In Fare v. Michael C., The Supreme Court
ruled that a totality of the circumstances
test is adequate to determine a valid
waiver of rights during an interrogation of
a juvenile.
6
The court must look to all
circumstances surrounding the
interrogation. Some factors to consider
are the juvenile’s age, education,
experience, intelligence, background, and
whether the juvenile understands the
warnings given and the consequences of
waiving those rights.
7
In this case, the
juvenile was 16 ½, was currently on
probation, had a record of prior offenses,
had spent time in a youth corrections
camp, was of average intelligence, and
there was no coercion used. Therefore,
under the totality of the circumstances, the
juvenile voluntarily waived his rights and
the confession was admitted.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
uses a three-part test for reviewing
Juvenile Delinquency Act violations.
8
First, the Court asks whether the
government violated § 5033.
9
If the
answer is yes, the next question is whether
the government’s conduct was so
outrageous that it deprived the juvenile of
their due process rights.
10
If the answer to
the second question is yes, then the case is
reversed.
11
Even if the answer is no, the
court also has discretion to reverse the
case if the defendant was “prejudiced.”
12
The Ninth Circuit uses a two-step test to
determine prejudice – 1) was the § 5033
violation a cause of the confession
(isolation from family, lack of advice from
counsel, etc.) and 2) what was the
6
Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979).
7
Id. at 725.
8
U.S. v. Juvenile (RRA-A), 229 F.3d 737 (9
th
Cir.
2000).
9
Id. at 744.
10
Id. at 744.
11
Id. at 744.
12
Id. at 744.
prejudice caused by the confession.
13
For
example, was the prosecution and
conviction based primarily on the
confession?
SCOPE
The State must make a good faith effort
to locate a juvenile’s parents or
guardian before beginning questioning.
In the case U.S. v. Burrous, the
defendant was arrested for armed
robbery.
14
One of the arresting agents
asked the defendant three different times
how his parents or guardian could be
contacted and the defendant replied that he
did not know how either his mother,
father, or brother could be contacted. The
defendant did not give the agents enough
information to locate his relatives and he
did not attempt to contact anyone himself.
The defendant voluntarily waived his
Miranda rights and confessed. The court
ruled that law enforcement officers made
good faith efforts to locate juvenile’s
parents and that his confession was
admissible.
15
A juvenile’s parents or guardian must
be advised of the juvenile’s rights
immediately, according to §5033.
In U.S. v. John Doe, the court said
that even though the agents attempted to
notify the juvenile’s parents before they
began to question him, it was three and a
half hours after he was taken into custody
and, therefore, not “immediate” under §
5033.
16
13
Id. at 747.
14
147 F.3d 111 (2
nd
Cir. 1998).
15
Id. at 113.
16
219 F.3d 1009, 1015 (9
th
Cir. 2000).