Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Supreme Court Juvenile Kent v. United States
Transcript of Supreme Court Juvenile Kent v. United States
In 1961 while on probation kent Morris 16 was charged with rape and robbery. Kent confessed, Kent's attorney assumed that Kent would be waived to district court so attorney filed a motion requesting a hearing on the issue of Jurisdiction. The juvenile court judge did not rule on this motion, but instead entered a motion stating that the court was waiving jurisdiction after a full investigation, judge did not describe investigation.
Kent was found guilty on six counts of house breaking and robbery, was sentenced to 30 to 90 years.
Kent's lawyer sought to have indictment overturned on grounds that the waiver was invalid.
Kent's lawyer also filed a writ of habeas corpus asking the state to justify Kent's detention.
Both appeals were denied with the court saying they refused to scrutinize the jidge's "investigation" and accepted the waiver as valid.
Enter the "Supreme Court" Kent's lawyer appealed that decision to the supreme court. The argument was that the judge had not made a complete investigation and Kent was denied his constitutional rights simply because he was a minor.
Waiver was invalid - Kent was entitled to a hearing that is to say he was entitled to the "Essentials of due process and Fair treatment".
Kent's lawyer should have had access to all records involved in the waiver, and the judge should have provided a written statemnet of reason for waiver.
Court also raised a potential constitutional challenge to "Parens Patriae"
Interpretation of the 14th amendment concerning juveniles,
That the benefits of being in juvenile court didn't give a juvenile the regenerative treatment for children that it suppose to do, and that in reality a juvenile may have the wrost of both world's
District of columbia