The Garden City Telegram
Email this story | Add Your Comment
| Read (0) Comments
Budgetary impact of decision uncertain
Published 6/24/2008 in News : Police
By RACHEL DAVIS
rdavis@gctelegram.com
A Kansas Supreme Court decision to allow juveniles the right to a jury trial may stress an already burdened court system and has brought a mixed reaction from prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Marilyn Harp, executive director for Kansas Legal Services, said the state Supreme Court's decision is a win for all juveniles across the state.
She said because the juvenile system has strayed from its rehabilitative ideas to a more punitive system, juvenile defendants should have the constitutional right to have a jury decide their guilt or innocence.
On Friday, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled 6-1 in favor of granting jury trials to juvenile offenders.
The appeal stemmed from a Finney County case involving a 16-year-old male known as L.M. who was found guilty of minor in consumption of alcohol and aggravated sexual battery.
Harp said the court ordered L.M. to undergo sex offender treatment and register as a sex offender.
According to L.M.'s case, he was convicted for making a sexually suggestive comment and forcing a kiss on a woman who was walking home on a street in his neighborhood. He was placed on probation until he was 20 years old.
Harp said during L.M.'s court proceeding, her office requested a jury trial but District Court Judge Philip Vieux denied it. Vieux, chief judge of the 25th Judicial District, said he would not comment on the impact of the state Supreme Court's decision on the court system or make any general statements about the decision.
Before the court's decision, state law gave the judge discretionary power to decide if a juvenile defender should be granted a jury trial.
With the decision, the court ruled it unconstitutional for a judge to determine a juvenile offender's right to a jury trial.
Ron Keefover, spokesman for the Office of Judicial Administration, said the court's ruling extends to all cases on appeal or pending in the system.
For instance, in Finney County, a case involving a juvenile, Marina Guardiola, accused of conspiracy to commit aggravated battery, is scheduled for a bench trial in August. Now, she can request a jury trial.
Guardiola was one of 10 teens initially charged with attempted second-degree murder for their alleged role in the beating of another Garden City teen in late December.
Finney County Attorney John Wheeler said in this case, half of the teens involved were adults and the other three, who were 17 or younger, have been sentenced so they do not apply to the state supreme court's decision. The last teen is facing an adult certification hearing.
Wheeler said the court's decision has left many unanswered questions, including rights to a speedy trial and the makeup of a jury.
"Does a juvenile have the legal capacity to waive a jury trial? I don't know," Wheeler said. "Who will be a jury of their peers? Ten- to 18-year-olds?"
Keefover said questions raised regarding the state supreme court's decision will be addressed in future appeals. He said Kansas Attorney General Steve Six cannot appeal the state's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court because it does not follow under a significant federal issue. It is considered an issue on state constitutional rights not federal constitutional rights.
Wheeler said the court's decision could make an astronomical impact on an overburdened court system.
"There's not enough judges, lawyers or staff to accommodate these cases," he said.
He said he will be requesting funds from the county commission for additional staff and remodeling costs to accomodate more attorneys in his office. It is up to the Finney County commissioners to approve his budget.
Harp, however, said that is no excuse to deny a juvenile defendant his or her constitutional rights.
Russ Jennings, commissioner for the Kansas Juvenile Justice Authority, said because the juvenile system looks and feels like the adult system, many people believe they should be treated as adults.
"The court's approach is to grant the same rights to juveniles as they do adults," he said. "But our system is based on rehabilitation and change in thinking. This process is stronger in the juvenile arena than it is in the adult system."
Jennings said there are similarities between the juvenile and adult systems, including the role of a person's criminal history impacting how much time he or she serves and the possibility of a reduced sentence in prison based on good behavior.
But, he said, the court did not closely examine what happens to juveniles placed into the system and that the purpose of the two systems differs.
"The punishment is being sent to the youth correctional facility," Jennings said. "But it's the facility's job not to punish the offender, but to rehabilitate."
Found 0 comment(s)!
Twitter Updates
