JUV LAW OUTLINE

JUV LAW OUTLINE - JUVENILE LAW 1) Miranda Rights a) MA Rule...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
JUVENILE LAW 1) Miranda Rights a) MA Rule (minority rule) i) “Interested Adult Rule” – a child under 14 must be mirandized in the presence of an interested adult. If no adult is present, no statements from child may be taken. ii) Commonwealth v. Juvenile – 2 bros breaking and entering, little bro tattles and big bro reluctantly admits. Bros were never mirandized with an interested adult. The MPC holds that (citing In re Gault) the kids were never given the opportunity to consult with an interested adult. iii) This rule can be relaxed if child is 14 or over. Might not need an adult if the youth are unusually sophisticated and knowledgeable. (1) Commonwealth v. King – 16 year old D’s parents weren’t around. He had a 10 th grade education, had a level of experience in police procedures and, in the past, he has remained silent with the police before. Interested adult rule was found not to be applicable. b) Majority rule i) “Totality of circumstances” test. (Keane case – RI) Did the juvenile make knowing and intelligent waiver their rights under Miranda. ii) Considerations are age, competency, educational level of the juvenile, ability to understand the nature of the charges and the type of interrogation the child received. 2) Constitutional Rights a) Transfer i) Kent v. U.S. (1966) – Kid (16) was on probation and is later arrested for burglary and rape. The child was never arraigned and not appointed counsel. The juvenile judge, without a hearing, decided to hold the boy and to transfer him as an adult. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling and the Court extended limited procedural and due process rights to children. The Court forced juvenile courts to accept attorneys into their proceedings and to take more time and care with each Juvenile case reaching litigation ii) MA transfer statute: c. 119 § 61 b) Due Process rights i) In re Gault (1967) – Juvenile testifies without counsel. Cop only one who testified, not even the accuser. 6 th Amendment, right to confront issue and 14 th Amendment, due process right issue. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the boy’s 14 th Amendment right was violated, since he had been denied the right to legal counsel, hand not been formally notified of the charges against him, had not been informed of his right against self incrimination (remain silent), had no opportunity to confront his accusers and had been given no right to appeal his sentence to a higher court. The Court expressed its view that juvenile detention is not constitutionally different from adult imprisonment ii) MA statute for juvenile’s right to a jury trial: c. 119 §§ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
iii) In Re Winship (1970) – Does a “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” need to be considered among the “essentials of due process and fair treatment” required during the adjudicatory state of the juvenile court process? The Court disagreed that juvenile courts are not required to operate on the same standards as adult courts. The Court held that when a juvenile is charged with
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/18/2010 for the course JUV 100 taught by Professor Lawton during the Summer '09 term at New England Law.

Page1 / 8

JUV LAW OUTLINE - JUVENILE LAW 1) Miranda Rights a) MA Rule...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online