sokoto good morning i'm here on behalf of the defendant juvenile male number four and i'm here addressing two issues the first issue is does the fifth amendment prohibits involuntary pretrial evaluations by government doctors will cause irreparable could cause irreparable harm the status of this case is that the government filed a bunny and then file the petition to transfer the number one that if it's a ford does take issue that the physician decision for be conclusive on the issue and that would be the case here because it's a forward it to to decide that the juvenile defendant does have a fifth amendment right to not be examined by that compelled examination by the government doctors and the exam would not take place as this differ from the state method appeal your you're arguing here that the exact order for the examinations appeal yes what's important to be decided here is whether the fifth amendment applies prior pretrial prior to the transfer hearing itself because the government's attempting to use statements from the juvenile against him in the transfer hearing not having to do with the crime though right correct ok looked in your brief mr selkie for some authority on the interlocutory appeal of such cases i don't see any on your side of this there is some law on comparable borders dealing with adult defendants in federal court and whether this is an interlocutory appeal use your client in federal custody at this point he is over is it in juvenile circumstances or adult is being held in a jail in kentucky separate supposedly separate from what is part of the southern district marshal's arrangements with one of their contract ok will weather this examination takes place effect the duration of his or whether we're going whether we take the appeal affected your ration of his custody yes how well i think the appeal would them under section forty two forty one d for another four months for further evaluation courts have said look if you're going to hold somebody for four months in custody for peace and for evaluation that's got to be appealed but that's based not on the examination but on the custody and so that would seem to cut against an interlocutory appeal into these circumstances and say wait until you get a determination  about whether to send him to adult court well the examination itself will slow it down now i wouldn't wouldn't they go to the prison the federal detention center were   trick in approximately twenty years something like that not in my time corporatists but that's why i ask you about the comparison with indiana that it's it seems to me the think the traditional breaking point part of our contention that the statute does not cover all of this provide a complete bar fourth fifth the members protections for him why not two or two reasons one it doesn't provide  derivative immunity for instance if a juvenile defendant has been on probation or many times there's types of pretrial diversion again i'm not familiar with state juvenile law those are appointed doctor and say yeah i completed that interview but while i completed probation successfully but while i was on it i used drugs i committed robberies the same thing with these informal type agreements where the child has to be home at  information obtained in the interview why wouldn't that be criminal proceedings well covered by the statute but it doesn't specifically say  derivative it covers derivative and also more importantly i think what we're looking at here and i think the more important issue is is when we go to a hearing on  transfer or not it's not a hearing that the juveniles sought it's a hearing that the government is electing to decide with to prosecute juvenile as a juvenile or an adult and it's not as the government and i think one of the other circuits described as a selection of a form it's a selection of our hearts the punishment will be for the juvenile  in my case my juveniles facing a maximum of five years in whatever treatment facility he would or rehabilitation facility or process he would receive under the juvenile statute he's potentially facing decades of truth is a dollar the transfer here in and of itself is a determination of the amount of punishment right and he's got you and he's got a right to appeal that determination immediately right yes so a once he's interviewed and once the information comes out the government at all times has the discretion and the duty to use your discretion as to whether to go forward to seek harmful to the juvenile male during the interview process and that interview process then causes the government to get we are going to go ahead and seek transfer we did do the right thing by starting this that can't be undone al has to go through a transfer proceeding any ends up in adult court he's gone through a whole procedure that he may not have had to go through had he been able to exercise the utilize compelled to estimate or compelled with what you call testimony right if he were compelled to testify yes and we ordinarily treat such grants of immunity to compel testimony despite  fifth amendment privilege as constitutionally sufficient right yes so why would they not why would that not be sufficient here again the government would here the government is the decision maker as to whether to seek the page seventeen no one leaves lines with the statue prohibiting introduction of pretty transfer statements and subsequent criminal proceedings does not adequately protect the truth interrogations confessions for example that was the problem it's not as a lose not a separate damages action for example just for the coercive interrogation i don't have a case today but i can't imagine a policy would allow a sheriff's department or any police agency to just better facts to compel defendants to give statements and then say well we're not going to use them to get to make that statement and that that is it can't what the government is asking  i would just say that the defendant reiterate says time and again that this decision is up to the government but it's up to the courts we have moved for transfer there's no indication that i'm aware of that we would back off from that and so the point the propriet wind up being used against him in state court well the statute it seems to me provides for an absolute bargain to the use of the statements in any future who read that office you ssion which would include a in other words just delinquency fit within the statutes use of the term prosecution criminal prosecutions i think i'd have to say i do not know the department's position on that but it seems to me that that would be a hard well to climb out of to assert on behalf of the government that the statements are just fine to use it against him after going to such lengths to get him to provide them that is that i think that's not the from a policy  standpoint my colleague mr policy from a legal standpoint that sounds like a one legged chair but but that said again i don't know the department's full full throated view on that  i just don't see that these statements can be used in an intimate start bashing in the future there are a lot of cases that have said that and i think that makes this a non issue but it's also not the time to address the issue the time to address the issue is soon it could have been now i suppose given the schedule for examination in the fall followed by a transfer hearing but at this point it may be down the road a little bit would you agree that this is that this examination and then the determination about whether to treat him as an adult is a critical stage in the criminal prosecution no the only precedent that i've seen on that question this a status to terminations or a form determination and there's nothing incriminating about it i understand that he might say things that are permeating but we can't use them now it depends on whether but for six the main purposes of the real speech entitle to counsel and the government will not be making any sort of argue that is not at transfer their shirt because their reporting consequences they're not consequences of guilt or innocence but their court right if there's nothing else i think  juvenile records which the government's already obtained in this case witnesses the information nature passed through her records again that's something the government can subpoena and if and and it taint  veil building a program to treat juvenile behavior problems obviously the behavior problem they're trying to treat is what's alleged in the complaint so they know what the behavior problem is will they know what their treatment programs are the  going to know that is present intellectual development and psychological but surety i think again that is something that can be obtained through witness interviews as well as school records and test given by the school psychological maturity would probably testing done and most children that have been through the school system have psychological testing and other governments attain the luminous records on my client in this case i can imagine they can't glean enough of what they need from those records in juvenile trouble before yes