When a child is charged with an adult crime ...
Share with others:
Slouched in a chair in an Allegheny County courtroom, 16-year-old Denzel Nowlin confronted the chasm between childhood and adulthood.
The skinny, baby-faced youth from Homestead sat and listened on a recent Friday while bona fide adults hashed over the details of his broken childhood -- a brother cut down by a gunshot, suspensions, and finally an expulsion for acting out in school. As he matured, he was accused of petty, then serious crimes before his arrest for armed robbery in September.
The allegations landed him in adult jail and adult court, where he faced a decertification hearing last month to decide whether his case would proceed there or be resolved in the juvenile court system.
Common Pleas Judge Anthony M. Mariani must make the difficult determination. The difference in potential penalties is vast: A gun conviction would carry at least five to 10 years in state prison, while the juvenile system could confine Denzel no later than his 21st birthday -- and could release him much sooner.
For young people accused of serious crimes, the decertification process aims to decide the perplexing question:
When does a young criminal deserve to be punished like an adult?
Act 33, passed by the state Legislature in 1995, requires district attorneys to prosecute cases in adult court when suspects age 15 to 17 are accused of committing a violent felony crime with a deadly weapon, or are charged with a violent felony for the second time.
The teenage suspect, who has the burden of proof, must file a petition seeking to have the case moved to juvenile court. Most cases are sent to the juvenile system by mutual agreement, often accompanied by the condition that the defendant must admit to committing at least some part of the crimes.
When the two sides can't agree, a decertification hearing is necessary.
Judge Mariani presides over those hearings in Common Pleas Court, except in homicide cases, which are held before the judge who has been scheduled to handle the trial.
In 2008, juvenile suspects in 79 criminal cases had decertification hearings in Allegheny County. Of those cases, 25 remained in adult court.
The outcome of a decertification hearing remains unsettled for Robertino DeAngelis, 17, of Mt. Lebanon, who is charged with attempted homicide for attacking his ex-girlfriend with a hammer in 2007. His hearing began Jan. 23 and will resume in March after he is examined by a prosecution psychiatrist.
State law dictated that Robertino's case would begin in adult court, unlike another recent high-profile case involving a teenage defendant that did not meet the automatic criteria set by Act. 33.
In that case, the county district attorney's office determined that the 14-year-old suspect would not be prosecuted as an adult for a series of sexual assaults at Upper St. Clair High School. Instead, his punishment was decided behind closed doors in juvenile court last week.
Judge John T. McVay did not reveal his decision on punishment for that youth, who admitted to several sexual assaults. The judge, who closed hearings and imposed a gag order on others involved in the case, said he would release a court order explaining his decision but did not immediately do so.
Assistant District Attorney Patrick Schulte, who oversees cases in which Act 33 applies, would not comment on specific aspects of the Upper St. Clair case.
But in an e-mail, he said prosecutors generally seek to move a juvenile case to adult court when the youth is a habitual offender for whom juvenile treatments have failed, or when circumstances of a crime are particularly severe. In those cases, the hearing is held before a juvenile judge.
While a trial in adult court focuses on the event -- What happened on the night of the 13th? -- a decertification hearing includes testimony about the accused youth's background and mental state, and the ramifications of the crime.
For the purposes of the hearing, Judge Mariani does not determine a suspect's guilt or innocence. He accepts the prosecutor's version of events and then decides if the circumstances of the case warrant keeping it or sending it to juvenile court.
Crucial testimony comes from experts -- usually psychiatrists or psychologists -- who examine defendants and make recommendations on appropriate court settings for cases.
Experts retained by both prosecutors and defense attorneys review defendants' home lives, school records, medical backgrounds and other circumstances, seeking information that may have had a bearing on their actions.
"One of the trends is that this outburst of criminal activity is stemming from something that happens personally in this kid's life," said Lauren Melfa, an attorney who often represents youths in decertification hearings for the Office of Conflict Counsel. The office steps in when attorneys in the county Public Defender's office represent someone else involved in a case and have a conflict of interest.
"Kids act out when kids' lives are topsy-turvy. We get a lot of that," she said. "Sometimes the experts are going to say there's a way to fix the problem."
According to testimony at Denzel's hearing, his criminal activity started cropping up at age 14, when he was charged with shoplifting and later aggravated assault for a fight at school. In March 2008, at age 15, he was charged with stealing a vehicle and credit cards.
Dr. Alice Applegate, a psychologist, testified that an unstable home life and the shooting death of his brother, Vito Lee, in 2004, triggered his conduct.
"I don't think he's had a period of peace in his life yet," Dr. Applegate said. "He has not had a period of time in which he was successfully treated."
"He needs help," Nicole Lee, Denzel's mother, said after the hearing. "He needs a chance."
Yet Dr. Applegate also said she believed he is seriously troubled and, without treatment, is highly likely to re-offend -- a factor weighing against decertification.
"You have great hope for him," Judge Mariani said. "But you also have great fear that he's not going to deliver."
Dr. Applegate responded, "I have hope but not great hope."
'Hard-core' or 'stupid'?
Judge Mariani, who has served in the criminal division since he was elected in 2005, is prone to delivering lectures from the bench while he weighs aloud the decertification factors laid out by Act 33. Those factors include:
• Impact on victims and the community
• Threat to public safety
• Severity of the crime
• Degree of the suspect's culpability
• Services available in juvenile and adult correctional systems, and the suspect's amenability to treatment.
As Judge Mariani puts it, his job is to differentiate between "people under the age of 18 being a really hard-core criminal and people under 18 acting stupid."
Judge Mariani narrowly sided with "stupid" in the case of Matthew Zullo, a husky 17-year-old from Penn Hills who shot another teen in the leg during a confrontation in November 2007.
Matthew later told a psychiatrist that he fired the gun because he was afraid and he wasn't trying to hit anybody. He'd had no history of violence or other brushes with the law.
But the judge did make him spend two hours with other prisoners in the courthouse holding pen because his cell phone rang during the hearing, in violation of court rules.
The decision in Matthew's case was close, and Judge Mariani lamented the necessity of an "all-or-nothing" call. He can't recommend a sentence; he can only designate to which court the defendant goes.
The debate often centers on treatment versus punishment, and the judge is quick to acknowledge that a spell in state prison can turn a misguided youngster into a hardened criminal.
But there are alternatives in the adult prison system.
State Correctional Institution Pine Grove, in Indiana, Pa., has space for 400 youthful offenders -- between 15 and 20 years old -- who are serving state prison sentences after being convicted as adults. Pine Grove emphasizes treatment and counseling for youths who are sent there, and Mr. Schulte brought it up as an option during Robertino's hearing.
In the juvenile system, youths who have been found delinquent, or guilty of offenses, can be confined at detention centers. Shuman Juvenile Detention Center is a temporary holding center for juveniles awaiting adjudication.
There are no fixed sentences. Instead, juveniles appear for review hearings every few months before a judge, who can continue their incarceration or release them at any time if they are demonstrating progress.
That uncertainty bothered Judge Mariani the most about Denzel's case.
"If I knew I could get five years for [him] across the street [in juvenile court], of course I'd take the five years in a treatment facility rather than SCI," the judge said. "At least then maybe we'd get something out of it."
But Denzel's increasingly reckless behavior makes him a potential danger on the streets, the judge also noted.
In the end, after a lengthy hearing and discussion, Judge Mariani put off a ruling so he could review the evidence and mull the case. The hearing is scheduled to resume Feb. 20.
"I don't know what I'm going to do," he said. "I feel somewhat handcuffed by the criteria I have to use to resolve this case. It's not working very well for me."
A sheriff's deputy led Denzel from the courtroom and back to the county jail, where he's been since September -- caught in legal limbo between child and adult.
Correction/Clarification: (Published Feb. 4, 2009) Shuman Juvenile Detention Center is a temporary holding center for juveniles awaiting adjudication. This story as originally published Feb. 1, 2009 incorrectly characterized it.
First Published February 1, 2009 12:00 am
