Prosecution of Juvenile Firearm Offenders
As is the case with most offender populations, among juvenile offenders a small number of serious, violent, and chronic offenders commit the majority of serious juvenile crime (Howell, 1995). Through a joint planning effort of the Tracking and Prosecuting Chronic Youthful Offenders component of the YHVI grant, SPD and King County Prosecutor’s Office representatives agreed that a top priority for both agencies was getting the most serious juvenile firearm offenders “off the street.” The grant allowed the DPA to specialize in the prosecution of juvenile firearm offenders. He could carry an overall reduced workload, allowing him to focus on serious cases, develop expertise, and gather extensive and detailed information on juvenile offenders to assist him in preparing and presenting his cases. Because of this expertise, the DPA was able to make quicker decisions, could expedite the filing of cases, and had more knowledge of “how the system works,” what to look for in cases, and how cases would be viewed by the courts.
Vertical Prosecution
In “vertical” prosecution, a single prosecutor handles each case through every stage of the court process, including the initial police investigation and followup, case filing, arraignment and detention hearings, pretrial hearings, guilty pleas, adjudicatory hearings, and dispositional hearings.
Vertical prosecution, which is labor intensive and time consuming, is not the traditional practice in the King County juvenile division, where specialized units handle the various phases of each juvenile case as it is processed through the court system.
The DPA practiced vertical prosecution for juvenile firearm cases, handling and supervising a case from the time it was first received until it was resolved. In cases involving serious violent offenses, the DPA would often accompany the assigned detective to the crime scene during the investigation process. Each of these cases was successfully adjudicated. During the grant period, approximately 25 firearm-related cases were filed each month, including felony-level possession, burglary, and violent crimes.
Vertical prosecution resulted in greater continuity and consistency in prosecution. The DPA reviewed prior juvenile firearm cases that went to trial but did not result in an adjudication of delinquency to identify the problems and issues involved in their prosecution. He conducted legal research and wrote trial briefs to address the specific legal issues involved in firearm crimes.
The additional emphasis the prosecutor placed on prosecuting juvenile firearm offenders had a direct impact on how these cases were handled by juvenile court judges and probation officers. The DPA worked to educate judges and probation officers about the legal issues related to, and the serious nature of, firearm offenses and offenders. As a result, probation officers were more likely to join in the prosecutor’s recommendations to the court. If the juvenile had any prior involvement with firearms, the DPA, because of his access to and knowledge of the offender’s history, was able to provide a more comprehensive report of such activities to the court. Consequently, the courts were more receptive to the DPA’s arguments and recommendations, and judges’ rulings on firearm-related issues became more consistent.
Sharing of Expertise Through Training
The Seattle Police Department and the DPA agreed that the prosecutor should implement a training program for SPD officers and detectives to improve the quality of cases they submitted for prosecution. In December 1996, the DPA conducted 32 rollcall training sessions for SPD officers on all watches at each of Seattle’s 4 precincts. The DPA also provided special training for gang unit and juvenile detectives. Officers and detectives were instructed on the specific information needed for the prosecutor to file a successful case. They also were given suggestions to improve their investigation and report writing. For example, the prosecutor explained the importance of addressing issues of gun operability, firearm possession, and the age of offender in incident reports because this information was vital to presenting a strong case. Simply having the officer ask the offender his or her age repeatedly (before and after Miranda warnings and during booking) and including the information in the report can make a significant difference because the offender’s age is an element of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm and can sometimes be difficult to establish. Immediately following the training sessions, the DPA saw a dramatic improvement in the quality of cases submitted by SPD. These improvements led to a 50-percent reduction in the dismissal rate for firearm cases because fewer cases were found to have legal or factual problems.
Many
juvenile firearm cases involve weapons found in vehicles (see
figure 1). When more than one juvenile occupies the vehicle, questions
arise about who, if anyone, may be charged with unlawful possession of
the firearm. The DPA researched the legal issues related to the possession
and constructive possession of firearms and passed this information along
to SPD during training sessions. As a result, clear standards were formulated
for charging decisions. Under certain circumstances, for example, it is
possible to charge more than one juvenile for possession of a single firearm.
The training sessions also provided a valuable link between SPD personnel and the prosecutor, opening a channel of communication that was used extensively by both sides. The DPA offered himself as a legal resource on firearm-related issues and typically received 10 to 20 calls per week from officers and detectives with questions.
In the 3 years preceding the grant, long delays in filing a case would
often occur because cases needed to be returned to the police agency for
more information. After the training session, police reports improved
and fewer cases needed to be sent back for more information. When more
information was required, the DPA knew who to call to obtain the followup
quickly. As a result, the average time needed to file a case was reduced
from 53 to 17 days, and filing backlogs were eliminated (see figure 5).
The increased coordination between the DPA and SPD detectives resulted
in the filing of stronger and more complete cases and a reduction in the
number of cases that needed to be reevaluated, be dismissed, or have their
charges reduced in plea negotiations.
| Previous | Contents | Next |
 |
|
| Seattle’s Effective Strategy for Prosecuting Juvenile Firearm Offenders | |