Document: 383 U.S. 541 86 S.Ct. 1045 16 L.Ed.2d 84 Morris A. KENT, Jr., Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 104. Argued Jan. 19, 1966. Decided March 21, [Syllabus from pages 541-542 intentionally omitted] Myron G. Ehrlich and Richard Arens, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Theodore Gilinsky, respondent. Mr. Justice FORTAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case is here on certiorari to United States Court Appeals District Columbia Circuit. The facts contentions counsel raise a number disturbing questions concerning administration by police Juvenile authorities laws relating juveniles. Apart raising as adequacy custodial treatment facilities policies, some which are not within judicial competence, presents important challenges procedure officials upon apprehension juvenile suspected serious offenses. Because we conclude that Court's order waiving jurisdiction petitioner was entered without compliance with required procedures, remand trial court. 2 Kent, first came under authority in 1959. He then aged 14. apprehended result several housebreakings an attempted purse snatching. placed probation, custody his mother who had been separated her husband since Kent two years old. interviewed time during probation period accumulated 'Social Service' file. 3 On September 2, 1961, intruder apartment woman Columbia. took wallet. raped her. found latent fingerprints. They were developed processed. matched fingerprints taken when he 14 old At about p.m. 5, into police. therefore subject 'exclusive jurisdiction' D.C.Code § 11—907 (1961), now 11—1551 (Supp. IV, 1965). still court 1959 proceedings. 4 Upon being apprehended, headquarters where interrogated officers. It appears admitted involvement offense led volunteered information similar offenses involving housebreaking, robbery, rape. His interrogation proceeded 10 same evening.1 5 Some after Receiving Home Children. next morning released further at headquarters, lasted until p.m.2 6 record does show became aware boy but shortly 6, day following petitioner's apprehension, she retained counsel. 7 Counsel, together mother, promptly conferred Social Service Director In brief interview, they discussed possibility might waive 11-914 11—1553 1965) remit Counsel made known intention oppose waiver. 8 Petitioner detained almost week. There no arraignment this time, determination officer probable cause apprehension.3 9 During detention interrogation, arranged examination psychiatrists psychologist. thereafter filed motion hearing question waiver jurisdiction, affidavit psychiatrist certifying 'is victim servere psychopathology' recommending hospitalization psychiatric observation. Petitioner's counsel, support effect should retain petitioner, offered prove if given adequate hospital aegis Court, would be suitable rehabilitation. moved give him access file staff period, available judge considering whether it or jurisdiction. represented essential providing effective assistance 11 did rule these motions. held hearing. confer parents reciting 'full investigation, I do hereby waive' directing 'held (the alleged) regular Columbia.' findings. recite any reason waiver.4 reference motions We must assume denied, sub silentio, hearing, recommendation hospitization observation, request file, offer fit rehabilitation jurisdiction.5 12 Presumably, prior entry order, received considered recommendations staff, report dated 8, 1961 (three days apprehension), submitted Probation Section. later sent both them referred mental condition. spoke 'a rapid deterioration (petitioner's) personality structure illness.' As stated, neither nor 13 provision Act governing expressly provides only investigation.' states circumstances may waived child adult state standards govern decision reads follows: 'If sixteen age older charged amount felony adult, committed punishable death life imprisonment, may, full such have adult; other exercise powers subchapter conducting disposing cases.'6 15 Petiioner appealed Municipal Appeals, affirmed, also applied writ habeas corpus, denied. appeal judgments, January 22, 1963, corpus available. Appeals' view, exclusive method reviewing dismiss indictment v. Reid, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 330, 316 F.2d 331 (1963). Meanwhile, 25, its indicted grand jury contained eight counts alleging instances rape, one housebreaking robbery. November 16, grounds invalid. constitute itself authorized 914 After substantial delay occasioned proceedings, addressed February 1963.7 17 denied indictment. ruled 'go behind' judge's recital 'after 'The matter before me statutory provisions complied Courts * mean quasi No required.' 18 7, determine competency stand trial. determined competent.8 19 trial, defense wholly directed toward proving criminally responsible because 'his unlawful act product disease defect.' Durham States, 94 228, 241, 214 862, 875, 45 A.L.R.2d 1430 (1954). Extensive evidence, including expert testimony, presented defense. rape 'not guilty insanity.' Under law, mandatory transferred St. Elizabeths Hospital, institution, sanity restored.9 six guilty.10 20 sentenced serve five each count guilty, total 30 90 prison. ordered spent commitment insanity acquittal counted part 30- 90-year sentence. That affirmed. 119 378, 343 247 (1964).11 21 Before has urged reversal. argues described above, unlawful. contends failed follow prescribed notify itself, note 1, supra; deprived liberty week see 3, absence parent, cf. Harling 111 174, 176, 295 161, 163, n. warning right remain silent advice asserted violation rights fingerprinted intent while unlawfully used proceeding.12 22 These problems concern construction Act. suggest basic issues justifiability affording less protection than accorded adults criminal offenses, particularly where, here, there indication denial offset, mitigated explained action Government, parens patriae, evidencing special solicitude juveniles commanded However, account procedural error respect pass questions.13 23 arguments infirmity proceedings otherwise address our attention. attacks constitutional grounds. defective held; findings Court; stated reasons waiver; presumably determining 24 agree transferring reviewable specified case. supra. issue review. 25 statute contemplates considerable latitude over or—subject delimitation14—should But complete. outset, assumes regularity sufficient particular satisfy requirements due process fairness, well requirement Green 113 348, 308 303 (1962).15 gives degree discretion factual considerations evaluated, weight conclusion reached. license arbitrary procedure. permit isolation participation representation 'critically important' will protections Act.16 authorize disregard statement reasons, decide—as case—that Children jail along adults, exposed sentence17 instead maximum, Kent's case, years, 21.18 26 consider whether, merits, transferred; place system law reaching tremendous consequences ceremony reasons. inconceivable justice dealing issue, proceed manner. extraordinary society's children, reflected Columbia's Act, permitted hold not. 27 1. theory District's like jurisdictions,19 rooted social welfare philosophy rather juris. Its designated civil criminal. theoretically engaged needs society adjudicating conduct. objectives provide measures guidance society, fix responsibility, guilt punishment. State patriae prosecuting attorney judge.20 admonition function 'parental' relationship invitation arbitrariness. 28 2. supposed adversary, courts relied premise 'civil' nature criminal, cannot complain deprivation cases. can claim fundamental fair treatment.21 For example, entitled bail; jury; speedy public trial; immunity against self-incrimination; confrontation accusers; jurisdictions (but Columbia, Shioutakon 98 371, 236 666 (1956), Black supra) counsel.22 29 While doubt original laudable purpose courts, studies critiques recent actual performance enough theoretical make tolerable reach guaranties applicable adults.23 much evidence lack personnel, techniques perform adequately representatives capacity, least children violation. fact, receives worst worlds: gets solicitous care regenerative postulated children.24 concern, however, induce us accept invitation25 tried concerned allegations decisions Circuit basis go further. 31 3. clear beyond dispute vitally juvenile. so held. See Watkins 409, 278 (1964). scheme makes plain. vested 'original child. confers immunities. is, statute, shielded publicity. confined, rare exceptions jailed adults. detained, age. admonished preference retaining 'unless safety safeguarded removal.' protected conviction loss rights, use adjudication subsequent disqualification employment. §§ 11—907, 915, 11—927, 11—929 (1961).26 32 net, therefore, petitioner—then 16—was certain procedures benefits consequence 'exclusive' circumstances, transfer potentially difference between years' confinement sentence, that, condition valid records reports court, decision. believe read context principles counsel.27 33 Wilhite 108 279, 281 642 (1960). held, purposes formal investigation' need 'as needed waiver.'28 (Emphasis supplied.) Wilhite, substantially undermined other, more recent, Appeals. 34 decided December 1965, court29 proper advised appointed judgment reversed. essential. McDaniel Shea, 15, 460 Black, Criminal enacted four Shioutakon, Congress provided 'in 2—2202 (1961). even greater (than Shioutakon) imposition sanctions.' 122 U.S.App.D.C., 395, 355 F.2d, 106. 35 Wakins (1964), 1964, appellant larceny. sought disclosure attack validity proceeding juvenile's records. observed 36 'All usually relevant deemed entire history relevance items construed generously. Since knowledge what contain, expected demonstrate request. 37 child's assist effectively question, insisting command investigation,' guarding discretionary authority.' 413, 282. 38 remanded extent disclosed. 39 present handed down October 26, Watkins. assumed probationer informed judgment. concluded met. noted specification Judge precisely why jurisdiction.' 384, 253. indicated cases least' useful served 'by discussion motivating determination,' id., 253, thereof invalidated 40 records, 'the ambiguous.' said claim, essence, 'that opportunity challenge them, manner akin cross-examination.' Id., 389, 258. kind adversarial tactics designed avoid.' characterized counsel's merely bringing forward affirmative help function, said, denigrate staff's submissions recommendations.' Ibid. Accordingly, abused denying 41 misconceived underlying values note, another panel few months Watkins, processes important.' indeed, proceeding. avail himself court's '(I)t implicit Court) non-criminal rule—and treatment, exception governed factors individual cases.' 177—178, 164 165 42 Meaningful review requires remitted assumptions. including, course, facts. 'assume' made. incumbent accompany therefor. requiring necessarily include conventional fact. met; careful consideration set forth specificity meaningful 43 Correspondingly, informal, order. connection proceeding, meaningless—an illusion, mockery—unless function. 44 formality. grudging gesture ritualistic requirement. essence justice. Appointment tantamount justification failure fail grant indicate conform all usual administrative hearing; measure up essentials treatment. Pee 107 47, 50, 274 556, 559 (1959). 46 With child, deem obvious making waive, conclusion, pointed out 'ambiguous.' shall withheld 'indiscriminate' inspection, 'except parts persons legitimate interest protection* *.' 929(b) 11—1586(b) supplied.)30 agree, afforded 'legitimate interest' records.31 47 statement, attempting justify role limited presenting 'to anything behalf arriving decision; contrary, materials susceptible impeachment, 'denigrate' matter. irrebuttable presumption accuracy attached reports. If equally 'critical importance' material judge—which inspection—be subjected, reasonable limits having regard examination, criticism refutation. receive ex parte analyses not, waiver, rely secret information, emanating otherwise. established control quasi-judicial agencies Government. 48 erred sustaining Government urges cured true invalidity 'exercise court.' 11—914 primarily initially decide harmless error. facilities, personnel expertise issue.' 396, 107.32 49 Ordinarily reverse direct new dismissed. passed longer him. view unavailability redetermination vacated light remedy fashioned supra, appropriate drastic relief.33 vacate de novo consistent opinion.34 finds inappropriate, vacated. If, originally made, proceed, any, warranted, enter Cf. 50 Reversed remanded. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT 51 Policy Memorandum 30, 52 (§ D.C.Code, 1951 Ed.). section permits 'sixteen (who is) imprisonment.' 53 sets specific act, leaves formulation criteria Judge. A Judge's parents, attorney, judges Attorney assistants Metropolitan Police Department, especially Intake 54 Therefore, consulted Chief Attorney, Bar, groups formulated aims 55 An falling limitations (set above) prosecutive merit heinous aggravated character, or—even though serious—if represents pattern repeated action. 56 determinative deciding following: 57 seriousness alleged community 58 Whether aggressive, violent, premeditated willful 59 property, personal injury resulted. 60 4. complaint, i.e., Grand Jury return (to consultation Attorney). 61 5. desirability disposition associates crime 62 6. sophistication maturity home, environmental situation, emotional attitude living. 63 7. previous juvenile, contacts Youth Aid Division, enforcement agencies, jurisdictions, periods commitments institutions. 64 8. prospects likelihood (if offense) services currently 65 responsibility assigned investigation complaint develop fully bear above. Although involved 66 STEWART, whom BLACK, HARLAN WHITE join, dissenting. 67 involves Our general practice leave undisturbed import legislation affairs District. General Motors Corp. 380 553, 85 1156, 68. appears, considerably modified statute. reconsideration decisions, 278, 393, Code custody, unless guardian custodian, 'shall person immediately Board Public Welfare, taking petition 11—912 16—2306 elicited statements inadmissible prosecution 161 magistrate arrested etc., regarded fundamental. Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 5(a), (b); Mallory 354 449, 77 1356, 1479. distinction 'It are, generally speaking, exempt penalties safeguards Rule exclusionary rule, application proceedings.' 163. Edwards 117 383, 330 849, 850 (1964) that: '* practices authorities—and investigating officers—for taken. duty take magistrate, inform rights. booked. establish non-punitive, atmosphere.' legality practices. 12. events, 1959, promulgated requests. Appendix. rescinded. Caviness, 239 F.Supp. 545, 550 (D.C.D.C.1965). judge. Congressional hearings attest impossibility burden carry. Amending Hearings Subcommittee House Committee 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961); Delinquency, Investigate Delinquency Senate Judiciary, 86th (1959—1960); Additional Judges Hearing (1959); H.R.Rep.No.1041, S.Rep.No.841, S.Rep.No.116, amended 1962 three 76 Stat. 21; 11—1502 renewed orally extensive condition, competence insanity. obtained 13, granted Psychiatric Division Hospital days. 20, reported concensus (sic) emotionally ill severely feel incompetent participate mature way own illness interfered reasoning ability prosecutor opposed finding incompetence prosecutor's request, According letter Superintendent April 1962, hospital's 'suffering presen Schizophrenic Reaction, Chronic Undifferentiated Type,' suffering 'if (those acts) disease.' 'mentally competent understand consult properly defense.' 24—301 distinction—that 'sane' robbery 'insane' rape—apparently hypothesis, record, find robberies anteceded rapes, event, products defect, rapes produced thereby. rehearing en banc, subsequently withdraw prosecute withdrawal. Bazelon dissenting Wright joined. 264 Bynum 104 368, 262 465 (1958). those objected respects: (1) gave version 'Allen' charge. Allen 492, 154, L.Ed. 528. (2) (3) pursuant 11—1553. 1965.) (4) counts, n.o.v., none claims. pp. 547-548, 'What prevents routine easing docket. classes crimes. based 'an inquiry plan desirable case.' (1959).' 350, 305. 282 (1964); (1965). 22—2801 (1961) fixes punishment verdict. maximum 1801 22—2901 ceases becomes 21. All systems. study operation systems Note, Delinquents: Police, Courts, Individualized Justice, 79 Harv.L.Rev. 775 (1966). Handler, Adversary System: Problems Function Form, 1965 Wis.L.Rev. 556 54, 563; Paulsen, Fairness Offender, Minn.L.Rev. 547 (1957). 177, op. cit. 20; 19; cited amicus curiae. 16—2313, 11—1586 now, changes, 11—1551, 16—2307, 16—2308, 'will ordinarily (for Circuit), statutes District) *,' Del Vecchio Bowers, 296 280, 285, 190, 192, 80 229, position discuss infra, self-contradictory. Nor deferred local require difficult questions. Little, 339 70 468, 599. composed Miller, Fahy Burger. concurred result. objection Bazelon, C.J., Leventhal, JJ. power conditions prevent misuse information. Violation released,' misdemeanor. change, 1586 seems withholding portions To inconsistent standard state, controlling. requested cure Perhaps point again illustrates maxim nondisclosure contribute comfort heaven fall. verdict charges. Those different panels importance necessary resolve leaving open

Category: 1