Fighting for Due Process in the Courts

Habeas Corpus

Winning CasesLosing Cases
Schall v Martin, 467 U.S 253, 104 S. Ct. 2403 (1977): In 1977, Gregory Martin, a 14-year-old boy was arrested and charged with first-degree robbery, criminal possession of a weapon, and second-degree assault. When in custody, Martin lied about his address to the police. At his initial appearance in court, the prosecutor cited the gun, the evident lack of supervision, and the lie about his address as evidence why he should remain in custody until his fact-finding hearing. The court granted the detention under the New York Family Court Act (FCA). While in detention, Martin began a habeas corpus with 32 others against the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Juvenile Justice arguing that pretrial detention amounted to punishment before a determination of guilt. The District Court for the Southern District of New York found that pretrial detention was a violation of habeas corpus and determined that the Family Court Act (FCA) was unconstitutional since it allowed for the detention of juveniles to serve as a punishment before the trial.
Kent v. United States, 383 U.S 541 (1966): “The juvenile court is not entitled to act with procedural arbitrariness.” 16-year-old Morris A. Kent was interrogated by the police in connection with incidents involving robbery and rape. When Kent admitted some involvement, the juvenile court waived his jurisdiction allowing Kent to be tried as an adult without a full investigation before the waiver as required by the Juvenile Court Act. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court determined that a sufficient investigation was needed for the juvenile court to waive the jurisdiction. The decision to waive a juvenile to adult court requires providing the individual with basic due process: a hearing, assistance of counsel, and a statement of reasons which weren’t provided.
In re Gault, 387 U.S 1 (1967): Gerald Francis Gault, a 15-year-old boy, was taken into custody for making obscene phone calls and bothering neighbors. The police did not leave a notice to Gault’s parents since they were at work when Gerald was arrested. After proceeding before the Juvenile Court, Gault was committed to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of 21. These proceedings weren’t Constitutional since they didn’t comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment which include notice of charges, notification to the parents, and the child of the right to counsel, safeguards against self-incrimination, and cross-examination of hearings. This was the first time the Supreme Court stated that children facing delinquency prosecution have many of the same rights as adults.
Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S 519 (1975): A 17-year-old boy named Gary Bones was charged with armed robbery and was found guilty in the juvenile court. At the hearing, the probation officer said that Jones was not amenable for treatment and he should be tried as an adult. However, Jones’ lawyers filed that this waive violated the double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed. This led to the decision that juvenile courts should determine whether to try a juvenile as an adult at a preliminary hearing before adjudication, narrowing the differences between the adult criminal process and juvenile process.

Violation of Amendment

Winning CasesLosing Cases
Roper v Simmons, 543 U.S 551 (2005): A 17-year-old boy was sentenced to death in 1993. Several appeals were made to the state and federal court but all of the appeals were rejected. However, in 2002, the Missouri Supreme Court stayed Simmons’ case while the U.S supreme court decided the case of Atkins v. Virginia, which dealt with the execution of a mentally disabled person. When the Supreme Court ruled that the execution of the mentally disabled violated the Eighth and 14th Amendments. Using the reasoning from the Atkins case, the Missouri court decided, 6-to-3, that the execution of minors was not constitutional. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, the Court ruled that the execution of minors is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.In re Winship, 397 U.S 358 (1970): A 12-year-old boy was charged as a juvenile delinquent for breaking into a woman’s locker and stealing $112. A New York Family Court Act found Winship guilty even though the evidence didn’t establish his guilt. The Court established that a “reasonable doubt” standard must be applied to both juveniles and adults alike and that mere variations in age weren’t sufficient to warrant the use of different burdens of proof.
Graham v Florida,130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010): A 16-year-old boy named Terrence Graham was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life in prison without parole. Mr, Graham argued that imposing a life sentence without parole on a juvenile violated the Eighth Amendment. However, The District Court of Appeal of Florida didn’t agree. But on the other hand, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment doesn’t permit juvenile offenders to be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a non-homicidal crime.J.D.B. v North Carolina (Supreme Court, 2011): A 13-year-old special education boy known as J.D.B was questioned by police about a string of neighborhood burglaries while the boy was in school. J.D.B’s parents weren’t contacted and he wasn’t told about his rights under the 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona in which a person has the right to remain silent and has access to a lawyer. J.D.B confessed to the crimes, but for confession suppressed on the basis that he had never read his Miranda rights. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that he wasn’t entitled to Miranda warnings because they couldn’t decide whether or not he was in custody. A divided Supreme Court concluded that “It is beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave. Seeing no reason for police officers or courts to blind themselves to that commonsense reality, we hold that a child’s age properly informs the Miranda custody analysis,” Sotomayor wrote for the majority.
Miller v Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012): A fourteen-year-old boy named Evan Miller was convicted of aggravated murder. Miller was transferred from Juvenile Court to Lawrence County Circuit Court to be tried as an adult. The trial court sentenced Miller to life imprisonment without parole. Miller argued that sentencing a 14-year-old without parole violated the Eighth Amendment which the court denied. In 1999, a similar case happened in which the Eighth Amendment was also denied to other 14-year-old boys. However, in a 5-4 majority decision, the Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbade the sentencing of life without the possibility of parole for juveniles.McKeiver v Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971): A fifteen-year-old and sixteen-year-old boys by the names of Joseph McKeiver and Edward Terry were charged with theft, robbery, escape and assault. Both of them were tried before the Juvenile Court of Philadelphia in which no jury was present and each of their requests for a jury was denied. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stated that there was no constitutional right to a jury trial for juveniles. This case was one of forty in which the judge denied the request for a jury trial. The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of North Carolina both affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding no requirement for a jury trial for juveniles. In a 6-3 plurality, the Court concluded that there is no requirement for a jury trial for juveniles.