i'm tony gallagher a federal defender for the district of montana and i'm here for the juvenile philip l his claim is not truly an apprentice claim but it is a claim that derives from a pretty versus new jersey in the supreme court's recent jury trial jurors prudence the question before this court is whether a prior juvenile adjudication qualifies as a prior conviction for purposes of mandatory transfer to adult court in light of cite this one is preferred seven seven seven the eight involving c k a successful prosecution under the act result in a civil duty cation not a criminal conviction and that's of page seven strikingly different than the one raised by philip mcgill argued that the jury rather than the judge must decide whether the whether to try him as an adult because the transfer increased its maximum sentence from imprisonment until age twenty one to life in prison and that's three thirty eight that thirty one thousand miguel's discussion of a printer is not relevant to philip's issue the court held that are pr not require that a jury find the facts that allow the transfer to district court here philip relies on that language in a plan to which talks about the prior duty cation and how that prior adjudication cannot be used as a conviction as a predicate to poor or increasing someone's sentence if someone is not given a jury trial right in that prior conviction certainly strikingly different i'm again i'm not saying that philip has to have his right to be tried as a juvenile or his right to be tried as an adult determined by a jury i'm not saying that i'm saying that his prior conviction had did have the jury trial right attendant to that and it did not gave it a try on the other hand to address the court's second question did not address the foundational issue raised by the look here the court's the civically held in david the act was one burglary the actual three burglars residence crime it would be a crime if it was committed by adult but as this court has said in juvenile c k which i mentioned at the beginning of my argument that's us that's a logical logical extension of that is is that a juvenile who has a prior juvenile judy cation cannot on the basis of that prior juvenile adjudication be mandatorily transferred in his status to the status of an adult there has to be the full panoply of prostitution all rights for an individual's prior conviction or his prior finding of guilt to be counted me as rehabilitation it's not meant to be punitive it's meant to allow an individual to thrive big three ability himself so if the defendant chooses to go to adult court he loses that treatment and rehabilitation why would he want to lose that act itself is far different the course teachers are different even a court a court can deny someone a public trial and the adjudication can be to conduct it in chambers under fifty three so i the court quoted from a print me and from jones when they were talking about prior conviction exception and they were specifically talking about the fact that those not a in a print the issue there are i am not saying that the jury has to make a determination of a fact as an element of the crime of mandatory transfer what i'm saying is that the court cannot use those not it's not because of the ramifications of what's happening here we're changing someone status much the same as the government tried just changed mr ties status from italian possession firearm to an armed career criminal and the court in thai said you can't do that unless those prior convictions those prior findings of guilt have the full panoply of constitutional rights without a jury a finding that the juvenile committed an act the question here is whether or not a juvenile delinquency determination is a finding of guilt said we need to look at it differently yes and that was based on a print which says that that there's a requirement of a jury trial judge that a jury determined th congress set aside this act to treat juveniles differently and within that act they can decide who's going to be treated as a juvenile and in deciding who's going to be treated as a juvenile  determination or they have the power to to include a provision that allows somebody to be transferred or treated as an adult given certain circumstances and i think  there's a there's a quote from that particular case that if i found to be very insightful so that congress could exercise this expression to require that all juveniles over the age of sixteen charge question court been kind enough to give me an extra minute and i'm going to try to utilize it expeditiously first of the entire statute fifty thirty two would not be abrogated there is the discretionary transfer which this court is discussed earlier and we're that helps me and that language specifically is a prior conviction itself must have been established through procedure satisfying that there noticed up with reasonable doubt injury trial guaranteed only to enough destruction demanding that a jury must decide whether my client was a juvenile or an adult but because his prior education did not have the jury trial right thank you very much rogers thank you