Why (jury-less) Juvenile Courts Are Unconstitutional

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal
• Publication year: 2019
• Citation: Vol. 69 No. 2

Why (Jury-Less) Juvenile Courts Are Unconstitutional

Suja A. Thomas

Collin Stich

WHY (JURY-LESS) JUVENILE COURTS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Suja A. Thomas^* Collin Stich^**

Abstract

Juveniles should hold the right to a jury trial under the U.S. Constitution, but they do not. In most states, when a trial occurs, a single judge determines whether a youth loses their liberty, and that imprisonment can last for years. The United States Supreme Court has decided that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury is irrelevant; prosecution in juvenile court is not a criminal prosecution within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment because the purpose of the juvenile courts is a good one—to rehabilitate youth. The Court has also held that the right to a jury trial is not required under the due process clause because juries are not essential to factfinding. By exploring the unexamined meaning of criminal prosecution in the Sixth Amendment, rejecting the Supreme Court's use of the state's good purpose, and probing the neglected historical right to a jury trial for juveniles, this Article challenges the common assumption that juveniles do not hold the right to a jury trial.

[Page 274]

Introduction.............................................................................................274

I. Juvenile Courts and the Caselaw on the Right to a Jury Trial.......................................................................................279

A. Juvenile Courts......................................................................... 279
B. Constitutional Protections for Juveniles Accused of Wrongdoing.......................................................................... 284

1. Due Process Rights ............................................................ 285
2. State Court Decisions on the Right to a Jury Trial Under the U.S. Constitution .......................................................... 289

II. The Right to a Jury Trial for Juveniles Under the Sixth Amendment......................................................................................292

A. Criminal Prosecution Under the Sixth Amendment................... 292

1. Previous Interpretations..................................................... 292
2. The Meaning of Criminal Prosecution ............................... 294
3. Good Purpose..................................................................... 296

B. The Historical Role of the Jury ................................................. 298

1. Juvenile Jury Rights in England......................................... 299

a. English Legal Commentary ......................................... 299
b. English Cases and Secondary Sources ........................ 300
c. Subsequent English Legislation as Support................. 303
d. Misconception of Parens Patriae and Civil Wardship .. 305
e. The Existence of Juvenile Courts................................. 306

2. Juvenile Jury Rights in the United States ........................... 307

C. Petty Offenses by Comparison .................................................. 307

III. The Right to a Jury Trial for Juveniles Under the Due Process Clause..............................................................................308
IV. Criticisms of Implementing the Jury Trial in Juvenile Court...............................................................................315

A. Efficiency and Cost.................................................................... 315
B. Keeping Rehabilitative Features ............................................... 317

Conclusion.................................................................................................318

[Page 275]

Introduction

Currently, juveniles accused of crimes in this country have fewer constitutional rights than adults. Perhaps most significantly, in nearly all juvenile proceedings where there is a trial, only one person—a judge—not a jury—decides if the minor whom the state has accused of wrongdoing is guilty of a crime.¹ If the judge convicts, the child could be incarcerated for several years.² This conviction of a minor by a judge could result in a sentence that is longer than the one served by an adult convicted of the same crime.³ Also, the conviction by the judge could adversely contribute to the length of any future incarcerations of the individual both as a child and as an adult.

In spite of these problems, there is no movement to change this entrenched system. But constitutional reasons exist to do so. The Sixth Amendment, which sets forth the right to a jury trial, states in part that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a ... trial, by an impartial jury."⁴ The Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment, along with the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees the right to a jury trial in criminal prosecutions under state law.⁵ In deciding that criminal defendants have a right to a jury trial, the Court has emphasized that the trial by jury is a right "fundamental to the American scheme ofjustice."⁶

Notwithstanding this sentiment, the Supreme Court has held that minors do not hold the constitutional right to a jury trial during juvenile proceedings.⁷ In other words, minors tried in juvenile courts for the same crimes as adults cannot demand a jury trial under the U.S. Constitution like their adult counterparts. Without significant analysis, the Court has reasoned in part that juvenile proceedings are rehabilitative in nature and thus are not "criminal prosecutions" within the Sixth Amendment.⁸ Many scholars have disagreed, arguing that any

[Page 276]

compelling distinctions between the juvenile system and the adult system do not continue to exist; because the separate system for juveniles has strayed from its original rehabilitative focus and towards a more punitive function similar to the adult system, juveniles should possess the same right to a jury trial as adults.⁹

The debate over whether the juvenile system is rehabilitative is misplaced, however, because, regardless of its current rehabilitative or penological purpose, juveniles have a right to a jury trial. The Supreme Court has previously held that the right to a jury trial is based on history.¹⁰ To determine whether a jury trial right exists, the historical divisions of authority between judges and juries in England and America at the time of the ratification of the Sixth Amendment are examined.¹¹ Under these systems, judges and juries balanced one another.¹² Judges instructed the jury on the law, and juries decided facts. Judges—who were selected by the king or royal governor—were not given fact-finding authority because, for example, they could be corrupt or could disfavor certain people whom the government had prosecuted.¹³

At the time of the adoption of the Sixth Amendment, under these English and American systems, adults and juveniles who were accused of crimes were treated in the same manner.¹⁴ They possessed the right to a jury trial.¹⁵ Subsequent proposed English legislative reform to lessen or eliminate the right to a jury trial for minors confirms that English juveniles possessed the right to a jury trial, and later legislation in the states also fortifies that American minors held the right to a jury trial at the founding.¹⁶ Moreover, specifically at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, American juveniles held the right to a jury trial.¹⁷

[Page 277]

Although the Supreme Court has exhibited some smattering of awareness of juveniles' historical right to a jury trial,¹⁸ it has denied the right to a jury trial based on three concepts related to the rehabilitation of children. First, because of states' rehabilitative purposes in creating juvenile courts, it has concluded that juvenile proceedings are not criminal prosecutions within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment, and therefore the right to a jury trial is irrelevant.¹⁹ This conclusion has been reached without any analysis of the meaning of criminal prosecution. Further, the Supreme Court's emphasis on the rehabilitative purpose of the state in creating juvenile courts suggests that juvenile courts cannot be criminal prosecutions if they are for purposes of rehabilitation. But, as described in this Article, there is no support for denying or precluding the jury trial right based on a state's good purpose. The relevant issue is the meaning of criminal prosecution. An examination of this meaning shows that juvenile proceedings are in fact, criminal prosecutions.

Second, related to its conclusion that juvenile proceedings are not criminal proceedings, at times the Court has cited parens patriae or the historical authority of the state to take custody of children.²⁰ In the past, however, the state did not have the power to take custody of a child who was accused of a crime. In England and in America, before the state could take custody, a jury would need to convict a child of a crime in the same manner as a jury would convict an adult of a crime.²¹

Finally, the Court has also rejected any right to a jury trial for juveniles based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. For several reasons but particularly focused on the purported equal ability of judges to find facts, the Court has stated the right to a jury trial is not required for fundamental fairness to minors in juvenile proceedings.²² Again, history defies this conclusion. The jury was integral to fairness for several reasons including, that through its decisions, it could check the power of the judiciary, which could be subject to corruption or bias. This is illustrated by the Kids for Cash scandal. In exchange for bribes, two Pennsylvania judges improperly sent scores of children to a private youth detention center.²³ Although upon the discovery of this bribery scheme, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed thousands of cases against juveniles, the judges' actions caused the scarring detention of many children for

[Page 278]

significant periods of...