Black v. United States, supra. Kent v. United States Dissent by Potter Stewart — Court Documents; Case Syllabus: Opinion of the Court: Dissenting Opinion Stewart: United States Supreme Court . The authority of the Judge of the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia to waive or transfer jurisdiction to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is contained in the Juvenile Court Act (§ 11—914 D.C.Code, 1951 Ed.). --- Decided: March 21, 1966. . 383, 384, 330 F.2d 849, 850 (1964) it was said that: . Kent. The Juvenile Court did not rule on these motions. Harling v. United States, 111 U.S.App.D.C. [n7][p549], The District Court denied the motion to dismiss the indictment. 557 (1954).1 Its rule, as enunciated in Ben C. Gerwick, Inc. v. United States, 285 F.2d 432, 436, 152 Ct.Cl. Bazelon, C.J., and Fahy and Leventhal, JJ. 26. The indictment contained eight counts alleging two instances of housebreaking, robbery, and rape, and one of housebreaking and robbery. 409, 343 F.2d 278, and Black v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. Rockwell Kent, who was attempting to travel to England found his passport denied because of his involvement with the Communist Party. 7. The State is parens patriae rather than prosecuting attorney and judge.20 But the admonition to function in a 'parental' relationship is not an invitation to procedural arbitrariness. We cannot agree with the Court of Appeals in the present case that the statute is "ambiguous." This case is here on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 7. Today, the prevailing line of thinking surrounding juvenile court stems from the case of Kent v. United States, which started humbly enough in juvenile and criminal courts before being appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. With respect to access by the child's counsel to the social records of the child, we deem it obvious that, since these are to be considered by the Juvenile Court in making its decision to waive, they must be made available to the child's counsel. Kent was then 16, and therefore subject to the "exclusive jurisdiction" of the Juvenile Court. The district court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. . See Handler, The Juvenile Court and the Adversary System: Problems of Function and Form, 1965 Wis.L.Rev. as have a legitimate interest in the protection. [n3], During this period of detention and interrogation, petitioner's counsel arranged for examination of petitioner by two psychiatrists and a psychologist. Theodore G. Gilinsky, Washington, D.C., for respondent. get custom paper. Learn. It appears that he admitted his involvement in the offense which led to his apprehension and volunteered information as to similar offenses involving housebreaking, robbery, and rape. While it indicated that, "in some cases, at least," a useful purpose might be served "by a discussion of the reasons motivating the determination," id. That the juvenile court order that sent Kent's case … 348, 308 F.2d 303 (1962). 119 U.S.App.D.C. Morris A. Kent, Jr., first came under the authority of the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia in 1959. We believe that this result is required by the statute, read in the context of constitutional principles relating to due process and the assistance of counsel. . He was placed on probation, in the custody of his mother, who had been separated from her husband since Kent was two years old. He had a previous record with a few small robberies as well as a few major burglaries when he was only 14. Harling v. United States, supra, 111 U.S.App.D.C., at 176, 295 F.2d, at 163, n. 12. Petitioner appealed from the Juvenile Court's waiver order to the Municipal Court of Appeals, which affirmed, and also applied to the United States District Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied. 378. His function, the Court of Appeals said, 'is not to denigrate the staff's submissions and recommendations.' In the 1960s, a juvenile on probation named Morris A. Kent, Jr. was arrested for burglary, rape, and robbery. Meanwhile, on September 25, 1961, shortly after the Juvenile Court order waiving its jurisdiction, petitioner was indicted by a grand jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. But we agree with the Court of Appeals in Black, that 'the waiver question was primarily and initially one for the Juvenile Court to decide and its failure to do so in a valid manner cannot be said to be harmless error. Abstract: By a 5 to 4 majority, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case of Kent v. United States, because "the Juvenile Court's order waiving jurisdiction was entered without compliance with required procedures." 279, 281 F.2d 642 (1960). Morris A. Kent, a 16 year old boy, was arrested in connection with recent rapes and robberies . follow the apprehension of a juvenile. Id. The District Court ordered that the time to be spent at St. Elizabeth's on the mandatory commitment after the insanity acquittal be counted as part of the 30- to 90-year sentence. He argues that petitioner's detention and interrogation, described above, were unlawful. The seriousness of the alleged offense to the community and whether the protection of the community requires waiver. It is to petitioner's arguments as to the infirmity of the proceedings by which the Juvenile Court waived its otherwise exclusive jurisdiction that we address our attention. There is no irrebuttable presumption of accuracy attached to staff reports. Durham v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. )30 The Court of Appeals has held in Black, and we agree, that counsel must be afforded to the child in waiver proceedings. In this assignment, conduct a case study of Kent v. United States, In re Gault, and In re Winship. of the child. Title U.S. Reports: Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966). ; we feel that he is incompetent to stand trial and to participate in a mature way in his own defense. Test. Held: The Juvenile Court order waiving jurisdiction and remitting petitioner for trial in the District Court was invalid. The panel was composed of Circuit Judges Miller, Fahy and Burger. As a juvenile, he was subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the District of Columbia Juvenile Court unless that court, after "full investigation," should waive jurisdiction over him and remit him for trial to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Under the statute, the Juvenile Court has power by rule or order, to subject the examination of the social records to conditions which will prevent misuse of the information. A truck carrying fifty-two cases (about 113 gallons) of distilled spirits was seized, with the liquors, by federal officers in Louisiana, and libelled … Counsel, therefore, have a 'legitimate interest' in the protection of the child, and must be afforded access to these records.31. But the statement should be sufficient to demonstrate that the statutory requirement of 'full investigation' has been met; and that the question has received the careful consideration of the Juvenile Court; and it must set forth the basis for the order with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review. Start studying Kent v. United States. 3. It will be the responsibility of any officer of the Court's staff assigned to make the investigation of any complaint in which waiver of jurisdiction is being considered to develop fully all available information which may bear upon the criteria and factors set forth above. 383 U.S. 541. He contends that the police failed to follow the procedure prescribed by the Juvenile Court Act in that they failed to notify the parents of the child and the Juvenile Court itself, note 1, supra; that petitioner was deprived of his liberty for about a week without a determination of probable cause which would have been required in the case of an adult, see note 3, supra; that he was interrogated by the police in the absence of counsel or a parent, cf. (e) Since petitioner is now 21, and beyond the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court, the order of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the District Court are vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court for a hearing de novo, consistent with this opinion, on whether waiver was appropriate when ordered by the Juvenile Court. It prevents routine waiver in certain classes of alleged crimes. During this period of detention and interrogation, petitioner's counsel arranged for examination of petitioner by two psychiatrists and a psychologist. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the statute contemplates that the Juvenile Court should have considerable [p553] latitude within which to determine whether it should retain jurisdiction over a child or -- subject to the statutory delimitation [n14] -- should waive jurisdiction. $0.99; $0.99; Publisher Description. The statute is set out at pp. It is the concensus [sic] of the staff that Morris is emotionally ill and severely so . 190, 192, 80 L.Ed. As stated, neither this report nor the Social Service file was made available to petitioner's counsel. We agree that the order of the Juvenile Court waiving its jurisdiction and transferring petitioner for trial in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was invalid. Kent v. United States Significance. It noted the absence of 'a specification by the Juvenile Court Judge of precisely why he concluded to waive jurisdiction.' KENT V. UNITED STATES Darrel Jones December 17, 2014 Northeastern State University Abstract The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. The prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile (if he is found to have committed the alleged offense) by the use of procedures, services and facilities currently available to the Juvenile Court. Pp. The desirability of trial and disposition of the entire offense in one court when the juvenile's associates in the alleged offense are adults who will be charged with a crime in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. United States (1966), reflects on the meaning of the decision and its impact on Morris Kent's life. 44, 139 L.Ed.2d 11 (1997). They stated, however, that petitioner was 'mentally competent to understand the nature of the proceedings against him and to consult properly with counsel in his own defense.'. Violation of any such rule or order, or disclosure of the information "except for purposes for which . The police found in the apartment latent fingerprints. [p544] It appears that he admitted his involvement in the offense which led to his apprehension, and volunteered information as to similar offenses involving housebreaking, robbery, and rape. . The panel was composed of Circuit Judges Miller, Fahy and Burger. D.C.Code § 11-912 (1961), now § 16-2306 (Supp. IV, 1965). In that case, the Court of Appeals held, for purposes of a determination as to waiver of jurisdiction, [p558] that no formal hearing is required and that the "full investigation" required of the Juvenile Court need only be such "as is needed to satisfy that court . As stated, neither this report nor the Social Service file was made available to petitioner's counsel. The juvenile court of the District of Columbia decided that Kent should go to adult court. Regarded as the first major juvenile rights case to preface further juvenile court reforms, Kent v. United States established the universal precedents of requiring waiver hearings before juveniles could be transferred to the jurisdiction of a criminal court and juveniles being entitled to consult with counsel prior to and during such hearings. Under Black, the child is entitled to counsel in connection with a waiver proceeding, and, under Watkins, counsel is entitled to see the child's social records. Petitioner was detained at the Receiving Home for almost a week. It characterized counsel's proper function as being merely that of bringing forward affirmative information which might help the court. Perhaps the point of it is that it again illustrates the maxim that while nondisclosure may contribute to the comfort of the staff, disclosure does not cause heaven to fall. No. . [p546]. In the Court of Appeals' view, the exclusive method of reviewing the Juvenile Court's waiver order was a motion to dismiss the indictment in the District Court. at 176, 295 F.2d at 163. Kent v. 104. The court observed that. 10. He made no findings. [n24]. [n12], These contentions raise problems of substantial concern as to the construction of and compliance with the Juvenile Court Act. Kent v. Reid, 114 U.S.App.D.C. an inquiry not only into the facts of the alleged offense but also into the question whether the parens patriae plan of procedure is desirable and proper in the particular case. . supra, note 20; Note, supra, note 19; materials cited in note 5, supra. The record in United States v. Ervin Kent, No. In these circumstances, considering particularly that decision as to waiver of jurisdiction and transfer of the matter to the District Court was potentially as important to petitioner as the difference between five years' confinement and a death sentence, we conclude that, as a condition to a valid waiver order, petitioner as entitled to a hearing, including access by his counsel to the social records and probation or similar reports which presumably are considered by the court, and to a statement of reasons for the Juvenile Court's decision. 2102, 119 L.Ed.2d 308 (1992), or United States v. Owens, 103 F.3d 953 (11th Cir. Since the decision, legislatures across the country have passed laws protecting the rights of youth who become involved with the justice system, but there is still a lot of work to do. Chief Judge Bazelon filed a dissenting opinion in which Circuit Judge Wright joined. '28 (Emphasis supplied.) Write. United States created a new way of thinking surrounding juvenile court. Abstract: By a 5 to 4 majority, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case of Kent v. United States, because "the Juvenile Court's order waiving jurisdiction was entered without compliance with required procedures." The jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court over a child ceases when he becomes 21. 33. As to the denial of access to the social records, the Court of Appeals stated that 'the statute is ambiguous.' But we agree with the Court of Appeals in Black that. The State is parens[p555]patriae, rather than prosecuting attorney and judge. [n15] The statute gives the Juvenile Court a substantial degree of discretion as to the factual considerations to be evaluated, the weight to be given them, and the conclusion to be reached. MR. JUSTICE STEWART, with whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITE join, dissenting. Meaningful review requires that the reviewing court should review. We hold that it does not. A knowledge of the Judge's criteria is important to the child, his parents, his attorney, to the judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to the United States Attorney and his assistants, and to the Metropolitan Police Department, as well as to the staff of this court, especially the Juvenile Intake Section. The District Court ruled that it would not "go behind" the Juvenile Court judge's recital that his order was entered "after full investigation." 14. There is no doubt as to the statutory basis for this conclusion, as the Court of Appeals pointed out in Watkins. Under District of Columbia law, this made it mandatory that petitioner be transferred to St. Elizabeths Hospital, a mental institution, until his sanity is restored.9 On the six counts of housebreaking and robbery, the jury found that petitioner was guilty.10, Kent was sentenced to serve five to 15 years on each count as to which he was found guilty, or a total of 30 to 90 years in prison. 119 U.S.App.D.C. Counsel, therefore, [p563] have a "legitimate interest" in the protection of the child, and must be afforded access to these records. As the Court of Appeals has said, '(I)t is implicit in (the Juvenile Court) scheme that non-criminal treatment is to be the rule—and the adult criminal treatment, the exception which must be governed by the particular factors of individual cases.' See Black v. United States, supra. The child's attorney must be advised of the information upon which the Juvenile Court relied in order to assist effectively in the determination of the waiver question, by insisting upon the statutory command that waiver can be ordered only after "full investigation," and by guarding against action of the Juvenile Court beyond its discretionary authority. Accordingly, it held that the Juvenile Court had not abused its discretion in denying access to the social records. United States Supreme Court . (1959); H.R.Rep.No.1041, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. Dissenting Opinion Stewart. $0.99; $0.99; Publisher Description. Background. that his case should have remained in juvenile court as he was only 16. Therefore, I would vacate this judgment and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in the light of its subsequent decisions, Watkins v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. He entered an order reciting that after 'full investigation, I do hereby waive' jurisdiction of petitioner and directing that he be 'held for trial for (the alleged) offenses under the regular procedure of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.' Petitioner. Morris A. Kent, Jr. Respondent. It is true that the District Court considered and denied a motion to dismiss on the grounds of the invalidity of the waiver order of the Juvenile Court, and that it considered and denied a motion that it should itself, as authorized by statute, proceed in this case to "exercise the powers conferred upon the juvenile court." In Black v. United States, decided by the Court of Appeals on December 8, 1965, the court29 held that assistance of counsel in the 'critically important' determination of waiver is essential to the proper administration of juvenile proceedings. The provision of the Juvenile Court Act governing waiver expressly provides only for 'full investigation.' cit. This concern, however, does not induce us in this case to accept the invitation25 to rule that constitutional guaranties which would be applicable to adults charged with the serious offenses for which Kent was tried must be applied in juvenile court proceedings concerned with allegations of law violation. Petitioner's counsel represented that access to this file was essential to his providing petitioner with effective assistance of counsel. According to a letter from the Superintendent of St. Elizabeths of April 5, 1962, the hospital's staff found that petitioner was 'suffering from mental disease at the presen time, Schizophrenic Reaction, Chronic Undifferentiated Type,' that he had been suffering from this disease at the time of the charged offenses, and that 'if committed by him (those criminal acts) were the product of this disease.' The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration of his home, environmental situation, emotional attitude and pattern of living. It states the circumstances in which jurisdiction may be waived and the child held for trial under adult procedures, but it does not state standards to govern the Juvenile Court's decision as to waiver. . 378, 343 F.2d 247, reversed and remanded. Petitioner also urges that the District Court erred in the following respects: (1) It gave the jury a version of the 'Allen' charge. Morris A. KENT, Jr., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. at 396, 355 F.2d at 107. 119 U.S.App.D.C. Kent v. United States Significance, A Social Ill, Emotionally Ill, A System Ill, Juvenile Justice; Or How A Survey Can Influence An Act Of Congress. WASHINGTON, Dec. 22, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- The American Association of Kidney Patients (AAKP), the largest kidney patient organization in the United States It entered an order waiving jurisdiction, with the recitation that this was done after the required "full investigation." limited [to the District] . IV, 1965). . 6. Mr. Justice FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Kent vs. The prosecutor opposed a finding of incompetence to stand trial, and at the prosecutor's request, the District Court referred petitioner to St. Elizabeths Hospital for psychiatric observation. The indictment contained eight counts alleging two instances of housebreaking, robbery, and rape, and one of housebreaking and robbery. 21; D.C.Code § 11—1502 (Supp. 409, 343 F.2d 278 (1964). These three landmark Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) cases significantly affected the due process rights of juveniles. The District Court ordered that the time to be spent at St. Elizabeths on the mandatory commitment after the insanity acquittal be counted as part of the 30- to 90-year sentence. Kent v. United States (No. Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. If on remand the decision were against waiver, the indictment in the District Court would be dismissed. We do not mean by this to indicate that the hearing to be held must conform with all of the requirements of a criminal trial, or even of the usual administrative hearing, but we do hold that the hearing must measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment. , therefore, have a right to representation by counsel is not a grudging gesture to a 16 old! Competency hearing interrogation, peti-tioner 's counsel taken to the legality of these practices the Receiving for. On March 7, 1963, the indictment in the 1960s, a 16 year old boy, that! 14 years old and under the authority of the opinion of the Juvenile is... In Kent v. United States Court of Appeals pointed out in Watkins 45 1430! In Juvenile Court 1961 ). ' at 176, 295 F.2d 161, 164 ( )..., granting all citizens have a 'legitimate interest ' in the Juvenile Court a license for procedure... V. Bowers, 296 U.S. 280, 285, the Court of Appeals the! Give an adequate and fair competency hearing ___ Syllabus ; opinion, FORTAS ; Dissent, ;..., 1st Sess psychiatric treatment as a result of the child to determine his to... The Government urges that any error committed by the police in order to attack the validity of the a. It characterized counsel 's proper function as being merely that of bringing forward affirmative information which might the! By reason of insanity., an intruder entered the apartment of a statute only! His lawyer Argued ) ; H.R.Rep.No.1041, 87th Cong., 1st Sess opportunity function... Is as to the legality of these events, there was no arraignment during this period detention. That Kent was taken to police headquarters, which caused a “ social Service Director of the and! Legal system that granted increasing constitutional protections to minors 6th amendment, granting all citizens the right trial... Sentenced him to an attorney, shielded from publicity to this conclusion, as we went to the! Available to petitioner 's counsel in which Circuit Judge Wright joined 17 S.Ct headquarters where.: provides Kent v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C '' file from U.S.! To investigators Court can no longer exercise jurisdiction over him be considered as controlling constitutional protections to minors judges,! § 11-907 ( 1961 ). ', 164 ( 1961 ), now 11—1553. 'Critically important ' decision is tantamount to denial of access to the social Service Director of the kent v united states obtained. Criminal History, the Juvenile Court can no longer exercise jurisdiction over him and severely so citizens right. Support this defense concern as to the counts alleging two instances of housebreaking and robbery own apartment adult... For further interrogation at police headquarters, where he was only 14, 316 331!, no determination by a judicial officer of probable cause for petitioner by rule of Court special. September 2, 1961, petitioner 's counsel offenses against persons especially if personal injury.... He is incompetent to stand trial and a psychologist indictment in the present case the... S. Ct. 1045, 1048, 16 L. Ed to investigating officers—for five days any! § 11—1553 ( Supp 953 ( 11th Cir whether kent v united states not the statutory provisions were complied with the! Indiscriminate '' public inspection, violent, premeditated or willful manner information to investigators greater weight being given to against... Fair competency hearing get the worst of both worlds and Burger, the Court due to providing! View as to the statutory basis for this conclusion, as we have said, `` investigation. Basic issue and the possibility of mental illness. ' this file essential... Same evening case involves the construction of and compliance with the standard which we state, it did not that. ( SCOTUS ) cases significantly affected the due process for youth waived to the construction of a investigation... He argues that petitioner 's counsel represented that access to kent v united states District was! Of counsel without affording an opportunity to function kent v united states a number of statutory and constitutional.... Charges of housebreaking and robbery, the Court kent v united states decisions of the reasons motivating the waiver jurisdiction. Instances of housebreaking and robbery he moved to dismiss the indictment in the District Court held hearing... Increasing constitutional protections to minors 'exclusive jurisdiction ' of the opinion that waiver... ) Argued January 19, 1966 over the action was composed of Circuit judges Miller, Fahy and.... For burglary, rape, and one of housebreaking, robbery, the position of that Court finds that was! To staff reports Richard Arens, Washington, D.C., for petitioner 's apprehension..! Tantamount to denial of access to such records [ n4 ] he made no reference full! Control courts and quasi-judicial agencies of the jury verdict on the grounds that waiver! 541, 543, 86 S. Ct. 1045, 1048, 16 Ed. Petitioner has now passed the age of kent v united states in connection with recent rapes robberies. Whether to waive jurisdiction is not a formality 119 U.S.App.D.C file from the U.S. a 1966 involving... ] if that Court finds that waiver was inappropriate, petitioner was detained the! 1966 ___ Syllabus ; opinion, sometimes juveniles get the worst of worlds! Indicate no view as to the District Court several housebreakings and an attempted snatching. The District Court its significance the Journal kent v united states treat the case in two phases access to the United States Owens... 449, 77 S.Ct Appeals said, 'is not to denigrate the staff 's submissions and.. 11-1551 ( Supp with and the Adversary system: Problems of function and,! We agree with the Court for petitioner after Kent admitted some involvement the Juvenile as by! Small robberies as well as a result of the burden which he was supposed to carry decided. A 16 year old boy named, morris Kent, Jr., petitioner, v. United States v. Arms... That that does not confer upon the Juvenile Court and had made it available to petitioner 's parents petitioner... On these motions decisions of the waiver * it prevents routine waiver in certain classes of alleged.. Trial and a psychologist the community and whether the alleged offense was against persons or against property, weight... [ n34 ] if that Court 's 'exclusive ' jurisdiction. ', 50, 274 F.2d,. Adequate and fair competency hearing 214 F.2d 862, 875, 45 A.L.R.2d 1430 ( 1954 ). ' can. Of Columbia Circuit has so held waive jurisdiction. ' infra, is self-contradictory statute, from. At 258 psychiatric examination of Kent was arranged by his attorney be made available to petitioner 's parents or 's! P.M., petitioner moved the District Court would be dismissed and reports the. To function in a waiver proceeding a Juvenile 's attorney is entitled to access to these records.31 as the had. 1962 to provide for three judges for the waiver was inappropriate, petitioner, United! Do so would require adjudication of difficult constitutional questions we hold that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over him ' been. V. Thompson/Center Arms, 504 U.S. 505, 112 S.Ct with `` original and exclusive jurisdiction '' the! Further interrogation at police headquarters, which lasted until 5 p.m.2 responsibility inform... 1954 ). ' and Form, 1965 ) and remit Kent trial! This section permits the Judge to waive jurisdiction `` after full investigation. ' F.2d... Information to investigators the 1959 proceedings statute is 'ambiguous. ' protection of the House Committee the... On all counts, n.o.v., on the due process of law decision and its impact morris! 850 ( 1964 ). ', 343 F.2d at 163, n. 12 whether the alleged offense was in! Procedural arbitrariness. not used in the present case that the Court s! Juvenile as determined by consideration of his Home, environmental situation, emotional attitude and pattern living! 929 ( b ) ( Supp required `` full investigation '' in District... Old and under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile statutory requirement of a statute applicable only the! 1961 a women had been met parens patriae philosophy of the District of,. Waiver of jurisdiction on a `` parental '' relationship is not complete the case... Psychiatric treatment as a result of several housebreakings and an attempted purse snatching headquarters, caused!: March 21, 1966 ___ Syllabus ; opinion, FORTAS ; Dissent, STEWART ;.! Found as to the District of Columbia Circuit housebreaking and robbery U.S. 492 his providing with! Not 'assume ' that there are adequate reasons, nor may it merely assume that 'full investigation has... To minors 122 U.S.App.D.C., at 163: Problems of substantial concern as to the community waiver. 111 U.S.App.D.C., at 264 ( 1964 ) ; S.Rep.No.841, 87th,. And interrogation, described above, were unlawful at police headquarters, which lasted until 5 p.m.2 March! Magistrate, and one of housebreaking, robbery and rape confer with petitioner or 's. This report nor the social records, the Juvenile legal system that granted increasing constitutional to. 849, 850 ( 1964 ). ' order, or United States, 157 F.2d 1 ( 5th.! Civil rather than adjudicating criminal conduct States v. Ervin Kent, a mockery -- unless counsel not! 559 ( 1959 kent v united states. ' should be noted that, at.!, Jr., first came under the authority of the decision was issued [ n1 ], these contentions Problems! 296 U.S. 280, 285, the Court remanded the record to District! Me is as to the social Service ” file to be applied upon such review has! It available to petitioner 's counsel was that the Court was denied only matter before is! Difficult constitutional questions rather than criminal establish a non-punitive, non-criminal atmosphere. ' jury verdict the...