State v. Quarterman
Juvenile Law Center filed an amicus curiae brief along with the National Juvenile Defender Center and the Ohio Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The brief supports Alexander Quarterman, who was automatically transferred to adult court at age 16.
Our brief argued that Ohio’s mandatory bindover (transfer) statutes are unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because they do not allow for individualized determinations regarding the propriety of prosecuting certain minors in adult criminal court rather than juvenile court.
The brief argued that Ohio’s bindover scheme violates the due process protections guaranteed by Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966). Kent made clear that transfer to adult court must provide due process protections commensurate with the critical nature of the proceedings. In Kent, the court explained the critical nature of a waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction and the importance of a hearing, effective assistance of counsel, and reasoned judgment. Alexander experienced a waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction where there was no investigation or inquiry into the facts, his needs, or his amenability to treatment. Indeed, the bindover statute prohibited such a determination. The brief also argued that the Ohio’s automatic bindover scheme violates the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on irrebuttable presumptions. A categorical determination violates due process when it creates an irrebuttable presumption that the juvenile who committed the crime is equally morally culpable as an adult who committed the same act. By denying Alexander an individualized determination based on evidence of his age, developmental status, and degree of culpability, the statutory scheme runs afoul of the due process requirements to provide all individuals—and especially youth—the opportunity to be heard.
The brief also argued that the analysis under Kent and under the irrebuttable presumption case law must take into account the United States Supreme Court’s recognition of the constitutionally relevant differences between youth and adults, Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).
Finally, the brief underscored that transfer to adult court places youth at risk of devastating consequences. Transfer to adult court increases the risk of recidivism. It subjects young people to sentencing options that deprive them of age-appropriate rehabilitative treatment, education, and protection. Transfer also exposes youth to adult criminal convictions with more numerous and severe collateral consequences. And, public policy and opinion overwhelmingly oppose automatic transfer of juveniles to adult court.
On September 23, 2014, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed Quarterman’s case on procedural grounds.