By: Elizabeth Brandenburg
The superior court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the trial of
any child 13 to 17 years of age who is alleged to have committed any of
the following offenses:
(1) Murder;
(2) Voluntary Manslaughter;
(3) Rape;
(4) Aggravated sodomy;
(5) Aggravated child molestation;
(6) Aggravated sexual battery; or
(7) Armed robbery if committed with a firearm.
O.C.G.A. § 15-11-28(b)(2)(A).
Because a child accused of committing the above crimes must be tried as
an adult, early consultation with a lawyer is crucial. There are
possible ways to reduce the charges and get the case sent to juvenile
court where the child will be treated more fairly. A lawyer will have
to work closely with the judge and district attorney to transfer a case.
There is increasing research and study into the psychology of children
and teen minds and how charging and punishment in adult court does not
fairly or effectively treat delinquent behavior. The Department of
Justice has compiled these studies concluding that children are likely
not deterred by the threat of adult prosecution and recidivism is
actually worse for those kids exposed to adult court and prison. See
Juvenile Justice Bulletin, OJJDP, August 2008 available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov. Such research and scholarship can be useful in negotiating with the district attorney in your case.
If a lawyer does not obtain a transfer from either the district
attorney or the judge, it is almost impossible to appeal the issue. In
Martin v. State, 256 Ga. App. 527 (2002), the Court of Appeals stressed
that the judge is under no duty to transfer a case or investigate
whether to transfer.
It is equally important to fight transfer to superior court. The
juvenile court can transfer a case to superior court if there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the child committed the delinquent
act alleged; that the child is not mentally retarded or mentally ill;
that the interests of the child and the community require the transfer
be made; and that the child was at least 15 years of age at the time of
the alleged delinquent conduct. O.C.G.A. § 15-11-30.2.
School Searches & Interrogations
Increasingly, children are being searched and interrogated while at
school. These actions by school officials and police at school often
lead not only to school punishment, but also charges in juvenile court
or even adult charges in superior court. Because of the increasing
stakes, scrutiny and oversight of the searches and interrogations that
are taking place in schools are crucial to the criminal defense of a
child. In these circumstances, a motion to suppress a child’s school
statements or evidence found through a search is often the first line
In the Interest of T.A.G., 292 Ga. App. 48 (2008)
T.A.G. was implicated in a robbery of two boys at school, and an
assistant principal took him to his office to question him. T.A.G.
admitted taking money from one of the kids, but not from the other. In
a second interview, T.A.G. admitted taking money from the second kid as
well.
A school resource officer (a police officer assigned to the school) was
present at the second interview. The officer did not ask questions and
was there for “safety purposes.” The principal questioned the student
and asked the officer if the student could be charged with a crime, the
officer answered that he could be charged with robbery.
The trial court refused to suppress the first statement finding that
there was no police involvement. The court granted the motion as to the
second statement because a police officer was involved. The court found
that the police were trying to usurp the student’s Miranda rights by
having the school official ask all the questions but then using the
statements as evidence against the child.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision citing State
v. Young, 234 Ga. 488 (1975). In Young, the Georgia Supreme Court held
that there are three types of people: (1) private individuals; (2)
government agents whose conduct constitutes state action; and (3)
police who are subject to the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary
rule.
School officials are considered type 2 people. When they violate the
Fourth Amendment, they are subject to a civil damages claim, but the
violation does not result in the exclusion of the evidence. When school
officials get police involved, however, both Miranda and the Fourth
Amendment apply.
State v. K.L.M., 278 Ga. App. 219 (2006)
A student overheard that K.L.M. was arranging to sell drugs during
school, and told the principal. The principal called a public safety
officer for assistance. When questioned, K. refuses to speak. The
principal said, “Search him!” and the officer searched K and found
marijuana.
The trial court granted K’s motion to suppress, and the Court of
Appeals affirmed. A school official could have gotten away with the
search, but the officer could not. The fact that the officer was acting
at the behest of the principal did not excuse him from the requirement
that he have probable cause to search a subject.
It is imperative to fight the evidence and charges against children who
are in a vulnerable position to be abused by the system. A lawyer who
is knowledgeable of the available remedies is paramount to a desirable
result.
Elizabeth Brandenburg has successfully handled many cases involving
juveniles. To read more about Elizabeth and her juvenile law
experience, please visit http://www.juvenilelawgroup.com/
The superior court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the trial of
any child 13 to 17 years of age who is alleged to have committed any of
the following offenses:
(1) Murder;
(2) Voluntary Manslaughter;
(3) Rape;
(4) Aggravated sodomy;
(5) Aggravated child molestation;
(6) Aggravated sexual battery; or
(7) Armed robbery if committed with a firearm.
O.C.G.A. § 15-11-28(b)(2)(A).
Because a child accused of committing the above crimes must be tried as
an adult, early consultation with a lawyer is crucial. There are
possible ways to reduce the charges and get the case sent to juvenile
court where the child will be treated more fairly. A lawyer will have
to work closely with the judge and district attorney to transfer a case.
There is increasing research and study into the psychology of children
and teen minds and how charging and punishment in adult court does not
fairly or effectively treat delinquent behavior. The Department of
Justice has compiled these studies concluding that children are likely
not deterred by the threat of adult prosecution and recidivism is
actually worse for those kids exposed to adult court and prison. See
Juvenile Justice Bulletin, OJJDP, August 2008 available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov. Such research and scholarship can be useful in negotiating with the district attorney in your case.
If a lawyer does not obtain a transfer from either the district
attorney or the judge, it is almost impossible to appeal the issue. In
Martin v. State, 256 Ga. App. 527 (2002), the Court of Appeals stressed
that the judge is under no duty to transfer a case or investigate
whether to transfer.
It is equally important to fight transfer to superior court. The
juvenile court can transfer a case to superior court if there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the child committed the delinquent
act alleged; that the child is not mentally retarded or mentally ill;
that the interests of the child and the community require the transfer
be made; and that the child was at least 15 years of age at the time of
the alleged delinquent conduct. O.C.G.A. § 15-11-30.2.
School Searches & Interrogations
Increasingly, children are being searched and interrogated while at
school. These actions by school officials and police at school often
lead not only to school punishment, but also charges in juvenile court
or even adult charges in superior court. Because of the increasing
stakes, scrutiny and oversight of the searches and interrogations that
are taking place in schools are crucial to the criminal defense of a
child. In these circumstances, a motion to suppress a child’s school
statements or evidence found through a search is often the first line
In the Interest of T.A.G., 292 Ga. App. 48 (2008)
T.A.G. was implicated in a robbery of two boys at school, and an
assistant principal took him to his office to question him. T.A.G.
admitted taking money from one of the kids, but not from the other. In
a second interview, T.A.G. admitted taking money from the second kid as
well.
A school resource officer (a police officer assigned to the school) was
present at the second interview. The officer did not ask questions and
was there for “safety purposes.” The principal questioned the student
and asked the officer if the student could be charged with a crime, the
officer answered that he could be charged with robbery.
The trial court refused to suppress the first statement finding that
there was no police involvement. The court granted the motion as to the
second statement because a police officer was involved. The court found
that the police were trying to usurp the student’s Miranda rights by
having the school official ask all the questions but then using the
statements as evidence against the child.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision citing State
v. Young, 234 Ga. 488 (1975). In Young, the Georgia Supreme Court held
that there are three types of people: (1) private individuals; (2)
government agents whose conduct constitutes state action; and (3)
police who are subject to the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary
rule.
School officials are considered type 2 people. When they violate the
Fourth Amendment, they are subject to a civil damages claim, but the
violation does not result in the exclusion of the evidence. When school
officials get police involved, however, both Miranda and the Fourth
Amendment apply.
State v. K.L.M., 278 Ga. App. 219 (2006)
A student overheard that K.L.M. was arranging to sell drugs during
school, and told the principal. The principal called a public safety
officer for assistance. When questioned, K. refuses to speak. The
principal said, “Search him!” and the officer searched K and found
marijuana.
The trial court granted K’s motion to suppress, and the Court of
Appeals affirmed. A school official could have gotten away with the
search, but the officer could not. The fact that the officer was acting
at the behest of the principal did not excuse him from the requirement
that he have probable cause to search a subject.
It is imperative to fight the evidence and charges against children who
are in a vulnerable position to be abused by the system. A lawyer who
is knowledgeable of the available remedies is paramount to a desirable
result.
Elizabeth Brandenburg has successfully handled many cases involving
juveniles. To read more about Elizabeth and her juvenile law
experience, please visit http://www.juvenilelawgroup.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment