take one of the state's youngest offenders and transfer that child to adult words and it is for that reason it but the legislature and illinois where it's provided for some fairly stringent requirements for those transfer hearings the legislature in its statutory scheme sets forth about a dozen factors that tortoise required to consider before transferring the minor and courts have subsequently interpreted those statutory requirements as requiring evidence o record at the trial where it's considered each of those factors in order to satisfy due process there are three particular sections of the transfer statute that are relevant in this case the first is the advantage of treatment within juvenile the juvenile services if there is not evidence of sentences in both systems it is impossible to make that determination in terms of talking about the reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation of warehouse to be presented with evidence of what those ordinarily a court is presumed to know the law but in this body of case law that surrounds transfer proceedings supreme court has been clear that there has to be evidence in order to satisfy due process primarily because of the gravity of this decision in people v clark is instructive in people the clarke the miner was subject to automatic life sentences if you were transferred to adult court it was based on a double murder there was no discretion that was available to the trial court the law was very straightforward about what the sentences were and clark but yet the supreme court says when we're making these types of decisions about children it's now we have to be as reviewing courts reviewing courts have to be certain that trial courts were absolutely aware of these sentencing ranges and considered them and so in one of the reasons that case of a setback for a new transfer hearing included the fact that there was no evidence that the minor would face a mandatory he was subject to a potential sentence that in effect exceeded any reason that exceeded his lifespan the potential range was ninety years the maximum for murder at sixty years plus thirty years the maximum transfer hearing in addition there was no in absolutely no information introduced at the transfer hearing about be available options to the minor in this case the state presented no evidence other than some a little bit of officer about the options that are available to a child if placed on probation in macomb county residential placements mental health counseling and probation supervision the problem is in this case  deonte wasn't eligible for any of those services if you were convicted of first degree murder if you were convicted of first degree murder the juvenile court act requires that he be held in a department of juvenile justice facility for a minimum of five years and up to twenty one years and so in this case there was no information at all presented on what the potential services for in juvenile court in addition to not talking about what the actual sentence would have been in  was absolutely no comparison between what would happen to deonte if he were placed and if he remained in juvenile court and what would happen in an adult facility and the research is the extraordinarily clear that there are life altering by staff members who are trained in how to appropriately deal with juveniles and keep juveniles say in contrast in adult prison children and are in extraordinary risk for being victims of sexual assault having mental health transferred to an adult to an adult facility at age seventeen so even though deon tate isn't put in an adult facility at age fourteen or fifteen or sixteen at seventeen he's eligible for transfer with court approval at eighteen department of juvenile justice doesn't even need to ask and there's a relative it's an older fourth district case but it reflects that i think in my experience what happens with the department of juvenile justice is if the do department of juvenile justice has a child that they know is going to an adult facility for a long time there's no point in giving that that child intensive services because the child's going to be sent to an adult prison and so if this older fourth district case talks about the fact that when a child the subject to an adult sentence what happens for the most part is children are almost always sent to those adult facilities at age seventeen and age eighteen and it is the rare exception when a child like that  because of the the length of these sentences the child is also going to be sent to a maximum security facility where adult facility so this is a child who's going to be house with the worst of the worst adult offenders by virtue of the transfer in contrast age fourteen there was a substantial window of time in which the department of juvenile justice could work to rehabilitate this child that his has i think he had not quite turn sixteen by the time it into d j jay and d j  is authorized to keep that child until he is twenty one deon tate was if this offense had occurred a year and a week earlier we wouldn't even be having this conversation because the criminal code prohibits the transfer of true but at that point is fifteen years old he's a year older he's a year more mature the legislature has made the determination that some children need to be transferred to adult court and the stats traced scheme that the legislature has created is focused primarily on the age of the minor and so there is this continuum that's available to words for no children under thirteen and fourteen can be transferred thirteen and fourteen year olds the presumption is that child is supposed to stay in juvenile court unless the trial court finds it's necessary to transfer the child to adult court based on these statutory factors it's also important to note that when it comes to the to the decision of transfer and the importance of considering all of these factors and the trial court being presented with a all picture about what these two options look like is the notion that the best interests of the minor and the best interests of the public are not divorced when it comes to the transfer of children to adult court it is not an either or proposition that if we keep this child an adult or it will in danger public safety as was discussed in the brief what we know is what the data shows us is that transferring children to adult court increases recidivism and keeping children in adult court and even for serious offenders when serious children are kept in deep end facilities like the department of juvenile of public safety what good is transferring a child to adult or if when he comes out he's incur shape then what so in terms of the balance that a court takes into account in terms of the issues issues of public safety  juvenile or system provides an option that maintains public safety i put in the minors in a secure facility for a minimum of five years and if the department of juvenile justice experts have that child and say we're still not sure that he's ready to be released at eighteen or nineteen the juvenile justice system has the discretion to keep that child until he's twenty one so the the adults in this case have a substantial amount of time and resources to be able to rehabilita what about the fact or whether it's a fair what's the unique goal or what's the research show about keeping somebody past eighty when they're under juvenile court jurisdiction  use that additional three years or because of all the you know budget constraints there is the reality of it that they are going to get those services or are they going to be released here's what we know about it i'm not aware of specific research in illinois that say has poor kids who are kept in the system are they kept until they are they're twenty one but what we do know is that there's an extraordinary under crowding problem in department of juvenile justice the other thing is that the category of children at very young children who are who would be adjudicated delinquent for offenses a serious murder are very small so the notion that the system is flooded with lots of thirteen and fourteen year olds who are convicted of murder is  case his record was extraordinarily minor it was a criminal damage to property for throwing rocks and a trespass case for not leaving school grounds quickly enough both of which were so locked so lacking in serious that he was put on supervision rather than even being placed on sick one on probation yes the court is required to consider the seriousness of the offense and i think the response to that is twofold if the trial court had had all of the other information that it needed about the appropriate response to the seriousness of seriousness about offense all the court had is this was a serious offense but didn't have any information about and what happens if i keep him in juvenile what's the likelihood at age fourteen that he's going to outgrow this that he's going to become more mature that he's going to be less inclined to engage in this kind of behavior that the other response is to is that this was not a case where deonte was the only person responsible for this offense so yes it was serious in that it was a victim who died and the group of boys continued on and there was a second beating but there was no evidence that deon tate was the ringleader of the closeness that the court came to that is the fact that  the first blow and mewing him at the transfer hearing the detective who testified said we have some evidence that he struck the first blow at noon and then didn't participate anymore in the beating the testimony about the fact that he participated in getting to a greater degree appeared at trial after malcolm spence and brandon white had made their deals and had agreed to testify against you on tape at the transfer hearing this te testify one low opinion him being there were some mixed evidence about his participation in the wilson game so at the time the court was presented with it again a very serious offense it's wine murder and attempted murder it's why those offenses are eligible for terry transfer because under some circumstances transfer might be appropriate but before courts make that decision the court has to have all of the information that it needs to make a fully informed decision when it comes to transfer so well relief for your course reversal on remand for a new transfer hearing in the case and then at that point depending on the outcome of the transfer hearing that clear what happened was the case went back to macon county there was a new transfer hearing and then macon county chose to give gary clark a new and entirely new trial there's an opportunity for plea bargaining at that case there at that at that at that point when the case adult prisons are just as bad now and just as dangerous for children now as they were at the time of your original transfer hearing department of juvenile justice facilities are probably as the department of juvenile justice makes improvements is probably actually more likely to rehabilitate even though they were two or three years ago because of reforms within the facility and i think that it is legitimate for that point to to consider how jiangxi has behaved in the case so i don't think that there's anything to bar evidence about deion takes behavior in or juvenile justice system since he's been in the juvenile justice facility but again if the court doesn't isn't presented with evidence about these two stark contrasts the work cannot accurately weigh the bank accurately balance the seriousness of the offense over what the appropriate responses because that's the focus of a transfer what response to this child's behavior how is it that we can rehabilitate this child and keep public safe and if we can do both then doubts what the statutory presumption it might not be specifically considering the sentencing of him isn't it don't as primary issue in the case there's still an inner connection you know not i'm not being flippant so i think the trial judges they don't know what goes on in the juvenile system and they don't know what goes on in the adult system because we've been taught for generations with the d c what it does what the hell it wants they don't really care what judges say on sentencing orders or where the person's going to go or recommendation if you house close to their family if there's a deal see facility you know they shouldn't be sent to you know three hundred miles away well the penalty for murder is not  sort of alternatives are if you will for probation and with respect to whether there were any particular advantages of particular to the juvenile justice system to not transfer with respect to if it would end up available to the juvenile justice system the story remarked look at that well it doesn't matter because the defendant is going to be sentenced to prison he's going to end up in juvenile so that they're at their age so if this course had dismissed that factor on the basis of saying well they're going to be end up in the same prison whether they're transferred pots so that that shows that the defense point is not well taken and you say there's still a good case yes  because the judge the decision has already been made he's either going to be sentenced a match for a minimum of twenty years for or even greater which is way back in this case where he's going to be eligible have to be released page twenty one because the judge decided not to take advantage of those rehabilitative services if you know those could lead either to early release or will be to release it twenty one and you will be cheats versus why should i spin my wheels when i the law requires and then sending them to adopt prison where we've been quoted in the brandeis brief style th juvenile justice system as a judicial system is not capable of dealing with such a serious of whatever it's in the record is there that's the conclusion he reaches those are his words right  dangerous to society and was showing the willingness to change so that re very briefly if liggett does indeed say that there is no difference between june facility and adult facility then i would ask this court it was wrongly decided i don't think that's what it means in terms of the language statute again so we discuss or eighteen and then is sent to the department of juvenile justice if what liggett says as the state represents like it says that that means that there are no particular li proposition that there is no difference between juvenile and an adult facility in fact clarke did exactly the opposite of that what clarke said is there has to be evidence of what happens to a child in adult court and what happens to an adult  criminal court in criminal court and the state seeks to take this some language and leave it and say that means there's nothing particularly black particularly special about keeping a kid in juvenile court and giving a kid the treatment and services and a little hesitant to respond is that it's not an issue that the state and i briefed about what would happen afterwards what we what we've asked for on the on his behalf isn't transfer hearing and then what happens once the case that goes back for a transfer hearing  how easy it will be for the state to prove deon take the l t in a new trial isn't one of the statutory factors but the transfer hearing focuses on is those are those secretaries factors and those statutory factors  but as i was as i was thinking about this i think that that that the problem with trials where it's perhaps not knowing the appropriate ranges is particularly aggravated in juvenile proceedings because in this case and it is a typical practice that that the transfer hearing takes place in juvenile court because at that point the delinquency petition has been filed it is a wholly delinquent proceeding and in this case the transfer hearing was made by a juvenile court judge so there is even sort of less of i suppose a connection between a judge who practice in juvenile court and the notion that that direction necessarily knows all of the appropriate sentencing ranges