The current study examines whether the process by which a juvenile reaches adult court influences later sentencing outcomes. Previous research has found that juveniles who were judicially waived to adult court faced a penalty at sentencing and suggested that this bias may be due to either 1) increased assessments of risk based on the offender's young age, or 2) a stigmatization of the offender by the transfer process itself. By examining a population of 16- and 17-year-old felony defendants in a State that automatically defines such youth as adults, this research directly tested these notions. Findings revealed that in this State, 16- and 17-year-old defendants actually received more lenient sentences than a matched sample of 18- and 19-year-old offenders, which is contrary to what would be expected if the previously found juvenile penalty was related to assessments of risk based on age. Moreover, in a second analysis comparing judicially waived youth (ages 13 to 15) in this same State to the 16- and 17-year-old defendants, it was found that the waived youth received significantly more severe sentences. The results are interpreted as support for the stigmatization hypothesis, suggesting that the process by which a youth reaches adult court does have significant meaning for later court outcomes. References (Published Abstract)