United States v. Juvenile Male, 492 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2007)
The lower court abused its discretion in its findings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5032. Among the factors that were required to be considered was the juvenile’s social background. The district court incorrectly found that the juvenile experienced no domestic violence growing up with his grandparents.
United States v. C.M., 485 F.3d 492 (9th Cir. 2007)
The police failed to comply with the Juvenile Delinquency Act requirements of prompt notification of parents, notification of the consulate, and prompt arraignment. 18 U.S.C. § 5033. The appropriate remedy was not just the suppression of the juvenile’s statements but the dismissal of the charges.
United States v. Female Juvenile, A.F.S., 377 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2004)
The prosecution of the juvenile was barred because of the government’s failure to comply with the speedy trial provision of the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act 18 U.S.C. § 5036. This provision requires trial within thirty days of detention.
United States v. Juvenile, 347 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 2003)
A lengthy opinion detailing the sentencing rules for juveniles. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit concludes that the sentence imposed on the juvenile in this case was too harsh.
United States v. Ramirez, 297 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2002)
The Juvenile Delinquency Act continues to apply even if the defendant who is being treated as an adult (his case having been transferred) reaches age 21 during the courses of the proceedings. 18 U.S.C. § 5031.
United States v. Male Juvenile, 148 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 1998)
In order to prosecute a juvenile, the United States Attorney must certify that the case should be prosecuted in federal court. 18 U.S.C. § 5032. In this case, an Assistant United States Attorney filed the certificate. Because there was no evidence that the U.S. Attorney delegated his authority to the AUSA, there was no jurisdiction to try the juvenile in district court.
United States v. Doe, 219 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2000)
The government violated 18 U.S.C. § 5033 by failing to advise the juvenile’s parents promptly after his arrest; failing to promptly advise him of his rights; and by failing to promptly bring him before a magistrate. There was a three and a half hour delay in advising him of his rights. There was a day and a half delay in bringing the defendant to a magistrate and the parents were not promptly notified of the juvenile’s rights. The juvenile’s confession should have been suppressed.