>> GOOD MORNING.

[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS].

>> I HOPE THE PARTIES KNOW THE

NEXT CASE IS AMENDMENT TO THE

RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE.

>> THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CASES

WHERE WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE

WHO WANT TO MAKE STATEMENTS IN A

LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME.

SO I WILL ASK THAT EACH OF YOU

PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE TIME THAT

YOU HAVE ALLOTTED YOURSELVES,

AND TRY NOT TO GO OVER THAT

TIME.

AND OF COURSE YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE

TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT THE

COURT MAY HAVE FOR YOU.

WHO IS GOING TO PROCEED FIRST?

>> I AM, YOUR HONOR.

GOOD MORNING, DAVID SILVERSTEIN,

JUVENILE COURT RULES COMMITTEE.

>> LET ME ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION

HERE, ARE THE PARTIES WHO ARE

GOING TO ARGUE, ARGUING

DIFFERENT ASPECT OF THIS?

I KNOW THERE ARE A NUMBER OF

JUVENILE RULES THAT HAVE BEEN

PROPOSED EITHER AMENDMENTS TO

THEM OR -- SO EVERY PARTY IS

DOING A DIFFERENT ASPECT OF

THIS?

>> PRETTY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

I AM GOING TO BE HANDLING THE

RULE PROPOSALS REGARDING

DEPENDENCY ISSUES, ROB MASON

SEATED NEXT TO ME, HE IS GOING

TO BE ARGUING -- OUR FORMER

CHAIR FOR THE JUVENILE COURT

RULES COMMITTEE AND WILL BE

ARGUING THOSE ISSUES THAT

PERTAIN TO DELINQUENCY MATTERS.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO ADDRESS THE

DEPENDENCY PROPOSALS.

>> JUST SEEMS LIKE -- THIS CASE

INVOLVES THE SHACKLE OF THE

JUVENILE.

>> YES.

>> AND SEEMS LIKE THAT IS THE --

I MEAN, ARE YOU GOING -- IT IS

YOUR COMMITTEE THAT PROPOSED

THAT RULE.

YOU WILL NOT DISCUSS THE

SHACKLING.

>> MR. MASON IS GOING TO DO

THAT.

GOOD MORNING.

THE JUVENILE RULES COMMITTEE HAS

PROVIDED BEFORE YOU NUMEROUS

PROPOSALS REGARDING DEPENDENCY,

RULE CHANGES AND DELINQUENCY

RULE CHANGES, AS FAR AS THE

DEPENDENCY RULE CHANGES, THE ONE

RULE CHANGE THAT WE HAD

OPPOSITION TO THAT I'D LIKE TO

DISCUSS THIS MORNING, IS THE

CHANGE TO RULE 8.257.

AND THAT IS THE RULE IN THE

JUVENILE PROCEDURES REGARDING

GENERAL MAGISTRATES.

WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ATTEMPT

TO DO IS CURRENTLY, IF A PARTY

WANTS TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION, TO A

RECOMMENDATION OF A MAGISTRATE,

THE -- THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE

A TRANSFER OF THE HEARING AND

ALL OF THESE HEARINGS ARE

RECORDED ELECTRONICALLY.

THERE IS NO COURT REPORTER

PRESENT.

SO, WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING IN

ORDER TO SPEED UP THE PROCESS AS

FAR AS RESOLVING ISSUES, IS TO

ALLOW THE COURT, TRIAL COURT, IN

CONSIDERING A REVIEW OR -- OF AN

EXCEPTION, FOR GENERAL

MAGISTRATE PROCEEDINGS, TO BE

ALLOWED TO LISTEN TO THE

ELECTRONIC RECORDINGS OF THE

PROCEEDINGS --

>> ARE YOU ADVOCATING ANY

PROCEDURE WHEREBY -- IF THIS IS

A LIMITED ISSUE, THAT YOU WANT

THE JUDGE TO LOOK AT, ARE YOU

ADVOCATING ANY PROCEDURE FOR A

LIMITED PORTION OF THIS OR ARE

YOU SAYING, GIVE HIM THE WHOLE

TRANSCRIPT -- I MEAN, RECORDING

OF WHAT WENT ON BEFORE THE

MAGISTRATE?

>> WELL, THE RULE ALREADY

PROVIDES IN SUB SECTION J-3,

ALREADY MENTIONS THAT YOU CAN

PROVIDE LESS THAN THE FULL

TRANSCRIPT.

SO, WE COULD PROVIDE LESS THAN

THE FULL ELECTRONIC RECORDING.

WE'RE REQUESTING NOT ONLY

ELECTRONIC RECORDINGS, BUT, WHAT

IF THE ISSUE IS JUST A LEGAL

DETERMINATION, WE'D LIKE TO BE

ABLE TO NOT EVEN PROVIDE AN

ELECTRONIC RECORDING OR A

TRANSCRIPT, AND THE PARTIES

COULD JUST STIPULATE TO WHAT THE

EVIDENCE IS, IS PRESENTED TO THE

MAGISTRATE AND THEN WE'LL BE

ABLE TO GET BEFORE THE TRIAL

JUDGE AND GET A QUICK

DETERMINATION, THAT MUCH SOONER.

SO AS FAR AS BEING ABLE TO DO

THAT, I MEAN, MOTION OF THESE

PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE GENERAL

MAGISTRATES ARE FROM FIVE

MINUTES, TO 15, PROBABLY ON THE

AVERAGE.

SO, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A

REAL LENGTHY PROCEEDINGS.

>> YOU ARE TALK ABOUT THIS IN

THE DEPENDENCY PROCEEDINGS.

>> IN DEPENDENCY PROCEEDINGS.

>> I'VE UNDERSTOOD THIS IS

HAPPENING BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMY

AND FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS AND

THE WHOLE GENERAL MAGISTRATE

PROCESS, IS REALLY SLOWING

EVERYTHING DOWN.

BUT, THIS WOULD ONLY -- WHAT

KIND OF HEARINGS ARE YOU TALK

ABOUT THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE

GENERAL MAGISTRATE.

>> THE GENERAL MAGISTRATE RULE

ALLOWS THE MAGISTRATES TO HEAR

ANY MATTER REFERRED BY THE TRIAL

COURT BUT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED

TO HEAR TRIAL AND NOT ALLOWED TO

HEAR SHELTER REMOVAL HEARINGS.

>> WHAT WOULD BE -- IN TERMS OF

THERE BEING TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND

WHO IS -- ALL OF THE INTERESTS,

THIS IS -- THIS IS HELPFUL TO

WHOM, THE DEPARTMENT?

TO THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM, THE

CHILD, THE PARENT.

>> IT IS HELPFUL TO ALL THE

PARTIES, BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE

NOW, AS FAR AS HAVING TO GET A

TRANSCRIPT, IN HILLSBOROUGH

COUNTY WHERE I PRACTICE --

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, WHERE I

PRACTICE WE HAVE TO WAIT TWO

WEEKS TO GET A TRANSCRIPT --

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW -- YOU

WILL GIVE THE JUDGE THE

ELECTRONIC RECORDING AND HAVE

THE JUDGE -- AT WHAT TIME IS

THIS JUDGE SUPPOSED TO SIT IN

CHAMBERS AND LISTEN TO THE

HEARING.

>> WELL, THE JUDGE COULD DO THAT

OR DURING THE EXCEPTION, THE

JUDGE COULD JUST PLAY THE

PORTIONS THE PARTIES WOULD LIKE

TO --

>> WHY ISN'T IT BETTER TO HAVE

THE DEPARTMENT -- AS THE

DEPARTMENT SUGGESTS, HAVE A --

TRY TO HAVE A STIPULATED RECORD.

>> WELL, WE ALSO INCLUDED THE

ABILITY TO HAVE THE PARTIES

STIPULATE TO THE RECORD.

BUT, THE ISSUE IS, IS THAT THESE

HEARINGS, JUDICIAL REVIEW

HEARINGS, DON'T TAKE A LOT OF

TIME, THEY ARE STATUS REVIEW

HEARINGS, AND AS FAR AS GOING

THROUGH THE --

>> HOW MANY OF THOSE JUDICIAL

REVIEW HEARINGS ARE SUBJECT TO

EXCEPTIONS AND REVIEW BY THE

JUDGE?

>> WELL, IF THEY ARE HEARD BY

THE GENERAL MAGISTRATE, I MEAN,

POTENTIALLY, THEY ARE ALL

SUBJECT TO EXCEPTIONS, BUT --

>> IN THE REAL WORLD.

>> IN THE REAL WORLD, THERE IS

NOT MANY OF THEM.

BUT WHEN YOU DO WANT TO DO IT,

IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT, AS

-- FOR EXAMPLE, I CAN GET IN

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, GET A

RECORDING FOR $7.50, THE DAY I

REQUEST IT.

IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, IF I

HAVE TO THEN TAKE THAT RECORDING

AND GIVE IT TO A COURT REPORTER,

I HAVE TO WAIT 14 DAYS, AND PAY

$4.50 PER PAGE.

>> AND YOU ARE IN THAT

SITUATION, REPRESENTING WHOM?

>> WELL, I WORK FOR THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL'S OFFICE, AND WE

REPRESENT THE DEPARTMENT OF

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN

DEPENDENCY PROCEEDINGS SO --

>> LET ME JUST -- CONCEPTUALLY,

THIS BASICALLY, THIS IS KIND OF

A REVIEW PROCEEDING.

>> CORRECT.

>> WHERE THE REVIEWING JUDGE,

INSTEAD OF HAVING THE RECORD ON

PAPER, THE JUDGE -- TO WHICH

REFERENCES CAN BE MADE, BY PAGE

AND LINE, IS GOING TO HAVE A

RECORDING, AND I'M STRUGGLING

WITH HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO

TALK ABOUT WHERE THINGS ARE, AND

SOMETIMES, THIS CAN BE

COMPLICATED AND IT IS NOT LIKE

THERE IS ONE DISCRETE PART OF

THE RECORDING THAT IS GOING TO

RESOLVE THE ISSUE OR THAT WILL

BE ALL THE -- ONE PARTY WILL

THINK IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER

TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE.

THERE WILL BE PIECES HERE AND

PIECES THERE AND IT IS

COMPLICATED.

AND IT JUST SEEMS LIKE TO ME,

I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS A BAD

IDEA, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE --

IS A BAD IDEA AND I UNDERSTAND

THE ARGUMENT BASED ON ECONOMY

BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IN TERMS OF

HAVING AN ORDERLY REVIEW

PROCESS, IS GOING TO REALLY --

AT LEAST POTENTIALLY IN SOME

CASES WILL COMPLICATE THE TASK

OF THE JUDGE IN REVIEWING THE

EXCEPTIONS AND MAKING A

DETERMINATION OF -- CONCERNING

WHETHER THEY WANT IT -- THEY ARE

WARRANTED OR NOT.

>> AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT.

WHEN YOU PLAY A CD, YOU CAN POP

A CD, TODAY, INTO YOUR COMPUTER,

WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER, AND IT

WILL HAVE THE MINUTES.

SO, PEOPLE --

>> BASICALLY YOU WOULD DO, YOU

WOULD -- WHEN YOU ARE PRESENTING

-- THE PARTIES ARE PRESENTING

THEIR ARGUMENT WOULD REFER TO,

INSTEAD OF PAGE AND LINE NUMBERS

WOULD REFER TO MINUTE NUMBERS.

>> CORRECT.

AND ALSO, IF IT WAS A LENGTHY

HEARING OR THE JUDGE DIDN'T WANT

TO LISTEN TO THE WHOLE

RECORDING, THE JUDGE ALREADY

CONTROLS WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE

THAT IS PRESENTED BEFORE THEM,

SO, THE JUDGE CAN SAY, I'M NOT

LISTENING TO THIS, 30 MINUTE

HEARING.

WHY DON'T YOU PARTIES GET

TOGETHER, AND TELL ME WHAT IN

THIS RECORDING YOU WANT ME TO

LISTEN TO.

I MEAN, THE COURT HAS BEEN --

HAS THE INHERENT POWER TO DO

THAT BUT SOME JUDGES THAT WOULD

HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT.

BECAUSE --

>> WITH THAT, YOU REALLY HAVE

GONE WELL OVER THE TIME THAT WAS

ALLOTTED JUST TO YOU.

UNLESS ONE OF THE OTHERS WANTS

CEDE YOU THEIR TIME.

>> NO, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE

THEIR TIME.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> THERE'S AN ORDER THERE THAT

IS NONCONTROVERSIAL, BUT IT

REQUIRES A COURT ORDER.

THAT'S A CHANGE, I BELIEVE,

CURRENTLY; TO REQUIRE COURT

ORDER.

NOW IT'S FROM EITHER DEPARTMENT

OF ONE OF THE CONTRACTING

ENTITIES, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> WHY IS THAT CHANGE?

WHY IS THERE A RULE CHANGE TO

NOW REQUIRE A COURT ORDER?

>> WELL, THE RULE CHANGE WAS

BASED ON A STATUTE CHANGE AND

ALLOWED THE CHILDREN TO HAVE

TUITION FEE EXEMPTION.

THE THING IS THAT HOW DO YOU,

HOW DOES A CHILD WHEN THEY'RE

APPLYING FOR COLLEGE, HOW DO

THEY ESTABLISH THEY HAVE A

TUITION FEE EXEMPTION?

>> IN THE PAST THEY'VE DONE IT

THROUGH DEPARTMENT OR ONE OF THE

OTHER CONTRACTING ENTITIES.

WE'RE JUST CHANGING THAT FROM

THAT TO A TRIAL COURT ORDER?

>> CORRECT.

AND PUTTING IN A LOT OF FACTS OF

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION TO

PROTECT THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF

THE CHILD.

>> SO NOTHING HAS CHANGED, IT'S

JUST HAVING ANOTHER ENTITY DOING

IT?

>> CORRECT.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

MR. MASON?

OKAY.

>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, GOOD

MORNING.

I'M ROB MASON, IMMEDIATE PAST

CHAIR OF THE JUVENILE COURT

RULES COMMITTEE.

IF CARMEN, THE CONVICTED MURDER,

IS ENTITLED TO NOT APPEAR

SHACKLED BEFORE THE COURT, THEN

SHOULDN'T CHILDREN IN OUR STATE

BE ENTITLED TO THAT SAME

PROTECTION?

>> LET ME ASK YOU, I'M NOT

UNSYMPATHETIC TO YOUR CONCERNS

ABOUT THE SHACKLING OF THE

CHILDREN, BUT ISN'T THE RIGHT

THAT A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT HAS

ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BASED ON

THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE

SHACKLING OF THE JURY'S VIEWING

OF THE SHACKLING ON THE JURY?

AND ISN'T THAT REALLY WHAT

UNDERLIES THE ANALYSIS OF THE,

THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IN THE

CASES WHERE IT'S BEEN FOUND,

IT'S DEVELOPED A LAW RELATING TO

SHACKLING OF CRIMINAL

DEFENDANTS?

>> RESPECTFULLY, WE THINK IT

GOES BEYOND THAT.

IT'S NOT JUST THE PREJUDICE TO A

JURY, IT'S THE INTERFERENCE AND

THE HINDRANCE OF SHACKLED

CHILDREN TO BE ABLE TO

COMMUNICATE --

>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT -- I'M

TALKING ABOUT THE CRIMINAL CASES

WHERE YOU'RE RELYING ON THE

PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED IN THE

CRIMINAL CASES AND TRYING TO

EXTEND IT OVER HERE.

WHAT'S THE RATIONALE?

IT COMES FROM THE U.S. SUPREME

COURT.

>> YES, SIR.

>> WHAT DOES THE U.S. SUPREME

COURT SAYS IS THE RATIONALE FOR

THAT RULE?

>> IT EXPLAINED THREE DIFFERENT

RATIONALES.

BY HAVING AN INDIVIDUAL, AN

ACCUSED SHACKLED BEFORE THE

COURT, THAT IT IMPLIES BEFORE

THE FACTFINDER THAT THAT

INDIVIDUAL IS DANGEROUS AT THAT

TIME.

ADDITIONALLY, IT SAID IT WAS AN

AFFRONT TO THE DIGNITY AND THE

DECORUM OF A COURTROOM, AND

LASTLY, IT INTERFERES WITH THE

ABILITY FOR THE ACCUSED TO

COMMUNICATE WITH THE ATTORNEY

AND ALSO HAVE THEIR MENTAL

FACULTIES SUCH --

>> THE RULE APPLIES TO ALL

PROCEEDINGS, AND I'D LIKE TO

ADDRESS BECAUSE I THINK IF WE

WERE DEALING WITH THE

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, WE SHOULD

DO THAT IN A CASE OF

CONTROVERSY.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE

OVERALL IDEA IS THAT THE

JUVENILE PUBLIC DEFENDERS HAVE

TAKEN THIS UP AS AN ISSUE THAT

THEY'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT TO

HAVE THEIR CLIENTS BROUGHT IN IN

CHAINS CHAINED TO ONE ANOTHER,

YOU KNOW, BELLY CHAINS, TWIST

CHAINED AND EVERYTHING.

IT SEEMS THAT THERE IS, IT'S

GOING TO GO FROM ONE EXTREME

WHICH IS THOSE KINDS OF

OBSERVATIONS IN THE REPORT OF

WHAT WAS GOING ON IN MANY

JURISDICTIONS TO THE PRACTICAL

ASPECT OF, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE

THE INITIAL, THE FIRST

DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING IS, WHAT,

WHEN THEY COME --

>> YES, SIR.

YES, MA'AM, IT'S THE FIRST

DETENTION.

>> IT'S THE FIRST WHAT?

>> FIRST APPEARANCE.

>> FIRST APPEARANCE.

SO IS THE RULE THE SAME FOR THE

FIRST APPEARANCE AND IF THERE

ARE TEN JUVENILES, ARE THEY ALL

IN THE COURTROOM TOGETHER?

ARE THEY BROUGHT IN ONE AT A

TIME VERSUS THE ACTUAL TRIAL

THAT THAT JUVENILE MAY HAVE

WHICH ARE FAR FEWER TO DETERMINE

HIS OR HER DELINQUENCY?

IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY

DIFFERENT IN THE NATURE OF THE

PROCEEDING IN THE RULE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT'S WHY THE COMMITTEE'S

VIEWPOINT WAS IT SHOULD BE FOR

EVERY COURT APPEARANCE, AND

THAT'S ALSO WHAT THE NJDC

ASSESSMENT STATED, FOR EVERY

COURT APPEARANCE.

>> YOU'VE INDICATED IN THIS

PETITION THAT THERE ARE COUNTIES

IN FLORIDA THAT HAVE, DON'T HAVE

THIS BLANKET SHACKLING --

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> -- REVISION.

I'M WONDERING, DO WE HAVE ANY

INFORMATION FROM THOSE

PARTICULAR COUNTIES, ESPECIALLY

THE LARGER ONES LIKE PALM BEACH

AND BROWARD AND MIAMI-DADE, THAT

WOULD INDICATE ALL THE

SHACKLING -- WHAT HAS BEEN THEIR

EXPERIENCE WITH THESE JUVENILES?

>> WELL, I THINK AS WE SUBMITTED

IN OUR REPORT TO THE COURT THERE

HAVE NOT BEEN ANY PROBLEMS.

I BELIEVE MR. STANTON HERE TODAY

FROM MIAMI WHO CAN FURTHER

ELABORATE ON THAT.

BUT SINCE 2006 WHERE THEY'VE

MADE AN INDIVIDUALIZED

DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER A

CHILD SHOULD BE SHACKLED BASED

ON MANIFEST NEED OF THAT CHILD,

AND THAT HAS NOT CREATED

PANDEMONIUM OR CHAOS.

>> IN MIAMI-DADE?

>> YES.

>> I KNOW IN PALM BEACH THEY

CONTINUE TO SHACKLE CHILDREN.

>> IT IS THE SEMINAL ARGUMENT

THAT WE'RE PROTECTING THE

CHILDREN FROM THEMSELVES, THEY

LACK JUDGMENT, THIS REALLY IS IN

THEIR BEST INTERESTS.

>> WELL, I THINK WHEN WE START

MAKING A BLANKET POLICY AS TO IN

A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST THAT WE

NEED TO BE VERY LEERY OF THAT.

ESPECIALLY WHEN WE GO BACK TO

2001 THIS COURT ON THE VIDEO

DETENTION HEARINGS.

AND SOMETIMES TRYING TO BE

BENEVOLENT AND NOT WORK OUT SO

WELL.

>> MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THIS,

AREN'T WE DEALING WITH CHILDREN

THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN

DETERMINED TO BE HIGH RISK?

>> NOT NECESSARILY.

WE'RE DEALING WITH EVERY CHILD

WHO IS BROUGHT FROM THE

DETENTION FACILITY.

>> WELL, HOW DO THEY GET IN THE

DETENSION FACILITY?

>> WE MAY HAVE A 12-YEAR-OLD

CHILD ON A PETTY THEFT.

THAT CHILD IS PICKED UP WITH AN

ORDER TO BE BACK IN FRONT OF

THAT JUDGE.

THAT 12-YEAR-OLD GIRL OR BOY

WILL BE IN SHACKLES BEFORE THE

COURT.

>> YOU MENTIONED A 12-YEAR-OLD.

HOW YOUNG CAN IT GO?

>> AS YOUNG AS YOU CAN COUNT

BACKWARDS.

I'VE SEEN CHILDREN AS YOUNG AS 8

YEARS OLD SHACKLED.

>> HAVE YOU SEEN THEM SHACKLED

TO EACH OTHER?

>> NOT IN [INAUDIBLE]

>> WHAT?

>> IN DUVAL COUNTY.

IT WAS SHOCKING ABOUT THIS BEING

CHAINED TO ONE ANOTHER --

>> YES.

IN CERTAIN COUNTIES THEY BRING

THEM OUT CHAINED --

>> INTO THE COURTROOM.

BECAUSE AGAIN, THE DEPARTMENT OF

JUVENILE JUSTICE THE WAY THEY

TRANSPORT THE CHILDREN THAT'S

WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF THE

DEPARTMENT.

>> YES, SIR.

YES, MA'AM.

THERE'S LEGISLATION FOR THAT.

>> SO YOU'RE SAYING THEY

ACTUALLY BRING THEM IN CHAINED

TO EACH OTHER IN THE COURTROOM.

>> IN SOME JURISDICTIONS.

>> YOU'VE USED UP A LOT OF THE

TIME.

DO WE HAVE SOMEONE ELSE HERE

WHO'S SUPPOSED TO ARGUE?

>> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY.

IF YOU WOULD MAKE YOUR WAY TO

THE PODIUM.

>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, I

WILL ADDRESS THE IMPORTANT

THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE

IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED RULE

8.100.

>> THAT RULE IS WHICH ONE?

>> THE PROPOSED RULE, 8.100 ON

SHACKLING.

>> SHACKLING, OKAY.

>> THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE IS

ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT AS THIS

INSTITUTION WAS CREATED TO BE

BOTH REHABILITATIVE AND

THERAPEUTIC.

THE SHACKLING OF CHILDREN GOES

AGAINST THE BASIC TENETS OF

THE --

>> ARE YOU AGAINST ANYTHING?

NO HANDCUFFS, NO LEG SHACKLES,

NO ANYTHING?

>> YES, YOUR HONOR.

>> I REALLY AM APPALLED IF YOU

HAVE THEM ALL CHAINED TOGETHER

AND, YOU KNOW, LOCKSTEP INTO THE

COURTROOM.

BUT ARE THERE, ARE THERE OTHER

TYPES OF RESTRAINT THAT CAN BE

DONE THAT WOULD NOT BE

OFFENSIVE?

>> WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE RULE

ALLOWS FOR THE USE OF THE LEAST

RESTRICTIVE MEANS.

SO IF SHACKLING WOULD BE THE

LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS, THAT

SHOULD BE EMPLOYED.

HOWEVER, IF THERE'S A LACK OF

COURT PERSONNEL TO WATCH OVER

CHILDREN, IF A CHILD IS DEEMED

TO BE A THREAT TO HIMSELF OR

OTHERS IN THE COURT, THEN

SHACKLES COULD BE USED.

SO ALL THIS RULE IS CALLING FOR

IS USE OF LEAST RESTRICTIVE

MEANS.

>> I THINK I'LL ASK THE PUBLIC

DEFENDER HOW IT'S WORKING IN

MIAMI-DADE.

>> INDISCRIMINATE SHACKLING --

THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT

AT THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENTAL

STAGE OF ADOLESCENCE, AS STATED

IN THE EXPERT AFFIDAVIT OF

DR. MARTY BYER, IS THE POINT AT

WHICH JUVENILES DEVELOP THEIR

POINT OF PERSONAL SELVES AND

SHACKLING CAN IMPACT THAT.

>> ARE YOU SAYING THERE ARE

STUDIES THAT SHOW THAT THE VERY

FACT THAT JUVENILES PLACED IN

SHACKLES IN THE COURTROOM AND

DURING THE PROCEEDINGS AFFECTS

HOW THAT JUVENILE IS GOING TO

VIEW THE COURT SYSTEM AND THE

ROLE OF REHABILITATION IN THAT

CHILD?

>> ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR.

OUR EXPERT STATED THAT IN THE

AFFIDAVIT.

MOREOVER, THERE'S A HOST OF

THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE

ARTICLES AND BOOKS THAT DISCUSS

THE DIFFICULTIES CHILDREN

FACE --

>> BUT A JUDGE RIGHT NOW HAS THE

INHERENT AUTHORITY TO NOT

REQUIRE THE SHACKLING.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> THEY JUST, IN MANY PLACES

THEY JUST DON'T DO IT BECAUSE

IT'S BEEN DONE, AND MAYBE THE

SHERIFF SAYS THAT'S WHAT NEEDS

TO HAPPEN.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> WHAT IF THE SHERIFF SAYS, WE

DON'T HAVE THE PERSONNEL -- I'LL

ASK -- NEVER MIND.

I'M GOING TO ASK MR. STANTON.

>> OKAY, YOUR HONOR.

IF THERE SHOULD BE A PROBLEM

WITH FITTING THE JUVENILE IN THE

COURTROOM, THE JUDGE CAN ORDER

THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS

WHICH CAN INCLUDE SHACKLING.

>> NOW WE'VE USED ALL OF OUR

TIME.

IS SOMEONE ELSE OVER HERE

SUPPOSED TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT?

>> YES, YOUR HONOR.

>> OKAY.

WE'LL GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF

MINUTES.

AND WHICH ISSUE ARE YOU GOING TO

ADDRESS?

>> I'M GOING TO ADDRESS THE

ANTISHACKLING PROPOSAL.

MY NAME IS ANDREW STANTON, AND

I'M FROM MIAMI, AND I PRACTICE

THERE.

AND INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATIONS --

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT,

NOT UNSHACKLING EVERY CHILD --

INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATIONS CAN BE

MADE.

YOU HEARD A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY

THEY SHOULD BE MADE, AND THEY'RE

BEING MADE RIGHT NOW IN

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY.

>> YOU SAYING, SO HOW DOES IT

WORK ON A FIRST APPEARANCE?

WHAT DOES THE JUDGE DO?

>> FIRST APPEARANCE, YOU KNOW,

THERE IS NO UNIFIED SYSTEM, BUT

WHAT GENERALLY HAPPENS IS AT

FIRST APPEARANCE THE DJJ WILL

BRING THEM IN WITHOUT RESTRAINTS

AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THEY KNOW

WHAT THE LIKELY OUTCOME, BUT

WHERE THEY THINK THERE'S A

CONCERN AND WHERE THE STATE

THINKS THERE'S A CONCERN OR EVEN

THE JUDGE, IT'S RAISED AND THEN

IT'S ADDRESSED AT THAT POINT.

>> SO THE DJJ PERSON -- THEY'LL

SAY AS THE JUVENILE COMES IN THE

COURTROOM, WE'VE, YOU KNOW,

UNSHACKLED, BUT WE HAVE A

CONCERN BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT'S

HAPPENED WITH THIS CHILD --

>> WELL, EVEN PRIOR TO THAT.

I MEAN, IN SOME COURTROOMS

THEY'LL LET YOU KNOW A LIST OF

WHICH IS USUALLY ONE OF KIDS

THEY MIGHT HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT,

AND THAT'S ADDRESSED BEFORE THE

CHILD IS BROUGHT IN.

>> BEFORE THIS POLICY WENT INTO

EFFECT, THERE WAS THE SAME

INDISCRIMINATE SHACKLING?

>> YEAH.

AT ONE POINT IN 2006 EVERYBODY

FOR EVERY HEARING CAME IN

SHACKLED.

THEREAFTER, THEY WENT TO

NONTRIAL HEARINGS UNTIL

SEPTEMBER OF 2006.

>> AND WERE THEY SHACKLED TO

EACH OTHER OR --

>> NOT IN MIAMI, THEY WERE NOT

SHACKLED TO EACH OTHER, BUT THEY

WERE BROUGHT TO THE DOOR OF THE

COURTHOUSE, OF THE COURTROOM IN

THEIR SHACKLES FOR THE EXPRESS

PURPOSE OF GOING TO SEE THE

JUDGE WHO'S GOING TO PROVIDE

THEM A RESPECTFUL AND RESPECTED

COURT AND A SYSTEM THAT'S

SUPPOSED TO WORK ON THEIR

REHABILITATION.

AND WITH OR WITHOUT A STUDY, I

THINK IT'S APPARENT TO EVERYONE

THAT YOUR FIRST CONTACT WITH THE

SYSTEM IS I'M GOING TO SHACKLE

YOU UP, BRING YOU IN, I'M GOING

TO TEACH YOU A LESSON, SOME

WOULD SAY.

THEN IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT

THESE PEOPLE ARE HERE TO HELP

ME.

>> SO AS A PRACTICAL MATTER ON

THE GROUND IT IS A PRESUMPTION

THAT THOSE SHACKLES WILL BE

REMOVED AND THAT IT HAS WORKED,

THAT DJJ HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT

ADVANCED NOTICE, WE'VE GOT A

PROBLEM, AND THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN

DEALT WITH ADEQUATELY WITHOUT

HARM TO THE CHILD OR OTHERS IN

ACTUAL OPERATION?

>> THAT'S THE CASE, YOUR

HONOR --

>> AND HOW LONG HAS THAT BEEN

OPERATING?

>> THAT'S BEEN SINCE 2006.

AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING HERE IS

THAT THERE MAY ACTUALLY BE AN

INDIVIDUAL DECISION BY A JUDGE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

APPRECIATE YOUR ARGUMENTS.

LET'S SEE.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> IS THERE SOMEONE ELSE ON THIS

SIDE WHO -- NO?

OKAY.

>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, MY

NAME IS JEFF GILLEN.

I'M NOT TONY MUSTO.

I'M THE STATEWIDE APPEALS

DIRECTER FOR CHILDREN'S LEGAL

SERVICE.

IF YOU COULD SHIFT BACK TO THE

DEPENDENCY ASPECT --

>> THE ELECTRONIC RECORDS.

>> WELL, THAT'S ONE OF THEM.

I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO FOCUS ON

TWO OTHER PROPOSED RULE CHANGES

IF I MAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE PROPOSED CHANGE RULE 8.265

THAT A MOTION IS FOR REHEARING

WHICH WOULD CAUSE THAT RULE TO

SAY THAT FAILURE TO RULE ON A

MOTION FOR REHEARING WITHIN 10

DAYS -- BLESS YOU, YOUR HONOR --

WOULD CAUSE DENIAL FOR THAT

MOTION AS A POTENTIAL FOR

SERIOUS PROBLEMS.

VERY FEW OF THOSE MOTIONS WILL

TAKE PLACE WITHIN 10 DAYS

BECAUSE THE DEPENDENCY COURT'S

DOCKETS ARE HEAVILY BURDENED.

SUCH MOTIONS, IF THEY'RE DEEMED

DENIED WITHOUT A RULING, ONCE

THE CASE GOES UP ON APPEAL ALL

FACTS ALLEGED IN THOSE MOTIONS

WILL HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE

WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION THE

COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED A

REHEARING.

>> THIS RULE WAS PASSED 32-0 IN

BOTH BEFORE THE COMMITTEE --

>> YES, YOUR HONOR.

>> AND WE ARE HAVING A CASE, I

THINK YOU'RE ON THE NEXT CASE

THAT TOOK THE CASES, THE CHILD

IS 4 YEARS OLD.

I MEAN, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I'M

SYMPATHETIC WHAT GOES ON FOR THE

TRIAL COURT, BUT THIS TERMS OF

EVERY DAY THAT GOES BY FOR THE

CHILD IS, MEANS THAT THAT CHILD

CAN'T BE PLACED INTO PERMANENCY.

SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT'S A

GOOD RULE THAT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

PASSED BY THE JUVENILE RULES

COMMITTEE, AND I'M CONCERNED

THAT WITHOUT THAT, YOU KNOW,

THAT THEY, OBVIOUSLY, DID IT TO

LOOK TO BALANCE THE, YOU KNOW,

THE NEEDS FOR REHEARING.

SO TELL ME FROM THE DEPARTMENT'S

POINT OF VIEW WHY THAT'S NOT A

GOOD IDEA.

>> WELL, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT

THE PERCEPTION WOULD BE THAT

IT'S A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE IT'LL

PUSH THINGS ALONG MORE

QUICKLY --

>> NOT PUSH THINGS ALONG, BUT

MAKE SURE SOMEONE KNOWS ON THIS

ONE THERE'S A DEADLINE.

>> RIGHT.

>> MOTIONS FOR REHEARING MAYBE

AREN'T ALWAYS FILED, AND THEY'VE

GOT TO HAVE A PROMISED RULING.

>> BUT THE STATE'S CONCERN, YOUR

HONOR, IS THAT LIKELY WHAT WILL

HAPPEN IS WE'LL HAVE SITUATIONS

IN WHICH THERE WILL BE REVERSALS

FOR THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO

GRANT THE REHEARING MOTION, AND

THOSE REVERSALS WILL RESULT IN

REHEARING --

>> WELL, THE ARGUMENT ON THE

OTHER SIDE IS IF THE JUDGE SAYS

DENY IT WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING

MORE, THAT YOU END UP IN THE

SAME SITUATION.

SO HOW DOES THAT DIFFER?

>> WELL, IT DOESN'T DIFFER

ENTIRELY.

I GRANT THAT, YOUR HONOR.

>> BUT ISN'T YOUR POINT THAT YOU

JUST WANT TO GIVE THE TRIAL

COURT -- THAT SOMETHING HAS BEEN

OVERLOOKED?

LEGITIMATELY, I MEAN, THE SORT

OF THING THAT OUGHT TO BE RAISED

IN MOTION FOR REHEARING, IF

SOMETHING HAS BEEN OVERLOOKED,

THIS IS A MORE MEANINGFUL

OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE IT CORRECTED

AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL BEFORE

YOU HAVE TO GO OFF AND --

>> ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR, BUT

THE PROBLEM IS AS A PRACTICAL

MATTER IT WON'T BE, IT MAY NOT

BE CORRECTED BY THE TRIAL COURT.

>> YOU'RE SAYING THAT WHAT THE

10-DAY LIMITATION IS GOING TO

RESULT IN THESE THINGS JUST

BEING DENIED BY DEFAULT --

>> RIGHT.

>> -- AS OPPOSED TO GIVING A

LITTLE MORE TIME FOR THE TRIAL

COURT TO ACTUALLY CONSIDER IT --

>> RIGHT.

WHICH THEN WILL CREATE THE

LIKELIHOOD, IT SEEMS TO ME, OF

AN ADDITIONAL APPEAL.

YOU'LL GO OFF ON APPEAL,

THERE'LL BE A REMAND FOR FAILURE

TO PROVIDE THE REHEARING, AND

THEN AFTER THE REHEARING IF IT'S

DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS NO

FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE MOTION, WE

HAVE YET ANOTHER APPEAL THEREBY

DELAYING --

>> BUT YOU'RE SAYING THERE WOULD

BE AN AN APPEAL THAT WOULD BE --

JUST BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT

FAILED TO ACT AND CONSIDER THE

REHEARING --

>> RIGHT, RIGHT.

>> -- THERE WAS A DEFAULT ENTRY

OF DENIAL?

>> YES, SIR.

IF I COULD SHIFT OUR ATTENTION

MOMENTARILY TO 8.225.

IT'S ELEMENTARY THAT THE PURPOSE

IS TO GIVE THE PERSON

OPPORTUNITY TO THE ACTUAL

KNOWLEDGE THAT A HEARING IS

ABOUT TO TAKE PLACE.

>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT NOT

BEING ABLE TO MAIL --

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> -- TO SOMEONE WHO'S OUT OF

STATE?

>> YES, CHIEF JUSTICE.

IF ACTUAL NOTICE IS ACHIEVED, IT

SHOULDN'T MATTER HOW IT'S

ACHIEVED SO LONG AS THE PROCESS

IS PROPER, AND IT SHOULDN'T

MATTER THAT NOT EVERYONE IS

SUBJECT TO THE SAME PROCESS.

WHILE THE COMMITTEE'S FOCUS IN

THE PETITION AND IN ITS RESPONSE

TO OUR COMMENTS IS THE EFFECT,

THE IMPACT ON PARENTS, THE

PROVISION WHICH THE PROPOSED

RULE SEEMS WOULD ELIMINATE

ACTUALLY INVOLVES NOT ONLY

PARENTS, BUT ALSO PARTIES,

PETITIONERS, PARTICIPANTS AND

OTHER PERSONS.

THE STATE REGULARLY EFFECTS

NOTICE CONCERNING DEPENDENCY

PROCEEDINGS WITH PERSONS WHO

HAVE BEEN NAMED AS POSSIBLE

PARENTS, NOT NECESSARILY LEGAL

PARENTS BY CERTIFIED MAIL,

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED.

SUCH PERSONS, OF COURSE, ARE NOT

CONSIDERED PARENTS AND DO NOT

BECOME PARTIES UNLESS THEY HAVE

EVENTUALLY DETERMINED TO BE

LEGAL PARENTS.

AS PROPOSED, THE RULE CHANGE

WOULD ELIMINATE THIS

COST-EFFECTIVE NOTICE NOT ONLY

WITH PARENTS, BUT ALSO FOR

PERSONS WHO MIGHT LATER BE

DETERMINED NOT TO BE PARENTS.

FURTHER, DEPENDING ON THE REASON

THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

GIVES US FOR FAILURE TO SERVE BY

RETURN RECEIPT MAIL, IT'S LIKE

LOW THAT ADDITIONAL EFFORTS WILL

BE UNDERTAKEN TO EFFECT ACTUAL

NOTICE TO THOSE PERSONS.

THE COMMITTEE'S AIM IS TO

ACHIEVE CONSISTENCY, NOT DUE

PROCESS.

IF CONSISTENCY IS, INDEED, THE

GOAL --

>> TALKING ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE

TO SERVE BY MAIL, IS THIS GOING

TO RESULT IN ADDITIONAL

REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLICATION

SERVICE WHICH WILL SLOW THE

PROCESS DOWN?

>> WELL, PUBLIC SERVICE IS NOT

REQUIRED FROM TPR, YOUR HONOR,

BUT IT WILL RESULT, UNDOUBTEDLY,

IN ADDITIONAL EXPENSES.

>> WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

YOU'D HAVE TO GET A PROCESS

SERVER --

>> EXACTLY.

>> -- AND ACTUALLY HAVE THEM

COME THERE?

>> EXACTLY.

AND THAT TYPICALLY RUNS, IT

VARIES FROM STATE TO STATE, BUT

THAT TYPICALLY RUNS ABOUT $50 OR

MORE PER PROCESS, AND THAT WOULD

BE COMPARED TO THE $5.54 THE

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

CHARGES US FOR SENDING -- IS SO

IT'S EXPENSE, NOT TIMING.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I GUESS MY CONCERN IS THAT WE

KNOW, WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE

PERMANENCY IN AN EXPEDITIOUS

WAY.

BUT WHEN YOU HAVE THESE OUT OF

STATE PARENTS, IT SEEMS TO ME

THAT, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT

THERE IS THE SAME KIND OF, I

MEAN, SERVICE AS WE WOULD

REQUIRE IN FLORIDA SEEMS LIKE A

PRUDENT RULE.

AND IF IT'S JUST AN ISSUE OF THE

ADDED EXPENSE OF THE SERVICE,

YOU KNOW, AGAIN, HASN'T THE

COMMITTEE MADE A DETERMINATION

AND SHOULDN'T WE DEFER TO THEIR

EXPERTISE THAT THAT IS THE

PROPER BALANCE IN THIS CASE?

>> WELL, AGAIN, THE RULE ITSELF

REFERS NOT ONLY TO PARENTS, BUT

TO PARTICIPANTS, PETITIONERS AND

OTHER PERSONS.

THE PERSONS TO WHOM WE WOULD

PROVIDE NOTICE MIGHT BE

POTENTIAL PARENTS.

THEY MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY BE

PARENTS, AND WE WON'T FIND OUT

THAT THEY ARE ACTUAL LEGAL --

>> WELL, BUT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING

TO DO, THOUGH, IS WHETHER IT'S A

FATHER, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW CASES

THERE MIGHT BE THREE POTENTIAL

FATHERS --

>> EXACTLY.

>> -- FOR THE CHILD TO HAVE

SECURITY AND PERMANENCY YOU WANT

ALL THEIR INTERESTS TERMINATED.

I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT USUALLY

HAPPENS IN THOSE OUT-OF-STATE

SITUATIONS, CORRECT?

>> ONCE WE DETERMINE WHO THE

LEGAL FATHER IS, THEN WE DON'T

DEAL WITH THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS,

BUT THAT'S ESSENTIALLY MY POINT,

YOUR HONOR.

IF WE ARE RELEGATED TO USING A

MORE EXPENSIVE FORM OR SOME

OTHER FORM OF PROCESS SERVICE ON

THOSE FOLKS WHO MAY OR MAY NOT

ACTUALLY BE FATHERS OR PARENTS,

AS THE CASE MAY BE, WE'RE GOING

TO BE UTILIZING UNNECESSARY

EXPENSE AND TIME AND TROUBLE TO

BRING PEOPLE IN WHO MIGHT NOT

ULTIMATELY BE --

>> AND DID YOU MAKE THAT POINT

TO THE RULES COMMITTEE?

>> WELL, YOUR HONOR, I WAS NOT,

I'M NOT A MEMBER OF THE RULES

COMMITTEE.

I DON'T KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT THAT

ARGUMENT MAY HAVE BEEN RAISED AT

THE COMMITTEE.

>> AND WITH THAT, YOU HAVE USED

MORE THAN YOUR TIME, AND WE'LL

NOW HEAR FROM JUDGE GROSS?

>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, I AM

RAYMOND GROSS --

>> AND ARE YOU, YOU'RE GOING TO

TALK ABOUT SHACKLING, AND THE

SHERIFFSS REPRESENTATIVE IS

GOING TO TALK ABOUT SHACKLING

ALSO?

OKAY.

>> WE ALSO HAVE TWO ISSUES.

WE'RE CONCERNED WITH RULE 8100

AS WELL AS RULE 8.257.

>> AND IF YOU WOULD TELL US WHAT

THAT IS.

>> SURE.

THAT'S THE ALLOWING A VIDEO

RECORD, AUDIO RECORD RATHER THAN

THE TRANSCRIPT.

>> OKAY.

>> AND WE DON'T WANT TO GET

BOGGED DOWN ON THAT, AND WE

FILED OUR WRITTEN FILINGS.

WE ARE OPPOSED TO THAT CHANGE.

WE BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE ONE

OFFICIAL RECORD WHICH WOULD BE A

TRANSCRIPT.

THAT WAY THERE'S NO QUESTION

ABOUT WHAT IS BEING REVIEWED.

IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE COURT,

IT IS THE SYSTEM THAT WORKS VERY

EFFECTIVELY IN FAMILY LAW AND

OTHER AREAS WHERE THE TRANSCRIPT

IS PROVIDED.

AS FAR AS THE OTHER RULE, LET ME

BEGIN BY, FIRST OF ALL, SAYING

SHACKLING IS A PEJORATIVE.

SHACKLING IS NOT MENTIONED IN

THE RULE.

WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE

DETENTION OF CHILDREN IN OUR

COURTS BY SECURE MEANS.

FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THE

ONLY PLACE THIS OCCURS IS AT A

FIRST HEARING, A DETENTION

HEARING.

AND CONTRARY TO THE ARGUMENT OF

THE OPPOSING SIDE, A

DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE

PRIOR TO THE CHILDREN APPEARING

AT THAT DETENTION HEARING.

>> WHY ARE YOU SAYING IT'S

ONLY -- I SAW IT AROUND THE

STATE, AND I'VE SEEN IT IN PALM

BEACH COUNTY.

THEY'RE SHACKLED FOR EVERY

HEARING.

>> WELL --

>> AND THAT'S THE WHOLE PROBLEM.

I MEAN, MAYBE IN THE SIXTH

CIRCUIT THERE'S NOT THE SAME

PROBLEM, BUT APPARENTLY, THERE

WAS INDISCRIMINATE SHACKLING,

YOU KNOW, ACROSS THE STATE AND

STILL IS IN MANY JURISDICTIONS.

>> THE REALITY IS, JUSTICE

PARIENTE, JUVENILES ARE ONLY

DETAINED FOR A MAXIMUM OF 21

DAYS, AND THE PRIMARY HEARING,

IF ANY, WHICH ALWAYS TAKES PLACE

IS THE DETENTION HEARING.

RARELY DO TRIALS OF ANY MATTER

OR SUBSTANCE TAKE PLACE WITHIN

THAT 21 DAYS, AND IN THOSE

CIRCUMSTANCES THE YOUTH IS NOT

IN DETENTION AND COMES TO COURT

JUST AS ANY OTHER CITIZEN.

>> I THINK I'M THINKING OF A

CASE WHERE THE CHILD WAS

COMMITTED TO DETENTION AND THEN

CAME TO THE COURT FOR

INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES --

>> RIGHT.

>> -- AND CAME IN FULL LEG

CHAINS --

>> WELL, FRANKLY, THAT SOUNDS

LIKE, RIGHT, A MIXTURE OF

DEPENDENCY AND DELINQUENCY, AND

I CERTAINLY CAN'T SPEAK TO THE

PROCESS IN EVERY CIRCUIT.

BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU AND I

CAN DISTINGUISH -- LET ME FINISH

MY ORIGINAL POINT.

ALL CHILDREN WHO ARE PICKED UP

COME IN AND ARE TAKEN TO A

JUVENILE ASSESSMENT CENTER.

WHILE THEY'RE AT THE ASSESSMENT

CENTER, WHICH IS RUN BY THE

DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE,

SIGNIFICANT WORK, BACKGROUND AND

HISTORY IS CONDUCTED.

IF THERE'S A QUESTION AS TO

DRUGS AND ALCOHOL, OFTEN THEY'RE

TESTED.

THEY'RE EVALUATED.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR THIS

PROCESS, THE STATUTORY RULE

ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT AS

PROMULGATED BY FLORIDA STATUTE

985 IS APPLIED.

>> WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS,

WHY SHOULDN'T THERE BE A

PRESUMPTION AGAINST SHACKLING

UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING

DEMONSTRATED TO SHOW THAT THIS

PARTICULAR JUVENILE SHOULD, IN

FACT, BE IN SOME KIND OF

RESTRAINTS?

IT SEEMS TO BE WORKING IN MIAMI,

SO WHY SHOULDN'T, WHY SHOULDN'T

THAT BE A BETTER RULE TO HAVE, A

PRESUMPTION AGAINST IT?

>> ALL RIGHT.

MIAMI-DADE IS UNIQUE AND HAS A

DIFFERENT SITUATION.

FIRST OF ALL, THEY ARE ONE OF

THE ONLY, IF NOT THE ONLY,

COURTHOUSES IN THE STATE WHERE

THE DETENTION CENTER'S ATTACHED

TO THE COURTHOUSE.

THE CHILDREN ACTUALLY WALK TO

THE COURT.

SECONDLY, AND UNFORTUNATELY,

THEIR COURTROOMS ARE SO SMALL

THEY CAN ONLY HAVE ONE CHILD IN

THE COURT AT A TIME.

THE WAY THAT DETENTION HEARINGS

ARE REGULARLY CONDUCTED

THROUGHOUT THE STATE HAS

MULTIPLE CHILDREN IN THE

COURTROOM, AND IT IS BOTH

HELPFUL FOR THE CHILDREN AS WELL

AS EFFICIENT.

AND I SAY HELPFUL FOR THE

CHILDREN BECAUSE THERE IS A

LEARNING CURVE THAT TAKES PLACE.

IF YOU HAVE 12 CHILDREN SITTING

IN THE JURY BOX AWAITING THEIR

CASE AND THEY'RE SITTING THERE

HEARING THE QUESTIONS AND

ANSWERS THAT ARE TAKING PLACE

BETWEEN THE COURT AND THE CHILD

AND PERHAPS THE LAWYERS PRESENT,

THERE'S AN OBVIOUS LEARNING AS

TO THE PROCESS, WHAT TO EXPECT,

AND A GREAT DEAL OF THE --

>> AND ARE THOSE 12 CHILDREN

CHAINED TOGETHER OR HOW --

>> I'M UNAWARE OF WHAT CIRCUITS

WOULD DO THAT.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT'S

INAPPROPRIATE.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF THAT IS

DONE, THAT WOULD BE AN

APPROPRIATE TOPIC FOR JUDICIAL

EDUCATION BECAUSE I CERTAINLY

WOULD NOT CONDONE THAT.

>> SO WHAT DO YOU DO IN PINELLAS

COUNTY?

>> IN PINELLAS COUNTY THE

CHILDREN ARE TRANSPORTED BY VAN,

AND WE'RE FORTUNATE BECAUSE IT'S

ONLY ABOUT A HALF MILE, AND THEY

ARE THEN BROUGHT INTO THE

COURTROOM AS A GROUP.

AND WE AVERAGE --

>> YEAH, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS

WHAT KIND OF RESTRAINTS ARE THEY

UNDER AT THAT POINT?

>> THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE

HANDCUFFS IN THE FRONT, AND THEY

HAVE A LEG RESTRAINT WHICH IS A

CUFF ON EACH LEG WITH 16 INCHES

OF CHAIN THAT ALLOWS THEM TO

WALK AT A NORMAL GAIT.

THE ONLY THING IT PROHIBITS IS

RUNNING.

I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU IF YOU

SAW A CHILD WITH THOSE

RESTRAINTS AND YOU WEREN'T

LOOKING, YOU WOULDN'T EVEN BE

CONSCIOUS THAT THEY HAVE THEM

ON.

IT IS -- THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW,

WHEN I HEARD SHACKLING

CONSTANTLY MENTIONED, THAT'S,

AGAIN, A PEJORATIVE.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT BELLY

CHAINS --

>> WELL, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT

WHEN YOU PUT CHAINS, WHEN YOU

PUT RESTRAINTS AROUND A YOUNG

PERSON'S FEET AND CHAINS TO

THEIR WAIST?

I'M SORRY, I CONSIDER IT VERY

OFFENSIVE FOR A JUDGE TO STAND

BEFORE US AND SAY, OH, YOU'RE

JUST MAKING A BIG DEAL ABOUT

NOTHING.

TO ME THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT

THIS, AND IT'S NOT JUST A

PEJORATIVE.

IT IS AN ISSUE OF HOW YOUNG

PEOPLE OUGHT TO BE RESTRAINED.

AND THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT THE

CHIEF JUDGE, CHIEF JUSTICE ASKED

YOU.

>> YES, SIR.

>> AND THEN YOU STARTED IN THE

LEARNING -- WHY DO YOU HAVE TO

HAVE CHAINS AROUND YOUR WAIST,

AROUND YOUR LEGS AND DOWN TO

YOUR ANKLES TO LEARN?

>> SIR, I NEVER SAID CHAINS

AROUND YOUR WAIST OR CHAINS DOWN

TO YOUR ANKLES.

>> BUT WHAT DO YOU CALL THE

CHAIN SO THEY CAN'T RUN?

>> SIR, THEY HAVE HANDCUFFS, AND

IF YOU CAN ENVISION --

>> I HAVE, I'VE SEEN THEM.

>> -- LARGE, LONG HANDCUFFS.

THERE IS A 16-INCH CHAIN WITH

TWO CUFFS AROUND THE ANKLE.

>> AND THAT'S NOT A CHAIN?

>> IT IS NOT A CHAIN AROUND THE

WAIST.

>> WELL, WE'RE PLAYING WORD

GAMES, SIR.

>> WELL --

>> AND ONE OF THE PROBLEMS, AS I

SEE IT ANYWAY, IS YOU MAY HAVE

SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK IS NOT

AS RESTRICTIVE, BUT SOME OTHER

COUNTY MAY, IN FACT, CHAIN THE

CHILDREN TOGETHER.

SOME OTHER COUNTY MAY, IN FACT,

HAVE THE THINGS THAT GO UP THE

LEGS.

SO THAT'S THE REAL ISSUE.

IT'S NOT YOU MAY HAVE SOME

SYSTEM THAT ISN'T AS BAD AS SOME

OTHER SYSTEM.

>> WELL, AGAIN, OF COURSE, THE

ONLY APPELLATE DECISIONS THAT

HAVE REALLY DEALT WITH THIS THE

McMILLAN CASE OUT OF

JACKSONVILLE SAID THIS SHOULD BE

LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE --

>> BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION

REALLY IS WHY SHOULDN'T WE START

WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT A

CHILD SHOULD NOT BE RESTRAINED

AND THAT THE JUDGE THEN

EXERCISES HIS OR HER DISCRETION

TO HAVE THESE RESTRAINTS IF IT

BECOMES NECESSARY?

>> RIGHT.

THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS AND,

AGAIN, GOING BACK THE RISK

ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT IS A

INSTRUMENT THAT IS USING

STANDARDS TO DETERMINE WHO

SHOULD BE THERE.

SECONDLY, IT COULD BE DONE THAT

WAY, BUT IT WOULD MAKE IT A MUCH

MORE LENGTHY AND DIFFICULT

PROCESS.

IN PINELLAS COUNTY WE'D BE

REQUIRED TO HEAR EACH CASE

INDIVIDUALLY WHICH WOULD DOUBLE

OR TRIPLE THE LENGTH OF TIME

REQUIRED FOR THE COURT --

>> BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT,

WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT

SERIOUSLY THAT IN THESE JUVENILE

PROCEEDINGS ONE OF THE THINGS IS

WE WANT TO HELP THESE CHILDREN.

WE ARE, WE WANT REHABILITATION

AND ALL OF THESE KINDS OF

THINGS, WHAT'S A FEW MORE

MINUTES TO, YOU KNOW, DO THAT?

>> YOU KNOW --

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT COURTS HAVE

LARGE DOCKETS AND ALL THAT, BUT

IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THE DIGNITY

WE CAN GIVE TO THESE KIDS IN

EVEN IN THIS TYPE OF PROCEEDING

WHERE THEY MAY HAVE DONE

SOMETHING WRONG MAY HELP THEM IN

THE LONG RUN?

>> WELL, THAT'S CERTAINLY AN

ARGUMENT, AND OPPOSING COUNSEL

SPOKE TO THAT.

I WOULD ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, WE

SUGGESTED IN OUR RESPONSE THAT

THIS WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE

COURT TO REVISIT THE CONCEPT OF

CONDUCTING THESE HEARINGS BY

CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION.

AND --

>> YOU TALK ABOUT THESE

HEARINGS.

THIS DOESN'T, THIS ALSO WOULD

EXTEND TO THE ACTUAL HEARING THE

WHAT IS -- NOT THE

ADJUDICATORY -- WHAT DO YOU CALL

THE HEARING WHERE GUILT'S

DETERMINED?

>> RIGHT.

>> ADJUDICATORY.

>> WE ACTUALLY HAVE --

>> RIGHT.

SO ARE YOU SAYING IN THOSE

INDIVIDUAL HEARINGS THEY'RE NOT

SHACKLED?

>> I'M SAYING RARELY IS THE

CHILD STILL IN DETENTION, AND IF

YOU'RE NOT --

>> IT MAY BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT

IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, BUT I KNOW

AROUND THE STATE KIDS ARE

STAYING IN DETENTION BECAUSE

THEY HAVE NO OTHER PLACE TO GO

FOR WAY OVER 21 DAYS, AND YOU

KNOW THAT'S THE CASE --

>> I'M -- ACTUALLY I'M NOT AWARE

OF THAT, BUT ON AN INDIVIDUAL

BASIS YOU CERTAINLY COULD MAKE

THAT DECISION, AND I WOULD

ENCOURAGE EVERY JUDGE WHO'S

FACING THAT IF A CHILD IS, FOR

EXAMPLE, A CHILD HAS BEEN IN

DETENTION FOR A WEEK AND HIS

LAWYER IS SEEKING TO HAVE HIM

RELEASED BECAUSE OF THIS AND

THAT CHILD IS BROUGHT TO COURT,

UNLIKE THE OTHER HEARINGS THERE

ARE NO HANDCUFFS INVOLVED, BUT

BECAUSE OF SECURITY REASONS THEY

DO HAVE THE ANKLE RESTRAINTS ON.

WE MAKE THAT AS A MATTER OF

COURSE, THAT'S OUR RULE.

IF THERE ARE OTHER

CIRCUMSTANCES, WE COULD CONSIDER

THE REMOVAL OF THOSE ANKLE

RESTRAINTS.

WE PROVIDED THE COURT THE

INFORMATION INVITING YOU TO

REVISIT THE CLOSED-CIRCUIT

HEARINGS.

THE ISSUES THAT EXISTED AT THE

TIME IT WAS PRESENTED ORIGINALLY

STILL EXIST.

THE DISTANCE THE CHILDREN ARE

REQUIRED TO TRAVEL BY VAN,

SECURED, STILL EXISTS.

IT'S STILL 50 MILES AND MORE IN

PARTS OF THIS STATE.

IT IS A DIFFICULT PROPOSITION.

IF THE CHILDREN WERE ALLOWED TO

STAY AT THE DETENTION CERTAIN,

THIS ISSUE WOULD BECOME MOOT

BECAUSE THEY WOULD REMAIN THERE,

AND YET THERE WOULD, AGAIN, I

WOULD SUGGEST AS JUSTICE HARDING

WROTE IN HIS DISSENT IT WOULD

NOT BE HARMFUL TO THE CHILDREN.

>> AND WITH THAT, YOU HAVE USED

UP TIME.

WE HAVE ONE MORE PERSON.

I'LL GIVE YOU A FEW MINUTES TO

DISCUSS THIS SHACKLING ISSUE

ALSO.

>> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, MY NAME

IS BETH LASTINGER, ASSOCIATE

GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE PINELLAS

COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AND I

WILL FOLLOW UP THE ISSUES JUDGE

GROSS ADDRESSED.

THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IS

RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SECURITY OF

THE COURTROOM, AND BY THAT WE

MEAN THE SECURITY OF THE

JUVENILES THAT ARE BROUGHT INTO

THE COURTROOM TO BE BEFORE THE

COURT, BUT ALSO ALL THE COURT

PERSONNEL, THE LAWYERS, THE

COURT REPORTERS, THE CLERKS AND

THE SPECTATORS THAT ARE IN THE

COURTROOM.

AND THE JUVENILE SETTING IT'S

OFTEN A CROWDED COURTROOM.

THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES.

IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR THERE TO

BE FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE

COURTROOM WHO ARE ANTAGONISTIC,

WHO HAVEN'T SEEN EACH OTHER FOR

A WHILE, WHO ARE ANGRY.

THERE ARE, IN FACT, THERE WAS

RECENTLY AN INSTANCE IN PINELLAS

COUNTY WHERE THREE SEPARATE

RIVAL GANG MEMBERS, MEMBERS OF

THREE SEPARATE RIVAL GANGS

SHOWED UP AS SPECTATORS IN THE

COURTROOM.

I BRING THOSE ISSUES UP BECAUSE

IT IS THE BAILIFF'S

RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP AN EYE

AND KEEP CONTROL OF EVERY ONE OF

THOSE PEOPLE IN THE COURTROOM.

THAT'S WHY, ONE OF THE REASONS

WHY, THE JUVENILES ARE BROUGHT

IN IN RESTRAINTS.

>> AND JUST, WHAT?

>> WELL, BECAUSE IT ENABLES,

BECAUSE THEY'RE BROUGHT IN EN

MASSE IN THE FIRST

APPEARANCES --

>> MAYBE THAT'S, AND THIS IS NOT

YOUR FAULT, BUT I DON'T THINK WE

ENVISIONED WHEN WE REJECTED THE

RULE ON VIDEO THAT THESE VERY

IMPORTANT FIRST APPEARANCES

WHERE THE JUDGE WOULD HAVE A

CHANCE TO ASSESS THE JUVENILE

WOULD BE SOME KIND OF CHAIN

GANG, MASS APPEARANCE.

AND PERHAPS THAT IS, I DON'T

KNOW THAT THAT'S GOING ON ALL

OVER THE STATE, BUT THAT SEEMS

LIKE IT'S -- SO, BUT THAT'S WHAT

YOU'RE SAYING IS HAPPENING AT

LEAST IN PINELLAS COUNTY.

>> WELL, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THEY

ARE BROUGHT FOR THE FIRST

APPEARANCES THEY ARE BROUGHT EN

MASSE --

>> AND THAT'S WHERE THE JUDGE IS

DECIDING WHETHER THEY'RE GOING

TO REMAIN IN DETENTION OR NOT.

>> THE JUDGE DOES MAKE THAT

DECISION, BUT AS JUDGE GROSS

POINTED OUT THESE CHILDREN HAVE

ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED WHETHER

THEY ARE ESCAPE RISKS, SUICIDE

RISKS, WHAT THEIR PRIOR RECORD

IS.

THESE ARE, THESE ARE NOT

CHILDREN WHO SWIPED A CANDY BAR

FROM THE 7/11.

THEY ARE CHILDREN WHO HAVE BEEN

BEFORE THE COURT IN THE PAST,

MANY OF THEM HAVE PREVIOUSLY

BEEN DIRECT FILED AND HAVE

ALREADY SPENT TIME IN THE

PINELLAS COUNTY JAIL.

OUR ISSUE IS THE SECURITY

CONCERN THAT BRINGING THESE

CHILDREN IN COMPLETELY

UNRESTRAINED POSES FOR THE

MEMBERS OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

>> SO WHAT CAN THE -- CAN THE

SHERIFF'S OFFICE -- WHEN YOU SAY

YOU BRING THEM IN EN MASSE, HOW

MANY PEOPLE ARE YOU TALKING

ABOUT AT ONE TIME?

>> IT VARIES.

IT VARIES FROM 5 OR 6 TO AS MANY

AS 20.

>> OKAY.

SO YOU BROUGHT THEM OVER ON A

VAN OR A BUS OR SOMETHING --

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> -- TO THE COURTHOUSE,

CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> OKAY.

SO EVIDENTLY, THERE'S SOME KIND

OF HOLDING ROOM YOU PUT THEM IN?

>> YES.

>> SO IT WOULD BE ONE PROBLEM TO

TAKE ONE CHILD IN AT A TIME AND

BRING THEM BACK S THAT A PROBLEM

FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE?

>> THAT IS A DIFFICULTY BECAUSE

WHAT WOULD THEY HAVE TO DO?

THERE ARE ONLY, NOW THERE ARE

ONLY TWO BAILIFFS IN THE

JUVENILE COURTROOM, AND THAT IS

A RECENT REDUCTION --

>> BUT WHO BROUGHT THEM OVER?

I MEAN, HOW MANY PEOPLE -- IF

YOU'VE GOT 20 KIDS ON A BUS, HOW

MANY PEOPLE DO YOU HAVE ON THAT

BUS?

>> THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO, WELL,

AND A DRIVER OF THE BUS, AND

THEN THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO WHO

BRING THEM OVER IN THE VAN, AND

THERE ARE TWO BAILIFFS IN THE

COURTROOM.

>> OKAY, SO ONE COULDN'T STAY IN

THE ROOM WITH THEM WHERE THEY

ARE STILL SHACKLED AND ANOTHER

BRING THEM INTO THE COURTROOM?

>> THERE IS A BAILIFF WHO STAYS

BEHIND IN THE HOLDING CELL AT

ALL TIMES TO WATCH THE ONES THAT

ARE BROUGHT BACK WHEN THEY'RE

FINISHED WITH THEIR FIRST

APPEARANCE, AND THEN THERE ARE

TWO BAILIFFS PRESENT IN THE

COURTROOM ONE OF WHOM WILL STAY

IN THE COURTROOM ALL THE TIME TO

WATCH THE CHILDREN THAT ARE

WAITING TO BE HEARD AND THE

SPECTATORS, AND THEN THE OTHER

BAILIFF STANDS AT THE PODIUM

NEXT TO THE CHILD AND THEN

ESCORTS THE CHILD BACK INTO THE

HOLDING CELL.

IT'S BEEN PUT BEFORE THE COURT

THAT THE JUVENILES ARE, ARE

DIFFERENT THAN THE ADULTS

BECAUSE THEY ARE PRONE TO

UNPREDICTABILITY, THEY DON'T

THINK ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF

THEIR ACTIONS.

THERE ARE, IT IS NOT UNCOMMON

FOR OUR BAILIFFS TO HAVE

CHILDREN SAY, IF I DIDN'T HAVE

THESE CUFFS ON ME, I WOULD, I

WOULD STRIKE OUT AT A STATE

ATTORNEY, EVEN THE PUBLIC

DEFENDERS.

IN FACT, THE COURT RECEIVED A

COMMENT FROM --

>> AND THAT'S, I GUESS, YOU

KNOW, YOU SAY IT'S NOT UNCOMMON.

YOU KNOW, SOMEONE ELSE SAYS THAT

IS UNCOMMON.

THE IDEA IS THAT THE JUDGE, THE

PERSON THAT'S GOING TO SAY THAT

THAT JUVENILE MAY HAVE TO BE

TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE

10-YEAR-OLD WHOSE MOM JUST

WASN'T AVAILABLE TO PICK HER UP

THE NIGHT BEFORE.

IN YOUR CIRCUIT THEY'RE ALL

TREATED THE SAME.

AND THAT'S ALL THAT THIS IS,

THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, AN

INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION SO THE

17-YEAR-OLD WHO HAS HAD AN ARMED

ROBBERY CHARGE AND WHO HAS

ESCAPED BEFORE IS TREATED

DIFFERENTLY THAN THE 11-YEAR-OLD

WHO WAS JUST CAUGHT UP IN, YOU

KNOW, WAS ON SOME KIND OF, YOU

KNOW, IN A CAR THAT WAS GOTTEN,

YOU KNOW, GOT HERSELF IN

TROUBLE.

SO THAT'S THE -- YOU KNOW, IT'S

ALWAYS WE HEAR THE HORRIBLE, AND

THAT'S WHAT WE HEAR A LOT OF,

BUT THAT'S MY CONCERN, AND I

THINK THAT WAS THE COMMITTEE'S

CONCERN.

>> WELL, I WOULD ENFORCE THAT IN

PINELLAS COUNTY THEY ARE ALL

TREATED THE SAME TO THAT

EXTENT --

>> TREATED LIKE CRIMINALS.

>> WELL --

>> LIKE THE WORST OF THE

CRIMINALS.

>> WELL, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY

ARE ALL BROUGHT TO THE COURT IN

THE SAME MANNER.

THE -- I WOULD SAY THAT THE

INTRUSION OR ANY EFFECT, IF ANY,

THAT THAT MAY HAVE ON A JUVENILE

IS FAR OUTWEIGHED BY THE

SECURITY RISK THAT BRINGING ALL

OF THEM IN UNRESTRAINED WOULD

POSE.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE THERE HAS

BEEN AN ASSESSMENT DONE

BEFOREHAND, AND BY BEING ABLE TO

BRING THEM IN ALL TOGETHER, IT

ENABLES THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO

GET THEM BACK TO THE JUVENILE

DETENTION CENTER MUCH MORE

QUICKLY THAN IT WOULD IF WE HAD

TO BRING THEM BACK ONE AT A

TIME.

BACK IN THE CENTER THEY CAN BE

WHERE THEY HAVE ACCESS TO SCHOOL

AND TO THE OTHER EDUCATIONAL AND

ENTERTAINMENT PROGRAMS --

>> I THINK --

>> YEAH, BUT WHAT YOU'RE

INDICATING IS THAT THE PROBLEM

IS WITH THE FIRST APPEARANCE AND

HOW IT'S BEING TREATED IN A

CERTAIN CIRCUIT AS REALLY NOT A

VERY MEANINGFUL HEARING AT ALL.

BECAUSE IF THEY'RE COMING OVER

AND THEN THEY'RE JUST BEING

BROUGHT BACK, THEN WHAT WAS THE

PURPOSE OF THE HEARING IF SOME

OF THEM AREN'T BEING RELEASED AT

THE END OF THE HEARING?

>> WELL, ON THE CONTRARY I THINK

IT IS AN IMPORTANT HEARING, AND

THE FACT THAT THEY'RE ALL THERE

TOGETHER IS BENEFICIAL TO THEM.

IN FACT, THERE ARE SOME JUDGES

WHO WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE

CALENDAR IN ORDER OF SEVERITY OF

THE CHARGES SO THAT THE CHILDREN

IN THE COURTROOM AT THE SAME

TIME AS THE OTHERS CAN HEAR

WHAT'S HAPPENING.

THEY'RE INFORMED OF THEIR

CHARGES, THE COURT MAKES,

APPOINTMENTS AN ATTORNEY, AND

DECIDES WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO

STAY IN DETENTION OR NOT.

>> AND WITH THAT, YOU HAVE USED

WELL OVER YOUR TIME.

IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTION FROM

THE BENCH?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

>> I THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR

ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN

PRESENTED HERE TODAY, AND THE

COURT IS NOW GOING TO TAKE ITS

MORNING RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES.

>> PLEASE RISE.