In what case did the US Supreme Court establish that the waiver proceeding is a critically important stage in the juvenile justice process?

Answer 1

Kent v. United States, 383 US 541 (1966)

Kent was the first appeal the US Supreme Court accepted involving the juvenile justice system, and may only have been considered because it involved transfer of a case from juvenile court to US District (criminal) Court. Prior to Kent, the Court had refused to review juvenile cases, regardless of constitutional issues raised, on the basis that "juvenile courts are not criminal courts."


Background

Morris Kent was arrested at the age of 16 on charges of breaking and entering, robbery and rape. As a juvenile, Kent was subject to the jurisdiction of juvenile court unless the assigned judge waived jurisdiction and transferred the case to adult court. In this instance, the judge decided Kent should be tried in US District Court, and waived jurisdiction.

Kent's attorney filed a motion for a waiver hearing to argue the jurisdictional transfer, but the juvenile court judge ignored the petition. The defendant's attorney next filed a motion to dismiss in US District Court on the grounds that the juvenile court waiver was invalid for lack of due process. The motion was overruled, and Kent was subsequently tried and convicted on six counts of breaking and entering and robbery, but acquitted of the two counts of rape by reason of insanity.

Kent's defense counsel preserved on appeal the objection to the juvenile court waiver being issued without a hearing, but the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling, holding that the transfer procedure was conducted properly and was valid.



US Supreme Court

The question before the Court was whether Fourteenth Amendment Due Process protection extended to juveniles, and whether this protection had been violated when the juvenile court judged transferred jurisdiction on Morris Kent's case without permitting a waiver hearing where counsel could argue on the client's behalf.

The Supreme Court held that certain due process protections, including the right to a hearing on the waiver motion, and the right to legal representation at that hearing, applied to children as well as adults.

Justice Abe Fortas delivered the Opinion of the Court, which held that that waivers were an important discretionary act that, at the time it was applied to Morris, had no rules or standards for judicial decision-making. The arbitrary nature of the waiver made a hearing mandatory prior to execution.

Fortas wrote: "As the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, 'the waiver of jurisdiction is a critically important action determining vitally important statutory rights of the juvenile."

The Court then set forth eight determining factors to be used in considering the jurisdiction under which a juvenile should be tried:

1. The seriousness of the alleged offense to the community and whether the protection of the community requires waiver.

2. Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner.

3. Whether the alleged offense was against persons or against property, greater weight being given to offenses against persons especially if personal injury resulted.

4. The prosecutive merit of the complaint, i.e., whether there is evidence upon which a Grand Jury may be expected to return an indictment (to be determined by consultation with the United States Attorney).

5. The desirability of trial and disposition of the entire offense in one court when the juvenile's associates in the alleged offense are adults who will be charged with a crime in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

6. The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration of his home, environmental situation, emotional attitude and pattern of living.

7. The record and previous history of the juvenile, including previous contacts with the Youth Aid Division, other law enforcement agencies, juvenile courts and other jurisdictions, prior periods of probation to this Court, or prior commitments to juvenile institutions.

8. The prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile (if he is found to have committed the alleged offense) by the use of procedures, services and facilities currently available to the Juvenile Court.

"It will be the responsibility of any officer of the Court's staff assigned to make the investigation of any complaint in which waiver of jurisdiction is being considered to develop fully all available information which may bear upon the criteria and factors set forth above. Although not all such factors will be involved in an individual case, the Judge will consider the relevant factors in a specific case before reaching a conclusion to waive juvenile jurisdiction and transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for trial under the adult procedures of that Court."

The US Supreme Court reversed the Appeals Court ruling and remanded the case to US District Court to be heard de novo.

Kent opened the door to the Court's examination of juvenile court proceedings and children's rights in other cases, including In Re Gault, 387 US 1 (1967), the landmark Supreme Court case that first challenged the constitutionality of juvenile justice statutes.