Here is the opinion in United States v. LKAV.
From the court’s syllabus:
Reversing an order committing a juvenile for a study of his competency to stand trial, the panel held that the district court erred by committing the juvenile under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), rather than proceeding pursuant to Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act.
Here is today’s opinion in United States v. Juvenile Male.
From the court’s summary:
The panel affirmed the district court’s order granting the government’s motion to transfer juvenile proceedings for adult prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 in a case in which the defendant is charged with second-degree murder and using a firearm during a crime of violence. Agreeing with sister circuits that a psychological evaluation is not a prerequisite to approving a transfer motion, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in making a finding about the defendant’s intellectual development by relying solely on lay-witness testimony. The panel also held that although the district court did not explicitly address the staff-to-offender ratio or specific counseling programs, the district court did not abuse its discretion in making findings about the treatment programs available at adult and juvenile facilities where the defendant might serve any sentence imposed. The panel wrote that the district court consistently presumed for purposes of the transfer decision that the defendant would be convicted of one or both charges, and that the presumption of guilt for this purpose does not violate the defendant’s due-process rights.
Here is today’s opinion in United States v. Juvenile Male.
An excerpt:
Three juvenile defendants, each of whom is a member of an Indian Tribe and who pleaded true to a charge of aggravated sexual abuse with children, appeal their conditions of probation or supervision requiring registration under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. § 16901 et seq. Defendants argue that SORNA’s registration requirement contravenes the confidentiality provisions of the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA), 18 U.S.C. § 5031 et seq., and also challenge its constitutionality. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. Because we conclude that Congress, in enacting SORNA, intentionally carved out a class of juveniles from the FJDA’s confidentiality provisions, and that SORNA’s registration requirement is constitutionally sound, we affirm the district courts’ imposition of the sex offender registration conditions.
Turtle Talk 