ACLU to Support Constitutional Challenge of Automatic Adult Trials Under Proposition 21

Issue Arises in Case of San Diego Teens Charged with Hate Crime
For Immediate Release: December 15, 2000

The ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties, along with the ACLU affiliates of Northern and Southern California, today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case in which the San Diego District Attorney is prosecuting eight teens charged with a hate crime as adults. The matter is being addressed by the court through the consolidation of two cases, Manduley v. Superior Court and Rose v. Superior Court. The District Attorney's actions are based on changes to the law following the passage last March of Proposition 21, the "Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act." In its court papers, the ACLU argues that Proposition 21 is unconstitutional because: 1) it violates the requirement that state ballot propositions consist of a single-subject and 2) it transfers the power to decide whether to try minors in juvenile court or adult court from judges to prosecutors and therefore violates separation of powers, equal protection, and due process principles.

The ACLU takes no position with respect to the guilt or innocence of any of the eight defendants, but focuses on procedural and constitutional issues similar to those the organization cites in its ongoing constitutional challenge of Proposition 21 in the case of League of Women Voters v. Davis, which was filed immediately following the passage of Proposition 21.

"The ACLU supports enforcement of hate crime laws because we believe that such crimes have a devastating effect not only on the victims but on society as a whole," said Robert Kim, staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. "However, just as important are the principles of fairness and due process in our criminal justice system, which must be upheld regardless of the crime an individual is accused of committing. Even the most serious offenders are entitled to fairness and due process."

The ACLU also argues that the decision of whether or not to try a teenager as an adult is more appropriately an impartial judge's function, not that of a prosecutor who is an advocate within an adversarial process. Under the old system, juvenile court judges held hearings to consider a young person's prior criminal history, the likelihood of rehabilitation, and the seriousness of the crime. Defense attorneys could also present psychological evaluations, school records, and other background to the judge that could aid in making a reasoned judgment as to whether a youth was amenable to treatment in the juvenile, rather than adult system. Under Proposition 21, for a large number of cases, no hearing is held and the District Attorney has no obligation to consider these factors.

"When there is strong evidence that a serious hate crime has been committed, all possible steps, including vigorous prosecution, should be taken to prevent events like this in the future. But neither the constitutional rights of the accused nor the independence of the judiciary should be trampled in the process," says Kim. "This one-sided approach to a judicial proceeding and the lack of consistent standards for whether or not a juvenile will be charged as an adult, weakens our entire system of law and will affect more than simply the case before us today or tomorrow. We must not allow the future of youth in the criminal justice system, who are overwhelmingly and disproportionately persons of color, to be subject to the sole and arbitrary discretion of the person whose job it is to put him in jail."

"When young people are arbitrarily tried as adults they are deprived of the educational and rehabilitative programs available in the juvenile system, virtually guaranteeing that when they are released from custody they will lack the skills needed to become contributing, law-abiding members of the community. It is also unlikely they will learn racial tolerance while locked up in adult prison. The interests of the victims, the defendants, and the larger community are best served when a judge looks at all the facts and makes an impartial decision about where the case should be tried," says Kim.

The ACLU also urges that Proposition 21 be invalidated on the constitutional grounds that it addresses too many subjects. The single subject requirement was adopted by the voters in 1948 to ensure that a voter could be reasonably certain what impact his 'yes' or 'no' vote would have. "Proposition 21's forty-three pages contained changes to at least three separate issues: overhauling the juvenile justice system, curbing gang violence, and expanding the state's 'Three Strikes' law. Even extremely well-informed voters found it difficult to determine what exactly it was they were voting on" says Kim.

In the Manduley and Rose cases, eight white San Diego teens are accused of beating and robbing five elderly Latino migrant workers last July. The San Diego District Attorney has charged all eight as adults. In September, a judge of the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued an emergency stay in the proceedings in order to allow the constitutional issues to be decided before the youths enter pleas in adult court. The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case on January 9, 2001.