Blog Topic

A Juvenile's Right to a Jury Trial
Posted by: Trey Pettlon
July 07, 2008

Cheers to the Kansas Supreme Court!

"What happens in Juvenile Court does not always stay in Juvenile Court."

I have lectured about juvenile law dozens of times to whoever will listen and until recently, I have said that juveniles charged with "crimes" in Kansas have all the same rights that adults do, with two notable exceptions: they cannot represent themselves in court, and they do not have a right to a jury trial. In other words, if a juvenile pleads "not guilty", the State will have to convince a judge they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Until June of this year¹, a juvenile could ask for a jury trial, but the Judge could decide whether to grant the jury trial or not. K.S.A. 38-2357. The result of this was that over the years someone like me would periodically request a jury trial, but the Court would deny the request. The Court didn't have the time or the resources to conduct many jury trials.  As a result, until 2007 there had never been a single juvenile jury trial in the history of Johnson County.

For years I have thought it was a tremendous injustice that the juvenile laws in Kansas would not grant a juvenile² an absolute right to a jury trial. I have represented hundreds of juveniles who were charged with serious offenses. I can assure you that when a child of yours is charged with a serious felony, it doesn't feel like the system is set up for rehabilitation. For the juvenile, and many times the parents, the process seems punitive.

I understand the theory for allowing the juvenile courts discretion to deny a request for a jury trial. Traditionally the purpose of the juvenile laws was to rehabilitate, not to punish, and the consequences of being 'convicted' were not believed to be long-term. That is, juveniles had numerous statutory protections under the juvenile code that would ensure that the juvenile conviction would not affect the juveniles in the future.

There were laws that draped juvenile court with confidentiality so that juveniles who were charged would not be embarrassed by the allegations, something that was thought to be especially important because of the damage that the allegations can do to a person during their formative years. For example, people who were not related to the juvenile or an attorney in the proceeding or court staff or a witness there to testify could not be in the courtroom during the hearing if the child was under 16. K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 38-1652. Even the terminology used in juvenile cases is different than the terminology used in adult criminal court. Juveniles charged are called 'respondents' instead of 'defendants.' Juvenile convictions are called "adjudications". Juvenile crimes are called juvenile "offenses".³ The idea was that a juvenile who did something stupid would not have to answer 'yes' on a job application or a school application several years later when asked if they ever committed a crime.⁴

But these protections have never, in my view, justified denying a juvenile a right to a jury trial. The impact on a juvenile of an adjudication for rape or indecent liberties, just as an example, has always been important enough to justify a jury trial.

For those who say the juvenile code is still primarily concerned with what is best for the juveniles, I would say that is not true.⁵ I think most people who have a child in juvenile court charged with a serious crime, whether the charge is true or not, will not appreciate the differences between the juvenile code and the adult criminal code. Juvenile offenses sometimes result in loss of liberty for months or years. In many cases these offenses can never be expunged and are on the juveniles record forever. They have to be revealed on job applications or school applications or licensing applications. They may require registration which in turn requires placement of an sex offender website with adult offenders and even having the word "offender" prominently marked across the juvenile's drivers license like adult offenders.⁶ Juveniles must submit DNA like adult offenders.

The degree of confidentiality associated with juvenile cases has been reduced substantially. Under the KJJC, all juvenile hearings are open to the public unless the Judge specifically orders otherwise. K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 38-2353. Cases involving juveniles 16 years and older are even posted on the courthouse website that broadcast the charges and the history of the case. Up until 2006, the official court file and law enforcement records regarding juveniles under the age of 16 were protected from disclosure to the public. K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 38-1607 and 38-1608. Now those same records are accessible unless the child is under 14.

In 2001 Kansas adopted sentencing guidelines for adults charged with felonies to determine the sentence that they will receive if they are convicted. K.S.A. 21-4701 et seq. The Kansas legislature decided that a defendant's criminal history should include their juvenile record in many cases.

The jury trial is an important protection against false allegations and some of the most serious allegations, allegations regarding sex crimes, are frequently false compared to other crimes. I would point to the cases of two juveniles who were charged with sex crimes to make the point about the importance of jury trials. In one case, there is no question in my mind no jury would have convicted my client, but the judge was a judge who thought that "what happens in juvenile court, stays in juvenile court, so let's just convict him and get him some services."⁷ You might think, like the judge did, why have a trial then if "what happens in juvenile court stays in juvenile court?" Aren't there protections in the juvenile system to protect the young offender. First off, what happened in juvenile court never stayed in juvenile court. But the real answer kind of got lost in that particular court...sometimes the accused is innocent. My client was likely innocent. I wouldn't recommend that a client plead guilty to something he didn't do...ever, and the consequences for being convicted of something can be devastating when you are innocent.⁸

In the second case, a judge who had been on the juvenile bench for twenty years in an unprecedented move granted my request for a jury trial on behalf of a young man charged with a sex crime. At the time, there had never been a juvenile jury trial in Johnson County and mine was to be the first. The State's evidence was extremely flimsy. It was the kind of case that a prosecutor might cavalierly present to a judge in a two hour trial to the court, but would not want to present in two days to a panel of twelve jurors. Before the jury trial began, the prosecutor reconsidered the strength of their case, and asked me what, if anything, my client would plead guilty to. I said, "he admitted to using marijuana." We agreed and the prosecutor amended the charge from rape to misdemeanor marijuana. This would have never happened if I hadn't been granted a jury trial. Is it possible the Judge would have made the right decision at the close of the evidence and dismissed the case without the aid of a jury. Of course. But that is not the point. Whether you believe in harsher punishment for juvenile offenders or not, the point is that juveniles ought to have the same right as adults charged with the same offense ...the right to make the State prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.

The Kansas Supreme Court made the right decision. Until last month, a juvenile would not have the right to ajury even though the consequences of a 'conviction' might be as severe or worse than they would be for an adult charged with the same offense. Undoubtedly it will be difficult for courts to adjust. Jury trials take more resources. More time. A simple trial will take a full day instead of an hour or less. Not all court rooms are equipped with a jury box or a jury room. But if a young person can't get a jury trial when they are faced with losing their liberty and their reputation, and when they face other life-long consequences like having a criminal record, not being eligible for certain careers, losing jobs or not being admitted to colleges, the cost is acceptable.

_______________________________________

1 In the Matter of L.M., No. 96,197

2 In Kansas a person is a juvenile for purposes of criminal law if their offense was committed when they were under eighteen. In Missouri they are a juvenile if the offense occurred when they were under 17.

3 These terms were changed so that juveniles would not have to admit on a job application, for example, that they had ever been charged with a 'crime'. This terminology has not provided any real protection for years though. Job, school and other applications have become more and more sophisticated and routinely ask whether the applicant has ever been charged with a juvenile offense.

4 Juveniles in Kansas can be charged for offenses that occur when they are as young as ten years old.

5 Certainly Judges and Court staff make every effort to consider what is best for every child that appears in their court, but many of the consequences, such as expunge ability of the offense, are not within the judge's discretion.

6 Teenagers can be cruel and this can completely change a teenager's high school experience and as a result cause a great deal of psychological damage during these important growing years.

7 I was told by attorneys who practiced regularly in that jurisdiction that they never asked for trials and it was widely believed that the consequences of the adjudications were nominal. Whether the child did the crime or not, the idea was to 'just get the kid some services' (probation, counseling...everyone can benefit from that.) The impact of this historical way of handling juvenile cases, now that the legislature has made juvenile adjudications part of an adult's criminal history for determining sentences for adults is that there are a lot of people that are adults now that have adjudications on their criminal histories for offenses that should have been dismissed at the very least as a part of plea negotiations if not trial but were not because they pled guilty because they were advised it would never matter. In other words, countless adults are now faced with significantly inflated "criminal histories" because of the misconception that their juvenile offenses would never be used against them or otherwise harm them once they completed their probation. Then the laws changed with the adoption of the Revised Kansas Juvenile Justice Code, K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 38-2301 et seq. and the adult sentencing guidelines. K.S.A. 21-4704 et seq.

8 I don't know if my client ever recovered from that decision which is part of the reason that I say "what happens in juvenile court doesn't stay in juvenile court." The results impact the juvenile for years to come in some cases...in a good way and sometimes in a bad way. He got into drugs after that, and a few years later he was on the front page of the Kansas City Star. He was a key witness in federal court in a big drug conspiracy case. He was murdered while the case was pending.

Permalink