UNITED STATES v. JUV (2022)

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART UNITED STATES MOTION TO INFORM VICTIM OF DATE AND LOCATION OF DISPOSITIONAL HEARING AND TO PERMIT VICTIM ATTENDANCE AND STATEMENT AT SAID HEARING

In April 2022, the government issued a juvenile information charging Defendant “C.J.J.,” a juvenile, with knowingly causing a victim to engage in a sexual act by using force against her. Doc. 1. C.J.J. entered into a plea agreement and admitted to a superseding juvenile information charging abusive sexual contact. Doc. 34. A dispositional hearing is scheduled for October 18, 2022. Doc. 36. The United States has filed a motion to inform the victim of the dispositional hearing and allow her and her parents to attend and speak at the hearing. Doc. 38. Defendant opposes this motion. Doc. 44. For the reasons stated below the United States's Motion to Inform Victim of Date and Location of Dispositional Hearing and to Permit Victim Attendance and Statement at said Hearing, Doc. 38, is granted in part.

I. Facts from the Factual Basis Statement and Procedural History

C.J.J., then sixteen years old, and K.W.M., a fourteen-year-old girl, were having sexual contact with each other an evening in August 2021. Doc. 28 at 2. In the midst of the sexual contact, however, K.W.M. made it clear that she was uncomfortable continuing by saying she wanted to go home. Though K.W.M. had withdrawn consent, C.J.J. continued the sexual contact before stopping and taking K.W.M. home. Id. C.J.J. did this knowingly and without K.W.M.’s consent by intentionally touching, directly and through the clothing, K.W.M.’s genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, and buttocks with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, and degrade her and to arouse and gratify his own sexual desire. Doc. 28 at 1. K.W.M. had visible scratches on her back from the asphalt on the roof where the encounter took place. Id.

Based on these actions, C.J.J. ultimately admitted to a superseding juvenile information. Doc. 27. A change of plea hearing was held before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark A. Moreno on September 19, 2022. Doc. 31. Judge Moreno found that C.J.J. was fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea, that he was aware of the nature of the charged offense and the consequences of the plea, and that his plea to Count 1 of the Superseding Juvenile Information was knowing and voluntary and supported by an independent factual basis containing the essential elements of the offense. Doc. 31 at 2. This Court adopted the Report and Recommendation issued by Judge Moreno, Doc. 33, and set a dispositional hearing for October 18, 2022, Doc. 36. On September 30, 2022, the United States filed a Motion to Inform Victim of Date and Location of Dispositional Hearing and to Permit Victim Attendance and Statement at said Hearing. Doc. 38. C.J.J. does not object to informing the victim of the date and location of the hearing, but opposes K.W.M. and her parents attending or making a statement at the hearing. Doc. 44. For the reasons explained below, the United States’ motion is granted in part.

II. Analysis

C.J.J. concedes that the victim and her family have the right to receive information relating to the final disposition of C.J.J. under 18 U.S.C. § 5037. 18 U.S.C. § 5038(a)(6). C.J.J., however, argues that the language in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act (“JJDA”) should take precedence over the Crime Victim's Rights Act (“CVRA”), under which K.W.M. and her parents would qualify as victims. Doc. 44 at 2. Under the CVRA, victims have “the right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4).

The CVRA, by its terms, applies only to “public” court proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (mentioning “public” several times); United States v. L.M., 425 F. Supp. 2d 948, 951 (N.D. Iowa 2006). Thus, it seems that CVRA does not apply to all hearings, specifically hearings that are non-public. See L.M., 425 F. Supp. 2d at 952 (citing Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576, 583, 120 S.Ct. 1655, 146 L.Ed.2d 621 (2000)). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has not ruled on whether all juvenile proceedings are entirely non-public, such that a victim cannot attend any part of any hearing. Id. Other circuit courts have found it within a district court's discretion to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether any part of a juvenile proceeding is public. Id. (citing United States v. Eric B., 86 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Three Juveniles, 61 F.3d 86, 90–94 (1st Cir. 1995); United States v. A.D., 28 F.3d 1353, 1356–62 (3d Cir. 1994)).

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa ruled on a similar question and allowed a deceased victim's family to be notified of proceedings against the juvenile offender and left open to later determination which hearings the victim's family could attend. L.M., 425 F. Supp. 2d at 957. In United States v. L.M., the court relied on the Third Circuit case of United States v. A.D. L.M., 425 F. Supp. 2d at 952–53. In A.D., the Third Circuit read the language of the JJDA to indicate that Congress intended “that district judges will exercise their discretion when they decide where to hold hearings under the [JJDA].” 28 F.3d at 1359. Specifically, the Third Circuit viewed § 5032 as allowing a district judge discretion to determine the degree of public access to a hearing, or else the language “in chambers or otherwise” would be superfluous. Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 5032). Thus, the Third Circuit found that the JJDA does not ban public access automatically and across-the-board for juvenile hearings. Id. The Third Circuit bolstered this conclusion by noting that § 5038(a) lists entities with the right to access information regarding juvenile dispositions. Id. at 1359–60. The Third Circuit concluded that district court judges, in their informed discretion, were suited to strike this “delicate balance.” Id. at 1361.

The court in L.M. agreed with this reasoning, but found that a transfer hearing which “require[s] the court to delve into a number of sensitive aspects of [the juvenile's] life” was inappropriate to make public. L.M., 425 F. Supp. 2d at 956. “Although the court does not know precisely what evidence the parties will present at the hearing, it seems clear that the thrust of the evidence will concern private, sensitive matters concerning [the juvenile's] ability to be rehabilitated.” Id. Such a hearing would require focusing on the juvenile himself and not the acts of the juvenile. Id. “It is these acts—not [the juvenile's] personal background and profile—in which the public and the victims have a compelling interest. Making [the juvenile's] private matters public can only serve to humiliate and stigmatize him, and thereby appeal to the trifling interests of the public.” Id. Thus, the court in L.M., though relying on A.D., found that the victim's family could not attend the transfer hearing, but would take up the question on a case-by-case basis for later hearings. Id.

Crime victims have a compelling interest in attending and being able to speak at sentencing hearings. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4); L.M., 425 F. Supp. 2d at 956; Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for C.D. Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Prosecutors and defendants already have the right to speak at sentencing; our interpretation [of the CVRA] puts crime victims on the same footing.” (citations omitted)); United States v. Monson, No. 20-1226, 2020 WL 9076549, at *1 (6th Cir. Nov. 4, 2020) (“[T]he law gives [the minor victim's mother] the right to speak at sentencing.”); United States v. Degroate, 940 F.3d 167, 175 (2d Cir.2019) (“[O]nly four parties [have] an explicit right to speak at sentencing: the defendant's attorney, the defendant, the Government, and any victims who may be present.”). Further, abusive sexual contact can deeply affect its victims and may justify restitution under the Mandatory Victim's Restitution Act, even in a juvenile case. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1); see also United States v. Juvenile G.Z., 144 F.3d 1148, 1148 (8th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (upholding an order of restitution against a juvenile). When, as in this case, a minor is a victim, § 3663A(a)(2) allows “the legal guardian of the victim ․ [or] another family member” to assume the victim's rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2).

Dispositional hearings for a delinquent are not public criminal sentencings, though they are analogous. See A.D., 28 F.3d at 1358. There remains a “need to avoid embarrassing and humiliating juveniles, to obtain evidence about delicate matters, and not to affect the rehabilitation of juveniles adversely.” Id. at 1361. As mentioned above, there is a high possibility for such embarrassment and negative effect on a juvenile's rehabilitation in hearings that require such in depth analysis of the juvenile. L.M., 425 F. Supp. 2d at 956. Part of a dispositional hearing can include such in depth analysis, such as the reasoning the court gives to support a disposition and often the arguments of counsel. Indeed, a predisposition report, which a court considers and often references in its statement of reasons before issuing the disposition, includes very personal information about the juvenile including previous arrests, personal and family data, physical, mental, and emotional health, educational, vocational, and special skills, and employment history.

Here, it is not hard to strike the delicate balance between the interests of the victim to be heard and of the juvenile defendant to a private hearing. The minor victim K.W.M. has a right to be heard on how she was impacted by this conduct, make a claim for restitution if she wishes, and testify if there is a need for evidence on the restitution amount or otherwise at the dispositional hearing. Given that K.W.M. is a juvenile herself, this Court will allow parents or guardians to accompany her. The hearing will otherwise be private. Once the victim impact statement and restitution request, if any, is made, the dispositional hearing then will be closed to the public.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that K.W.M. and her parents or guardians be informed of the date and location of the dispositional hearing in this case. It is further

ORDERED that K.W.M. and her parents or guardians may attend the dispositional hearing to make a victim impact statement and to request restitution if they so wish. If there is cause for testimony at the hearing, they may remain to testify as witnesses. It is finally

ORDERED that once K.W.M. and her parents or guardians make their impact statement or request for restitution, the dispositional hearing then will return to being completely non-public.

ROBERTO A. LANGE, CHIEF JUDGE