Stokes v. Fair

• Decision Date: 10 August 1978
• Docket Number: No. 78-1069,78-1069
• Citation: 581 F.2d 287
• Parties: James J. STOKES, Petitioner, Appellee, v. Michael E. FAIR, Respondent, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Page 287

581 F.2d 287

James J. STOKES, Petitioner, Appellee, v. Michael E. FAIR, Respondent, Appellant.

No. 78-1069.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Argued June 5, 1978.

Decided Aug. 10, 1978.

Barbara A. H. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chief, Crim. App. Section, Boston, Mass., with whom Francis X. Bellotti, Atty. Gen., and Stephen R. Delinsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chief, Crim. Bureau, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for respondent, appellant.

James F. McHugh, Boston, Mass., with whom Thomas H. Walsh, Jr., and Bingham, Dana & Gould, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for petitioner, appellee.

Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, CAMPBELL and BOWNES, Circuit Judges.

COFFIN, Chief Judge.

This action arises out of appellee's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellee claims that his right to due process was violated when the municipal court for the Dorchester district failed to state the reasons for its decision to waive juvenile jurisdiction over him and to refer him for treatment as an adult.

The facts are undisputed. Juvenile delinquency complaints were issued in 1969 charging appellee, a 16 year old youth, and two adults, an older brother and a cousin, with breaking and entering and murder. A hearing was held before the municipal court at which appellee was represented by counsel. A witness testified before the court that appellee had displayed to him a sawed off shotgun, and had admitted breaking and entering into a local business at night, being discovered and chased by the watchman, and together with his accomplices attacking the watchman and "beat(ing) him to a pulp." It was strongly implied that the motive of the crime was to steal money and that it had been carried out. The court dismissed the juvenile complaints noting on the back of each that "the interest of the public requires that he shall be tried for the said offense." Adult criminal complaints were issued against appellee the same day. He was eventually convicted of breaking and entering and first degree murder. His conviction was reduced on appeal to murder in the second degree, and he is currently serving a life sentence for his crimes.

The district court, basing its decision on Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966), issued a thoughtful opinion, concluding that the writ should be granted and ordered appellee released unless Massachusetts provided him with a de novo hearing on the waiver of juvenile jurisdiction issue within 30 days. The Commonwealth appealed that decision and was granted a stay of the district court's order pending the result of this appeal. We reverse the district court's judgment and deny appellee's petition.

The Supreme Court's opinion in Kent has produced considerable controversy over which if any of the procedural protections extended to accused juveniles in that case are constitutionally required, and which of them were mandated because of the Court's interpretation of the District of Columbia's particular statutory scheme. Compare United States ex rel. Turner v. Rundle, 438 F.2d 839 (3d Cir. 1971) With United States ex rel. Bombacino v. Bensinger, 498 F.2d 875 (7th Cir. 1974). There is no clear-cut answer. The Court's opinion contains extensive references both to constitutional rights and to the local statute. While the statement that "(T)here is no place in our system of law for reaching a result of such tremendous consequences without ceremony without hearing, without effective assistance of counsel, without a statement of reasons", Kent, supra, 382 U.S. 554, 86 S.Ct. at 1053, forcefully suggests a constitutional dimension to the case, we cannot ignore explicit language to the contrary. The Court equally forcefully stated, "This concern (that children in juvenile court are doubly deprived, receiving neither procedural protection nor special care), does not induce us in this case to accept the invitation to rule that constitutional guaranties which would be applicable to adults charged with the serious offenses for which Kent was tried must be applied in juvenile court proceedings concerned with allegations of law violation. The Juvenile Court Act and the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit provide an adequate basis for decision of this case, and we go no further." Id. at 556, 86 S.Ct. at 1054.

Given this ambiguity we cannot say that Kent promulgated a standard list of absolute procedural guarantees which must be provided before an accused juvenile can receive adult offender treatment. This seems obvious when it is remembered that there is no constitutional right to any preferred treatment as a juvenile offender and that the federal government treats the question of whether a defendant is to be charged as an adult criminal or a juvenile delinquent as one of prosecutorial discretion devoid of most due process guarantees. We have found no constitutional flaw in such a system. See United States v. Quinones, 516 F.2d 1309 (1st Cir. 1975); Cox v. United States, 473 F.2d 334 (4th Cir. 1973). However, when a state by statute entrusts this determination to the judiciary, more formal mechanisms to insure fundamental fairness are called into play and the statute must be interpreted "in the context of constitutional principles relating to due process and the assistance of counsel." Kent, supra, 383 U.S. at 557, 86 S.Ct. at 1055. This means that the procedural protections which must be afforded a juvenile before he may be transferred to adult offender status vary in terms of the particular statutory scheme which entitles him to juvenile status in the first place. ^*

For example, in jurisdictions in which the court's determination is controlled by substantive criteria requiring an evidentiary hearing, a full panoply of due process protections might well be necessary. On the other hand, should a state statute indicate that any juvenile charged with murder must be treated as an adult offender, many procedural safeguards would be superfluous and meaningless in that context. We note that we are unable to conceive of a statutory context in which some form of hearing and representation by counsel would not be required and...