ROPER V SIMMONS U S Supreme Court abolished

ROPER V. SIMMONS • U. S. Supreme Court abolished the death penalty as a sentencing option for any juvenile who was under 18 at the time of the commission of the offense • Recognized neurological and developmental research on adolescent brain development • Recognized the national consensus against subjecting juveniles to the death penalty

ROPER V. SIMMONS • Juveniles are developmentally different than adults in three significant ways • Lack of maturity and underdeveloped sense of • • responsibility results in impetuous actions More vulnerable to negative influences Character is not well formed – personality traits are transient

ROPER V. SIMMONS • Court rejected the argument that the severity of the crime should be considered • “The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of a irretrievably depraved character. ”

EXPANDING ROPER • Minimum Age Requirement for Criminal Charges/Transfer • • to Adult Court Mandatory Transfer Laws Life Without Parole -Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida -whether a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a non-homicide offense committed by a juvenile violates the Eighth Amendment Jury Trial Right Mitigation in all Criminal Cases

COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL • Delaware does not have a different standard to determine competency for juvenile offenders. Therefore, the adult standard is used. • This standard is codified under 11 Delaware Code Section 404. • Juveniles who are not competent to stand trial are a difficult population to manage.

INCOMPETENT JUVENILES • Incompetent juveniles who are prosecuted as adults have limited access to services for competency restoration because the Delaware Psychiatric Center is not able to accept patients under the age of 18. • Delaware does not have a competency • restoration program for juveniles. In recognition of this problem, some states have passed juvenile competency statutes.

INCOMPETENT JUVENILES • Commons reasons for juveniles being found not competent to stand trial are: – Mental Retardation and other Developmental Disabilities – Learning Disorders – Tender Years /Adolescent Brain Development – Mental Health Concerns

COMPETENCY CALENDAR • Family Court recognized the difficulties in managing this population in the juvenile justice system and developed the Competency Calendar to handle these cases. • Once the issue of Competency has been raised, an evaluation is generally conducted by a mental health expert. Either side may request an additional evaluation to challenge the initial report. • The report is reviewed by the prosecution and defense. The parties may stipulate that the juvenile is competent, stipulate that juvenile is incompetent, continue the matter for additional information or treatment, or set the matter for a competency hearing.

COMPETENCY TO WAIVE MIRANDA • Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966) applies to juveniles -- it is the juvenile’s right and not the parent’s right as to whether or not to invoke Miranda. • Fare v. Michael C. , 442 U. S. 707 (1979), the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that a totality of the circumstances test is adequate to determine a valid waiver of Miranda rights during an interrogation of a juvenile.

TRANSFER TO ADULT COURT • In certain instances, a juvenile’s case may be transferred to Superior Court (felonies) or the Court of Common Pleas (misdemeanors) for prosecution under adult law. • Transfers to adult court happen in one of two ways pursuant to 10 Delaware Code 1010. – Original Jurisdiction wherein by statute, certain offenses are within the Superior Court’s jurisdiction, even if the individual charged is a juvenile. – Amenability hearings wherein after a hearing, a Family Court hearing officer determines that the juvenile is no longer amenable to the rehabilitative processes of Family Court.

REVERSE AMENABILITY • A charge for which there is original jurisdiction for a juvenile in Superior Court may be returned to Family Court by stipulation among the parties or by a Reverse Amenability Hearing. • Reverse Amenability Hearings are governed by • 10 Delaware Code 1011. Motion for a Reverse Amenability Hearing must be filed within 30 days of arraignment.

EXCEPTIONS • Possession of a Deadly Weapon During Commission of a Felony under 11 Delaware Code 1447 which states under subsection (d) that “[e]very person charged under this section over the age of 16 years shall be tried as an adult, notwithstanding any contrary provision of statutes governing the Family Court or any other state law. ” • Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony under 11 Delaware Code 1447 A which states under subsection (f) that “[e]very person charged under this section over the age of 15 years shall be tried as an adult, notwithstanding any contrary provisions or statutes governing the Family Court or any other state law. ”

RESOURCES • Coalition for Juvenile Justice (www. juvjustice. org<http: //www. juvjustice. org>) • Juvenile Law Center (www. jlc. org<http: //www. jlc. org>) • Adolescent Brain Development: Vulnerabilities and Opportunities by Ronald Dahl and Linda Spear, 2004 • The Mac. Arthur Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice (www. mac-adoldevjuvjustice. org<http: //www. mac-adoldev-juvjustice. org>)

RESOURCES • “Using Developmental Evidence and Youth Assets to Design Juvenile Justice System” by Jeffrey Butts, Ph. D. (www. jeffreybutts. net<http: //www. jeffreybutts. net>) • Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (www. ojjdp. ncjrs. org<http: //www. ojjdp. ncjrs. org>) • “Rethinking the Juvenile in Juvenile Justice” (www. wccf. org<http: //www. wccf. org>) • Various articles by Thomas Grisso, Ph. D (www. umassmed. edu/cmhsr/faculty<http: //www. umass med. edu/cmhsr/faculty>)