Opinion ID: 696597
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Consider the Presumption in Favor of

Text: Rehabilitation 12 Defendant also contends that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to consider the presumption in favor of juvenile rehabilitation. Defendant bases this argument on the fact that the District Court never mentioned the presumption in favor of treatment at the transfer hearing, and did not expressly state that the presumption had been rebutted. 13 At a transfer hearing, the government bears the burden of rebutting the statutory presumption of juvenile treatment. See United States v. A.R., 38 F.3d 699, 703 (3d Cir.1994). Thus, a motion to transfer is properly granted where a court determines that the risk of harm to society posed by affording the defendant more lenient treatment within the juvenile justice system outweighs the defendant's chance for rehabilitation. One Juvenile Male, 40 F.3d at 844. The FJDA requires the District Court to make findings regarding each of six enumerated factors, and to consider each factor in determining whether the transfer would be in the interests of justice. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 5032. In the case at hand, the District Court considered and made findings regarding each factor, and concluded that the need to protect the public outweighed defendant's chance for rehabilitation. The statute does not require more. We reject the argument that a court must state the presumption in favor of treatment at each transfer hearing, or expressly state that the presumption has been rebutted. 14