The transfer statutes interpreted by appellate courts fall into three broad categories. "Judicial waiver" statutes give the juvenile judge responsibility for determining which cases should be transferred to criminal court. In contrast, "legislative exclusion" statutes remove decision-making authority from the juvenile judge by requiring that specified classes of juveniles be tried in criminal court. "Prosecutorial election" statutes explicitly confer on prosecutors the discretion to decide whether to file charges in criminal or juvenile court for cases that involve juveniles above a specified age and/or charged with specified offenses. In focusing on appellate court responses to these different types of statutes, this chapter examines the major themes that have emerged from recent case law and highlights key issues and major trends. The authors note that the appellate tradition in all three modes of transfer decisions has been a passive one. With the advent of more punitive sanctions for offenders in criminal court, some appellate courts have rejected statutory provisions that fail to provide any mechanisms for reviewing discretionary decisions to prosecute juvenile offenders as adults. The chapter concludes that the constitutional jurisprudence that governs the transfer process has reached a critical juncture. The courts may follow a path of protective innovation, insisting on special safeguards before juveniles may be subjected to severe punishment as adults, or they may follow a well-marked path of restraint, acceding to the legislative desire for incapacitation of youthful offenders. Courts must decide whether juveniles are deserving of special protections prior to severe punishment as adults or whether legislatures may shape their system of punishment for youthful offenders without constraint by the courts. 54 references and 45 notes