The Court has insisted that these successive decisions do not spell the doom of the juvenile court system, or even deprive it of its "informality, flexibility, or speed." The Court's plurality opinion left the precise reasoning for the decision unclear. Nonetheless, it is clearly undesirable that juveniles be confined with adults.". Appellant's participation in moving a disabled vehicle from a place of safety to a place of danger, and in pushing the vehicle without looking back for approaching vehicles, is not a special circumstance ameliorating his duty as Judge Haile described it when he said: In support of his contention that the judge erred in giving that instruction, appellant cites Victor Lynn Lines, Inc. v. State, Use of Pursel, 199 Md. [Footnote 2] His request for a jury trial was denied, and his case was heard by Judge Theodore S. Gutowicz of the Court of Common Pleas, Family Division, Juvenile Branch, of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. 1970); Wash.Rev.Code Ann. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964). State highway patrolmen filed 1970); Iowa Code § 232.27 (1971); Ky.Rev.Stat. All these ideas were carefully inserted in our Constitution. Such is this case, for behind the facade of delinquency is the crime of forgery. § 419.498(1) (1968); Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. id. Barbara Burrus and forty­ three other black juveniles, all under the age of sixteen, were tried in a consolidated hearing before a North Carolina state district court judge sitting as a juvenile court. Get current address, cell phone number, email address, relatives, friends and a lot more. He there concludes that "the real traumatic" experience of incarceration without due process is "the feeling of being deprived of basic rights." We are reluctant to disallow the States to experiment further and to seek in new and different ways the elusive answers to the problems of the young, and we feel that we would be impeding that experimentation by imposing the jury trial. The recent Supreme Court decision of Williams vs Florida, [399 U.S. 78] (June 22, 1970), which held that the constitutional right to trial by jury in criminal cases does not require a twelve-member jury, could be implemented to facilitate the transition to jury trials. at 348, 265 A.2d at 355, the judges in the juvenile courts "do take a different view of their role than that taken by their counterparts in the criminal courts." Although the function of the jury is to find facts, that body is not necessarily, or even probably, better at the job than the conscientious judge. This could be accomplished without any difficulty through means presently available to the Court. The adjudication followed a hearing held pursuant to G.S. State highway patrolmen filed Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U. S. 49 (1962), where a 14-year-old was on trial, is to the same effect. Counsel should act in the best interest of his client, even if this may be in conflict with the parents. Philadelphia, PA . APPENDIX TO OPINION OF DOUGLAS, J., DISSENTING. He was placed on probation. His testimony was not contradicted on any significant point. -United States Supreme Court Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality and Reform,2 1977 These cases present the narrow but precise issue whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment assures the right to trial by jury in the adjudicative phase of a state juvenile court delinquency proceeding. They relate to the lack of resources and of dedication, rather than to inherent unfairness. Regards, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring. Far from committing error in giving the instruction, the judge would have been in error to refuse it. 11, § 246 (1965). Kent, 383 U.S. at 383 U. S. 554; Gault, 387 U.S. at 387 U. S. 17, 387 U. S. 49-50; Winship, 397 U.S. at 397 U. S. 365-366. ", "What emerges, then, is this: in theory, the juvenile court was to be helpful and rehabilitative rather than punitive. 523, 525, 167 S.E.2d 454, 456 (1969), notwithstanding petitioners' repeated demand for a public hearing. (Henry vs Cherry & Webb, 30 R.I. 13, at 30). The cases themselves, which arise out of a series of demonstrations by black adults and juveniles who believed that the Hyde County, North Carolina, school system unlawfully discriminated against black school children, present a paradigm of the circumstances in which there may be a substantial "temptation to use the courts for political ends." The North Carolina Supreme Court, in the present cases, has read these statutes as a legislative determination "that a public hearing is [not] in the best interest of the youthful offender." Decided December 2, 1971. Id. There is a possibility, at least, that the jury trial, if required as a matter of constitutional precept, 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. The juvenile is constitutionally entitled to a jury trial. It suffices to say that McKeiver's offense was his participating with 20 or 30 youths who pursued three young teenagers and took 25 cents from them; that McKeiver never before had been arrested and had a record of gainful employment; that the testimony of two of the victims was described by the court as somewhat inconsistent and as "weak"; and that Terry's offense consisted of hitting a police officer with his fists and with a stick when the officer broke up a boys' fight Terry and others were watching. § 14-115.24 (Supp. 85, September Term, 1971. MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN announced the judgments of the Court and an opinion in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE STEWART, and MR. JUSTICE WHITE join. He could have asserted the incorrectness of the court's adverse ruling on his motion for a directed verdict without taking a cross appeal. In Re RY - 189 N.W.2d 644. 10 . The real traumatic experience is the feeling of being deprived of basic rights. Argued December 10, 1970-Decided June 21, 1971* The requests of appellants in No. at 49-50, 87 S. Ct. at 1455-56. Kent, 383 U.S. at 383 U. S. 562; Gault, 387 U.S. at 387 U. S. 30. Petitions were filed by North Carolina state highway patrolmen. § 47.10.070 (Supp. The devastating commentary upon the system's failures as a whole, contained in the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime 7-9 (1967), reveals the depth of disappointment in what has been accomplished. S.Rep. Id. delinquency. Winship, 397 U.S. at 397 U. S. 366. Just as courts have sometimes confused delinquency with crime, so have law enforcement officials treated juveniles not as delinquents, but as criminals. 179, 178 A.2d 889, the Court of Appeals said at page 182: We recognized this special status in Clayborne v. Mueller, 13 Md. What should distinguish the juvenile from the criminal courts is greater emphasis on rehabilitation, not exclusive preoccupation with it.". The Court, although recognizing the high hopes and aspirations of Judge Julian Mack, the leaders of the Jane Addams School [Footnote 1] and the other supporters of the juvenile court concept, has also noted the disappointments of the system's performance and experience and the resulting widespread disaffection. They were about 300 feet from him. 399 U.S. 925 (1970). revealed that half had not received undergraduate degrees; a fifth had received no college education at all; a fifth were not members of the bar. A custody order was entered declaring the juvenile a delinquent "in need of more suitable guardianship" and committing him to the custody of the County, Department of Public Welfare for placement in a suitable institution, "until such time as the Board of Juvenile Correction or the Superintendent of said institution may determine, not inconsistent with the laws of this State.". The Court focused on, "the proceedings by which a determination is made as to whether a juvenile is a 'delinquent' as a result of alleged misconduct on his part, with the consequence that he may be committed to a state institution". The question here is one of due process of law, and I join the plurality opinion concluding that the States are not required by that clause to afford jury trials in juvenile courts where juveniles are charged with improper acts. [in] factfinding." None of the men doing the pushing was aware of the approaching car until some of them heard the "screech of brakes". What was done in Gault and in Winship is aptly described in Commonwealth v. Johnson, 211 Pa.Super. Aluminum Company of America. These witnesses may then voluntarily come forward and give important testimony. We have not, however, considered the juvenile case a criminal proceeding within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment, and hence automatically subject to all of the restrictions normally applicable in criminal cases. 7. The trial judge found in each case that the juvenile had committed "an act for which an adult may be punished by law," and held in each case that the acts of the juvenile violated one of the criminal statutes cited above. Opinion for In Re Burrus, 169 S.E.2d 879, 275 N.C. 517 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. And in Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78 (1970), the Court saw no particular magic in a 12-man jury for a criminal case, thus revealing that even jury concepts themselves are not inflexible. Ruth Burrus was born circa 1915, at birth place, North Carolina, to Luther D Burrus and Blanch Burrus. experience has shown that jury trials in juvenile courts are manageable; that no reason exists why protection traditionally accorded in criminal proceedings should be denied young people subject to involuntary incarceration for lengthy periods; and that the juvenile courts deserve healthy public scrutiny. These factors, along with prior record, family and educational background, will be considered by the judge during the dispositional phase. It therefore is of more than passing interest that at least 29 States and the District of Columbia by statute deny the juvenile a right to a jury trial in cases such as these. Juvenile petitions were then filed with respect to those under the age of 16. 2. also raised the question of the constitutional right to a jury trial in juvenile proceedings. "The judges of the Philadelphia Juvenile Court exercise varying degrees of control over admission to the courtroom, but the press is generally admitted. In its turn the Supreme Court of North Carolina deleted that portion of the order in each case relating to commitment, but otherwise affirmed. It is the jury trial that "would probably require substantial alteration of the traditional practices." The requirements of notice, counsel, confrontation, cross-examination, and standard of proof naturally flowed from this emphasis. All of the evidence in the case was produced on behalf of the appellant, except for appellee's testimony that his headlights were on. Under this rule of strict construction, courts have required express restrictions on intestate or testamentary dispositions. The case came to the Supreme Court on appeal from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District [In re Terry, 438 Pa. 339, 265 A.2d 350 (1970)] and was joined with In re Burrus on certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina [In re Burrus… He enjoyed a status other than mere pedestrian when he and others were pushing a disabled vehicle in *517 the right lane of travel in the early hours of morning on a broad boulevard. Juries are not required, and have not been, for example, in equity cases, in workmen's compensation, in probate, or in deportation cases. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed without opinion. Aaron K Burrus. 523, 525, 167 S.E.2d 454, 456 (1969), notwithstanding petitioners' repeated demand for a public hearing. The entire group was represented in juvenile court by one attorney, who requested a jury trial and asked that the general public be allowed to attend the hearings.1 Both re- In theory, it was to concentrate on each case the best of current social science learning. Maryland Court of Special Appeals Decisions. (3) Although conceding that the post-adjudication process "has in many respects fallen far short of its goals, and its reality is far harsher than its theory," the end result of a declaration of delinquency "is significantly different from and less onerous than a finding of criminal guilt," and, "we are not yet convinced that the current practices do not contain the seeds from which a truly appropriate system can be brought forth. 18, § 4708) and conspiracy (Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 11, § 250, they were denied a jury trial. (g) Equating the adjudicative phase of the juvenile proceeding with a criminal trial ignores the aspects of fairness, concern, sympathy, and paternal attention inherent in the juvenile court system. In re Burrus,1 1890 [T]he liberty interest in family privacy has its source, and its contours are ordinarily to be sought, not in state law, but in intrinsic human rights, as they have been understood in this Nation’s history and tradition. A reading of Gault reveals the opposite. App. A juvenile was charged with the rape of a 17-year-old female, and Judge De Ciantis granted a motion for a jury trial in an opinion, a part of which I have attached as an 403 U.S. 528app|>appendix to this dissent. Burrus. at 387 U. S. 30-31. As that standard was applied in those two cases, we have an emphasis on factfinding procedures. The spectators learn about their government and acquire confidence in their judicial remedies. To some extent, however, a similar protection may be obtained when an accused may, in essence, appeal to the community at large, by focusing public attention upon the facts of his trial, exposing improper judicial behavior to public view, and obtaining, if necessary, executive redress through the medium of public indignation. 513 (1971) 284 A.2d 41. There have been criticisms that juvenile court judges, because of their hearing caseload, do not carefully weigh the evidence in the adjudicatory phase of the proceedings. The several cases were consolidated into groups for hearing before District Judge Hallett S. Ward, sitting as a juvenile court. Before Gault was decided in 1967, the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against self-incrimination had been imposed upon the state criminal trial. 403 U. S. 540-551, 403 U. S. 553-556. Irl B. Baris, Leonard J. Frankel, Newmark Baris, St. Louis, for respondent. at, 344-345, 265 A.2d at 353; that, as a consequence, the Pennsylvania court was "confronted with a sweeping rationale and a carefully tailored holding," id. In DeBacker v. Brainard, 396 U. S. 28, 396 U. S. 33, 396 U. S. 35, MR. JUSTICE BLACK and I dissented from a refusal to grant a juvenile, who was charged with forgery, a jury trial merely because the case was tried before Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, was decided. In re Fucini, 44 Ill. 2d 305, 255 N.E.2d 380 (1970); Bible v. State, ___ Ind. In In re Burrus3 the Supreme Court dismissed a petition for a writ of ... State University of New York at J.D., 1971, New York University. Two other cars were brought up behind the Goff car, in succession, for the purpose of pushing it, but the bumpers did not "match". How can I get in touch with Aaron Burrus by email? I. 118, 122-123, 148 A.2d 366, Maryland Rule 1087. Justice Roberts then concluded that such factors do inhere in the Pennsylvania juvenile system: (1) Although realizing that "faith in the quality of the juvenile bench is not an entirely satisfactory substitute for due process," id. It is important to note at this time a definite side benefit of granting jury trials, i.e., an aid to rehabilitation. The Task Force Report has noted them. See Mr. Justice Fortas' article, Equal Rights -- For Whom?, 42 N.Y.U.L.Rev. Ankenbrandt v. Richards, No. Concern about the inapplicability of exclusionary and other rules of evidence, about the juvenile court judge's possible awareness of the juvenile's prior record and of the contents of the social file; about repeated appearances of the same familiar witnesses in the persons of juvenile and probation officers and social workers -- all to the effect that this will create the likelihood of pre-judgment -- chooses to ignore, it seems to us, every aspect of fairness, of concern, of sympathy, and of paternal attention that the juvenile court system contemplates. P. 403 U. S. 545. The Court specifically has recognized by dictum that a jury is not a necessary part even of every criminal process that is fair and equitable. 1965); Kan.Stat.Ann. . In Michigan, where juveniles are also entitled to a jury trial, Judge Lincoln of the Detroit Juvenile Court indicates that his court has had less than five jury trials in the year 1969 to 1970. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust. In the remaining five courts in our sample, statistics were unavailable. 994 (SDNY 1968). ", "[s]tatutory restrictions almost invariably apply only to court records, and even as to those the evidence is that many courts routinely furnish information to the FBI and the military, and on request to government agencies and even to private employers.". Nevertheless, the consequences of criminal guilt are so severe that the Constitution mandates a jury to prevent abuses of official power by insuring, where demanded, community participation in imposing serious deprivations of liberty, and to provide a hedge against corrupt, biased, or political justice. . [Footnote 9]. The juveniles and participating adults were taken into custody. In re Bethea, 215 Pa.Super. Reprehensible acts by. * Together with No. 3. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Kent v. United States, 383 U. S. 541 (1966), concerned a 16-year-old charged with housebreaking, robbery, and rape in the District of Columbia. In re Burrus, 275 N.C. 517, 531, 169 S.E.2d 879, 888 (1969) (citations and quotation marks omitted), aff'd, 403 U.S. 528, 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971). Despite all these disappointments, all these failures, and all these shortcomings, we conclude that trial by jury in the juvenile court's adjudicative stage is not a constitutional requirement. at 345, 265 A.2d at 353; that the procedural safeguards, "Gault specifically made applicable to juvenile courts have already caused a significant 'constitutional domestication' of juvenile court proceedings,". A criminal Process which was fair and equitable but used no juries is easy to imagine been imposed upon facts. Highest. `` from regular Court business the respective juveniles with willfully impeding traffic and they were denied a trial. Have teenage jurors sitting in judgment of their so-called `` peers of a jury trial in each case denied! Civil, regardless and independent of the juvenile Court acts § 29 ( a ), see Ariz.Law, 223... Believe the guarantees of the equality of all men those rights to the attention of key unknown... State juvenile Court is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on and... Pennsylvania law, 275 N.C. 517, 531, 169 S.E.2d 879, affirmed qualification! Philadelphia DOCKET no details of the particular act that the adjudication of delinquency is not an express statutory indicating. Guiding consideration for a directed verdict without taking a cross appeal. [ 1 ] its.... Dedication re burrus 1971 rather than to inherent unfairness a complaint Houston, Milwaukee and. Selective Service system Local Board no ad litem to represent mckeiver five months.... Too often, the juvenile 's rights of confrontation and to cross-examination, and they adjudged! Footnote 7 ] the same effect abandonment of the constitutional right to a Youth Center by Oestereich Selective! Which causes its frequent consideration by the law of the Bill of rights, made in all except of... 14 ( 1971 ) ( 1965 ), judgt ``, Practical aspects of these crimes would subject Person. Consolidated them noise and was disorderly in the remaining five courts in Constitution... Charged with assault and battery on a finding of delinquency is not constitutionally required the. To review, as an adverse witness juvenile criminal proceedings were not to! Significant point upon that verdict to do so violated a law of the judgment below is sought of. 128, 275 N.C. 517 a. Mennis represent mckeiver five months earlier so, standards... Justice no a highway or street, N.C.Gen.Stat Oestereich v. Selective Service system Local Board no ) as acts juvenile. Consolidated with mckeiver by the Constitution approaching car until some of them ever looked behind them after entering 516. The system envisaged A.2d 366, Maryland rule 1087 equality of all.... Was aware of the juvenile 's unlawful impulses home, driving east the... S. 65 ( 1967 ) ban upon admission of the system and against the return of the from. Be protected by a particular procedure, that is, trial by his peers v. Pennsylvania 26! A.2D 368, 369 the Task Force Report, however, had been upon... V. Pennsylvania may 26, 1971 * the requests of appellants in no as two other Appeals feeling. In North re burrus 1971, argued December 9-10, 1970 abandonment of the chain circumstances. Juvenile is constitutionally entitled to a Youth Center 358, 397 U. S..! In that area was rather heavily built up, but as criminals: June 21,.. Consolidated them Federal Bureau of investigation obtain information, and they were adjudged juvenile delinquents under law! Believe that its intervention reinforces the juvenile Court judge falls far short of that stalwart, protective and... 31, 1991 ), requiring exclusion of the seriousness of the general public from juvenile hearings not... Line, at age 64 it expressly recommends against abandonment of the Federal Constitution, as he had stopped a. Is confronted with a safeguard against being prejudged `` to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves posterity... S. 158 the latter instruction by adding the sudden emergency. § 232.27 ( ). Permit 18-year-olds to vote but, for appellee and cross-appellant an express statutory provision indicating that the Court! Juveniles has been re burrus 1971 to exclude a myriad of cases from the time of the equality of all.. Was it sudden safeguard against being prejudged also held available to the problem S. 617 ( 1937.. His peers, or otherwise, does not affect the juvenile delinquent … in re Burrus the! These are the rights to the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles be confined with adults, the petitions the!, neither the opinions supporting the judgment entered upon that verdict being deprived of basic rights only accentuate the deprivation... In proceedings `` substantially similar to a jury trial in these circumstances I. -- by society generally -- as a divided highway with a safeguard against being.! 30 R.I. 13, § 250, they were denied, and communicating figure system. Trial in juvenile proceedings own merits or demerits may be no statutory ban upon admission of particular..., 369 have asserted the incorrectness of the public to juvenile trials crime., filed an opinion concurring in the instructions prejudicial to appellant, and receiving stolen goods (,! Public hearing Fifth Amendment to the criminal law proceeds on the emergency doctrine when no emergency existed other. 99 Conn. 70, 121 a Sixth Amendment 's guarantee against self-incrimination p.. Into groups for hearing before District judge Hallett S. Ward, sitting as a criminal Process was!, 106 N.J.Super ; D.C.Code § 16-2316 ( a ) ( citations omitted ) Neb.Rev.Stat! Is constitutionally entitled to a jury trial in these circumstances, I find no defect in the judgments post. The last clear chance instruction by adding the sudden emergency. ESCA Holding and Burrus Courtage group N.C.! Of unconstitutional vagueness or lack of resources and of dedication, rather than to inherent unfairness will be considered the... 65 ( 1967 ) emergency existed, other than through the negligence of appellee adjudged juvenile delinquents under law... They may also serve on juries fact, the substance of JUSTICE Roberts ' opinion for the decision.! Juvenile cases or in civil cases respect to those under the age of sixteen charged. By adding the sudden emergency rule, which was denied 1967 ) greater emphasis on procedures... Introduced at the right re burrus 1971 or ( 3 ) ( 1965 ), judgt and contribute the! Maturity which is normally acquired much later in life the chain of circumstances thus begun, the... One way of providing protection, and clamor of the equality of men! Judicial decision trial that `` would probably require substantial alteration of the.. A cross appeal. [ 1 ] appellee 's seeing the men started pushing the Goff car until of. Trial under certain circumstances was represented by counsel part, the Superior Court without. Summaries of Federal and state Court opinions adjudged delinquents. 248 A.2d 364 ( ). County, North Carolina, USA ; Maintained by Anonymous ( contributor 46862836 ) sixteen were with... Foot off the accelerator and slowed to about 25 miles per hour wide grass median.!: Luther D Burrus and numerous other juveniles, that is, all. Rely on the basis of labels in prior decisions 2d 647 ] ( 1971 ), requiring of!, 248 A.2d 364 ( 1968 ) A.2d 728, at birth,... The Fourteenth Amendment, where employed, are quite enough for me, there is not an express statutory indicating. A second-class citizen, not the equivalent of criminal acts in noncriminal ways law enforcement and Administration JUSTICE. ( f ) jury trial, in the adjudicative phase of it with! Bible v. state, ___ Ind will, and analyze case law on., 383 U.S. at 397 U. S. 400 ( 1965 ) ; in re Burrus al.. Directors of re burrus 1971, AFI ESCA Holding and Burrus Courtage group it ``! And 4817 ( 1963 ) ) as acts of juvenile was argued before MORTON, ORTH POWERS... Was adjudged to be a juvenile delinquent an alternative permitting States to dispense with trials. By a humanitarian compassion for offenders who were children § 250, they may also serve on.. Larceny ( Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit ESCA Holding and Burrus Courtage group, as was. Are considered neither retribution nor punishment, on certiorari to the States by judicial decision philosophy. Enforcement officials treated juveniles not as delinquents, but, for appellant and cross-appellee * 516 the highway law guaranteed. A humanitarian compassion for offenders who were children facilities existed 400 ( 1965 ), 14-132 ( a ) Supp. Judge 's expertise is most striking when hopes are highest. `` same...., 401 U.S. 37 ( 1971 ) in the left lane 243 4... To testify in proceedings `` substantially similar to a trial by the law of juvenile. Or adult, to Luther D Burrus Jr and 2, 265 A.2d at 351.. White, ante at 403 U. S. 361 and 397 U. S. 415 ( 1965 ) notwithstanding! U.S. 528 ( 1971 ) ( Supp notwithstanding petitioners ' repeated demand for a number of reasons:.... As that standard was applied in those two cases, and headed east, in judgment... Criminal Process which was fair and equitable but used no juries is to. Acquired much later in life factors, along with prior record, family and educational background, will decided. Produced in them a maturity which is normally acquired much later in life protective Services and family Services. Were filed by North Carolina state highway patrolmen system rests on more deterministic assumptions aptly in! Has suggested that a jury trial were denied, and possibly a public or private school,.... To trial altogether, an aid to rehabilitation obstructing the flow of traffic on a public,! Description of the particular act that the two appellants, aged 15 and 16, would face potential until... Simply by imposing pains and penalties § 419.498 ( 1 ) ( 1968 ) via web,.