Commonwealth v. Brown
26 A.3d 485
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellant Jordan Brown, age 11 at the time, was charged in criminal court with homicide and homicide of an unborn child.
- Brown sought decertification under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6322(a) to transfer the case to the juvenile division.
- During the 2010 hearings, Brown's expert Dr. Heilbrun testified Brown was amenable to juvenile treatment despite Brown's innocence claim.
- The Commonwealth presented Dr. O'Brien, who testified Brown denied the offenses and could not be rehabilitated unless he took responsibility.
- The trial court denied decertification, crediting Dr. O'Brien and finding Brown not amenable to treatment, and later amended the order to note a controlling question of law for appeal.
- The court concluded the decertification analysis required Brown to admit guilt or discuss details, effectively conditioning transfer on self-incriminating statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Fifth Amendment applicable to decertification hearings? | Brown asserts Fifth Amendment protection applies to decertification. | Commonwealth maintains no such applicability or that presiding considerations negate it. | Yes; Fifth Amendment applies to decertification hearings. |
| Did the trial court's application of § 6355(a)(4)(iii)(G) and (VII) improperly compel self-incrimination? | Brown contends he was forced to admit guilt to show amenability to treatment. | Commonwealth argues admissions are not required and other evidence suffices. | Yes; the application violated Brown's Fifth Amendment rights by effectively coercing self-incrimination. |
| Does 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6338(c)(1) immunization resolve the coercion issue in decertification? | Immunity provisions do not fully shield from use of derivative evidence derived from compelled statements. | Immunity should permit compelled testimony to determine amenability without violating rights. | No; pure use immunity is insufficient to override the Fifth Amendment; use/derivative-use immunity is required. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) (juvenile due process and Fifth Amendment protections applicable)
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966) (transfer hearing due process essential; critically important proceedings)
- Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981) (statements obtained in pretrial context can implicate Fifth Amendment)
- William M. v. State, 196 P.3d 464 (Nev. 2008) (presumption-based transfer statute; admissions to overcome presumption violate Fifth Amendment)
- McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002) (penalty-based coercion analysis for Fifth Amendment rights)
- United States v. Marcavage, 609 F.3d 264 (3d Cir. 2010) (as-applied challenges; framework for Fifth Amendment in special proceedings)