Transfer of Juvenile to District Court Acceptable Despite Delay in Hearing

U.S. v. David A., 2006 WL 259660 (2/3/06) - The 10th made several unhelpful rulings regarding the transferring of a juvenile to the district court. The 10th had jurisdiction to consider the appeal of a transfer order involving a speedy trial question, despite a 9th Circuit case that held refusal to dismiss a juvenile case for a speedy trial violation was not appealable. This case is distinguishable because the defendant challenged the transfer order on speedy trial grounds; he did not move to dismiss the juvenile case on those grounds. The 30-day time limit for juvenile cases is tolled when the government files a motion to transfer unless the motion is filed in bad faith. The 84-day delay from arrest to the transfer hearing was "probably at the outer limits of an acceptable time frame" but was okay because it was due in part to the need to notify the defendant's parents who were fugitives. That some of the delay was due to court congestion---a factor not allowed to be considered in juvenile cases---could be considered because the juvenile time limit was tolled. The government did an adequate search for the defendant's juvenile records to satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 5032, even though the government did not show it looked in every jurisdiction. It was enough that it acted in good faith, despite hints by the 10th in US v. Brian N, 900 F.3d 218, that seeking a record in every N.M. judicial district and every other state might be required. The automatic transfer to district court under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 of a juvenile who has been previously "found guilty" of an act, which if committed by an adult would have been one of a set of offenses, was satisfied by an adjudication as a delinquent. The government only had to prove the defendant was previously "found guilty" of residential burglary by a preponderance. That burden was met by: certified documents with the same name as the defendant's; the defendant's failure to offer any evidence to contradict the government's claim; and defense counsel's suggestion that the defendant was the same person noted in the documents when he argued on a different issue that the defendant indicated to him the burglary did not endanger anyone [although counsel's argument did not amount to an admission].