1. Public Trials For Juvenile Offenders
Class 21

2. Case of the Day State v. Meade, 120 P.3d 975 (2005) Facts
Meade was arrested and charged with 30 theft in March 2004, was tried and sentenced in July Under Washington’s Juvenile Justice Act, which specifies fixed sentences according to a grid based on prior and current offense history, Meade was eligible for a sentence of probation
While awaiting sentence, Meade committed four new crimes, ran away from home “several” times, admitted to daily use of alcohol and marijuana plus other drugs including amphetamines, attempted suicide four times, and failed to go to court-ordered treatment (a condition of his pretrial release)
Court used a “manifest injustice” exception authorized by WA code to sentence Meade outside the standard range to a term of weeks in a correctional institution. MIE is invoked when the scheduled disposition would be too excessive or too lenient. Evidence to justify a MIE must be “clear and convincing”
Court found that Meade was a threat to himself and the community, needed tx, was a risk to re-offend, had several aggravating factors in his current and past behavior, and had tx needs beyond what was available in the community.

3. Meade challenged under Blakely, claiming that the facts used to support the manifest injustice exception should have been adjudicated by a jury at a “reasonable doubt” standard
Court denied motion, Court of Appeals affirmed
The civil “clear and convincing standard” required by the JJA for a MIE is equivalent to the criminal court’s “reasonable doubt” standard
Need for tx can justify a MIE, consistent with juvenile court mandate
Blakely does not apply to juvenile court proceedings
No right to jury trials in juvenile court; this logic obviates Blakely application under 6th Amendment
JJA is focused on rehabilitation, Blakely is designed to adjudicate punishment
Putting aside Meade’s specifics, is this what Justice Fortas called “the worst of both worlds”?
Role of Blakely in juvenile court still evolving…to be continued

4. Public Trials McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971)
Juveniles not entitled to jury trial
SC ruled that juvenile court judges could be as fair as jurors in assessing guilt or innocence, as well as the degree of culpability of the juvenile defendant, consistent with special conditions and jurisprudence of the juvenile court (as expressed in its authorizing legislation)
Part of the “domestication” of the juvenile court (e.g., Gault, Kent)
What, then, is the unique fact-finding process, and what are the rights of juveniles in this adjudicative forum?

5. Rights In A Domesticated Juvenile Court
In Re Gault
Notice of Charges
Right to Counsel
Right to confront and cross-examine witnesses
Privilege against self-incrimination
Right to transcript of proceedings
Right to Appellate Review

6. Why not Jury Trials?
Black, in the majority in Gault: juvenile court cases not distinguishable procedurally from most criminal court cases
But rights allocation only went so far as to meet “fundamental fairness” standard, and Court sought to preserve other juvenile court goals such as confidentiality and rehabilitation – again, the separate jurisprudence of the Juvenile Court.
Stewart, dissenting in Gault: “[juvenile court proceedings] simply are not adversary proceedings…The objective is correction of a condition”, no need for jury trials
Blackmun sought to preserve the higher goals of the juvenile court, and therefore wanted to avoid the complexities and entanglements of a jury trial

7. New Mexico and Alaska Supreme Courts recognize rights of juveniles to a jury trial in juvenile court (both preceded McKeiver)
Louisiana Supreme Court noted increasing criminalization of juvenile court (dispositions) where punishment trumps rehabilitation, therefore necessitating a jury trial guarantee

8. Burden of Proof In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)
Preponderance not appropriate, requires “reasonable doubt” for finding of “delinquency”
However, Burger argues (dissent):
Court’s decision further erodes the differences between the juvenile and criminal courts
Juvenile court requires flexibility, not judicial formalism.
Why do McKeiver and Winship decisions seem to contradict one another?
What is the proper analogy for benchmarking the “right” burden of proof for a juvenile court proceeding?
Adult court trial?
Civil commitment of mentally ill?

9. McKeiver’s Arguments Against Jury Trial
The end of the ideal (or fiction) of the “intimate” and informal and “protective” juvenile court – attack on its uniqueness
Juries are not essential to a process that is “fair and equitable,” no reason to think that juries would do better job that judges for this type of proceeding
Can or should a jury be in the business of determining the “environmental” and other social and psychological factors that cause delinquency?
The distinctive intake processes of the juvenile court mitigate against the unfettered power of the prosecutor
A separate juvenile court is no longer justified if there are jury trials
Jury trials might be injurious or traumatic
Inevitable delay undermines therapeutic process of the juvenile court by temporally distancing the proceedings from the act itself
Not likely that factual accuracy is improved with a jury trial, given other procedural safeguards and “fundamental fairness” standards

10. Arguments in Favor? Guggenheim and Hertz
Judges are less accurate than juries (social science evidence from the influential Kalven and Zeisel jury study)
In practice, juvenile court judges often get it wrong (562)
Juvenile court judges tend to side with prosecution, biases that juries are less likely to manifest (true?)

11. Sources of Distortion in Bench Trials
No buffer from presentation of evidence that would be inadmissible in a jury trial
Familiarity with local police compromises independence
This may cast favorable light on prosecution witnesses
Insulation from group dynamics during deliberation (confirmed by social science evidence) (Ballew, 435 US 232, citing Ellsworth research)
Racial diversity in jury is more likely, given demography of juvenile court judges
Waiver of opening statements in bench trials that are common and important in jury trials
Bench trials undermine the power of narrative in shaping arguments and perceptions of evidence

12. Are Jury Trials Feasible In Two Examples
Juvenile Sex Offender
15 year old male, 13 year old female
New Jersey v. T.L.O
Possession of drugs in school
Challenge based on the search