Navigation

Archive | Y.O.

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2016

Engelmayer (SDNY) Finds Juvenile Should Not be Prosecuted as an Adult

No Second Circuit decisions today.

But yesterday there was a decision out of the SDNY on the issue of whether a juvenile should be transferred for prosecution as an adult.

Judge Paul Engelmayer decided that a juvenile who was almost 18 years old at the time he was indicted for committing a number of violent offenses should not be prosecuted as an adult. The decision, United States v. C.F., Male Juvenile (15 Cr 445), can be found here. In it, Engelmayer gives a thorough break-down of the six factors that courts consider in the balancing test laid out under The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031-504.

Under JJDPA, the court must find that the transfer of a juvenile to adult status is in the “interest of justice.” This “interest of justice” standard is determined by balancing six factors : 1.) “the age and social …

Posted by
Categories: evidence, juvenile facility, Y.O.

Posted By
Categories: evidence, juvenile facility, Y.O.

Continue Reading
Friday, November 2nd, 2007

The Good Shepard

United States v. Rosa, No. 05-3621-cr (2d Cir. October 30, 2007) (Kearse, Sack, CJJ, Mills, DJ)

The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) requires increased penalties for defendants in federal gun possession cases who have three prior convictions for serious drug offenses or “violent felonies.” This case concerns the “categorical approach” to determining whether a prior conviction resulting from a guilty plea was to an offense that qualified as a “violent felony.”

In 1991, Rosa pled guilty to robbery in the first degree, an offense he committed when he was 15, in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 160.15(4), which makes it an offense to commit a robbery and display “what appeared to be” a firearm. The government contended that this conviction was an ACCA predicate as an “act of juvenile delinquency … involving the use or carrying of a firearm.” Two other ACCA predicates were not in dispute.

The district …

Posted by
Categories: ACCA, categorical approach, Shepard, Uncategorized, Y.O., youthful offender adjudication

Posted By
Categories: ACCA, categorical approach, Shepard, Uncategorized, Y.O., youthful offender adjudication

Continue Reading
Saturday, October 6th, 2007

Why Oh, Why Oh, Y.O?

United States v. Jackson, Docket No. 06-5928-cr (2d Cir. October 5, 2007) (Miner, Cabranes, CJJ, Crotty, DJ) (per curiam)

This case continues the court’s seemingly relentless, and highly questionable, line of cases upholding the use of New York State youthful offender adjudications (“Y.O.”’s) as sentencing enhancers.

In United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2004), the court held that a Y.O. constituted a prior drug felony for purposes of the sentencing enhancements contained in 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b) and 851.

Here, Jackson, whose Y.O doubled a five-year mandatory minimum, tried to capitalize on a potential hole in Sampson. He argued that the Sampson court’s observation that the defendant served his Y.O. sentence in an adult institution created a requirement that district courts find this to be true before enhancing a drug sentence based on a Y.O.

The court disagreed. A finding of fact on this question is not …

Posted by
Categories: adult offense, juvenile facility, mandatory minimum, prior felony, Uncategorized, Y.O., youthful offender adjudication

Posted By
Categories: adult offense, juvenile facility, mandatory minimum, prior felony, Uncategorized, Y.O., youthful offender adjudication

Continue Reading