8.3: Constitutional Protections Afforded Juveniles
The United States Supreme Court has held that in juvenile commitment proceedings, juvenile courts must afford to juvenile’s basic constitutional protections, such as advance notice of the charges, the right to counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and the right to remain silent. [ In re Gault , 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967).] The Supreme Court has extended the search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment to juveniles. [ New Jersey v. T.L.O. , 469 U.S. 325, 333, 105 S. Ct. 733, 738, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985).] It has also been held that the Fourth Amendment requires that a juvenile arrested without a warrant be provided a probable cause hearing. [ Moss v. Weaver , 525 F. 2d 1258, 1259-60 (5th Cir. 1976).] The exclusionary rule also applies to federal delinquency adjudications. [ United States v. Doe , 801 F. Supp. 1562, 1567-72 (E.D. Tex. 1992). ]
Juveniles are entitled to Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination in juvenile proceedings despite the non-criminal nature of those proceedings. [ In re Gault , 387 U.S. at 49-50, 87 S. Ct. at 1455-56 .] Substance, not form, controls in determining the applicability of the Fifth Amendment to proceedings not labeled criminal. Id. at 49-50, 87 S. Ct. at 1455-56. Since a juvenile defendant's liberty is at stake, the Fifth Amendment applies.
Juveniles are not, however, accorded the full panoply of rights that adult criminal defendants are accorded, such as the right to trial by jury. [ McKeiver v. Pennsylvania , 403 U.S. 528, 91 S. Ct. 1976, 29 L. Ed. 2d 647 (1971).] Most of the opinions reason that a jury trial is not required because the Act does not treat alleged juvenile delinquents as alleged criminals, and therefore, the Constitution does not mandate it.
Figure 8.2 Juvenile Justice Center in Kern County. JJC by Tabitha Raber is used under a CC BY 4.0 license.
The McKeiver court stated that, "(t)here is a possibility, at least, that the jury trial, if required..., will remake the juvenile proceeding into a fully adversary process and will put an effective end to what has been the idealistic prospect of an intimate, informal protective proceeding." [403 U.S. at 545, 91 S. Ct. at 1986.] As a result, juvenile courts still process juvenile delinquents in a manner more paternal and diagnostic than that afforded their adult criminal counterparts. [ Alexander S. by and through Bowers v. Boyd , 876 F. Supp. 773, 781 (D.S.C. 1995). ]
A juvenile is accorded all due process rights at a juvenile hearing which includes the right to contest the value of the evidence offered by the government. [ Kent v. United States , 383 U.S. 541, 563, 86 S. Ct. 1045, 1058, 16 L. Ed. 2d 84 (1966).] Although juvenile adjudications are adjudications of status rather than criminal liability, the government must still prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a juvenile is a delinquent. [In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970). ]
Proceedings for adjudication of a juvenile as a delinquent shall be in district court. [ 18 U.S.C.A. § 5032 (West Supp. 1995).] The court may convene at any time and place within the district, in chambers or otherwise, to take up the proceedings of juvenile delinquency. A juvenile may consent to having a magistrate judge preside over cases involving a Class B or C misdemeanor, or an infraction. [ 18 U.S.C.A. § 3401(g) (West Supp. 1995).] There is a certain advantage to the juvenile in exercising this option since a magistrate judge cannot impose a term of imprisonment in these situations. Id. Proceedings in misdemeanor cases can be ordered to be conducted before a district judge rather than a magistrate judge by the court's own motion or upon petition with good cause by the United States Attorney. [18 U.S.C.A. § 3401(f) (West 1985). ]