Two days after defense attorneys filed a 69-page brief arguing that the Fall City teen charged in the deaths of five members of his family should remain in juvenile court, prosecutors filed their own argument for moving the case to adult court.
The juvenile system’s ability to provide enough time for treatment, supervision and protection of the public is a central part of the State’s argument. Prosecutors are asking the court to decline juvenile jurisdiction, which would allow the case to proceed in adult court.
Prosecutors argue that several of the factors the court must consider weigh in favor of transferring the case to adult court, including the seriousness of the charges, the State’s evidence, protection of the public and the manner in which the alleged offenses were committed. The State also argues that actions attributed to the teen during and after the shootings demonstrate planning, deliberation and a level of sophistication.
The State also challenges the defense’s arguments concerning the teen’s mental health and prospects for rehabilitation.
As outlined in the earlier defense filing, experts who evaluated the teen diagnosed him with mental health conditions and assessed his future risk of violence as very low. Prosecutors acknowledge those diagnoses, but question whether the evaluations establish what caused the teen’s alleged actions or demonstrate that he can be adequately treated within the time available in the juvenile system.
The teen’s behavior during nearly two years in detention is another point of disagreement. While the defense cited his record there as evidence supporting rehabilitation, prosecutors note that he has exhibited what the State describes as “exemplary compliance and conduct” without a recurrence of observed psychotic symptoms and without being prescribed psychotropic medication. Prosecutors argue that this raises questions about the defense theory concerning his mental state at the time of the deaths.
The State acknowledges that the teen has no known criminal history or record of misconduct and that there is no evidence of previous efforts to provide him with treatment or supportive resources.
Another central disagreement concerns how much time the juvenile system would have to provide treatment and supervision. According to the State’s filing, juvenile court jurisdiction could extend until the teen’s 23rd birthday.
Prosecutors argue that adult court would allow for a longer period of treatment and supervision, including placement in a Juvenile Rehabilitation facility until age 25.
The decline hearing will determine whether the case remains in juvenile court or moves to adult court. It will not determine whether the teen is guilty of the charges.
[Featured Image by John Cardamone on Unsplash]
