United States v. Lkav, Juvenile Male
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6573
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- LKAV, age 17, was charged with murder by the Tohono O’odham Nation in May 2009 and remained in tribal custody through 2011.
- While in tribal custody, LKAV was found incompetent but not sent to a restoration facility.
- The United States certified LKAV under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 to proceed as an alleged juvenile delinquent under the FJDA to obtain federal jurisdiction.
- In November 2011 the United States moved to commit LKAV under § 4241 for psychiatric evaluation; LKAV sought a local evaluation and a competency hearing.
- The magistrate granted no immediate ruling on § 4241; LKAV turned 21 in August 2012 and an extensive neuropsychological evaluation found LKAV incompetent but potentially restorable; FMC-Butner later evaluated him and recommended a possible 120-day extension for treatment.
- The district court ultimately committed LKAV under § 4241(d) for an adult facility and granted a 120-day extension, triggering LKAV’s interlocutory appeal challenging the § 4241(d) commitment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 5037(e) governs commitment of alleged juvenile delinquents. | LKAV: § 5037(e) applies to alleged juvenile delinquents and governs commitment for study. | United States: § 4241(d) governs competency evaluation and commitment for all defendants. | § 5037(e) governs commitment of alleged juvenile delinquents; § 4241(d) does not control. |
| If § 5037(e) applies, does it supersede § 4241(d) in LKAV’s case? | LKAV: § 5037(e) controls and the district court erred by applying § 4241(d). | United States: § 4241(d) should apply as the general competency framework. | Yes; § 5037(e) controls over § 4241(d). |
| Whether use of § 4241(d) would be absurd or inconsistent with the FJDA’s purpose. | LKAV: applying § 4241(d) would undermine FJDA’s juvenile protections. | United States: practical concerns justify § 4241(d) in some cases. | No absurd result; § 5037(e) better aligns with FJDA purpose. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2012) (statutory construction and FJDA-related issues discussed)
- Jonah R. v. Carmona, 446 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2006) (legislative history and purpose in interpreting juvenile provisions)
- Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Revenue, 554 U.S. 33 (U.S. Supreme Court 2008) (statutory headings cannot override text)
- United States v. Doe, 631 F.2d 110 (9th Cir. 1980) (determinants of jurisdictional timing in FJDA contexts)
- S.A. v. United States, 129 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 1997) (discussion of applicability of general statutes to juveniles)