tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098620.post6672961360869309763..comments2024-03-15T04:02:42.341-04:00Comments on CrimLaw: J.D.B. v. N.C.: The Supreme Court on Questioning a Juvenile Or How to NOT Set a StandardUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098620.post-30143356437910673592011-06-24T15:55:13.402-04:002011-06-24T15:55:13.402-04:00I agree with M. Donner that this new case doesn...I agree with M. Donner that this new case doesn't open a can of worms, nor will it hamstring police. It simply says that when a court is deciding whether a kid is in "custody" for Miranda purposes, the court can take into account the fact the kid is a kid, as one of about 6-7 other objective custody factors. Should a court put on blinders & ignore that a 15 year old suspect might reasonably (objectively) be in custody, whereas a 35 year old might not? <br /><br />-msk@macdowelllaw.com<br /><br />I appreciate K. Lammers' concern that this arguably delves into subjective factors- IF this case actually did that, things could get murky. I also think he's right that we may see challenges along the proverbial slippery slope towards other new factors- e.g, a mentally-retarded suspect, or a female suspect surrounded by all male police. <br /><br />But, this JDB v. NC case keeps Miranda law grounded in objective factors. "Custody" analysis already directs courts to look at two inquires: "first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." <br /><br />Kids are different than adults. Part of the JDB v NC case convincingly lays this out. Also, recall Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (holding unconst'l death penalty for minors). But you don't need the SCOTUS to tell you that- just ask any parent or teacher. <br /><br />As for me, I'll sleep just fine tonight, not worried that juvenile delinguents are running loose solely because our well-trained police officers are befuddled by this case decision.<br /><br />msk@macdowelllaw.comMatthew Kenskynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098620.post-51598534243058199352011-06-18T12:14:40.928-04:002011-06-18T12:14:40.928-04:00So, you don't like a bright line rule for Mira...So, you don't like a bright line rule for Miranda based on age. <br /><br />Do you have a similar problem with rules on statutory rape and drinking? <br /><br />In fact, I agree with you on the notion that evaluating a minor's ability to understand a situation is difficult to evaluate. Where I differ is that we have been dealing with that same question forever when thinking about sex, and apparently the best we can do is a bright line age-based rule that leads to absurdity and broken lives in some cases. <br /><br />If we're willing to tolerate a system that lists a man as a sex offender for sleeping with the woman he is now married to, I, for one, don't see a problem in having a bright-line rule that limits cops' ability to question a 17.99 year old, if it also means that a 13 year-old isn't assumed to understand the legal nuance that most adults don't understand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098620.post-55413733281538182722011-06-18T08:17:03.157-04:002011-06-18T08:17:03.157-04:00I do not see this new case being such a sea-change...I do not see this new case being such a sea-change in the law as bloggers seem to think it is. The Supreme Court has long held (e.g., Fare v. Michael C. in 1979) that the age of a juvenile must be taken into account in determining the voluntariness of a juvenile's confession. This new case simply tells lower courts to add the fact the suspect is a juvenile to the "totality of the circumstances" in determining whether, objectively, a suspect is "in custody" for Miranda purposes. It seems like a small leap in logic to extend Fare's logic to the test of whether an suspect is in custody.<br /><br />All this case does is set up two separate actors for the Miranda analysis: an objective adult and an objective juvenile. The law is full of distinctions between adults and juveniles; I don't see any major difference in the reasoning here.<br /><br />Another way to look at this case as is follows: Fare required courts to consider the age of the suspect in determining whether his waiver of Miranda was voluntary. This new case simply requires the trial court to consider the age of the suspect in determining whether Miranda was required in the first place.Michael Donnernoreply@blogger.com