Juveniles and the Juvenile Justice System: Miranda Warnings Attorney Alisé M. Wilson
In the United States, youth are afforded the same Constitutional protections as adults. Nonetheless, members of the Juvenile Defense Bar consistently see instances of failures to institute procedural safeguards to ensure that juveniles’ Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizures, Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney are protected during police encounters and interrogations.
Imagine being a 14-year-old who has been arrested and taken to a local police department. You are sitting handcuffed to a table or a chair in a tiny room and questioned for hours without your parent or an attorney present. In fact, your parent/legal guardian has no idea that you have been arrested or your whereabouts. Upon rapidly being read your Miranda warnings (or not), multiple detectives, who are wearing guns, handcuffs, and badges come in and out of the interrogation room to question you. This line of questioning consists of a slew of accusations of acts which would be considered criminal if committed by adults, or to identify a number of individuals suspected to have committed other unlawful acts. You are left alone for long periods of time.
Not once do the detectives offer you the opportunity to call a parent, guardian or an attorney. They repeatedly ask, coax, encourage, and even demand that you admit to these acts, even if you have consistently denied involvement or having any knowledge of the matters. But because of your race, the neighborhood you come from, or your socioeconomic status, the detectives refuse to believe you. The detectives repeatedly claim to have spoken to your parents, who ‘know you did this,’ as well as to say that they have incriminating video of you. Yet, when you request to speak with your parents, the detectives refuse to honor your request. When you ask to see the video which supposedly proves your involvement in these acts, they claim they are unable to play it.
Hours later, one of the detectives comes to transport you to the youth detention center. The kicker: they ask for your parent’s phone numbers so the parent can be informed of your arrest.
Imagine how you would feel to be the child/adolescent in this position. Would you be afraid? What if you really did not do anything that you were being accused of? What if you were involved somehow but, being a minor with an undeveloped brain and thus incapable of logical reasoning, you are scared to death of what happens next? Imagine being the parent of this youth; how would you feel if you did not know that your child is not where you expect them to be? Rather, your child is sitting in a tiny room, handcuffed to a table or chair, being questioned by detectives for hours – without your knowledge.
The History of the Juvenile Justice System
Until the early 19th century in the United States, children as young as 7 years old could be tried in criminal court and, if convicted, sentenced to prison or even to death. Reformers believed that treating youth as adult criminals was unnecessarily harsh and resulted in their corruption.
The Ohio Juvenile Court system was established in 1902 in Cuyahoga County (the second juvenile court in the nation).[1] The reformers’ motivation to establish a juvenile court was “to prevent children from being treated as criminals” because youth are “developmentally different from adults, are therefore more amenable to rehabilitation, and thus are not criminally responsible for their actions.” [2] The youth brought before the court were to be assumed to require the court's intervention and guidance, rather than solely punishment. However, since the 1990’s, the Juvenile Court System has proven to treat youth as adult criminals and has increasingly become overwhelmingly punitive versus rehabilitative.
A note in regard to the aforementioned "acts which would be considered criminal if committed by adults:" upon a finding of "guilty" in juvenile court, youth are "adjudicated delinquent" versus "convicted" as their behavior is considered "delinquent acts" which would be "criminal" if the acts were committed by adults.
Miranda and Youth
In its ruling for Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Ernesto Miranda on June 13, 1966 based on the police’s failure to advise Miranda of his right to remain silent and to an attorney. This case, commonly referred to as Miranda, established guidelines known as “Miranda warnings,” as to how detained suspects are to be informed of their constitutional rights.
However, the very wording of these warnings was designed for adult comprehension. In 2014, researchers Richard Rogers of the University of North Texas, Eric Drogin of Harvard Medical School and others looked at the wording of 371 juvenile Miranda warnings from around the country. They found that 52 % required at least an 8th grade reading level. Yet, only about 17 states now have required law enforcement to simplify warnings and explain them so that a child can understand. This is problematic being that, according to several studies, 90% of youth waive their Miranda rights.
The 14th Amendment – Youth’s Ability to Knowingly, Intelligently, and Voluntarily Waive Miranda Rights
In the Court’s determination of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process as to whether the youth knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived their constitutional rights, such a determination (unfortunately) cannot solely be based on the age of the youth. See Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157. However, in a “totality of the circumstances” approach to determining voluntariness of a statement, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the personal characteristics of a suspect may render him or her particularly vulnerable to coercion. Examples of these characteristics include, but are not limited to: (1) age of youth; (2) mental illness; (3) mental capacity deficit; (4) mental condition; (5) limited intellect; (6) limited education; (7) illiteracy; (8) prior experience with law enforcement; and (9) physical injury or pain. Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49 (1962).
Further factors have been promulgated in the “totality of circumstances” test to prove involuntariness of a youth’s statements, such as: (1) length of time of the interrogation (“…a lengthy interrogation and incommunicado…are factors that support the conclusion that the accused did not validly waive…rights Miranda v. Ohio, 384 U.S. at 476 (1966)); (2) coercion (“A statement is involuntary only if the police use coercive means to undermine the suspect's ability to exercise his free will” Colorado v. Connell, 479 U.S. at 167 (1986), and “…custodial interrogation is inherently coercive and can induce false confession, especially when the subject is a juvenile…” J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. at 2402-6)); (3) absence of parent, attorney or “friendly adult” during the interrogation (see Haley v. Ohio , 332 U.S. 596 (1948) and Gallegos, 370 U.S. 49 (1962)); and (4) any other unique characteristic of the youth (such as familiarity or understanding of the court process and each person’s role (State v. Barker, 2016-Ohio-8476)).
The need of procedural safeguards of youth’s Constitutional rights is clear; especially since police are permitted to lie in interrogations even to youth. The “Reid technique” (a method also designed for adults) is not an appropriate interrogation method for youth due to their increased susceptibility to pressure from adults/figures of authority. This is because the Reid technique utilizes deceptive tactics in order for the officer or detective to get the information they seek. Although the United States Supreme Court "has emphasized that admissions and confessions of juveniles require special caution" (In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 45, 87 S.Ct. 1428 (1967)), it left the ball in the court of our state and federal legislative bodies. Meanwhile, only seven states absolutely prohibit use of juvenile custodial statements obtained in the absence of counsel, while eight allow them for detention and dispositional hearings only.
Why This is Problematic
magine the cluster of a mess that is created when a juvenile goes through the arrest, interrogation and court processes without an attorney. In the state of Ohio, the court will allow a juvenile to waive counsel in misdemeanors without first consulting with a public defender or private attorney. This is why motion practice (in layman's terms, a method used by attorneys o get the court to grant our requests) is key in even juvenile misdemeanor matters as even misdemeanor adjudications can cause significant life-long collateral consequences for the youth. As such, any incriminating statements made by youth, whether involuntary, false, or coerced statements, could leave the youth with a disability which would follow them through the rest of their life (see Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.13(A)(2)).
In other words, if a child is adjudicated on a misdemeanor robbery, assault, domestic violence, or any other act of violence, it creates a disability where, for instance, the youth will never be able to possess or live in home with firearms. This is why extensive training of juvenile attorneys is crucial. Just as well, this is why an attorney should be required at all stages of the juvenile justice process, not just after being charged.
Call to Action
The United States Supreme Court and Ohio Supreme Courts have left the ball in the legislative bodies’ courts. While a small percentage of states have enacted laws which put procedural safeguards for youth during police encounters, it is clear that the need for juvenile law reform continues to fall through the cracks in many other states. I advocate from the standpoint of a practicing attorney in Ohio where the Revised Code is remains devoid of necessary protections of our youth during police encounters.
In referencing the aforementioned United States and Ohio Supreme Court cases, case law only extends so much protection of youth’s constitutional rights and avenues to remedy violation of the same. We need laws in Ohio and across the nation which will permanently put in place procedural safeguards of our children and adolescents.
As community members, we must be engaged civically. We must spread the word to our family, friends, and fellow community members. We must get to know our our state and federal legislators and write and/or call them to demand change in the laws as it pertains to our youth. A civic action of great import is to VOTE in all elections for judges and legislators (really, please vote across the board). As for attorneys, we have a duty to be social engineers for change - any attorney should full well know what that means.
Let us all do better to protect our youth.
[1] Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, “Cuyahoga Juvenile Court” https://case.edu/ech/articles/c/cuyahoga-county-juvenile-court.
[2] National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2001. Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, pp. 157-158 https://doi.org/10.17226/9747.