Kids in court a continuum
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 69

Kids in Court: A Continuum PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 94 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Kids in Court: A Continuum . Moderator: Erin Davies, Children’s Law Center Speakers: Tim Arnold Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy Rebecca Ballard DiLoreto Children’s Law Center Stephanie Vetter Pretrial Justice Institute. Juvenile Court 101: Purpose of Juvenile Court.

Download Presentation

Kids in Court: A Continuum

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Kids in court a continuum

Kids in Court: A Continuum

Moderator: Erin Davies, Children’s Law Center

Speakers:

Tim Arnold Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy

Rebecca Ballard DiLoreto Children’s Law Center

Stephanie Vetter

Pretrial Justice Institute


Juvenile court 101 purpose of juvenile court

Juvenile Court 101:Purpose of Juvenile Court

Hold youth accountable and keep the public safe, while recognizing the fundamental developmental differences between youth and adults.


Juvenile court 101 goal of juvenile justice reforms

Juvenile Court 101:Goal of Juvenile Justice Reforms

Moving toward a “right sized” system that ensures an individually tailored, evidence-based appropriate response for each youth.


Juvenile justice reform national research and trends

Juvenile Justice Reform:National Research and Trends


Juvenile justice reform benefits

Juvenile Justice Reform:Benefits

  • More cost-effective

  • Proven to work effectively to reduce recidivism, increase rehabilitation, and improve public safety

  • Community-based

  • More appropriate given youths’ unique developmental needs


Juvenile court 101 terminology

Juvenile Court 101:Terminology


Kentucky impact of systemic reform and litigation

Kentucky: Impact of Systemic Reform and Litigation

  • Campbell County Detention Suit – 1991

  • Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) – 1995

  • Creation of Juvenile Post-Disposition Branch (JPDB)

    • M.K. v. Wallace

    • Establishing juvenile advocates

    • Connection with impact of disposition and sentencing

  • Creation of Juvenile Appeals Attorneys

    • Permitted DPA to create body of juvenile and youthful offender appellate caselaw


Part i pre trial detention

Part I: Pre-trial Detention


Pre trial detention national

Pre-Trial Detention: National


Kids in court a continuum

no place for kids

Juvenile Detention

Alternatives Initiative (JDAI)


Kids in court a continuum

Today we will provide an overview of JDAI, clarify why reform is important, what is involved and what both of us can expect

  • JDAI Overview

  • Why detention reform?

  • Core JDAI strategies

  • JDAI Results

  • The benefits and responsibilities of participation


Kids in court a continuum

JDAI is driven by a vision that seeks to change the odds for court-involved youth

THE VISION:

Youth involved in the juvenile justice system will have opportunities to develop into healthy, productive adults . . .


Kids in court a continuum

  • JDAI Overview

  • Why detention reform?

  • Core JDAI strategies

  • JDAI Results

  • The benefits and responsibilities of participation


Kids in court a continuum

Detention Reform

WHY DETENTION REFORM?

  • “Hidden Closet of System”

 Crowding Crisis/Poor Conditions

 Entry Point for System Reform


Kids in court a continuum

Research shows that most juveniles engage in criminal behavior, but don’t continue into adulthood

Youth Self Reporting Criminal Activity

Total = 86%

  • Longitudinal studies begun in the 1950s show most juvenile offenders age out of criminal behavior

  • Researchers believe this is because the transition to young adulthood ‘cements’ bonds to society and deters most from continued criminality

Most youth age out of criminal behavior on their own

Arrested during adolescence

Self-reported criminal activity, but not arrested

SOURCE: Data from National Youth Survey analyzed by Hawkins, D., Smith, B. and Catalano, R. “Delinquent Behavior,” in Pediatrics in Review (2002: 23: 382-392); “Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency” (Glueck, 1963), with followup in “Crime in the Making” (Sampson and Laub, 1993)


Kids in court a continuum

Detention leads to worse outcomes. After release, detained youth are far more likely to drop out of school and use drugs and alcohol

Likelihood of Behavior: Incarcerated vs. Non-incarcerated Youth

Youth who are detained are more than three times as likely to be found guilty and incarcerated than similarly situated peers

SOURCE: Office of State Courts Administrator, Florida Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment (2003); LeBlanc, (1991), “Unlocking Learning” in Correctional Facilities, Washington, D.C.; Substance use, abuse, and dependence among youths who have been in jail or a detention center: The NSDUH report, The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University, (2004); America’s Promise report on national rates of high school dropouts: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23889321/.


Kids in court a continuum

Nationally, about one quarter of detained youth are charged with violent crimes

Offense Profiles:

Detained Youth in the United States, 2010

Status Offenses and Technical Violations

Violent Index Crimes

Simple Assaults and Misdemeanor Person Offenses

Property, Drugs, Public Order, and Other

SOURCE: Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2011). "Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement.“ http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/


Kids in court a continuum

Arrests for serious crimes do not explain detention use; local policies and practices are key

Index arrests have declined by 50% …

(with half the decrease occurring before 2000)

…but detention has only declined by 31%

(with half the decrease occurring after 2007)

DETENTIONS PER 100K YOUTH

INDEX ARRESTS PER 100K YOUTH

NOTE: Index arrests are classified as more serious crimes including murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Juvenile arrest figures based on annual count of arrests from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR) system; detention figures based on a one-day count through the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP).

SOURCES: Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., and Kang, W. (2012), "Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics 1994-2009 “ http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezaucr/ ; Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2011). "Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement.“ http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/ ; Federal Bureau of Investigation (2011). “Crime in the United States 2010”, table 36. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/index-page; Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2012). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2011.“ http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/


Kids in court a continuum

Youth of color are an increasing share of the total detained population

Youth of Color as a Percentage of Total U.S. Detained Population

SOURCE: Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2011). "Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement.“ http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/


Kids in court a continuum

  • JDAI Overview

  • Why detention reform?

  • Core JDAI strategies

  • JDAI Results

  • The benefits and responsibilities of participation


Kids in court a continuum

JDAI uses eight interconnected strategies to enable jurisdictions to safely reduce reliance on secure detention

CORE STRATEGIES:

PURPOSE:

Collaboration

To demonstrate that jurisdictions can establish more effective and efficient systems to accomplish the purposes of juvenile detention.

Use of accurate data

Objective admissions criteria and instruments

OBJECTIVES:

1) Eliminate inappropriate or unnecessary use of secure detention

2) Minimize failures to appear and incidence of delinquent behavior

3) Redirect public finances to successful reform strategies

4) Improve conditions in secure detention facilities

5) Reduce racial and ethnic disparities

Alternative to detention

Case processing reforms

Reducing the use of secure confinement for ‘special’ cases

Deliberate commitment to reducing racial disparities

Improving conditions of confinement


Kids in court a continuum

  • JDAI Overview

  • Why detention reform?

  • Core JDAI strategies

  • JDAI Results

  • The benefits and responsibilities of participation


As of 2012 jdai sites had reduced detention populations by 43

3,173 fewer youth are being held in secure detention on an average day as compared to the grantees’ baseline years

Change in Average Daily Population (ADP) by Grantee

Baseline vs. 2012

N=38 grantees, comprising 112 sites

(Grantees shown in ascending order by percentage change in ADP)

As of 2012, JDAI sites had reduced detention populations by 43%


As of 2012 jdai sites as a whole had reduced their use of confinement by well over one third

Changes in the Use of Confinement Across All JDAI Sites

Baseline vs. 2012

N=38 grantees, comprising 112 sites

As of 2012, JDAI sites as a whole had reduced their use of confinement by well over one third.

-39%

-43%

-43%

24


Kids in court a continuum

Over comparable periods of time, JDAI sites have reduced secure detention of youth of color by much more than the nation as a whole

Youth Of Color In Secure Detention:

JDAI vs. National Trends

N for JDAI = 89 sites

25


Kids in court a continuum

JDAI sites have significantly reduced detention for white youth and youth of color. However, large racial and ethnic disparities persist.

Change in Average Daily Population (ADP) in JDAI Sites from Baseline to 2012

for Youth of Color and All Other Youth

N=99 sites from which complete ADP and YOC ADP data were received & for which Baseline and 2012 population data could be obtained

+ 11%

− 46%

− 11%

− 46%


Kids in court a continuum

45% fewer Delinquency Petitions

43% fewer Felony Petitions Filed

Aggregate Reductions in Juvenile Crime Indicator Type

Baseline vs. 2012

N=109 sites

Reductions in detention and commitments have not hurt public safety: JDAI sites report reductions in all four juvenile crime indicators

  • 29% fewer Juvenile Intake Cases

  • 33% fewer Juvenile Arrests


Kids in court a continuum

By the end of 2013 JDAI will be in 39 states plus the District of Columbia.

ME

WA

MT

NH

MN

MA

NY

OR

WI

RI

SD

ID

PA

WY

NJ

IA

DE

NE

OH

CA

MD

IN

NV

IL

DC

VA

KS

MO

KY

TN

HI

NM

AZ

AR

AL

GA

MS

TX

LA

FL

Model Site

County Site

State Site

State Site w/ Pending Tribal Launch


Kids in court a continuum

  • JDAI Overview

  • Why detention reform?

  • Core JDAI strategies

  • JDAI Results

  • The benefits and responsibilities of participation

29


Kids in court a continuum

JDAI provides sites with a variety of resources to support detention reform

WHAT JDAI PARTICIPATION PROVIDES

  • Small cash grant (for travel & coordination)

  • Technical Assistance

  • JDAI Tools, Guides & Publications

  • JDAI Model Sites

  • JDAI Training Seminars

  • JDAI National Conferences

  • JDAI Network & Peers

30


Kids in court a continuum

However, there are specific expectations for all JDAI sites

WHAT JDAI PARTICIPATION REQUIRES

  • Implementation of JDAI core strategies

  • Fidelity to the model

  • Determined leadership

  • Data reporting

  • Communication and Transparency with Foundation

31


Kids in court a continuum

Additional Resources

www.jdaihelpdesk.org

OR

www.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/JuvenileDetentionAlternativesInitiative.aspx

32


Kids in court a continuum

These areOur Children


Pre trial detention kentucky

Pre-Trial Detention: Kentucky


Pre trial detention basic rules

Pre-Trial Detention: Basic Rules

  • KRS 610.200(6) – The minimum age for detention is 11, unless charged with a Class A or B felony.

  • KRS 610.200(5) – Pre-hearing detention not permitted without approval of CDW.

  • KRS 610.265(1) – Status offenders in detention must have detention hearing within 24 hours; public offenders must have detention hearing within 48 hours.


Pre trial detention basic rules1

Pre-Trial Detention: Basic Rules

KRS 610.280 – The court is required to make two findings prior to authorizing detention.

  • Probable cause that the offense was committed.

  • Detention is warranted in light of the seriousness of the alleged offense, the possibility that the child would commit and offense dangerous to himself or the community, the child’s prior record, and whether there are other charges pending against the child.


Pre trial detention basic rules2

Pre-Trial Detention: Basic Rules

  • KRS 610.265(5) – If the court fails to hold a hearing in the timeframe provided by the statute, the child “shall be released.”

  • KRS 610.290(2) – Child is entitled to counsel at the detention hearing, and may challenge the results of detention hearing through writ of habeas corpus.


Pre trial detention status offenders

Pre-Trial Detention: Status Offenders

KRS 610.265(3)(c) – Maximum time in secure detention after detention hearing is 48 hours.

  • If not accused of violating a valid court order, must be placed in non-secure detention.

  • If accused of violating a valid court order, then must have adjudication hearing (more on this in discussion of status offenders)


Pre trial detention public offenders

Pre-Trial Detention: Public Offenders

  • Detention (secure or non-secure) never required, but can occur for almost any public offender.

  • KRS 610.265(3)(a) – If ordered detained, child accused of a capital offense or Class A or B felony must be securely detained.

  • KRS 610.265(3)(b) – All other public offenders may be approved to go to a non-secure detention alternative.


Part ii status offenders

Part II: Status Offenders


Status offenders national

Status Offenders: National


Status offenders national research or evidence based trends

Status Offenders: National Research- or Evidence- Based Trends


Status offenders kentucky

Status Offenders: Kentucky


Status offenders right to counsel

Status Offenders: Right to Counsel

  • Pre-2001: Many status offenders not appointed counsel

  • 2001: Ky Court of Appeals rules that status offender could not waive counsel without first talking with counsel. D.R. v. Commonwealth, 64 S.W.3d 292 (Ky.App., 2001)

  • 2002: KRS 610.060 amended to require appointment of counsel in all cases where detention is possible outcome.


Status offenders requirements for all cases

Status Offenders: Requirements for All Cases

  • Admission of guilt must comply with requirements for guilty pleas under Boykin v. Alabama. D.G. v. Commonwealth, 355 S.W.3d 476 (Ky.App.,2011.)

  • Child can be committed to cabinet if the evidence shows that that less restrictive alternatives were attempted or are not feasible. J.S. v. Commonwealth, 304 S.W.3d 67 (Ky. App. 2009)

  • Court may not impose disposition which lasts past 18th birthday. J.K.B. v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 917 (Ky.App.,2011.)


Status offenders truancy cases

Status Offenders: Truancy Cases

  • Truancy case cannot be heard without DPP report. T.D. v. Commonwealth, 165 S.W.3d 480 (Ky. App. 2005).

  • Report generally must include home visit. N.K. v. Commonwealth, 324 S.W.3d 438, (Ky.App.,2010.)

  • Compliance with this requirement is jurisdictional. S.B. v. Commonwealth, 396 S.W.3d 928 (Ky. App. 2013).


Status offenders contempt

Status Offenders: Contempt

  • Order entered pre-adjudication not a “valid court order” for contempt purposes. M.A.M. v. Commonwealth, 402 S.W.3d 546 (Ky.App. 2013).

  • Juvenile is entitled to notice of violations prior to contempt proceedings, and an opportunity to respond. K.F. v. Commonwealth, 274 S.W.3d 457 (Ky. App. 2008).


Status offenders contempt ctnd

Status Offenders: Contempt Ctnd.

  • KRS 610.265(3)(d) – If accused of violating valid court order court must have an adjudication hearing where the court . . .

    • affirms that the order is a valid court order,

    • finds the child to have violated the order (beyond a reasonable doubt).

  • If findings made, child may be detained 48 more hours for court to receive and review a report prepared by appropriate state agency and must find that all other options have been exhausted or are not feasible before ordering continued detention.


Part iii public offenders

Part III: Public Offenders


Public offenders national

Public Offenders: National


Public offenders national research or evidence based trends

Public Offenders: National Research- or Evidence- Based Trends


Public offenders kentucky

Public Offenders: Kentucky


Public offenders school confessions

Public Offenders: School Confessions

  • Child entitled to Miranda warnings prior to interrogation by assistant principal and school resource officer. N.C. v. Commonwealth, 396 S.W.3d 852 (Ky. 2013)

  • Child’s statement given to law enforcement while in school involuntary, interrogation in school setting is inherently coercive. Commonwealth v. Bell, T.C., 365 S.W.3d 216 (Ky.App. 2012).

  • Confession given to law enforcement not coerced or in violation of Miranda, where child was told that he was free to leave and therefore was not “in custody.” C.W.C.S. v. Commonwealth, 282 S.W.3d 818 (Ky. App. 2009)


Public offenders confessions to non law enforcement

Public Offenders: Confessions to Non-Law Enforcement

  • Child entitled to Miranda warnings in sex offender treatment program, where it was a virtual certainty that information obtained by counselors in program would be delivered to law enforcement. Welch v. Commonwealth, 149 S.W.3d 407 (Ky. 2004).

  • Child entitled to Miranda warnings prior to juvenile sexual offender evaluation, as statements were certainly going to be used in disposition. Commonwealth v. M.G., 75 S.W.3d 714 (Ky. App. 2002).


Public offenders use of detention disposition

Public Offenders: Use of Detention -Disposition

  • Child over 18 cannot be detained as a disposition for a public offense. D.R.T. v. Commonwealth, 111 S.W.3d 392 (Ky. App. 2003).

  • Child under 14 cannot be given detention as a disposition, even if it is probated. N.T.G. v. Commonwealth, 185 S.W.3d 218 (Ky. App. 2006)


Public offenders use of detention contempt

Public Offenders: Use of Detention - Contempt

  • Child may be found in contempt for violation of a juvenile probation order, and given more time for the contempt than what was originally probated. A.W. v. Commonwealth, 163 S.W.3d 4 (Ky. 2005).

  • Child may be found in contempt for violating a juvenile restitution order, even if child is now well into adulthood. Commonwealth v. S.K. et al., 253 S.W.3d 486 (Ky. 2008).


Public offenders procedural rights

Public Offenders: Procedural Rights

  • As with status offenders, public offender admissions must comply with requirements for adult guilty pleas under Boykin v. Alabama. J.D. v. Commonwealth, 211 S.W.3d 60 (Ky. App. 2006).

  • Common law “infancy” defense rejected – Commonwealth is not required to prove that the juvenile had the capacity to understand the criminality of the offense; all that is required is proof of elements beyond a reasonable doubt. W.D.B. v. Commonwealth, 246 S.W.3d 448 (Ky. 2007)


Public offenders dispositions

Public Offenders: Dispositions

  • Court must find commitment to be the “least restrictive alternative.” X.B. v. Commonwealth, 105 S.W.3d 459 (Ky. App. 2003)

  • Sex offender entitled to continuance to obtain independent sex offender assessment. N.L. v. Commonwealth, 323 S.W.3d 732 (Ky. App. 2009).

  • Requirements of KRS 533.050 applies to juvenile probation revocation; child entitled to written notice of violations and opportunity to be heard in defense. Q.C. v. Commonwealth, 164 S.W.3d 515 (Ky. App. 2005)


Public offenders collateral c onsequences

Public Offenders: Collateral Consequences

  • Commonwealth may take DNA of juvenile public offenders who have been adjudicated of a felony, for permanent storage on state and federal DNA database. Petitioners F et al. v. Brown, 306 S.W.3d 80 (Ky. 2010).


Part iv youthful offenders

Part IV: Youthful Offenders


Youthful offenders national

Youthful Offenders: National


Youthful offenders national research or evidence based trends

Youthful Offenders: National Research- or Evidence- Based Trends


Youthful offenders kentucky

Youthful Offenders: Kentucky


Youthful offenders requirement of a hearing

Youthful Offenders: Requirement of a Hearing

  • Child may waive transfer hearing, but waiver must be knowing, voluntary and intelligent. Humphrey v. Commonwealth, 153 S.W.3d 854 (Ky. App. 2004).

  • Rules of evidence do not apply at a juvenile transfer hearing. Barth v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 390 (Ky. 2001)


Youthful offenders requirements for discretionary transfer

Youthful Offenders: Requirements for Discretionary Transfer

  • Decision about whether to transfer juvenile under KRS 640.010 (the “eight factors test”) must be supported by substantial evidence. Stout v. Commonwealth, 44 S.W.3d 781 (Ky. App. 2001).

  • Child cannot be charged with felony as a “second or subsequent” offense based on prior juvenile adjudications. Phelps v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 237 (Ky. 2004)


Youthful offenders requirements for automatic transfer

Youthful Offenders: Requirements for Automatic Transfer

  • Juvenile may not be tried as an adult for mere possession of a firearm. “Use of a firearm” is required under KRS 635.020(4), and possession does not equal use. Darden v. Commonwealth, 52 S.W.3d 574 (Ky. 2001)

  • It is sufficient for automatic transfer statute that a firearm was used by somebody other than the juvenile defendantif juvenile could reasonably have known of use. K.R. v. Commonwealth, 360 S.W.3d 179 (Ky. 2012.)

  • Commonwealth not required to provide discovery in automatic transfer proceeding. Commonwealth v. Deweese, 141 S.W.3d 372 (Ky. App. 2003).


Youthful offenders yo sentencing

Youthful Offenders: YO Sentencing

  • Youthful Offender entitled to have PSI done by Department of Juvenile Justice, rather than Probation and Parole. Gourley v. Commonwealth, 37 S.W.3d 792 (Ky. App. 2001)

  • Juvenile entitled to a meaningful opportunity to be heard on issue of probation at his 18 year old hearing. Commonwealth v. Jeffries, 95 S.W.3d 60 (Ky. 2002).


Youthful offenders yo sentencing lesser offenses

Youthful Offenders: YO Sentencing – Lesser Offenses

  • Where transferred youth is convicted of non-transferrable offense after trial, s/he entitled to be sentenced by circuit court as a juvenile. Cantor v. Commonwealth, 843 S.W.2d 330 (Ky. 1992).

  • Where transferred youth is convicted of non-transferrable offense as a result of plea, s/he is entitled to be sentenced by circuit court as a juvenile unless s/he waives that right as part of the plea. Chipman v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 95 (Ky. 2010)(waiver not sought by Commonwealth at sentencing, remanded for sentencing as juvenile); Kozak v. Commonwealth, 279 S.W.3d 129 (Ky. 2008)(Commonwealth sought adult sentencing, remanded for entry of waiver).


Youthful offenders violent offender act

Youthful Offenders: Violent Offender Act

  • Violent offender act prohibition on probation does not apply to youthful offenders. Commonwealth v. Merriman, 265 S.W.3d 196 (Ky. 2008)

  • Violent offender act prohibition on parole does apply to youthful offenders. Edwards v. Harrod, 391 S.W.3d 755 (Ky. 2013).

  • Constitutional challenge not yet considered based on SCOTUS line of cases (i.e. Miller, Roper, Graham, and J.D.B.).


  • Login