327 F. Supp. 3d 573
E.D.N.Y2018Background
- Juvenile Male (born May 1, 2001) was charged by Juvenile Information with RICO and related federal offenses for allegedly conspiring to lure and brutally murder four victims (April 11, 2017) as part of MS-13 activity in Central Islip, NY.
- Government moved under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 to transfer prosecution to federal district court to treat the juvenile as an adult; a hearing was held July 19, 2018.
- Allegations: defendant participated in pre-murder planning meetings, coordinated timing via text with two juveniles who lured the victims, and allegedly attacked and killed the victims with a machete; one intended victim escaped.
- Defendant was ~15 years, 11 months at the time of the crimes and 17 years, 2 months at the hearing; had limited juvenile criminal history (one misdemeanor local ordinance conviction).
- Forensic psychiatrist (Dr. Goldsmith) testified for defense: defendant has average intelligence, some immaturity and substance use, but no major mental illness; defendant sought out MS-13 and was not coerced.
- Court weighed the six § 5032 factors (age/social background; nature of offenses; prior record; psychological maturity; response to treatment; availability of programs) and granted transfer, finding government met preponderance standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer to adult court under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 is in the interest of justice | Serious, premeditated, gang-motivated murders; defendant played extensive, pivotal role; public protection outweighs juvenile rehabilitation | Defendant is young, immature, has substance use and difficult background; juvenile system better suited for rehabilitation | Transfer granted; government rebutted presumption for juvenile adjudication by preponderance |
| Weight to give the nature of the offense factor | Heinous, coordinated MS-13 murders warrant giving this factor great (paramount) weight | Brutality should not be dispositive given the juvenile brain-development arguments | Court gave this factor greatest weight and found it strongly favors transfer |
| Relevance of age, social background, and maturity | Defendant is nearly adult, sought out MS-13 despite family supports, so social background and current age favor transfer | Defendant was young at time (under 16), had traumatic migration and detachment from mother; immaturity and cannabis use argue against transfer | Age at offense weighed against transfer but current age and social background favored transfer overall |
| Availability/effectiveness of juvenile treatment programs | Prior limited treatment (CRP) failed and defendant concealed gang ties; risk of recidivism high | Juvenile facilities and programs exist and could address behavioral issues; rehabilitation is the statute's focus | Availability of programs weighed against transfer, but did not outweigh other factors; overall transfer in interest of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nelson, 68 F.3d 583 (2d Cir. 1995) (sets out § 5032 six-factor framework and allows district courts to weight factors)
- United States v. Nelson, 90 F.3d 636 (2d Cir. 1996) (emphasizes rehabilitation goal must be balanced against threat to society)
- United States v. Ramirez, 297 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2002) (rehabilitation is permeating concern in transfer analysis)
- Doe v. United States, 49 F.3d 859 (2d Cir. 1995) (government bears burden to establish transfer by preponderance)
- United States v. One Juvenile Male, 40 F.3d 841 (6th Cir. 1994) (heinous offenses can outweigh other factors)
- United States v. Wilson, 149 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 1998) (district court may give greater weight to nature of alleged offense)
- United States v. A.R., 203 F.3d 955 (6th Cir. 2000) (lower maturity does not preclude transfer where defendant can conform conduct to law)
- United States v. Hemmer, 729 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1984) (seriousness of crime supports transfer despite other factors)