United States v. Duane Watts

America, UNITED STATES

Plaintiff-Appellee, WATTS, Defendant-Appellant.

Duane

No. 74-1312. Appeals,

United States Tenth Circuit.

Argued Jan.

Decided March Treece, L. Atty.,

James U. S. and Rob- Marshall, Atty., ert R. Asst. U. S. Den- Holloway, Judge, Circuit concurred Colo., ver, appellee. opinion. in result and filed Mason¡ Colo., Durango, Irvin L. for ap- pellant. SETH, HOLLOWAY, Before

BARRETT, Judges. Circuit BARRETT, Judge. Circuit (Watts) appeals Duane Watts from the judgment Trial finding Court’s juvenile involuntary manslaughter delinquen- and a determination of of of guilty Act, cy under the to be a Juvenile Delin- Federal we adjudging find to bе impression the Feder- provisions the of of first before this court. quent Act, Delinquency 18 U.S.C. Juvenile al establishing type 5031-5037. §§ comport which would with notice of Watts, aged and minor an Indian juvenile requirements delin- for offense, alleged of the the time proceedings, the Court in Gault quency complaint with the by initially charged held: arising the stab- of murder offense Notice, to re- comply with due brother, Watts. bing his Calvert death of given sufficiently must be quirements, voluntary for was thereafter indicted He court proceed- scheduled in advance of fail- manslaughter. Subsequently, that ings so reasonable Department of of the States ure United afforded, it prepare be and must to Watts’ Justice consent alleged with “set forth the misconduct adult, charged the con- аs an with even if there particularity.” counsel, and his the sent Watts purpose by a conceivable served were dismissed and an Infor- indictment was by proposed the deferral the court be- mation, Delinquency- charging Juvenile yield low, have to to the re- it would Manslaughter, filed. At trial Watts quirements par- that the child his unsuccessfully, attempted, to establish guardian notified, or in writ- ents that he acted in self defense in stab- specific charge the ing, bing during his brother an altercation. the allegations to be considered (1) appeal On this Watts contends: hearing, and that such written notice right that his to due was violated given practicable earliest adequate reason of the failure no- time, any sufficiently and in event being provided parents; ticе his permit hearing prep- advance (2) allowing the Trial Court erred in requires process of law Due aration. prosecution grand to ‍​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‍make use of we have notice sort described— jury proceedings against him. is, notice which would be deemed constitutionally adequate civil or in a I. proceeding. It does not allow criminal e., allegation, that he chief i. hearing youth’s be held par- his process because was denied parents’ right freedom and his given ents custody giving are at stake without they ad- him, nor were against charges notice, timely advance them counsel, etc., vised hearing, specific issues Supreme solely premised (Emphasis supplied). they must meet. Re decision landmark Court’s 33-34, 87 387 U.S. at S.Ct. at 1446. baldly (1967). While specificаlly L.Ed.2d While dealt con- courts have the federal constitutionality claims with of a state sistently Supreme Court’s followed juvenile proceedings, scheme for cited regard, he has in this mandate enumerated are decision nor holding point, on this squarely upon protections cases based afforded research, we, un- and, own through our have States Constitution conse United ques- authority. we quently, equally ap them to be covered view ato of notice plicable the failure proceedings dealing tion of whether federal alone, consti- standing juvenile juvenile’s parents, offenders under the Feder reversal grounds Delinquency sufficient al Juvenile Act.1 tutes Attorney correctly significant require- pointed 1. While the U.S. note that it suсh a deem pro- out in his brief that at the in a amend- time of these has been included recent ment ceedings the Federal Act did not to that Act. Section ment given juvenile’s parents, to the Prevention Act of Justice Although express exists, language so whether such a and if requiring Further, notice be been violated. has both un- decide not and need not what we do equivocаl, we are not remedy may appropriate. convinced that be available or of such notice Instead, ap our concern on this lead in all cases automatic a peal solely is with whether of violation juvenile’s adjudication of reversal the as in Gault requir the standard established delinquent. a ing given be to a that notice Our review of the decision in Gault deprivation parents constitutes such a of our search of and other authorities does to, juvenile’s right process to the due as us that sepa not convince there exists a se, per require a reversal the of determi independent process right rate and of delinquency. nation delinquency to of notice proceedings be parents to longing juvenile the of the Preliminarily, we following note the defendant, However,, Watts.2 because language from the Supreme Court’s parents parties the are not to the recent decision in Lopez, Goss v. 419 present action we need not now decide U.S. 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (P.L. 1109) right in the to 93-415; Stat. amended notice has been clearly 5033 of Title to read: afforded For parents. Sеction 18 U.S.C. unlike example, custody proceedings between divorced parents, juvenile is taken into custody Whenever a attempting in those which the state is to take alleged juvenile an act of for delinquency, charges of custody parents nonsup- arresting officer shall advise immediately the is etc., here there no direct port, attack upon juvenile legal rights such right to ef- Rather, the parents’ custody. any shall the immediately notify Attorney fect is incidental upon custody purely juvenile's the General parents, proceedings, function the main of i. e., to de- arresting of officer shaii custody. termine delinquency. Secondly, any depriva- the ... of the notify patents, also following tion suffered by parents delinquen- juvenile оf the the of and of nature proceeding cy be in necessarily the added). alleged (Emphasis the offense. nature of a of all permanent deprivation pa- recognition further We note the implicit rights, justification relied rental as is as the that from the of the deci- time Armstrong, for notice in We further supra. in In Re the sion Federal Juvenile Delin- observe that set providing Act in for has been deficient quency (including notice) in forth Gault to safeguards which those the court there man- held to to specifically only apply dated: juvenile proceedings of'the in which part de- it is to amend the Fed Finally, necessary stage is determined and not linquency guarantee eral Juvenile Act proceedings in of the which the of disposition сertain basic and constitutional issue, child is at delinquent juveniles juris under Federal protections is U.S. 87 S.Ct. 1428. It at this only The Committee diction. believes stage latter the matter of is actu- custody should character Act provide unique It would determined. therefore seem that ally juvenile proceeding aof and the con istics belonging parents safeguards our stitutional fundamental based the contention is custody justice. Six after the Su system would all, stake if at to this applicable, only in Re Gault, decried the lack preme stage proceedings, latter and hence, juvenile certain due in protections would Gault not seem be a reliable authori- proceedings, Federal Delinquen right. claim of such ty has not been those Act reñeсt cy rights. (Emphasis added). due process ‍​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‍recognize there are Finally, several No. 93-1011; Senate U.S.Code Report holding cases Federal Constitution Cong. (October Admin.News, p. does that minor’s be no parents 1974). tified to the commencement prior of criminal proceedings against (even though, regard, In this we note pre that while given proceedings sumably, child as “custody” notice in much wherein proceedings stake those Armstrong custody stake, as is in delin v. Manzo, 380 at^ proceedings). (1965), See, U.S. Adams v. quency Wain S.Ct. wright, (5th 1971), and while F.2d 832 Cir. cert. the Court de spoke terms nied 404 retaining “interest” L.Ed.2d 103 custody (1971); Wainwright, justification 451 F.2d 149 Holloway as partial for their (5th 1971). being given Cir. notice, we also take notice of cer- tain distinctions between this case and those type due would seem to be legal similar to concerned that of (1975), which given counsel. stu- which must suspension: dents that he has made no contention appli- interpretation charges aware of the fully was not made are Due Process Clause cation of any way was in or that he against him matters intensely practical his case due prejudiced preparing process ne- of due very nature “the to his of notice proce- concept inflexible gates any allegation here parents. There is every universally applicable dures that Watts denied Cafeteria imaginable situation.” all ad and cross-examine to confront 886, 895 McElroy, 367 U.S. Workers presence or to secure verse witnesses 6 L.Ed.2d 1230] [81 evi witnesses or of favоrable added). (Emphasis his own dence in defense. Unlike 419 95 at the record situation ade that Watts himself had here reveals Similarly, we applicable find the Court’s precise quate written statement in Gault that the due well in advance of charges against him established therein are to be hearing and was at all material “intelligently ruthlessly adminis- by competent counsel.3 represented times tered.” 387 U.S. Furthermore, and his Watts’ Tucker, 417 U.S. Michigan In obviously were available (1974), the 2357, 41 L.Ed.2d 94 S.Ct. defense, as assist him evidenced that certain recognized Supreme Court they were by the fact (in that case safeguards trial and testified in his behalf. not themselves warnings) were Miranda but by the Constitution protected hereby to con not intend We do measures laid were, instead, рrophylactic notify, failure done the Government’s rights were that basic to insure down attempt notify, or even only so, where ‍​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‍being This not violated. may often be notification parents. Such vio- has been safeguard prophylactic insuring practical method only not, rever- has basic but lated is accorded fundamental that a necessarily required. is not sal by In Re rights mаndated here, however, Where, as Gault. Holloway wright, v. Wain fact, not, juvenile has clear that the Court stated that the purpose (even though denied been underlying statutes requiring notice to a violation a technical has been there parents is to safeguard “furnish a mi- established safeguard prophylactic nors accused of crimes requiring that no need for right), wе see protect be made available for Cf., In requiring reversal. per se rule consultation and advice with the individ- Harrell, 254 La. in Interest of Re State uals, who, society assume, are those (1969). 229 So.2d vitally most concerned with the minor’s best interests.” 451 F.2d at 151. The The law cannot realistically right protected basic by such safeguards officers investigating serious crimes is that of the child to be whatsoever, made make no errors aware of and before the charges against him and to be as- penalized error it must be sured a reasonable opportunity pre- determined that such sanction serves a pare his defense. Kemplen v. State of valid and purpose. useful Michigan v. Maryland, (4th 428 F.2d 1970). Tucker, Cir. supra. There is no allegation In this regard, the parents’ function here investigating officers’ fail materially fact Watts’ unmindful of the in- 3. We are not benefited so presumably within his own had it formed. His failure so to do have been a own counsel power juvenile’s parents.had preserve notify he trial tactic technical error. strongly been would have client felt say if such statements were made notify was willful.4 ure to (which investigating to- the officers showing Further, has been there dispute), does they could have case was that the Government’s made properly impeach been these used wit sup by its any way enhanced testimony. light this, nesses’ we argu notice. A “deterrence” ply such possibility prejudicial see no error to here. not, therefore, applicable ment is same, similar, Watts even if reversal, these that a we convinced Nor are statements were also during transcribed presented circumstances grand jury proceedings and hence case, enhance anywise would in thereby independently available See, finding process.” MeKeiver “fact another, the Government perhaps 91 S.Ct. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. tainted, 52(a) source. Rule Fed.R. 29 L.Ed.2d U.S.C.; Crim.P., Jеnnings v. United Finally, agree with the conclusion States, (10th 1966), F.2d Cir. of the District Court in Walker v. State cert. denied Florida, (S.D.Fla. 328 F.Supp. (1967); Gay v. United (5th 1971), 1972): aff’d. F.2d 485 Cir. States, (10th 322 F.2d 208 1963). Cir. Gault established that in “loss of liber- affirm. We ty proceedings” juvenile, with re- spect to certain rights, HOLLOWAY, (concur- Judge to be treated Circuit as an adult. result): ring in required, No more was no less was offered. I fully concur in Part II of the court’s F.Supp. at 624. I, opiniоn. As' agree to Part I with the result reached Under the total but am to agree circumstances this unable ease, analysis agree with process due the conclusion ‍​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‍re- quirements by Gault, trial laid down Re court hold Watts was not 1, 1428, denied the 387 U.S. fundamental “fair S.Ct. 18 L.Ed.2d treatment” 527. agree I cannot mandated give the failure to In Re Gault. parents may be viewed a

II. mere technical prophylactic violation of a safeguard, and a not constitutional in- Watts next asserts error in that fringement. permitted prosecutor the trial court grand jury to use proceedings against Supreme The Court spoke plain in him. allegation The basis of this terms of process rests the due requirements upon unsupported contention that involved in 1, 33, 387 U.S. 87 S.Ct. Government, 1428, 1446, attеmpting in 18 L.Ed.2d 527. The Court impeach witnesses, two of recognized its have the requirements that: may upon relied transcripts of their tes child and his guardian timony grand jury. before the as He notified, in writing, specific serts that such use amounted to a sub charge or allegations to be con- version of procedure criminal and re sidered at the hearing, and that such quires reversal, citing Unitеd States v. written notice be at the earliest Co., 677, Procter & Gamble U.S. practicable time, and in any event suf- 983, S.Ct. ficiently in advance of the hearing to permit preparation. Government contends that it did Due grand not use jury transcripts requires law notice of the sort we have witnesses, impeach these but re- rather is, described —that notice which would lied statements made these wit- deemed constitutionally adequate in investigating nesses to the authorities on a civil or (Em- criminal proceeding. night phasis added). incident. Suffice it to Indeed, requirement the Federal Act’s their reliance Act to include such a requirement a seems until some 7 lack of such reasonable after the in decision In Re light Gault. of the fact Thus, dealing we are with а here Again, require- as to the nature of gloss, notice, but with the Court made essence parental ment of “ consists, . unmistakably process. Due it clear large part, procedure. Due the Four- Process Clause of requires that teenth Amendment the parents, Moreover notice to parents must be the child anil his noti- essentials, along merely with other is not reprеsented child’s to be fied of the protection custody, of their ” 41, . by counsel . . Id. 34, see 387 U.S. 87 S.Ct. 1428, required juve- is notice for the but nile’s benefit to that the insure 403 U.S. Pennsylvania, v. McKeiver have reasonable 1980, 29 532, 1976, L.Ed.2d 528, 91 S.Ct. participate presenting preparing reaffirmed opinion the plurality Cox, case. Cf. Brown v. re- the notice stature of constitutional (4th Cir.). 467 F.2d no- Such Gault, stating spelled out quirements tice ingredient therefore an essential Process, proceeding, “Due guaranteed juve- of due adequate written held to embrace ” nile’s protection, and the failure to af- notice. ford was a infringement constitutional Manzo, 380 U.S. In Armstrong v. rights. 1187, 1190, 14 L.Ed.2d 85 S.Ct. Recognizing error earlier funda the Court had stressed involved, question there remains the process re of the due mental nature the error beyond was harmless quirement of notice: Harrington reasonable doubt. Cali- elementary and fundamental re An fornia, process in pro quirement of 284; California, Chapman L.Ed.2d ceeding is to accorded finali 17 L.Ed.2d calculated, un reasonably ty is notice 705. I feel the omission be viewed circumstances, apprise all the der test, light applied pendency of parties of the interested purpose parental require- oppor an and afford them the action ment. objections.1 tunity The record does show not whether give were able to assistance in opinion in Moreover, majority as the preparation case be notes, n. instant case fore trial. However the case was not the 1974 amendment recognized that complicated. It is clear that the defend Act the Federal ant the assistance of had retained coun prescribing arraignment sel at on March certain basic necessary guarantee “to delinquency proceeding when protections was commenced with sent, con defendant’s jurisdiction,” under Federal juvenilеs ‍​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‍trial April and at on 1974. Fur 93-1011, 1974 United No. Report Senate ther, the defendant was 17% Congressional and Adminis- Code States 2age ability and had the and opportunity Report News, stat- p. 4264. The trative preparation to discuss with trial counsel. been Act ed that “ trial, reflect those both the defend Moreover at since partici- rights.” stepfather3 Id. ant’s mother stepfather proposition 3. The lived in Buena The Vista and the restated this Co., mother at Towaoc at the time of While Trust trial. Mullane Hanover v. Central facts, the record does show 94 L.Ed. 865. defend- ant’s brief states his natural father lives course, age excuse the Ute factor cannot Reservation in Southwest Colorado. 2. Of but, proper Appellant, p. in a required Brief of notices 4. The tеsti- defendant lack of the case, aas relevant fied he had lived be considered with his in the I feel determining getting constitu- summer of after out of school factor Albuquerque grand- harmless. that he lived with tional error of defendant’s presentation pated in tending testimony by giving trial

case at position of self-defense support by the defendant

developed brought to the tri-

counsel. to have bottle said a broken parts

al brother in the deceased used

been Watts. him and defendant

fight between of the record as

On consideration

whole, that the constitutional I conclude beyond harmless a reasonable

error was

doubt, agree that the trial court’s be affirmed.

determination should

GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN

ISLANDS NAVARRO, Appellant

Alberto in Nos. 74-1988, 74-1700 and et al.

Appeal COLON, Jr., of Julio in No.

74-1763 and No. 74-1898.

Appeal MIRANDA, of Israel in No.

74-1701 and No. 74-1869.

Appeal PINERO, Jr., of Sixto

No. 74-1702. 74-1700-74-1702,

Nos. 74-1763, 74-1869,

74-1898 and 74-1988.

United States Court of Appeals,

Third Circuit.

Argued Dec. 1974.

Decided March 1975.

Certiorari Denied June

See S.Ct. 2662. September, vicinity Towaoc stepfather in Buena Vista. through January, Thus, appear and the mother appropriate persons be the these facts trial court determined the time of cause us to consider arraignment connection with the March that defend- parental requirement. recogni- ant should be released on his own zance on the condition he not leave the near

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Duane Watts

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Date Published: Mar 17, 1975

Citation: 513 F.2d 5

Docket Number: 74-1312

Court Abbreviation: 10th Cir.