Juvenile and Terrorism Justice Systems: Landmark Juvenile Court Cases

1. Juvenile and Terrorism Justice Systems: Landmark Juvenile Court Cases

2. In re Gault • Gerald Francis Gault (15) was taken into custody for allegedly making obscene phone call. The officer did not notify Gault’s parents when he was taken. • Question: Were the procedures used to commit Gault constitutionally legitimate under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? • Decision: 8-1 in favor of Gault • Outcome: No, the Juvenile Court failed to comply with the constitution because they did not notify Gault’s parents of his rights to counsel when he was arrested (14th amendment). • Before this case, it had never come into question whether or not a juvenile’s parents had to be notified when the juvenile was arrested. • In effect, whenever a juvenile is arrested and taken into custody, both parents and the juvenile must be notified of their right to counsel. • This requirement still stands today

3. In re Winship • Samuel Winship (12) was arrested and charged as a juvenile delinquent for breaking into a woman's locker and stealing $112 from her pocketbook. • New York Family Court Act says that a juvenile’s guilt must be based on preponderance of the evidence. The court found him guilty even though the evidence did not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. • Question: Does the requirement that juvenile convictions rest on "preponderance of the evidence" burden of proof, as opposed to that stricter "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause? • Decision: 5-3 in favor of Winship • Outcome: Yes, the Court determined that when establishing guilt of criminal charges the strict "reasonable doubt" standard must be applied to both adults and juveniles. • Before the case, it was unclear if the juvenile court was allowed to find someone guilty based on preponderance of the evidence, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. • In effect, all courts must base their decision off the reasonable doubt standard when determining guilt.

4. Mckeiver v. Pennsylvania • Joseph McKeiver (15) and Edward Terry (16) both charged with robbery, theft, assault, and escape. • At a juvenile court in Philadelphia, both were denied a request for a jury trial. • The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, sais there was no constitutional right to a jury trial for juveniles. • Question: Does the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as applied to the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, apply to juveniles? • Decision: 6-3 in favor on Pennsylvania • Outcome: No, the court decided that there is no requirement for a jury trial in juvenile cases because “one cannot say that in our legal system the jury is a necessary component of accurate fact-finding.“ Therefore, it is not a right of the 6th amendment. • Before the case is was not required that juveniles had to be given a request for a jury trial, and that requirement stood. • In effect, an juvenile case is not required to have a jury.

5. Breed v. Jones • Gary Steven Jones (17) robbed a store with an armed weapon. • He was charged and convicted as a delinquent in juvenile court. He was then transferred to adult court because he was “unfit for treatment as a juvenile.” Jones was convicted there as well. • Question: Did transferring Jones to adult court and convicting him as an adult after being convicted as a juvenile, count as an act of Double Jeopardy stated by the 5th amendment? • Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that a juvenile cannot be tried at the juvenile system and tried at the criminal record. The Supreme Court ruling prohibited double jeopardy. • Double Jeopardy is not allowed under the US constitution and it has never been allowed. • This case just reiterated the fact that Double Jeopardy is not allowed in the United States Justice system.

6. Schall v. Martin • Gregory Martin(14) was arrested and charged with robbery, assault, and possession of a weapon. He and two other boys hit someone on the head with a loaded gun and stole his jacket and sneakers. • Martin was held in custody for the days leading up to his court date because the court found there was a "serious risk" that he would commit another crime if released. • Question: Is it constitutional for an arrested juvenile to be held in custody for the days leading up to his/her court case if they are deemed a “serious risk”? • Outcome: Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the preventive detention statute. The Court stated that preventive detention protects both the juvenile and society from pretrial crime and is not intended to punish the juvenile. • Before the case, it was not determined that a juvenile was allowed to be held in custody before his/her court date. • In effect, if a juvenile is labeled as a “serious risk” then he/she can be kept in custody before the trial.

7. Roper v. Simmons • Christopher Simmons (17) was sentenced to death in 1993. • The Missouri court decided that the U.S. Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Stanford v. Kentucky, which held that executing minors was unconstitutional, was no longer valid and Simmons could be executed. • The U.S. Supreme Court argued that allowing a state court to overturn a Supreme Court decision by looking at "evolving standards" would be dangerous. • Question: Does the execution of minors violate the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" found in the Eighth Amendment and applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment? • Decision: 5-4 in favor of Simmons • Outcome: The Court ruled that standards of decency have evolved so that executing minors is "cruel and unusual punishment" and is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. • Before the case, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned a U.S. Supreme Court decision and said it is okay to execute juveniles. • In effect, it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute a juvenile which violates the Eight Amendment, so therefore Christopher Simmons could not be sentenced to death.

8. Other landmark juvenile cases • Kent v. United States- Validity of juvenile court’s waive of jurisdiction. • Oklahoma Publishing Company v. District Court in and for Oklahoma City- Infringement of freedom of the press. • Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Company- Publishing a juveniles name. • Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier- Principal omitting sections of newspaper to protect student identity. • Bethel School District v. Frazier- student giving an inappropriate speech in front of school. • Ginsberg v. New York- the sale of magazines to minors with sexual content.

9. Discussion Questions • In your opinion, which case is the most important/influential and why? • Do you feel that there should be any other alterations to the juvenile justice system?

10. Citations • United States. Judicial Branch. Oyez. Chicago -Kent College of Law, Oct. 1955. Web. 13 Jan. 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2013>. • Hiddenvalue24. "Juvenile Justice System-How Far It Has Come." HubPages. HubPages, 25 May 2011. Web. 13 Jan. 2014. <http://hiddenvalue.hubpages.com/hub/Juvenile-System-How-far-it-has-come>. • "1999 National Report Series, Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Minorities in the Juvenile Justice System -- U.S. Supreme Court Cases Have Had an Impact on the Character and Procedures of the Juvenile Justice System." 1999 National Report Series, Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Minorities in the Juvenile Justice System -- U.S. Supreme Court Cases Have Had an Impact on the Character and Procedures of the Juvenile Justice System. 1999 National Report Series, Dec. 1999. Web. 13 Jan. 2014. <https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/9912_2/juv2.html>. • http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/childrights/content/notes/landmark_01.html