The California Supreme Court has said although under the United States Constitution a juvenile court hearing does not need all the requirements of an adult criminal trial or even of an administrative hearing, a
juvenile court hearing must have the essentials of due process and fair treatment, such essentials being adequate notice of the charges, assistance of counsel, opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination, and the privilege against self-incrimination.
Criminal Lawyers - Fitness Hearings
The determination of whether a minor is a fit subject for
juvenile justice system rests with the juvenile court judge, commissioner or referee, but that discretion must be exercised within the framework of
the California Juvenile Law.
In a Los Angeles Juvenile Case, where a Los Angeles Juvenile Court determined that a 16-year-old minor, who was charged with committing a bank robbery while using a gun, was fit for treatment under juvenile court law, the court of appeal said the juvenile court commissioner made a judicial error by failing to make specific findings as to each and every one of the five criteria in Welfare & Institutions Code Section 707 (c):
(1) The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the minor.
(2) Whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction.
(3) The minor's previous delinquent history.
(4) Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor.
(5) The circumstances and gravity of the offenses alleged in the petition to have been committed by the minor.
Juvenile Court Law in California Welfare & Institutions Code Section 707 creates a presumption that a minor 16 years old or older who commits one or more of the crimes listed in Welfare & Institutions Code Section 707 (b) is unfit for the juvenile justice system. The findings to rebut the presumption required by Welfare & Institutions Code Section 707 (c) are a mandatory precondition to a determination of amenability to juvenile court treatment. Absent substantial compliance with the statute, the presumption of unfitness survives, and a finding of amenability to the juvenile court system contrary thereto is in excess of the juvenile court's jurisdiction. The juvenile Court Commissioner forgot or did not bother to reference each one of the 5 factors.
This requirement is not tantamount to a requirement that the minor's criminal defense attorney prove his or her innocence to rebut the presumption, since the fitness hearing does not involve an adjudication of guilt, but instead involves a determination of whether the best interests of society are served by
juvenile justice system. People v. Superior Court (Zaharias M.) (1993, Cal App 2d Dist) 21 Cal App 4th 302, 25 Cal Rptr 2d 838.
The juvenile court judge or commissioner cannot simply base his or her decision on the "totality" of the situation.
If you have a juvenile court case, contact the criminal lawyers with a former juvenile court commissioner to defend the case.