0
If a juvenile is waived to adult court do they still have a right to trial by jury?
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Yes, they have all the rights in trial court that all defendants possess.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
In a majority of juvenile court jurisdictions a juvenile's right to a trial by jury is governed by?
Juveniles do not have access to trial by jury . . . . -------------------- Unless they have committed a capital crime and have been bound over to the adult court for prosecution.
What right does a detained juvenile have when after the court alleges him or her to be delinquent or unruly?
The right to receive bail
Do juveniles adjudicated to adult court have the right to vote?
Not until they are 18, and many states do not allow convicted felons to vote, therefore if the juvenile was tried as an adult in a felony case, he or she might not be able to vote even after turning 18.
In what case did the US Supreme Court establish that the waiver proceeding is a critically important stage in the juvenile justice process?
Kent v. United States, 383 US 541 (1966)Kent was the first appeal the US Supreme Court accepted involving the juvenile justice system, and may only have been considered because it involved transfer of a case from juvenile court to US District (criminal) Court. Prior to Kent, the Court had refused to review juvenile cases, regardless of constitutional issues raised, on the basis that "juvenile courts are not criminal courts."BackgroundMorris Kent was arrested at the age of 16 on charges of breaking and entering, robbery and rape. As a juvenile, Kent was subject to the jurisdiction of juvenile court unless the assigned judge waived jurisdiction and transferred the case to adult court. In this instance, the judge decided Kent should be tried in US District Court, and waived jurisdiction.Kent's attorney filed a motion for a waiver hearing to argue the jurisdictional transfer, but the juvenile court judge ignored the petition. The defendant's attorney next filed a motion to dismiss in US District Court on the grounds that the juvenile court waiver was invalid for lack of due process. The motion was overruled, and Kent was subsequently tried and convicted on six counts of breaking and entering and robbery, but acquitted of the two counts of rape by reason of insanity.Kent's defense counsel preserved on appeal the objection to the juvenile court waiver being issued without a hearing, but the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling, holding that the transfer procedure was conducted properly and was valid.US Supreme CourtThe question before the Court was whether Fourteenth Amendment Due Process protection extended to juveniles, and whether this protection had been violated when the juvenile court judged transferred jurisdiction on Morris Kent's case without permitting a waiver hearing where counsel could argue on the client's behalf.The Supreme Court held that certain due process protections, including the right to a hearing on the waiver motion, and the right to legal representation at that hearing, applied to children as well as adults.Justice Abe Fortas delivered the Opinion of the Court, which held that that waivers were an important discretionary act that, at the time it was applied to Morris, had no rules or standards for judicial decision-making. The arbitrary nature of the waiver made a hearing mandatory prior to execution.Fortas wrote: "As the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, 'the waiver of jurisdiction is a critically important action determining vitally important statutory rights of the juvenile."The Court then set forth eight determining factors to be used in considering the jurisdiction under which a juvenile should be tried:The seriousness of the alleged offense to the community and whether the protection of the community requires waiver.Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner.Whether the alleged offense was against persons or against property, greater weight being given to offenses against persons especially if personal injury resulted.The prosecutive merit of the complaint, i.e., whether there is evidence upon which a Grand Jury may be expected to return an indictment (to be determined by consultation with the United States Attorney).The desirability of trial and disposition of the entire offense in one court when the juvenile's associates in the alleged offense are adults who will be charged with a crime in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration of his home, environmental situation, emotional attitude and pattern of living.The record and previous history of the juvenile, including previous contacts with the Youth Aid Division, other law enforcement agencies, juvenile courts and other jurisdictions, prior periods of probation to this Court, or prior commitments to juvenile institutions.The prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile (if he is found to have committed the alleged offense) by the use of procedures, services and facilities currently available to the Juvenile Court."It will be the responsibility of any officer of the Court's staff assigned to make the investigation of any complaint in which waiver of jurisdiction is being considered to develop fully all available information which may bear upon the criteria and factors set forth above. Although not all such factors will be involved in an individual case, the Judge will consider the relevant factors in a specific case before reaching a conclusion to waive juvenile jurisdiction and transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for trial under the adult procedures of that Court."The US Supreme Court reversed the Appeals Court ruling and remanded the case to US District Court to be heard de novo.Kent opened the door to the Court's examination of juvenile court proceedings and children's rights in other cases, including In Re Gault, 387 US 1 (1967), the landmark Supreme Court case that first challenged the constitutionality of juvenile justice statutes.
What rights do adults have that juveniles don't?
In the US, I can't think of one that comes immediately to mind. As a matter of fact, juveniles actually enjoy more, and better, protection in the court process than adults do, and are treated more leniently besides.In McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, (1971) the Court ruled the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial does not extend to juvenile court proceedings, because the intent of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate, and a jury trial creates a more adversarial environment that can undermine that goal.In 1971, no states offered jury trials in juvenile court. As of 2009, ten states grant the right of juveniles to jury trials, and another eleven states allow jury trials under limited circumstances.Often, US Supreme Court decisions follow trends in state courts. At some point in the not-too-distant future, the Court may extend 6th Amendment protection to children and teens.
In a majority of juvenile court jurisdictions a juvenile's right to a trial by jury is governed by?
Juveniles do not have access to trial by jury . . . . -------------------- Unless they have committed a capital crime and have been bound over to the adult court for prosecution.
What right does a detained juvenile have when after the court alleges him or her to be delinquent or unruly?
The right to receive bail
Do juveniles adjudicated to adult court have the right to vote?
Not until they are 18, and many states do not allow convicted felons to vote, therefore if the juvenile was tried as an adult in a felony case, he or she might not be able to vote even after turning 18.
Does Juveniles who have been found in juvenile court to have committed a violation of the law have a constitutional right to appeal?
No.
Can the right to privacy be waived by anyone?
False
Can a juvenile be lock up in an airport without an adult being present?
Yes, a juvenile can be locked up in a airport without an adult. The child must have done something wrong and therefore airport security had the right to detain him or her. They are still officers of the law.
Can a minor sever 5 years in jail?
Until he is an adult he would be in juvenile hall but yes he can. Right now a 15yo is in juvenile hall after being tried as an adult at the age of 12. He was sentenced to 25 years I think it was for helping his friend killing his dad.
In what case did the US Supreme Court establish that the waiver proceeding is a critically important stage in the juvenile justice process?
Kent v. United States, 383 US 541 (1966)Kent was the first appeal the US Supreme Court accepted involving the juvenile justice system, and may only have been considered because it involved transfer of a case from juvenile court to US District (criminal) Court. Prior to Kent, the Court had refused to review juvenile cases, regardless of constitutional issues raised, on the basis that "juvenile courts are not criminal courts."BackgroundMorris Kent was arrested at the age of 16 on charges of breaking and entering, robbery and rape. As a juvenile, Kent was subject to the jurisdiction of juvenile court unless the assigned judge waived jurisdiction and transferred the case to adult court. In this instance, the judge decided Kent should be tried in US District Court, and waived jurisdiction.Kent's attorney filed a motion for a waiver hearing to argue the jurisdictional transfer, but the juvenile court judge ignored the petition. The defendant's attorney next filed a motion to dismiss in US District Court on the grounds that the juvenile court waiver was invalid for lack of due process. The motion was overruled, and Kent was subsequently tried and convicted on six counts of breaking and entering and robbery, but acquitted of the two counts of rape by reason of insanity.Kent's defense counsel preserved on appeal the objection to the juvenile court waiver being issued without a hearing, but the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling, holding that the transfer procedure was conducted properly and was valid.US Supreme CourtThe question before the Court was whether Fourteenth Amendment Due Process protection extended to juveniles, and whether this protection had been violated when the juvenile court judged transferred jurisdiction on Morris Kent's case without permitting a waiver hearing where counsel could argue on the client's behalf.The Supreme Court held that certain due process protections, including the right to a hearing on the waiver motion, and the right to legal representation at that hearing, applied to children as well as adults.Justice Abe Fortas delivered the Opinion of the Court, which held that that waivers were an important discretionary act that, at the time it was applied to Morris, had no rules or standards for judicial decision-making. The arbitrary nature of the waiver made a hearing mandatory prior to execution.Fortas wrote: "As the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, 'the waiver of jurisdiction is a critically important action determining vitally important statutory rights of the juvenile."The Court then set forth eight determining factors to be used in considering the jurisdiction under which a juvenile should be tried:The seriousness of the alleged offense to the community and whether the protection of the community requires waiver.Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner.Whether the alleged offense was against persons or against property, greater weight being given to offenses against persons especially if personal injury resulted.The prosecutive merit of the complaint, i.e., whether there is evidence upon which a Grand Jury may be expected to return an indictment (to be determined by consultation with the United States Attorney).The desirability of trial and disposition of the entire offense in one court when the juvenile's associates in the alleged offense are adults who will be charged with a crime in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration of his home, environmental situation, emotional attitude and pattern of living.The record and previous history of the juvenile, including previous contacts with the Youth Aid Division, other law enforcement agencies, juvenile courts and other jurisdictions, prior periods of probation to this Court, or prior commitments to juvenile institutions.The prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile (if he is found to have committed the alleged offense) by the use of procedures, services and facilities currently available to the Juvenile Court."It will be the responsibility of any officer of the Court's staff assigned to make the investigation of any complaint in which waiver of jurisdiction is being considered to develop fully all available information which may bear upon the criteria and factors set forth above. Although not all such factors will be involved in an individual case, the Judge will consider the relevant factors in a specific case before reaching a conclusion to waive juvenile jurisdiction and transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for trial under the adult procedures of that Court."The US Supreme Court reversed the Appeals Court ruling and remanded the case to US District Court to be heard de novo.Kent opened the door to the Court's examination of juvenile court proceedings and children's rights in other cases, including In Re Gault, 387 US 1 (1967), the landmark Supreme Court case that first challenged the constitutionality of juvenile justice statutes.
Why is In Re Gault important?
In Re Gault is important because it established that juveniles have the right to due process in court proceedings, including the right to legal counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and the privilege against self-incrimination. This landmark Supreme Court decision in 1967 provided crucial protections for juvenile defendants and significantly impacted the juvenile justice system in the United States.
Do Down Syndrome patients still have a right to autonomy?
Adult Down syndrome patients do have a right to autonomy. The exception is if the court has appointed a legal guardian for them.
Can a witness take the fifth amendment if they have been prosecuted criminally?
Yes, in fact the fifth amendment only applies to the court system. Unless you take the stand (in which you waive your fifth amendment right) you can not be called to testify. If you've waived that right you don't get it back during that hearing.
What rights do adults have that juveniles don't?
In the US, I can't think of one that comes immediately to mind. As a matter of fact, juveniles actually enjoy more, and better, protection in the court process than adults do, and are treated more leniently besides.In McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, (1971) the Court ruled the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial does not extend to juvenile court proceedings, because the intent of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate, and a jury trial creates a more adversarial environment that can undermine that goal.In 1971, no states offered jury trials in juvenile court. As of 2009, ten states grant the right of juveniles to jury trials, and another eleven states allow jury trials under limited circumstances.Often, US Supreme Court decisions follow trends in state courts. At some point in the not-too-distant future, the Court may extend 6th Amendment protection to children and teens.
