[n20] But the admonition to function in a "parental" relationship is not an invitation to procedural arbitrariness. Loading... Unsubscribe from Fallon Butterfield? (1961); S.Rep.No.841, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. 393, 355 F.2d 104 (1965). 3 of the House Committee on the District of Columbia, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. Pp. The right to representation by counsel is not a formality. 409, 413, 343 F.2d 278, 282 (1964); Black v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 33. The September 8 report spoke of 'a rapid deterioration of (petitioner's) personality structure and the possibility of mental illness.' It held, however, that this is "the kin of adversarial tactics which the system is designed to avoid." . That court affirmed. D.C.Code § 11 929(b) (1961), now § 11—1586(b) (Supp. However, because we remand the case on account of the procedural error with respect to waiver of jurisdiction, we do not pass upon these questions. Argued: Jan. 19, 1966. When Kent was interrogated by police officers for his offenses, he admitted his involvement and volunteered information to investigators. . 2. 547-548, supra. Pp. There was no arraignment during this time, no determination by a judicial officer of probable cause for petitioner's apprehension.3. Kent v. United States, 383 U. S. 541 , 383 U. S. 562 (1966), held "that the [waiver] hearing must measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment." A truck carrying fifty-two cases (about 113 gallons) of distilled spirits was seized, with the liquors, by federal officers in Louisiana, and libelled … Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe 2. 174, 295 F.2d 161 (1961). On appeal from these judgments, the United States Court of Appeals held on January 22, 1963, that neither appeal to the Municipal Court of Appeals nor habeas corpus was available. [p544] It appears that he admitted his involvement in the offense which led to his apprehension, and volunteered information as to similar offenses involving housebreaking, robbery, and rape. It is set forth in the Appendix. 104) Argued: January 19, 1966. In the case of adults, arraignment before a magistrate for determination of probable cause and advice to the arrested person as to his rights, etc., are provided by law and are regarded as fundamental. All States have juvenile court systems. (Supp. Flashcards. He was placed on probation, in the custody of his mother who had been separated from her husband since Kent was two years old. Petitioner was arrested at the age of 16 in connection with charges of housebreaking, robbery and rape. He had underlying family issues, which caused a “social service” file to be created. They also suggest basic issues as to the justifiability of affording a juvenile less protection than is accorded to adults suspected of criminal offenses, particularly where, as here, there is an absence of any indication that the denial of rights available to adults was offset, mitigated or explained by action of the Government, as parens patriae, evidencing the special [p552] solicitude for juveniles commanded by the Juvenile Court Act. . Kent v. United States Page 7 Kent v. United States general information. 1. D.C.Code § 11-914 (1961), now § 11-1553 (Supp. It therefore concluded that the statutory requirement of a "full investigation" had been met. United States created a new way of thinking surrounding juvenile court. 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. Learn. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the statute contemplates that the Juvenile Court should have considerable [p553] latitude within which to determine whether it should retain jurisdiction over a child or -- subject to the statutory delimitation [n14] -- should waive jurisdiction. The statute expressly provides that the record shall be withheld from 'indiscriminate' public inspection, 'except that such records or parts thereof shall be made available by rule of court or special order of court to such persons * * * as have a legitimate interest in the protection* * * of the child * * *.' Black v. United States, supra. We hold that it is, indeed, a 'critically important' proceeding. The District Court ordered that the time to be spent at St. Elizabeths on the mandatory commitment after the insanity acquittal be counted as part of the 30- to 90-year sentence. These are now, without substantial changes, §§ 11—1551, 16—2307, 16—2308, 16—2313, 11—1586 (Supp. This jurisdiction confers special rights and immunities. There is evidence, in fact, that there may be grounds for concern that the child receives the worst of both worlds: that he gets neither the protections accorded to adults nor the solicitous care and regenerative treatment postulated for children. 393, 355 F.2d 104. The juvenile court of the District of Columbia decided that Kent should go to adult court. Kent was then 16 and therefore subject to the 'exclusive jurisdiction' of the Juvenile Court. 228, 241, 214 F.2d 862, 875, 45 A.L.R.2d 1430 (1954). Hearings before Subcommittee No. It held, however, that this is 'the kind of adversarial tactics which the system is designed to avoid.' The problem, thought some, was that the juvenile court did not hold a hearing to come to this conclusion. He made no findings. The theory of the District's Juvenile Court Act, like that of other jurisdictions,19 is rooted in social welfare philosophy rather than in the corpus juris. Extensive evidence, including expert testimony, was presented to support this defense. It would be extraordinary if society's special concern for children, as reflected in the District of Columbia's Juvenile Court Act, permitted this procedure. The Juvenile Court is governed in this respect by the established principles which control courts and quasi-judicial agencies of the Government. Kent v. United States Mr. Rabago Period 3 History Fallon Butterfield. United States Supreme Court. The elicited statements were not used in the subsequent trial before the United States District Court. 393, 355 F.2d 104. No. at 389, 343 F.2d at 258. It also appears that the District Court requested and obtained the Social Service file and the probation staff's report of September 8, 1961, and that these were made available to petitioner's counsel. Kent v. United States. supra, note 20; Note, supra, note 19; materials cited in note 5, supra. [n24]. A psychiatric examination of Kent was arranged by his attorney. Kent v. Reid, 114 U.S. App. Chief Judge Bazelon filed a dissenting opinion in which Circuit Judge Wright joined. It is to petitioner's arguments as to the infirmity of the proceedings by which the Juvenile Court waived its otherwise exclusive jurisdiction that we address our attention. 47, 274 F.2d 556 (1959). Theodore G. Gilinsky, Washington, D.C., for respondent. 119 U.S.App.D.C., at 413, 343 F.2d, at 282. It should be noted that at this time the statute provided for only one Juvenile Court judge. This jurisdiction confers special rights and immunities. He may be confined, but, with rare exceptions, he may not be jailed along with adults. Green v. United States, supra, at 350, 308 F.2d, at 305. The court had obtained the "Social Service" file from the Juvenile Court and had made it available to petitioner's counsel. 368, 262 F.2d 465 (1958). Kent v. United States Dissent by Potter Stewart — Court Documents; Case Syllabus: Opinion of the Court: Dissenting Opinion Stewart: United States Supreme Court . An offense falling within the statutory limitations (set forth above) will be waived if it has prosecutive merit and if it is heinous or of an aggravated character, or -- even though less serious -- if it represents a pattern of repeated offenses which indicate that the juvenile may be beyond rehabilitation under Juvenile Court procedures, or if the public needs the protection afforded by such action. D.C.Code § 11-907 (1961), now § 11-1551 (Supp. 775 (1966). at 176, 295 F.2d at 163. In these circumstances, considering particularly that decision as to waiver of jurisdiction and transfer of the matter to the District Court was potentially as important to petitioner as the difference between five years' confinement and a death sentence, we conclude that, as a condition to a valid waiver order, petitioner as entitled to a hearing, including access by his counsel to the social records and probation or similar reports which presumably are considered by the court, and to a statement of reasons for the Juvenile Court's decision. 7. Ibid. We are of the opinion that the Court of Appeals misconceived the basic issue and the underlying values in this case. 7. 174, 295 F.2d 161 (1961); Bynum v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. Durham v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. IV, 1965). All States have juvenile court systems. Bazelon, C.J., and Fahy and Leventhal, JJ. We must assume that he denied, sub silentio, the motions for a hearing, the recommendation for hospitalization for psychiatric observation, the request for access to the Social Service file, and the offer to prove that petitioner was a fit subject for rehabilitation under the Juvenile Court's jurisdiction. To the extent that Watkins is inconsistent with the standard which we state, it cannot be considered as controlling. 190, 192, 80 L.Ed. It prevents routine waiver in certain classes of alleged crimes. If a decision on waiver is "critically important," it is equally of "critical importance" that the material submitted to the judge -- which is protected by the statute only against "indiscriminate" inspection -- be subjected, within reasonable limits having regard to the theory of the Juvenile Court Act, to examination, criticism and refutation. special practices . In the circumstances of this case, and in light of the remedy which the Court of Appeals fashioned in [p565]Black, supra, we do not consider it appropriate to grant this drastic relief. The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration of his home, environmental situation, emotional attitude and pattern of living. This concern, however, does not induce us in this case to accept the invitation [n25] to rule that constitutional guaranties which would be applicable to adults charged with the serious offenses for which Kent was tried must be applied in juvenile court proceedings concerned with allegations of law violation. Id. After Kent admitted some involvement, the juvenile court waived its jurisdiction. United States, 119 F.Supp. 383 U.S. 541. It prevents the waiver of jurisdiction as a matter of routine for the purpose of easing the docket. Today, marks the 50th anniversary of the United States' Supreme Court's landmark decision in Kent v. United States (1966), foreshadowing 1967's In re Gault, the seminal case concerning children's due process rights in juvenile proceedings. In these circumstances, considering particularly that decision as to waiver of jurisdiction and transfer of the matter to the District Court was potentially as important to petitioner as the difference between five years' confinement and a death sentence, we conclude that, as a condition to a valid waiver order, petitioner as entitled to a hearing, including access by his counsel to the social records and probation or similar reports which presumably are considered by the court, and to a statement of reasons for the Juvenile Court's decision. [n34] If that court finds that waiver was inappropriate, petitioner's conviction must be vacated. In a brief interview, they discussed the possibility that the Juvenile Court might waive jurisdiction under D.C.Code § 11-914 (1961), now § 11—1553 (Supp. Spell. Nor have we deferred to decisions on local law where to do so would require adjudication of difficult constitutional questions. 409, 413, 343 F.2d 278, 282 (1964); Black v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 378. Kent v. Reid, supra. [n31], We do not agree with the Court of Appeals' statement, attempting to justify denial of access to these records, that counsel's role is limited to presenting. The Government urges that any error committed by the Juvenile [p564] Court was cured by the proceedings before the District Court. The statute is set out at pp. v. United States. Morris Kent was on probation for burglary and theft, but was then arrested for burglary, robbery, and rape. Background. His function, the Court of Appeals said, "is not to denigrate the staff's submissions and recommendations." KENT V. UNITED STATES Darrel Jones December 17, 2014 Northeastern State University Abstract The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. Under the statute, the Juvenile Court has power by rule or order, to subject the examination of the social records to conditions which will prevent misuse of the information. United States. D.C.Code §§ 11-907, 11-915, 11-927, 11-929 (1961). Pp. IV, 1965). See Amending the Juvenile Court Act of the District of Columbia. IV, 1965). (1961); S.Rep.No.116, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. The panel was composed of Circuit Judges Miller, Fahy and Burger. Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner. The issue is the standards to be applied upon such review. The Court of Appeals assumed that since petitioner had been a probationer of the Juvenile Court for two years, that court had before it sufficient evidence to make an informed judgment. The provision of the Juvenile Court Act governing waiver expressly provides only for 'full investigation.' The Juvenile Court judge did not rule on these motions. Kent. In Watkins, the Court of Appeals seems to have permitted withholding of some portions of the social record from examination by petitioner's counsel. 20.See Handler, The Juvenile Court and the Adversary System: Problems of Function and Form, 1965 Wis.L.Rev. 76 Stat. But the statement should be sufficient to demonstrate that the statutory requirement of 'full investigation' has been met; and that the question has received the careful consideration of the Juvenile Court; and it must set forth the basis for the order with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review. He argues that petitioner's detention and interrogation, described above, were unlawful. Issue: Juveniles and Serious Crimes Morris Kent, aged 14, first came under scrutiny of Washington DC juvenile court for house break-ins and attempts at theft; sentenced probation under custody of his mother (Kent's father left him when Morris was 2 years old) 2 years later (1961, 104. [n7][p549], The District Court denied the motion to dismiss the indictment. 279, 281 F.2d 642 (1960). 330, 316 F.2d 331 (1963). IV, 1965). released," is a misdemeanor. It should not be remitted to assumptions. 2102, 119 L.Ed.2d 308 (1992), or United States v. Owens, 103 F.3d 953 (11th Cir. 16—2313, 11—1586 (Supp. See District of Columbia v. Little, 339 U.S. 1, 70 S.Ct. As the Court of Appeals has said. No. In the Court of Appeals' view, the exclusive method of reviewing the Juvenile Court's waiver order was a motion to dismiss the indictment in the District Court. 30. The Juvenile Court did not rule on these motions. This case involves the construction of a statute applicable only to the District of Columbia. at 413, 343 F.2d at 282. In Kent v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on the due process rights of juvenile offenders. They also suggest basic issues as to the justifiability of affording a juvenile less protection than is accorded to adults suspected of criminal offenses, particularly where, as here, there is an absence of any indication that the denial of rights available to adults was offset, mitigated or explained by action of the Government, as parens patriae, evidencing the special solicitude for juveniles commanded by the Juvenile Court Act. Harling v. United States, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 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. Morris A. Kent, a 16 year old boy, was arrested in connection with recent rapes and robberies . IV, 1965). Contributor Names Fortas, Abe (Judge) Supreme Court of the United States (Author) 34. We agree that the order of the Juvenile Court waiving its jurisdiction and transferring petitioner for trial in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was invalid. Kent was indicted in district court. They matched the fingerprints of Morris Kent, taken when he was 14 years old and under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court. Meaningful review requires that the reviewing court should review. It is clear beyond dispute that the waiver of jurisdiction is a "critically important" action determining vitally important statutory rights of the juvenile. It should not be remitted to assumptions. Cf. STUDY. 371, 236 F.2d 666 (1956), and Black v. United States, supra), that he is not entitled to counsel. The statute does not permit the Juvenile Court to determine, in isolation and without the participation or any representation of the child, the "critically important" question whether a child will be deprived of the special protections and provisions of the Juvenile Court Act. The court relied upon its decision in Shioutakon v. District of Columbia, 98 U.S.App.D.C. This case is here on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 7, November 30, 1959. He may be detained, but only until he is 21 years of age. This Memorandum has since been rescinded. The Juvenile Court judge did not rule on these motions. At the time of these events, there was in effect Policy Memorandum No. . As stated, neither this report nor the Social Service file was made available to petitioner's counsel. It may not "assume" that there are adequate reasons, nor may it merely assume that "full investigation" has been made. at 384, 343 F.2d at 253. shall be placed in the custody of a probation officer or other person designated by the court, or taken immediately to the court or to a place of detention provided by the Board of Public Welfare, and the officer taking him shall immediately notify the court and shall file a petition when directed to do so by the court. Kent v. United States by Abe Fortas Syllabus. It appears, however, that two cases decided by the Court of Appeals subsequent to its decision in the present case may have considerably modified the court's construction of the statute. Durham v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. '28 (Emphasis supplied.) See Black v. United States, supra. (1961); Juvenile Delinquency, Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. 330, 316 F.2d 331 (1963). Kent v. United States. Category Education; Song New Divide (Live from La Caja Mágica, Madrid, Spain, 11/7/2010) Artist Linkin Park; Album A Thousand Suns (Bonus Edition) Under District of Columbia law, this made it mandatory that petitioner be transferred to St. Elizabeths Hospital, a mental institution, until his sanity is restored.9 On the six counts of housebreaking and robbery, the jury found that petitioner was guilty.10, Kent was sentenced to serve five to 15 years on each count as to which he was found guilty, or a total of 30 to 90 years in prison. 122 U.S.App.D.C 16—2308, 16—2313, 11—1586 ( b ) ( Supp trial before the United States when Kent arranged... Apartment of a woman in the District of Columbia in 1959 kent v united states acquittal all... 112 S.Ct is theoretically engaged in determining whether to waive jurisdiction. ' from `` indiscriminate '' public.! 247, reversed and remanded 253, n. 6, it can not agree the! Patriae philosophy of the child be dismissed kent v united states reason of insanity. ]! 280, 285, the jury verdict on the ground that the absence '! Agencies of the Juvenile Court is theoretically engaged in determining the needs of the burden which he was as. ; S.Rep.No.116, 86th Cong., 1st Sess held a hearing on ``! His lawyer Argued '' jurisdiction. ' `` is not complete in Juvenile Court and had it... And fair competency hearing tried as an adult Court important statutory rights of Juvenile offenders `` is not denigrate... Examination of petitioner by two psychiatrists and a psychologist alleged offense was committed in an aggressive violent! Give an adequate and fair competency hearing order, or disclosure of the of. When Kent was taken into custody by the police to investigators section permits the Judge to jurisdiction! `` indiscriminate '' public inspection system: Problems of substantial concern as to the District Court to dismiss the on. Kent had an attorney, 177-178, 295 F.2d 161, 164 ( 1961,... Due process rights of juveniles Court officials interviewed Kent from time to time during the probation and! Denial of counsel 850 ( 1964 ). ' classes of alleged crimes was inappropriate, petitioner v.UNITED! His case should have granted petitioner kent v united states counsel represented that access to Receiving... In an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner 'Social Service ' file it does not confer upon Juvenile. Dissent, STEWART ; Syllabus first mention of District of Columbia for his offenses, he his! Travel to England found his passport denied because of his Home, environmental,... It available to petitioner 's motion for acquittal on all counts, n.o.v., remand! Supposed to carry and a psychologist who was attempting to travel to England his! Protections to minors be afforded access to the social Service '' file amended in 1962 to provide three... Found his passport denied because of his Home, environmental situation, emotional attitude and of! Press the decision were against waiver, the jury verdict on the rape charges C.J., and robbery headquarters which... The underlying values in this case is here on certiorari to the District of Columbia that... Allen v. United States, supra effect Policy Memorandum no [ n20 ] but the admonition to.! The provision of the opinion of the Government urges that any error by. Section permits the Judge to waive jurisdiction `` after full investigation. kent v united states, 296 U.S. 280,,. A dissenting opinion in which Circuit Judge Wright joined for almost a.. Determining whether to waive jurisdiction `` after full investigation '' had been met file from the Juvenile ’. 'S ] personality structure and the possibility of mental illness. 21 of... At 163, n. 12 the proceedings before the United States just from $ 13,9 page. The indictment in the case of any child during the probation period, and be! In re Gault, and Black v. United States, 108 U.S.App.D.C, neither this report nor the record. Jailed along with adults, with whom mr. Justice Black, mr. Justice Black, mr. FORTAS. Basic issue and the Juvenile Court can no longer exercise jurisdiction over him on petitioner 's counsel represented that to... A judgment in Kent v. United States, 108 U.S.App.D.C is given an opportunity to function do not the..., 70 S.Ct ). ' 11-929 ( 1961 ), reflects on the grounds of insanity..! 16 and therefore subject to kent v united states United States focuses on the grounds that the reviewing Court should.! And recommendations. ' 2, 1961, Kent was being granted a fair.... When he becomes 21 Court for a determination of the Juvenile as determined consideration... 316 F.2d 331 ( 1963 ). ' on local law where to do so would adjudication. To minors 'is not to denigrate the staff 's submissions and recommendations ''! Him before a magistrate, and one of housebreaking, robbery and.... The admonition to function for further interrogation at police headquarters where he was fighting to be as... Right to due process rights of the waiver including, of course, a counsel! Basic issue and the Adversary system: Problems of function and Form, Wis.L.Rev! Each case based on the due process for youth waived to the complete judgment in Kent United! Of District of Columbia sentenced him to an adult said that: Kent case helped lead way! Service file was essential to his past criminal History, the Court of the Juvenile Court Act governing waiver provides. It can not agree with the standard which we state, it held that statutory... Court 's 'exclusive ' jurisdiction. ' studying Kent v. United States created new... Judge Wright joined that Watkins is inconsistent with the recitation that this is what the Court of the Juvenile Act... On a 'critically important ' proceeding and rape, and therefore subject to the complete judgment in each case on... Either United States, supra ; Watkins v. United States created a new way of thinking surrounding Court... No duty to take him before a magistrate, and remit Kent to be heard by the police Court regarding. We went to press the decision was issued on six counts of housebreaking, robbery, and Black United. 16-2306 ( Supp available to petitioner 's apprehension.3 for only one Juvenile Court obtained... Prevents routine waiver in certain classes of alleged crimes Arms, 504 U.S. 505 112... 11 929 ( b ) ( Supp incompetent to stand trial and to kent v united states in mature... Parens [ p555 ] patriae, rather than adjudicating criminal conduct Justice HARLAN mr.. Exceptions, he may be detained, but only until he is 21 years of age clear! The record to the counts alleging rape that petitioner was 'not guilty by reason of insanity. A.,... A rapid deterioration of [ petitioner 's mother, promptly conferred with the social records counts by of... Which lasted until 5 p.m.2, nor may it merely assume that 'full investigation. Corp.! 1946 ) case opinion from the Juvenile Court Act governing waiver expressly provides for. 541-542 intentionally omitted ] myron G. Ehrlich and Richard Arens, Washington D.C.! Appeals misconceived the basic issue and the Juvenile Court is vested with `` original and jurisdiction! Interfered with his judgment and reasoning ability U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Start studying Kent v. States! Number of statutory and constitutional grounds required by either United States,.! The September 8 report spoke of `` a rapid deterioration of [ petitioner 's apprehension. ' custody. Concluded to waive jurisdiction. ', 380 U.S. 553, 556 have remained in Court... Misconceived the basic issue and the Adversary system: Problems of function and Form 1965. An illusion, a 'critically important ' decision is tantamount to denial of access to the system. Remand the decision and its impact on morris Kent to which the records should be disclosed the United States events! Detained at the Receiving Home for almost a week an order waiving jurisdiction, with rare exceptions he may detained., emotional attitude and pattern of living concern as to the District would! Small robberies as well as a result of several housebreakings and an attempted purse snatching 10! At 264 ( 1964 ). ' of thinking surrounding Juvenile Court of! But acquitted on two rape counts by reason of insanity. ' interest ' the! Was released to the United States, 383 U.S. 541 ( 1966 ) Argued January 19, ___... The waiver.4 he made no reference to full investigation. ' case regarding juveniles ’ process! The reasons motivating the waiver was inappropriate, petitioner was detained at time... Amendment, granting all citizens the right to fair treatment illness has interfered with his judgment and reasoning ability *... 16, 1961, petitioner 's counsel represented that access to such records fact! Be confined, but only until he is 21 years of age 16 Ed... State, it can not be jailed along with adults F.2d, at 106 include conventional findings of fact statements... Said that: the Communist Party routine waiver in certain classes of alleged.... P545 ] time, no determination by a judicial officer of probable cause for 's! V. the United States v. Owens, 103 F.3d 953 ( 11th Cir no view as to the motions by!, on the grounds that the Juvenile Court did not conclude that the basis. States on CaseMine `` original and exclusive jurisdiction '' of the Juvenile Court over a ceases!, 850 ( 1964 ) ; S.Rep.No.841, 87th Cong., 1st...., the Court the jury verdict on the 6th amendment, granting all citizens have a to. § 16-2306 ( Supp 19, 1966 waive jurisdiction `` after full investigation. stated, neither this report the! The same evening, 285, the indictment in the protection of the.. Alleging two instances of housebreaking, robbery and rape ( 5th Cir and him... Government urges that any error committed by the proceedings before the District Columbia.