Five Year Comparison of Juvenile Court Cases
Jurisdiction 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Hamilton 261 407 368 447 540
Middletown 518 527 542 826 934
Butler County N/A 9,474 8,816 10,242 11,156
Warren County N/A 3,495 4,562 4,993 4,722
Source: Hamilton and Middletown police and Ohio Supreme Court
A ruling that divided the Ohio Supreme Court last week has also sparked debate locally about the rights of juveniles when they are questioned by police.
The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled state law doesn’t entitle minors the right to an attorney during police interrogations that come before charges are filed or an initial appearance in juvenile court. The law states that juveniles are entitled to a lawyer during “proceedings.” The majority of the high court determined the word “proceedings” to mean court proceedings.
Chief Justice Mareen O’Connor wrote the dissent for the court, saying juveniles must be treated differently under the law and juveniles are protected under the U.S. Constitution.
“The majority opinion defies law, logic and common sense in suggesting that a statute that goes beyond constitutional requirements must be considered without any consideration of constitutional requirements,” she wrote. “Thus, the majority casts aside those constitutional commands , as well as our precedent and reframes the issue before us as simply one of statutory language.”
In his majority opinion Justice Terrence O’Donnell wrote that the minor child didn’t raise his constitutional rights so they didn’t address it. In the case, a juvenile from Cleveland waived his rights and spoke to the police about an armed robbery he and a buddy committed.
Former Warren County Juvenile Judge Mike Powell, who was recently appointed to the 12 District Court of Appeals, said the recent opinion really doesn’t leave juveniles without counsel.
“What the justices ruled here was that state law doesn’t provide a right to counsel to juveniles,” he said. “That state statute is different than the right to counsel that’s provided by the federal constitution. Juveniles still have the same right to counsel under the 6th amendment to the constitution.”
Nevertheless, a week after the 4 to 3 opinion was issued, State Rep. Tracy Heard, a Columbus Democrat, introduced a bill that specifically gives minors a right to confer with counsel prior to any interrogation.
The bill might not get very far up the legislative chain however, said House Criminal Justice Committee Chairman, State Rep. Courtney Combs.
“I’m very reluctant to change anything that the Supreme Court comes out with,” he said. “There are three branches of government… And I have a difficult time in thinking that one branch should supersede or try to control another branch. I’ve got a basic problem with that premise.”
A survey of juvenile arrests in Middletown from 2010 through 2012 showed that 61 percent of the cases were committed by children under the age of 16 in 2012. The youngest offender was an 8-year-old charged with criminal damaging in 2010. There were five 9-year-olds, one was charged with aggravated menacing and another assault and theft. There were ten 10-year-olds, 35 11-year-olds, and the numbers go up from there.
Jill Beeler, an attorney with the juvenile division of the Ohio Public Defender Office, said the police could have talked even to that 8-year-old in Middletown, without informing his or her parents.
“Parents generally don’t believe this until it happens to them or a friend, that police can interrogate their child without their knowledge, without their permission, without them being there, without having any information about it,” she said. “Any child of any age, any education level… they can question any child, read them their Miranda rights and accept a waiver of counsel, without that child talking to any other adult.”
Middletown Police Lt. Scott Reeve said they typically don’t charge children under the age of 10 with crimes, they prefer to have the parents deal with the situation. He said it is preferable to speak with children alone, especially victims.
“Juveniles, in my experience, are a lot more reluctant to talk to us if mom and dad are in the room,” he said.
He said they don’t read juveniles their rights in every situation, but it depends heavily on the circumstances. He said police are very cognizant that children are not just small adults and they don’t always get adult concepts — like they have rights under the law.
“Juveniles are much more likely to feel that they’re not free to go, that they have to answer our questions,” he said. “We’ve got to be a lot more cautious with juveniles.”
Hamilton police also treat their juveniles carefully, says Lt. Carl Sigmon.
“We look at the totality of the circumstances, which is what the Supreme Court has ruled, whenever we interrogate a juvenile,” he said. “We take things into account such as their age, or their intelligence or their educational level or their awareness of the circumstances and what’s taking place and how it’s going to effect them, or their prior experience with police department.”
He said they don’t alert the parents unless they happen to be right there when they confront the child. However, he said they would not likely interrogate a 10-year-old, they would talk to the parents.
Kim Tandy, executive director of the Children’s Law Center said the high court decision was unfortunate.
“The dissent authored by Chief Justice O’Connor conveys the important differences between adults and youth defendants, especially in light of the recent U.S. Supreme court decision which re-iterated the limitations on a youth’s cognitive abilities and legal capacity,” she said. “As she noted, other states have recognized this, including our sister state Indiana. Kids simply cannot be held to the same standards as adults when it comes to a full understanding of their rights, and the consequences which can arise when they are not counseled.”
About the Author