Hypothetically Speaking . . .
"Johnny" was adopted from a Third World orphanage as a young child and given an estimated birth date by his Californian parents. He is tried and convicted as a minor in juvenile court for a first degree burglary committed on the eve of his eighteenth birthday. Shortly after the trial, Johnny undergoes "bone age" tests, which conclusively prove that Johnny was in fact at least nineteen when he committed the burglary.What happens next?
posted by brainmarket @ 9:26 PM
4 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
quite a conundrum. but isn't it really about the mental capicity and not necessarily the physical?
this is bullshit. he should be tried as a juvenile. mf'ers
well, this would seem like a conundrum, but maybe not...the fact blurb leaves unanswered the question of who had the test done, if its the defense, than it matters not at all, as there is no duty to discolse, and if by the state, the date on the birth certificate should be conclusive. either way, the result of the trial can stand.
it is my understanding that depending on the nature of the crime determines whether he is tried as an adult or a minor. Just becuz they are "just" under 18does not automatically qualify them for juvenile court.
As for the bone test, the date of the defendant is based on his age fo record acknowledged by a governmental agency. So the birth certificate age would be the valid/legal age regardless of the results of the density test. At this time, I believe that the density test is not that conclusive or reliable to be considered as part of the the evidence to trying him as an adult. It will come down to basics.
Post a Comment
<< Home