Legal Document

396 U.S. 28 90 Supreme Court Reporter 163 24 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 148 Clarence DeBACKER, Appellant,v.Homer BRAINARD, Sheriff of Dodge County, Nebraska. Number 15. Argued Oct. 13, 14, 1969. Juvenile who had been found to be a delinquent child sought state habeas corpus. The District Nebraska, dismissed petition, and juvenile appealed. Nebraska Court, 183 Neb. 461, 161 North Western Reporter, 2nd 508, affirmed, held that where juvenile's counsel at court hearing did not object preponderance-of-evidence standard admitted in oral argument before no matter what was used evidence would sufficient support finding delinquency, case appropriate one for consideration whether proceedings required by statute satisfied due process clause Fourteenth Amendment. Appeal dismissed. Mr. Justice Black Douglas dissented. William G. Line, Fremont, Neb., appellant. Richard L. Kuhlman, appellee. Alfred Scanlan, Washington, D. C., National Council Judges, as amicus curiae, special leave Court. PER CURIAM. 1 After judge, appellant DeBacker 'delinquent child'1 ordered committeed the Boys' Training School Kearney, Nebraska2 seek direct review his commitment, but instead appellant's divided affirmed,3 last Term we noted probable jurisdiction over present appeal, 393 1076, 89 856, 21 770. Because find resolution constitutional issues presented circumstances this case, appeal is See Rescue Army versus Municipal 331 549, 67 1409, 91 L.Ed. 1666. 2 1. Appellant asks decide Sixth Amendments, light Court's decisions Duncan Louisiana, 391 145, 88 1444, 20 491; Bloom Illinois, 194, 1477, 522; In re Gault, 387 1, 87 1428, 18 527, require trial jury proceeding based on an alleged act which, if committed adult, would, under cases, requested. DeStefano Woods, 392 631, 2093, 1308, 'should receive only prospective application' stated 'not reverse convictions failure grant trials began prior May 20, 1968, date Louisiana Illinois.' U.S., 633, 635, S.C., 2095, 2096. March 28, 1968—prior Bloom—appellant have right he tried adult criminal proceeding. It thus seems manifest considering which provides hearings 'without jury,' Rev.Stat. § 43-206.03(2), constitutionally invalid Bloom.4 3 2. next preponderance-of-the-evidence burden proof proceedings, Neb.Rev.Stat. 43206.03(3), satisfies Due Process Clause However, hearing, neither objected standard, nor asked judge make ruling beyond reasonable doubt. explaining why from court's determination upon rested finding, Court: 4 '[I]t has pointed out & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions attack sufficiency evidence. 5 'Of course, reason obvious. more than sustain conviction did. An close frivolous.' (Tr. 41-42.) 6 Later acknowledged '[n]o * [o]ur just isn't insufficient.' 47.) And when specifically '[t]he even doubt standard,' responded: 'Even *.' 7 Given commendably forthright explanation counsel, vehicle proceedings.5 8 3. finally us denied because, it claimed, prosecutor unreviewable discretion proceed against rather ordinary proceedings. record shows (1) contention judge; (2) raised issue corpus petition passed Court; (3) press consider made passing reference brief court; (4) opinions 508 pass issue, refer contention. barrenness exercise our discretion, decline it. So far aware, does draw into question validity any statute.6 Therefore, could not, standing alone, subject way appeal. Code KF62 1257(2). '[I]nsofar notation may regarded certiorari writ' dismiss such writ improvidently granted. Mishkin New York, 383 502, 513, 86 958, 966, 16 56. 9 For foregoing reasons 10 Dismissed. 11 BLACK, dissenting. 12 set forth herein dissenting opinion my Brother DOUGLAS, dissent judgment below. 13 February 1968 appellant, then 17 years old, charged laws with being because forged bank check intended use own purposes.2 At charge trial, arguing guaranteed him Amendment Constitution prohibitng juries 'delinquency' proceedings3 therefore unconstitutional. 14 This 384 527 (1967), juveniles 'delinquents' result committing were entitled certain safeguards—namely, notice involved, benefit protection compulsory self-incrimination, confrontation witnesses them. can see basis whatsoever language allowing persons like those rights yet denying them surely fundamental aspects justice English-speaking world. 15 here decides 'appropriate' 1308 (1968). That trial—made applicable 491 (1968)—did apply 1968. dissented every holding take effect day they announced.4 think doctrine prospective-only application nothing less judicial amendment Constitution, since results Constitution's meaning thing particular decision something entirely different though remains same. Under system government amendments cannot judges action Congress people. Depriving defendants violated much similar deprivations after decision, treats these equal deprivation clearly unequal justice. agree refusals appear me clear commends Constitution. 2096, view 491, 522, adults serious cases contempts jury, should given retroactive effect.* view, am unable join per curiam precluded deciding trial. reach merits hold Amendments delinquency offense that, person crime triable jury. Such behind facade forgery. 19 As originally conceived, clinic, all attendants visualized white-coated experts there supervise, enlighten, cure—not punish. These people surrogates, so speak, natural parent. leading cases: 'To save becoming criminal, or continuing career crime, end maturer public punishment disgrace, legislature provide salvation child, its parents guardian unwilling do so, bringing courts without all, purpose subjecting state's guardianship protection. parent needs temporarily deprive liberty confining home, shield consequences persistence waywardness, state, compelled, parens patriae, place father same purpose, adopt means placing hands lead courts. When gets power it, determines salvation, punishment, immaterial how got there. simply children ought saved saved.' Commonwealth Fisher, 213 Pa. 48, 53, 62 Atlantic 198, 200 (1905). 22 new agency—which stood shoes guardian—was medical, psychological, psychiatric knowledge transform delinquent. motivated love troubled normal ones, saving careers. 23 Many things happened prevented dream widespread reality. First, municipal budgets task enticing enter field large numbers. Second, had, notably psychiatrists analysts, drawn away handsome fees rehabilitating rich. Third, tenderness possessed attendants, untangle web subconscious influences youngster. Fourth, correctional institutions designed care delinquents often became miniature prisons many vicious models. Fifth, secrecy led some overreaching arbitrary actions. Fortas Kent States, 541, 556, 1045, 1054, 84, 'There evidence, fact, grounds concern receives worst both worlds: protections accorded solicitous regenerative treatment postulated children.' 25 Kent, valid waiver 'exclusive' Columbia 'a including access social records probation reports presumably are considered court, statement decision.' Id., 557, S.Ct., 1055. Although emphasized 'the basic requirements fairness' id., 553, 1053, itself turned federal statute. 26 first expansive undertaken 527. involved 15-year-old boy Arizona State Industrial 'for period minority, unless sooner discharged law' allegedly making lewd telephone calls. Gault abandoned concept alien philosophy work Fortas, speaking stated: 'Under condition justify kangaroo court.' 1444. adequate timely charges him, confront cross-examine witnesses, privilege self-incrimination. 27 Since lower Those granted felt implicit Gault. Nieves 280 F.Supp. 994 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1968); Peyton Nord, 78 N.M. 717, 437 Pacific 716 (1968); Rindell, BNA Cr.L. 3121 (Providence, R. I., Fam. Ct., Jan. 1968). reasoned either dundamental consistent court. People Anonymous, 56 Misc.2d 725, 289 N.Y.S.2d 782 (Sup.Ct.1968); Johnson, 211 Pa.Super. 62, 234 (1967). negated former reason. Whether conflict underlying irrelevant, Law land. nature expressed Bloom, is, right. balancing rehabilitative requirement future Constitutional Convention. 29 idea certainly development healthy specialized conduct evasion Bill Rights. Where charging offense, conventional terms procedural Rights come play. 30 judgment. 'Delinquent shall mean age eighteen law city village ordinance.' 43-201(4). having possession intent utter genuine, forgery 28-601(2). committed, appears Nebrasa kept training school until 21st birthday. Four seven justices thought statutory provisions preponderance 43-206.03(3), provides, however, that: 'No legislative unconstitutional except concurrence five judges.' Neb.Const., Article V, comment (in response question) suggests reliance also Equal Protection claim 5), examination reveals part here. courts, jurisdictional reflected exclusive (See 'Questions Presented' Jurisdictional Statement 3-4, Appellant's Brief 2.) Nor below claim. recently Winship (No. 85, Misc.), noted, 885, 179, 160. corpus, allege provision invalid. Instead claimed: 'Petitioner deprived protective procedures code left depend uncontrolled petitioner proceeded informed procedure.' If fairly said prosecutor's 'uncontrolled,' review, explicit such, cf. 43-205.04, law. McCoy, 145 Nev. 750, 101 (1945); Fugate Ronin, 167 70, 75, 240, 243-244 (1958). 43-201(4) 'unlawfully, feloniously knowingly [had] custody false, counterfeited publish true knowing check, thereby prejudice, damage defraud *, well falsely made, counterfeited, contrary form Statutes provided, peace dignity Nebraska.' App. 1-2. undisputed acts constitute 43-206.03(2) 'shall conducted informal manner Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 640, 85 1731, 1743, 601 (1965) (dissenting opinion); Johnson Jersey, 719, 736, 1772, 1782, 882 (1966) Stovall Denno, 388 293, 302, 303, 1967, 1972, 1199 (1967) opinions); (1968) Halliday 394 831, 835, 1498, 1500, (1969) Desist 244, 254, 1030, 1037, 248 (concurring judgment). position respect comparable decisions. See, e. g., 255-256, 1038, cited therein.

Classification Label: 0