Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Juvenile Detention Symposium (4)
- Juveniles (2)
- 1995 Court Monitoring Report (1)
- D.C. Code (1)
- District of Columbia (1)
-
- Elizabeth Siegel (1)
- February-March (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Grand Jury Testimony (1)
- Grand Jury Transcripts (1)
- Juvenile Court (1)
- Police Department (1)
- Pre-Initial Hearing Detention (1)
- Pre-Trial Disclosure (1)
- Pretrial Detention (1)
- Secrecy (1)
- Section 16-2310 (1)
- Secure Detention (1)
- Shelter Care Placement (1)
- Social Services (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Clear And Convincing Evidence: The Standard Required To Support Pretrial Detention Of Juveniles Pursuant To D.C. Code Section 16-2310, Julia Colton-Bell, Robert J. Levant
Clear And Convincing Evidence: The Standard Required To Support Pretrial Detention Of Juveniles Pursuant To D.C. Code Section 16-2310, Julia Colton-Bell, Robert J. Levant
University of the District of Columbia Law Review
This Note examines the appropriate evidentiary standard for pretrial detention decisions in Juvenile Court in the District of Columbia. Currently, there is no authority mandating the standard of proof that is to be applied to the pretrial detention of juveniles. To ensure that all juveniles receive the same protections, one evidentiary standard must be applied at all pretrial detention hearings. Based upon adult and juvenile pretrial detention statutes, the case law construing those statutes, and the standard courts employ in adult civil commitment procedures, the appropriate standard is the "clear and convincing evidence" standard of proof. In order to afford …
Pre-Initial Hearing Detention: Are The Police Department And Social Services Intake Following The Law?, Henry A. Escoto
Pre-Initial Hearing Detention: Are The Police Department And Social Services Intake Following The Law?, Henry A. Escoto
University of the District of Columbia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Appendix B: February-March, 1995 Court Monitoring Report, University Of The District Of Columbia Law Review
Appendix B: February-March, 1995 Court Monitoring Report, University Of The District Of Columbia Law Review
University of the District of Columbia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Substituting Secure Detention For Shelter Care: An Illegal Deprivation Of Liberty, Susan M. Johlie
Substituting Secure Detention For Shelter Care: An Illegal Deprivation Of Liberty, Susan M. Johlie
University of the District of Columbia Law Review
Judges sitting on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia routinely order children into secure detention who require no more restrictive confinement than that provided by shelter care. Despite a statutory presumption against detention, and a superior court rule that prohibits substituting secure detention for shelter care,' the District inappropriately places children into secure detention simply because there is a lack of bed space in youth shelter houses. The deprivation of liberty that occurs when a juvenile is placed in secure detention rather than shelter care is required neither for the protection of the community nor for the welfare …
Opening The Door To The Grand Jury: Abandoning Secrecy For Secrecy's Sake, George Edward Dazzo
Opening The Door To The Grand Jury: Abandoning Secrecy For Secrecy's Sake, George Edward Dazzo
University of the District of Columbia Law Review
The grand jury in the United States is hailed by its proponents as an indispensable buffer of protection from malicious and unfounded prosecution by the State. Critics, however, liken the investigatory body to a rubber stamp of the prosecutor, analogous to early English grand jurors who were subject to the influences of the Monarch. Criticism of the grand jury often focuses on the grand jury's potential for oppression rather than protection of the individual.' In particular, it is the secrecy of the grand jury that sparks the most debate.'