OJD Week in Review: May 14 – 18

Welcome back!  This week we’ve got two new resources from NJDC in honor of Gault and the usual list of reminders for upcoming event and application deadlines.

We’d like to ask that if you know of any new defenders around N.C. please be sure to let them know about our office and also direct them to our website, the listserv,  Twitter page, and the NCOJD Facebook page.  We want to make sure we are reaching as many juvenile justice advocates as possible and ensure everyone is made aware of all of the channels we have available in the event they need assistance.  Thanks!

Also, check out the infographic below and see what traits you think match your style!

New Resource

Earlier this week, to commemorate the 51st anniversary of In re Gault, the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC) released two new resources, “Confined Without Cause: The Constitutional Right to Prompt Probable Cause Determinations for Youth” and “Ensuring Access: A Policy Advocacy Toolkit“.  The former argues the harms of placing children in detention and the need for children to have a probable cause determination within 48 hours, and the latter is a toolkit meant to aid defenders, advocates, state legislators and policymakers who desire to change local laws and court rules to ensure children have access to counsel.  The toolkit also acts as a companion piece to NJDC’s previous report, “Access Denied: A National Snapshot of States’ Failure to Protect Children’s Right to Counsel“, which was released last year to commemorate Gault‘s 50th anniversary, incorporating the five issue areas and recommendations from that report.

Traits &Profiles (3)

From Around the Community

The Center for Juvenile Justice Reform and the Council of State Governments Justice Center will host the 2018 Janet Reno Forum on Monday, May 21, at  Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.  The forum will highlight strategies for restructuring juvenile justice systems to more effectively enhance public safety and improve outcomes for youth.  The event will include the presentation of the second annual Janet Reno Endowment Women’s Leadership Award, and attendees will receive a publication featuring the highlighted strategies.  Policymakers, practitioners, researchers, advocates, and other stakeholders are invited to attend.  Please register here.

The National Juvenile Justice Network will be hosting its 2018 Forum in Durham, N.C. from July 16 – 18 at the Duke University School of Law (210 Science Dr, Durham, NC 27708).  This event, co-hosted by the Youth Justice Project of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice and Duke Children’s Law Clinic, is meant to be a fun networking and training setting for juvenile justice advocates.  July 16 and 17 will be open to NJJN members only, and the final day will be open to the public.  For details on travel assistance, the current agenda, and lodging, please visit their site here.

Registration is now open for the 81st Annual National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Conference.  The event this year will take place at the Hyatt Regency Denver at the Colorado Convention Center from July 22 – 25.  The conference will offer presentations/training tracks on  topics such as family law, juvenile justice, child welfare, and family violence.  This conference is judicially-focused and open to all those interested in the improvement of juvenile and family justice.  For registration and further info, please visit the NCJFCJ website here.  The early bird deadline to register ends on June 1.

81st Annual Conference

Job Opportunities

The Michigan State Appellate Defender Office (SADO) is seeking an Assistant Defender for its Juvenile Lifer Unit and will accept applications until Friday, May 25th.  The Unit is composed of seven attorneys and four mitigation specialists representing over a hundred clients where prosecutors are again seeking life without parole sentences.  The ideal candidate will have experience in death penalty phase or juvenile lifer resentencing hearings, experience in both trial and appellate courts, and experience negotiating with prosecutors, preparing mitigation for clients, and working with expert witnesses.  The project is funded through October 2019 for now, but funding will likely continue as the work will not be complete by then.  To view the full job description and see how to apply please review the complete job posting here.

The UNC School of Government is seeking a tenure-track full-time permanent assistant professor of juvenile justice and criminal law.  The selected candidate for this position will be expected “to write for, advise, plan courses for, and teach” public officials, including judges, magistrates, law enforcement, prosecutors and defenders.  Applications will remain open until the position is filled.  The expected starting date for the new hire will be July 1.  Please find the full details for the position and how to apply here.

Training

Registration is still open for the 2018 Southern Juvenile Defender Center Regional Summit.  The event will take place on June 8 and 9 at the University of South Carolina School of Law.  For further details and to register for the event, please check the Eventbrite page here.

The 2018 Defender Trial School, cosponsored by the School of Government and the North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services, will be held Monday, July 9, through Friday, July 13, at the School of Government on the UNC-Chapel Hill campus.  The online registration deadline will be at 5 p.m. on Monday, June 25, and interested parties may register here.  Defender Trial School participants will use their own cases to develop a cohesive theory of defense at trial and apply that theory through all stages of trial, including voir dire, opening and closing arguments, and direct and cross-examination.  The program will offer approximately 30 hours of general CLE credit and qualifies for NC State Bar criminal law specialization credit, but attendees must attend all sessions.  The Defender Trial School is open to public defenders and a limited number of private attorneys who perform a significant amount of appointed work.  The registration fee for privately assigned counsel will be $700, which includes materials, breaks, lunches and parking, however Valerie Pearce and Tucker Charns can provide info for those interested in fellowships.  For additional info, please check out the program webpage.

Registration is open for the N.C. Bar Association’s annual meeting, this year titled “The Future of Law”.   This event will be hosted at the Wilmington Convention Center from June 21 – 24.  Topics covered will include artificial intelligence, virtual reality, design thinking in the law, and the future of legal service delivery.  For further info and to register please check out the NCBA website and the event brochure.

i-love-training-trainings-my-favorite

Please save the dates for the 2018 Parent Attorney and Juvenile Defender Conferences.  Parent Attorney Conference will be held Thursday, August 16 and Juvenile Defender Conference will be held Friday, August 17. Both conferences, cosponsored by the School of Government and the Office of Indigent Defense Services, will be held at the School of Government on the UNC-Chapel Hill campus, offer approximately six hours of CLE credit, and feature speakers from across the state.  Registration will open in mid-June with a formal announcement and full details.

Thank you for checking out this week’s wrap-up and we will bring more soon!

Due Process Rights and Children: Fifty Years of In re Gault Part Five, the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

Juvenile defenders, the court system, the governor, and other advocates recently celebrated a historic moment in juvenile justice. Monday was the 50th Anniversary of the In re Gault decision, which guaranteed juveniles the right to due process in delinquency proceedings. In honor of the event, this multiple part series on due process has explored the history of Gault and how it transformed juvenile court by ensuring that juveniles have the right to notice, the right to counsel, and the right to confrontation and cross-examination. This final post discusses the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the protection it provides to juveniles, assuming they understand what it means and know how to assert it.

The Fifth Amendment Privilege and Juveniles

In 1964, Gerald Gault was ordered to serve nearly six years in a state industrial school for allegedly making a prank phone call. His adjudication was based upon a confession obtained without his parents or a lawyer being present and without advising him of the right to remain silent. The Arizona courts decided that such formalities (i.e., the advisement of rights and participation of lawyers and parents) were unnecessary in juvenile court where the goal was treatment and not punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.

Recognizing that children are more prone to coerced confessions than adults, the court rejected the notion that the Fifth Amendment privilege did not apply to children due to the labeling of juvenile court as “civil” and not criminal. 387 U.S. 1, 45. Describing the harsh realities of juvenile court, the Supreme Court held that:

juvenile proceedings to determine ‘delinquency,’ which may lead to commitment to a state institution, must be regarded as ‘criminal’ for purposes of the privilege against self-incrimination. To hold otherwise would be to disregard substance because of the feeble enticement of the ‘civil’ label-of-convenience, which has been attached to juvenile proceedings. Indeed, in over half of the states, there is not even assurance that the juvenile will be kept in separate institutions, apart from adult ‘criminals.’ In those states, juveniles may be placed in or transferred to adult penal institutions after having been found ‘delinquent’ by a juvenile court. For this purpose, at least, commitment is a deprivation of liberty. It is incarceration against one’s will, whether it is called ‘criminal’ or ‘civil.’ And our Constitution guarantees that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself when he is threatened with deprivation of his liberty[.]

Id. at 49-50.

Gault also extended the Miranda rule to juveniles, requiring law enforcement officers to advise juveniles in custody of their Fifth Amendment rights prior to any questioning. Under the Miranda rule, statements made by a juvenile while “in custody” are inadmissible in court unless Miranda warnings were given and the juvenile knowingly and voluntarily waived the juvenile’s rights. The Gault court recognized that “special problems may arise with respect to waiver of the privilege by or on behalf of children,” but did not establish any specific requirements for such waivers. Id. at 55. As a result, state laws vary significantly with respect to whether and how juveniles may waive their rights and whether they must do so in the presence of a parent or an attorney.

NC Juvenile Code Requirements

North Carolina law provides juveniles with special protections that go well beyond Gault’s minimum requirements. G.S. 7B-2405, which codifies the privilege against self-incrimination and other due process rights for juveniles, mandates that trial courts shall protect these rights in the adjudication hearing. The Juvenile Code also requires:

Notice to Parents When a Juvenile is in Custody. When a juvenile is taken into temporary custody by a law enforcement officer without a court order, the officer must notify the juvenile’s parents and inform them of their right to be present with their child until a decision is made as to whether continued custody is necessary. G.S. 7B-1901(a)(1).

Advisement of the Right to Parental Presence During Custodial Interrogation. In NC, juveniles under the age of 18 are entitled to have a parent present during a custodial interrogation. Thus, before a law enforcement officer questions any juvenile who is in custody, the officer must advise the juvenile of the following rights: (1) that the juvenile has a right to remain silent; (2) that any statement made by the juvenile can be used against him or her; (3) that the juvenile has the right to have a parent, guardian, or custodian present during questioning; and (4) that the juvenile has the right to an attorney and that one will be appointed if the juvenile is not represented and wants representation. G.S. 7B-2101(a). When officers fail to give these warnings, any statements made by a juvenile while in custody are inadmissible in court. In re K.D.L., 207 N.C. App. 453 (2010).

No Waiver of Rights by Juveniles Under Age 16. NC law now requires that when a juvenile is under the age of 16, a parent or an attorney must be present during the custodial interrogation in order for the juvenile’s statements to be admissible in court. Also, if an attorney is not present, both the parent and juvenile must be informed of the juvenile’s rights; although, only the juvenile can waive his or her rights. G.S. 7B-2101(b).

Advisement of Rights When Accepting Juvenile’s Admission. A trial court may only accept a juvenile’s admission (i.e., guilty plea) after personally addressing the juvenile to make six mandatory inquiries, including informing the juvenile that the juvenile has the right to remain silent and that anything the juvenile says may be used against him or her. G.S. 7B-2407. Because there is a greater duty to protect the rights of juveniles in juvenile proceedings, the court’s failure to address even one of these mandatory inquiries is reversible error. In re T.E.F., 359 N.C. 570 (2005).

Advisement of Rights When Juvenile Testifies. In order to comply with the mandate in G.S. 7B-2405 to protect a juvenile’s privilege against self-incrimination, trial court judges must advise juveniles of the right to remain silent before allowing the juvenile to testify in his or her own delinquency proceeding. In re J.R.V., 212 N.C. App. 205 (2011).

Requiring the advisement of these warnings prior to interrogations by law enforcement and before a juvenile enters admissions in court increases the likelihood that juveniles will understand their rights and will have an opportunity to exercise them. However, potential barriers may still exist.

The Practical Reality

Some advocates argue that these statutory protections do not go far enough, if juveniles cannot fully understand their rights or effectively assert them. According to this article in the ABA Journal, most youth find Miranda rights to be confusing, and nearly 90% of them waive their rights without understanding the consequences.

Another potential barrier to juveniles exercising their rights is the requirement that juveniles must satisfy adult legal standards to trigger their rights under Miranda. Until six years ago when the Supreme Court decided J.D.B. v. North Carolina, police officers applied a “reasonable adult” standard to determine when they must advise a juvenile of Miranda and juvenile rights. J.D.B. held that the Miranda custody test must account for a child’s youth and its unique characteristics. However, recent appellate decisions reveal that courts have not significantly changed how they apply the Miranda analysis to interrogations of juveniles (see this bulletin addressing the reasonable child standard).

Advocates also argue that juveniles should not be allowed to waive their rights without the assistance of a parent or attorney. North Carolina law, by requiring the presence of a parent or attorney during custodial interrogations of juveniles younger than 16, implicitly recognizes that children lack the capacity to understand their rights without a helpful adult. Despite this protection, juveniles continue to face barriers when attempting to invoke their rights.

In 2015, the NC Court of Appeals held in State v. Saldierna that a 16-year-old possibly attempted to invoke his right to have a parent present during a police interrogation when he asked the detective if he could call his mother, which triggered a requirement that the interrogating officers clarify his statement before proceeding. However, last December, the NC Supreme Court reversed the decision. It held that a juvenile must clearly and unambiguously invoke the statutory right to have a parent present during a custodial interrogation, just like an adult must do to invoke Miranda rights. State v. Saldierna, __ N.C. __, 794 S.E.2d 474 (2016). A prior blog post discusses why the Supreme Court’s decision possibly conflicts with J.D.B.’s mandate that police officers and courts must account for the special vulnerability of juveniles during police interrogations.

Despite these potential barriers, significant progress has been made in the fifty years since Gault, especially in North Carolina.  Let us know your thoughts about additional ways courts can better protect a juvenile’s rights.

For more, please check out the other pages on the Gault at 50 series on this site and the “On the Civil Side” blog by Professor LaToya Powell.

All About Gault: Updates, Talking Points, & Reminders

The countdown to “Gault at 50″ continues (less than 3 weeks to go!) and to keep everyone up-to-date, we’ve got a few reminders, tutorials and talking points to share below:

G50

  • For anyone who would like to give a digital or personal presentation, below is a detailed but concise explanation of Gault (feel free to personalize it if you wish):

 

“On May 15, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court granted due process rights to children in the landmark case of In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). The case involved 15-year-old Gerald Gault, who was taken into police custody without notice to his parents, held for four days, and committed to a juvenile facility for a maximum of six years for making a prank phone call to his neighbor. He received no prior notice of the charges and was adjudicated delinquent following an informal hearing with a judge without any witnesses or representation by counsel. His case would spark outrage today but was the norm for juvenile proceedings at the time. When the Supreme Court reversed Gault’s adjudication, it transformed the nature of juvenile court by defining basic requirements of due process that now apply to all delinquency hearings. These rights include:

  • the right to notice of the charges;
  • the right to an attorney;EZ & Gault at Commission on IDS
  • the right to remain silent; and
  • the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.”

(Also if you do choose to create a presentation, be sure to email or Tweet pics or video/audio clips to us to share with the community!)

 

A Review of Saldierna by Guest Blogger Martin Moore

Martin Moore

Most recently, State v. Saldierna, 794 S.E.2d 474 (2016) has brought into question my understanding of how the North Carolina appellate courts view juveniles.  In the midst of a strong push by many judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys for legislators to raise the age of adulthood for criminal purposes, the North Carolina Supreme Court essentially places the onus upon juveniles to affirmatively invoke their statutory rights.

 If you haven’t read LaToya Powell’s blog post on Saldierna, it offers a thorough analysis of the facts, ruling, and dissent and can be found here.  I will only offer the highlights as necessary to address some questions about what impact Saldierna may have going forward.

Saldierna Review

Facts

In Saldierna, a 16-year-old juvenile was arrested for his alleged role in burglaries of homes in Mecklenburg County.  During a custodial interview, the juvenile asked to call his mother, specifically asking “Um, can I call my mom?”  The interrogating officer allowed him to place the call, but the juvenile was unable to reach his mother and subsequently returned to the booking area where the interview resumed and the juvenile confessed.

The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the statements after the call to his mother and determined that the interview was conducted in a fashion consistent with the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 7B-2101 and was not made in violation of his Miranda rights.

 

Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals opined that while § 7B-2101(a)(1), (2), and (4) are essentially codified, Constitution-based Miranda rights and must be invoked clearly and unequivocally, § 7B-2101(a)(3) is a “purely statutory right granted by our State’s General Assembly…” Id. at    , 775 S.E.2d at 332. The appellate court noted that their “review of the provisions of section 7B-2101 reveals an understanding by our General Assembly that the special right guaranteed by subsection (a)(3) is different from those rights discussed in Miranda and, in turn, reflects the legislature’s intent that law enforcement officers proceed with great caution in determining whether a juvenile is attempting to invoke this right.” Id. at    , 775 S.E.2d at 332.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order denying the motion to suppress and vacated the judgments entered on the defendant’s guilty pleas, remanding the case back to the trial court. State v. Saldierna,     N.C. App.    ,    , 775 S.E.2d 326, 334 (2015).

 

North Carolina Supreme Court

The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals.  The Court held that a juvenile’s right to have a parent present during a custodial interrogation is analogous to the constitutional right to counsel and the same standard must be applied to such situations.  Saldierna, __ N.C. at __, 794 S.E.2d at 478.

Following the guidance of Davis v. United States, the Court ultimately determined that the Saldierna did not clearly and unequivocally invoke his right to a parent’s being present and thus his statutory rights, N.C.G.S. §7B-2101(a)(3) were not violated under  were not violated:

“Although defendant asked to call his mother, he never gave any indication that he wanted to have her present for his interrogation, nor did he condition his interview on first speaking with her.  Instead, defendant simply asked to call her…As the trial court pointed out, defendant’s statement was at best an ambiguous invocation of his right to have his mother present.  As in Davis, without an unambiguous, unequivocal invocation of defendant’s right under N.C.G.S. §7B-2101(a)(3), law enforcement officers had no duty to ask clarifying questions or to cease questioning.”

Id. at 479.

This case appears to leave juvenile defenders in an increasingly difficult position.  The varying levels of sophistication and maturity alone have placed a significant burden on young men and women as well as their attorneys in navigating a very complex set of rules.

I imagine most juvenile defenders have at least one story of a young client who struggled, despite their best efforts, to fully understand even the plea transcript used in juvenile court.  With little surprise, a juvenile in a high-stress, custodial interrogation with a law enforcement officer may find themselves in similar difficult straits attempting to understand and invoke their rights under § 7B-2101(a).

While the facts of Saldierna alone can leave one with a sour taste in their mouth, what I envision as most troubling is the tone the Supreme Court sets with this case.  The Court appears to have placed the burden upon juveniles to not only to know and understand their rights, but to unequivocally, unambiguously assert them.  The rather adult responsibility of being a fully informed, civically astute citizen being placed upon the juvenile appears to run counter to the very idea underlying a fairly distinct court operating for the benefit of those same juveniles.

So what does this mean for cases going forward?

Example/Hypothetical:

Ignoring for a moment the differences between jurisdictions and varying procedure among the counties, entertain the following hypothetical:

Suppose four siblings (A, B, C, and D) are in the custody of the Department of Social Services while the Department looks deeper into abuse and neglect in the household.  Social Worker Jane is assigned to investigate the family, looking specifically into sexual abuse of Sibling A, C, and D by sibling B.

After a brief investigation, there is an allegation that A, B, C, and D may have all been engaged in underage, incestuous sex acts and drug use, without complete clarity on who is the initiating party/catalyst of the illicit activities.  The juveniles’ father, previously primary custodian and caretaker, recently had his parental rights terminated.

Juvenile B finds herself in a custodial interrogation with local law enforcement.  The officers are polite and respectful, advising Juvenile B of all relevant rights and call Social Worker Jane to meet them at the station.  Juvenile B asks “can you call my daddy?”  The officers oblige and call her father.  The officers then wait until Social Worker Jane walks into the interrogation room and begin their questioning.  About 15 minutes into the interrogation, her father arrives and sits in the interview room with B, the officers, and the social worker.  B then makes several incriminating statements with father’s nudging approval, hoping that cooperation will reunite the family quickly.

Instead Juvenile B is charged with several sex and drug crimes and now seeks the advice of counsel.

Has B invoked her statutory right?  Did she properly request a parent’s presence?  Did she have a “parent” present?

Prior to Saldierna, I believe the answers would be more clear: Yes, she invoked her statutory right; her request for parental presence was sufficient; and in effect, Juvenile B had no true parental representation. My contention would be that Social Worker Jane was not serving in any parental, custodial, or guardian-ad-litem capacity and certainly not even acting in the best interest of Juvenile B.  She was (and is) assigned to investigate wrongdoings that may have befallen Sibling A, C, and D, leaving her ill-positioned to strongly argue that she could fairly be considered a “parent” examining the facts for 7B-2101 purposes.

As in Saldierna, B made a request, ambiguous or otherwise, that I submit the officers should either heed (and arrange for her father to be present at the interrogation) or, at minimum, ask questions to clarify.  The law affirmatively provides this protection to specifically and solely to juveniles.

While my exposure to the civil/family court side of this is limited, I imagine there are some questions that would need to be answered as to the father.  I would submit biological father would be problematic if for no reason other than his lack of custody of his own children.  I have yet to find a case on point that would indicate that such a father would be sufficient for the purposes of being considered a parent for custodial interrogation purposes.

Post-Saldierna, I am not certain the North Carolina Supreme Court would agree.  The Court’s apparent call for a clear and unambiguous request to have his mother present makes it difficult to expect that questions regarding the adequacy of a juvenile’s parental figure would carry much weight.  Does Juvenile B have the responsibility of clarifying her father’s current parental rights and whose custody she is actually in?  Does Juvenile B have to affirmatively request from the court a DSS representative or guardian to serve as a custodian of their specific best interest?  Even asking these questions helps me realize we have shifted into far too sophisticated a standard to assume the juvenile is receiving any semblance of due process protections.

That said, we need not shift too far into the theoretical to glean what protections the legislature intended for juveniles to have; § 7B-2101(c) clearly states: “If the juvenile indicates in any manner and at any stage of questioning pursuant to this section that the juvenile does not wish to be questioned further, the officer shall cease questioning.”  It would seem that the legislature intended to be overly deferential, via the “in any manner” language, to the line of thinking that acknowledges juveniles should not be held to any specific language in invoking their constitutional and statutory rights.

Advising Juveniles

“I want my mommy and my lawyer.”

While reflecting on how to best advise juveniles, the most complete and honest answer: “it depends.”  For practical purposes, I offer the following:

  1. Be Proactive in Advising

We can debate and discuss recidivism and WHY juveniles may find themselves seeking counsel, but the reality for many of us is that we have repeat clients.  Counseling, mentoring, and advising can and should be forward looking, particularly for the client (or two) that may pick up subsequent charges after we are appointed.  Take the opportunity to walk them through your local law enforcement’s juvenile rights advisement form (7B-2101) and help them understand, in plain language, that they have a voice and are entitled to help.

  1. Discovery, Discovery, Discovery

It seems trite and rather obvious to suggest that the more information you have, the better off you’ll be, but it’s true.  Thorough investigation and interviews are often the only way to obtain the facts needed to advocate on behalf of your client.  DSS records (including social worker reports/notes on parents, juvenile client, and siblings), DNA results, officer statements and notes provide invaluable information and potential mitigation for even the worst of cases.

Of course, there is no substitute for experience and open communication.  Reaching out to colleagues, who practice in both adult and juvenile court, willing to share their experiences may yield insight about what information would be helpful or could be missing.  Particularly when dealing with medical records, for example Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) evaluations/reports, experienced colleagues can be the best resource for help interpreting these documents and providing referrals to experts.

  1. Develop/Reassess Relationship with DSS Social Workers and DSS Attorneys

I admit, on first glance, this may seem like I asked you to put your hand on a hot stove.  That said, I have found, particularly in sex offense cases, the Department of Social Services are an invaluable resource.  Because many of the sex cases I have worked on often involve either a history of abuse of the juvenile or wrongdoing by another as well, DSS’ interest may align with your client’s.  At the very least, you can chat about the Ritchie motion you plan on filing.

  1. Guardians ad Litem

A guardian can go a long way in helping both you and your client navigate the legal and non-legal challenges.  In our jurisdiction, several of our guardians are attorneys who take (or took) juvenile clients and often continue to work in family (non-criminal) court on DSS and TPR cases.  In two recent cases, the guardian I worked with is a former public defender that was able to connect with my client and form a bond that led to some very helpful information that aided us in securing a reduced charge.

  1. Make the Constitutional Arguments

I believe Saldierna is in part a reflection of the lack of case law focusing on the unique nature of juvenile court.  I choose to believe that the North Carolina Supreme Court has lacked sufficient opportunities to review the reality that juveniles very rarely appear to appreciate that they can, or now, have to, advocate for themselves even when interacting with authority figures they may have been blindly taught to obey without question.

Policy can quickly change, but it’s our responsibility to put the issues before the Court of Appeals and NC Supreme Court.  The Court of Appeals opinion and Justice Beasley’s dissent both included strong, helpful language and I would relish seeing more of that reasoning make its way into COA and Supreme Court decisions, or at the very least, dissents.

Martin Moore is an Assistant Public Defender in Asheville, North Carolina.  He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Philosophy from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Moore went on to obtain his Juris Doctor from the University of North Carolina School of Law.  In his free time, he enjoys music and volunteers with a local non-profit helping underprivileged youth gain access to education.  You can connect with him via LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/martin-moore-8792814b, or contact him by email or his website at Martin@MartinEkimMoore.com or www.martinekimmoore.com.

 

 

Defending Juveniles is What We Do!

giphy

Who are the true heroes of the children who are cast into the juvenile justice system?  In large part, it is the defense attorneys who champion them through their time in the justice system.  And what every great hero needs is…  A sidekick!  And OJD fills this role while also championing the rights of youth in the courts as well.  It sounds cheesy, but hear us out…

The N.C. Office of the Juvenile Defender’s main mission is to provide support and services for defense attorneys and to work with other juvenile justice actors to promote positive change in the juvenile justice system.  OJD works to not only ensure the child’s right to counsel, but to also improve the quality of counsel they receive.  OJD desires to make sure that every child has access to quality legal counsel throughout their time in the juvenile justice system.

As part of our office’s role as “the sidekick” in support of the many juvenile defense attorneys across North Carolina, OJD wants to make sure that the heroes on the ground are appropriately equipped with all of the resources needed to do an exceptional job.  In order for defense attorneys to save the futures of the kids they represent, sometimes a little help goes a long way, and we are always ready whenever they call.

As “the sidekick”, OJD provides training (i.e. CLE trainings) and provides information for defenders (i.e. reference materials, sample motions and briefs) who are protecting the rights of juveniles in the system.  OJD also aids in compiling the research and evaluating the data to improve the system of juvenile justice as well.

OJD desires to ensure that each champion for these children is also specially trained to work with juveniles, communicate appropriately, and be respectful of cultural differences.  Public defenders are not limited to a specific group, but work to champion all juveniles, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.  Often children are at risk of having their constitutional rights violated, however OJD works with diverse upholders of juvenile rights and seeks resources to help them alleviate the concerns of the ones they protect.

OJD is always seeking talented individuals to partner with who possess a variety of expertise in working in the juvenile justice system and leadership skills.  We have fantastic leaders in the field, and are constantly looking to expand our state roster of trainers, mentors and writers.  So don’t be surprised if an opportunity comes your way soon!

No tights or capes needed.  OJD is a champion for juvenile defenders, the youth they represent, and a sidekick for any advocate of juveniles in the justice system.  We want to make sure that our heroes are always at their best.

download