Opinion ID: 773873
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Due Process and Statutory Prejudice

Text: 36 The deficiencies in parental notification in this case do not rise to the level of a due process violation. See RRA-A, 229 F.3d at 746 (interrogation without parental notice does not provide a basis for suppressing the resulting confession on due process grounds). Wendy G. does not assert the contrary. 37 But even [i]f the statutory violations did not rise to the level of constitutional violations, if theynonetheless prejudiced [the juvenile], we have discretion to reverse or to order more limited remedies so as to ensure that [juveniles'] rights are safeguarded and the will of Congress is not thwarted. RRA-A, 229 F.3d at 747 (quoting Doe I, 862 F.2d at 780-781). Suppression of the statements may be appropriate if the violation was not harmless to the juvenile beyond a reasonable doubt. Doe V, 219 F.3d at 1017. 38 We first inquire as to whether the violation was a cause of the confession. RRA-A, 229 F.3d at 747 (internal quotations and citations omitted). If so, we then look to the prejudice caused by the confession. Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). 39 The district court made an explicit finding that the government had not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegedly deficient notification had not caused Wendy G. to confess. This finding was not clearly erroneous. Wendy G. testified that, if her mother had told her not to waive her rights, she would not have confessed. And--although the district court sustained the government's objection to such testimony from Wendy G.'s mother--defense counsel proffered that, if Wendy G.'s mother were permitted to testify on the issue of prejudice, she would have testified that she would have sought to prevent her daughter from answering any questions without an attorney. We have little difficulty, under the circumstances, in concluding that the violation of §§ 5033 caused Wendy G.'s confession. With respect to prejudice, Wendy G. entered a conditional plea immediately after the district court ruled that her statements would not be suppressed. Wendy G.'s confession was highly prejudicial and should have been suppressed.