United States Ninth Circuit

In defendant-juvenile's appeal from a proceeding in which he was found to be a juvenile delinquent, the order is affirmed in part where: 1) the U.S. Attorney may certify to the absence of state court jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. section 5032 if he learns that the appropriate state prosecutor has decided not to prosecute a particular juvenile for the specific crime at issue; and 2) there was no violation of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act's speedy trial provision because defendant caused the delay in the start of his trial by lying about his age. However, the order is reversed in part where, because defendant was, as the district court ultimately determined, a juvenile at the time of his arrest, he was entitled to the protections of 18 U.S.C. section 5033.

Appellate Information

• Argued Array
• Decided 01/26/2010
• Published 01/26/2010

Judges

• Before MARSHA S. BERZON and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and JAMES K. SINGLETON,Chief District Judge.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Leila W. Morgan, Deputy Federal Defender, and Kris J. Kraus, San Diego, CA, for the defendant-appellant., Christopher P. Tenorio, Assistant United States Attorney, San Diego, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.