Senate Bill 1391 is in the news once again, which probably won’t come as a surprise to our readers. The law raised the age that juvenile offenders can be tried as adults from 14 to 16. We’ve been covering this legislation since last year, when former Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 1391 into law.

The bill may not mean much to most Californians, but to young offenders and their families it is monumental. As we’ve written previously, several counties have challenged the enactment of the new law. Opponents argue that it undermines Proposition 57. Approved in 2016, Prop 57 gave judges the power to decide whether juveniles as young as 14 should be tried as adults, instead of prosecutors.

This summer, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco rejected Solano County’s challenge to SB 1391. The final resolution will likely come about in the California Supreme Court in the near future. In the meantime, the law is still in play. Meaning, some young offenders are now looking at far lighter sentences than they would have last year.

From 65 Years to Six

Last year, two teenagers ages 14 and 15 were both looking at a 65-years-to-life sentence for an armed robbery. Thanks to SB 1391, Elijah Hall and Anthony Torres, then ages 14 and 15, are looking at six years, being eligible for parole at age 25, according to The Desert Sun. They were arrested in 2015 and sentenced to life for a spree of armed robberies.

They are both adults now and are serving their respective sentences, but the new juvenile sentencing law could mean that they will regain freedom much sooner.

One primary opponent of the SB 1391 is the judge who ruled on September 9th that the two men would be resentenced in juvenile court. Riverside County Superior Court Judge Russell Moore included an argument in his ruling that says the new law is unconstitutional, the article reports. He contends that lawmakers did not fully appreciate the impact of the new juvenile justice law and that it undermines the will of voters who approved Prop 57. Moore writes, “the Legislature unconstitutionally pulled the rug out from the voters.”

“SB 1391 now means that juveniles 16 and older can conceivably be prosecuted in adult court for felony joyriding,” he wrote in the ruling, “while those under 16 may not be prosecuted in adult court for rape, robbery, kidnapping, and murder.”

Two weeks ago, at the Indio Juvenile Courthouse, Judge Elizabeth Tucker ruled Hall and Torres will be resentenced to time in California’s Division of Juvenile Justice rather than the state’s prison system, according to the article. Her decision is per the new juvenile sentencing law.

Time will tell how the Supreme Court decides on this controversial bill. Inmates like Tucker and Hall may not walk out of the woods yet. We will continue to follow this remarkable story as it develops.

Orange County Juvenile Justice Attorney

If your son or daughter is facing criminal charges or school expulsion, then please contact The Law Offices of Katie Walsh. With experience as a prosecutor and defense lawyer, attorney Walsh has a unique understanding of the juvenile justice system. She has the experience and know-how to advocate for your family successfully. We invite you to reach out today for a free consultation. (714) 351-0178.

Last summer, we wrote about the Riverside County Youth Accountability Team Program (YAT) and how it treated teens, never convicted of crimes, as criminals. The program was designed to scare kids, mostly black and Latinos, straight. However, all the initiative did was contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline. Kids whose only infractions were a failure to cooperate with school faculty members found themselves on probation.

As we pointed out last year, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Northern California, San Diego, and the National Center for Youth Law filed a lawsuit to end the YAT program. In July, the ACLU announced that their efforts paid off; a settlement was reached with the federal district court that severs the relationship between Riverside County school districts and the probation department.

The YAT program has been in place since 2001; thousands of young people have been needlessly affected and had their rights violated since its inception. Probation is not an effective way to address the needs of children who have bad grades or struggle with trauma and mental health issues. The proposed settlement will hopefully lead to kids getting much-needed resources.

Setting an Example for the Nation

Even though research shows that juvenile probation is ineffective and even harmful to young people, that was the model for the last 18 years. Youths who were unable to stay on track in school found themselves in the criminal justice system.

The ACLU was able to show the court that the YAT program subjected kids to lengthy lists of conditions with zero-tolerance consequences. Young people in the program were regularly drug tested and had to deal with surprise searches of their home and person.

Rather than diverting students to law enforcement for non-criminal offenses like truancy and defiance, they will now receive counseling and other school and community-based supports. The ACLU writes that the county has committed reinvesting millions of dollars in community organizations that will better serve young people than the criminal justice system.

Students who commit crimes will be guaranteed the right to legal representation throughout the entirety of diversion. They will no longer be subject to rules and restrictions that violate their rights. What’s more, probation officers will undergo specialized training to ensure they comply with the new protocols.

The ACLU hopes that Riverside County’s new approach will one day serve as a model for juvenile justice nationwide.

Orange County, CA Juvenile Criminal Attorney

If your son or daughter is facing criminal charges or a school expulsion hearing in California, then The Law Offices of Katie Walsh can help. Attorney Walsh has the experience and knowledge to advocate for your family effectively. Please contact us today to learn more.

The National Juvenile Defender Center and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU) are two of several organizations taking issue with a blanket order by Judith Clark, presiding judge of Riverside’s Juvenile Court, The Los Angeles Time reports. The Riverside County judge is restricting youth in juvenile delinquency proceedings from engaging in one-on-one discussions with their lawyers at courthouses. Judge Clark argues that the Riverside County Probation Department has “insufficient resources” to provide personnel to supervise face-to-face courthouse visits.

“The purpose of this order … is to ensure that juvenile detainees have meaningful access to the courts while the court maintains the security and safety of all court users,” the order reads.

Blanket Order 30 means that juveniles have to discuss their cases with their attorneys in open court or a courthouse interview room, using phones and separated by a partition, according to the article. Juvenile defense attorneys can try to persuade a judge to grant private meetings.

Restricting Juveniles’ Visits

“For now over 50 years the courts have recognized that kids in delinquency proceedings have a right to counsel and to effective assistance of counsel,” said Ian Kysel, staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. “The blanket order would prevent kids from meeting with their attorneys in the very context where they need the guidance of counsel the most.”

Rights organizations are not the only entities raising objections over the blanket order; defense attorneys argue that restrictions don’t take language barriers, disabilities, and mental illness into consideration. Mary Ann Scali, executive director of the National Juvenile Defender Center, points out that not many states have similar physical barrier restrictions on attorney/client meetings. Scali says that Judith Clark’s order makes Riverside an “outlier.”

“Effective communication requires contact visitation,” said Scali. “We know that when we are talking with young people it’s important that we have eye contact, that being in their physical presence and space is important in terms of trust. It’s also critically important in terms of confidentiality.”

County Judge Judith Clark revised and signed Blanket Order 30 on September 28, 2018, The Desert Sun reports. Clark says the order would not limit juvenile’s access to an attorney; the revised order specifies that the court “shall accommodate” contact visits on the day of hearings at either the courthouse or the juvenile detention center next door and such contact will require a judge’s permission.

Orange County Juvenile Defense Attorney

Juvenile defense attorney, Katie Walsh, ensures that her clients’ cases stand apart from the others and works tirelessly to obtain the best possible outcome. Attorney Walsh uses her experience to achieve results for her clients that impact their records the least. Please contact our office for a free consultation.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Northern California, San Diego, and the National Center for Youth Law are suing over the unfair practices used by the Riverside County Youth Accountability Team Program (YAT). According to the ACLU, YAT was created in 2001 to target at-risk youths for intervention. On the surface, such a program appears to be relatively benign; however, the tactics deployed treat adolescents who have not been convicted of crimes as criminals. The idea is that teens who seem to be on the edge of engaging in nefarious deeds can be scared straight.

The organization points out that programs like YAT do not have the intended effect on young people, and often do more harm to a child than good. The program is not a diversion; it is a facet of the Riverside County’s probation department. Youngsters who act up or have low marks in class are singled out and forced into six-month terms of probation. The ACLU contends that YAT is unconstitutional; kids who have committed no misdeeds are made to waive their First and Fourth Amendment rights, and subject to “invasive probation conditions.” Sarah Hinger, Staff Attorney, ACLU Racial Justice Program and Sylvia Torres-Guillén, Director of Education Equity, ACLU Foundations of California, write that:

“Children and their families are not provided with specific information about the offense they are accused of committing, the terms of YAT probation, the possible consequences of going to court, or advisement of their legal rights.”

Counseling, Instead of Probation

The ACLU states that YAT is the product of an outdated “incorrigibility” law; students are subject to prosecution for merely not complying with school faculty. Kids who may have learning disabilities or problems at home which impact their ability to do well in school are needlessly being funneled into the juvenile justice system. The organization says the practice disproportionately affects Black and Latino children throughout the county.

A report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation shows that youths are more responsive to positive incentives and supports than threats of punishment. Instead of putting guilt-free kids on probation, the ACLU would like to focus on supporting struggling children by way of counseling.

“The constitutional deficiencies of Riverside’s YAT Program are clear, and the program will continue to violate children’s rights until it is reformed. But reforming the program will not only protect their rights, it presents an opportunity to provide a model for bringing juvenile probation and diversion in line with contemporary research on adolescent development.”

Treating young people as criminals before they ever commit a crime increases the likelihood of problems developing down the road. There is already plenty of research to support diversion over detention for juveniles; so, it is not challenging to see how counseling would be more beneficial than probation for kids struggling in school. More times than not, the farther kids are from the juvenile justice system, the better!

Orange County Juvenile Criminal Defense Attorney

Please contact The Law Offices of Katie Walsh if your child is facing criminal charges or school expulsion. Attorney Walsh and her team of legal professionals can help you obtain the best possible outcome for your son or daughter.