Statement of the Issue
The juvenile court’s jurisdiction is to handle all cases involving individuals under eighteen. In addition, they are constitutionally required to provide petitioners with a fair legal process. In Kent v. United States (1966), Kent’s case commenced at the juvenile court before being moved to the criminal court because he was arrested at sixteen. Kent’s attorneys needed a hearing to address his mental state and get access to his criminal records and social services before the juvenile court transferred his case. Alternatively, Kent’s case was taken to the criminal court without informing him, his lawyer, or his family and without a complete investigation. After being convicted, he appealed his case to the Supreme Court in 1966.
Background of the Case
The police arrested and interrogated a 16-year-old boy known as Morris A. Kent, Jr, in 1961, and was charged with several offenses that included rape, housebreaking, and robbery. The juvenile court relinquished its jurisdiction after Kent agreed that he had committed some of the crimes and ordered the District of Columbia’s District Court to prosecute him (Kent v. United States, 1966). Kent complained that the juvenile court did not work according to the Juvenile Court Act, which demanded a full investigation from the juvenile court before indicting him.
The juvenile court would use the social and probation records to determine whether to retain or relinquish jurisdiction, but the court refused to decide on or grant motions to his counsel that he be given access to them (Kent v. United States, 1966). In addition, the order failed to reference the motions Kent’s council had filed, and it did not give an explanation for allowing the waiver. The district court refused to dismiss his indictment because the waiver was invalid and sent him to jail for 30 to 90 after finding him guilty on specific counts (Kent v. United States, 1966). Despite the juvenile court’s failure to justify the waiver, the conviction was upheld by the US Court of Appeal.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court inquired in the case whether Kent had a say in the juvenile court’s investigation to waive jurisdiction and if it adhered to the right to due process. The juvenile court waived jurisdiction without conducting a thorough inquiry, thus the Supreme Court inquired as to whether his sentence was appropriate (Sixth Amendment Center, n.d.). The judges noted that the juvenile court in most states could give cases to adult criminal court for young adults who were sixteen or older if they committed heinous offenses (Sixth Amendment Center, n.d.). They could also forward the cases when they felt the youth was not responsive to a program of rehabilitation, training, and treatment (Sixth Amendment Center, n.d.). Nonetheless, they must conduct a formal hearing and a full investigation to waive jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court concluded that the juvenile court did not investigate enough before waiving jurisdiction. Kent was not provided counsel or access to his records, nor was he able to get a hearing before the waiver. The juvenile court knew he suffered from mental illness but withheld psychiatric care. The Supreme Court also concluded that the waiver had violated the Juvenile Court Act’s philosophy of social welfare because it was not favorable for Kent’s rehabilitation. Morris Kent should not have been excused by the juvenile court judge in 1961, so the Supreme Court ruled that the subsequent proceedings were invalid and needed to be dismissed.
References
Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966). Web.
Sixth Amendment Center. (n.d.). The right to counsel for children in juvenile transfer hearings, Kent v. United States. Web.