using restraints on youth in court with limited exceptions. Restraints may only be used if the court determines on the record—after giving the youth an opportunity to be heard—that restraints are necessary to prevent: 1) physical harm to the youth or another person; 2) disruptive courtroom behavior, which must be backed by evidence of dangerous behavior in the past; or 3) the youth’s escape, evidenced by an escape history or other relevant factors. The rule “highly discourages” the use of any restraints, and states that the routine use of restraints on youth is contrary to the philosophy of balanced and restorative justice and undermines the goal of rehabilitation.
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rule Limiting Shackling of Youth in Court, Rule 139, April 26, 2011
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Shackling | Court Decisions and Related Documents
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule prohibits using restraints on youth in court with limited exceptions. Restraints may only be used if the court determines on the record—after giving the youth an opportunity to be heard—that restraints are necessary to prevent: 1) physical harm to the youth or another person; 2) disruptive courtroom behavior, which must be backed by evidence of dangerous behavior in the past; or 3) the youth’s escape, evidenced by an escape history or other relevant factors. The rule “highly discourages” the use of any restraints, and states that the routine use of restraints on youth is contrary to the philosophy of balanced and restorative justice and undermines the goal of rehabilitation.
-
Idaho Establishes Standards for Juvenile Competency Evaluations, H.B. 140
Tags: Idaho | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Legislation
Prior to new legislation in Idaho, youth who were believed to be incompetent to stand trial were evaluated and treated based on the state’s adult competency statute. New legislation acknowledges the inappropriateness of applying the adult standard to youth, noting unique issues related to youth’s developmental, mental, and emotional maturity. Under the legislation, if the juvenile court determines that there is good cause to believe that a youth is incompetent to proceed, it must stay all proceedings and appoint a psychiatrist or psychologist to evaluate the youth’s mental condition and report to the court.
-
Idaho Standards for Juvenile Competency Evaluations, Statement of Purpose and Fiscal Note, H.B. 140
Tags: Idaho | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Legislation
Prior to new legislation in Idaho, youth who were believed to be incompetent to stand trial were evaluated and treated based on the state’s adult competency statute. New legislation acknowledges the inappropriateness of applying the adult standard to youth, noting unique issues related to youth’s developmental, mental, and emotional maturity. Under the legislation, if the juvenile court determines that there is good cause to believe that a youth is incompetent to proceed, it must stay all proceedings and appoint a psychiatrist or psychologist to evaluate the youth’s mental condition and report to the court.
-
Iowa Suspends Juvenile Court Proceedings Until Youth's Release from Mental Health Facility, S.F. 327
Tags: Iowa | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Legislation
If, prior to the adjudicatory or dispositional hearing in a delinquency case, a youth in Iowa is committed to a residential facility, institution, or hospital based on mental illness or mental retardation, the delinquency proceeding must be suspended until the commitment order is terminated or the youth is released from the mental health facility or hospital. The time limits for adjudicatory hearings and continuances must be temporarily put on hold during the time of commitment for mental health issues. The suspension of the proceedings allows the youth to receive mental health treatment prior to facing delinquency charges or a dispositional hearing in court
-
Massachusetts Court Finds Interrogation of Youth to Be Overly Harsh, Miranda Rights Violated, Commonwealth v. Nga Truong, 28 Mass. L. Rep. 223; 2011 Mass. Super. LEXIS 61. February 25, 2011, Decided
Tags: Massachusetts | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
A Massachusetts court found that an hours-long, aggressive interrogation of a sixteen-year-old girl violated her rights, and that her confession was involuntary. The court held that the girl was subject to a custodial interrogation without being properly advised of her Miranda rights, and without making a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights. The court also found that the girl was not provided with an opportunity for meaningful consultation with her mother or an attorney about her rights, as required by Massachusetts’ “interested adult” rule.
-
Oregon Court Limits Shackling and Strip Searching of Youth, Yamhill County, Letter Opinion, February 7, 2011
Tags: Oregon | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Shackling | Court Decisions and Related Documents
A circuit court judge in Yamhill County, Oregon held that youth may be shackled in the courtroom and during video appearances only when it is necessary to prevent escape, injury, or destruction. The shackling may last only as long as such danger exists. The court also addressed strip searching in the case, ruling that strip searches may not be routinely conducted after visits and court appearances; searches must be restricted to those situations in which there is a reasonable suspicion that the youth might have acquired contraband.
-
Adolescent Legal Competence in Court, MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports
Brief detailing findings from the first comprehensive assessment of juvenile capacities to participate in criminal proceedings using measures of both trial-related abilities and developmental maturity.
-
Juvenile Justice 101 Toolkit
Tags: Washington | Family and Youth Involvement | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Partner Publications
Juvenile Justice 101 is an project of the MacArthur Foundations Models for Change initiative. The toolkit is an interactive guide for how to implement the program in another jurisdiction.
-
Juveniles with Questionable Mental Competency Receive Right to Hearing, A.B. 2212
Tags: California | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Legislation
California law now requires the court to suspend proceedings if doubt is expressed as to a youth's sufficient present ability to rationally and factually understand the nature of the proceedings or assist his or her attorney in mounting a defense. The court must then order a hearing to determine the youth's competency.
-
When Your Attorney Is Your Enemy: Preliminary Thoughts on Ensuring Effective Representation for Queer Youth, Sarah Valentine, Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, Vol. 19, No.3
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | LGBTQ Youth | Reports
Article discussing the bias and prejudice in the judicial and child welfare systems that affect queer youth; the role continuum that allows attorneys representing children to provide less than traditional advocacy; the effect an attorney can have on a queer child; and four mechanisms by which a queer child harmed by an attorney who provides less than traditional advocacy can seek redress.
-
New Hampshire Limits Use of Child Restraint Practices, S.B. 396
Tags: New Hampshire | Institutional Conditions | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Schools and juvenile facilities in New Hampshire may no longer use physical restraints or containment techniques that could endanger a youth, use chemical restraints, intentionally inflict pain on a child, or unnecessarily subject youth to ridicule, humiliation, or emotional trauma. Restraints may never be used “explicitly or implicitly” as punishment for a youth’s behavior.
-
Illinois Court process Juvenile defense Self incrimination Juvenile justice reform
Tags: Illinois | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
The Illinois General Assembly passed a law prohibiting statements made by youth, parents or guardians as part of any behavioral health screening, assessment, evaluation, or treatment from being used as evidence against the youth in a delinquency or criminal trial
-
Maine Standards for Qualifications of Assigned Counsel
Tags: Maine | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
The Maine Commission on Indigent Legal Services established these standards requiring minimum training, experience, and other qualifications for assigned counsel to be eligible to accept appointments to represent indigent people, including youth in juvenile court.
-
Louisiana Law Provides for Counsel for Children, H.B. 663
Tags: Louisiana | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Louisiana law now states that all children are presumed indigent for the purpose of appointment of counsel at the state’s expense. The law permits appointment of counsel for all youth immediately upon arrest and detention. Prior to the law, youth had to wait as long as 72 hours to be appointed counsel at the continued custody hearing. The law is intended to expedite appointment of counsel for youth and avoid detention in certain cases, due to earlier access to information and increased advocacy.
-
Louisiana Restricts Use of Youth Confessions, H.B. 663
Tags: Louisiana | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Louisiana law creates specific restrictions on the use of a youth’s confession in court without a knowing and voluntary waiver, unless the state proves in court beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was “freely and voluntarily given and was not made under the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements, or promises.” The legislation includes a list of several factors that the court must consider in making such a determination, including the age and education of the child, and the methods and length of the interrogation.
-
Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice Report, May 2010
Tags: Pennsylvania | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports
Final report from the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, which was charged with investigating the circumstances that led to the corruption in Luzerne County, restoring public confidence in the administration of justice, and preventing the occurrence of similar events.
-
Performance Guidelines for Quality and Effective Juvenile Delinquency Representation
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports
In consultation with juvenile defenders and national experts, the Juvenile Defenders Association of Pennsylvania developed these guidelines for quality and effective representation of youth in juvenile proceedings.
-
Memorandum on Restraints in Juvenile Court, Administrative Office of the Juvenile Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Tags: Massachusetts | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Administrative/Regulatory Policies
Memorandum citing a new change in policy in Massachusetts that restraints are not to be used on juveniles in the courtroom unless there is an indication that the juvenile will try to escape, hurt themselves, or hurt others.
-
Massachusetts Reduces Use of Restraints on Youth in the Courtroom, Trial Court of the Commonwealth Court Officer Policy and Procedures Manual, Chapter 4, Courtroom Procedures, Section VI, Juvenile Court Sessions
Tags: Massachusetts | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
The policy and procedure creates a presumption that restraints will be removed from youth while appearing in a courtroom before a justice of the juvenile court unless there is an order and specific finding that restraints are necessary. A justice may order the use of restraints if he or she finds that there is reason to believe that the youth may try to escape, or that the youth may pose a threat to his or her own safety or to the safety of other people in the courtroom, or if it is reasonably necessary to maintain order in the courtroom.
-
Representing Juvenile Status Offenders, Hannah Benton, et al., American Bar Association
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Status Offenses | Reports
Advice for individual attorneys on day-to-day advocacy and representation of status offenders.
-
In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, No. SC09-141, Supreme Court of Florida
Tags: Florida | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
December 17, 2009, Supreme Court of Florida ruling that effective January 1, 2010, the restraint of juvenile offenders is forbidden unless a judge finds that the youth is likely to be violent.
-
Florida Supreme Court Limits Shackling of Youth in Court, In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, 26 So. 3d 552 (Fla. 2009)/Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, Rule 8.100
Tags: Florida | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Shackling | Court Decisions and Related Documents
The Supreme Court of Florida ruled that effective January 1, 2010, the restraint of juveniles in courtrooms is forbidden unless a judge finds that a youth is likely to be violent. The decision describes the indiscriminate shackling of juveniles as “repugnant, degrading, humiliating, and contrary to the stated primary purposes of the juvenile justice system and to the principles of therapeutic justice.”
-
New Jersey Supreme Court Holds Right to Counsel for a Juvenile Attaches Early, In re P.M.P., 200 N.J. 166 (2009)
Tags: New Jersey | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the right to counsel attaches at the time of the filing of a delinquency complaint and obtainment of a judicially approved arrest warrant because they are “critical stages” of delinquency proceedings. The court further held that youth cannot waive their right to counsel except in the presence of and after consultation with an attorney.
-
Texas Allows for More In-Depth Review by Attorneys Prior to Transfer Hearings, S.B. 518
Tags: Texas | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Legislation
When a youth faces transfer to adult court, at least five days prior to the transfer hearing the court must provide to the youth’s attorney and the prosecuting attorney all written matter that the court will consider in making the transfer decision. Previously, the court was required to provide this material only one day before the hearing. The goal of the law is to encourage more thorough review by attorneys, increased information-sharing, and fewer inappropriate transfers to adult court.
-
Texas Clarifies Motions Procedure for New Juvenile Court Trials, H.B. 1688
Tags: Texas | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
The Texas Legislature amended the state family code to follow the criminal court rules for a motion for a new trial seeking to vacate a juvenile court adjudication. In following these rules, juvenile court attorneys will have greater clarity on how to file a motion and the process will be more efficient.
-
Maine to Ensure Provision of Qualified Counsel and Adequate Funding for Indigent Legal Services, S.P.423/L.D. 1132
Tags: Maine | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
The Maine Commission on Indigent Legal Services is an independent and permanent statutory commission that must work to ensure the delivery of indigent legal services by qualified and competent counsel in a manner that is fair and consistent throughout the state, and to ensure adequate funding of a statewide system of indigent legal services free from conflicts of interest and undue political interference. The commission must also develop the statistics necessary to evaluate the quality and the cost-effectiveness of services provided.
-
Oregon Custodial Interviews of Youth Charged as Adults Must Be Electronically Recorded, S.B. 309
Tags: Oregon | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Oregon law requires a custodial interview by a peace officer in a law enforcement facility to be electronically recorded if the interview is conducted in connection with an investigation of aggravated murder, crimes requiring the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence, or crimes requiring adult prosecution of youth offenders. The law allows unrecorded statements into evidence, but requires that the judge give the jury instructions concerning the fact that the statement was not recorded.
-
Mississippi Strengthens Representation of Youth at Critical Stages, S.B. 2939
Tags: Mississippi | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
The Mississippi State Legislature specified the critical stages at which juveniles must be represented by counsel, including, but not limited to, detention, adjudicatory and disposition hearings, parole or probation revocation proceedings, and post-disposition matters. The law also specifies that the youth's attorney "shall owe the same duties of undivided loyalty, confidentiality and competent representation ... as is due an adult client."
-
Montana Requires Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations of Youth Charged with Felonies, H.B. 534
Tags: Montana | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
The Montana Legislature requires electronic recording of custodial interrogations in youth cases involving an offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult. The law states several purposes for the requirement, including to provide the best evidence of the communications that occurred during an interrogation and prevent disputes about a police officer’s conduct or treatment of a suspect during the course of an interrogation. Statements made during interrogations that do not conform to the requirements of the law may be admitted in court if the prosecutor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that certain limited exceptions apply.
-
Montana Attorneys Must Meet with Youth Prior to Detention Hearings and Prior to Youth’s Waiver of Counsel, S.B. 91
Tags: Montana | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
The Montana Legislature revised the Youth Court Act to require a youth to be represented by an attorney at a detention hearing, unless the youth waives his or her right to an attorney after consulting with an attorney prior to the hearing. If the youth is under 16, the youth and parent/guardian can waive counsel only after consulting with an attorney prior to the hearing.
-
Arkansas Sets Forth Factors to Determine Whether a Juvenile's Confession Is Voluntary, Arkansas, S.B. 788/Act 759
Tags: Arkansas | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Sets factors including the juvenile's maturity, whether the confession was coerced, whether the juvenile's parent or guardian who may have agreed to the interrogation had an interest adverse to the juvenile, and whether the confession was audio or video recorded. Additionally, in regard to a determination of whether a juvenile voluntarily waived counsel, the statute specifically requires the court to consider whether the waiver was recorded in audio or video format.
-
Arkansas Codifies Factors Used to Determine Whether a Youth’s Confession Is Voluntary, S.B. 788
Tags: Arkansas | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
The Arkansas General Assembly codified factors for the court to consider when determining if a youth's confession was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. The factors include the youth's maturity, whether the confession was coerced, whether a parent or guardian who agreed to the youth's interrogation had an interest adverse to the youth, and whether the confession was audio- or video-recorded. Additionally, with regard to a determination of whether a youth voluntarily waived counsel, the statute specifically requires the court to consider whether the waiver was recorded in audio or video format.
-
Role of Juvenile Defense Counsel in Delinquency Court, National Juvenile Defender Center
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports
Report emphasizing the important role of the defense attorney in delinquency proceedings.
-
Alabama Juvenile Justice Act Attorney Duties, Code of Alabama, Section 12-15-202
Tags: Alabama | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Legislation outlining the duties of a child's attorney according to Alabama law.
-
Charged With A Crime? Don't Go it Alone...Talk to a Lawyer, Southern Juvenile Defender Center
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports
Pamphlet designed to convince youth not to waive counsel.
-
Nevada Indigent Defense Standards of Performance, Nevada Supreme Court, October 16, 2008
Tags: Nevada | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
The Nevada State Supreme Court adopted performance standards for indigent defense in April of 2009. The standards include a detailed section on delinquency cases, which covers the role of defense counsel, provision of adequate time and resources, client interviewing, detention hearings, plea negotiations, adjudication hearings, transfer proceedings, and many other topics.
-
Pennsylvania Prohibits Use of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Assessments in Court, Pennsylvania, H.B.1511/Act 109
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Legislation
Pennsylvania, H.B.1511/Act 109, October 9, 2008 Strengthens juveniles' right against self-incrimination by placing restrictions on the use of screenings and assessments.
-
District of Columbia Final Evaluation of the Effect of Juvenile Speedy Trial Emergency Legislation, The Council for Court Excellence
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Administrative/Regulatory Policies | Reports
An emergency resolution passed in D.C. aims to resolve the issue of juveniles placed in non-secure detention or shelters beyond the 30 day deadline in place for youth in secure detention.
-
Achieving Excellence in Detention Advocacy: A Checklist to Evaluate Defense Representation at Detention Hearings, National Juvenile Defender Center for the Annie E. Casey Foundation's Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports
Diagnostic tool designed to assist juvenile defense practitioners and juvenile policy advocates in determining the effectiveness of defense counsel at arraignment, the probable cause determination and the detention hearing.
-
Achieving Excellence in Detention Advocacy: Guidelines for Juvenile Defenders to Provide Zealous Advocacy at Initial Detention Hearings, National Juvenile Defender Center for the Annie E. Casey Foundation's Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports
Guidelines designed to assist defenders in assessing their advocacy at the traditional, three-part initial hearings held in most jurisdictions: arraignment, the probable cause determination and the detention hearing.
-
Ten Principles for Providing Effective Defense Advocacy at Juvenile Detention Hearings, National Juvenile Defender Center for the Annie E. Casey Foundation's Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports
Principles recognizing the distinct disadvantages of defenders at the detention determination hearing due to lack of information at the beginning of the case and a creeping presumption to detain at the end of the case. The principles are a resource to help defenders and other juvenile court professionals understand the elements of effective detention advocacy on behalf of indigent juvenile clients.
-
Take a Cue from Illinois on Child Defendants: Michigan Sadly Falls Behind on Representation, Elizabeth Arnovits, Lansing State Journal Editorial
Tags: Michigan | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Media
Opinion editorial citing a study from the National Legal Aid and Defender Association noting that "juvenile justice representation is considered in many ways an afterthought all across the state of Michigan."
-
Illinois Juveniles Gain Meaningful Guarantee of Right to Counsel, Illinois, S.B. 2118/Public Act 95-0846
Tags: Illinois | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Requires the court to appoint counsel for youth retained in custody immediately upon the filing of petition.
-
Ten Core Principles for Providing Quality Delinquency Representation Through Public Defense Delivery Systems, National Juvenile Defender Center & National Legal Aid and Defender Association
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports
Principles offering guidance to public defense leaders and policymakers regarding the role of public defenders, contract attorneys or assigned counsel in delivering zealous, comprehensive and quality legal representation on behalf of children facing both delinquency and criminal proceedings.
-
In the Matter of L.M., Kansas, 186 P.3d 184 (Kan. 2008)
Tags: Kansas | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
Kansas Supreme Court case holding juveniles have a right to trial by jury under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
-
Mayor Bloomberg Announces New Weekend Court Processing So Youth Who Present Low Risk to the Community Can Be Returned Home Swiftly, Press Release, City of New York, Office of the Mayor
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Administrative/Regulatory Policies | Reports
Youth aged seven to fifteen now have the right to an arraignment on weekends.
-
Virginia Improves Compensation for Court-Appointed Counsel for Juveniles, Virginia, S.B. 610/Chapter 760
Tags: Virginia | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Moves to remedy the notoriously low compensation of court-appointed attorneys for juveniles.
-
The Illinois Juvenile Defender Practice Notebook
Tags: Illinois | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports | Partner Publications
Written by the Children and Family Justice Center of the Bluhm Legal Clinic at Northwestern University School of Law and the National Juvenile Defender Center, and funded by Models for Change, this notebook serves as a practical guide for juvenile defense attorneys in Illinois.
-
Illinois Creates Juvenile Defender Center, Illinois, Public Act 95-0376
Tags: Illinois | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Makes it possible for the State Appellate Defender's office to create a Juvenile Defender Center that will implement model systems for juvenile defense services and train public defenders on juvenile justice issues.
-
Louisiana Mandates Standards for Public Defenders, Louisiana, H.B. 436/Act 307
Tags: Louisiana | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Mandates the Louisiana Public Defender Board to ensure the provision of uniform public defender services throughout the state.
-
North Carolina Limits Use of Shackles in Court, North Carolina, H.B. 1243/S.L. 2007-100
Tags: North Carolina | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Shackling | Legislation
Sets new standards for use of restraints on juveniles in court.
-
In re C.S., Ohio, 115 Ohio St. 3d 267
Tags: Ohio | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
Ohio Supreme Court decision requiring a juvenile to be counseled by a parent, guardian, or custodian and an attorney before waiving the right to counsel.
-
Protecting Youth from Self-Incrimination when Undergoing Screening, Assessment and Treatment within the Juvenile Justice System
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse
This report focuses on the current state of laws protecting youth from self-incrimination during the process of mental health screening and assessment.
-
Mississippi Improves Access to Appellate Review, Mississippi, H.B. 298
Tags: Mississippi | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Expands the mission of the state Office of Indigent Appeals to include appeals in juvenile cases. As originally created, the Office of Indigent Appeals was limited to adult, non-capital felonies.
-
The Relevance of Brain Research to Juvenile Defense, Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., American Bar Association, Criminal Justice
Tags: Brain and Adolescent Development | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports
Summary of adolescent brain research and the implications of this research, emphasizing the importance of lawyers understanding youth brain development.
-
Maryland Creates Protection for Juvenile Competency, Maryland, SB 616
Tags: Maryland | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Sets out standards for how to determine competency and for how to treat the youth in the case s/he is determined to be incompetent.
-
Illinois Improves Indigent Defense, Illinois, S.B. 1953
Tags: Illinois | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
States that youth in delinquency proceedings may not waive their right to counsel.
-
Colorado Protects Juvenile Competency, Colorado, H.B. 05-1034
Tags: Colorado | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Makes it illegal for youth determined to be incompetent to stand trial or be sentenced. If competency cannot be restored, services must be supplied to the youth.
-
Montana Improves Indigent Defense, Montana, S.B. 146
Tags: Montana | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Provides for a statewide public defender system and requires the appointment of counsel for any youth charged with delinquency, regardless of the youth's financial situation.
-
Virginia Creates Restrictions on Juvenile Defense Waiver, Virginia, Ch. 427, H.B. 2670
Tags: Virginia | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Youth in the Adult System | Legislation
Requires that juveniles charged with felonies can only waive counsel if they consult with an attorney, and the court determines that the waiver is voluntary and in writing, that the child and parent consent, and that it is consistent with the interests of the child.
-
Defending LGBTQ Youth, The Model Standards Project
Tags: Juvenile Defense and Court Process | LGBTQ Youth | Reports
Brief describing the importance of recognizing if a juvenile offender is LGBTQ and the way their sexual orientation may impact their experiences in the juvenile justice system.
-
Virginia Improves Juvenile Defense, Virginia, H.B. 600
Tags: Virginia | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Requires that youth receive counsel prior to initial detention hearing. It also makes it more difficult for youth to waive counsel by requiring that youth who face charges that could place them in a juvenile correctional center first consult with an attorney.