Kent v. Reid, 16698

• Decision Date: 22 January 1963
• Docket Number: No. 16698,17068.,16698
• Citation: 114 US App. DC 330,316 F.2d 331
• Parties: Morris Allen KENT, Jr., Appellant, v. Curtis REID, Superintendent, District of Columbia Jail, Appellee. Morris Allen KENT, Jr., Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

114 US App. DC 330, 316 F.2d 331 (1963)

Morris Allen KENT, Jr., Appellant, v. Curtis REID, Superintendent, District of Columbia Jail, Appellee.

Morris Allen KENT, Jr., Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.

Nos. 16698, 17068.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued April 10, 1962.

Argued November 27, 1962.

Decided January 22, 1963.

Mr. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Richard Arens, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant in No. 16,698.

Mr. Richard Arens, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant in No. 17,068.

Mr. Anthony G. Amsterdam, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U. S. Atty., at the time the brief was filed, and Daniel J. McTague, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee in No. 16,698. Mr. Judah Best, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee in No. 16,698.

Mr. Richard W. Barton, Asst. Corp. Counsel for District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Chester H. Gray, Corp. Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corporation Counsel, were on the brief, for appellee in No. 17,068.

Mrs. Patricia Roberts Harris, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of National Capital Area Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae urging reversal in No. 17,068.

Before EDGERTON, WASHINGTON and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

No. 16698 Argued April 10, 1962.

No. 17068 Argued November 27, 1962.

WASHINGTON, Circuit Judge.

On September 5, 1961, the appellant was arrested by the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia on charges of having committed 14 serious offenses, all of which would, if committed by an adult, be felonies and three of which could be punished by death. At the time of his arrest appellant was 16 years of age and had been under probation in the Juvenile Court for the preceding two years. On September 12, 1961, the Juvenile Court signed a waiver of its jurisdiction over the offenses and ordered the appellant held for trial for such offenses under the regular procedure in the United States District Court. The order recited that the waiver was made "after full investigation." Appellant immediately filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the District Court, challenging its jurisdiction to try the case, and also appealed the order of waiver to the Municipal Court of Appeals.¹ Both proceedings were based on the claim that the Juvenile Court had failed to make a "full investigation" before issuing the order of waiver, and hence that its order was invalid under Section 11-914 of the District of Columbia Code (1961).²

On September 19, 1961, the District Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition and discharged the writ.³ Its order is before us by appeal in No. 16,698. On April 13, 1962, the Municipal Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Juvenile Court waiving its jurisdiction. In Re Kent, D.C.Mun.App., 179 A.2d 727 (1962). We allowed an appeal from the affirmance, now before us in No. 17,068.

I.

In No. 16,698 we must decide whether habeas corpus will lie, prior to indictment and trial, to raise collaterally the question whether, before waiving its jurisdiction over a juvenile, the Juvenile Court made the "full investigation" recited in its waiver. We think that habeas corpus is not the proper remedy for that purpose.

Appellant argues that his petition presents a "jurisdictional" issue which may be tested by habeas corpus. But even if the question raised could be regarded as a true jurisdictional issue — and we think it is "jurisdictional" only in a marginal sense⁴ — it by no means follows that a pre-trial habeas corpus proceeding will be available to test it. As the Supreme Court said in Henry v. Henkel, 235 U.S. 219, 228, 35 S.Ct. 54, 56, 59 L. Ed. 203 (1914):

"To establish a general rule that the courts on habeas corpus, and in advance of trial, should determine every jurisdictional question would interfere with the administration of the criminal law and afford a means by which, with the existing right of appeal, delay could be secured when the Constitution contemplates that there shall be a speedy trial, both in the interest of the public, and as a right to the defendant."

See also Sunal v. Large, 332 U.S. 174, 179, n. 11, 67 S.Ct. 1588, 91 L.Ed. 1982 (1947). Indeed appellant says on brief that "to identify the subject as jurisdictional does not automatically establish the propriety of invoking habeas corpus." He points out that the availability of the writ depends on weighing various factors, and that the exposure of the juvenile to trial in the District Court is an important element to be considered. We agree, but that is not the only consideration. Here remedies other than pre-trial habeas corpus are available for adjudication of the point at issue under the ordinary processes of law administration, to test whether the juvenile should be exposed to trial as an adult in the District Court.⁵

There is now pending in the District Court a motion filed by appellant to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction because a full investigation was not made by the Juvenile Court before it waived its jurisdiction. We have recently stated that, in a new trial pursuant to remand, the District Court "upon sufficient allegations, should conduct such proceedings as may be necessary to determine whether `full investigation' was made by the Juvenile Court * * *." Green v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 348, 351, 308 F.2d 303, 306 (1962); see Wilhite v. United States, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 279, 280, 281 F.2d 642, 643 (1960). Such proceedings will be available upon the motion to dismiss the indictment in this case if sufficient allegations are made.⁶ See United States v. Stevenson, 170 F.Supp. 315 (D.D.C. 1959). If the District Court should deny appellant's motion in this case, its order will be reviewable by this court in the event appellant is ultimately convicted. See Briggs v. United States, 96 U.S.App. D.C. 392, 226 F.2d 350 (1955). Moreover, as we pointed out in Pee v. United States, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 47, 51, 274 F.2d 556, 560 (1959), and see also Green v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D.C. at 350-351, 308 F.2d at 305-306, after the Juvenile Court has waived jurisdiction in a case like the present one, "the District Court may proceed under D.C.Code § 11-914 (1951) in all respects exactly as the Juvenile Court would proceed in the case." See United States v. Anonymous, 176 F.Supp. 325 (D.D.C.1959). Appellant has not yet requested this form of relief from the regular processes of the criminal law, so far as we are advised. But if such a request were made and granted by the District Court, it would effectively moot the objections appellant now seeks to raise. It seems unnecessary to note that the appellant will have in the District Court all the rights in relation to his alleged psychiatric problems that he would have in the Juvenile Court.

We think, in sum, that to allow habeas corpus to be brought in the circumstances of this case would be unnecessary to preserve appellant's rights, would interfere with and unnecessarily delay the orderly processes of the District Court, and would be inconsistent with the precedents developed in this court and the Supreme Court.

The order of the District Court discharging the writ will accordingly be

Affirmed.

II.

In No. 17,068 we must determine whether the waiver of jurisdiction by the Juvenile Court was a "final order or judgment," which could be appealed to the Municipal Court of Appeals within the meaning of Section 11-772(a) of the District of Columbia Code, reading as follows:

"Any party aggrieved by any final order or judgment of * * * the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia, may appeal therefrom as of right to The Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. * * *"

We think it was not a final order or judgment in the statutory sense.⁷

As already pointed out, we held in Green v. United States, supra, that the validity of a waiver can be determined in the District Court under standards indicated in Wilhite v. United States, supra. That court has on occasion inquired into the matter. See United State v. Anonymous, supra, and United States v. Stevenson, supra. A motion to dismiss the indictment has been filed for that purpose in this case. The District Court acquires the case for trial on the merits as a result of the waiver, and it may use the powers and procedures available to the Juvenile Court in conducting and disposing of the case.⁸ To allow an appeal from the waiver to the Municipal Court of Appeals when the case is awaiting trial or at trial in the District Court may create a number of serious problems, among them unnecessary delay in dealing with the case and other questions suggested by appellant himself on brief in No. 16,698.⁹ We agree that a challenge to the waiver of "jurisdiction" should take place in the District Court to which "jurisdiction" has been waived. We think that challenges to the policies and practices of the Juvenile Court with respect to waivers can be more promptly and effectively dealt with in the District Court than in the Municipal Court of Appeals. We think also that plainly it was not the intention underlying the statute to treat a waiver as a "final" order for appeal purposes.

Our decision accords with the standards laid down in Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-547, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949), for determining when a decision is final and appealable. See United States v. Cefaratti, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 297, 202 F.2d 13 (1952), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 907, 73 S. Ct. 646, 97 L.Ed. 1343 (1953). Here, the waiver had no "final and irreparable effect on the rights" of the juvenile to non-criminal processes. As we have shown, the juvenile's right to raise the validity of the waiver on appeal, if he is convicted, persists. Put another way, the ...