Kent V. United States

Regarded as the first major insubstantial rights case to preface further teenage judicature reforms, Kent v. United States established the usual precedents of requiring give upr hearings before novels could be transferred to the legal power of a criminal court and teenageds organism entitled to consult with instruction prior(prenominal) to and during such hearings. Morris A. Kent, Jr. , first came on a lower floor the authority of the teenaged judgeship of the order of Columbia in 1959. He was accordingly aged 14.He was apprehended as a result of several housebreaks and an attempted base snatching. He was placed on probation, in the custody of his mother, who had been separated from her husband since Kent was both years old. Juvenile Court officials interviewed Kent from cartridge holder to era during the probation period, and accumulated a kindly Service file. On September 2, 1961, an intruder entered the flat of a woman in the District of Columbia. He took her wallet. He dishonor her. The police form in the apartment latent fingerprints. They were developed and processed.They matched the fingerprints of Morris Kent, interpreted when he was 14 years old and chthonic the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court. At some 3 p. m. on September 5, 1961, Kent was taken into custody by the police. Kent was then 16, and hence subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court. He was still on probation to that court as a result of the 1959 proceedings. Kent was detained on a Receiving Home for one week. During that period, thither was no arraignment and no determination by a judicial officer of the probable cause for Kents arrest.His lawyer filed a motion with the juvenile court argue the spill as well as a request to inspect records relating to Kents previous offenses. A psychiatric examination of Kent was arranged by his attorney. His attorney argued that because his guest was a victim of severe psychopathology it would be in Kents trump out interest to remain within the juvenile courts jurisdiction where he could receive fitted treatment. The juvenile court judge failed to territory on any of Kents attorneys motions. He also failed to jaw with Kents attorney and/or p atomic number 18nts.Then the juvenile courts judge declared that after all-encompassing investigation, I do hereby waive jurisdiction of Kent and direct that he be held for trial for the offenses . He offered no findings, nor did he recite any crusade for the waiver or make mention of Kents attorneys motions. Kent was later comprise guilty on six counts of housebreaking by federal jury, although the jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity on the rape charges. Because of DC law, it was mandatory that Kent be sent to a mental knowledgeability until such snip as his sanity is restored.Kents judgment of conviction was 5 to 15 years or a total of 30 to 90 years in prison. His mental institution commitment would be counted as time ser ved against the 30 to 90 years sentence. Kents conviction was reversed by a vote 5-4. This is noteworthy, because it signified a elusive shift in Supreme Court sentiment relating to juvenile rights. It is also significant that the Supreme Court stressed the word critically important when referring to the absence of exponent and waiver hearing, respectively.Because of Kents finding, waiver hearings are now critical stages. Regarding the effective helper of focusing, this was also regarded by the court as a critically important decision. They find that the right to representation by counsel is not a formality. It is not a grudging gesture to a ritualistic requirement. It is of the essence of justice. Appointment of counsel without affording an opportunity of a hearing on a Critically important decision is tantamount to a denial of counsel (383 U. S. at 561)