1 of 50

Juvie 101�

www.opd.wa.gov/program/YAC

2 of 50

The Juvenile Justice Act (JJA)�RCW 13.40.010

(a) Protect the citizenry from criminal behavior;
(b) Provide for determining whether accused juveniles have committed offenses as defined by this chapter;
(c) Make the juvenile offender accountable for his or her criminal behavior;
(d) Provide for punishment commensurate with the age, crime, and criminal history of the juvenile offender;
(e) Provide due process for juveniles alleged to have committed an offense;
(f) Provide for the rehabilitation and reintegration of juvenile offenders;
(g) Provide necessary treatment, supervision, and custody for juvenile offenders;
(h) Provide for the handling of juvenile offenders by communities whenever consistent with public safety;
(i) Provide for restitution to victims of crime;
(j) Develop effective standards and goals for the operation, funding, and evaluation of all components of the juvenile justice system and related services at the state and local levels;
(k) Provide for a clear policy to determine what types of offenders shall receive punishment, treatment, or both, and to determine the jurisdictional limitations of the courts, institutions, and community services;
(l) Provide opportunities for victim participation in juvenile justice process, including court hearings on juvenile offender matters, and ensure that Article I, section 35 of the Washington state Constitution, the victim bill of rights, is fully observed; and
(m) Encourage the parents, guardian, or custodian of the juvenile to actively participate in the juvenile justice process.

3 of 50

Who falls under the JJA?

Age 8-12: Prosecutor must prove capacity (RCW 9A.04.050)

By clear and convincing evidence

Age 12 – 17: Capacity presumed; can be prosecuted in Juvenile Court
Late file, crime committed before 18 and charge before 21

Burden is clear and convincing evidence--show that the ultimate fact is highly probable.

Presumption may be removed by proof that they have sufficient capacity to understand the act or neglect, and to know that it was wrong.

Capacity to understand the act and know it was wrong. RCW 9A.04.050.

Determination made in reference to specific act

Child must be aware that the act was wrongful at the time it was committed.

Factors re: knowledge of wrongfulness:

Nature of the crime

Child’s age and maturity

Whether child exhibited desire for secrecy

Whether child admonished victim not to tell

Prior conduct similar to charge

Any consequences that attached to prior conduct

Acknowledgment that behavior is wrong and could lead to detention

Child must know the act is wrong, not only in a moral sense, but in a legal sense as well.

“State must show that the child is able to entertain criminal intent.”

State v. Erika D.W., 85 Wn App 601 (1997); State v. JPS, 135 Wn. 2d 24 (1998)

In re Dependency of K.S.C., 137 Wn. 2d 918 (1999)

RCW 9A.04.050

State v. K.A.B., 14 Wn. App 2d 677, 696 (2020)

State v. Q.D. 102 Wn. 2d 19, 27 (1984)

State v. K.A.B., 14 Wn. App 2d 677 (2020)

State v. KAB, 14 Wn. App at 695 citing State v. Ramer, 151 Wn.2d 106, 115 (2004).

4 of 50

Diversions in Juvenile Court

First misdemeanor referral: mandatory diversion

Some Serious Offenses can be Diverted: Assault 2 and Rob 2

5 of 50

Language Matters?�Language Matters.

Juv	Adult
Adjudication	Conviction
Respondent	Defendant
Bench Trial	Jury Trial
Proof BARD	Proof BARD
Automatic Sealing	Difficult Vacate Process
Disposition	Sentencing
Juvenile Rehabilitation (JR)	Prisons
Probation Counselors	Probation Officers

6 of 50

Probation can be…a bit surprising.

7 of 50

Juvie Sentencing

WA is unique—most states don’t have fixed sentencing grids for kids
Misdos: ¼ point; felonies: 1 pt
Deferred sentences
Option B sentences

8 of 50

WA Juvie Sentencing Grid

9 of 50

Felony Points�

Generally don’t count against your adult sentencing score anymore, except:

Murder 1
Murder 2
Class A Sex Offenses

[continued effort to make this fully retroactive]

10 of 50

Juvenile Rehabilitation Institutions

11 of 50

Youth in Adult Courts

16 & 17 charged with traffic (DUI), Fishing/Hunting

Goes straight to CLJ
Unless there is a juv offense attached

Autodecline

Serious Violent Offense (16 & 17)
Violent offense plus hx
ROC 1

Decline

15 + serious violent offense
Murder 1 or 2

12 of 50

Youth Deserve Different Treatment in the Criminal Legal System.

Right to Counsel is Critical for Young People.

Interrogations are unfairly coercive, deceptive and produce false confessions, in general.

But even more so for youth.

Adolescent brain science

Miranda is confusing

Knowing whether you can refuse police requests to search is confusing

Being able to consider the long range consequences is a blind spot for youth: thinking about right now, am I going to jail? Immediate consequences

- Unable to contemplate the long term prospects for the situation

Less than 10 percent of youth suspected of committing a crime assert their Miranda rights when stopped by the police.

Children questioned by adults and authority figures are more likely to feel pressure to respond.

Police interrogation is inherently coercive.

Police can lie to youth during interrogation with impunity.

13 of 50

Youth Are not Mini-Adults

US Supreme Court

Roper v. Simmons (2005): no death penalty for crimes committed as youth
Graham v. Florida (2010): no LWOP for nonhomicide crimes committed as youth
Miller v. Alabama (2012): no mandatory LWOP for crimes committed as youth

WA Supreme Court

State v. Bassett (2018): no LWOP for crimes committed as youth under WA constitution
State v. Houston-Sconiers (2017): otherwise mandatory sentencing laws are not mandatory for crimes committed as youth
In re PRP of Monschke (2021): no mandatory LWOP for 19 and 20-year-olds (apply Miller to emerging adults)

14 of 50

Exceptions�

Terry Frisk
Search Incident to Arrest—can include items in your possession
Exigent Circumstances

Officer Safety or
Evidence being destroyed or disappearing

Consent
Special Circumstances

Schools
Borders
Probationers, parolees, etc

BUT YOU CAN ASK FOR AN ATTORNEY!

15 of 50

Youth Access to Counsel

16 of 50

Why?

Right to Counsel is Critical for Young People.

Interrogations are unfairly coercive, deceptive and produce false confessions, in general.
But even more so for youth.

Katie

OPD mission to ensure the (const & statutory) right to counsel

Youth do not understand legal rights and protections: they cannot fully understand the consequences of waiving their rights and are more likely to waive their rights than adults

- Youth are more likely than adults to falsely confess

Youth are also more likely to falsely confess to crimes than their adult counterparts

A 2013 study showed 38% of exonerations for crimes allegedly committed by youth under age 18 involved false confessions, comparted with 11 of adults https://innocenceproject.org/why-are-youth-susceptible-to-false-confessions/
Children questioned by authority figures acquiesce more readily to suggestion during questioning. Studies documenting the frequency of false juvenile confessions concludes that a young person’s “eagerness to comply with adult authority figures, impulsivity, immature judgment, and inability to recognize and weigh risks in decision-making,” puts them at greater risk to confess falsely when subjected to psychological interrogation techniques.” See Steven A. Drizin & Richard A. Leo, The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World, 82 N.C. L. Rev. 891, 1005 (2004)

Power dynamics: Compliance with authority: youth are trained to be cooperative with authority figures, so the power dynamic is too great for them to assert

less than 10 percent of youth asserted Miranda
more likely to feel pressured to respond
interrogation is inherently cocercive
police can lie to youth during interrogation with impunity

Race: Latest race and crim justice system task force report (2021): youth of color are disproportionately likely to interface with police officers in Washington State when compared to their white peers. As of last year, black youth statewide were almost three times as likely to be arrested than white youth.

Existing caselaw fails to protect youth. Supreme Court began to recognize that youth are different under the law in Roper v. Simmons in 2005. This was the first Supreme Court case to recognize that developmental differences in youth require that they be treated differently in the criminal legal system (by outlawing the death penalty for youthThese cases require that courts take into account that youth are immature and their developing brains do not allow them to fully consider the consequences of their actions, reducing their criminal culpability Therefore this should also change the way we treat youth while investigating them (they cannot fully consider the consequences of their actions during investigation either) How many times have you read or heard a youth want to explain their way out of an offense and there by admitting to an element that the state could not prove.

17 of 50

Power Dynamics

Less than 10 percent of youth suspected of committing a crime assert their Miranda rights when stopped by the police.
Children questioned by adults and authority figures are more likely to feel pressure to respond.
Police interrogation is inherently coercive.
Police can lie to youth during interrogation with impunity.

18 of 50

Reform began in King County.

1. In 2016-2017, King County Dept of Public Defense worked to pass a local ordinance that required that youth under 18 years of age consult with legal counsel prior to an interrogation in juvenile jail facility

That followed years of defense attorneys intervening to stop police from interrogating incarcerated youth. It also followed an unsuccessful effort by public defenders to have the juvenile jail implement limitations on police officer’s access to youth.

After that Ordinance was adopted, King County public defenders responded to the juvenile jail if officers wanted to question a youth.

2. 2017 Juvenile Friendly Miranda warnings adopted by County Sheriff

3. 2019 local ordinance passed requiring consultation when investigation by Seattle PD and King County PD: MiChance Dunlap Gittens Youth Rights Ordinance

19 of 50

Youth-Friendly Miranda Warnings

1. You have the right to remain silent, which means that you don’t have to say anything.
2. It’s OK if you don’t want to talk to me.
3. If you do want to talk to me, I can tell the juvenile court judge or adult court judge and� Probation Officer what you tell me.
4. You have the right to talk to a free lawyer right now. That free lawyer works for you and is available at any time – even late at night. That lawyer does not tell anyone what you tell them. That free lawyer helps you decide if it’s a good idea to answer questions. That free lawyer can be with you if you want to talk with me.
5. If you start to answer my questions, you can change your mind and stop at any time. I won’t ask you any more questions.
Juvenile Waiver of Rights:�1. Do you understand? (If yes, then continue to number 2)�2. Do you want to have a lawyer? (If no, then continue to number 3)�3. Do you want to talk with me? (If yes, then proceed with questioning)

20 of 50

Statewide Legislation

21 of 50

Washington’s Early Access to Counsel for Youth Statute

RCW 13.40.740: Juvenile access to an attorney

Summary:

Law enforcement must provide youth an attorney consultation prior to waiver of constitutional right when:
Questioning during custodial interrogation;
Detaining based on probable cause; or
Requesting consent to search consent.

(5) The juvenile, or parent, or attorney on juvenile’s behalf may assert

22 of 50

Legislative Challenges

Original Objections: It’s Not Possible.

Current Opposition: We can’t talk to kids.

23 of 50

Evidence Inadmissible

24 of 50

State Office of Public Defense Tasked with Implementation

WHAT IS THE WA STATE OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENSE?!?!

WA State PD System:

- Public Defense largely handled at the county level

Washington State Office of Public Defense is a statewide agency with limited role in implementing public defense services throughout the state

Dependency or child welfare proceedings: parents rep
Appeal
Pub Defense improvement project
Civil commitment for sex offenders post-prison
Extraordinary criminal justice costs—death penalty
Provision of Youth Access to Counsel. The Office of Public Defense is required to provide access to attorneys for juveniles consistent with the requirements described above. Subject to the rules of discovery, the Office of Public Defense is authorized to collect identifying information for any youth who speaks with a consulting attorney pursuant to this act. Such records are exempt from public disclosure.

🡪 We were tasked with setting up a statewide system

25 of 50

How does it work?

Statewide System

26 of 50

Telephone Consultations

27 of 50

Data

28 of 50

Consultation Scripts/Data� Collection

29 of 50

30 of 50

When, Where & How Often Police Call

31 of 50

2,327 Total Calls

32 of 50

2,092 Total Calls

In 2023

33 of 50

2,256 Total Calls

In 2024

34 of 50

Year	Number of Consultations
2022	2,327
2023	2,092
2024	2,256
Total	6,675

35 of 50

36 of 50

37 of 50

38 of 50

39 of 50

40 of 50

41 of 50

42 of 50

What About the Youth Served?�

43 of 50

44 of 50

45 of 50

Co-Respondents/Defendants

46 of 50

Call Location

47 of 50

48 of 50

49 of 50

50 of 50

Questions?

Comments? Suggestions? Concerns?

Liz Mustin, Supervising Attorney Adult & Youth Criminal Defense Programs

Elizabeth.Mustin@opd.wa.gov