Bland v. United States, No. 72-6075

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtDOUGLAS
Citation36 L.Ed.2d 975,412 U.S. 909,93 S.Ct. 2294
Decision Date21 May 1973
Docket NumberNo. 72-6075
PartiesJerome T. BLAND v. UNITED STATES

412 U.S. 909
93 S.Ct. 2294
36 L.Ed.2d 975
Jerome T. BLAND

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 72-6075.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 1973

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BRENNAN and Mr. Justice MARSHALL concur, dissenting.

Petitioner was 16 years old at the time of his arrest and at the time of his indictment for armed robbery of a post office. He was charged as an adult under 16 D.C.Code § 2301(3)(A).* He

Page 910

moved to dismiss the indictment, alleging that the statutory basis for prosecuting him as an adult failed to provide him with procedural due process. The District Court, 330 F.Supp. 34, dismissed the indictment and the Court of Appeals, 472 F.2d 1329, by a divided vote reversed that judgment.

Under the statute of the District of Columbia involved in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84, a juvenile, age 16 or older, who is charged with a felony might be held for trial as though he were an adult, if the Juvenile Court waived jurisdiction. Kent held that the Act, read in light of 'the essentials of due process and fair treatment,' Id., at 562, 557, 86 S.Ct. at 1057, required a hearing on whether the Juvenile Court should waive its exclusive jurisdiction over the juvenile and transfer him to the criminal court of the District. And in In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527, we held that where under a state junvenile court act a juvenile is declared 'delinquent' and either confined or held for regular criminal prosecution, there must be a due process hearing on the issue of 'delinquency.'

The District of Columbia Act was modified after Kent so as to give the U. S. Attorney the power to remove a juvenile from the statutory category of 'child' merely by charging him with a designated felony. The House Report No. 91-907, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., at 50, explains the reason for the change:

'Because of the great increase in the number of serious felonies committed by juveniles and because of the substantial difficulties in transferring juvenile offenders charged with serious felonies to the jurisdiction of the adult court under present law, provisions are made in this subchapter for a better mechanism for separation of the violent youthful offender and recidivist from the rest of the juvenile community.'

Page 911

The 'substantial difficulties' are obviously the constitutional rights explicated in Kent and in Gault. The 'better mechanism' is the use of the short cut employed, viz: the discretion of the prosecutor. Two rather large questions are presented and they seem to me to be substantial.

First. A juvenile or 'child' is placed in a more protected position than an adult, not by the Constitution but by an Act of Congress. In that category he is theoretically subject to rehabilitative treatment. Can he on the the whim or caprice of a prosecutor be put in the class of the run-of-the-mill criminal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
80 practice notes
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 1984
    ...to repay and without restriction as to their disposition.' " (United States v. Rosenthal (2d Cir.1972) 470 F.2d 837, 842, cert. den. 412 U.S. 909, 93 S.Ct. 2298, 36 L.Ed.2d 975; United States v. Swallow (10th Cir.1975) 511 F.2d 514, 519, cert. den. 423 U.S. 845, 96 S.Ct. 82, 46 L.Ed.2d 66).......
  • Brown v. Moore, Civ. A. No. 75-298-P.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Southern District of Alabama
    • December 13, 1976
    ...arising in this court, to wit, Allen v. City of Mobile, 331 F.Supp. 1134 (S.D.Ala. 1971), aff'd 466 F.2d 122 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. den. 412 U.S. 909, 93 S.Ct. 2292, 36 L.Ed.2d 975 (1973); Anderson v. Mobile County Commission, Civil Action No. 7388-72-H (S.D.Ala.1973); Sawyer v. City of Mob......
  • US v. Housing Authority of City of Chickasaw, Civ. A. No. 79-0099-H.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Southern District of Alabama
    • March 7, 1980
    ...276, 58 L.Ed.2d 254 (1978); Allen v. City of Mobile, 331 F.Supp. 1134 (S.D.Ala. 1971); aff'd., 466 F.2d 122 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 909, 93 S.Ct. 2292, 36 L.Ed.2d 975 (1973) (racial discrimination by Mobile Police Department); Sawyer v. City of Mobile, 208 F.Supp. 548 (S.D.A......
  • Tyler v. Vickery, No. 74-3413
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • August 20, 1975
    ...2000e. 10 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971). 11 Id. at 430, 91 S.Ct. at 853. 12 466 F.2d 122 (5 Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 909, 93 S.Ct. 2292, 36 L.Ed.2d 975 13 Id. at 126. 14 417 U.S. 484, 94 S.Ct. 2485, 41 L.Ed.2d 256 (1974). 15 Compare James v. Valtierra, 402 U.S.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
80 cases
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 1984
    ...to repay and without restriction as to their disposition.' " (United States v. Rosenthal (2d Cir.1972) 470 F.2d 837, 842, cert. den. 412 U.S. 909, 93 S.Ct. 2298, 36 L.Ed.2d 975; United States v. Swallow (10th Cir.1975) 511 F.2d 514, 519, cert. den. 423 U.S. 845, 96 S.Ct. 82, 46 L.Ed.2d 66).......
  • Brown v. Moore, Civ. A. No. 75-298-P.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Southern District of Alabama
    • December 13, 1976
    ...arising in this court, to wit, Allen v. City of Mobile, 331 F.Supp. 1134 (S.D.Ala. 1971), aff'd 466 F.2d 122 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. den. 412 U.S. 909, 93 S.Ct. 2292, 36 L.Ed.2d 975 (1973); Anderson v. Mobile County Commission, Civil Action No. 7388-72-H (S.D.Ala.1973); Sawyer v. City of Mob......
  • US v. Housing Authority of City of Chickasaw, Civ. A. No. 79-0099-H.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Southern District of Alabama
    • March 7, 1980
    ...276, 58 L.Ed.2d 254 (1978); Allen v. City of Mobile, 331 F.Supp. 1134 (S.D.Ala. 1971); aff'd., 466 F.2d 122 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 909, 93 S.Ct. 2292, 36 L.Ed.2d 975 (1973) (racial discrimination by Mobile Police Department); Sawyer v. City of Mobile, 208 F.Supp. 548 (S.D.A......
  • Tyler v. Vickery, No. 74-3413
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • August 20, 1975
    ...2000e. 10 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971). 11 Id. at 430, 91 S.Ct. at 853. 12 466 F.2d 122 (5 Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 909, 93 S.Ct. 2292, 36 L.Ed.2d 975 13 Id. at 126. 14 417 U.S. 484, 94 S.Ct. 2485, 41 L.Ed.2d 256 (1974). 15 Compare James v. Valtierra, 402 U.S.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT