Editorial Series: 2 Of 3

JUVENILE INJUSTICE: CRISIS AT THE MARION COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER

Defenseless Children

Young Defendants Often Lack Legal Counsel

The case of a child known as J is a sobering reminder of the problems
juveniles face in getting a fair hearing in Marion County's courts.

J was originally convicted on charges of disorderly conduct and
resisting arrest after a "fight" at Northwest High School. (The Star
generally does not identify juvenile defendants.) The state Court of
Appeals, in a unanimous decision, overturned the conviction in March.

The only witness against the teen was Indianapolis Public Schools
Police Officer Antonio Hairston, who admitted under cross-examination
that he couldn't tell whether the 16-year-old girl was actually
involved in the fight because the hallway where it occurred was
crowded. Other witnesses said J, a 21st Century Scholar who also has
earned a scholarship from Purdue University, and a boy were involved
in horseplay but were not fighting.

No proof beyond a reasonable doubt, no conviction. Right? Not in the
juvenile justice system.

Then-Magistrate Julie Cartmel found J guilty of disorderly conduct
and resisting arrest, sentencing her to probation.

"There was scant evidence in the record that J's actions were
hostile," wrote Appeals Court Judge Patrick Sullivan in tossing out
the conviction. "[Cartmel] appeared to find that the mere act of
hitting constitutes 'fighting' per se."

Sadly, J isn't alone. Juveniles in Marion County and the rest of
Indiana routinely have their rights to legal representation waived
before consulting with a public defender or private lawyer. Parents
are allowed to waive their children's rights to a lawyer -- even when
they are the ones pressing charges.

Yet, even with an attorney, a juvenile isn't guaranteed a fair hearing.

"In the juvenile system, you are at the mercy of the prosecutor and
the judge," says Larry Landis, executive director of the Indiana
Public Defender Council. "You don't have any checks and balances."

Judge Marilyn Moores, who took over supervision of Marion County's
juvenile court last year, is blunt in her assessment of past
practices, both by the court and attorneys there. "One of the things
they did not do here was practice law," she says.

A Star Editorial Board review of appellate court rulings reveals a
troubling pattern of magistrates in Marion County's juvenile court
not following the intent of the law: In May, a three-judge panel of
the Court of Appeals found that Magistrate Scott Stowers "abused
(his) discretion" in tacking on informal home detention to a plea
agreement involving a juvenile named Santana. Judges have little
latitude in changing plea agreements once they are accepted.

In a 2004 ruling, appellate court judges unanimously found that
Magistrate Geoffrey Gaither based his decision to revoke the
probation of a child named Cory on hearsay. Although probation
hearings require a lower standard of evidence than trials, the
prosecution "produced no evidence" of a drug test that Cory allegedly
failed, how long the drug was in his system or prior drug screenings
before he was placed on probation.

Results of the drug screenings couldn't be produced because none were
taken. Another Appeals Court panel ruled unanimously in 2004 that
Magistrate Beth Jansen violated state law by holding a juvenile known
as William in the Marion County Detention Center for three months
before initially hearing allegations that he violated his truancy
probation. Under state law, juveniles can't be detained for more than
24 hours for offenses that aren't considered crimes if committed by an adult.

A three-judge panel in 2003 found that the Marion County Juvenile
Court "abused its discretion" in the case of Ebonie, a Pike High
School student who had served time at the state Girls School. The
court's policy at the time was to automatically send juveniles back
to the state prison system for any future offense.

Ebonie was returned to prison for disorderly conduct despite
overwhelming evidence she had turned her life around. The appeals
court ruled that Marion County's one-size-fits-all rule "conflicted
with the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system."

At initial hearings, children and their parents frequently find
themselves making important legal decisions without the help of an
attorney. The National Juvenile Defender Center and the Indiana
Juvenile Task Force have found that 40 percent of juvenile cases in
Indiana are handled without a defense attorney involved.

The results can be disastrous for children and teens, who can be
imprisoned by the state until age 18 or in some cases 21. Judges,
legal analysts argue, are apt to impose harsher sentences without
defense attorneys arguing for alternatives.

The inadequacy of legal counsel came to a head in Marion County in
2004 when Chief Public Defender David Cook temporarily refused to
take on new juvenile cases. Cook argued that it was unethical for him
to continue accepting cases given his department's lack of resources.
His office has since added 12 full-time public defenders.

Private attorneys remain something of a rarity in juvenile court. Few
have expertise in juvenile law and most are unwilling to endure the
long waits or the arbitrary policies associated with Marion County's court.

"There's no question, by any definition, that defense lawyers were
viewed as second-class citizens in that process," says attorney
Robert Hammerle, who occasionally represents juveniles. "So many of
my colleagues refused to go."

The Marion County Superior Court is responsible for operation of the
juvenile system. But for two decades, Judge James Payne was given
wide latitude to run the juvenile court, the detention center and the
juvenile probation agency as he saw fit. Payne even reviewed and
signed off on all rulings by magistrates under his supervision.

"I'm not saying Judge Payne said 'Keep your nose out of my business.'
He wasn't like that," says Presiding Judge Cale Bradford. "But he had
always run -- he had always run -- juvenile court and there really
hadn't been a clamoring from the Downtown courts or local government
to have more involvement out in juvenile."

Now, serious problems in the system are beginning to emerge.
Prosecutors have charged 10 detention center employees, including the
director, with either sexually abusing teen inmates or helping to
cover it up. The abuse is believed to have occurred over at least a
six-year span. One national organization recently declared the center
unsafe for inmates and staff.

In addition, Marion County has for years operated a juvenile system
in which children are frequently sent to prison based on little
evidence and without legal representation. A system supposedly
defined by justice has too often failed to deliver.