Work work work work

Running head: Case Brief 1

Case Brief 4

Case Brief

University Affiliation

Student’s name

Kent V United States 383 US 541 (1966). Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5405024647930835755&q=Kent+V+United+States+383+US+541+(1966)+&hl=en&as_sdt=8006

Facts of the case

In Kent v. United States the court made a ruling on the due process of juvenile offenders. In this particular case, 16 year old Morris Kent was detained and interrogated by Washington, D.C. police officers regarding robberies and other crimes he had committed (Gardner, 1966). The crimes included housebreaking, robbery and rape. Through the interrogation, Kent agreed to commit some of the crimes mentioned by the police officers. Kent was only 16 years old hence his mother hired an attorney to help Ken out through his trial. Due to his age, Kent was brought before a juvenile court for a series of pretrial issues. Instead of the court having its jurisdiction, it waived it; that is, the judge gave up the court’s authority to make legal decisions in Kent’s case. After this scenario, Kent was tried in an adult court since the juvenile court waived its jurisdiction. Kent was later convicted and sentenced. The Kent Court, however, limited the responsibilities of the trial court: "We do not read the statute as requiring that this statement must be formal or that it should necessarily include conventional findings of fact.

Issues

Was it within the power of the Court of Appeal to just make a trial for Kent at Juvenile court? They Court of Appeal had a waiver without full investigation on Kent’s case. Kent was interrogated by the police with no counsel present. The court did not consider reports by social services, court staff or probation section (since Kent was already on probation) The Juvenile Court Act under which the D.C. juvenile judge was acting, allowed waiver to adult court if the person was at least 16 and charged with an offense that would be a felony if done by an adult. Could be done based on a “full investigation” by the juvenile judge. Kent appealed from the order of waiving his case to adult criminal court-District Columbia Courts denied his appeals.

Decisions

The Supreme Court held that the juvenile court's waiver of its jurisdiction in Kent's case was invalid. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court determined that the juvenile court failed to properly investigate whether Kent should be tried in juvenile court or tried as an adult.

Reasoning

A jury found Kent guilty and sentenced him to serve 30-90 years in prison. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, although it noted that the juvenile court judge provided no reason for the waiver. Petitioner's counsel filed a motion in the Juvenile Court for a hearing on the question of waiver, and for access to the Juvenile Court's Social Service file which had been accumulated on petitioner during his probation for a prior offense.

Separate opinions

The Court's ruling ushered in an era of reform in the juvenile legal system that granted increasing constitutional protections to minors.

Analysis

The Supreme Court explained that the juvenile court had an obligation to properly investigate whether it should waive its jurisdiction as a matter of due process. Due process is a constitutional guarantee of a fair process promised to every criminal defendant. The Supreme Court reasoned that Kent , as a juvenile, was entitled to the same level of due process as any other criminal defendant.