Case Brief Procedural History Of Kent V. United States

Upon reviewing the case of People v. Smith 437 Mich. 293 (1991), we find that the defendant Ricky Smith; an adult at the time of the commission of the offenses in question, was a habitual juvenile offender; possessing a juvenile record which included twelve juvenile entries including seven prior felonies, three misdemeanors, was charged, pleaded guilty, and convicted of breaking and entering with the intent to commit larceny and being a habitual offender. As a result of the admission of guilt by Smith, he was sentenced to 3 ½ to 10 years, however, the sentence was vacated after it was determined that Smith was a habitual offender, where the current offense constituted his 4th offense. (Justlaw) Therefore, as a result of the juvenile offenses being taken into consideration for sentencing, Smith received a sentence of 6 to 30 years as a habitual offender. Smith’s argument comes from the admission of his juvenile criminal record which was referenced in the presentencing investigative report, citing that pursuant to former MCR 5.913 which indicates that “the juvenile record of a former offender was expunged at the age of twenty-seven”,(justlaw) and as such, should

1. Title and Citation Vance v. Ball State Univ. 570 U.S. ___ (2013)

Legal Citation for Case: Bethel School District No. 403 Et Al. V. Fraser, a Minor, Et Al No. 84-1667; Supreme Court of the United States ; 478 U.S. 675; July 7, 1986, Decided Burger, C. J., Conveyed The Opinion Of The Court, In Which White, Powell, Rehnquist, And O’Connor, Jj, Joined. Brennan, J., Recorded An Opinion Agreeing

In the case, Gagnon v. Scarpelli, respondent Gerald Scarpelli pleaded guilty in July 1965, to a charge of armed robbery in Wisconsin. Therefore, Scarpelli was sentenced to 15 years in prison; however, Scarpelli's sentence was suspended, and he was placed on felony probation for seven years in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Public Welfare. (Leagle, 2017) After signing an agreement specifying the terms of his probation, Scarpelli was awarded a travel permit, which allowed him to return to Illinois, under the supervision of an interstate compact that he resides in Illinois while on probation with the Adult Probation Department of Cook County, Illinois.

The court noted that if Gault had been 18 years of age at the time of his arrest, he would have been afforded the procedural safeguards available to adults. They went on to closely examine the juvenile court system, determining that while there are legitimate reasons for treating juveniles and adults differently, juveniles facing an adjudication of delinquency involving incarceration are entitled to certain procedural safeguards under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gault by reversing and remanding his sentence from the lower courts (In re Gault,

J.D.B v. North Carolina, involved a 13-year-old, seventh-grade student. J.D.B was stopped and questioned by police when they observed him near the site of two home break-ins. Five days later, a digital camera matching one of the items from one of the home break-ins was found at J.D.B’s school and was observed to be in J.D.B.’s possession. Investigator Diconstanzo went to the school and a uniformed police officer went to the school and removed J.D.B. from his classroom and escorted him to a closed-door conference room. Police and school administrators questioned him for a minimum of 30 minutes; without giving him his Miranda warnings or the opportunity to call his legal guardian.

The California appellate court denied his motion, concluding that he had waived his right to remain silent during interrogation. On appeal, the California Supreme Court reversed the decision, concluding that Michael’s request to have his probation officer present constituted a per se invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights just as if he had requested an attorney. Justice Harry A. Blackmun reversed the state decision based on the state law that requires probation officers to represent the interests of juveniles. He

The Appellants was this decision overturned, they feel their son is not getting fair treatment. He is a minor delinquent, the appeal system was not available for them, but that soon changed. The petition sent to the supreme court by, Officer Flagg, Gault’s probation officer said, “ this said minor is under the age of eighteen years old, and is in need of protection of this honorable court; { this said minor} is a delinquent minor. The plaintiff, Mrs. Cook never showed up to any of the hearings scheduled, so therefore her only complaint made was that of lewd phone call to the police. She was never there to testify again

The juvenile courts need to go off of the seriousness of the case. In my opinion, if juveniles don’t get the proper charges, then there is always a chance that the juvenile could always continue to commit crimes. In this case, I believe Kent did not fully get his basic due process rights that should be granted to him. He was never fully investigated, which lead to the waiver eventually being

Clarence Earl Gideon is a simple 8th grade education type of man, who lives in a hotel across the street of a pool bar place in the state of Florida. One day after getting a taxi to go to a bar, Mr. Gideon was falsely accused of breaking into the pool bar and stealing some money. The police picked Clarence up and brought him to court. The day of the court trial, Mr. Gideon had brought up the Constitutional issue of Amendment 6, which is to give the defendant an attorney.

Caption: Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell Citation: No. 15-105, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 578 U.S. __ (2016), March 23, 2016, Argued, May 16, 2016, Decided Facts: 1. The contraceptive mandate of the Obama Care requires all employers, who have more than 50 employees, to include contraceptive coverage through their health insurance plans. 2. The mandate allows non-profit organizations who object to the contraceptive coverage to seek exemption from paying for the contraceptive costs by filing form 700.

It is shocking to know that before 1967 youths in the United States did not have the same rights as adults in court. Before the landmark case In Re Gault individuals underage were not promised the freedoms under the fourteenth amendment. The court system did not take juvenile delinquent cases as seriously. It was almost as if they brushed the delinquents under the rug and put them into a detention center the first chance they got. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that in the case of In Re Gault the requirements for due process were not met.

Roughly 115 years ago, in Cook County, Illinois, the first juvenile court was established. As of 2011, there were a total of over one million juvenile cases in the U.S. Before juvenile courts were established, all juveniles, despite their age, were tried as adults, meaning that they received the same trial and sentencing that any other adult would. Prior to the new court system, cases regarding minors, were very relaxed and unprofessional. This proposed many problems with in the justice system, which is what caused the establishment of the first juvenile court. With the juvenile crime rate plummeting, the question of whether or not juvenile courts should be continued, comes up.

Juvenile Justice Should juveniles get treated as adults that’s one of the biggest controversy in our nation now days, with many juveniles committing crimes that are inconceivable according to their age. Judges have the last word on how to treat this young people. Many people argue that “the teens that are under eighteen are only kids, they won’t count them as young adults, not until they commit crimes. And the bigger the crime, the more eager this people are to call them adults” (Lundstrom 87). This is why people can’t come to a decision as how these young people should be treated like.

Can you imagine waking up behind closed walls and bars? Waking up to see your inmate who is a 45-year-old bank robber and you are a 14-year-old minor who made a big mistake. This is why minors who have committed crimes should not be treated the same as adults. Some reasons are because the consequences given to minors in adult court would impact a minor’s life in a negative way. If a minor is tried through a juvenile court, they have a greater chance of rehabilitation.