U.S. Supreme Court
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971)
Argued December 10, 1970; Decided June 21, 1971
Joseph Mc Keiver, 16 years old at the time of the incident, was accused of robbery and receiving stolen things. Edward Terry, 15 years old, was also charged with assault and conspiracy. Both of the requests for the jury trial were denied. After the appeal was filed, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consolidated the cases.
Issues
The issue for the consolidated cases was whether the persons in a juvenile court have the constitutional right to a jury trial.
Decisions
The Supreme Court found that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to juveniles, and there is no such requirement for a jury trial in these cases.
Reasoning
The decision was not unanimous. The decision was reached after evaluating that the terms of the Sixth Amendment do not imply that the juvenile trials fall within the scope of the provision.
Separate opinions
There were concurring and dissenting opinions. Four of the judges delivered a concurring opinion, stating that it would only be fair and just if the juveniles were granted with the same procedural rights as the adults. Justice Blackmun, Justice Burger, Justice Stewart, and Justice White reasoned that the proceedings are very similar, and often have the same outcome, whereas the juveniles are not provided with an ability to establish and assess the facts of the case in the presence of jury.
The dissenting opinion was stated by Justice Douglas, Justice Black, and Justice Marshall. These judges found that there is no indication that the Sixth Amendment could not grant the juveniles the right to have a hearing in the presence of the jury.
Analysis
The Sixth Amendment provides that the criminal defendants have a right to enjoy a speedy trial, have a right to a lawyer, to an impartial jury, and what they are being charged with. The case decided in 1971 by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and then reviewed in the Supreme Court of the United States was related to the issue that is bothering not only those who practice law, but also many citizens up to this day. The matter was whether there is an obligation to provide a jury trial for the proceedings featuring juveniles.
The final decision was that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to the juvenile proceedings. Therefore, while it is not prohibited to establish a jury trial in these types of proceedings, this is not the matter of the defendant’s wish, but a decision of the state’s government.
The main concerns expressed by the judges were in regard to the fact that if jury had to be involved, the hearings would no longer remain private and confidential, which is important due to the very nature of the proceedings; and that this would not quite help with the assessment of the case facts, while destroying the concept of intimacy at the same time. So it seems that the main arguments were related to somewhat doubting the ability of the jury to the accurate fact finding, and that the “fundamental fairness” could be guaranteed without involving the jury.
The defendants argued that the juvenile proceedings at hand were very similar to the criminal in nature, as the acts of the charged if they were adults would be classified and punishes by Pennsylvania code as criminal offences.
The decision was delivered in 1971, and to this day it has not been overturned. It seems that the better option would be to allow for the jury trial not only at the decision of the state, but also at the request of the defendant. While it is true that the Sixth Amendment does not explicitly refer to the juvenile proceedings, it does not also absolutely deny the possibility.
Thus, with the dynamic approach and with regard to the purpose of the Amendment, it could be possible that the jury trial would be an option for the juvenile proceedings. While it is clear that the following concerns a completely separate issue, it would be interesting to take a look at the “Engel criteria”, established by the ECtHR for determining the criminal offense. One of the criteria refers to the nature of the committed acts, this being an important factor for determining the type of the conduct and the proceedings.
Article review
The problem that is addressed is that the misunderstanding of the police officers and youngsters has led to the outcome when the officers more often arrest underage persons, and use force. The solutions are focused on two main points: the law-enforcers have to be educated about the specifics of the youth behavior, and the children also need to be more educated.
The raised issue seems to be of high importance, as really, the trouble comes from the misunderstanding and the stereotypes. The officers need to be more aware of the youth typical behavior and the reasons behind, while the youngsters have to be informed about law, rules, policies, and need to be taught about why it is important to adhere to the abovementioned.
References
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania; 403 U.S. 528 (1971)
Dachhille, C. & Thurau, L. (2013). Improving Police-Youth Interactions. Retrieved from https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/childrights/content/articles/spring2013-0413-improving-police-youth-interactions.html.
