U.S. v. Juvenile K.J.C.

• Decision Date: 09 September 1997
• Docket Number: No. 97-M-33-MWB.,97-M-33-MWB.
• Citation: 976 F.Supp. 1219
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. JUVENILE K.J.C., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

Page 1219

976 F.Supp. 1219

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. JUVENILE K.J.C., Defendant.

No. 97-M-33-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division.

September 9, 1997.

Richard L. Murphy, Asst. U.S. Atty., Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff.

Mark Brown, Cedar Rapid, IA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO TRANSFER JUVENILE TO ADULT STATUS

BENNETT, District Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................. 1220
                 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS .......................................................... 1221
                     A. The Federal Juvenile Justice And Delinquency Prevention Act .......... 1221
                     B. The Act's Framework .................................................. 1222
                     C. Interest of Justice Determination .................................... 1223
                     D. Application Of The Section 5032 Factors To This Case ................. 1224
                        1. Age And Social Background ......................................... 1224
                        2. Nature Of The Alleged Offense ..................................... 1226
                        3. Prior Delinquency Record .......................................... 1228
                        4. Intellectual Development And Psychological Maturity ............... 1228
                        5. Past Treatment Efforts ............................................ 1229
                        6. The Availability of Programs For Treatment ........................ 1230
                III. CONCLUSION .............................................................. 1232
                

Since the beginning of the nineteenth-century, social reformers have promoted the idea that the rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents can prevent them from becoming adult offenders. See Hon. Gordon A. Martin, Jr., The Delinquent and the Juvenile Court: Is There Still a Place for Rehabilitation? 25 CONN. L. REV. 57, 65-67 (1992) (providing review of the historical views of juvenile treatment in America). Reflecting this philosophy, Congress has attempted to protect juveniles in appropriate circumstances, balancing their prospects of rehabilitation against society's right to be free from crime. Here, the court is called upon to perform the statutory balancing test called for by the Federal Juvenile Justice And Delinquency Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5032, in order to determine whether the defendant, juvenile K.J.C., will continue to be treated as a juvenile or will be transferred for adult prosecution.

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Defendant juvenile K.J.C. is currently charged with the commission of three offenses: aiding and abetting a bank robbery; possessing LSD with intent to distribute; and aiding and abetting in the distribution of LSD.¹ On July 15, 1997 and August 19, 1997, the government filed motions to transfer the proceedings against K.J.C. to adult criminal prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5032. The government also filed a certification stating that K.J.C. is charged with a violent felony and that there is a substantial federal interest in this case which warrants the exercise of federal jurisdiction.² An evidentiary hearing on the government's motions to transfer was held on August 19, 1997, and August 27, 1997, at which the government presented the testimony of Leslie Elaine Nelson, John Spencer Pink, James Leidigh, Noel Washburn, Rich Gardner, Margaret Sellergren, Ann Vestle, Delvin Kling, Geoffrey Piller, Stewart Rowles, and Jack Swiderski.³ Defendant K.J.C. offered no testimony. Defendant K.J.C. was present at the evidentiary hearing with his parents. The United States was represented by Assistant United States Attorney Richard L. Murphy. Defendant K.J.C. was represented by Mark Brown, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

The court turns first to a brief review of the history of the Federal Juvenile Justice And Delinquency Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031-5042 ("the Act"). The court will then review the standards applicable to motions to transfer juveniles to adult prosecution, and finally the court will conduct a legal analysis of the six statutorily mandated factors to determine whether the transfer of K.J.C. for adult prosecution is appropriate in this case.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. The Federal Juvenile Justice And Delinquency Prevention Act

The Act was enacted on September 7, 1974. The Act amended the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act ("FJDA") which had remained virtually unchanged since Congressional enactment in 1938. The FJDA granted the Attorney General unlimited discretion in deciding whether to offer prosecution as a juvenile to any defendant under the age of eighteen not surrendered to state officials or charged with offenses punishable by life imprisonment or death. See Cox v. United States, 473 F.2d 334, 336 (4th Cir.) (concluding that Congress could legitimately grant the Attorney General discretion in deciding whether to prosecute a juvenile as an adult and that the exercise of such discretion did not require a hearing), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 869, 94 S.Ct. 183, 38 L.Ed.2d 116 (1973); see also United States ex rel. Bombacino v. Bensinger, 498 F.2d 875, 877 n. 7 (7th Cir.) (noting that "[w]hile it may be highly desirable to commit to the judge of a specialized juvenile court the determination of whether or not a particular juvenile is to be prosecuted criminally, we are aware of no constitutional requirement that a State must do so") (quoting People v. Jiles, 43 Ill.2d 145, 251 N.E.2d 529, 531 (1969)), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1019, 95 S.Ct. 492, 42 L.Ed.2d 292 (1974). Congress enacted the Act to provide federal courts with jurisdiction over certain juvenile delinquency proceedings. As was pointed out in the Senate Report, the 1974 amendment was "to provide basic procedural rights for juveniles who come under Federal jurisdiction and to bring Federal procedures up to the standards set by various model acts, many state codes and court decisions." S. REP. No. 1011, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5283, 5284.

The Act made four substantive changes to the FJDA: (1) the Act altered the definition of a juvenile, (2) the Act added the requirement for judicial approval before prosecuting a juvenile as an adult, (3) it placed limits on the number of offenses for which a juvenile could be tried as an adult, and (4) it provided for federal prosecution of juveniles when no state would exercise jurisdiction over the offender. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031-5032. Congress subsequently amended the Act by its enactment of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-473, tit. II, 98 Stat.1976 (1984). Congress expanded the federal role in juvenile justice by authorizing the prosecution of juveniles as adults for additional offenses and mandating adult trial of juveniles in certain cases. 18 U.S.C. § 5032. Congressional passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 103-323, 108 Stat. 1796, further amended the Act. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act authorizes the criminal prosecution of juveniles as young as thirteen years of age for certain serious felonies, including first and second degree murder, attempted murder, and bank robbery. 18 U.S.C. § 5032.⁴

B. The Act's Framework

The Act provides a special framework for the prosecution of persons who are juveniles at the time a federal crime is committed.⁵ The Act's purpose is to "`remove juveniles from the ordinary criminal process in order to avoid the stigma of a prior criminal conviction and to encourage treatment and rehabilitation.'" United States v. Doe, 94 F.3d 532, 536 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting United States v. Brian N., 900 F.2d 218, 220 (10th Cir.1990)); accord United States v. Angelo D., 88 F.3d 856, 858 (10th Cir.1996); United States v. T.F.F., 55 F.3d 1118, 1120 (6th Cir.1995); United States v. Juvenile Male No. 1, 47 F.3d 68, 71 (2d Cir.1995); United States v. One Juvenile Male, 40 F.3d 841, 844 (6th Cir.1994). The Act's purpose, however, must be weighed against "the need to protect the public from `violent and dangerous individuals and provid[e] sanctions for anti-social acts. And that balance must be struck by the district court in the context of a transfer hearing.'" Doe, 94 F.3d at 536; (quoting United States v. Alexander, 695 F.2d 398, 401 (9th Cir.1982) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1108, 103 S.Ct. 2458, 77 L.Ed.2d 1337 (1983)); see T.F.F., 55 F.3d at 1121 ("[A] motion to transfer is properly granted where a court determines that the risk of harm to society posed by affording the defendant more lenient treatment within the juvenile justice system outweighs the defendant's chance for rehabilitation.") (quoting One Juvenile Male, 40 F.3d at 844).

In order to proceed against a juvenile in federal court, the Attorney General must certify to the appropriate district court, after investigation,

that (1) the juvenile court or other appropriate court of a State does not have jurisdiction or refuses to assume jurisdiction over said juvenile with respect to such alleged act of juvenile delinquency, (2) the State does not have available programs and services adequate for the needs of juveniles, or (3) the offense charged is a crime of violence that is a felony or an offense described in section 841, 952(a), 955, or 959 of title 21, and that there is a substantial Federal interest in the case or the offense to warrant the exercise of Federal jurisdiction.

If the Attorney General does not so certify, such juvenile shall be surrendered to the appropriate legal authorities of such State.

18 U.S.C. § 5032; see Impounded (Juvenile I.H., Jr.), 120 F.3d 457, 462 (3d Cir.1997).⁶

Here, the government has certified defendant K.J.C. for prosecution in federal court pursuant to the third clause.⁷ Once federal jurisdiction is obtained over the juvenile, the juvenile is generally subject to be proceeded against in juvenile delinquency proceedings unless the juvenile requests to be proceeded against as an adult or the district court, upon motion by the United...