United States v. John Doe

627 F.2d 181 58 A.L.R.Fed. 224 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John DOE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 80-1075. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 30, 1980. Decided Sept. 5, 1980. E. G. Iredale, Asst. Federal Public Defender, San Diego, Cal., argued, for defendant-appellant. Roger W. Haines, Asst. U. S. Atty., argued, Michael H. Walsh, U. S. Atty., David C. Doyle, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Before SKOPIL and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges, and EAST, * District Judge. FERGUSON, Circuit Judge: 1 Defendant John Doe, a juvenile entitled to anonymity, appeals from his adjudication as a juvenile delinquent following a non-jury trial. Doe argues that the district court's denial of his request to be proceeded against as an adult violated both his statutory and his constitutional right to a jury trial. We reverse Doe's juvenile delinquency adjudication and remand for a jury trial. I. 2 Doe was arraigned on December 20, 1979 on a complaint of juvenile delinquency pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5032 , based on an…

Defendant John Doe, a juvenile entitled to anonymity, appeals from his adjudication as a juvenile delinquent following a non-jury trial. Doe argues that the district court’s denial of his request to be proceeded against as an adult violated both his statutory and his constitutional right to a jury trial. We reverse Doe’s juvenile delinquency adjudication and remand for a jury trial.

I.

Doe was arraigned on December 20, 1979 on a complaint of juvenile delinquency pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5032 , based on an underlying charge of illegal entry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1325 . On December 21, 1979, the United States filed a juvenile delinquency information accompanied by the required certification as to the unavailability of state jurisdiction.

Doe appeared in district court on January 2, 1980, at which time the court granted a continuance, and again on January 7, 1980, at which time the court set motions for January 14, 1980 and trial for January 15, 1980.

On January 14, 1980, Doe filed a motion to dismiss the juvenile delinquency information because of four alleged violations of the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031-5042 (“FJDA”). 1 Following the…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the result reached by the majority in this case. Doe wanted heads on both sides of justice. He first sought the benefits of the FJDA on his challenge to the information .on grounds which were open only to an accused juvenile delinquent, and then on the eve of an evidentiary hearing by the District Court on the charge of delinquency, he elected “to be proceeded against as an adult . . . .” I cannot read § 5031 as authorizing an alleged juvenile delinquent to “be proceeded against under [the FJDA] . . . .” for some juvenile beneficial reasons and then in midstream request “to be proceeded against as an adult . . . .” with the right of a jury trial. An accused juvenile delinquent should be required, upon advice of counsel, to timely exercise his leave “to be proceeded against as an adult . . .” before placing any adjudicatory issue before the Court.

I would affirm.