Legal Document

421 U.S. 519 95 Supreme Court Reporter 1779 44 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 346 Allen Federal KF105 F3 BREED, Etc., Petitioner,v.Gary Steven JONES. Number 73—1995. Argued Feb. 25 and 26, 1975. Decided May 27, Syllabus The prosecution of respondent as an adult in California Superior Court, after adjudicatory finding Juvenile that he had violated a criminal statute subsequent was unfit for treatment juvenile, the Double Jeopardy Clause Fifth Amendment, applied to through Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 528-541. (a) Respondent put jeopardy at hearing, whose object determine whether committed acts law potential consequences included both stigma inherent determination deprivation liberty many years. attached when trier facts, began hear evidence. 528-531. (b) Contrary petitioner's contention, respondent's trial same offense which been tried policies Clause, even if 'never faced risk more than one punishment,' since 'is written terms or conviction, not punishment.' Price versus Georgia, 398 323, 329, 90 1757, 1761, 26 300. subjected burden two trials offense; twice task marshaling his resources against those State, 'heavy personal strain' such experience represents. 532-533. (c) If there is be exception constitutional protection second context juvenile-court system, it must justified by interests society, reflected unique institution, juveniles themselves, sufficient substance render tolerable costs burdens will entail individual cases. 533-534. (d) Giving multiple this not, petitioner claims, diminish flexibility informality proceedings extent qualities relate uniquely goals juvenilecourt system. A requirement transfer hearings held prior does alter nature latter proceedings. More significantly, need affect quality decisionmaking themselves. envisions would pose significant problem administration quite apart from consideration, adjudication aid objectives 535-541. 9 Cir., 497 Reporter, 2nd 1160, vacated remanded. Russell Iungerich, Los Angeles, Cal., petitioner. Robert L. Walker, San Francisco, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari decide adult, resulted Amendments Constitution. 2 On February 9, 1971, petition filed California, County Alleging respondent, then 17 years age, person described Cal.Welf. & Inst'ns Code § 602 (1966),1 that, on about 8, while armed with deadly weapon, which, constitute crime robbery violation Cal.Penal 211 (1970). following day, detention hearing held, conclusion ordered detained pending petition.2 3 jurisdictional conducted March 1, pursuant 701 (1966).3 After taking testimony witnesses found allegations were true 602, sustained petition. continued dispositional hearing,4 court remain detained. 4 At 15, indicated its intention find 'not . amenable care, training program available facilities juvenile court' under 707 (Supp.1967).5 Respondent's counsel orally moved 'to continue matter ground surprise,' contending 'was informed going fitness hearing.' week, time, having considered report probation officer assigned case heard her testimony, declared 'unfit juvenile,'6 prosecuted adult.7 5 Thereafter, writ habeas corpus raising double claim now presented. Upon denial petition, sought relief Appeal, Second Appellate District. Although initially stayed denied In re Gary J., Cal.App.3d 704, Rptr. (West’s) 185 (1971). hearing. 6 preliminary where information subsequently accusing him robbery, (1970), 1971. entered plea guilty, also pleaded 'already placed once convicted charged, judgment rendered 1st day March, 1971.' App. 47. By stipulation, submitted transcript guilty first degree 211a (1970) Youth Authority.8 No appeal taken conviction. 7 December 10, mother guardian ad litem, instant District Central California. alleged 'placed jeopardy.' 13. rejecting contention It concluded 'distinctions between procedures provided are apparent effort (respondent) them unconvincing,' 'even assuming during clear no new arose proceeding sending court.' 343 F.Supp. 690, 692 (1972). 8 Appeals reversed, concluding applying 'impede courts carrying out their basic goal rehabilitating erring youth,' contrary result might 'do irreparable harm destroy confidence our judicial system.' therefore fully applicable proceedings.' 1165 (CA9 1974). Turning question case, pointed power 'impose severe restrictions upon juvenile's liberty,' ibid., support hearing.9 rejected referred convicted, 'continuing jeopardy' principles advanced inapplicable. Finally, observed acceptance position 'allow review advance accused's defense and, here, testify charged,' procedure offensive 'our concepts basic, even-handed fairness.' minor could retried 'absent some prohibition,' none here.' Id., 1168. 10 because conflict Courts highest number issue presented similar issues importance final resolution 11 * parties agree defendant felony information, entitled full Amdment. See Benton Maryland, 395 784, 89 2056, 23 (1969). addition, they sentence commitment. dispute related 'same offence' within meaning prohibition. point disagreement parties, decision, whether, reason 'twice II 12 denotes risk. sense, describes traditionally associated prosecution. 326, 1759, 300 (1970); Serfass States, 420 377, 387—389, 1055, 1062—1063, 43 265 (1975). language, 'jeopardy life limb,' suggests only most serious penalties can imposed, has long construed mean something far broader literal language. Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 170—173, 21 L.Ed. 872 (1874).10 however, we have refers present 'essentially criminal.' Helvering Mitchell, 303 391, 398, 58 630, 632, 82 917 (1938). ex rel. Marcus Hess, 317 537, 63 379, 87 443 (1943); One Lot Emerald Cut Stones 409 232, 93 489, 34 438 Judge Sigler, 60—62 13 system genesis desire provide distinctive setting deal problems youth, including manifested antisocial conduct, decisions recent recognized gap originally benign conception realities. With McKeiver Pennsylvania, 403 528, 91 1976, 29 647 (1971), Court's response perception make guarantees traditional prosecutions. Gault, 387 1428, 527 (1967); Winship, 397 358, 1068, 368 so doing evinced awareness threat process represents efforts functioning manner, ameliorate harshness justice youthful offenders. That fallen short high expectations sponsors way detracts broad social benefits survive scrutiny. 14 believe simply too late conclude, did violate include years.11 For cases determining relevance policies, like applicability rights, proceedings, requires eschew 'the 'civil' label-of-convenience proceedings,' supra, 50, 1455, candidly appraised.' 21, 1440. 365—366, 1073. 15 As observed, term 'actions intended authorize punishment vindicate public jutice.' 548—549, 388. Because purpose consequences, imposes heavy pressures psychological, physical, financial—on charged. require subject 'for offence.' Green 355 184, 187, 78 221, 223, 199 (1957); U.S., 331, 1762; Jorn, 400 470, 479, 547, 554, 27 543 (1971) (opinion Harlan, J.). 16 36, 1448, purposes right counsel, 'proceeding child 'delinquent' loss comparable seriousness prosecution.' 366, stated 'come involve slightly less 'criminal' adults,' 24, 1441; see 367, 1074, privilege self-incrimination, 'commitment liberty. incarceration one's will, called criminal' 'civil." 1455. 1443; 367,12 1074. Thus, little distinguish reason, engenders elements canxiety insecurity' strain.' 223; 554; Snyder, Impact Hearing Child, Crime Delinquency 180 And expect implementing fundamental fairness prolonged, ofthe incident increased, assimilated thereby imposed. Note, Waiver Jurisdiction California's Courts, 24 Stan.L.Rev. 874, 902 n. 138 Cf. Canon Kolson, Rural Compliance Gault; Kentucky, Case Study, J.Fam.L. 300, 320—326 formalities adjudicative process,' 551, 1989 Blackmun, J.), but analysis aspect kind refers. Under persuasive distinction regard (1966) prosecution, each designed (the) very vital interest enforcement laws.' 554. conclude 'put before facts,' S.Ct., is, 388, 1062.13 III 19 Petitioner argues transferred Clause. argument supported distinct, overlapping, lines analysis. First, reasons alternatively, should upheld analogy permit retrial accused who obtained reversal conviction appeal. Second, pointing concern court's assumed ability function manner,' v.Pennsylvania, 1987, urges 'would otherwise bar delinquency adjudication,' avoid here without conferring any additional due charged delinquent acts.' Atlantic 20 cannot charging For, accepting premise v.Georgia, 1761. (Emphasis added.) recently noted: 'The policy avoiding regarded important exceptions principle grudgingly allowed. Initially, thought unavailable appeal, requested defendant. until 1896 made seek though Government enjoyed right. Following policy, retry mistrial 'there manifest necessity act, ends defeated.' Perez, Wheat 579, 580, 165 (1824).' Wilson, 332, 343, 344, 1013, 1022, 232 (Footnote omitted.) 22 turn, therefore, inquire either supports 'constitutional finality' entitled. B denying petitions writs corpus, Appeal first, later, Cal.App.3d, 710, Cal.Rptr. 189; F.Supp., 692. view courts, attaches continues disposition charge. Juvenile, 364 Mass. 531, 306 North Eastern 822 (1974). Bryan Cal.3d 575, 102 831, 498 Pacific 1079 (1972), cert. denied, 410 944, 1380, 35 610 (1973). phrase concept conclusion. articulated Holmes dissent Kepner 195 100, 134—137, 797, 806, 49 114 (1904), proved interesting model comparison fact derived rather ambiguous language history 351—352, 1013. Holmes' adopted majority Court.' Jenkins, 369, 1006, 250 conclusion, ccontinuing jeopardy,' distinguished concept, occasionally used explain why secured may offense. 189, 224; 1759; 343—344 11, 1022. Probably satisfactory explanation lies respective involved. Tateo, 377 463, 465—466, 84 1587, 1589, 448 (1964); 329 4, 1761; supra. Similarly, 'run course,' contemplation Welfare Institutions Code, time transfer, satisfactorily deprived trial. burdens, noted earlier, Contract possibility general jurisdiction great significance juvenile. Kent 383 541, 86 1045, (1966). appears widely shared agreement all benefit special features programs available. See, e.g., National Advisory Commission Criminal Standards Goals, Commentary Standard 14.3, Pages 300—301 This overwhelming jurisdictions permits certain circumstances.14 expected, statutory provisions differ numerous details. Whatever differences, represent attempt impart needed offenders specialized guidance contemplated do giving system.15 holding require, cases, decision To evidence concerning relevant,16 rejected, added imposed duplicative different judge preside hearing.17 28 recognize perhaps suffer created spiraling caseloads unaccompanied enlarged manpower. President's Law Enforcement Administration Justice, Task Force Report: (1967). reluctant impose requirements strain endanger functions. However, appear us neither qualitatively nor quantitatively justify departure prohibition jeopardy. affects 562, 1057, involved 'must measure up essentials fair treatment.' never attempted prescribe criteria for, quantum support, court. whatever relevant criteria, demanded, State wants treat entering substantial liberty, expense, delay, strain, embarrassment proceedings.18 30 Moreover, persuaded large presently hearing,19 absence indication able perform framework, suggest contrary. likelihood lack basis promptly reduces commitment necessary. recommend participate leading inadequate enable gather generally Halverson, 192 Western 765, 769 (Iowa 1971); Rudstein, Proceedings, Wm. Mary L.Rev. 266, 305—306 (1972); Stan.L.Rev., 897—899.20 31 duplication tend offset somewhat further required. previously well likely admit commission obviating hearings, fransfer remains possibility. note waiver requirement.21 Where waived, difficult resources. 900—901. 32 Quite conclusions respect envisioned petitioner, What concerns dilemma presents alluded. 527. possibility, beneficiary disadvantages. uncooperative, runs adverse adjudication, unfavorable recommendation.22 If, other hand, cooperative, rund prejudicing chances ordered. results odds permits, informal nonadversary. 25—27, 1442; 366—367, 1074; 534, 550, 1981. Knowledge undermine cooperation hallmark Rather themselves establishing innocence seeking best suited correctional needs, attorney pressed into posture adversary wariness conductive neither. Kay Segal, Role Attorney Proceedings: Non-Polar Approach, 61 Geo.L.J. 1401 (1973); Carr, Effect U.Tol.L.Rev. 52—54 (1974).23 IV 33 hold mandate Appeals, directs directing state court, 60 days, vacate Jones set free remand disposition.' Since longer consistent appropriate circumstances. So Judgment date filing provided: 'Any age violates ordinance city county defining who, Section 601, fails obey lawful order adjudge ward An amendment lowered 18. 1971 Cal.States. 3766, chapter 1748, 66. §§ 635, 636 required prima facie William M., 16, 33, 473 737 represented court-appointed thereafter. 'At shall consider Sections 600, purpose, material circumstances bring admissible received evidence; preponderance evidence, legally adduced civil 600 601. When extrajudicial admission confession denies exceed seven days subpoena attend prove deemed objections made.' substituted 'proof beyond reasonable doubt evidence' italics. Cal.Stats. 1832, 934, 1. standard proof failed satisfy process. DeBacker Brainard, 396 28, 31, 165, 148 Hereafter, 702 (Supp.1968) 'After finding, minutes 602. finds person, dismissed discharged restriction theretofore enter findings accordingly proceed proper minor. Prior so, necessary, receive study own motion parent continuance, detained, later may, good cause shown release detention, period appropriate.' (Supp.1967) alleging ordinance, older if, therefor Authority, returned Authority 780 1737.1, fit dealt chapter, direct district prosecuting prosecute thereafter dismiss or, commenced another suspended resume. 'In offense, itself, Law. 'A behalf brought facts forth therein inference drawn therefrom investigate submit behavioral patterns being unfitness.' 'This record N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions read threatening records Minor come me. 'We have, simple fact, three robberies, loaded weapon. represents, sophistication impossibility assistance think .' 33. implicitly argument, original memorandum resumption continuance. authority 1731.5 (Supp.1971). order, 1771 'Every reaches 25th birthday, unless committing Article (commencing 1800) chapter. event filed, retain control 5.' reaching relied Fain Duff, 488 218 (CA5 1973), pending, 73—1768, Richard M. 370, 752, 482 664 'California concedes adjudicated 1166. Distinctions contexts determinative rights offenses similarly confined Compare Robinson Neil, 505, 876, (1973), Baldwin New York, 399 66, 1886, 437 Argersinger Hamlin, 407 25, 92 2006, 530 details Robinson's violating Henderson, 268 349 (E.D.Tenn.1967), aff'd, 391 933 (CA6 1968). permissible dispositions reached 607, 731 conceded 'adjudicatory every trial.' Tr. Oral Arg. 4. Nor 'that rehabilitative punitive change nature. Regardless incarceration. rehabilitive admirable, drastic action taken. Incarceration adults produce rehabilitation.' F.2d, 225. 8—9 corpus. 185, 189 Report, 12, 24—25. 297—300 21—22 diminished application standards open doubt. Due inevitably effect, tells Constitution government especially institutions. governing criterion amenability section provides itself' 'sufficient (he) law.' 5, factor 'behavior pattern officer's report,' Jimmy Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 709, 714, 478 32, consider, inter alia, id., 716, P.2d, 36. contrast evidentiary showing probable permitted. 14, 298—299; 21—22. Ala.Code, Tit. 13, (1959). (See Rudolph 286 Ala. 238 So.2d 542 W.Va.Code Ann. 49—5 Fla.Stat.Ann. 39.09(2)(g) (1974); Tenn.Code 37—234(c) (Supp.1974); Wyo.Stat. 14—115.38(c) (Supp.1973); Uniform Act, 34(e), approved July 1968 Conference Commissioners Laws. Donald 592, 598, 1098, 1101 nothing decided today forecloses requiring, prerequisite proceeding. Collins Loisel, 262 426, 429, 618, 625, 67 1062 (1923); 391—392, of, cause. Rather, statute. 299—300; 57—58. Act 34(a), (c); Council Judges Nat. Delinquency, Model Rules Rule (1969); W. Sheridan, Legislative Guide Drafting Family Acts 31(a) (Dept. HEW, Children's Bureau Pub. 472 1969). contrast, apparently complaint precede transfer. (1959) (see supra); Mass.Gen.Laws Ann., 119, (1969) 822, 829—830 (1974)); 49—5—14 intimate views validity attachment forms predicate exercise diligence, reasonably previously. Cf., Illinois Somerville, 458, 1066, 425 statutes cited provision clear. ordinarily want refused There sympathetic. rapport established rehabilitation met.' Brief Amicus Curiae 38. 'If doesn't course danger uncooperative recommendation you really yet, worrying what happen a(t) advise stand incriminate himself. note, 842, 137 'making confidential minor,' observed: 'I say impress me admitted named companions nobody eradicate minds people obtained.' 41—42.

Classification Label: 1