CrimLaw

Tony, over at Oriental Redneck, pointed this article out to me.

Patrick was a 14 year old honor student, who had no prior record. Along with an "of age" kid, he broke into a boatyard to steal a radio. When they saw a video camera the kids made a mistake of gargantuan proportions. In an attempt to destroy evidence they burnt the boatyard down. And the feds brought the wrath of God down on the kid's head.

Why? Because a boat engine at the shipyard belonged to 41. There are statements about the case being undertaken in federal court because the evidence looked weak when the State "asked" the feds to step in and devote their more considerable resources to it and because arson is a crime of violence. However, the article makes it pretty clear that all the substantial evidence was already in hand when the case was "given" to the feds. And, hmmm . . . I know I've never heard a juvenile court judge whine, "I just can't handle this case because there's violence involved."

The State and feds seem to have concurrent jurisdiction here if I remember my conlaw correctly (navigable water=connection to interstate commerce) but it seems to me that this is a case where the proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion would have been to allow the fully developed State juvenile system handle the situation. Instead:

He was given the maximum sentence allowed: 30 months incarceration, followed by 27 months of probation. He was then sent to a maximum security juvenile facility in Pennsylvania on the order of the federal Bureau of Prisons.
. . .
Patrick is being kept at the Cresson Secure Treatment Center in the central part of [Pennsylvania].

Cresson is for the most serious juvenile offenders in Pennsylvania who have proved disruptive in other facilities. Patrick is now housed in a wing where the other inmates are all mentally ill or mentally retarded.
. . .
[T]he education he is receiving . . consists of Patrick's volunteering to tutor the other boys in reading or arithmetic.

Federal law requires that juveniles convicted in federal court be provided with proper education, and that "whenever possible" they should be kept in a facility "located in or near" their home. Cresson is 570 miles from his home.

Personal observation: This case brings to mind an article in a recent edition of the Virginia Lawyers Weekly. Written by a federal judge, it basically said the worm has turned and urged Defense attorneys to fight their cases through. The logic seems to be that the obnoxious guidelines combined with the fact that more and more trivial criminal matters are being brought in federal court has brought disfavor upon the prosecutors¹. Personally, I cannot confirm or deny this because these pieces were already in play when I started watching the federal courts but I can say that prosecutors seem to get far more deference in the State courts wherein I practice.

This matter seems to be a case study in exactly the kind of case which shouldn't have been brought in federal court. Putting a 14 year old in a detention home should be a last resort (although, in this case a couple months over a summer might have scared some sense into the kid) and 30 months is basically writing the kid off. He may be a honor student now but, even if he's put in a good juvenile facility, by the time he gets out his education will be far behind those of his age. And if he remains in the place he's at now he will have spent almost three years learning to survive among the youths with whom your worst nightmares are populated. Chances of recovering from this are almost nil (and I say almost because there is always hope for some miracle). How does this serve either society or the youth?

Also check out the post on this issue at Is That Legal?



¹ Caution - it's been a while since I read the article so I'm paraphrasing as best I can remember. Some of this may have come from discussing the article with other Defense attorneys.