Topic Archive: Transfer

Ohio v. Quarterman

On March 10, 2014, NJDC with Juvenile Law Center, and the Ohio Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics filed an amicus brief arguing that Ohio’s mandatory bindover statutes are unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they do not allow for individualized determinations regarding the appropriateness of prosecuting certain minors in…

People v. Salas

NJDC co-authored a brief with the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University School of Law’s Bluhm Legal Clinic, challenging Illinois’s automatic transfer statute, which excluded children over 15 charged with certain offenses from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court without any individualized assessment or considerations of that child’s youth. Amici argued that with…

In re William B.

In October 2007, the Nevada Supreme Court requested NJDC’s participation as amicus in a case centered on the constitutionality of Nevada’s presumptive transfer statute. NJDC’s brief, signed on to by 23 other organizations, addressed several critical constitutional and public policy issues, including the well-established developmental differences between youth and adult offenders, the problems posed by…

State v. Barnes

At the request of the Tennessee Office of the Public Defender, the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, joined by NJDC and several other organizations, filed an amicus brief in support of the suppression of a juvenile’s confession, which specifically sought a per se rule suppressing a confession where there is a threat of the…

In re D.M.

NJDC, the Children’s Law Center, and the Office of the Ohio Public Defender filed a brief in the Supreme Court of Ohio in support of a juvenile facing transfer to adult court, arguing that a youth is entitled to full discovery, inclusive of police reports and law enforcement materials, which may allow a youth charged with…

Transfer

The transfer of juveniles from delinquency court to an adult court is a pressing issues juvenile defenders face in their practice. According to the National Juvenile Defense Standards, Standard 8.4, juvenile defense counsel must, when in the client’s expressed interests, endeavor to prevent adult prosecution of a child client. Adult court judges are often unfamiliar…

In the Interest of V.A.

NJDC joined the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, Rutgers Urban Legal Clinic—Rutgers School of Law, Juvenile Law Center, the ACLU of New Jersey, and several other interested organizations in filing a brief to the New Jersey Supreme Court, focusing on N.J.S.A. 2A:4A 26, that permits the transfer of 16-17 year old youth to the…

Gingerich v. Indiana

In November 2011, NJDC, the Children’s Law Center and the Campaign for Youth Justice joined as amici in a brief to the Indiana Court of Appeals, urging it to consider the due process protections that must be afforded a youth in any decision to waive the youth to adult court—namely, that due process in waiver…

People v. Pacheco

NJDC joins Juvenile Law Center, the Loyola Civitas Childlaw Center, and several other organizations, in filing an amicus brief at the Illinois Supreme Court challenging Illinois’s automatic transfer statute, and the consequent imposition of mandatory sentences on minors. Amici argued that the automatic exclusion from juvenile court of 15- and 16-year-olds charged with felony murder…

State Assessments

A cornerstone of the National Juvenile Defender Center’s work is to understand how juvenile defense is delivered around the country and to support excellence in the provision of those services. As part of that work, NJDC conducts state-specific assessments of youth access to, and the quality of, juvenile defense counsel when they come in contact…