Reflecting on Kent, Miranda, and J.D.B in 2016

Executive Director Sue Mangold,

Happy New Year!  As we fondly remember our 40th anniversary celebrations last year, we move into 2016 with important legal milestones to commemorate. Fifty years ago, the United States Supreme Court decided Kent v. United States, establishing a new constitutional baseline for transferring youth to the adult criminal justice system and Miranda v. Arizona, setting forth the constitutional standard for the custodial interrogation of suspects by law enforcement. Just five years ago, the Supreme Court decided J.D.B. v. North Carolina, establishing for the first time that law enforcement must account for juvenile status when carrying out the requirements of Miranda. In the coming year, we will be highlighting the lasting significance and challenges posed by each of these cases in the juvenile justice context.

In Kent, the Supreme Court examined the procedures that must be followed and the inquiries that must be made before a child could be transferred. The Supreme Court held that the “full investigation” required by the District of Columbia Juvenile Court Act was insufficient to protect a child’s entitlement to the benefits and protections of juvenile court jurisdiction.

For a while, state and federal courts viewed the Kent decision narrowly, as an interpretation of a D.C. law with little applicability to other jurisdictions. More recent developments have brought Kent to the forefront of discussions about trying children as adults. First, the rise in crime in the 1980’s and early 90’s and the frightening description of some youth as “super predators” led to substantial increases in the prosecution of children as adults. Every state changed their laws to make it easier to transfer youth to the adult court. Unfortunately, comprehensive data on the total number of youth tried as adults during this time period is lacking, but the number has been placed as high as 250,000

The Juvenile Law Center legal team who worked on J.D.B. v. North Carolina on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court after oral arguments. Left to right: Monique Luse, Jessica Feierman, Lourdes Rosado, Marsha Levick.

 

Second, in a series of landmark cases between 2005 and 2012 (Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, J.D.B. v. North Carolina, and Miller v. Alabama), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the unique developmental and behavioral period of childhood and insisted that children be treated differently from adults in the justice system. This suggests that Kent’s concern with providing due process safeguards before children can be removed from juvenile court may be instructive in evaluating current state transfer laws. One of Juvenile Law Center’s current initiatives is to reduce the transfer of youth to adult court. Fifty years after Kent, much work needs to be done, especially when transfer is coupled with mandatory sentencing and incarceration in adult prisons.

Everyone who has ever watched a T.V. crime drama knows the Miranda warnings: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you….”  Miranda requires police officers to inform a suspect held “in custody” of his or her right to remain silent and right to an attorney. As Miranda celebrates its 50th anniversary this year, Juvenile Law Center will be drawing attention to the 5th anniversary of J.D.B. v. North Carolina. The majority opinion, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, established that a child’s age must be considered in applying Miranda to children. Specifically, law enforcement must determine whether a “reasonable child” would have perceived himself to be “in custody” for the purpose of determining whether Miranda warnings were required. Juvenile Law Center filed several amicus briefs in the case, as it wound its way through both the North Carolina courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, and has published on the implications of J.D.B. for other aspects of children’s involvement with the law.

Follow our communications in 2016 for more on these cases and the current challenges to fully realize the rights of children established in each decision.