Court Opinion

ID: 2964602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:28:08.819246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:58.026296
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2310

                                     LUIS ROSADO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                           CORRECTIONS, ME WARDEN, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            Timothy S.  Murphy  and Gardner  Gardner  &  Murphy on  brief  for
            __________________      ___________________________
        appellant.
            Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General,  Mary M. Sauer  and Charles  K.
            _______________                     _____________      ___________
        Leadbetter, Assistant Attorneys General, on brief for appellees.
        __________

                                 ____________________

                                    March 26, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Petitioner  Luis Rosado has  filed an
                      __________

            application for a  writ of  habeas corpus under  28 U.S.C.   

            2254.  In it, he argues  that the Maine statute setting forth

            the circumstances under which a juvenile may be prosecuted as

            an adult,  see 15  M.R.S.A.    3101(4), violates  due process
                       ___

            because it directs the juvenile court to use  a preponderance

            of the evidence standard in determining when such prosecution

            is required; Rosado maintains that  the Constitution mandates

            a standard  of clear and  convincing evidence.   The district

            court  denied the application for the writ on the merits, but

            granted a certificate of probable cause to appeal.

                      We treat  this certificate as a recommendation that

            we  issue a  certificate  of appealability  ("CAP") under  28

            U.S.C.   2253, as amended  by the Antiterrorism and Effective

            Death  Penalty Act of 1996.   See 28  U.S.C.   2253(c)(1)(B).
                                          ___

            We  agree  that  a  substantial  question  is  presented  and

            therefore grant Rosado's request for  a CAP.  However,  since

            we  believe that  oral argument  would not be  of significant

            assistance -- the parties have fully briefed the case and the

            issue turns on parsing Supreme Court precedents -- we proceed

            directly to the merits.

                      Three circuit courts  of appeal have addressed  the

            same question  in relation to the  federal transfer provision

            contained in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency  Prevention

            Act.    See 18  U.S.C.    5032.    These courts  hold  that a
                    ___

                                         -2-

            preponderance  of  the  evidence  standard is  all  that  due

            process requires.  See United States v. I.D.P., 102 F.3d 507,
                               ___ _____________    ______

            513-14 (11th  Cir. 1996);  United States  v. T.F.F.,  55 F.3d
                                       _____________     ______

            1118, 1122 (6th  Cir. 1995);  United States v.  Doe, 49  F.3d
                                          _____________     ___

            859, 868 (2d Cir. 1995).  We agree with the result reached by

            these  courts.   Because  the cases  adequately  set out  the

            relevant  analysis,  including  reference  to  the  pertinent

            Supreme Court cases, we  see no reason to repeat it here, but

            we  believe that  a published  opinion by  this court  may be

            useful to district courts in this circuit.

                      Finally, Rosado  cites a  number of state  cases in

            support of his position that due process requires a clear and

            convincing evidence  standard.  Examination reveals  that the

            courts in these cases either adopted such a standard by court

            rule or by  reference to  a state statute  so providing;  the

            courts that did  consider due process  claims did not  decide

            what minimum standard of proof was required.
                 _______

                      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                                                            ________

                                         -3-