Kinney v. Lenon

• Citation: 425 F.2d 209
• Decision Date: 21 April 1970
• Docket Number: No. 25522.,25522.
• Parties: Paul David KINNEY, a minor child, by and through his natural parents and next friends, William Kinney and Pauline Kinney, and all other persons similarly situated, Appellants, v. Harlow F. LENON, in his capacity as Judge of the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah, and All Persons similarly situated holding office as Judges of the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah, and Albert B. Green in his capacity as Director of the Department of Judicial Administration of Multnomah County, Oregon, and in his capacity as Acting Director of the Juvenile Detention Home for the County of Multnomah, State of Oregon, and Richard Knapp, in his capacity as a Referee of Juvenile Court for the County of Multnomah, State of Oregon, Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

425 F.2d 209 (1970)

Paul David KINNEY, a minor child, by and through his natural parents and next friends, William Kinney and Pauline Kinney, and all other persons similarly situated, Appellants, v. Harlow F. LENON, in his capacity as Judge of the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah, and All Persons similarly situated holding office as Judges of the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah, and Albert B. Green in his capacity as Director of the Department of Judicial Administration of Multnomah County, Oregon, and in his capacity as Acting Director of the Juvenile Detention Home for the County of Multnomah, State of Oregon, and Richard Knapp, in his capacity as a Referee of Juvenile Court for the County of Multnomah, State of Oregon, Appellees.

No. 25522.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 21, 1970.

John H. Clough, Portland, Or., for appellants.

Elizabeth Preston, Deputy Dist. Atty., George A. Van Hoomisslen, Dist. Atty., Multnomah County, Portland, Or., for appellees.

Before WRIGHT and TRASK, Circuit Judges.

EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge.

Appellant is a minor child of seventeen years now detained in the Juvenile Detention Home in Multnomah County, Oregon, pending trial in Juvenile Court on charges arising out of a schoolyard fight.

Appellant alleges that there were many potential witnesses to the fight, that he cannot identify them by name but would recognize them by sight, that appellant's attorneys are white though he and the potential witnesses are black, that his attorneys would consequently have great practical difficulty in interviewing and lining up the witnesses, and that appellant is the sole person who can do so. His request to be released into the custody of his parents was denied by the Juvenile Court. Relief was sought and denied in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, and application for an order restraining appellant's continued detention has been made to this court.

We do not need to decide in this case, as appellant urges us to do, the constitutionality of Ore.Rev.Stat. § 419.583, which prohibits the granting of bail in juvenile cases, though the question is not insubstantial. Trimble v. Stone, 187 F.Supp. 483 (D.D.C.1960); cf. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). Nor need we delimit the circumstances under which a statutory provision that juveniles be released in the custody of their parents may be a constitutionally adequate substitute for bail. Fulwood v. Stone, 129 U.S.App. D.C. 314, 394 F.2d 939 (1967); Baldwin v. Lewis, 300 F.Supp. 1220 (D.Wis.1969). For appellant here was granted release neither on bond nor into the custody of his parents. And we are of the opinion that, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, failure to permit appellant's release for the purpose of aiding the preparation of his defense unconstitutionally interfered with his due-process right to a fair trial.

The ability of an accused to prepare his defense by lining up witnesses is fundamental, in our adversary system, to his chances of obtaining a fair trial. Recognition of this fact of course underlies the bail system. Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4, 72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed. 3 (1951). But it is equally implicit in the...