The Impact of Defense Attorney Presence on Juvenile Court Dispositions

Legal and Judicial Battles Affecting Runaways

“…In a recent study of the role of the district attorney in California juvenile courts, Sagatun and Edwards (1979) found that more youths were sent to adult courts than was the case before the 1977 law which made the prosecutor a full participant in the juvenile court. In another study, Hayeslip (1979) hypothesized that attorney presence would result in more dismissals and placements on probation in a midwestern county, but the opposite result was found. Institutionalization occurred in 22.6% of the juvenile court hearings where no attorney was present as compared with 37.5% of the cases defended by an attorney (Hayeslip, 1979: 13).…”

An evaluation framework for juvenile defense: A theory of change and logic model measurements

“…While often recognizing the severity of the underlying charge may determine whether a youth in delinquency court will receive representation by defense counsel, early studies contain mixed findings. Some case studies found an association between the appointment of counsel and an increase in the likelihood of placement out‐of‐home as a disposition, while others found appointed counsel associated with a less‐severe disposition, such as probation (Ferster, Courtless, and Snethen, 1971; Ferster and Courtless; Stapleton and Teitelbaum, 1972; Clarke and Koch, 1979; Hayeslip, 1979 ). Studies on juvenile defense following the Gault decision emphasize the differences in defense counsel access and quality of representation (including but not limited to appointment notification, waiver, conflict of interest between parents and youth, adversarial role throughout court proceedings, availability of quantitative data collection on appointment, and confidentiality breaches), which researchers documented through courtroom observations and interviews (Ferster, Courtless, and Snethen, 1971; Ferster and Courtless, 1972; Lawrence, 1983; Leifstein, Stapleton, and Teitelbaum, 1969; Stapleton and Teitelbaum, 1972).…”

“…Most relevant, the US Supreme Court's analysis in Gault noted harsh dispositions support the need for defense counsel representation, leaving room for the legal argument that youth who do not face the possibility of confinement upon adjudication do not require defense counsel (Dorsen and Rezneck, 1967;In re Gault, 1967;Skoler, 1968). Impact studies of defense counsel immediately following Gault predominately compared the dispositional outcomes (institutional placement or probation) for youth with and without defense counsel representation in delinquency court (Ferster and Courtless, 1972;Hayeslip, 1979;Lefstein, Stapleton, and Teitelbaum, 1969). The research design of these studies reflects the variation in the provision of defense counsel in delinquency courts across the US and the legal argument that associates the provision of defense counsel with the possibility of confinement as a disposition.…”

A Preliminary Assessment of the Impact of Plea Bargaining Among a Sample of Waiver-Eligible Offenders

“…As a whole, little empirical research has focused exclusively on plea bargaining processes among juveniles (Mears, 2000). Though a number of older studies from the late 1970s examined the emerging plea bargaining trend in juvenile courts (Hayeslip, 1979;Sagatun & Edwards, 1979), they cannot necessarily provide us with any insights into how these processes operate in contemporary juvenile courts. Notwithstanding that fact, these older studies showed that plea bargaining had gained a foothold in juvenile courts in many areas of the country.…”

“…Many prosecutors themselves reported that they did not have a plea bargaining policy in place to aid in their decision making with regard to juveniles (Sagatun & Edwards, 1979, p. 20). Further, another study found that sentencing outcomes were negatively impacted for juveniles particularly when they entered not guilty pleas (Hayeslip, 1979).…”