United States v. Hegstrom

• Decision Date: 18 September 1959
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 7820.
• Citation: 178 F. Supp. 17
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: UNITED STATES ex rel. Vernon W. STINNETT v. Harold HEGSTROM, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, et al.

178 F. Supp. 17

UNITED STATES ex rel. Vernon W. STINNETT v. Harold HEGSTROM, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, et al.

Civ. No. 7820.

United States District Court D. Connecticut.

September 18, 1959.

James H. Throwe, Hartford, Conn., for petitioner.

Harry W. Hultgren, Jr., U. S. Atty., Hartford, Conn., for respondents.

J. JOSEPH SMITH, Chief Judge.

Findings of Fact

1. Petitioner, born on May 17, 1940, was on June 28, 1957 committed by the Juvenile Court for the District of Columbia for the period of his minority, expiring May 17, 1961, as a juvenile delinquent, for unauthorized use of an automobile.

2. He was placed in the National Training School for Boys, pursuant to the commitment, on June 28, 1957.

3. On May 30, 1958 he was transferred to the Federal Correctional Institution at Ashland, Kentucky, for mal-adjustment.

4. On February 16, 1959 he was transferred to the Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury, Connecticut, where he is presently confined in the custody of respondent.

5. No provision is made at the Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury for segregation of juveniles from the rest of the inmate population consisting of men sentenced for violation of federal criminal law.

Conclusions of Law

1. The court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of the action.

2. The authority of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4082, to transfer any inmate committed to the National Training School for Boys to another institution is limited to transfer to comparable institutions for the care, custody and training of juveniles.

3. Petitioner is entitled to release on writ of habeas corpus unless transferred within a reasonable time to an institution or portion thereof set aside and devoted to the care, custody and training of juveniles.

Discussion

Petitioners in this and companion cases are juveniles imprisoned in the Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury. All were committed as juveniles either to the custody of the Attorney General under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5031 et seq., or to the National Training School for Boys under the District of Columbia Juvenile Act.

The disciplinary problems arising when these youths committed as juveniles proved incorrigible have led to their confinement in a penal correctional institution by order of the Attorney General. This abrupt transition from juvenile ward of the United States to a member of the general prisoner population points up a weakness in the present system. There has been no criminal trial in any of these cases. Due process requires that a youthful criminal either be tried and sentenced as such at the outset, a course which is open in the case of those considered hoodlums or hardened criminals, or if an original decision to invoke juvenile rather than criminal proceedings is made, and proves ill-advised by reason of later misconduct, due process requires some right of trial for the later misconduct which necessitates treatment as a criminal. No provision has been made for either such trial in the instant cases.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law, the Sixth Amendment, that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The contention is made that commitment of a juvenile to a penal institution is violative of constitutional rights in two respects; first, because it is punishment when the power of control of the juvenile by the state under the District of Columbia or federal Juvenile Acts as in place of a parent of the juvenile is intended and upheld only for purposes of care, custody and training, see United States v. Borders, D.C. N.D.Ala., 154 F.Supp. 214, affirmed Borders v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 256 F.2d 458; and second, because it is punishment without the constitutionally guaranteed trial for the offense for which incarcerated. The contention is sound in both respects. The statute on which the respondent relies, 18 U.S.C. § 4082, was undoubtedly intended to give to the Attorney General power to transfer unruly subjects from the School to institutions of greater security, whether committed under the federal or District of Columbia act, having been amended to cover the District of Columbia cases after the decision in Huff v. O'Bryant, 1941, 74 App.D.C. 19, 121 F.2d 890. However, there is no provision for any court trial to determine whether any breach of law or discipline justifies the transfer. Under the federal act it has been argued that the requirements of due process are met by the accusation of crime, the waiver of indictment and jury trial, the finding of delinquency, and the general commitment to the custody of the Attorney General, for here the case has its inception as a criminal proceeding, and the usual safeguards of criminal procedure are available to the juvenile and are voluntarily waived with knowledge that the Attorney General may designate the place and type of correctional institution for confinement. The later transfer from one institution to another, it is said, may well be considered treatment or punishment for the first offense. The difficulty with that argument is that the waiver was for the purpose of a juvenile proceeding, not criminal in nature. A later change without opportunity to be heard, reconverting it into a criminal proceeding, is lacking in due process. The legislative history of the Act demonstrates that criminal proceedings and penal confinement were not intended. Senate Report 1989, 75th Congress, 3rd Session, recommending the passage of the bill drafted by the Department of Justice, which became the federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, relied upon a letter of the Attorney General of May 12, 1938.

"Students of criminology and penology generally agree that it is undesirable, from the standpoint both of the community and of the individual, that all juvenile offenders be treated as criminals. Many of them can be reclaimed and made useful citizens if they are properly treated and cared for, and are not permitted to mingle with mature and perhaps hardened criminals. In order to achieve

...