United States v. Juvenile Male, 269 F. Supp. 3d 29

Background

Government charged a juvenile male with racketeering-related violent offenses including attempted murder (Jan. 15, 2016 shooting at Brentwood public library) and a later, allegedly orchestrated, MS‑13 murder of Jose Pena (June 3, 2016). A Superseding Juvenile Information added RICO and additional racketeering counts.
The government moved under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 for discretionary transfer to federal district court to prosecute the juvenile as an adult; an evidentiary hearing was held August 31, 2017.
The court assumed the allegations for the transfer determination (as required) and evaluated the six § 5032 factors: age/social background; nature of the offense; prior delinquency record; psychological maturity/intellectual development; response to past treatment; and availability of treatment programs.
Key factual points the court relied on: defendant was ~16½ at the time of the shooting and ~17 at the Pena murder; alleged MS‑13 membership and leadership in the Pena murder; defendant described as of average intelligence but diagnosed with Adolescent Antisocial Behavior and found by a psychologist to be a poor candidate for rehabilitation.
The court found the offenses extremely serious and tied to gang racketeering, concluded several statutory factors favored transfer (especially nature of the offenses and psychological maturity/rehabilitation prospects), and granted the government’s transfer motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether transfer to adult prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 is in the interest of justice	Gov’t: violent, premeditated gang crimes (attempted murder and murder) and substantial federal interest justify transfer; rehabilitation unlikely	Juvenile: should remain in juvenile system; lack of prior record; limited time in juvenile custody; availability of out‑of‑state juvenile programs	Court granted transfer — government met preponderance burden after weighing § 5032 factors
Weight to give to the nature/seriousness of the offenses	Gov’t: heinous, violent crimes (including murder) justify giving this factor special weight	Juvenile: other factors (no prior record, family support) mitigate against transfer	Court: nature of the crimes entitled to special weight and weighed heavily in favor of transfer
Rehabilitation potential and psychological maturity	Gov’t: psychologist’s evaluation shows defendant mature, planning-capable, and poor candidate for rehabilitation	Juvenile: absence of prior treatment counsels against inferring lack of rehabilitative potential	Court: psychological report and defendant’s leadership/antisocial diagnosis weigh strongly for transfer; rehabilitation unlikely
Availability of juvenile treatment programs	Juvenile: suitable out‑of‑state juvenile programs might be available and that factor should weigh against transfer	Gov’t: limited federal juvenile facilities; logistical difficulties	Held: factor weighed against transfer (court found some programs might exist) but did not outweigh other factors favoring transfer

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Nelson, 68 F.3d 583 (2d Cir. 1995) (sets § 5032 six‑factor transfer framework and instructs court to assume allegations for transfer hearing)
United States v. Nelson, 90 F.3d 636 (2d Cir. 1996) (emphasizes rehabilitation as a central concern in transfer decisions)
United States v. Ramirez, 297 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2002) (rehabilitation potential should receive special emphasis)
United States v. Juvenile Male, 554 F.3d 456 (4th Cir. 2009) (age near majority supports transfer; courts may weigh age at hearing)
United States v. A.R., 203 F.3d 955 (6th Cir. 2000) (district court may give greater weight to serious offense factor)
Doe v. United States (Doe #3), 113 F. Supp. 2d 604 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (transfer may be warranted despite many factors weighing against where offenses are serious)
Hemmer v. United States, 729 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1984) (seriousness of offense can justify transfer despite contrary factors)