Search results
In the spring of 1984, hopes ran high among advocates for children all over the country that the courts were sounding the deathknell forjuvenile preventive detention.
Martin's detention prior to trial prompted a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of § 320.5(3)(b) on the grounds of due process violation. The District Court and Court of Appeals both found the statute unconstitutional, arguing it allowed for detention without proof of guilt and that it effectively served as punishment without an ...
Appellees, juveniles who had been detained under § 320.5 (3) (b), brought a habeas corpus class action in Federal District Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that § 320.5 (3) (b) violates, inter alia, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Schall v. Martin, 104 S. Ct. 2403 (1984). I. INTRODUCTION In Schall v. Martin,' the Supreme Court upheld a New York stat-ute that provided for the preventive detention of juveniles accused of a crime, who present a "serious risk" that they may commit an-other crime before trial.2 Schall v. Martin is the first time that the Court has sanctioned
In the spring of 1984, hopes ran high among advocates for children all over the country that the courts were sounding the deathknell for juvenile preventive detention.
In 1977, fourteen-year-old Gregory Martin was arrested for first-degree robbery, second-degree assault, and criminal possession of a weapon. While detained, Martin lied to the police about his address.
In the spring of 1984, hopes ran high among advocates for children all over the country that the courts were sounding the deathknell for juvenile preventive detention. Preventive detention, in any form, had never been upheld by the nation's highest Court.
