|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study by Sanborn was to present survey data that examined the fairness of the juvenile adjudicatory hearing.
METHODOLOGY:
The author employed a quasi-experimental design in order to examine the fairness of juvenile adjudicatory hearings. The author conducted face-to-face open ended interviews of 100 workers from three juvenile courts (urban, suburban, rural) during the summer of 1989. The urban court had 9300 cases filed in 1989. From the urban court, 6 judges, 22 assistant district attorneys, and 17 public defenders participated in the study. An additional sample of 10 attorneys and 10 probation officers were also randomly selected for the interview. The suburban court had 1430 petitions filed in 1989. Two masters, 4 judges, 2 district attorneys, and 2 assistant public defenders participated in the study. An additional 5 probation officers and 5 attorneys were also randomly selected for the interview. The rural court had 575 petitions filed in 1989. Two masters, 1 judge, 1 district attorney, 1 public defender, and 25 probation officers worked part time in the court, and all participated in the study. Additionally, 5 probation officers and 5 private attorneys were randomly selected for interviews. Court workers were asked a series of uniform questions regarding the fairness of the juvenile adjudicatory process. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed on the data.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
Respondents were first asked if judges generally knew the record of the defendant before trial and, if so, if this knowledge adversely affected the defendant's ability to receive a fair trial. Almost half (47%) of all respondents believed judges knew the record of the defendant, however, only 38% believed this knowledge adversely affected fairness. Respondents were also asked if they thought judges remembered juvenile defendants from previous crimes. 90% of respondents thought judges remembered juveniles and 68% said they believed this knowledge contaminated fairness. Respondents were then asked if they believed judges remembered youths from previous hearings for the current offense. All suburban and rural respondents answered affirmatively to this question, and a majority of them believed this knowledge hindered fairness at trial (55% suburban and 66.7% urban). A minority of urban respondents believed judges had such knowledge (38%), and even less (26%) believed this knowledge to interfere with fairness at trial.
Almost one-fourth of all respondents stated that they believed judges would not dismiss petitions despite a lack of evidence. Twenty-six percent of respondents believed judges ignored defense motions, however, the author noted that only three of these respondents were not defense attorneys. More than one-third (37%) of respondents alleged that judges admitted incompetent evidence at trial. The authors noted that 49% of urban respondents believed this compared to 25% suburban and none of the rural. Almost half of all respondents believed juveniles were convicted at a standard less than beyond a reasonable doubt. A majority (53%) of urban respondents believed this compared to 45% of suburban and 20% of rural respondents. The author stated that respondents believed that judges reduced the conviction standard in order to help the defendant. A majority (58%) of urban respondents, 5% of suburban, and none of the rural respondents believed judges to be generally incompetent. Forty-seven percent of respondents believed judges did something to undermine the fairness of the trial. This was especially true for urban respondents (72%). Respondents unanimously agreed that judges did not discourage juveniles from obtaining an attorney.
Questions were also asked regarding the behavior of defense attorneys. The author found that 29% of respondents believed the presence of a defense attorney during trial adversely affected fairness. About 80% of respondents believed fairness at trial was often undermined because defense attorneys gave inadequate representation; percentages were high for all groups (81% urban, 80% suburban, and 66.7% rural). Almost one-half (44%) of all respondents believed defense attorneys lacked sufficient time to effectively do their job. An important reason for this, according to the author, was that juveniles held in detention pending court action had to be given a hearing within 10 days of capture. Twenty- three percent of respondents said that defense attorneys inappropriately filed motions and did not vigorously defend their clients. Also, more than one-third (34%) of respondents said they believed defense attorneys did something that detrimentally affected the fairness of the trial. According to the author, in the urban court the appearance of a certain prosecutor affected fairness because this prosecutor was known by judges to handle habitual offenders. Sixty-four percent of respondents said they believed prosecutors do things to undermine fairness; 35% of suburban respondents believed this compared to none of the rural respondents.
While 77% of respondents believed juveniles were unaware of their constitutional rights, only 30% believed this adversely affected fairness. The author claimed that this discrepancy could be explained by respondents' belief that the presence of defense counsel compensated for ignorance. Fifty-seven percent of respondents believed juveniles were under pressure to forfeit their rights. One-third of respondents believed that the lack of meaningful appeal affected fairness; this was true for 35% urban, 30% suburban, and 26.7% of rural respondents. More than two-fifths of respondents believed fairness was undermined by the fact that juveniles have no right to a jury trial. According to the author, in juvenile court probation officers traditionally submit dispositional treatment plans to court prior to adjudication. 33% respondents believed this undermined fairness. Scheduling of cases was cited by a majority (55%) of respondents as adversely affecting fairness. Three-fifths of respondents said that the juvenile court structure was, overall, an impediment to fairness. One-third of respondents said they believed fairness was undermined because the judge was often distracted and the trial itself was confused. Two-fifths of urban respondents thought the atmosphere of their hearing was not serious enough to allow for fairness. Also, more than one-third of all respondents believed that the treatment atmosphere of the trial undermined fairness. Finally, when asked if juvenile defendants received a fair trial one-fourth answered negatively. This was true for 30% of urban respondents as compared to 15% of suburban respondents and 13% of rural respondents.
AUTHOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS:
The author argued if fairness is to be realized in juvenile court some changes must be made. For example, judges and defense attorneys, according to the author, should know court procedure and be aware of the gravity of the situation for juveniles. The author also said that a warning should be given that would remind defense attorneys that juvenile clients are as important as any other client. Also, the author contended that defendants should not be sent into trial through a certain door, be wearing institutional clothing, or be noticeably secured because all of these factors may adversely affect fairness. Additionally, it was advocated that judges should not be permitted to conduct both the preliminary hearing and the trials or be permitted to act as judge when he or she has had prior contact with the accused. The author also suggested granting the right to jury trial to all juvenile defendants.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
Adjudication
Juvenile Offender
Juvenile Crime
Juvenile Court
Juvenile Justice Evaluation
Justice System Personnel Perceptions
Attorney
Judge
Adult Perceptions
Correctional Decision Making
Justice System Perceptions
Offender Sentencing
Trial
05-05 |