United States v. Anonymous

• Decision Date: 14 September 1959
• Citation: 176 F. Supp. 325
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. ANONYMOUS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

176 F. Supp. 325

UNITED STATES of America v. ANONYMOUS.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

September 9, 1959.

Motion to Dismiss Indictment Granted September 14, 1959.

John W. Warner, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for the United States.

Harry A. Calevas, Kevin P. Charles, Washington, D. C., for defendant-movant.

YOUNGDAHL, District Judge.

This case is before the Court on defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment and have the Court proceed in the same manner the juvenile court would have proceeded had it retained jurisdiction. D.C.Code § 11-914.

On June 26, 1959, four complaints were filed in the juvenile court of the District of Columbia charging the defendant, a 17 year old, with three assaults with intent to commit robbery and one robbery. After a full investigation, the juvenile court, pursuant to the above-cited statute, waived jurisdiction and ordered the child held for trial under the regular procedure of this Court.

Initially, upon the hearing of defendant's motion last Friday, the Court was disturbed with the possibility that a "full investigation" before waiver, as required by the statute, might not have been made. This was due in part to counsel's statement that the juvenile court authorities had not discussed the case with the parents of the child here involved, and in part to the Court's full awareness of the serious, intolerable and overburdened conditions in the juvenile court. Yesterday, this Court issued a subpoena duces tecum for the juvenile court's social and legal records pertaining to this boy. After a careful study of these records, the Court is convinced that the statute was fully complied with: a "full investigation" had been conducted prior to this boy's waiver. His parents were interviewed; the principal of his school was contacted and conferred with; the school record was examined; the boy himself was seen and talked with. Much information regarding the boy's background, his present circumstances, and his potentialities was acquired.

A waiver was then ordered. This Court is now faced with the question of whether the boy should be proceeded against as if he were an adult—with the ensuing probability that he would then be branded with the mark of "criminal" for the rest of his life—or whether this Court, pursuant to the authority given it by § 11-914, should convene a juvenile court and treat the boy exactly as would the juvenile court had it retained jurisdiction over him.

This Court has decided that in the best interests of this boy and the protection of society, it is compelled to choose the latter path. This decision has been made with full appreciation of the handicaps that must be undertaken in...