U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites always use a .gov or .mil domain. Before sharing sensitive information online, make sure you’re on a .gov or .mil site by inspecting your browser’s address (or “location”) bar.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Model Programs Guide Literature Review: Indigent Defense for Juveniles

NCJ Number
251835
Date Published
Author(s)
Development Services Group, Inc.
Publication Series
OJJDP Model Programs Guide Literature Reviews
Annotation
After reviewing the constitutional and case-law mandate that indigent juveniles charged with an offense have a right to counsel, this report explains how some states determine whether or not a juvenile is indigent, followed by discussions of barriers to juveniles receiving counsel, differences between juvenile and adult representation, limitations to indigent defense data, and outcome evidence.
Abstract
Although constitutional law requires that juveniles who cannot afford legal representation because of indigence are required to be provided with counsel, recent data on juvenile indigent defense are limited and come largely from public defender agencies. Overall, indigent defense for juveniles is understudied. More research on this topic is needed so juveniles who cannot afford legal counsel are better served in the justice system. Research to date has provided mixed results on the benefits or detriments of counsel for juveniles. One study found that for youth with public counsel, out-of-home placement was more common (Burruss and Kempf-Leonard, 2002). Another study found that youth without counsel were more likely to have charges dropped and less likely to be placed in secure confinement when compared with youth who had legal counsel (Guevara, Spohn, and Herz, 2004). This study also suggested that private attorneys produced worse outcomes for youth compared with youth who had public defenders. Kupchik and Harvey determined that public defense was an important safeguard against potential inequities within the juvenile justice system. They argued that extralegal information about defendants is commonly discussed in juvenile court, so the presence of a public defender may protect against subjectivity in sentencing. 27 references
Date Created: July 15, 2018