ILNews

Improving a child's access to counsel

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Juvenile Justice

Wayne Superior Judge Darrin Dolehanty makes it a priority in every case to appoint an attorney for a juvenile as soon as the court learns a child has been detained.

He doesn’t give the parent or child a chance to waive that right to counsel before the proceedings begin.

“As soon as we get word about a detention or petition, an attorney is appointed,” the judge said. “I don’t know if you can do it more quickly than that, but unfortunately many counties don’t do that every time. That’s a shame, because this is something that has real meaning and we need to make sure children are represented.”
 

dolehanty-darrin-mug.jpg Dolehanty

Many counties throughout Indiana don’t operate the way Wayne Superior 3 does in appointing counsel or sidestepping waivers. A proposed draft rule from the Indiana State Bar Association is being submitted to the state judiciary’s rulemaking committee to address the right to counsel issue, putting in place a systematic requirement that youth have adequate attorney representation from the start of their experience in Indiana’s juvenile justice system.


JaeNue Hanger Hanger

“This is a very big deal for children in our juvenile system,” said Indianapolis civil rights attorney JauNae Hanger, who chairs the ISBA’s Civil Rights of Children Committee that has studied and created the proposed rule during the past year. “We’re trying to bring consistency so it doesn’t vary so much county by county. We’ve been on the road to getting here for a long time.”

The problem

Nationwide, the discussion has been ongoing since the landmark case In re Gault from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1967 that established the right to counsel for juveniles. The Indiana-specific discussion stretches back more than a decade, but evidence of the state system’s flaws came to light in April 2006. A study commissioned by the Indiana Juvenile Justice Task Force revealed the shocking depth of defects in the juvenile justice system and how many kids don’t have adequate access to an attorney.

Although Indiana Code 31-32-4-2 requires the appointment of counsel at the first detention or initial hearing, many courts forfeit that appointment using IC 31-32-5-1 that allows a parent to waive his or her child’s rights.

The report’s findings show about half of youth routinely waived their right to counsel and therefore didn’t have a sufficient understanding of their rights and the benefits of representation. More than a third of youth proceeded through court without counsel, and the rate was as high as 80 percent in two counties. The study found that when a juvenile consulted with a lawyer, nearly 90 percent never or rarely waived their right to counsel, but when a youth only consulted with a parent, about 75 percent waived the right.

After the report’s release, many responded that they’d heard anecdotal evidence of the problem but they didn’t truly understand the magnitude of the issues. The state vowed change, but systematic efforts to improve that attorney access have not happened in the past five years.

Some courts have strengthened and increased their appointment practices, and statewide training of judges and public defenders has occurred annually. But much remains the same and many say a child’s access to counsel continues to largely depend on what county and court system that child is in.


landis-larry-mug Landis

Larry Landis, executive director of the Indiana Public Defender Council, said counties that do appoint counsel in every case say it helps expedite dispositions and actually saves taxpayer money in the long run because the kids are less likely to get back into the system. Local counsel know service providers and out-of-state placement options better and help make the best decisions based on a child’s individualized needs, he said.

“Saying children have the right to a lawyer isn’t enough,” he said. “As of now, it’s a paper right in Indiana and we don’t go beyond that in actually making sure they have counsel when they need it. Those who need or want counsel must also have the ability to get an attorney across the board, not based on the location.”

The rule changeaccess-to-counsel.gif

With the ISBA’s proposal, the state’s juvenile justice community sees hope that Indiana is finally moving forward on addressing this issue.

In October, the state bar association’s governing board unanimously approved a draft rule requiring adequate counsel in juvenile proceedings. The draft says that an attorney would be appointed prior to the first-occurring detention or initial hearing and that no child or parent could waive his or her right to counsel without first “engaging in meaningful consultation” with an attorney. Specifically, it says any waiver would have to be made “knowingly and voluntarily” in open court.

“This doesn’t create anything new that’s not already in the constitution,” Hanger said. “It just provides safeguards to make sure that children get counsel.”


karozos-amy-mug.jpg Karozos

Amy Karozos, a staff attorney with the Youth Law T.E.A.M. of Indiana who chaired the ISBA committee when the 2006 report was released, said she’s pleased to finally see movement on this issue. She recalls her days as a state public defender when she observed so many children in the Department of Correction who hadn’t been represented at any stage of the legal process or had such inadequate representation that they didn’t recall if they’d consulted an attorney.

“This would make a big difference in helping kids understand their rights,” Karozos said about the rule change. “All children would be treated the same, no matter where they’re from. This would be significant, so you don’t have justice by jurisdiction.”

Those who’ve helped nurture the proposal during the past five years anticipate a potential decision could come by 2013 – if the Indiana Supreme Court agrees a rule change is needed and this is the best way to go about improving the system. Once the proposal goes to the Supreme Court’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure there is no set timeline on a decision as to whether the rule revision is warranted or how that public comment and revision process would happen.

Kim Brooks Tandy, a lawyer who leads the Kentucky-based Children’s Law Center and principal author of the Indiana access to counsel assessment in 2006, said about 20 states have had similar assessments done. Some places, such as Illinois, Kentucky and Texas, have court rules or statutes that don’t permit waivers at any stage of the juvenile delinquent process, while other jurisdictions, such as North Carolina, have created state-level offices to ensure more appellate review and public defense for juveniles. Ohio is in the middle of a five-year rule-change process with the public comment period closing on a proposal to restrict waivers, similar to what Indiana is considering.

Although Indiana has moved more slowly than she expected, Tandy is encouraged by the ISBA and overall legal community support here.

“Sometimes, you have to build an infrastructure,” she said. “This has happened slowly, but you can’t rush these things. I’m encouraged that it’s picking up momentum now. The next challenge after this, if it’s passed, would be implementation. This can be a part of the culture of a particular county, and it’s important to make sure that becomes the state’s culture on appointing counsel. We don’t want to wait until the point of a child being committed to the DOC, and someone looks at a file and sees that child has never been represented. That’s a failure for our system.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT