Few D.A.s Use New Power to Try Juveniles as Adults

A 4-year-old state law that makes it easier for prosecutors to try juveniles as adults has been used only sparingly by district attorneys, keeping steady the number of youth offenders tried in the adult justice system, lawyers say.

District attorneys in several counties, including Los Angeles, have continued to allow judges to decide in most cases whether juveniles should be prosecuted in adult court. Others have chosen to file adult charges only in cases where they were convinced that a judge would have transferred the youth out of juvenile court anyway.

Proposition 21, passed in March 2000 by 62% of California voters, gave district attorneys rather than judges the power to determine whether juveniles accused of certain serious crimes should face adult penalties. In juvenile court, the harshest penalty that can be imposed is custody until age 25.

Under the proposition, if prosecutors charge juveniles with either aggravated sexual assault or capital murder when the youth is the suspected killer, they are required to file the charges in adult court. In other cases, such as murder, attempted murder and robbery, prosecutors can either file cases directly in the adult system or ask a judge to determine whether a youth should be transferred from juvenile to adult court.

Supporters, including many of the state’s district attorneys, argued that the law was necessary to curb what they said was a mounting wave of violent crime among juveniles. Opponents countered that the laws targeting juvenile offenders were already harsh enough. In 2002, the California Supreme Court upheld the ballot measure as constitutional.

“Time and time again, we received dire predictions that Proposition 21 would result in the collapse of the juvenile system as we know it,” said Creg Datig, chairman of the juvenile justice committee for the California District Attorneys Assn.

Passage of the proposition came when California’s overall juvenile crime rate, along with the number of youths sent to adult prisons, had already begun to decline.

Last year, 58,892 juveniles were arrested for felony crimes, down from 76,104 in 1998, a 23% decline, according to the California Department of Justice. Although the figures have fluctuated, the overall number of 16- and 17-year-olds sent to adult prison dropped 18% over the same period, from 203 in 1998 to 166 last year, according to the California Department of Corrections.

As a result of falling youth crime rates, prosecutors have not needed to use their newfound authority to file cases directly in adult court, said Frank Zimring, a professor at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law. “There has been little change in the way the juvenile justice system is doing business.”

Also, prosecutors discovered that Proposition 21 “didn’t add that much to the existing law,” said Barry Krisberg, president of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. “Prosecutors are sort of generally reluctant to use it,” he said.

Michael Cantrall, executive director of the California Public Defenders Assn., said use of the charging authority differs from county to county and called for more uniformity. Now, he said, “You are treated as a juvenile or an adult depending on whim or local policy.”

In making the decision on whether to charge youths as adults, prosecutors say they attempt to determine whether the offender could benefit from the juvenile system. They consider several factors, including the seriousness of the offense, the youth’s level of maturity and past rehabilitation efforts. They also weigh how to best protect the community.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley said he has chosen to use his charging authority with discretion. In most cases, he said, it’s fine for judges to make the determination with input from probation officers, prosecutors and defense attorneys.

There still have been a significant number of cases landing in the adult system. In 2002, Cooley’s office filed 43 cases directly in adult court, while an additional 223 juveniles were transferred to adult court after judicial hearings, according to numbers from the district attorney’s office. Last year, 80 cases were filed directly by prosecutors, and 185 juveniles were sent to the adult system after hearings.

Some praise Cooley for a cautious and evenhanded approach to juvenile crime, while critics say he is thwarting the will of the voters.

“The D.A. took an oath to uphold the law,” said Head Deputy Dist. Atty. Tom Higgins, who led the juvenile division for 13 years and challenged Cooley’s reelection earlier this year. “That policy virtually guts the law. It’s far beyond discretion.”

In a recent case of a 14-year-old boy suspected of fatally shooting his 11-year-old cousin, Cooley’s office filed the case in juvenile court in May and asked a judge to decide whether the teen should be tried as an adult. In another case, Cooley also referred the matter to a judge, who decided that a 17-year-old was unfit to be tried as a juvenile for the attempted murder of a high school student at a prom party last year.

But his prosecutors do file some cases directly in adult court. The office charged 16-year-old Valentino Arenas as an adult in the April slaying of a California Highway Patrol officer outside a Pomona courthouse. They also filed charges in adult court against a 16-year-old in the hate-crime murders of two African American men last year.

“Adult resources should be saved for the most brutal of kids,” said Sandra Buttitta, who heads the juvenile division for the district attorney’s office. “We need to look at the whole picture. Is there a chance they can be helped?”

Datig, who helped draft portions of the proposition, said, “I might personally differ with [Cooley’s] point of view, but I wouldn’t presume to tell the elected D.A. how to do his job.... We just wanted to put another tool in the prosecutor tool box.”

Other prosecutors, including those in San Francisco, Alameda and San Diego counties, have used similar practices -- letting judges make the decisions in most cases. The Orange County district attorney’s office declined to comment.

Robert Eichler, chief of San Diego’s juvenile division, said it was in the best interest of the juvenile and the community to have as much information as possible, including input from the probation department and mental health experts, before a decision was made about where the youth should be tried.

“I think everybody has taken that responsibility very seriously and has exercised the authority given to us with a lot of discretion,” Eichler said.

Some counties, however, including Sacramento and Riverside, have used the authority and regularly charge juveniles as adults.

Sacramento Supervising Deputy Dist. Atty. Rick Lewkowitz said direct filing streamlines the process and saves time and resources in cases that involve teens whom the “juvenile system can’t deal with.”

Proposition 21 is “the law of the land,” and “from Day 1, we have been enforcing it,” Lewkowitz said.

Supporters say that they are not surprised that some prosecutors do not use the new power often.

Charles Hobson, an attorney at the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which backed Proposition 21, said it’s unfortunate that some district attorneys “do not accept the will of the electorate, but they are ultimately accountable to their own voters.”