8.7: Interviewing Juveniles
According to the Department of Justice the voluntariness of a confession is vital in determining if it will be admissible into trial. In determining the validity and voluntariness, the following is considered. “A juvenile has both a right to counsel and a privilege against self-incrimination in juvenile delinquency proceedings. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 32-55 (1979). A juvenile may waive his Fifth Amendment rights and consent to interrogation. Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979). The question of whether a waiver is voluntary and knowing is one to be resolved on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation. The court must determine not only that the statements were not coerced or suggested, but also that they were not the products of ‘ignorance of rights or of adolescent fantasy, fright, or despair.’ In re Gault, 387 U.S. at 55. Among the factors to be considered are the juvenile's age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given to him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving them. Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. at 725. For applications of the totality of the circumstances approach involving juveniles, see United States v. White Bear, 668 F.2d 409 (8th Cir. 1982); United States v. Palmer, 604 F.2d 64 (10th Cir. 1979); West v. United States, 399 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1968). Since confessions by juveniles are given even closer scrutiny than those by adults, Miranda warnings are probably an essential threshold requirement for voluntariness. The presence and co-signature of a parent or guardian is not required for a voluntary waiver, although it is a factor to be considered and will help dispel any notion that the juvenile was coerced.xliii”
Many of these provisions are designed to ensure the rights of juveniles are protected. A significant amount of research in developmental and neurological science has demonstrated that the process of cognitive brain development continues into adulthood, and that the human brain undergoes “dynamic changes throughout adolescence and well into young adulthood” (see Richard J. Bonnie, et al., Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach, National Research Council (2013), page 96, and Chapter 4). As a result of this, officers must be very diligent in their questioning of juvenile suspects. Officers must recognize that juveniles are not as responsible or mature as adults, they often lack the life experiences, judgement and get involved in risky situations they may be unable to handle. According to California’s SB 395, “Custodial interrogation of an individual by the state requires that the individual be advised of his or her rights and make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights before the interrogation proceeds. People under 18 years of age have a lesser ability as compared to adults to comprehend the meaning of their rights and the consequences of waiver. Additionally, a large body of research has established that adolescent thinking tends to either ignore or discount future outcomes and implications, and disregard long-term consequences of important decisions.”
As a result, an officer must be skilled in the interrogation of juvenile suspects. The officer’s process of assessment will be questioned and examined by the court before any statement made by a youth is admitted as evidence. During this examination, the court will determine from the evidence whether the youth fully understood the rights being explained to them. An officer presenting evidence of having conducted a proper assessment of an accused youth should have notes reflecting the conversations and specific observations of the youth’s responses to satisfy the court that adequate efforts were made to ensure that the youth did understand their rights. Good evidence of understanding can be achieved by asking the youth to repeat, summarize, or paraphrase their understanding of the rights that were explained to them.
California Welfare and Institution Code sec. 625.6 reads:
“625.6.
- Prior to a custodial interrogation, and before the waiver of any Miranda rights, a youth 15 years of age or younger shall consult with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference. The consultation may not be waived.
- The court shall, in adjudicating the admissibility of statements of a youth 15 years of age or younger made during or after a custodial interrogation, consider the effect of failure to comply with subdivision (a).
-
This section does not apply to the admissibility of statements of a youth 15 years of age or younger if both of the following criteria are met.
- The officer who questioned the youth reasonably believed the information he or she sought was necessary to protect life or property from an imminent threat.
- The officer’s questions were limited to those questions that were reasonably necessary to obtain that information.