United States v. Jj, Juvenile Male
704 F.3d 1219
9th Cir.2013Background
- Defendant J.J., a seventeen-year-old, is charged with second-degree murder and using a firearm during a crime of violence.
- The government sought transfer of juvenile proceedings to adult prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 5032; the district court granted transfer and denied a psychological exam motion.
- An evidentiary transfer hearing featured lay and other witnesses describing Defendant’s maturity and intellectual development as average for his age.
- Evidence showed comparable programs and post-release resources in juvenile and adult facilities, with some differences in program availability and duration.
- The district court applied the six § 5032 factors, found transfer in the interest of justice, and presumed guilt for purposes of the transfer decision; Defendant appeals the order for abuse of discretion and due-process concerns.
- The Ninth Circuit reviews transfer orders for abuse of discretion and affirms if the district court’s findings support the decision under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion under § 5032. | United States contends the court properly weighed all six factors and acted within its discretion. | J.J. argues the court failed to make adequate findings on intellectual development and maturity. | No abuse of discretion; findings supported transfer. |
| Whether the district court adequately addressed intellectual development and psychological maturity. | United States maintains lay-witness testimony suffices to assess maturity. | J.J. contends lay testimony is inadequate without expert evaluation. | District court properly relied on lay witnesses; no requirement for psychological evaluation. |
| Whether a psychological evaluation is a prerequisite to transfer. | United States argues no prerequisite evaluation required by § 5032. | J.J. argues evaluation is necessary to assess maturity. | Not required; district court has broad discretion in evaluating characteristics. |
| Whether the district court’s presumption of guilt for transfer violated due-process rights. | United States allowed reasonable presumption for purposes of transfer. | J.J. claims presumption undermines due process. | Presumption did not violate due-process; consistent with Juvenile Male. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Juvenile Male, 492 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam; transfer factors and process guidance)
- Brandon P., 387 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2004) (abuse-of-discretion standard; transfer affirmations)
- Doe, 94 F.3d 532 (9th Cir. 1996) (six-factor framework and findings sufficiency)
- Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc; abuse-of-discretion framework applied)
- Leon D.M., 132 F.3d 583 (10th Cir. 1997) (psychological characteristics not prerequisite for transfer)
- A.R., 203 F.3d 955 (6th Cir. 2000) (psychological assessment not mandatory for transfer)
- Doe, 94 F.3d 532 (9th Cir. 1996) (see above)
- Alexander, 695 F.2d 398 (9th Cir. 1982) (district court broad discretion in transfer proceedings)