U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator

From the Administrator

While juvenile violence has been

declining in recent years, its level

remains unacceptable, as recent

headlines have underscored. We

know that the overwhelming majority of homicides committed by

juveniles involve firearms and that

an alarming number of students are

coming to school armed. In the

course of a single academic year,

more than 100,000 students are

likely to have carried a gun to

school.

These disturbing events and statistics demand our comprehensive

response. Public officials, community leaders, and other concerned

citizens must work together to

reduce juvenile gun violence. As

most States restrict or prohibit the

possession of firearms by juveniles,

a key element in a campaign to

combat gun violence is the strict

enforcement of such laws and the

effective prosecution of those who

violate them.

This Bulletin provides helpful

information about steps taken by

the Seattle [Washington] Police

Department and the Prosecutor’s

Office in King County, Washington,

to strengthen the investigation and

prosecution of juvenile firearm

offenders. It is my hope that this

information will enhance efforts to

end juvenile gun violence and its

tragic toll across the Nation.

John J. Wilson

Acting Administrator

Seattle’s Effective Strategy

for Prosecuting Juvenile

Firearm Offenders

Bob Scales and Julie Baker

dramatically between 1987 and 1994.

By 1994, 82 percent of all homicides by

juvenile offenders involved the use of

a firearm (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999).

◆ In 1994, firearm injuries were the

second leading cause of death for

young people between the ages of 10

and 24 (National Center for Injury

Prevention and Control, 1996).

The number of juveniles with access to

firearms also is significant:

◆ In 1994, the National School Boards

Association estimated that each day

approximately 135,000 students nationwide carried guns into schools

(Maginnis, 1995).

◆ In a 1995 national survey, 7.6 percent of

all students reported carrying a firearm

for fighting or self-defense at least once

in the previous 30 days (Kann et al.,

1996). This is nearly double the rate in

1990 (Weapon-carrying, 1991).

◆ It is estimated that 6,093 students were

expelled nationally for bringing a firearm

to school during the 1996–97 school year

(U.S. Department of Education, 1998).

By 1994, laws in 18 States restricted the

possession of handguns by juveniles, and

another 14 States prohibited the possession of all firearms by juveniles (National

Criminal Justice Association, 1997). An

evaluation of the effectiveness of local

March 2000

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has long recognized the need for communities to develop

comprehensive and collaborative efforts to

reduce juvenile gun violence. Components

of a collaborative gun violence reduction

program can include targeted police responses, surveillance of probationers, situational crime prevention using problemsolving strategies, parental supervision,

peer mediation and conflict resolution,

school-based interventions, community mobilization, legislation restricting youth access to guns, and tough sentences for

crimes involving firearms (OJJDP, 1999). Effective prosecution of juvenile firearm offenders is another essential component of a

successful gun violence reduction program.

Statistics from the recently published

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report (Snyder and Sickmund,

1999) reveal that although the homicide

rate of juveniles has declined in recent

years (after peaking in 1993), the role of

firearms in homicides involving juvenile

victims or juvenile offenders remains

significant:

◆ In 1997, 56 percent of the Nation’s 2,100

murder victims ages 17 and younger

were killed with a firearm (Snyder and

Sickmund, 1999).

◆ The percentage of homicides committed by juveniles with firearms increased
2

gun laws and policies suggests that these

laws can prevent and even reduce the

number of firearm-related homicides

(Howell, 1995).

Vigorous enforcement and effective prosecution of local gun laws are essential.

This Bulletin details successful strategies

implemented by the Seattle [WA] Police

Department (SPD) and the King County

[WA] Prosecutor’s Office that improved

the effectiveness of both the police investigation and the prosecution of juvenile

firearm offenders.

The Seattle Police

Department Youth

Handgun Violence

Initiative Grant

In 1994, the Washington State Legislature

enacted a new law making it a felony-level

offense for anyone under the age of 18 to

own, possess, or control a firearm of any

kind in Washington State.1

 The law also

increased the severity of consequences

for gun-related crimes committed by youth.

Following the passage of this new law, SPD

and the King County Prosecutor’s Office

announced the implementation of the SPD

Youth Handgun Violence Initiative (YHVI),

a coordinated enforcement and prosecution effort to remove guns from the hands

of Seattle’s youth. YHVI complemented the

SPD’s and King County Prosecutor’s Office’s

educational effort called “Options, Choices,

Consequences,” a gun violence prevention

program in which police officers, prosecutors, and physicians teach Seattle’s middle

school students about the legal and medical consequences of unlawful firearm

possession and use. 

The Seattle Police Department’s Youth

Handgun Violence Initiative was funded

by a U.S. Department of Justice Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services

(COPS) grant. Ten cities throughout the

country were awarded funds under this

program to provide targeted and focused

law enforcement efforts directed at combating the rise of youth firearm violence. SPD

allocated a portion of these grant funds

to employ a prosecutor dedicated to the

prosecution of juvenile firearm offenders.

In addition to prosecution support, SPD

allocated YHVI grant funds for a new crime

analysis and mapping system, law enforcement overtime, and project evaluation. Initiative activities included:

◆ Establishing School Enforcement

Teams (SET’s). A coordinated school

enforcement program was established involving all SPD personnel

working in schools, organized by precinct, and working in unison with

school district administrators and

security staff. Teams met monthly.

The program employed a problemsolving approach to address school

problems and focused on improving

communication between agencies

represented on SET’s. Targeted enforcement projects were initiated as

needed for identified “hotspots.”

◆ Developing a New Crime Analysis

System. Grant funds were used to purchase software and hardware for a

new Crime Analysis System to provide

youth crime targeting, mapping, and

tracking capabilities and to support

SET activities.

◆ Tracking and Prosecuting Chronic

Youthful Offenders. The King County

Prosecutor’s Office specifically focused on youthful offenders involved

in weapons cases, creating a baseline

database for tracking juvenile gun

crime cases. SPD and the King County

Department of Youth Services (DYS)

shared information to improve tracking of chronic juvenile offenders and

dissemination of information between

the agencies, including offenders’

probation or parole status.

◆ Targeting Serious Youth Offenders.

Officers from the SPD’s narcotics and

gang units coordinated with SET’s to

address the citywide youth violence

problem. The program included enforcement projects targeted at youth

identified as serious offenders. These

enforcement projects included partnering detectives with patrol officers and

focusing resources on areas identified

as having high levels of drug dealing,

drug trafficking, and gang activity.

◆ Performing Research and Evaluation.

The grant participants established links

with University of Washington and King

County Department of Public Health

researchers to survey the community

on program progress and hold focus

groups to identify strategies to combat

youth violence and firearm use.

In September 1996, representatives of SPD

and the King County Prosecutor’s Office

implemented the new YHVI deputy prosecuting attorney (DPA) position in juvenile

court dedicated exclusively to the prosecution of juveniles who committed crimes

using firearms. The new DPA’s goals were to:

1

 The Revised Code of Washington (RCW 9.41.010 (1))

defines a firearm as “a weapon or device from which a

projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive

such as gunpowder.” This includes handguns, rifles,

and shotguns.

What Types of Data Were

Collected?

The King County Prosecutor’s Office,

in consultation with the Seattle Police

Department, developed a list of

information to be retrieved from case

files and included in the database:

◆Juvenile.

❖ Name, age, gender, and race.

❖ Delinquency history.

❖ School.

◆Crime.

❖ Brief description of incident,

date, and time.

❖ Incident address and type of

location (see figure 1).

❖ Victim’s age, gender, race, and

any injuries sustained.

❖ Description of motor vehicles

used.

❖ Gang information (gang name

or moniker).

◆Firearm.

❖ Make, model, caliber, and serial

number.

❖ Status of the gun: recovered?

loaded? fired?

❖ Description of how the gun was

obtained and used by the juvenile.

◆Prefiling.

❖ Date case was received by the

prosecutor.

❖ Action taken by the prosecutor.

◆Court Proceedings.

❖ Charges filed against the

juvenile.

❖ Standard range of sentences

for charges filed.

❖ Results of transfer hearings

(waiver to adult court).

❖ Adjudications (trials and

dismissals).

❖ Dispositions (sentences

imposed and modification

hearings).
3

◆ Increase the effectiveness of the prosecution of juvenile firearm offenders by

identifying and tracking juvenile offenders throughout the judicial process.

◆ Improve the efficiency at every stage of

prosecution.

◆ Improve the coordination of law enforcement and prosecution efforts.

◆ Provide training and legal advice to law

enforcement personnel.

◆ Perform a statistical analysis of juvenile

firearm offenses for the previous 3 years

for comparison with the first grant year.

In April 1999, the city of Seattle and King

County received additional funding under

OJJDP’s Juvenile Accountability Incentive

Block Grants (JAIBG) program. The prosecutor employed under this grant will continue and expand upon the programs implemented during the initial COPS grant, work

with the recently formed King County Violent Firearms Crime Coalition to conduct

training seminars for law enforcement officers within the county, and coordinate investigation and prosecution efforts with

the U.S. Department of the Treasury Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and

the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Juvenile Firearm

Database

The prosecutor’s office creates a case file

for each delinquency case filed in juvenile

court. The case file contains a copy of the

police report, copies of all court documents, information on each juvenile’s offending history, a complete record of the

incident, and details of what happened

procedurally in the case. The DPA designed a computer database system for

tracking firearm offenders through the

court system. This database supplemented the court’s existing computer

system (Juvenile Justice Wide Area Network) and contained additional descriptive information about the juvenile and

his or her offense.

The database included all cases where a

firearm either was used in the commission

of a crime or was unlawfully possessed

by the juvenile. It allowed the prosecutor

to quickly and easily monitor, evaluate,

and prepare cases for court hearings and

identify serious, violent, and chronic offenders. Data were collected during the

first 9 months (September 1, 1996, to May

31, 1997) of the DPA grant period. The

database also included information on

all King County juvenile firearm cases for

the preceding 3 years, information that

was used to generate baseline statistics

to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The database helped the DPA to

identify problem areas and common weaknesses in the prosecution of these cases

that he could then address in his legal

research and training sessions. Using the

database, the prosecutor analyzed police

reports from hundreds of firearm cases

to determine how investigations could

be improved.

Trends and

Characteristics of

Juvenile Firearm

Offenses in King

County, WA

Through his examination of 840 King

County juvenile firearm cases from January

1994 through May 1997, the DPA was able

to examine the trends and characteristics

of juvenile firearm offenses.2

◆ What Are the Characteristics of

Juvenile Firearm Offenders?

❖ Juvenile court handles cases involving juveniles ages 8 to 17. Juvenile

firearm offenders are generally

2

 To put the number of juvenile firearm cases in perspective, the population of King County, WA, was approximately 1.6 million people in 1996.

among the older segment of this

population, with more than half of

all juvenile offenses committed by

youth ages 16 and 17. (More than

80 percent of robberies and assaults

by juveniles using firearms are committed by youth age 15 or older,

while the majority of burglaries by

juveniles where firearms are stolen

are committed by youth age 15 or

younger.)

❖ The number of male offenders rises

steadily with age. The number of

female offenders peaks at age 15

and then begins to decline. Female

juveniles often become involved

with firearms through their boyfriends, who are typically a year or

two older. This may explain the female juvenile offender peak at age

15, when many girls begin dating

(see figure 2).

❖ Less than 7 percent of all juvenile

firearm crimes are committed by

females. Female juveniles are more

likely to be involved in property or

possession crimes involving firearms and are rarely involved in

violent firearm offenses.

❖ The majority of juvenile firearm offenders (58 percent) have at least one

delinquency adjudication on their

record. Another 20 percent have had

some type of court referral, but no

adjudications. Only 22 percent of all

juvenile firearm offenders have no

*Number of cases.

Figure 1: Location of Juvenile

Firearm Incidents

(King County, WA,

804 Cases, January

1994–May 1997)

270*

197*

151*

82*

75*

29*

Street

24.5%

Residence

33.6%

Park

School 3.6%

9.3%

Business

10.2%

Vehicle

18.8%

Figure 2: Age of Juvenile Firearm

Offenders (King County,

WA, January 1994–

May 1997)

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Age

Number of Cases

Female Male
4

record of any prior delinquent activity (see figure 3).

❖ Juveniles who commit robberies

with firearms tend to have lengthier

delinquency histories than juveniles

who commit other types of firearm

offenses.

❖ The average juvenile firearm offender’s delinquency history includes

one prior felony-level adjudication,

one-and-a-half prior misdemeanorlevel adjudications, and four other

prior juvenile court referrals.

❖ Only 12 percent of juvenile firearm

offenders have had a prior adjudication or referral for a firearm-related

offense.

◆ When Do Firearm Crimes Occur?

❖ The rate of juvenile gun crime is

generally higher during the school

months, declining slightly in the summer, and falling sharply in December.

These results follow general trends in

juvenile crime in King County.

❖ The number of juvenile offenses involving firearms peaks in the late

evening (10 p.m.). Another smaller

peak in firearm activity is seen in

the afternoon (2 p.m.), mostly in

connection with burglaries.

◆ Where Do Juvenile Offenders Get

Their Guns?

For the majority of firearm offenses

examined, it is not known where or

how juveniles acquired guns. Data on

the cases where the source of the firearm is known revealed the following:

❖ The firearm was stolen by the user

or later confirmed as stolen by someone else in 39 percent of the cases.

❖ The firearm was obtained from a

friend or relative in 42 percent of

the cases. Juveniles often receive

firearms from their friends, usually

at their school or home. It is also

common for juveniles to take their

parents’ guns and bring them to

school, give them to other juveniles,

or use them in violent crimes. Juveniles often say they needed to take

the gun for “protection.”

❖ The firearm was purchased by the

juvenile in only 15 percent of the

cases. Typically, a juvenile purchaser

admits buying the gun on the street

from an unidentified person for between $50 and $100.

❖ The firearm was claimed to have

been “found” by the juvenile in

4 percent of the cases.

◆ How Are Firearms Used by Juvenile

Offenders?

❖ When committing a robbery using a

firearm, juvenile offenders rarely

fire their guns (8 percent of all incidents). The gun is primarily used

for intimidation.

❖ In felony assault cases involving a

firearm, the weapon was fired by the

juvenile in 63 percent of the cases

and injury resulted in 43 percent of

those cases. (A felony assault with a

firearm may occur when the offender

points a gun at the victim, whether

or not any shots were fired or any

injury resulted.)

❖ Seventy-four percent of all guns

recovered from juvenile offenders

were found to be loaded. Of the juveniles who possessed unloaded guns,

one-third also possessed ammunition

for the gun.

◆ What Types of Firearms Are Used by

Juvenile Offenders?

❖ Semiautomatic handguns are the

weapon of choice for most juveniles

and are involved in more than half

of all juvenile firearm offenses (see

figure 4).

❖ Most juvenile firearm offenses are

committed with handguns, with

only 18 percent involving shotguns

or rifles.

Prosecution of

Juvenile Firearm

Offenders

As is the case with most offender populations, among juvenile offenders a small

number of serious, violent, and chronic

offenders commit the majority of serious

juvenile crime (Howell, 1995). Through a

joint planning effort of the Tracking and

Prosecuting Chronic Youthful Offenders

component of the YHVI grant, SPD and

King County Prosecutor’s Office representatives agreed that a top priority for both

agencies was getting the most serious juvenile firearm offenders “off the street.”

The grant allowed the DPA to specialize in

the prosecution of juvenile firearm offenders. He could carry an overall reduced

workload, allowing him to focus on serious

cases, develop expertise, and gather extensive and detailed information on juvenile

offenders to assist him in preparing and

presenting his cases. Because of this expertise, the DPA was able to make quicker decisions, could expedite the filing of cases, and

had more knowledge of “how the system

works,” what to look for in cases, and how

cases would be viewed by the courts.

Vertical Prosecution

In “vertical” prosecution, a single prosecutor handles each case through every stage

of the court process, including the initial

police investigation and followup, case

filing, arraignment and detention hearings,

pretrial hearings, guilty pleas, adjudicatory

hearings, and dispositional hearings.

Figure 4: Types of Firearms Used

by Juvenile Offenders

(King County, WA, 564

Incidents, January

1994–May 1997)

314*

137*

54*

50*

9*

*Number of incidents.

Note: Percentages do not total 100 because

of rounding.

Semiautomatic

55.7%

Derringer Rifle 1.6%

8.9%

Shotgun

9.6%

Revolver

24.3%

Figure 3: Delinquency History

of Juvenile Firearm

Offenders (King

County, WA, 820 Cases,

January 1994–May 1997)

308*

179*

170*

94*

69*

*Number of cases.

Felony

adjudication

37.6%

Misdemeanor

offense referrals

8.4%

Felony

offense

referrals

11.5%

Misdemeanor

adjudication

20.7%

No prior history

21.8%
5

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

55

50

45

40

47

50 53

17

Vertical prosecution, which is labor intensive and time consuming, is not the traditional practice in the King County juvenile

division, where specialized units handle

the various phases of each juvenile case as

it is processed through the court system.

The DPA practiced vertical prosecution for

juvenile firearm cases, handling and supervising a case from the time it was first received until it was resolved. In cases involving serious violent offenses, the DPA

would often accompany the assigned detective to the crime scene during the investigation process. Each of these cases

was successfully adjudicated. During the

grant period, approximately 25 firearmrelated cases were filed each month, including felony-level possession, burglary, and

violent crimes.

Vertical prosecution resulted in greater

continuity and consistency in prosecution. The DPA reviewed prior juvenile firearm cases that went to trial but did not

result in an adjudication of delinquency

to identify the problems and issues involved in their prosecution. He conducted

legal research and wrote trial briefs to

address the specific legal issues involved

in firearm crimes.

The additional emphasis the prosecutor

placed on prosecuting juvenile firearm

offenders had a direct impact on how these

cases were handled by juvenile court

judges and probation officers. The DPA

worked to educate judges and probation

officers about the legal issues related to,

and the serious nature of, firearm offenses

and offenders. As a result, probation officers were more likely to join in the prosecutor’s recommendations to the court. If the

juvenile had any prior involvement with

firearms, the DPA, because of his access to

and knowledge of the offender’s history,

was able to provide a more comprehensive report of such activities to the court.

Consequently, the courts were more receptive to the DPA’s arguments and recommendations, and judges’ rulings on firearmrelated issues became more consistent.

Sharing of Expertise

Through Training

The Seattle Police Department and the DPA

agreed that the prosecutor should implement a training program for SPD officers

and detectives to improve the quality of

cases they submitted for prosecution. In

December 1996, the DPA conducted 32

rollcall training sessions for SPD officers on

all watches at each of Seattle’s 4 precincts.

The DPA also provided special training for

gang unit and juvenile detectives. Officers

and detectives were instructed on the specific information needed for the prosecutor

to file a successful case. They also were

given suggestions to improve their investigation and report writing. For example, the

prosecutor explained the importance of

addressing issues of gun operability, firearm possession, and the age of offender

in incident reports because this information was vital to presenting a strong case.

Simply having the officer ask the offender

his or her age repeatedly (before and after

Miranda warnings and during booking) and

including the information in the report can

make a significant difference because the

offender’s age is an element of the crime of

unlawful possession of a firearm and can

sometimes be difficult to establish. Immediately following the training sessions, the

DPA saw a dramatic improvement in the

quality of cases submitted by SPD. These

improvements led to a 50-percent reduction

in the dismissal rate for firearm cases because fewer cases were found to have legal

or factual problems.

Many juvenile firearm cases involve

weapons found in vehicles (see figure 1).

When more than one juvenile occupies

the vehicle, questions arise about who,

if anyone, may be charged with unlawful

possession of the firearm. The DPA researched the legal issues related to the

possession and constructive possession

of firearms and passed this information

along to SPD during training sessions.

As a result, clear standards were formulated for charging decisions. Under certain

circumstances, for example, it is possible

to charge more than one juvenile for possession of a single firearm.

The training sessions also provided a valuable link between SPD personnel and the

prosecutor, opening a channel of communication that was used extensively by both

sides. The DPA offered himself as a legal

resource on firearm-related issues and typically received 10 to 20 calls per week from

officers and detectives with questions.

In the 3 years preceding the grant, long delays in filing a case would often occur because cases needed to be returned to the

police agency for more information. After

the training session, police reports improved and fewer cases needed to be sent

back for more information. When more

information was required, the DPA knew

who to call to obtain the followup quickly.

As a result, the average time needed to file

a case was reduced from 53 to 17 days,

and filing backlogs were eliminated (see

figure 5). The increased coordination

between the DPA and SPD detectives

resulted in the filing of stronger and more

complete cases and a reduction in the number of cases that needed to be reevaluated,

be dismissed, or have their charges reduced in plea negotiations.

Summary of Project

Successes

The DPA helped to ensure that juvenile firearm offenders in King County were held

fully accountable for their crimes. In cases

where the juvenile is charged with a serious

violent firearm offense, has an extensive

offender history, and has exhausted all of

the rehabilitative resources of the juvenile justice system, the prosecuting attorney may bring a motion asking the court

to waive juvenile jurisdiction and transfer

the case to (adult) criminal court. The prosecutor has the burden of proving that transferring jurisdiction is in the best interests of

either the juvenile or the community. These

motions are brought against only the most

serious and dangerous offenders. The standard of proof is very high, and juvenile

courts transfer only a handful of cases each

year. During the grant period, the DPA was

in a unique position to identify, assess, and

prepare those cases that were better suited

for the criminal court. As a result, more

cases involving serious, violent, and chronic juvenile firearm offenders were transferred for criminal prosecution.

Each juvenile offense carries a standard

range of detention time. This range is

Figure 5: Average Number of

Days To File a Case

(King County, WA,

January 1994–May 1997)

Year

1994 1995 Jan. 1996–

Aug. 1996

(Before

grant)

Sep. 1996–

May 1997

(During

grant)

Average Number of Days To File a Case
6

based upon the seriousness of the offense and the juvenile’s offense history.

Usually, the court is required to enter a

disposition within the standard range.

However, in certain cases, the standard

range may be insufficient to appropriately address the juvenile’s rehabilitative needs and/or provide for adequate

accountability. If certain statutory aggravating factors are present (e.g., the offense was committed in an especially

heinous, cruel, or depraved manner; the

juvenile inflicted serious bodily injury to

another; the juvenile has recent criminal

history or has failed to comply with the

terms of community supervision), the

prosecutor may bring a motion asking

the court to impose an exceptional sentence above the standard range. During

the grant period, the DPA developed an

indepth knowledge of juvenile firearm

offenders, their offense histories, and

the specific facts of each and every firearm case. Therefore, the DPA was able to

accurately identify those cases where

the standard range was inadequate and

was able to more effectively argue in

favor of exceptional sentences. Consequently, the number of exceptional sentences imposed during the grant period

increased, resulting in additional time

for the rehabilitation of the more serious

and chronic offenders.

The DPA also improved the efficiency and

effectiveness of prosecution efforts. The

additional emphasis on the prosecution

of firearm offenders influenced the way

police agencies, the courts, and the probation department handled these juveniles.

Through the collaborative efforts of the

DPA and the Seattle Police Department,

significant improvements were made in

virtually every aspect of the prosecution

of juvenile firearm offenders, including

the following:

◆ Communication improved between the

prosecutor, police, judges, and probation officers.

◆ Police investigation and incident report quality improved, resulting in a

higher adjudication rate for firearm

cases.

◆ Delinquency charges and cases against

juvenile offenders were filed faster.

◆ More cases where the juvenile was

detained were successfully “rush” filed

(i.e., an incustody case was filed within

72 hours), an increase from 86 percent

to 91 percent.

◆ Filing backlogs were eliminated.

◆ More juveniles were detained at their

first appearance hearing, an increase

from 83 percent to 94 percent.

◆ The pretrial dismissal rate was reduced

by one-half.

◆ The length of time needed to adjudicate

gun cases was reduced.

◆ Successful adjudication rates at trial

increased from 65 percent to 78 percent

(see figure 6).

Stronger cases and an improved filing policy

meant fewer cases were reduced during plea

negotiations. With fewer plea offers being

made, defense attorneys were more likely to

set the cases for trial. During the grant period, the number of firearm cases that went

to trial doubled. Due to the training and

research efforts of the DPA, those cases

that went to trial were better prepared. As

a result, the dismissal rate went down, the

adjudication rate went up (the adjudication

rate at trial rose by 13 percent, with four out

of five trials ending in a guilty verdict), and

the number of transferred cases increased,

resulting in a record number of successfully

adjudicated cases.

Examples of Firearm

Cases

More than half of all felony firearm cases

in King County, WA, that go to trial involve

simple possession of a gun. Possession of

a firearm may be actual or constructive.

Constructive possession cases are some

of the most challenging to prosecute. Constructive possession occurs when the firearm is not on the juvenile’s person, but

the juvenile has dominion and control over

the firearm or the premises where the firearm is found. Evidence of dominion and

control includes the juvenile’s proximity

to the firearm, his or her ownership or control of the premises where the firearm is

found (e.g., the juvenile is the driver of the

car in which a gun is found), or the juvenile’s present ability to gain actual possession of the firearm.

Case 1: W.M., 17 years old. W.M. was driving a car with an adult in the front passenger seat. Police stopped the car for a traffic infraction and recovered a gun from the

glove compartment. The adult admitted

that the gun was his and pled guilty to

being a felon in possession of a firearm.

W.M. was charged with possession of the

same firearm because he was the driver of

the car and was therefore in constructive

possession of the firearm. The court found

W.M. guilty as charged.

Case 2: C.W., 16 years old. C.W. was seen

by police inside a parked vehicle. C.W. got

out of the car, locked the door, and walked

away. Officers approached the car and saw

a handgun in plain view on the driver’s

floorboard. C.W. was detained, and the car

keys were found on his person. C.W. denied any knowledge of the gun. The court

found C.W. guilty of the illegal possession

of a firearm based on the State’s constructive possession argument.

Another common juvenile firearm scenario is the “accidental shooting” case.

Case 3: T.W., 15 years old. T.W. brought a

gun to school and showed it to his friends.

On their way home from school through

the woods, T.W. and his friends were approached by a 10-year-old boy. T.W. showed

the gun to the boy and demonstrated how

to load and unload the magazine. The boy

said he did not believe it was a real gun,

so T.W. pointed it at the boy to scare him.

The magazine was not in the gun, and T.W.

thought it was unloaded, but there was still

a round in the chamber. T.W. pulled the trigger and shot the boy in the shoulder. T.W.

Figure 6: Adjudication Rates at

Trial (King County, WA,

77 Cases, January

1996–May 1997)

17*

9*

11*

40*

*Number of cases.

Jan. 1996–Aug. 1996

(Before grant)

Found guilty

at trial

65.4%

Not guilty

at trial

34.6%

Sep. 1996–May 1997

(During grant)

Found guilty

at trial

78.4%

Not guilty

at trial

21.6%
7

was convicted of second-degree felony

assault (i.e., intentional assault that recklessly inflicts substantial bodily harm).

Case 4: J.S., 17 years old. J.S. and his

17-year-old friend Tim bought a semiautomatic Uzi from their 18-year-old friend,

stole some ammunition from a local gun

shop, and went to a quarry to practice

firing the gun. Some time later, J.S. and

Tim decided to steal a car, and they took

the Uzi along “for protection.” Tim was

under the dashboard trying to hot wire

the car and J.S. was holding a flashlight

and the Uzi when the Uzi “accidentally”

went off. Tim was shot in the head and

killed. J.S. pled guilty to first-degree manslaughter (i.e., recklessly causing death).

Lessons Learned

About Prosecution and

Police Partnering

The experience of the King County Prosecutor’s Office and the Seattle Police Department during the grant period produced

useful information about interagency

partnering.

◆ Collaboration among agencies can take

time and persistence, especially when

the partnership is new. Working out program issues and details among agencies

and including all the appropriate players

can be a complicated process, even

when agencies have agreed to collaborate on a new program.

◆ Selecting a prosecutor who has real

interest in and enthusiasm for the particular project is essential.

◆ Flexibility is important. SPD adjusted its

program to fit the talents and skills of

the prosecutor chosen for the project,

and the prosecutor’s office allowed

him the freedom to work with SPD to

refine the program to best meet the

goals of the grant.

◆ All agencies in a partnership benefit.

Improving communication between the

police and prosecutor had a big payoff

in the creation of stronger cases.

◆ A new program does not have to be

costly. The Seattle YHVI program included a database component. Another

agency interested in starting a similar

program could use the database information from this pilot project to guide

the creation of its own program without

duplicating the database component of

the grant. An agency could restructure

to create a half-time prosecutor position

to perform the law enforcement liaison

and prosecutor functions of the YHVI

grant position.

Conclusion

The strategies outlined in this Bulletin

have proved highly effective in improving

the prosecution of juvenile offenders. Although this project focused exclusively on

firearm cases, the basic framework and

methodology can also easily be applied to

other types of crimes.

◆ Assign a prosecutor to specialize in a

particular type of case (e.g., firearms,

drugs, domestic violence, etc.).

◆ Develop a case management system to

track targeted cases.

◆ Identify serious and chronic offenders.

◆ Identify problems with and areas of

weakness in prior cases.

◆ Practice vertical prosecution.

◆ Conduct research and prepare “stock”

briefs for recurring legal arguments.

◆ Conduct training sessions for law

enforcement officers and fellow

prosecutors.

◆ Coordinate the handling of targeted

cases between law enforcement agencies and the prosecutor’s office.

While additional funding and staff will

speed up the implementation process,

many of these improvements can be made

by simply reallocating and restructuring

existing resources. The two key ingredients

are specialization and close partnerships

with law enforcement.

For Further Information

Bob Scales can be reached at the King

County Prosecutor’s Office, 206–296–9025

(main), 206–296–8880 (direct), 206–296–

8869 (fax), robert.scales@metrokc.gov

(e-mail). Julie Baker can be reached at

the Seattle Police Department Community

& Information Services Bureau, 206–233–

5133 (phone), julie.baker@ci.seattle.wa.us

(e-mail).

Figures in this Bulletin are adapted from

the authors’ YHVI report, An Analysis of

the Prosecution of Juvenile Firearm Offenses.

For a complete copy of the report, which

includes comprehensive demographic,

geographic, and statistical information

about the juvenile firearm offenders and

offenses studied under Seattle’s YHVI

grant, contact OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse at 800–638–8736 (phone),

puborder@ncjrs.org (e-mail),

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org (Internet).

References

Howell, J.C., ed. 1995. Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Kann, L., Warrem, C.W., Harris, W.A.,

Collins, J.L., Williams, B.I., Ross, J.G., and

Kolbe, L.J. 1996. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, 1995. Atlanta, GA: Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention.

Maginnis, R. 1995. Violence in the Schoolhouse: A Ten-Year Update. Washington, DC:

Family Research Council. Retrieved September 30, 1999, from the Family Research Council World Wide Web site:

www.frc.org/insight/is94e5cr.html.

National Center for Injury Prevention and

Control. 1996. National Summary of Injury

Mortality Data, 1987–1994. Atlanta, GA:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention

and Control.

National Criminal Justice Association. 1997.

Juvenile Justice Reform Initiatives in the

States: 1994–1996. Program Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention. 1999. Promising Strategies To

Reduce Gun Violence. Report. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1999. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National

Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

U.S. Department of Education. 1998. Annual

Report on School Safety. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Education.

Weapon-carrying among high school

students—United States, 1990. 1991.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 40:

681–684.
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 178901

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

Acknowledgments

Bob Scales is a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney with the King County Prosecutor’s

Office. He is currently assigned to the Juvenile Division as the prosecutor funded

under OJJDP’s JAIBG program, and he has been designated as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney to handle selected firearm cases in Federal Court. He is also

working with the American Prosecutors Research Institute, an OJJDP grantee, to

present information about this project to prosecutors from other jurisdictions. Julie

Baker is Senior Grants and Contracts Specialist in the Research & Grants Section

of the SPD Community & Information Services Bureau. She was coauthor of

Seattle’s YHVI grant proposal and project manager of the Seattle YHVI grant. Tom

Cullen, a senior writer/editor at OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, assisted

the authors in editing and revising this Bulletin for publication. This Bulletin was

prepared with materials developed under grant number 95–CN–WX–0013 from

the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

Share With Your

Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP

publications are not copyright

protected. We encourage you to

reproduce this document, share it with

your colleagues, and reprint it in your

newsletter or journal. However, if you

reprint, please cite OJJDP and the

authors of this Bulletin. We are also

interested in your feedback, such as

how you received a copy, how you

intend to use the information, and how

OJJDP materials meet your individual

or agency needs. Please direct your

comments and questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5212 (fax)

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org