Number (3) is exactly what I said. Every single murder case by a minor means it is special circumstance by virtue of murder being a felony. Thanks for the clarification. It is DA whim and public opinion that determines how the case is prosecuted.

Digging through CCC and CPC is exhausting. I appreciate you taking the time to do so. Thank you. The last time I needed to pull together information it took me 10 hours to pull together half a page of code I needed just to make sure my kid’s high school could not shut me out (or up). It’s handy to be able to directly point to law and hit them between the eyes with it.

No. The CPC has laid out very clearly what “special circumstances” actually means: (1) hate crimes, (2) the death penalty, and (3) minors charged with felonies. The vast majority of cases heard in criminal court do not have any special circumstances. You might not like how lawmakers have defined the term. And if you feel that strongly about it, you’re free to vote against the Democrats who’ve controlled the California Legislature since 1970. But I doubt the Republicans would be any better. Regardless, you can’t just substitute what’s in the criminal code with Miriam-Webster in court.

“Frankly, the issue at hand in the article is about the withholding of the findings by the DA from the defense.”

And had you limited your comments to that, I probably would’ve agreed with you. Especially if those records prove the defendant had some sort of medically proven condition (see below). Although the prosecutors will undoubtedly argue that such information doesn’t count as “evidence,” and is, “irrelevant” in any case.

“So, by definition E, every single murder case should automatically be prosecuted as adult, regardless of the actual age of the child involved?”

Typically, the “gravity” part must include an admission from the accused that they understand the seriousness of the charges. The defense will usually argue that the defendant suffers from mental illness or other disabilities that makes them incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions.

“If you cannot vote, if you are under guardianship by your parents, if you are unable to work a full time job, why are you considered an adult for the purposes of justice except under extreme circumstances just immediately prior to becoming 18?”

Before the 20th century, there was no “juvenile court” system. Everyone went to the same court. As for the age restrictions, they’re largely arbitrary. We created such life-passages and assigned value to them. And we can change them too. Moses didn’t come down from Mt. Sinai with tablets saying “Thou Shalt Not Have Any Adults Before Eighteen.”

After all, you can’t drink alcohol until you’re 21. You can’t run for the House of Representatives (or rent a car in many states) until you’re 25. You can’t become a senator until you’re 30. You can’t enlist in the Army if you’re over 42.

Should we overturn all those rules in the interest of “age equality” too?

Frankly, the issue at hand in the article is about the withholding of the findings by the DA from the defense. That is absolutely applicable. It is not a delaying tactic, it is being responsible to your client. Cases have been overturned in the past for withholding evidence and other documents from either side of a case. This is actually illegal. So, the judge is in fact wrong, if prior precedence has meaning from case to case.

I fail to see why defense should not see the documents and methods used to determine the decision to try a minor as an adult. It is absolutely relevant and important to their case.

John in CA:

A through E are ambiguous and extremely vague. E would apply to any murder without exception given that no one is going to say murder is not without severity and gravity. So, by definition E, every single murder case should automatically be prosecuted as adult, regardless of the actual age of the child involved? It is an excuse, nothing more, to justify prosecuting minors as adults and codified to make it more palatable to the general public. That doesn’t make it right.

I can see a difference between a 17 year old coldly calculating a murder a few days before turning 18 and a younger minor losing it and spontaneously killing someone. The 17 year old in my example should indeed be tried as an adult. Is that distinction actually being made? Somehow I doubt it.

I have read about some as young as 9 years old being tried as adults. There are no circumstances where I can see that as justice or right. If you cannot vote, if you are under guardianship by your parents, if you are unable to work a full time job, why are you considered an adult for the purposes of justice except under extreme circumstances just immediately prior to becoming 18? It is not logical.

In California, there are five special circumstances under which a minor may be prosecuted as an adult. McItnerney definitely qualifies under circumstance (E). And you could make a case for (A) and (B) as well.

From California Penal Code Section 192 (d)1:

(A) The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the minor.

(B) Whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.

(C) The minor’s previous delinquent history.

(D) Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor.

(E) The circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in the petition to have been committed by the minor.

Would you mind pointing out which law the judge applied incorrectly?